中国英语专业本科生英语学术论文写作能力发展研究
|
摘要
英语学术论文写作是中国英语专业本科生在课堂中英语学习的最高及最终阶段。在掌握了英语交际能力之后,外语学习者需要学习英语学术写作,为他们将来用英语进行的学术学习做准备,例如写毕业论文,或研究生阶段的课程论文等。英语学术写作,即使对于英语为本族语的学者及学习者也并非易事,对于英语为外语的学习者来说,更需要系统的指导和课堂设计来帮助他们提高学术论文写作能力。
目前学术英语写作的研究、教学、研究方法方面均存在一些不足之处。
在研究方面,对于在课堂环境下,外语学习者如何发展英语学术论文写作能力的研究仍需进一步探究。目前的学术写作研究大致可以分为两大类：对于学术论文文本的分析,以及如何发展外语学习者的学术论文写作能力的研究。这些研究通常关注的对象是硕士生,博士生,学者,且多是来自英语国家。在学术论文的文本研究中,研究者从体裁分析及功能语法角度,找出学术文本的语篇结构及句法层面的语言特点,为学术写作提供指导。在如何发展外语学习者的学术论文写作能力的研究方面,主要有对体裁教学法和探究式教学法的研究。体裁教学法通过分析文本的体裁来教学术论文写作,该方法的长处在于通过分析学术语篇的特点来提高学生对特定体裁的意识,缺点在于仅孤立地解释知识点,学生无法把所有的知识融入到学术写作任务中。而且,对于体裁教学法,并无太多实证研究证明其有效性,大部分研究只是在文本分析的基础上给出进行体裁教学的建议。探究式教学通过真实的学术写作任务使学生获得学术写作能力,通过参与研究,学生能够体验到做研究的各个阶段,把学术语篇和学术语言的知识应用到真实的学术写作任务中。目前有一些关于探究式教学的实证研究,但仍有不足之处。其中有些研究的结论是建立在学生的问卷反馈的基础上,并无学生的写作的数据分析。有些研究是一般的大学课程的学术写作。还有些是学术论文的提纲写作,不是完整的学术论文,无法体现学生是否掌握学术写作所需的技能。在写作模型方面,现有的写作模型大多都是关于一语或二语一般写作任务的写作过程,仅有的一个学术写作模型无法体现课堂教学环境下的学术论文写作能力发展过程。
在教学方面,目前大部分英语学术论文写作的课堂教学并未达到让学生掌握学术论文写作能力的效果。研究者及教师认为学习者的学术论文写作的困难是由语言水平及不熟悉学术论文的文体而导致。一些研究者提出通过讲授“学习技巧”来提高学术英语水平。大多数本科生学术写作教材及课程主要讲授学术论文的格式,但有研究表明学生并没通过此课程获得学术写作论文能力,甚至出现抄袭现象。因此,学术写作的教学不应当仅局限于语言方面的问题。
在研究方法方面,在写作研究中常用的方法包括：对于学术文本的分析、实验设计、访谈、有声思维等,无法反映课堂环境下外语学习者的学术论文写作能力复杂、动态的发展过程。在实际的课堂中,教师总是根据学生的情况随时调整教学步骤和设计,而以上的研究方法无法与课程结合起来。本研究采用的课堂观察法可以在不受研究者干扰的情况下收集丰富的数据,从中找出在外语课堂环境下学习者的发展模式及影响发展的因素。
基于现有的研究在研究对象、学习环境、研究方法方面的不足,本研究试图在从社会文化理论角度,在活动理论框架下,通过课堂观察的研究方法,探究课堂环境下中国外语学习者的学术论文写作的发展过程及影响发展的内在及外在因素。“学术写作能力”定义为包含以下三个方面：1)学术论文的语篇结构,2)学术语言,3)科学思维。本研究要回答的三个研究问题是：1)学习者在课堂环境下能够学习到学术写作能力的哪些方面?2)如果学术写作能力能够在课堂中获得,学术写作能力的哪些方面能够从一个写作任务迁移到下一个写作任务?3)如果学术写作能力能够在课堂环境下获得及迁移,哪些因素导致这种学习和迁移?
本实验采用的研究方法是定性研究为主,定量实验为辅的长期的课堂观察方法。来自上海市某师范院校英语专业两个班(A班和B班)的大四学生参加了本实验,这两个班英语水平相近,每班各28人。实证研究包括三个小实验,其中实验1和实验2于2009-2010学年度第1学期在A班进行；实验3与前两个实验相隔一年左右时间,于2010-2011学年度第2学期在B班开展。A班和B班均由同一名老师授课,A班采用主题为导向、过程为中心、探究式的教学方法,B班采用传统的讲解式教学。实验1收集了A班一个学期做的4个研究项目的所有写作及反思报告。实验2的数据是对A班中一个小组在完成项目4的3次讨论的录像的转写。实验3的目的是通过B班与A班对比,进一步确定在学术写作模型中三个中介工具的具体作用。
本研究为理解外语学习者的学术写作能力的发展过程提供了丰富的数据,研究发现可归纳为以下几点：
第一,本研究通过对比A班一个学期的4个项目写作的变化及与B班项目写作的比较,证实了学习者可以在课堂环境下学会语篇知识、学术语言的语言结构、及科学思维。实验1的数据体现了A班的学术写作能力在4个项目写作中的进步发展,实验3的数据证实了B班的学术写作能力类似的发展,但有所区别。
第二,本研究揭示了影响学术写作能力的学习和迁移的因素,而且基于实验1和实验3的数据,发现了三个中介工具的不同作用。这三个中介工具分别是：1)学术论文范例,2)学术论文的规范,3)老师的即时反馈和小型专项训练。前两个中介工具可以帮助学习者获得学术写作能力的低层次的技能,而第三个中介工具在学习者获得低层次及高层次的技能中起着关键的作用。
第三,本研究描述了学术写作能力发展的模式。以往的研究认为学术写作的学习就是学习学术论文的规范、体裁等,一旦学习者掌握了这些,他们就能成功地完成写作任务。但是研究能力或科学思维才是决定写作的更为重要的因素。学习者的语言知识与研究技能交互地同步发展。语言知识的发展依赖于研究技能的发展。
本研究的理论意义在于从社会文化理论的范式角度,在活动理论框架下,探究外语学习者在课堂环境下的学术写作能力的发展过程及影响因素,建立了学术写作过程的模型,丰富了学术写作的研究。本研究从外语学习者英语学术写作的实验研究,为社会文化理论提供进一步的实证支持。研究发现对于在中国环境下的英语学术写作的教学具有积极的参考意义,特别是探究型教学方法,及教师的在语篇层面上对学生习作的即时反馈。
English research article (RA) writing is the highest and final stage for Chinese college-level learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) in classroom settings. After grasping communicative competence in English, EFL learners need learn English RA writing to lay a foundation for writing RAs in English in their future academic study, such as writing BA theses or course paper during MA study. RA writing is not an easy task even for NNS scholars and learners. Therefore, EFL students need systematic guidance and well-designed instruction to acquire RA writing competence.
There exist some limitations in the current RA research, RA teaching practices and research methodology.
Firstly, research on the EFL learners'development of RA writing competence in classroom context still needs further investigation. In the existing research of RA writing, there are the textual studies on the written RAs, and the studies on developing NNS learners" RA writing skills. Those studies usually focus on MA students, PhD candidates and scholars, especially in English-speaking countries. In the field of textual studies of RAs, researchers attempted to identify the linguistic features and organizational structures of RAs from the genre analysis and functional grammar perspectives, for the purpose of RA writing instructions.
Among the studies on developing learners'RA writing skills, there are studies on the genre-based approach and inquiry-based approach. The former approach tries to teach RA writing through analyzing the genre of the target type of texts. The genre-based approach has its strength in explaining the features of academic discourse explicitly and analytically in order to raise the students'genre awareness of certain types of RAs. However, this approach limits itself in the introduction to the isolated knowledge points. Students can hardly integrate all the knowledge into the RA writing tasks. As for the genre-based approach, there are a few empirical studies to prove the effectiveness of this approach, and many of the studies merely gave suggestions to this approach based on the textual analysis of the RAs. The inquiry-based approach helps students acquire RA writing by engaging students in authentic RA writing tasks. Through the process of conducting research, students are able to experience the phases in research and apply the knowledge of academic discourse to the RA writing tasks for real communicative purposes. There are several empirical studies on the inquiry-based approach, but with some limitations. Some studies didn't present students'improvement based on the data analysis of students'RAs, but mainly based on the questionnaire feedback which was not solidly convincing enough. In other studies, students didn't write the complete RAs, only the outlines of RAs, which couldn't fully demonstrate students'acquiring of all the skills needed in RA writing.
