本研究主要探討和檢驗透過結合互動式網路英語學習網站IWiLL,建構學生對於科技類學術性寫作的連貫性 (coherence)。 雖然許多先前的研究針對錯誤校正 (error correction)的程序和實質的影響探討,尤其在於英文寫作中文法的糾正,但極少數研究是著重於建構學術寫作的連貫性來檢驗對於寫作的功效和文章品質的提升。依據上述的概念,此研究採用歷程寫作 (process writing),心智圖 (mind mapping),和結合電腦資源使學習達到最大的成效。
    參與本研究的實驗對象由北部某私立大學20位資訊工程系博士生所組成，且皆選取2009年的下學期春季的寫作研究課程。質性研究的資料蒐集來自於教學前後的寫作測驗;量化研究的資料蒐集則由前後測的問卷調查，其中包含寫作歷程問卷、英文寫作焦慮度問卷，以及IWiLL線上寫作學習問卷。
    寫作前後測的分析結果顯示學習者對於文章連貫性技巧的運用(新舊資訊的連結、同義詞和關鍵字的重複，以及指示代名詞所組成的摘要性片語)達統計上顯著的進步。另外，根據兩位評分者針對TOEFL iBT 和Bamberg’s Holistic Coherence的兩個評分項目的前後側寫作分析上，也顯示寫作的整體進步。同時，寫作的進步和連貫性技巧的使用也有顯著的關係。量化結果顯示學習者對於英文寫作的自信心提高且焦慮度下降。
    研究結果建議，於此種建構式學習下，對於科技類學術寫作的教學有顯著得成效和突破。另外，本研究同時也鼓勵其他科技領域的寫作教師對於標準課程的規劃可進一步的結合。此外，本研究也發現對於電腦科技教學的結合之困難處需特別關注及考慮，已達到結合電腦輔助教學的最大效益。

This research aims to investigate and examine the effectiveness of building the coherence (Halliday and Hasan, 1976) of scientific/technical academic writing through cooperating the computer-assisted language learning tool, IWiLL (Intelligent Web-based Interactive Language Learning). Although many studies have assessed the procedure and impact of error correction, particularly that of grammar, on EFL writing, few have been done to explore the validity and efficacy of explicating the coherence of academic writing to learners so as to improve their quality of writing. In light of this, process writing, mind mapping, and technology resources were adopted in this research to maximize learning achievement. 
     The participants in the study are 20 Computer Science and Information Engineering doctoral students enrolled in the Writing Seminar offered by their program at a university in Northern Taiwan in the Spring semester, 2009. The qualitative data were compiled from the pre-and- post English writing assessments and the quantitative data were gathered from the pre-study and post-study questionnaires (English writing process assessment, English writing apprehension questionnaire, and questionnaire of online learning through IWiLL). 
     The statistical results of pre-study and post-study writing assessments indicated the significant progress of students on the employment of cohesive techniques such as old/new information distribution, synonym and repeated key word, and summary word; meanwhile, the overall improvement also showed in students’ pre-and- post assessments which were graded by two reviewers and based on the criteria of TOEFL iBT and Bamberg’s holistic coherence rubric. Further statistical evidences also projected on students’ pre-and-post writing process assessments and suggested that learners are notably aware of the application of process writing techniques. Furthermore, the data collected from learners’ pre-and-post writing apprehension questionnaires denoted that students’ confidence in composing an academic English writing is enhanced and the anxiety level of writing in English is lower.
     The results of this research have arguably shed light on the efficacy of this top-down approach to teaching scientific and technical writing and due to its successful implementation, can be further incorporated into a standard curriculum that can be adopted by practitioners who are now in the field of science and technology. However, some difficulties of incorporating computer technology in such kind of course design have also been observed. These difficulties need to be overcome in order of optimize the role of CALL in language classrooms.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page        
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………...i
中文摘要……………………………………………………………………………...ii
ABSTRACT.………………………………………...……………………………......iv
TABLE OF CONTENT…..…………………………..................................................vi
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………................ix
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………..........xi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION………………………………….......................1
1.1 Background of the Study……………….......................………...……….…....1
1.2 Purpose and Significance of the Study…………………………...…………...6
1.3 Research Questions…………………………………….……………………...7

