西南科技大學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)英語寫作期末測試題

西南科技大學(xué)2011-2012-2學(xué)期《學(xué)術(shù)英語寫作》本科期末考試試卷課程代碼208900070命題單位外國語學(xué)院：大學(xué)英語教研室姓名 學(xué)號 專業(yè)班級Direction:Thereare3typesofexercisesinthetest.Youmaychooseoneanddoitaccordingtoitsrequirement.Exercises1Direction:Writeanabstract(includingatitle,authorshipandkeywords)forthefollowingessay.Youshouldwritenolessthan250wordsandnomorethan400words.Youscorewillbevaluedbytheformat,contentandgrammarofyourabstract.TheUniversityofHertfordshireInternalBridgingProgrammepreparesStudentsinHigherEducationforpost-graduatestudyattheUniversityofHertfordshire.Tofollowtheprogramme,studentsusuallyhaveafirstdegreeandtheappropriateacademicqualificationstoThemainaimsoftheSemesterBcourseareto:improvethestudents'commandofacademicEnglish:languagestructure,useandvocabularyconsolidatetheirlanguageskillsofreading,writing,listeningandspeakinginacademiccontextsputtopracticaluseappropriateacademicconventionsobservedinBritishhighereducationacquirearangeoftransferableacademicskillsessentialforeffectivestudyatpostgraduatelevelrideveloplearnerindependence.Bytheendofthecoursetheyshouldhaveaknowledgeandunderstandingof:relevantconventionsfollowedinacademicEnglish(bothwrittenandoral)thedifferencebetweentheinformalandformalregistersoftheEnglishlanguagewhatislinguisticallyexpectedofanoverseaspostgraduatestudentinBritishhighereducation.andtheyshouldbeableto:listento,understandandtakenotesinlecturesapplyarangeofreadingstrategiesandusethelibraryappropriatelyproduceasubstantialpieceofresearchedwritingtakepartindiscussions,seminarsandtutorialsprepareanddeliverpresentationsemployarangeofgeneralandacademicvocabulary.Ourobjectivesaredefinedbytheneedsofthestudents'academiccoursesinthefollowingyear.Themainjob,therefore,inpreparingthesecoursesistoinvestigatewhatourstudentswillhavetodointheiracademiccourse,workoutwhataspectsoflanguage-grammar,vocabulary,skillsetc-theywillneedandthenfindwaystoteachandassessit(Gillett,1989).Oneskillneededbypostgraduatestudentsistheabilitytotakepartindiscussions.Itisgenerallyacceptedthatstudent-studentinteraction,bothformalandinformal,isbeneficialinhighereducation(Pica&Doughty,1985Topping,1996Tan,2003).IthasalsobeenreportedthatmanyStudentsinHigherEducation,especiallythosefromAsia,findthisdifficultanddonotparticipatewellenoughinthesediscussions(Jones,1999Leki,2001Basturkmen,2002).Soparticipationindiscussionsisincludedasoneoftheobjectivesofourcourse.Forseveralyears,wehaveincludedaface-tofacediscussionsofanacademicarticle,wherebyonestudentintroducesanacademicarticletotheclassandthenleadsadiscussion.Withtherecentintroduction,though,ofStudyNet,ourin-houseVLE,andastrongbeliefthatanyeffectiveuseofaVLEmustbeginwithclearintegrationoftheVLEintothecourse,itwasdecidedtoextendthisaspectofthecoursetoincludeanon-linediscussionusingtheStudyNetgroupdiscussionfacility.Onereasonisthatmuchresearchhasshownthaton-linediscussionsproducemoreinteraction(Dysthe,2002).TheyalsoallowquieterstudentstoparticipateandshowthatStudentsinHigherEducationwillparticipatemoreiftheyhavetimetothinkabouttheircontributionsandplanthelanguagetheywanttouse.Ithasalsobeenreportedthatinternationalstudentshaveincreasedmotivationtousethetargetlanguageandthereforeproducemorelanguage(Bump,1990Beauvois,1992Kern,1995Oliva&Pollastrini,1995).Moreover,thereisamorebalancedparticipation(Kern,1995Sullivan&Pratt,1996Warschauer,1996).Studentsalsouseawidervarietyoflanguage(Chun,1994Warschauer,1996