Moreover, the existing writing models are all about LI or L2writing processes on the non-academic writing tasks, and the only one academic writing model cannot reflect the development of EFL learners'RA writing competence in the classroom setting.
Secondly, most of the current RA writing teaching cannot help students grasp the RA writing competence as expected. In the RA writing teaching, researchers and teachers believed that the difficulties in RA writing were caused by language proficiency and unfamiliarity with the genres of RAs. Researchers regarded study skills such as note-taking as the only solution to the EAP study. Most of the RA writing textbooks and courses mainly explained the mechanics of RAs; however, studies show that students couldn't acquire RA writing competence, and plagiarism was often found in students'RAs. Therefore, the teaching of RA writing needs to focus on more than just language-related issues.
In addition, in terms of research methodology, the frequently used methods in writing studies, such as the textual analysis of the RAs, the controlled experimental research design, interview and think-aloud protocol, cannot fully explore the complex and dynamic processes of the development of learners'RA writing competence. Furthermore, those methods cannot be connected with the curriculum. In the real classroom the teacher usually adjusts the teaching procedures depending on the students'performance. Classroom observational method adopted in the present study can collect the data in the classroom without the researcher's intervention and interference, from which the developmental patterns and leading factors to the students'development in the EFL classroom context can be found out.
Due to the limitations of the previous studies in terms of participants, learning contexts, and research methodology, the present study will approach the issue of developing learners'RA writing competence from the sociocultural perspective, which intends to explore the contributors of learners'development of such competence from both the internal factors and external factors through classroom observational method. English RA writing competence is defined as having the following three aspects:1) the discourse structure of an RA (the discourse level of an RA),2) academic language (syntactic-lexical-semantic features of an RA), and3) scientific thinking and reasoning. This study intends to answer these three general research questions:1) What aspects of the competence of English RA writing can students learn from classroom instruction?2) If RA writing competence can be gained from classroom instruction, what aspects of such competence can be transferred from one RA writing task to another?3) If English RA writing competence can be learned from classroom instruction and be transferred, what contributes to the learning and transferability?
This longitudinal study gathered both qualitative and quantitative data from classroom observational method. Two classes (Class A&Class B) of English-major senior students from the English Department at one normal university in Shanghai participated in the study. There were28students in each class, with similar English language proficiency. The empirical study consisted of Study1, Study2, and Study3. Studies1&2were carried out in Class A in the fall semester of2009-2010academic year. Study3, as the control study, was conducted in Class B in the spring semester of2010-2011academic year. Class A and Class B were taught by one same professor. Class A adopted the theme-oriented, process-centered and inquiry-based pedagogy, while Class B adopted the traditional teaching approach.
In Study1, the participants'writing assignments of4Projects of that semester and reflections of conducting the projects were collected. In Study2, one group's discussions during Project4completion were video-recorded and transcribed. Study3was conducted to further explore the specific mediating roles of the three mediating tools in RA writing model.
The present study provides multi-source data to enrich the present understanding towards the EFL learners'RA writing processes, and the findings are summarized as follows:
First of all, it has been confirmed that learners could acquire discourse knowledge, linguistic structure of academic language and scientific thinking and reasoning through classroom instruction, compared with themselves across4projects during one-semester's training, and compared with another group of learners with the similar English proficiency. Data of Study1showed the development of Class A'RA writing competence across4projects, and data of Study3supported Study1's findings in another group of students, although with some variations.
Secondly, conditions of the learning and transferring of the three aspects of RA writing competence have been found, moreover, the different roles of the three mediating tools have been specified based on the data obtained of Study1and Study3. The three mediating tools are:1) the sample academic writing,2) norms and conventions of RAs, and3) the teacher's instant feedback and mini-training sessions. The first two mediating tools can help learners to acquire low-level parts of RA writing competence, such as linguistic features of academic language, recalling facts; while the third mediating tool plays a crucially important role in acquiring both the low-level and high-level skills in RA writing competence.
Finally, the development pattern of English RA writing competence has been depicted. People always regarded RA writing learning as the learning of conventions, genre and norms of RAs. It was assumed that once learners learned the form and style of RAs, they were able to write RAs successfully. However, the research competence, or scientific thinking and reasoning, is the more essential factor that determines the quality of RAs. Learners' language knowledge and research skills develop interactively and simultaneously. Learners' development of academic language is dependent on the development of their research competence.
This study has theoretical significance in exploring the learners' development of RA writing competence under the framework of Activity Theory from the sociocultural perspective. Moreover, this study presents a more comprehensive scenario of how learners realize the final outcomes of writing RAs in classroom instruction setting. The empirical data obtained from the present study offers new evidence to enrich sociocultural theory. This study also has some implications for RA writing teaching practices in Chinese EFL writing classroom settings, especially the inquiry-based approach and the teacher's instant feedback on the discourse level of students' RAs.
目前学术英语写作的研究、教学、研究方法方面均存在一些不足之处。
在研究方面,对于在课堂环境下,外语学习者如何发展英语学术论文写作能力的研究仍需进一步探究。目前的学术写作研究大致可以分为两大类：对于学术论文文本的分析,以及如何发展外语学习者的学术论文写作能力的研究。这些研究通常关注的对象是硕士生,博士生,学者,且多是来自英语国家。在学术论文的文本研究中,研究者从体裁分析及功能语法角度,找出学术文本的语篇结构及句法层面的语言特点,为学术写作提供指导。在如何发展外语学习者的学术论文写作能力的研究方面,主要有对体裁教学法和探究式教学法的研究。体裁教学法通过分析文本的体裁来教学术论文写作,该方法的长处在于通过分析学术语篇的特点来提高学生对特定体裁的意识,缺点在于仅孤立地解释知识点,学生无法把所有的知识融入到学术写作任务中。而且,对于体裁教学法,并无太多实证研究证明其有效性,大部分研究只是在文本分析的基础上给出进行体裁教学的建议。探究式教学通过真实的学术写作任务使学生获得学术写作能力,通过参与研究,学生能够体验到做研究的各个阶段,把学术语篇和学术语言的知识应用到真实的学术写作任务中。目前有一些关于探究式教学的实证研究,但仍有不足之处。其中有些研究的结论是建立在学生的问卷反馈的基础上,并无学生的写作的数据分析。有些研究是一般的大学课程的学术写作。还有些是学术论文的提纲写作,不是完整的学术论文,无法体现学生是否掌握学术写作所需的技能。在写作模型方面,现有的写作模型大多都是关于一语或二语一般写作任务的写作过程,仅有的一个学术写作模型无法体现课堂教学环境下的学术论文写作能力发展过程。
在教学方面,目前大部分英语学术论文写作的课堂教学并未达到让学生掌握学术论文写作能力的效果。研究者及教师认为学习者的学术论文写作的困难是由语言水平及不熟悉学术论文的文体而导致。一些研究者提出通过讲授“学习技巧”来提高学术英语水平。大多数本科生学术写作教材及课程主要讲授学术论文的格式,但有研究表明学生并没通过此课程获得学术写作论文能力,甚至出现抄袭现象。因此,学术写作的教学不应当仅局限于语言方面的问题。
在研究方法方面,在写作研究中常用的方法包括：对于学术文本的分析、实验设计、访谈、有声思维等,无法反映课堂环境下外语学习者的学术论文写作能力复杂、动态的发展过程。在实际的课堂中,教师总是根据学生的情况随时调整教学步骤和设计,而以上的研究方法无法与课程结合起来。本研究采用的课堂观察法可以在不受研究者干扰的情况下收集丰富的数据,从中找出在外语课堂环境下学习者的发展模式及影响发展的因素。
基于现有的研究在研究对象、学习环境、研究方法方面的不足,本研究试图在从社会文化理论角度,在活动理论框架下,通过课堂观察的研究方法,探究课堂环境下中国外语学习者的学术论文写作的发展过程及影响发展的内在及外在因素。“学术写作能力”定义为包含以下三个方面：1)学术论文的语篇结构,2)学术语言,3)科学思维。本研究要回答的三个研究问题是：1)学习者在课堂环境下能够学习到学术写作能力的哪些方面?2)如果学术写作能力能够在课堂中获得,学术写作能力的哪些方面能够从一个写作任务迁移到下一个写作任务?3)如果学术写作能力能够在课堂环境下获得及迁移,哪些因素导致这种学习和迁移?
