字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  

詳目顯示

以作者查詢圖書館館藏以作者&題名查詢臺灣博碩士以作者查詢全國書目
研究生中文姓名:倫塔
研究生英文姓名:Renta
中文論文名稱:英文論文寫作: 臺灣外籍研究生之比較個案研究
英文論文名稱:Learning to Write a Thesis: A Comparative Case Study of International Graduate Students in Taiwan
指導教授姓名:黃如瑄
口試委員中文姓名:教授︰簡士捷
教授︰王鳳敏
教授︰黃如瑄
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣海洋大學
系所名稱:應用英語研究所
學號:1039D006
請選擇論文與海洋研究相關度:無相關
請選擇論文為:學術型
畢業年度:105
畢業學年度:105
學期:
語文別:英文
論文頁數:57
中文關鍵詞:論文寫作反饋學生的感知國際學生
英文關鍵字:thesis writingfeedbackstudents' perceptioninternational students
相關次數:
  • 推薦推薦:0
  • 點閱點閱:23
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:50
  • 收藏收藏:0
ABSTRACT
The number of international graduate students studying in Taiwan is growing rapidly from 3,935 in 2008 to 14,063 students in 2014 (Taiwan MOE, 2015). Among the international graduate students, most of them are neither native English speakers nor native Chinese speakers; on the other hand, their advisors are also non-native English speakers who use English as an additional language. As a result, when communicating with their advisors, the students may have difficulties understanding their advisors‟ feedback because of the language barriers.
Comparing to abundant research on native English speaking advisors‟ feedback provision practice to international graduate students in the ESL context, less research has explored this issue in the EFL context. Therefore, this study explored the types of advisors‟ feedback in international graduate students‟ theses and students‟ perceptions on the feedback. Four Indonesian graduate students, three majoring in social sciences and the other one in natural sciences, and their Taiwanese advisors participated in this study. Data sources included two interviews with the students and the advisors, as well as written and oral records of the advisors‟ feedback in the students‟ thesis drafts.
The results indicated that the four advisors concerned about their feedback on different aspects; two advisors focused on content because they viewed students‟ expertise in their fields as the most important, while the other two advisors mostly gave commentary on language as the students made more language errors. Furthermore, the advisors and advisees faced communication problems related to language during supervision, including problems with understanding of accent, insufficient English proficiency and knowledge in a specific field, and advisees‟ tendency of saying yes to respond to advisors. The results also showed that mismatched perceptions were found between the participants; the advisees viewed their advisors‟ feedback as insufficient, while the advisors regarded their feedback as sufficient.
The results of the study lead to important pedagogical implications. First, advisors can review their own feedback practice from time to time in order to better meet students' different needs. Second, advisors and advisees need to openly discuss the students‟ specific needs to prevent any misunderstandings. In contexts like Taiwan, where international graduate students and advisors are both non-native English speakers, an exploration of how advisors give feedback to international graduate students may be highly essential to help advisors gain better understanding toward supervising international graduate students.
Keywords: thesis writing, feedback, students‟ perception, international students
ABSTRACT
The number of international graduate students studying in Taiwan is growing rapidly from 3,935 in 2008 to 14,063 students in 2014 (Taiwan MOE, 2015). Among the international graduate students, most of them are neither native English speakers nor native Chinese speakers; on the other hand, their advisors are also non-native English speakers who use English as an additional language. As a result, when communicating with their advisors, the students may have difficulties understanding their advisors‟ feedback because of the language barriers.
Comparing to abundant research on native English speaking advisors‟ feedback provision practice to international graduate students in the ESL context, less research has explored this issue in the EFL context. Therefore, this study explored the types of advisors‟ feedback in international graduate students‟ theses and students‟ perceptions on the feedback. Four Indonesian graduate students, three majoring in social sciences and the other one in natural sciences, and their Taiwanese advisors participated in this study. Data sources included two interviews with the students and the advisors, as well as written and oral records of the advisors‟ feedback in the students‟ thesis drafts.