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW………………...……………...………..9
2.1 Historical Development on the Issue of Error Correction……………………9
2.2 From Textuality to Coherence and Their Significance in Writing Practice….13
2.3 The Merits of Process Writing Approach in L2/FL……….……….…...…....17
2.4 The Concept of Mindmapping in Writing Process…………………………. 19
2.5 The Effectiveness of IWiLL…..……………………………………….……..21
2.6 Theoretical Basis for Lesson Design…………………………………………22
2.7 Summary……………………………….…………………………………….25

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY…………..………………………..…..…..26
3.1 Participants……………………...………...…....…..…...................................26
3.2 Instruments…....................................................................................................27
3.3 Essay Raters of the Pre- and Post-test….……………………………………..31
3.4 Construction of Instructional Materials………………………………….........31
3.4.1 Instructional Setting and Syllabus……………………………………....32
3.4.2 Lesson Plan and Materials…………………………………..………..…33
3.5 Procedure of Data Collection…….…………………………….........…….......36
3.6 Data Analysis………………………………………….……………………....38

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…………………….……......…40
4.1 Result and Discussion of the Research Question 1………………………....…40
4.1.1 Reliability between the Two Essay Raters………………….…………...41
4.1.2 Analysis of the Pre- and Post-writing Assessment………….……….......42
4.2 Result and Discussion of the Research Question …...………………………...48
4.2.1 The Reliability and Validity of the Writing Process Questionnaire……..50
4.2.2 Analysis of the Pre- and Post-study Questionnaires on Writing Process Assessment………………………..……………………………………..51
4.3 Result and Discussion of the Research Question 3…………………………...60
4.3.1 The Reliability and Validity of English Writing Apprehension Questionnaire…………………………………………………………...61
4.3.2 Results of the Pre- and Post-study Questionnaires on English Writing Apprehension…………………………………………………………..62
4.3.3 The Reliability and Validity of IWiLL Online Learning Questionnaire...65
4.3.4 Analysis of the Pre- and Post-study Questionnaires on IWiLL Online Learning………………………………………………………………...66
4.4 Summary………………..…………………………………………………….74

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION…………………………………….………...….76
5.1 Discussion and Summary of the Major Findings……………………………..76
5.1.1 Relationship between Coherence Instruction and Writing Quality…….76
5.1.2 Coherence Instruction and the Subjects’ Perception on Process 
Writing………………………………………………………………….78
5.1.3 Coherence Instruction, English Writing Apprehension, and the Subjects’ Perception on IWiLL………………………………………………...…79
5.2 Pedagogical Implications………………………………………………….......81
5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research…………………….……....83
     5.3.1 Limitations of the Study………………………………………………...83
     5.3.2 Suggestions for Future Research………………………………………..84

REFERENCES………………………………..…...................…...............................86

APPENDICES
Appendix A  Writing Pre-and-post Study Assessment……………………....…..96
Appendix B  ETS TOEFL iBT Scoring Rubric for Independent Writing…….....98
Appendix C  Bamberg’s Holistic Scale of Coherence……………………….....100
Appendix D  English Writing Process Assessment……………………...……..102
Appendix E  English Writing Apprehension Questionnaire…………………....107
Appendix F  Questionnaire of Online Learning through IWiLL…………….....109
Appendix G  Syllabus of Teaching Schedule......................................................112
Appendix H  Unit 2---Mind Mapping.................................................................116
Appendix I  Unit 3--- Introduction to Paragraph and Cohesion..........................126
Appendix J  Unit 6---Writing Principles.............................................................138
Appendix K  Peer-review Scoring Rubric...........................................................144
Appendix L  The Results of Pre- and Post-Instruction Writing Proficiency Scores and The Use of Cohesive Ties.......................................................146
Appendix M  The Examples of Subjects’ Pre- and Post-instruction Writing Proficiency…………………………………………………....….148
Appendix N  Descriptive Analysis of the English Writing Apprehension Questionnaire in Two Categories: Positive Statements and Negative Statements………………………………………………………..153