本实验采用的研究方法是定性研究为主,定量实验为辅的长期的课堂观察方法。来自上海市某师范院校英语专业两个班(A班和B班)的大四学生参加了本实验,这两个班英语水平相近,每班各28人。实证研究包括三个小实验,其中实验1和实验2于2009-2010学年度第1学期在A班进行；实验3与前两个实验相隔一年左右时间,于2010-2011学年度第2学期在B班开展。A班和B班均由同一名老师授课,A班采用主题为导向、过程为中心、探究式的教学方法,B班采用传统的讲解式教学。实验1收集了A班一个学期做的4个研究项目的所有写作及反思报告。实验2的数据是对A班中一个小组在完成项目4的3次讨论的录像的转写。实验3的目的是通过B班与A班对比,进一步确定在学术写作模型中三个中介工具的具体作用。
本研究为理解外语学习者的学术写作能力的发展过程提供了丰富的数据,研究发现可归纳为以下几点：
第一,本研究通过对比A班一个学期的4个项目写作的变化及与B班项目写作的比较,证实了学习者可以在课堂环境下学会语篇知识、学术语言的语言结构、及科学思维。实验1的数据体现了A班的学术写作能力在4个项目写作中的进步发展,实验3的数据证实了B班的学术写作能力类似的发展,但有所区别。
第二,本研究揭示了影响学术写作能力的学习和迁移的因素,而且基于实验1和实验3的数据,发现了三个中介工具的不同作用。这三个中介工具分别是：1)学术论文范例,2)学术论文的规范,3)老师的即时反馈和小型专项训练。前两个中介工具可以帮助学习者获得学术写作能力的低层次的技能,而第三个中介工具在学习者获得低层次及高层次的技能中起着关键的作用。
第三,本研究描述了学术写作能力发展的模式。以往的研究认为学术写作的学习就是学习学术论文的规范、体裁等,一旦学习者掌握了这些,他们就能成功地完成写作任务。但是研究能力或科学思维才是决定写作的更为重要的因素。学习者的语言知识与研究技能交互地同步发展。语言知识的发展依赖于研究技能的发展。
本研究的理论意义在于从社会文化理论的范式角度,在活动理论框架下,探究外语学习者在课堂环境下的学术写作能力的发展过程及影响因素,建立了学术写作过程的模型,丰富了学术写作的研究。本研究从外语学习者英语学术写作的实验研究,为社会文化理论提供进一步的实证支持。研究发现对于在中国环境下的英语学术写作的教学具有积极的参考意义,特别是探究型教学方法,及教师的在语篇层面上对学生习作的即时反馈。
English research article (RA) writing is the highest and final stage for Chinese college-level learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) in classroom settings. After grasping communicative competence in English, EFL learners need learn English RA writing to lay a foundation for writing RAs in English in their future academic study, such as writing BA theses or course paper during MA study. RA writing is not an easy task even for NNS scholars and learners. Therefore, EFL students need systematic guidance and well-designed instruction to acquire RA writing competence.
There exist some limitations in the current RA research, RA teaching practices and research methodology.
Firstly, research on the EFL learners'development of RA writing competence in classroom context still needs further investigation. In the existing research of RA writing, there are the textual studies on the written RAs, and the studies on developing NNS learners" RA writing skills. Those studies usually focus on MA students, PhD candidates and scholars, especially in English-speaking countries. In the field of textual studies of RAs, researchers attempted to identify the linguistic features and organizational structures of RAs from the genre analysis and functional grammar perspectives, for the purpose of RA writing instructions.
Among the studies on developing learners'RA writing skills, there are studies on the genre-based approach and inquiry-based approach. The former approach tries to teach RA writing through analyzing the genre of the target type of texts. The genre-based approach has its strength in explaining the features of academic discourse explicitly and analytically in order to raise the students'genre awareness of certain types of RAs. However, this approach limits itself in the introduction to the isolated knowledge points. Students can hardly integrate all the knowledge into the RA writing tasks. As for the genre-based approach, there are a few empirical studies to prove the effectiveness of this approach, and many of the studies merely gave suggestions to this approach based on the textual analysis of the RAs. The inquiry-based approach helps students acquire RA writing by engaging students in authentic RA writing tasks. Through the process of conducting research, students are able to experience the phases in research and apply the knowledge of academic discourse to the RA writing tasks for real communicative purposes. There are several empirical studies on the inquiry-based approach, but with some limitations. Some studies didn't present students'improvement based on the data analysis of students'RAs, but mainly based on the questionnaire feedback which was not solidly convincing enough. In other studies, students didn't write the complete RAs, only the outlines of RAs, which couldn't fully demonstrate students'acquiring of all the skills needed in RA writing.
Moreover, the existing writing models are all about LI or L2writing processes on the non-academic writing tasks, and the only one academic writing model cannot reflect the development of EFL learners'RA writing competence in the classroom setting.
Secondly, most of the current RA writing teaching cannot help students grasp the RA writing competence as expected. In the RA writing teaching, researchers and teachers believed that the difficulties in RA writing were caused by language proficiency and unfamiliarity with the genres of RAs. Researchers regarded study skills such as note-taking as the only solution to the EAP study. Most of the RA writing textbooks and courses mainly explained the mechanics of RAs; however, studies show that students couldn't acquire RA writing competence, and plagiarism was often found in students'RAs. Therefore, the teaching of RA writing needs to focus on more than just language-related issues.
In addition, in terms of research methodology, the frequently used methods in writing studies, such as the textual analysis of the RAs, the controlled experimental research design, interview and think-aloud protocol, cannot fully explore the complex and dynamic processes of the development of learners'RA writing competence. Furthermore, those methods cannot be connected with the curriculum. In the real classroom the teacher usually adjusts the teaching procedures depending on the students'performance. Classroom observational method adopted in the present study can collect the data in the classroom without the researcher's intervention and interference, from which the developmental patterns and leading factors to the students'development in the EFL classroom context can be found out.
Due to the limitations of the previous studies in terms of participants, learning contexts, and research methodology, the present study will approach the issue of developing learners'RA writing competence from the sociocultural perspective, which intends to explore the contributors of learners'development of such competence from both the internal factors and external factors through classroom observational method. English RA writing competence is defined as having the following three aspects:1) the discourse structure of an RA (the discourse level of an RA),2) academic language (syntactic-lexical-semantic features of an RA), and3) scientific thinking and reasoning. This study intends to answer these three general research questions:1) What aspects of the competence of English RA writing can students learn from classroom instruction?2) If RA writing competence can be gained from classroom instruction, what aspects of such competence can be transferred from one RA writing task to another?3) If English RA writing competence can be learned from classroom instruction and be transferred, what contributes to the learning and transferability?
This longitudinal study gathered both qualitative and quantitative data from classroom observational method. Two classes (Class A&Class B) of English-major senior students from the English Department at one normal university in Shanghai participated in the study. There were28students in each class, with similar English language proficiency. The empirical study consisted of Study1, Study2, and Study3. Studies1&2were carried out in Class A in the fall semester of2009-2010academic year. Study3, as the control study, was conducted in Class B in the spring semester of2010-2011academic year. Class A and Class B were taught by one same professor. Class A adopted the theme-oriented, process-centered and inquiry-based pedagogy, while Class B adopted the traditional teaching approach.
In Study1, the participants'writing assignments of4Projects of that semester and reflections of conducting the projects were collected. In Study2, one group's discussions during Project4completion were video-recorded and transcribed. Study3was conducted to further explore the specific mediating roles of the three mediating tools in RA writing model.
The present study provides multi-source data to enrich the present understanding towards the EFL learners'RA writing processes, and the findings are summarized as follows:
First of all, it has been confirmed that learners could acquire discourse knowledge, linguistic structure of academic language and scientific thinking and reasoning through classroom instruction, compared with themselves across4projects during one-semester's training, and compared with another group of learners with the similar English proficiency. Data of Study1showed the development of Class A'RA writing competence across4projects, and data of Study3supported Study1's findings in another group of students, although with some variations.