),whichissyntacticallyandlexicallymorecomplex(Warschauer,1996).ThisstructureduseoftheVLEbenefitsstudentswitharangeoflearningstylesfromawiderrangeofsocioculturalbackgrounds(Pennington,1996).Itwashopedstudentswouldfindthistotheiradvantage.Thusthereisevidencethatgroupdiscussionisbeneficialineducationandthaton-linediscussionscanalsobevaluable.However,howpredominantlyEastAsianstudentswoulddealwithanon-linediscussionwasanimportantquestion.Often,theirviewofeducationisthatitisessentiallyapassiveprocess,somethingthathappenstothem,notsomethingtheyhavetodoforthemselves,somethingthatismainlythejoboftheteacher(Jin&Cortazzi,1993Cortazzi&Jin,1997Catterick,2004).Sothepurposeoftheresearchwastoinvestigatewhethersuchstudentswouldundertakethetaskinthemannerset,whethertheyregardedtheactivityasbeingadvantageoustothemandwhethertheywouldseetheunderlyingreasonsforsuchatask.Finally,itwasusefultodeterminewhetherthestudentsperceivedlearningwasinfactoccurring.MethodologyTheprogrammehadabout120studentsin2003/2004,dividedinto9groupsforteachingpurposes.Theon-linediscussiontookplaceinthefirstfourweeksofthesecondsemester.Theeducationalpurposeoftheon-linediscussion,whichwedidnorevaluateinthisstudy,wastohelpstudentsimprovetheirabilitytoreadanacademicarticle,totakepartindiscussionsonsuchanarticleandtoexperiencethisviaStudyNet.Aswithmostoftheteachingonthisprogramme,thepurposeofthisistwofold:toimprovestudents'languageandstudyskills,andalsotoexperienceusingStudyNetinpreparationfortheirfutureacademiclives.Theyweregivenveryclearinstructionsaboutexactlywhatwasrequiredofthemandtheircontributionwasassessed,inordertoencouragefullparticipation.Theon-linediscussionelementwasworth6.25%ofthecourseworkelementofthecourseforthesemester.Allthestudentsdiscussedthesamearticleandweretoldtheycouldreadthearticleon-line,printitoutorcopyittotheirowncomputers.Attheendofthisdiscussionperiod,thelecturersevaluatedthestudents'contributions.Theassessmentconsistedofacombinationofthequantityofcontributionstothediscussionandthequality-ideas,interactionandlanguage.Inotherwords,studentswererewardedforcontributingmorethantheminimum,aswellasusingtheactivityasalearningtool,notsimplyasabareassessment.Thestudentswerethenaskedaboutwhattheyfeltaboutdoingthisactivityandwhattheylearnedfromit.Thiswasdoneviaaquestionnaireinwhichstudentswereaskedhowtheytookpartinthediscussion,whattheyfeltabouttakingpartinthediscussionandwhattheythoughttheylearnedfromit.Thequestionnairewasgiventoallthestudentswhohadtakenpartandtheywereaskedtocompleteitinclasstime.Thiswasdoneinweekssevenandeight,threetofourweeksafterhavingcompletedtheactivity.Thequestionnaireconsistedoftwenty-twoquestions,dividedintomultiplechoiceandshort-answerquestions.Therationalebehindthequestionnairewastoassesstheperceivedworthinessofthetaskbythestudents.Thestudentsweretoldthatagradewouldbegivenfortheircontributiontothisdiscussion,andthatagoodcontributionconsistedofdemonstratingknowledgeofthearticleandmakingarelevantcontributiontothediscussioninappropriateEnglish.Theywereinstructedtomaketheirfirstcontributionbytheendofweek2ofthesemesterandtheirsecondbytheendofweekthree.Twocontributionswasthebareminimumiftheywantedtopassandmorewasexpectedforagoodmark.Eachcontributionhadtobefourorfivesentences.Thestudentswereadvisedon,andgivenpracticeinclass,aboutwhatacontributionconsistedof.Thiscouldinclude,amongotherthings:aquestiontoamemberofthegroupanopinionaboutthearticlegivingfurtherinformationonthesubjectagreementordisagreementwithamemberoftheirgroupreasonsfortheiropinionsinvitationstoothermembersoftheirgrouptocontributeaskingotherpeopleabouttheiropinionssupportingandencouragingothermembersoftheirgroupTheyweretoldtoreadallthecontributionsfromtheirgroupmembers,notjustthosefromthelecturerandfurthermoretorespondnotonlytothelecturer'spoints,butcarryonadiscussionwiththeothermembersoftheirgroupaswell.Appropriatelanguageneededtobeusedasthiswasaformalacademicdiscussion,notane-mailtoafriend.TheircontributionshadtobewritteninaccurateacademicEnglishanditmightthereforebeusefultocomposetheircontributionsinaword-processor,checkitforaccuracyandthenpasteitintothediscussion.Theirmarkwoulddependonhowwelltheyachievedthistask.ResultsanddiscussionThepurposewasthereforetoseewhetherornotstudentsundertookthetask,whatadvantagestheysawtoit,whethertheysawthereasonsfordoingitandwhattheythoughttheylearnedfromit.112completedquestionnaireswerereceived.Thequestionsmostrelevanttotheresearchaimswillbediscussed,withthehopethatitwillbeusefulforlecturersinsimilarcircumstances.Firstisthequestionoftheextenttowhichstudentsundertookthetask.Thiswasmeasuredbylookingatthenumber,frequency,styleandlengthofstudents'contributions.Althoughtheminimumnumberofcontributionswastwoinordertoachieveapass,theywereencouragedtocontributeasmuchaspossible,inordertobesuccessful,andfortheirskillstobepractised.Theassessmentperiodbeingover4weeks,35%ofstudentsmadeonecontributionaweek,23%twiceaweek,while36%ofstudentscontributedthreetimesaweekormore(Figure1).Itwascertainlyclear,therefore,thatmoststudentswerecontributingmorethantheminimum.Itmaybethecase,though,thatveryfewdecidedthatdoinganyextraworkforanassessmentthatcountedsuchasmallamountoftheoverallcoursemarkwasnotworththeeffort.Figure1:FrequencyofcontributionConsideringthestyleofdiscussion,withthreadsconnectedtosingleopinionsorideas,onewouldhaveexpectedstudentstohavereadallormostofthecontributionsonthelistpriortoaddingtheirownpointofview.Figure2showsthat48%ofstudentsclaimedtohavereadmorethan5previouscontributions,while22%ofthosestudentshadreadmorethanten.Surprisingly,though,10%ofstudentsclaimednottohavereadanycontributionsbeforeaddingtheirown.Itcanthusbespeculatedthatthesestudentsdonotquiteunderstandtheconceptofadiscussion,though,butthisispredicatedontherebeing10contributionstoactuallyread.Figure2:ContributionsreadpriortocontributingAsregardsthelengthoftheirowncontributions,42%statedtheyhadwrittenaparagraph,whiletheresteitherequallywroteafewsentencesormorethanaparagraph.Thiswasconfirmedbytheclasslecturer,whomonitoredthecontributionsonaweeklybasis.Thestudentswereexpectedtowriteatleastafewsentences,sointhisrespect,itcanbedeemedsuccessful.Itwasfeltthatthelevelofparticipationwoulddependtosomeextentonwhethertheyhadenjoyedtheexercise.AscanbeseenfromFigure3,lessthan2%saidtheyhatedit.Almost50%chose'OK'and29%saidtheyhadenjoyedit.Itwaspleasingtonotethat12.5%assertedthattheyhadenjoyeditverymuch.Figure3:DegreeofenjoymentSecondlywaswhetherornotthestudentsfoundtheexerciseadvantageousoruseful.Morethan50%ofthestudentsrespondedaffirmatively(Figure4),whileonly6%ofstudentsdidnotitfindituseful.Nooneconsideredittobeawasteoftime.Thiswascrucialforus,consideringthiswasthefirstattemptatthistypeoftaskandisanevaluationmethodwhichneedstobeusedmoreactivelyinthefuture,astheuseoftheon-linefacilityisplayingalargerroleinacademiclife(Browne&Jenkins,2003).Figure4:RelativeusefulnessThirdly,theopenquestionof'Whydoyouthinkweusedtheon-linemethodfordiscussion?'elicitednumerousfavourableresponses.Chiefamongthese,thestudentswereoftheopinionthatitwouldimprovetheirreadingandwritingskills.Whytheybelievedtheirwritingskillswouldimproveisnotquitecertain,asnoneoftheircontributionswerecorrected.Inanycase,theyweremakinguseofEnglishinaformalacademicstyletocommunicatetheirideas,anessentialpartoflearningtowrite.Furthermore,theactofreadingothers'contributionsandbeingabletocomparegrammar,vocabularyandlevelofsophisticationofanargumentwithones'ownwritingisakeypartofpeerlearning,whichisanaspectwhichisgreatlyemphasisedinsecondlanguagelearning(Flower&Hayes,1981Grabe,2001Vincent,1999).Inadditiontheyfeltthatitwouldallowthemtoanalyseideasmoreclearlyandtothinkmoreindependently.Thismaybelinkedtothetimefactorinvolvedinbeingabletoformulateideaswithoutpressureduetolanguageabilityandpeerobservation.Thisisparticularlyrelevanttothequietstudentswhoareoftenunwillingtobeinfocusinaclasssituation.Theydidconsiderthatitwouldalloweveryonemoretimeandopportunitiestodiscussideasandwasparticularlyusefulfortheshystudents.Thisiswhatwashopedfor.Oftentheamountoftimefordiscussioninclassislimited,soallowingstudentsthisextratimetodebateisofgreatimportance.Lastlywewantedtoseeifthestudentsthoughttheyhadlearnedsomethingfromtheexercise.Inthiscase,only5of112studentssaidno,and3'notreally,butitwasgoodtopractise.'Thusthegreatmajoritywereoftheopinionthattheyhadlearnedfromthetask.Whetherthestudents'perceptionisborneoutinrealitywasnotthefocusofthisresearchbutshouldberesearchedatafuturedate.Theareastheyhighlightedarebeingabletoseethegrammarmistakesofothers,andbeingabletolearnfromthem.Herethepreviouscommentonpeerlearningisreflected.

Theydecidedthattheirknowledge,vocabularyanddiscussionskillshadbeenenrichedbythetask.Somealsoconsideredthattheexperienceallowedthemtoshareideasbetterthaninclass,andallowedthemtofeelmoreconfidenttogivetheiropinion.Thisisacoreissue,asmanyStudentsinHigherEducation,especiallythosefromtheFarEast,usuallyhaveagreatdealtosay,butlacktheconfidencewhensurroundedbylocalstudentswithwhomtheyoftenhaveminimalactualcontact.Iftheirconfidencecanbeinitiallyimprovedinthisway,onehopesitcanbeextendedtoclasssituations.Thechancetosummariseandorganiseideasbetterwasanotherissuementioned.Theseareessentialskillsallstudentsneed.ConclusionPost-graduateinternationalstudentsatUKinstitutionsofHigherEducationoftenfinddifficultydealingwithseminartypediscussions.AnattemptwasmadetohelpstudentswiththisbyutilisingthegroupdiscussionfacilityofauniversityVirtualLeaningEnvironment(VLE).However,asmostofthestudentswerefromEastAsia,whooftenconsidereducationasessentiallyapassiveprocess,itwasfeltnecessarytoinvestigatewhethertheywouldundertakesuchanactivityandwhatthebenefitswere.Despitesomecriticisms,thestudentsgenerallytookpartintheactivityseriouslyandsawtheusefulnessofit.Theyweregenerallyfoundtounderstandthepurposeoftheactivityandfelttheyhadlearnedfromit.Thus,overall,whentheactivitywasclearlyseentoberelatedtothelearningoutcomesandintegratedintothecourse,theverdictwasoverwhelminglypositiveandtherationaleunderstood.Bytakingthevariouspointsstudentsmadeandadjustingthetaskslightly,byintegratingtheon-linediscussionmoreintoclasswork,involvingthelecturersmoreandbythinkingmoreaboutthetext,wehopethatthepositiveoutcomescanbefurthercemented,andfurtherareasprobedandstudentshelpedtotakepartinseminarstylediscussionsmoreconfidentlyandcompetently.ReferencesBasturkmen,H.(2002).Negotiatingmeaninginseminar-typediscussionandEAP.EnglishforSpecificPurposes,