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 The Directions for Students of the Designed Learning Modes…….......33
Table 3.2 The Lesson Plan Constructed for This Study…………………………..35
Table 4.1 Correlation (Reliability) between the Two Essay Raters……………....42
Table 4.2 Paired-Samples T-test of the Writing Assessments……………….........43
Table 4.3 Paired-Sample T-test of the Use of Coherence Techniques in Writing...45
Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics for the Count of Clauses and Words in Pre- and
Post-writing Tests……………………………………………………..46
Table 4.5 Inter-correlations among Writing Quality, the Use of Old/ New
Information Distribution, Synonym/ Repeated Key Words, Summary
Words, and Linking Words……..…………………………...………...48
Table 4.6 The Course Engagement on Sections of Mind-mapping, Comprehension
Question, Gap-filling Question, Paragraph Writing………...………...49
Table 4.7 Reliability Result of English Writing Process Questionnaire………….50
Table 4.8 Paired-Sample T-test of Writing Process Assessment: Three Individual
Categories…………………………………….…………………….…52
Table 4.9 Subject’ Background Information………………………………...…....53
Table 4.10 Results of the English Writing Process Assessment Questionnaire:
Before Writing……………………………….……………………......55
Table 4.11 Results of the English Writing Process Assessment Questionnaire:
While Writing…………………………………………...…………….57
Table 4.12 Results of the English Writing Process Assessment Questionnaire:
After Writing……………………………………………………….....59
Table 4.13 Reliability Result of English Apprehension Questionnaire………......61
Table 4.14 Factor Analysis on the Validity of English Writing Apprehension
Questionnaire………………………………………………………....62
Table 4.15 Paired-Sample T-test of the English Writing Apprehension on Positive
Statements……………………………………………………........….63
Table 4.16 Paired-Sample T-test of the English Writing Apprehension on Negative
Statements……………………………………...…………………......65
Table 4.17 Reliability Result of IWiLL Online Learning Questionnaire……...…66
Table 4.18 Paired-Sample T-test of Online Learning Experiences through IWiLL:
Four Individual Categories………………………………………….66
Table 4.19 Questionnaire of Online Learning through IWiLL: Part 1.1 Subjects’
General Information about Internet Use…………………………….68
Table 4.20 Questionnaire of Online Learning through IWiLL: Part 1.2 Subjects’
General Information about Internet Use……………………………70
Table 4.21 Results of Questionnaire of Online Learning through IWiLL: Subjects’
Beliefs of IWiLL Learning Experiences and the Available Resources
at the Stage of Pre-writing…………………………….………….….71
Table 4.22 Results of Questionnaire of Online Learning through IWiLL: Subjects’
Beliefs of IWiLL Learning Experiences and the Available Resources
at the Stage of Composing………………………………………...…73
Table 4.23 Results of Questionnaire of Online Learning through IWiLL: Subjects’
Beliefs of IWiLL Learning Experiences and the Available Resources
at the Stage of Revising……………………………..…………….....74
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Coherence-creating Mechanisms in Writing: The Operationalizing
Sequence…………..……………………………………………..……...23
Figure 3.1 The Experiment Procedures and Data Collection………………………38
Figure 4.1 Course Engagement of the Subjects………………………..……..……50