Secondly, conditions of the learning and transferring of the three aspects of RA writing competence have been found, moreover, the different roles of the three mediating tools have been specified based on the data obtained of Study1and Study3. The three mediating tools are:1) the sample academic writing,2) norms and conventions of RAs, and3) the teacher's instant feedback and mini-training sessions. The first two mediating tools can help learners to acquire low-level parts of RA writing competence, such as linguistic features of academic language, recalling facts; while the third mediating tool plays a crucially important role in acquiring both the low-level and high-level skills in RA writing competence.
Finally, the development pattern of English RA writing competence has been depicted. People always regarded RA writing learning as the learning of conventions, genre and norms of RAs. It was assumed that once learners learned the form and style of RAs, they were able to write RAs successfully. However, the research competence, or scientific thinking and reasoning, is the more essential factor that determines the quality of RAs. Learners' language knowledge and research skills develop interactively and simultaneously. Learners' development of academic language is dependent on the development of their research competence.
This study has theoretical significance in exploring the learners' development of RA writing competence under the framework of Activity Theory from the sociocultural perspective. Moreover, this study presents a more comprehensive scenario of how learners realize the final outcomes of writing RAs in classroom instruction setting. The empirical data obtained from the present study offers new evidence to enrich sociocultural theory. This study also has some implications for RA writing teaching practices in Chinese EFL writing classroom settings, especially the inquiry-based approach and the teacher's instant feedback on the discourse level of students' RAs.
引文
Achugar, M., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2005). Beyond connectors:The construction of cause in history textbooks. Linguistics and Education,16 (3),298-318.
Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom:An introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Bacha, N. N. (2002). Developing learners'academic writing skills in higher education: A study for educational reform. Language and Education,16 (3),161-177.
Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal 54 (2),153-160.
Bailey, A. (2007a). The language demands of school:Putting academic English to the test. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
Bailey, A. (2007b). From Lambie to Lambaste:The conceptualization, operationalization, and use of academic language in the assessment of ELL students. In K. Rolstad (Ed.), Rethinking school language. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bartels, N. (2003). How teachers and researchers read academic articles, Teaching and Teacher Education (19),737-753.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison, WI:University of Wisconsin Press.
Bazerman, C. (1993). Constructing experience. Carbondale, IL:Southern Illinois University Press.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2007). How teachers can support productive classroom talk:Move the thinking to the students. In R. Horowitz (Ed.), Talking Texts (pp.207-220). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamdia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes and control (Vol.1). London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bernstein, B. (1975). Towards a theory of educational transmissions. Class, codes and control (Vol.3). London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre:Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.
Bhatia, V. K. (2002). Applied genre analysis:Analytical advances and pedagogical procedures. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom:Multiple perspectives (pp.279-283). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Associates.
Biber, D., & Reppen, R. (2002). What does frequency have to do with grammar teaching? Studies in Second Language Acquisition,24 (2),199-208.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives:the classification of educational goals; Handbook Ⅰ:Cognitive Domain. New York:Longman.
Bruce, I. (2008). Academic wring and genre. London:Continuum.
Bruce, N. J. (1983). Rhetorical constraints on information structure in medical research report writing. Paper presented at the ESP in the Arab World Conference, University of Aston, UK, August,1983.
Buckingham, L. (2008). Development of English academic writing competence by Turkish scholars. International Journal of Doctoral Studies Volume (3),1-18.
Campbell, C. (1998). Teaching Second-language writing:Interacting with text. Boston:Heinle & Heinle.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.). Language and Communication (pp. 2-27). New York:Longman.
Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1994). Writing groups:Cross cultural issues. Journal of Second Language Writing,3 (1).17-30.
Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse:the language of teaching and learning. (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.
Chafe, W., & Danielewicz, J. M. (1987). Properties of spoken and written language. In R. Horowitz & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp.83-113). San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook:Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.
Cheng, A. (2008). Analyzing genre exemplars in preparation for writing:The case of an L2 graduate students in the ESP genre-based instructional framework of academic literacy. Applied Linguistics 29 (1),50-71.
Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing:Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication,18(1),80-98.
Colombi, M. C. (2002). Academic language development in Latino students'writing in Spanish. In M. J. Schleppegrell & M. C. Colombi (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages:Meaning with power (pp.67-86). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Colombi, M. C., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2002). Theory and practice in the development of advanced literacy. In M. J. Schleppegrell & M. C. Colombi (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages:Meaning with power (pp.1-20). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coughlan, P., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Same task, different activities:analysis of a second language acquisition task from an activity theory perspective. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.). Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood, N. J.:Ablex.
Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. TESOL Quarterly, (14),175-187.
Cummins, J. (1981). Age on arrival and immigrant second-language learning in Canada:A reassessment. Applied Linguistics (2),132-149.
Cummins, J. (1984). Language proficiency and academic achievement revisited:A Response. In C. Rivera (Ed.), Language proficiency and academic achievement (pp. 71-76). Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (1991). Conversational and academic language proficiency in bilingual contexts. AILA Review (8),75-89.
Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating identities:Education for empowerment in a diverse society.2nd Edition. Los Angeles:California Association for Bilingual Education.
Cumming, A. (2001). Learning to write in a second language:Two decades of research. International Journal of English Studies,1(2),1-23.
Cumming, A. (Ed.) (2006). Goals for academic writing:ESL students and their instructors. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Day, R. A., & Gastel, B. (2006). How to write and publish a scientific paper (6th edn). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think:A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston:Heath.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.). Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood, N. J.:Ablex.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1986). Genre analysis:An investigation of the introductions and discourse sections of MSc dissertations, in M. Coulthard (ed.), Talking About Text. Discourse Analysis Mongraphs No.13:English Language Research. Birmingham: University of Birmingham, pp.128-145.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Genre analysis:an approach to text analysis for ESP, in M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis. London:Routlrdge, pp. 219-228.
Dunlop, A.-W., & Fabian, H. (Eds.). (2007). Informing transitions in the early years. Berkshire, England:Open University Press.
Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding:An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit, Helsinki.
Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Engestrom, Y., Miettinen, R. & Punamaki, R, (Eds.). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, pp.19-38.
ETIC. (1975). English for academic study:Problems and perspectives. ETIC Occasional Paper. London:The British Council.
Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences:An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar, TESOL Quarterly (34),127-50.
Geisler, C. (1994). Academic literacy and the nature of expertise. Hove, Sussex and Hillsdale, NJ:L. Erlbaum.
Geoghegan, G. (1983). Non-native speaker of English at Cambridge University. Cambridge:Bell Educational Trust.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, B. K. (1996). Theory and practice of writing:An applied linguistic perspective. New York:Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean:Explorations in the development of language. London:Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic. London:Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London:Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In M. A. K. Halliday & Martin. J. R., Writing science:Literacy and discursive power (pp. 69-85). London:Falmer (Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education); Pittsburgh:University of Pittsburgh:University of Pittsburgh Press. (Pittsburgh Series in Composition, Literacy, and Culture).
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994a). A language development approach to education. In N. Bird, et al. (Ed.), Language and learning. Papers presented at the Annual International language in Education Conference, Hong Kong,1993.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994b). An introduction to functional grammar. London:Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science:Literacy and discursive power. London:Falmer (Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education); Pittsburgh:University of Pittsburgh Press. (Pittsburgh Series in Composition, Literacy, and Culture).
Halliday, M. A. K. (2007a). Some thoughts on language in the middle school years. In Jonathan J. Webster (Ed.), Language and education. Beijing:Peking Unversity Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2007b). The notion of "context" in language education. In Jonathan J. Webster (Ed.), Language and education. Beijing:Peking Unversity Press.
Hartley, J. (2008). Academic writing and publishing:A practical handbook. New York: Routledge.
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing:Theories, methods, individual differences and applications. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg and E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Heaton, J. B. (1975). Studying in English. London:Longman.
Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. (2007). Language errors in the genre-based writing of advanced academic ESL students. Regional Language Centre Journal 38 (2), 171-198.
Henrichs, L. F. (2010). Academic language in early childhood interactions:A longitudinal study of 3-to 6-year-old Dutch monolingual children. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Center for Language and Communication.
Hirvela, A. (2001). Incorporating reading into EAP writing courses, in Flowerdew and M. Peacock (Eds.), Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press:330-346.
Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (Eds.) (2005). The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion section in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes (7), 113-122.