The results indicated that the four advisors concerned about their feedback on different aspects; two advisors focused on content because they viewed students‟ expertise in their fields as the most important, while the other two advisors mostly gave commentary on language as the students made more language errors. Furthermore, the advisors and advisees faced communication problems related to language during supervision, including problems with understanding of accent, insufficient English proficiency and knowledge in a specific field, and advisees‟ tendency of saying yes to respond to advisors. The results also showed that mismatched perceptions were found between the participants; the advisees viewed their advisors‟ feedback as insufficient, while the advisors regarded their feedback as sufficient.
The results of the study lead to important pedagogical implications. First, advisors can review their own feedback practice from time to time in order to better meet students' different needs. Second, advisors and advisees need to openly discuss the students‟ specific needs to prevent any misunderstandings. In contexts like Taiwan, where international graduate students and advisors are both non-native English speakers, an exploration of how advisors give feedback to international graduate students may be highly essential to help advisors gain better understanding toward supervising international graduate students.
Keywords: thesis writing, feedback, students‟ perception, international students
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................... ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................. iii
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ vi
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1
1.1 Background of the Study ................................................................... ....... .....1
1.2 Purpose of the Study .......................................................................... ........ ....2
1.3 Significance of the Study .......................................................................... .....2
1.4 Outline of the Present Study. .......................................................................... 3
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................. 4
2.1 International Graduate Students‟ Thesis Writing Difficulties ........................ 4
2.1.1 Thesis writing problems at the discourse and surface level ................ 4
2.1.2 Plagiarism ............................................................................................. 5
2.2 Feedback on Students‟ Academic Writing ..................................................... 6
2.2.1 Feedback at the discourse level ............................................................ 6
2.2.2 Feedback at the surface level................................................................ 7
2.2.3 Feedback on plagiarism ........................................................................ 8
2.2.4 Strategies of giving feedback on students‟ writing .............................. 9 2.3 Advisors‟ and Advisees‟ Communication Problems during Supervision .................................................................................................... 9
2.4 Students‟ Perceptions on Advisors‟ Feedback ............................................. 10
2.5 Summary....................................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY ..................................................................... 12
3.1 Research Design ........................................................................................... 12
3.2 Participants and Site ..................................................................................... 12
3.3 Data Collection ............................................................................................. 13
3.3.1 Interviews ................................ ................................ .......................... 13
3.3.2 Thesis drafts with written feedback.................................................... 14
3.3.3 Recordings of advisors‟ and advisees‟ conversations during supervision ......................................................................................... 14
3.4 Data Analysis................................................................................................ 15
3.4.1 Analysis of interview data ................................ ................................ . 15
3.4.2 Analysis of advisees‟ thesis drafts...................................................... 16
3.4.3 Analysis of advisors‟ and advisees‟ conversations ............................ 18
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS .................................................................................... 19
4.1 Participants and Context ............................................................................... 19
4.2 Types of Feedback ........................................................................................ 20
4.3 Participants‟ Problems during Supervision .................................................. 25
4.4 Participants‟ Perceptions on the Feedback ................................................... 30
4.5 Summary....................................................................................................... 34
CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ............................................ 35
5.1 Types of Advisors‟ Feedback in Students‟ Theses....................................... 35
5.2 Problems during Supervision and Perceptions on Advisors‟ Feedback ....... 36
5.3 Implications .................................................................................................. 38
5.4 Limitations and Recommendations .............................................................. 39
5.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 40
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 41
iv
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 45
Appendix A: Interview Protocol with Advisees ................................................. 45
Appendix B: Interview Protocol with Advisors ................................................. 46
Appendix C: Part of Advisors‟ and Advisees‟ Conversations with the
Coding .......................................................................................... 48
REFERENCES
Abasi, A. R., Akbari, N., & Graves, B. (2006). Discourse appropriation, construction of identities, and the complex issue of plagiarism: ESL students writing in graduate school. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 102-117.
Adrian-Taylor, S. R., Noels, K. A., & Tischler, K. (2007). Conflict between international graduate students and faculty supervisors: Toward effective conflict prevention and management strategies. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(1), 90-117.
