| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立清華大學 === 外國語文學系 === 103 === Numerous studies have been conducted in the use of cohesive devices, the influence of learners’ proficiency levels, and the relationship between cohesion and the quality of writing, but no decisive conclusion was drawn. Although previous studies examined the incorrect use of cohesive devices, seldom did they probe how cohesion is taught in school and the relation between teaching practice and incorrect use of cohesive devices. In this study, I aim to examine learners’ use of cohesive devices. Three research questions are investigated:
(1) What are the types of cohesive devices that are most frequently used in EFL high school learners’ compositions and does learners’ proficiency make a difference?
(2) What are the errors and problems related to cohesive devices made by EFL high school learners and does learners’ proficiency make a difference?
(3) How has cohesion been taught in Taiwanese senior high school EFL textbooks and by school teachers and is there a link among the textbooks’ content, teachers’ instruction and the students’ errors?
Ninety-three 12th graders in a senior high school in southern Taiwan participated in this study. Data for the analysis were collected from English compositions in two simulated university entrance examinations. To analyze the data, I coded cohesive devices mainly based on Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) cohesion theory and rated cohesion using an analytical scoring scale adapted from IELTS TASK 2 Writing Band. I also reviewed textbooks and conducted teacher interviews in order to understand how cohesion is taught in school.
The results showed that reference and conjunction are two types of cohesive devices that were used most frequently. Only causal and temporal conjunctions were used significantly different among students of different proficiency levels. Correlational analysis also confirmed the positive relationship between cohesion and the writing quality. As for errors and problems, it was found that main types include unclear reference, omission and misuse of definite article the, inappropriate use of proximity demonstrative, misuse of conjunction, lack of conjunction, and wrong expression of conjunction. Only minor errors were identified in lexical cohesion. In the qualitative study, it was found that limited content in the textbook is devoted to cohesion. Moreover, teachers have insufficient knowledge about cohesion. Even though they recognized learners’ errors, they had no systematic and effective teaching methods for students’ improvement. Some pedagogical implications are provided to facilitate teaching and learning of cohesion in writing.
|
|---|