Hu, Guangwei. (2007). Developing an EAP writing course for Chinese ESL students. Regional Language Centre Journal,38(1),67-86.
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility:Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics (34),1091-1112.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing:A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics,25 (2),156-177.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement:A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies.7 (2),173-192.
Hyland, K. (2008). Metadiscourse. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Hymes, D. (1972). Introduction. In C. B. Cazden, V. P. John, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp. i-vii). New York:Teachers College Press.
James, M. (2003). An investigation of transfer of learning from a university content-based ESL course to other university courses. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning, University of Toronto.
Jarvis, J., & Robinson, M. (1997). Analysing educational discourse:An exploratory study of teacher response and support to pupil's learning. Applied Linguistics,18 (2),212-228.
Johns, A. (1997). Text, role, and context:Developing academic literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement. In Sharan, S. (Ed.), Cooperative learning. Theory and research. New York:Praeger, 23-38.
Jones, M., & Shelton, M. (2006). Developing your portfolio:Enhancing your learning and showing your stuff. New York:Routledge.
Jordan, R. R. (1989). English for academic purposes (EAP). Language Teaching,22 (3),150-164.
Jordan, R. R. (2004). English for academic purposes:A guide and resource book for teachers (6th ed.). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Kathpalia, S., & Heah, C. (2008). Reflective writing:Insights into what lies beneath. Regional Language Centre Journal,39 (3),300-317.
Konold, K. E., Miller, S. P. & Konold, K. B. (2004). Using teacher feedback to enhance student learning. Teaching exceptional children,36 (6),64-69.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. New York, NY:Prentice Hall.
Krashen, S. (2011). Academic proficiency (language and content) and the role of strategies. TESOL Journal (4),381-393.
Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research, In B. Nardi (Ed.) Context and consciousness:Activity theory and human-computer Interaction (pp.17-44). MIT Press. Mass.
Lantolf, J. P., & Genung, P. B. (2002). I'd rather switch than fight:an activity-theoretic study of power, success, and failure in a foreign language. In C. Kramsch (Ed.). Language acquisition and language socialization. Ecological perspectives. London:Continuum.
Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko. A. (2001). Second language activity theory:Understanding second language learners as people. In M. Breen (Ed.). Learner contributions to language learning. New directions in research. London:Longman.
Lantolf, J. P., & Throne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods:class, race, and family life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning:Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lea, M. R. (1994). "I thought I could write until I came here":Students writing in higher education. In G. Gibbs (Ed.), Improving students learning:Theory and practice. Oxford, UK:Oxford Centre for Staff Development.
Lea, M. R., & Street, B. (1998). Student writing in higher education:An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education,23 (2),157-172.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science:Language, learning and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Company.
Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow:Progress.
Lewin, B., Fine, J., & Young, L. (2001). Expository discourse:A genre-based approach to social science research texts. London:Continuum.
Li, J., & Schmitt, N. (2009). The acquisition of lexical phrases in academic writing:A longitudinal case study. Journal of Second Language Writing, (18),85-102.
Long, M. H. (1980). Inside the'black box':Methodological issues in research on language teaching and learning. Language Learning,30 (1),1-42.
Long, M. H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? TESOL Quarterly,17 (3),359-382.
Malinowski, B. (1923), The problem of meaning in primitive language, in C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (Eds.), The Meaning of Meaning. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp.296-336.
Malinowski, B. (1935). Coral gardens and their magic, Vol. Ⅱ. London:George Allen and Unwin.
Matsuda, P. K., & Tardy, C. M. (2007). Voice in academic writing:The rhetorical construction of author identity in blind manuscript review. English for Specific Purposes, (26),235-249.
Myers, G. (1991). Lexical cohesion and specialized knowledge in science and popular science texts. Discourse Processes, (14),1-26.
Nardi, B. (1996) (Ed.) Context and consciousness:Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Mass:MIT Press.
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.
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2009). Scientific literacy, In David R. Olson. & Nancy Torrance (Eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D., & Bailey, K. M. (2010). Exploring second language classroom research: A comprehensive guide. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Ohta, A. S. (1995). Theoretical issues in examining learner-learner interactions. Issues in Applied Linguistics,6(2),94-121.
Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy:The technologizing of the world. London/New York:Routledge Press.
Paltridge, B., Harbon, L., Hirsch, D., Shen, H., Stevenson, M., Phakiti, A., & Woodrow, L. (2009). Teaching academic writing:An introduction for teachers of second language writers. Ann Arbor:The University of Michigan Press.
Peck MacDonald, S. (1994). Professional academic writing in the humanities and social sciences. Carbondale:Southern Illinois University Press.
Phillips, M. K. & Shettleworth, C. C. (1978). How to ARM your students:A consideration of two approaches to providing materials for ESP. In R. A. Hawkey (Ed.) English for Specific Purposes. ELT Documents 101.
Pincas, A. (1982). Writing in English 1. London:Macmillan.
Ravid, D., & Tolchinsky, L. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy:A comprehensive model. Journal of Child Language,29 (2),417-447.
Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R., Nurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, (32),155-175.
Roebuck, R. (2000). Subjects speak out:how learners position themselves in a psycholinguistic task. In J. P. Lantolf (ed.). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Robinson, P. C. (1980). ESP (English for Specific Purposes):the present position. Oxford:Pergamon Press.
Robinson, P. C. (1991). ESP today:A practitioner's guide. Hemel Hempstead: Phoenix ELT.
Salovey, P. (2000). Results that get results. Telling a good story. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Guide to publishing in psychology journals (pp.121-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scanlon, E., & Issroff. (2005). Activity theory and higher education:evaluating learning technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21,430-439.
Scarcella, R. (2002). Some key factors affecting English learners'development of advanced literacy. In C. Colombi & M. J. Schleppegrell (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages:meaning with power (pp. 209-226). Mahwah, N. J.:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Scarcella, R. (2003). Academic English:A conceptual framework. The University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute. Technical Report 2003-1.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education,12 (4),431-459.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling:a functional linguistics perspective. London:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2007). The linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching and learning:A research review. Reading & Writing Quarterly:Overcoming Learning Difficulties,23 (2),139-159.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2008). Grammar, the sentence and traditions of linguistic analysis. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing (pp.549-564). New York, NY:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Seliger H. W., & Shohamy (1989). Second Language Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Selz, O. (1935), Attempt to raise the level of intelligence. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie, (134),236-301.
Silva, T., & Colleen, B. (2004). Research in Teaching Writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, (24),70-106.
Spolsky, B., & Hult, F. M. (2008). Handbook of educational linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Snow, C. E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic writing. In David R. Olson. & Nancy Torrance (Eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp.112-133.
Spycher, P. (2007). Academic writing for adolescent English learners:Learning to use 'although'. Journal of Second Language Writing, (16),238-254.
Stern, L. A., & Solomon, A. (2006). Effective faculty feedback:The road less traveled. Assessing writing, (11),22-41.
Suppe, F. (1998). The structure of a scientific paper. Philosophy of Science, (65), 381-405.
Swales, J. M. (1981), Aspects of article introductions (Aston ESP Research Rep. No. 1). Birmingham, England:Language Studies Unit, University of Aston.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis:English in academic and research settings. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2002). On models in applied discourse analysis, In C. N. Candlin (Ed.), Research and practice in professional discourse. Hong Kong:City University of Hong Kong Press, pp.61-77.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres:Exploration and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI:University of Michigan Press.
Ten Have, P. (1999). Doing conversation analysis:A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning and Technology, (7),38-67.
van Lier, L. (1996). The classroom and the language learner. England:Longman.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society:The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Wallace, M. J. (1980). Study Skills in English. Cambridge University Press.
Weber, J. J. (2001). A concordance-and genre-informed approach to ESP essay writing. ELT Journal,55 (1),14-20.
Wertsch, J. V. (1979). From social interaction to higher psychological processes:a clarification and application of Vygotsky's theory. Human Development, (22),1-22.
White, R. V., & Arndt, V. (1991). Process writing. London:Longman.
Wignell, P., Martin, J. R., & Eggins, S. (1993). The discourse of geography:Ordering and explaining the experiential world. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science:Literacy and discursive power (pp.136-165). London:Falmer (Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education), Pittsburgh Press (Pittsburgh Series in Composition, Literacy, and Culture).