REFERENCES

Bamberg, B. (1984). Assessing Coherence: A Reanalysis of Essays Written for the National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1969-1979. Research in the Teaching of English 18, 305-319.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1990). Pragmatic World in English Composition. In U.Connor & A.M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives. (pp. 43-65). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Bartholomae, D. (1980). The Study of Error. College Composition and Communication, 31, 253-277.
Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1982). From conversation to composition: The role of instruction in a developmental process. Advances in Instructional Psychology, 2.
Bitchener, J., Young, S., and Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-205. 
Bizell, P. (1986). Composing processes: An overview. In A. R, Petrosky & D. Bartholomae (Eds.), The teaching of writing, NSEE Yearbook, 49-70. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education. 
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach o language pedagogy. White Plains, N.Y.: Addison Wesley Longman. 
Bruce, I. (2005). Syllabus design for general EAP writing courses: A cognitive approach. Journal of English for Academic Purpose, 4, 239-256. 
Campbell, B., Campbell, L., & Dickinson, D. (1999). Teaching and learning through multiple intelligences. Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Carrell, P. L. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 479-488. 
Chandler, J. (2004). Dialogue: a response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 345-348. 
Chen, H. C., & Hsu, M. C. (2004). The implementation of multiple intelligences (MI) theory in the ESL/ EFL classroom. Selected Papers from the Thirteenth International Symposium on English Teaching. Taipei: The Crane Publisher. 
Cheng, X., & Steffensen, M. S. (1996). Metadiscourse: A technique for improving student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(2), 149-181.
Chou, M. C. (2000). Lexical cohesion and the quality of the EFL writing text. Hwa Kang Journal of English Language & Literature, 7, 197-209.
Connor, U. (1984). A study of cohesion and coherence in English as a second language students’ writing. Papers in Linguistics: International Journal of Human Communication, 17, 301-316. 
Connor, U., & Farmer, F. (1990). The teaching of topical structure analysis as a revision strategy for ESL writers. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 126-139). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 
Connors, R. J., & Andrea, A. L. (1988). Frequency of Formal Errors in Current College Writing, or Ma and Pa Kettle Do Research. College Composition and Communication, 39, 395-409.
Connors, R. J., & Andrea, A. L. (1993). Teachers’ Rhetorical Comments on Student Papers. College Composition and Communication, 44, 200-223.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10, 39-71.
Crowhurst, M. (1980). Syntactic complexity and teachers’ ratings of narrations and arguments. Research in the Teaching of English, 14, 223-231.
Daly, J. A., & Miller, M. D. (1975). The empirical development of an instrument to measure writing apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 9, 242-249.
De Beaugrande, R. A., & Dressler, W. U. (1981). Introduction of Text Linguistics. London: Longman.
Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New Your: Oxford University Press.
Emig, J. (1971). The composing process of twelfth graders. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Fan, Y. S. (2008). Topical structure analysis: As an alternative learning strategy for coherent writing. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, National Tsing Hua University. 
Ferrand, P., Hussain, F., & Hennesay, E. (2002). The efficacy of the mind map study technique. Medical Education, 36, 426-431.
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (1), 1-11.
--------------- (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime…?) 
Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49-62.
--------------- (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written correction. In: Hyland, K., and Hyland, F. (Eds.), Feedback on second language writing: contexts and issues. CUP, New York, 1-104.
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184. 
Firbas, J. (1986). On the dynamics of written communication in light of the theory of Functional Sentence Perspective. In C. Cooper & S. Greenbaum (Eds.), Studying writing: Linguistic approaches (pp. 40-71). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Fleece, J. (1952). Teacher as Audience. College English 13, 272-275.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. 
College Composition and Communication, 32 (4), 365-387. 
-------------------------------(1981 b). The pregnant pause: An inquiry into the nature of planning. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 229-243.
Folse, S. K., Mahnke, M. K., & Williams, L. (2003). Blueprints 2: Composition Skills for Academic Writing. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Gould, J. D. (1980). Experiments on composing letters: Some facts, some myths, and some observations. In L. W. Gredd & E. R. Steinberg (Ed.), Cognitive processes in writing, 92-127. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996) Theory and practice of writing. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hassan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. 
