| Abstract: | 傳統教學概念中，知識學習通常被視為是一種象牙塔中反覆演練所產生的結果。學生記憶單字、背誦公式、演算程式、練習文法句型，在狹隘的教科書與封閉的教室裡探討、摸索知識是什麼？然而這些透過記憶背誦與演練得來的知識或技能，常常與真實世界脫節。英文寫作長期以來在台灣被許多老師與學生視為是促進英文能力的練習工具，但學術寫作不應只是純然的與世隔絕的英文寫作練習(isolated academic exercise)，從社會語言學的角度來看，英文學術寫作應該是學生與周遭人、事、物互動後，了解語言在特定情境使用的特性以便於究問題根源、表達個人意見，探討解決方案、甚至影響他人或社會的一種社會活動(social activity)，而非單純的學術演練(academic exercise)。在世界金融海嘯席捲下，越來越多學者開始關注大學教育不應只是學生畢業後尋找工作的技職的培訓；教育應在教導技能與知識的同時，提升學生的社會道德與公民意識，因此高等教育所推廣的服務學習課程也開始受到重視。而融入「服務學習」在大學英文的寫作課程中，不但能開啟英文寫作封閉的大門，將社區文化與議題帶入學術寫作過程中，同時引導學生關心社區的次文化與弱勢團體，使學生不但可學習如何以英文發表論述、也使學生未來有能力獨自探索世界、建立對知識的好奇，並提升其關心社會議題的興趣、與具備探詢與解決問題的能力。提倡「服務學習」(Service Learning; S-L) 理念的人，最常引用美國教育家杜威 (John Dewey)1938 年提出的經驗學習理論(Boyer, 1983, 1987b; Clark & Welmers, 1994;Lipka, Beane, & O`Connell, 1985)。根據Carver (1997) and Frankena (1966) 的說法，經驗學習理論乃奠基於兩個原則: 第一是持續進行原則; 第二是互動法則。他們的看法是，學生從生活和教育中得到的經驗及個人習慣，都會對學習產生影響，而且不僅影響當前的學習，對未來也有影響。因此，學校必須讓學生有機會把在校所學的東西，實際運用於社會和外面的世界。Carver (1997)則認為，「服務學習」可以達到三大目標: 第一，讓學生成為更有實踐力的社會變革推動者;第二，培養學生對所屬社區的認同感;第三，發展學生的本職學能(p. 143)。「服務學習」的概念源自經驗學習理論，並已逐步獲得各學科的教師認同，運用於實際教學，以幫助學生跨出校園、參與社會。然而，「服務學習」的作法雖然在國外益受重視，但對台灣外語教學(TESOL/EFL) 的學者和教師而言卻還是個陌生的概念。在外語教學的領域裡，把「服務學習」用在英文學術寫作課程的相關研究報告可謂鳳毛麟角，可見在台灣英文學術寫作的知識及能力培養，仍大都侷限在課本與課堂授課型式，透過老師授課與依賴教科書內容來進行。本文目的就是要分析探討學生在融入社區服務後，將此經驗作為寫作題材，在其寫作身份與聲音(identity/voice)、寫作迫切性與主導權(exigency/agency) 和批判思考與次文化意識(critical thinking/sub-cultural awareness)的影響。本實驗將以問卷、訪談、與學生的日記(self reports)和作文(textual analysis) 為本，筆者將以 teacher-researcher 的身分設計一質化的實驗，參與研究過程，以便近距離觀察、分析、討論產生實驗結果。實驗將參與學生分為兩組。實驗組的學生選修「服務學習」融入的大學英文學術寫作課程；對照組的學生選修的是傳統的大學英文學術寫作課程。兩組在學術英文寫作的教學部分，將使用一樣教材。唯一不同的是課程是否融入「服務學習」概念。兩位受過訓練的批閱員將協助批閱學生的作文，以便更客觀的檢驗實驗組與對照組的寫作表現。研究方法簡述如下: 寫作身份與聲音(identity/voice): 這個部分的實驗將採用Matsuda 與Tardy (2007) 的實驗方法，筆者除了將採納並修改Matsuda 與Tardy (2007)的面談問題訪問兩位批閱員，以瞭解他們對文中作者身份的解讀之外，也將以學生的作文為訪談的基本 (text-based interviews)，透過面談問題，瞭解其寫作的身份/聲音建構過程。兩位批閱員需閱讀後根據文字指出或建構出作者當時寫作身份，並將針對學生作文的感染力與說服力上給予評價，學生在問卷與面談將被問及寫作時所構建的寫作身份，筆者再對比其self report、問卷、個人面談資料，和批閱員的面談資料後，將可獲得身份與聲音之間的關連，並進一步對比兩組的差異。 寫作迫切性與主導性: 這個部分的實驗將透過學生日記、問卷與面談的方式進一步瞭解實驗組與對照組的學生的差異。學生的文章是訪談agency 時的基礎資料 (text-based interviews)。兩位批閱員也將受訪。批閱員根據批閱的學生文本，表述讀者閱讀後認為該作者在議題主導性上的展現程度。 批判思考與次文化意識: 檢測工具也將採納Stapleton(2001)所使用的方法，將批判思考分為以下五個檢測細目： (a) number of arguments, (b) extent of evidence, (c) recognition of opposing arguments,(d) corresponding refutations, (e) number of fallacies (p.515). 透過text analysis, 兩位批閱員在受過訓練後閱讀學生的文章，並根據文章內的linguistic elements 和semantic structures 來歸納實驗組與對照組學生的文字組織，並計算他們在這五個項目內的分布情況。本研究是希望能夠(a)為台灣的英文寫作教學提出一套「服務學習」的課程模式;(b) 觀察分析參與「服務學習」課程的學生和「非服務學習」的學生在英文寫作課程中寫作過程的差異性，包括寫作者身份與聲音(identity and voice)、寫作迫切性與主導權 (exigency and agency)、與批判思考和次文化認知(critical thinking and sub-cultural awareness)等;(c)探討台灣在「服務學習」實際運作的相關問題、困境以及優缺點。本研究不僅能擴大EFL 英文寫作教學的視野，對教師及學生都有助益，而且對有志於探討服務學習理念的教師和學者，也能在該理念與實際運用上加以論述，有助於未來的研究工作。
In Taiwan, English writing usually is learned and composed decontextually. Writing teachers instruct academic writing conventions based on textbooks, and students retrieve their memory or experience into grammatical correct sentences. English writing has long been downplayed as practice of language skills or assessment of English proficiency. The influences of social interactions and cultural variations on text construction are ignored. However, from the perspective of critical writing, English academic writing is not an isolated academic exercise but a complex social activity in which involves writers’negotiations with self, readers, texts, contexts and community. And texts should be situated in contexts and shaped through interactions among the social factors and processes of negotiations. After striking crises in global finance and subprime mortgage in 2008, more scholars recognize that college education should not be shackled by utilitarianism and become formalistic, skill driven and product oriented. College education should help students develop civic responsibility, improve students’personal