Wong Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. E. (2002). What teachers need to know about language. In C. Temple Adger, C. E. Snow & D. Christian (Eds.), What teachers need to know about language (pp.7-47). McHenry, IL; Delta Systems Co. and the Center of Applied Linguistics.
Xiong Shuhui & Zou Weicheng. (2011). Developing Chinese undergraduate English-majors'research article writing competence. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics,34 (3),5-24.
Yorkey, R. C. (1970). Study skills for students of English. New York:McGraw-Hill.
程爱民,祈寿华.英语学术论文写作纲要[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2005.
邓鹂鸣.中国学生社科博士论文讨论与结语章节语体研究[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2010.
丁展平.2002,英语学术论文中的遁言研究[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2002,(6)：108-114.
冯茵,周榕.学术论文摘要中模糊限制语的调查与分析---一基于英语专业毕业论文与国外期刊论文的对比研究[J].外国语言文学,2007,(2)：108-112.
高桂珍,杜雪玲.基于语料库的科技论文摘要体裁分析----非英语专业博士生论文摘要个案件研究[J].大连理工大学学报(社会科学版),2007,(30)：82-86.
韩金龙,秦秀白.,体裁分析与体裁教学法[J].外语界,2000,(1)：11-1 8.
韩金龙.英语写作教学：过程体裁教学法[J].外语界,2001,(4)：35-40.
葛冬梅,杨瑞英.学术论文摘要的体裁分析[J].现代外语,2005,(2)：138-146.
顾佩娅,张烨,古海波.英语专业本科论文课研究性教学设计与实践[J].外语教学理论与实践,2010,(4)：44-51.
郭强.论基于网络的英语专业毕业论文写作教学[J].外语与外语教学,2004,(10)：18-21.
李瑞芳.体裁教学法在商务英语教学中的应用[J].西安外国语学院学报,2004,(1)：68-70.
李志雪.英语专业学生写作构思过程研究[M].开封：河南大学出版社,2007.
罗娜,肖巧玲.硕士研究生EAP习得模式探索----武汉科技大学某研究所硕士生学术英语习得个案研究[J].外语教学理论与实践,2011,(3)：80-86.
黄国文,葛达西,张美芳.英语学术论文写作[M].重庆：重庆大学出版社,2006.
鞠玉梅.体裁分析与英汉学术论文摘要语篇[J].外语教学,2004,(2)：32-36.
秦秀白.体裁教学法述评[J].外语教学与研究,2000,(1)：42-46.
孙文抗.英语专业学士论文写作现状分析[J].外语界,2004,(3)：59-64.
孙迎晖.中国学生“建立学术研究空间”过程探索----英语专业硕士论文“前言”部分的语类分析[M].北京：国防工业出版社,2008.
腾延江.英汉学术论文摘要中限定修饰语使用分布的对比分析[J].外语与外语教学,2008,(11)：40-43.
王俊菊.英语写作认知心理研究[M].济南：山东大学出版业,2005.
文秋芳.论外语专业研究生高层次思维能力的培养[J].学位与研究生教育,2008,(10)：29-34.
熊丽君,殷猛.论非英语专业学术英语写作课堂的构建----基于中美学术英语写作的研究[J].外语教学,2009,(2)：50-56.
徐宏亮.学术语篇中的作者立场标记语研究[M].合肥：合肥工业大学出版社,2007.
徐有志,郭丽辉,徐涛.学术论文体裁教学不可或缺----英语专业硕士学位论文引言写作情况调查[J].中国外语,2007,(4)：47-51.
杨瑞英.体裁分析的应用：应用语言学学术文章结构分析[J].外语与外语教学,2006,(6)：29-34.
杨玉晨.情态动词、模糊语言与英语学术论文写作风格[J].外语与外语教学,1998,(7)：24-35.
余国良.文献引用行为中批判性思维的个案研究[J]外语学刊,2007,(5)：124-128.
曾蕾.学术语篇体裁网络的构建设与学术英语教学[J].外语与外语教学,2005,(5)：20-23.
赵蔚彬.英语写作修改模型[M].开封：河南大学出版社,2007.
张延君.学术论文的人际意义研究[M].青岛：中国海洋大学出版社,2006.
周开鑫.英语专业学生学术论文写作手册[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2006.
朱晔.英语写作教学中的反馈研究[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2007
朱源.论文写作规范与研究生学术研究能力[J].外语与外语教学,2003,(3)：25-27.
张惠琴,李俊儒,段慧,2008.中国大学生“抄袭、剽窃”概念实证研究----中、美大学生plagiarism概念比较[J].外语研究,2008,(2)：66-71.
熊淑慧.一个中英文双语者的自我身份个案研究[J].外语教学理论与实践,2009(4)：55-64.
熊淑慧,邹为诚.什么是学术英语?怎么教?----一项英语专业本科生“学术英语”的课堂试验研究[J].中国外语,2012,(2)：54-64.
邹为诚.如何教授高年级的学术英语写作[A].邹为诚.中国基础英语教师教育研究[C].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2010.204-220.
Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom:An introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Bacha, N. N. (2002). Developing learners'academic writing skills in higher education: A study for educational reform. Language and Education,16 (3),161-177.
Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal 54 (2),153-160.
Bailey, A. (2007a). The language demands of school:Putting academic English to the test. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
Bailey, A. (2007b). From Lambie to Lambaste:The conceptualization, operationalization, and use of academic language in the assessment of ELL students. In K. Rolstad (Ed.), Rethinking school language. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bartels, N. (2003). How teachers and researchers read academic articles, Teaching and Teacher Education (19),737-753.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison, WI:University of Wisconsin Press.
Bazerman, C. (1993). Constructing experience. Carbondale, IL:Southern Illinois University Press.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2007). How teachers can support productive classroom talk:Move the thinking to the students. In R. Horowitz (Ed.), Talking Texts (pp.207-220). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamdia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes and control (Vol.1). London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bernstein, B. (1975). Towards a theory of educational transmissions. Class, codes and control (Vol.3). London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre:Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.
Bhatia, V. K. (2002). Applied genre analysis:Analytical advances and pedagogical procedures. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom:Multiple perspectives (pp.279-283). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Associates.
Biber, D., & Reppen, R. (2002). What does frequency have to do with grammar teaching? Studies in Second Language Acquisition,24 (2),199-208.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives:the classification of educational goals; Handbook Ⅰ:Cognitive Domain. New York:Longman.
Bruce, I. (2008). Academic wring and genre. London:Continuum.
Bruce, N. J. (1983). Rhetorical constraints on information structure in medical research report writing. Paper presented at the ESP in the Arab World Conference, University of Aston, UK, August,1983.
Buckingham, L. (2008). Development of English academic writing competence by Turkish scholars. International Journal of Doctoral Studies Volume (3),1-18.
Campbell, C. (1998). Teaching Second-language writing:Interacting with text. Boston:Heinle & Heinle.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.). Language and Communication (pp. 2-27). New York:Longman.
Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1994). Writing groups:Cross cultural issues. Journal of Second Language Writing,3 (1).17-30.
Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse:the language of teaching and learning. (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.
Chafe, W., & Danielewicz, J. M. (1987). Properties of spoken and written language. In R. Horowitz & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp.83-113). San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook:Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.
Cheng, A. (2008). Analyzing genre exemplars in preparation for writing:The case of an L2 graduate students in the ESP genre-based instructional framework of academic literacy. Applied Linguistics 29 (1),50-71.
Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing:Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication,18(1),80-98.
Colombi, M. C. (2002). Academic language development in Latino students'writing in Spanish. In M. J. Schleppegrell & M. C. Colombi (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages:Meaning with power (pp.67-86). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Colombi, M. C., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2002). Theory and practice in the development of advanced literacy. In M. J. Schleppegrell & M. C. Colombi (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages:Meaning with power (pp.1-20). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coughlan, P., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Same task, different activities:analysis of a second language acquisition task from an activity theory perspective. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.). Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood, N. J.:Ablex.
Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. TESOL Quarterly, (14),175-187.
Cummins, J. (1981). Age on arrival and immigrant second-language learning in Canada:A reassessment. Applied Linguistics (2),132-149.
Cummins, J. (1984). Language proficiency and academic achievement revisited:A Response. In C. Rivera (Ed.), Language proficiency and academic achievement (pp. 71-76). Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (1991). Conversational and academic language proficiency in bilingual contexts. AILA Review (8),75-89.
Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating identities:Education for empowerment in a diverse society.2nd Edition. Los Angeles:California Association for Bilingual Education.
Cumming, A. (2001). Learning to write in a second language:Two decades of research. International Journal of English Studies,1(2),1-23.
Cumming, A. (Ed.) (2006). Goals for academic writing:ESL students and their instructors. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Day, R. A., & Gastel, B. (2006). How to write and publish a scientific paper (6th edn). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think:A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston:Heath.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.). Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood, N. J.:Ablex.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1986). Genre analysis:An investigation of the introductions and discourse sections of MSc dissertations, in M. Coulthard (ed.), Talking About Text. Discourse Analysis Mongraphs No.13:English Language Research. Birmingham: University of Birmingham, pp.128-145.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Genre analysis:an approach to text analysis for ESP, in M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis. London:Routlrdge, pp. 219-228.
Dunlop, A.-W., & Fabian, H. (Eds.). (2007). Informing transitions in the early years. Berkshire, England:Open University Press.
Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding:An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit, Helsinki.
Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Engestrom, Y., Miettinen, R. & Punamaki, R, (Eds.). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, pp.19-38.
ETIC. (1975). English for academic study:Problems and perspectives. ETIC Occasional Paper. London:The British Council.
Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences:An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar, TESOL Quarterly (34),127-50.
Geisler, C. (1994). Academic literacy and the nature of expertise. Hove, Sussex and Hillsdale, NJ:L. Erlbaum.
Geoghegan, G. (1983). Non-native speaker of English at Cambridge University. Cambridge:Bell Educational Trust.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, B. K. (1996). Theory and practice of writing:An applied linguistic perspective. New York:Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean:Explorations in the development of language. London:Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic. London:Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London:Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In M. A. K. Halliday & Martin. J. R., Writing science:Literacy and discursive power (pp. 69-85). London:Falmer (Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education); Pittsburgh:University of Pittsburgh:University of Pittsburgh Press. (Pittsburgh Series in Composition, Literacy, and Culture).
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994a). A language development approach to education. In N. Bird, et al. (Ed.), Language and learning. Papers presented at the Annual International language in Education Conference, Hong Kong,1993.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994b). An introduction to functional grammar. London:Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science:Literacy and discursive power. London:Falmer (Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education); Pittsburgh:University of Pittsburgh Press. (Pittsburgh Series in Composition, Literacy, and Culture).
Halliday, M. A. K. (2007a). Some thoughts on language in the middle school years. In Jonathan J. Webster (Ed.), Language and education. Beijing:Peking Unversity Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2007b). The notion of "context" in language education. In Jonathan J. Webster (Ed.), Language and education. Beijing:Peking Unversity Press.
Hartley, J. (2008). Academic writing and publishing:A practical handbook. New York: Routledge.
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing:Theories, methods, individual differences and applications. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg and E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Heaton, J. B. (1975). Studying in English. London:Longman.
Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. (2007). Language errors in the genre-based writing of advanced academic ESL students. Regional Language Centre Journal 38 (2), 171-198.
Henrichs, L. F. (2010). Academic language in early childhood interactions:A longitudinal study of 3-to 6-year-old Dutch monolingual children. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Center for Language and Communication.
Hirvela, A. (2001). Incorporating reading into EAP writing courses, in Flowerdew and M. Peacock (Eds.), Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press:330-346.
Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (Eds.) (2005). The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion section in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes (7), 113-122.
Hu, Guangwei. (2007). Developing an EAP writing course for Chinese ESL students. Regional Language Centre Journal,38(1),67-86.
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility:Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics (34),1091-1112.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing:A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics,25 (2),156-177.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement:A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies.7 (2),173-192.
Hyland, K. (2008). Metadiscourse. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Hymes, D. (1972). Introduction. In C. B. Cazden, V. P. John, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp. i-vii). New York:Teachers College Press.
James, M. (2003). An investigation of transfer of learning from a university content-based ESL course to other university courses. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning, University of Toronto.
Jarvis, J., & Robinson, M. (1997). Analysing educational discourse:An exploratory study of teacher response and support to pupil's learning. Applied Linguistics,18 (2),212-228.
Johns, A. (1997). Text, role, and context:Developing academic literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement. In Sharan, S. (Ed.), Cooperative learning. Theory and research. New York:Praeger, 23-38.
Jones, M., & Shelton, M. (2006). Developing your portfolio:Enhancing your learning and showing your stuff. New York:Routledge.
Jordan, R. R. (1989). English for academic purposes (EAP). Language Teaching,22 (3),150-164.
Jordan, R. R. (2004). English for academic purposes:A guide and resource book for teachers (6th ed.). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Kathpalia, S., & Heah, C. (2008). Reflective writing:Insights into what lies beneath. Regional Language Centre Journal,39 (3),300-317.
Konold, K. E., Miller, S. P. & Konold, K. B. (2004). Using teacher feedback to enhance student learning. Teaching exceptional children,36 (6),64-69.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. New York, NY:Prentice Hall.
Krashen, S. (2011). Academic proficiency (language and content) and the role of strategies. TESOL Journal (4),381-393.
Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research, In B. Nardi (Ed.) Context and consciousness:Activity theory and human-computer Interaction (pp.17-44). MIT Press. Mass.
Lantolf, J. P., & Genung, P. B. (2002). I'd rather switch than fight:an activity-theoretic study of power, success, and failure in a foreign language. In C. Kramsch (Ed.). Language acquisition and language socialization. Ecological perspectives. London:Continuum.
Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko. A. (2001). Second language activity theory:Understanding second language learners as people. In M. Breen (Ed.). Learner contributions to language learning. New directions in research. London:Longman.
Lantolf, J. P., & Throne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods:class, race, and family life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning:Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lea, M. R. (1994). "I thought I could write until I came here":Students writing in higher education. In G. Gibbs (Ed.), Improving students learning:Theory and practice. Oxford, UK:Oxford Centre for Staff Development.
Lea, M. R., & Street, B. (1998). Student writing in higher education:An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education,23 (2),157-172.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science:Language, learning and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Company.
Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow:Progress.
Lewin, B., Fine, J., & Young, L. (2001). Expository discourse:A genre-based approach to social science research texts. London:Continuum.
Li, J., & Schmitt, N. (2009). The acquisition of lexical phrases in academic writing:A longitudinal case study. Journal of Second Language Writing, (18),85-102.
Long, M. H. (1980). Inside the'black box':Methodological issues in research on language teaching and learning. Language Learning,30 (1),1-42.
Long, M. H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? TESOL Quarterly,17 (3),359-382.
Malinowski, B. (1923), The problem of meaning in primitive language, in C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (Eds.), The Meaning of Meaning. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp.296-336.
Malinowski, B. (1935). Coral gardens and their magic, Vol. Ⅱ. London:George Allen and Unwin.
Matsuda, P. K., & Tardy, C. M. (2007). Voice in academic writing:The rhetorical construction of author identity in blind manuscript review. English for Specific Purposes, (26),235-249.
Myers, G. (1991). Lexical cohesion and specialized knowledge in science and popular science texts. Discourse Processes, (14),1-26.
Nardi, B. (1996) (Ed.) Context and consciousness:Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Mass:MIT Press.
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.
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2009). Scientific literacy, In David R. Olson. & Nancy Torrance (Eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D., & Bailey, K. M. (2010). Exploring second language classroom research: A comprehensive guide. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Ohta, A. S. (1995). Theoretical issues in examining learner-learner interactions. Issues in Applied Linguistics,6(2),94-121.
Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy:The technologizing of the world. London/New York:Routledge Press.
Paltridge, B., Harbon, L., Hirsch, D., Shen, H., Stevenson, M., Phakiti, A., & Woodrow, L. (2009). Teaching academic writing:An introduction for teachers of second language writers. Ann Arbor:The University of Michigan Press.
Peck MacDonald, S. (1994). Professional academic writing in the humanities and social sciences. Carbondale:Southern Illinois University Press.
Phillips, M. K. & Shettleworth, C. C. (1978). How to ARM your students:A consideration of two approaches to providing materials for ESP. In R. A. Hawkey (Ed.) English for Specific Purposes. ELT Documents 101.
Pincas, A. (1982). Writing in English 1. London:Macmillan.
Ravid, D., & Tolchinsky, L. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy:A comprehensive model. Journal of Child Language,29 (2),417-447.
Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R., Nurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, (32),155-175.
Roebuck, R. (2000). Subjects speak out:how learners position themselves in a psycholinguistic task. In J. P. Lantolf (ed.). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Robinson, P. C. (1980). ESP (English for Specific Purposes):the present position. Oxford:Pergamon Press.
Robinson, P. C. (1991). ESP today:A practitioner's guide. Hemel Hempstead: Phoenix ELT.
Salovey, P. (2000). Results that get results. Telling a good story. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Guide to publishing in psychology journals (pp.121-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scanlon, E., & Issroff. (2005). Activity theory and higher education:evaluating learning technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21,430-439.
Scarcella, R. (2002). Some key factors affecting English learners'development of advanced literacy. In C. Colombi & M. J. Schleppegrell (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages:meaning with power (pp. 209-226). Mahwah, N. J.:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Scarcella, R. (2003). Academic English:A conceptual framework. The University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute. Technical Report 2003-1.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education,12 (4),431-459.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling:a functional linguistics perspective. London:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2007). The linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching and learning:A research review. Reading & Writing Quarterly:Overcoming Learning Difficulties,23 (2),139-159.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2008). Grammar, the sentence and traditions of linguistic analysis. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing (pp.549-564). New York, NY:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Seliger H. W., & Shohamy (1989). Second Language Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Selz, O. (1935), Attempt to raise the level of intelligence. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie, (134),236-301.
Silva, T., & Colleen, B. (2004). Research in Teaching Writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, (24),70-106.
Spolsky, B., & Hult, F. M. (2008). Handbook of educational linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Snow, C. E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic writing. In David R. Olson. & Nancy Torrance (Eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp.112-133.
Spycher, P. (2007). Academic writing for adolescent English learners:Learning to use 'although'. Journal of Second Language Writing, (16),238-254.
Stern, L. A., & Solomon, A. (2006). Effective faculty feedback:The road less traveled. Assessing writing, (11),22-41.
Suppe, F. (1998). The structure of a scientific paper. Philosophy of Science, (65), 381-405.
Swales, J. M. (1981), Aspects of article introductions (Aston ESP Research Rep. No. 1). Birmingham, England:Language Studies Unit, University of Aston.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis:English in academic and research settings. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2002). On models in applied discourse analysis, In C. N. Candlin (Ed.), Research and practice in professional discourse. Hong Kong:City University of Hong Kong Press, pp.61-77.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres:Exploration and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI:University of Michigan Press.
Ten Have, P. (1999). Doing conversation analysis:A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning and Technology, (7),38-67.
van Lier, L. (1996). The classroom and the language learner. England:Longman.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society:The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Wallace, M. J. (1980). Study Skills in English. Cambridge University Press.
Weber, J. J. (2001). A concordance-and genre-informed approach to ESP essay writing. ELT Journal,55 (1),14-20.
Wertsch, J. V. (1979). From social interaction to higher psychological processes:a clarification and application of Vygotsky's theory. Human Development, (22),1-22.
White, R. V., & Arndt, V. (1991). Process writing. London:Longman.
Wignell, P., Martin, J. R., & Eggins, S. (1993). The discourse of geography:Ordering and explaining the experiential world. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science:Literacy and discursive power (pp.136-165). London:Falmer (Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education), Pittsburgh Press (Pittsburgh Series in Composition, Literacy, and Culture).
Wong Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. E. (2002). What teachers need to know about language. In C. Temple Adger, C. E. Snow & D. Christian (Eds.), What teachers need to know about language (pp.7-47). McHenry, IL; Delta Systems Co. and the Center of Applied Linguistics.
Xiong Shuhui & Zou Weicheng. (2011). Developing Chinese undergraduate English-majors'research article writing competence. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics,34 (3),5-24.
Yorkey, R. C. (1970). Study skills for students of English. New York:McGraw-Hill.
程爱民,祈寿华.英语学术论文写作纲要[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2005.
邓鹂鸣.中国学生社科博士论文讨论与结语章节语体研究[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2010.
丁展平.2002,英语学术论文中的遁言研究[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2002,(6)：108-114.
冯茵,周榕.学术论文摘要中模糊限制语的调查与分析---一基于英语专业毕业论文与国外期刊论文的对比研究[J].外国语言文学,2007,(2)：108-112.
高桂珍,杜雪玲.基于语料库的科技论文摘要体裁分析----非英语专业博士生论文摘要个案件研究[J].大连理工大学学报(社会科学版),2007,(30)：82-86.
韩金龙,秦秀白.,体裁分析与体裁教学法[J].外语界,2000,(1)：11-1 8.
韩金龙.英语写作教学：过程体裁教学法[J].外语界,2001,(4)：35-40.
葛冬梅,杨瑞英.学术论文摘要的体裁分析[J].现代外语,2005,(2)：138-146.
顾佩娅,张烨,古海波.英语专业本科论文课研究性教学设计与实践[J].外语教学理论与实践,2010,(4)：44-51.
郭强.论基于网络的英语专业毕业论文写作教学[J].外语与外语教学,2004,(10)：18-21.
李瑞芳.体裁教学法在商务英语教学中的应用[J].西安外国语学院学报,2004,(1)：68-70.
李志雪.英语专业学生写作构思过程研究[M].开封：河南大学出版社,2007.
罗娜,肖巧玲.硕士研究生EAP习得模式探索----武汉科技大学某研究所硕士生学术英语习得个案研究[J].外语教学理论与实践,2011,(3)：80-86.
黄国文,葛达西,张美芳.英语学术论文写作[M].重庆：重庆大学出版社,2006.
鞠玉梅.体裁分析与英汉学术论文摘要语篇[J].外语教学,2004,(2)：32-36.
秦秀白.体裁教学法述评[J].外语教学与研究,2000,(1)：42-46.
孙文抗.英语专业学士论文写作现状分析[J].外语界,2004,(3)：59-64.
孙迎晖.中国学生“建立学术研究空间”过程探索----英语专业硕士论文“前言”部分的语类分析[M].北京：国防工业出版社,2008.
腾延江.英汉学术论文摘要中限定修饰语使用分布的对比分析[J].外语与外语教学,2008,(11)：40-43.
王俊菊.英语写作认知心理研究[M].济南：山东大学出版业,2005.
文秋芳.论外语专业研究生高层次思维能力的培养[J].学位与研究生教育,2008,(10)：29-34.
熊丽君,殷猛.论非英语专业学术英语写作课堂的构建----基于中美学术英语写作的研究[J].外语教学,2009,(2)：50-56.
徐宏亮.学术语篇中的作者立场标记语研究[M].合肥：合肥工业大学出版社,2007.
徐有志,郭丽辉,徐涛.学术论文体裁教学不可或缺----英语专业硕士学位论文引言写作情况调查[J].中国外语,2007,(4)：47-51.
杨瑞英.体裁分析的应用：应用语言学学术文章结构分析[J].外语与外语教学,2006,(6)：29-34.
杨玉晨.情态动词、模糊语言与英语学术论文写作风格[J].外语与外语教学,1998,(7)：24-35.
余国良.文献引用行为中批判性思维的个案研究[J]外语学刊,2007,(5)：124-128.
曾蕾.学术语篇体裁网络的构建设与学术英语教学[J].外语与外语教学,2005,(5)：20-23.
赵蔚彬.英语写作修改模型[M].开封：河南大学出版社,2007.
张延君.学术论文的人际意义研究[M].青岛：中国海洋大学出版社,2006.
周开鑫.英语专业学生学术论文写作手册[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2006.
朱晔.英语写作教学中的反馈研究[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2007
朱源.论文写作规范与研究生学术研究能力[J].外语与外语教学,2003,(3)：25-27.
张惠琴,李俊儒,段慧,2008.中国大学生“抄袭、剽窃”概念实证研究----中、美大学生plagiarism概念比较[J].外语研究,2008,(2)：66-71.
熊淑慧.一个中英文双语者的自我身份个案研究[J].外语教学理论与实践,2009(4)：55-64.
熊淑慧,邹为诚.什么是学术英语?怎么教?----一项英语专业本科生“学术英语”的课堂试验研究[J].中国外语,2012,(2)：54-64.
邹为诚.如何教授高年级的学术英语写作[A].邹为诚.中国基础英语教师教育研究[C].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2010.204-220.