Bailey, S. (2014). Academic writing: A handbook for international students (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Beuningen, C. V., Jong, N. D., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners‟ written accuracy. ITL-Review of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279-296.
Bitchener, J., & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Perceptions of the difficulties of postgraduate L2 thesis students writing the discussion section. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(1), 4-18.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207-217.
Bitchener, J., Basturkmen, H., & East, M. (2010). The focus of supervisor written feedback to thesis/dissertation students. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 79-97.
Bunton, D. (1998). Linguistic and textual problems in Ph.D. and M.Phil. theses: An analysis of genre moves and metatext. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Hong Kong.
Can, G., & Walker, A. (2011). A model for doctoral students‟ perceptions and attitudes toward written feedback for academic writing. Research in Higher Education, 52(5), 508-536.
Casanave, C. P., & Hubbard, P. (1992). The writing assignments and writing problems of doctoral students: Faculty perceptions, pedagogical issues, and needed research. English for Specific Purposes, 11(1), 33-49.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296.
Chang, C. E., & Strauss, P. (2010). „Active agents of change?‟ Mandarin-speaking students in New Zealand and the thesis writing process. Language and Education, 24(5), 415-429.
Chang, Y. Y. (2010). English-medium instruction for subject courses in tertiary education: Reactions from Taiwanese undergraduate students. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 2(1), 55-84.
Cooley, L., & Lewkowicz, J. (1997). Developing awareness of the rhetorical and linguistic conventions of writing a thesis in English: Addressing the needs of EFL/ESL postgraduate students. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse (pp. 113–129). Berlin, Federal Republic Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Diab, R. L. (2005). EFL university students' preferences for error correction and teacher feedback on writing. TESL Reporter, 38(1), 27-51.
Dong, Y. R. (1998). Non-native graduate students‟ thesis/dissertation writing in science: Self-reports by students and their advisors from two US institutions.

English for Specific Purposes, 17(4), 369-390.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368.
Evans, D., Gruba, P., & Zobel, J. (2014). How to Write a Better Thesis (3rd ed.). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp.178-190). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime…?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 49-62.
Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short-and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184.
Ferris, D., Brown, J., Liu, H.S., Eugenia, M., & Stine, A. (2011). Responding to L2 students in college writing classes: Teacher perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 207-234.
Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct?: Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40-53.
Han, Z. (2001). Fine‐tuning corrective feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 34(6), 582-599.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Fairbairn, H., & Lovat, T. (2007). Examiner comment on the literature review in PhD theses. Studies in Higher Education, 32(3), 337-356.
Hou, A. Y. C., Morse, R., Chiang, C. L., & Chen, H. J. (2013). Challenges to quality of English medium instruction degree programs in Taiwanese universities and the role of local accreditors: A perspective of non-English-speaking Asian country. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14(3), 359-370.
Huang, Y. P. (2012). Design and implementation of English-medium courses in higher education in Taiwan: A qualitative case study. English Teaching & Learning, 36(1), 1-51.
Hultsch, D. F., MacDonald, S. W., Hunter, M. A., Maitland, S. B., & Dixon, R. A. (2002). Sampling and generalisability in developmental research: Comparison of random and convenience samples of older adults. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(4), 345-359.
Hyatt, D. F. (2005). „Yes, a very good point!‟: A critical genre analysis of a corpus of feedback commentaries on Master of Education assignments. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(3), 339-353.

Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 185-212.
Hyland, K. (2013). Faculty feedback: Perceptions and practices in L2 disciplinary writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 240-253.
Hyland, K. (2013). Student perceptions of hidden messages in teacher written feedback. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(3), 180-187.
Johnston, S. (1997). Examining the examiners: An analysis of examiners' reports on doctoral theses. Studies in Higher Education, 22(3), 333-347.
Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2007). An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 461-470.
Lee, G., & Schallert, D. L. (2008). Meeting in the margins: Effects of the teacher– student relationship on revision processes of EFL college students taking a composition course. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 165-182.