skills of social interaction and sub-cultural awareness. As a result, service learning method is gaining ground in all disciplines with increasing attention. Incorporating service learning into English academic writing encourages students to learn across boundary by transferring knowledge from the real world to academic community and visa versa. In the S-L writing classrooms, students participate in community services and bring their service experiences into their writing tasks to construct their arguments. The real context experience is served as students’writing source and resource; in other words, students learn how to write through participation and hands-on engagement, which may increase understanding of the issues and provide insiders’insights. It is reported that students show higher learning motivation when they tackle “real” problems that they perceive as important and personally relevant. The complexity of real-world projects encourage students to be more open to people from diverse backgrounds and cultures. Moreover, engagement of service learning encourages students to purposefully observe issues through interactions and contexts, strategically transfer knowledge to address and explore issues, and critically construct knowledge through writing process. During the service learning and writing processes, students may recognize greater complexity of the issues and diverse points from different perspectives. Negotiating with these factors challenges students to be more tolerant to uncertainty and to be more critical in knowledge acquisition. This project attempts to explore the effectiveness of service learning incorporation in academic writing on aspects of identity/voice, exigency/agency and critical thinking/sub-cultural awareness. Qualitative research will be conducted to generate further analysis based on students’journals, interview protocols, surveys and written texts. Participants (N= 250-280) are divided into two groups: the S-L experimental group and the non S-L control group. Two trained raters help conduct textual analysis and answer interview questions. The research methods of each research aspect will be explored respectively: Identity/voice: The researcher will collect students’ surveys, interview protocols, journals and written texts. The research will adopt and adapt the framework suggested by Matsuda and Tardy (2007). First, two raters will read students’ texts and report the identity/voice they perceived from the texts. Then, students will be interviewed based on their texts and raters’comments in terms of identity and voice. Exigency/agency: Research analysis will be based on students’ journals, interview protocols and surveys. Two raters will read students’ texts andbe interviewed about the agency they perceived from reading texts. Critical thinking/ sub-cultural awareness: The research method is adopted from the framework suggested by Stapleton (2001). The five discourse elements examined are: (a) number of arguments, (b) extent of evidence, (c) recognition of opposing arguments,(d) corresponding refutations, (e) number of fallacies. The purpose of this research are to: (a) suggest a S-L teaching model in academic writing for college students; (b) investigate differences in writing literacy developments between S-L and non S-L students in respects of identity and voice, exigency and agency, critical thinking and sub-cultural awareness; (c) discuss issues of incorporation of S-L in college English courses. This project not only can help broaden both teachers and students’horizon in academic writing, but also empower students to consciously interact into knowledge construction process through service learning and writing. Additionally, this project, hopefully, will offer valuable data and information for teachers and researchers who are interested in further researching service learning. |
