台灣高中英文課本寫作教材之評析

Abstract

摘要 本研究之主要目的為分析遠東、三民、與龍騰三個不同版本高中英文課本內的寫作教材。研究者修訂 Chan (2001) 的寫作教材分類架構來分析資料，藉以呈現此三個版本內，寫作教材的教學重點及寫作練習之主要類型。此外，本研究訪談六位高中英語教師，以了解高中教師之寫作教學信念，使用課本寫作教材的狀況，以及對此類教材之評量。 課本分析結果指出，研究調查的三個版本寫作教材，含有顯著不同的寫作教學重點。遠東版本之寫作教學重點集中於段落的結構以及文類功能 (genres)；三民版本注重文法及段落結構，並對寫作策略有些許著墨；龍騰版本的主要重點也在文法與段落結構，但次要重點置於文類功能，而非寫作策略。以上研究結果顯示，段落結構為此三版本共同強調之重點。文法及文類 (genres) 在此三個版本當中，各有不同程度的處理。而寫作策略則是最被忽略的教學面向。總言之，分析寫作教材的教學性質，大致上為成果取向 (product-based)，而寫作的過程 (composing processes) 則傾向被邊緣化。 在寫作練習題方面，此三個版本教材呈現有許多相似之處。三個版本都包含能提升段落結構概念之練習題，同時也都大量使用段落短文，作為學生寫作時之範本。值得一提的是，三民與龍騰版本，為了強化學生之文法結構，設計了許多單句的練習，而遠東版本則幾乎完全沒有安排此類練習。 教師訪談結果也顯示幾項重要發現。首先，受訪教師在英文課教導寫作，主要目的為準備升學考試，其次則為協助學生訓練自我表達，以及統整英語課學習過之教材內容。而受訪教師亦表示寫作教學的目的，主要為教導學生段落組織以及文法結構。因此他們的教學重點為段落觀念、轉折詞的使用、以及文法句型。此外，在六個受訪教師之中，有五位使用課本中的寫作教材，主要是選擇性地使用簡短、而相關性夠高的教材。其中一位教師則完全不使用課本內的寫作教材，原因為這些教材與月考缺乏相關性，教材所在之位置，以及授課時間緊迫等限制。至於教師對這些寫作教材的評鑑，寫作結構上的處理在三版之中獲得較一致的正面評價。但在文法、文體、寫作策略、以及寫作練習題方面，受訪教師們則有正反不一的意見表達。整體來說，此三版寫作教材以段落結構中心為主，大致上符合教師的教學信念。 此研究旨在增進對台灣高中英文課本內寫作教材之認識。研究結果希望協助教科書編撰者在未來補強此三版寫作教材不足之處，也期盼能幫助英語教師了解、並有效地利用課本內之寫作教材，並在需要時，適切地使用補充教材。最後，研究者也根據研究結果，提出數項相關的建議。ABSTRACT The main goal of the current study is to analyze the writing sections in three English textbook series frequently used in senior high schools—i.e. the FE, SM and LT series. For the analysis of the instructional focuses and task features of the writing sections in the three series, a coding scheme from Chan (2001) was adapted. A secondary goal of the study is to investigate the beliefs of English teachers about writing instruction, and their use and assessment of the writing sections. To this end, semi-structured interviews were conducted with six senior high school English teachers. Results of the textbook content analysis revealed that the three series featured significantly different instructional focuses. The FE series focused almost exclusively on rhetorical organization and genres. The SM series was concerned mainly with grammar and rhetorical organization, with some attention given to writing strategies. In the LT series, grammar and rhetorical organization were also the focus of instruction; yet it differed from the SM series in its additional attention to genres rather than strategies. These findings indicated that the three series all gave great salience to rhetorical organization. Grammar and genres, on the other hand, received differential degrees of treatment. The least amount of attention, as has been shown, was devoted to strategy training. These results suggest that the three series adopted a primarily product-oriented approach to writing instruction. Writing processes, for the most part, were marginalized. Regarding task features, the three series shared several major similarities. To start with, all three series included recognition exercises to raise students’ awareness about basic paragraph structure. Furthermore, they drew extensively on the use of reading texts as writing samples for paragraph writing tasks. Particularly worth noting was the finding that the SM and LT series, in order to reinforce linguistic structures, devoted a portion of their tasks to sentence writing practice. In the FE series, sentence writing tasks were virtually non-existent. The analysis of the semi-structured interviews yielded a number of important findings. First, the teachers were found to teach writing mainly for the sake of exams, to facilitate self-expression, and to help students integrate learned materials. Their underlying beliefs about writing instruction were predominantly rhetorical and linguistic, focusing on paragraph structure, transition, and linguistic patterns. Second, in terms of the use of their textbook writing sections, the majority of the teachers reported that they did use them, but on a selective basis. Their criteria for selection were found to be conciseness and relevance. One teacher, being the only exception, ignored these writing sections entirely mainly due to their irrelevance to monthly tests, their lesson final positions, and time constraints. As for supplementary materials, picture writing materials and published writing textbooks were found most favorable among the teachers. Third, with regard to the evaluation of these textbook writing sections, the treatment of rhetorical organization was most positively assessed across the three series. Responses to grammar, writing strategies, genres, and tasks, on the other hand, all turned out to be somewhat mixed. Overall, the teachers responded most positively to the rhetorical focus of the three series, indicating that their beliefs were generally consistent with results of the textbook content analysis. The findings of the present study will advance our understanding of the writing sections in three major high school textbook series. They will assist textbook compilers to compensate for the limitations of these teaching materials in future materials development. These findings can also aid high school teachers in making more informed decisions about how to use these textbook writing materials flexibly and draw on support materials whenever necessary. Finally, based on the findings of the current study, a number of pedagogical and practical implications are provided.