Lee, I. (2003). L2 writing teachers‟ perspectives, practices and problems regarding error feedback. Assessing Writing, 8(3), 216-237.
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers‟ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69-85.
Li, Y. (2012a). Text-based plagiarism in scientific writing: What Chinese supervisors think about copying and how to reduce it in students‟ writing. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(2), 569-583.
Li, Y. (2012b). „„I have no time to find out where the sentences came from; I just rebuild them‟‟: A biochemistry professor eliminating novices‟ textual borrowing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21 (1), 59–70.
Mcclure, J. W. (2005). Preparing a laboratory-based thesis: Chinese international research students‟ experiences of supervision. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(1), 3-16.
McGrath, A. L., Taylor, A., & Pychyl, T. A. (2011). Writing helpful feedback: The influence of feedback type on students‟ perceptions and writing performance. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 1-16.
Monippally, M. M. and Pawar, B. S. (2010). Academic writing: A guide for management students and researchers. Los Angeles: Sage.
Montgomery, J. L., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 82-99.
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
Odena, O., & Burgess, H. (2015). How doctoral students and graduates describe facilitating experiences and strategies for their thesis writing learning process: A qualitative approach. Studies in Higher Education, 1-19. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1063598
Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second-language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 317-345.
Pecorari, D. (2015). Plagiarism in second language writing: Is it time to close the case? Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 94-99.
Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 407-430.
Roberts, F., & Cimasko, T. (2008). Evaluating ESL: Making sense of university

professors‟ responses to second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 125-143.
Sadeghi, K., & Shirzad Khajepasha, A. (2015). Thesis writing challenges for non-native MA students. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 20(3), 357-373.
Saito, H. (1994). Teachers' practices and students' preferences for feedback on second language writing: A case study of adult ESL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11(2), 46-70.
Shi, L. (2006). Cultural backgrounds and textual appropriation. Language Awareness, 15(4), 264-282.
Sowden, C. (2005). Plagiarism and the culture of multilingual students in higher education abroad. ELT Journal, 59(3), 226-233.
Storch, N., & Tapper, J. (2000). The focus of teacher and student concerns in discipline-specific writing by university students. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(3), 337-355.
Strauss, P. (2012). „The English is not the same‟: Challenges in thesis writing for second language speakers of English. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(3), 283-293.
Sutherland-Smith, W. (2008). Plagiarism, the internet and student learning: Improving academic integrity. New York: Routledge.
Taiwan MOE (2015). Non-citizen Students in Universities, Colleges and Junior Colleges. Retrieved June 17, 2015, from http://english.moe.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=16422&ctNode=11429&mp=1
Taylor-Powell, E., & Renner, M. (2003). Analyzing qualitative data. Program Development & Evaluation, 1(04), 1-12. Retrieved June 23, 2015, from http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/evaldocs.html
Thompson, P. (2013). The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes. Chapter 15: Thesis and dissertation writing, 283-299.
Tian, J., & Low, G. D. (2012). To what extent are postgraduate students from China prepared for academic writing needed on UK master's courses? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 25(3), 299-319.
Tran, T. T. H (2011). Academic Problems and Needs: Voices of Vietnamese Postgraduates in Taiwan. Retrieved April 29, 2015, from https://www.scribd.com/document/78130228/Academic-Problems-and-Needs-Voices-of-Vietnamese-Postgraduates-in-Taiwan
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1-41.
Wang, T., & Li, L. Y. (2008). Understanding international postgraduate research students‟ challenges and pedagogical needs in thesis writing. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 4(3), 88-96.
Wang, T., & Li, L. Y. (2011). „Tell me what to do‟vs.„guide me through it‟: Feedback experiences of international doctoral students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(2), 101-112.
Wu, W. S. (2006). The effect of blog peer review and teacher feedback on the revisions of EFL writers. Journal of Education and Foreign Languages and Literature, 3(2), 125-138.
Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2013). Understanding supervisors‟ commentary practices in doctoral research proposal writing: A Hong Kong study. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(4), 473-483.
(此全文限內部瀏覽)
電子全文
全文檔開放日期:不公開
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
* *