Harris, M. & Silva, T. (1993). Tutoring ESL Students: Issues and Options. College Composition and Communication, 44, 525-537.
Hillocks, G. (1984). What works in teaching composition: A meta-analysis of experimental treatment studies. American Journal of Education, 93, 133-170.
Hoey, M. (1983). On the surface of discourse. London: Allen and Unwin. 
Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of lexis in text. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Horowitz, D. (1985). Process not product: Less than meets the eye. Unpublished manuscript, Western Illinois University, International Programs, Macomb.
Huang, Y. H. (2004). The effects of integrating computer and mind mapping composition program on writing achievement for forth grade students. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, National Tainan University. 
Huot, B. (1990). The literature of direct writing assessment: Major concerns and prevailing trends. Review of Educational Research, 60, 237-263. 
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. 
Language Teaching, 39 (2), state of the art review article.
Jafarpur, A. (1991). Cohesiveness as a basis for evaluating compositions. System, 19, 456-465.
Jenson, E. (2005). Teaching with the brain in mind (2nd Ed.). Alexandria: the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75 (3), 305-313.
Kern, R., & Schultz, J. (1992). The effects of composition instruction on intermediate level French students’ writing performance: Some preliminary findings. Modern Language Journal, 76, 1-13. 
King, M. L. (1978). Research in composition: A need for theory. Research in the Teaching of English, 12, 193-210. 
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Reviews, 85, 363-394.
Koschmann, T. (1996). Paradigm shifts and instructional technology: An introduction. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm, 1-23. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kuo, C. H., Wible, D., Chen, M. C., Sung, L. C., & Chio, C. L. (2002). The Design of a Synchronous Virtual Writing Clinic. Journal of Information Science and Engineering, accepted, April 2002. 
Kuo, C. H., Wible, D., Chen, M. C., Sung, L. C., Tsao, N. L., & Chio, C. L. (2002). Design and Implementation of an Intelligent Web-based Interactive Language Learning System. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27(3).
Kuo, C. H., Wible, D., & Chio, C. L. (2001). A Synchronous EFL Writing Environment for the Internet. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 7 (3), 240-53. 
Kuo, C. H., Wible, D., & Tsao, N. L. (2001). On Designing a Web-based English Writing Environment and Learner Corpus. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, E84-D.
Kuo, J. H. (2004). A survey of the academic preparedness of Taiwanese high school English teachers for teaching writing. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, National Tsing Hua University. 
Lautamatti, L. (1987). Observations on the development of the topic of simplified discourse. In U. Conner & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 87-114). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Lee, I. (1998). Enhancing ESL students’ awareness of coherence-creating mechanisms in writing. TESL Canada Journal, 15, 36-49.
---------(2002). Teaching coherence to ESL students: a classroom inquiry. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 135-159.
----------(2003). L2 writing teachers’ perspectives, practices and problems regarding error feedback. Assessing Writing, 8, 216-237.
--------- (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285-312.
----------(2007). Feedback in Hong Kong secondary writing classrooms: Assessment for learning or assessment of learning? Assessing Writing, 12, 180-198.
Leki, E. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/ Cook.
Liu, M., & Braine, G. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System, 33, 623-636. 
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (2006). Writing Academic English (4th Ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
McCrimmon, J. M. (1980). Writing with a purpose (short ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, p. 104-110.
Morgan, J., & Sellner, M. (1980). Discourse and linguistic theory. In R. Spiro, B. Bruce, and W. Brewer (eds.). Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension (pp. 165-200). Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.
Murray, D. M. (1978). Internal revision: A process of discovery. In C. R. Cooper & L. Adello (Eds.), Research on composing: Points of departure (pp. 85-103). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Murray, D.H. (1982). Learning by teaching. Montclair, NJ: Boynton and Cook.
Educational Testing Service. (2006). The Official Guide to the New TOEFL iBT. New York.:McGraw-Hill.
Ney, J. W. (1963). On Not Practicing Errors. College Composition and Communication, 14, 102-106.
Shaughnessy, M. P. (1979). Errors and Expectations: A Guide for the Teacher of Basic Writing. New York: Oxford. 
Shearer, N. A. (1972). Alexander Bian and the genesis of paragraph theory. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 58, 413. 
Shell, D., Murphy, C. C., & Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 91-100.
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal: A Journal of Language Teaching and Research in Southeast Asia, 23 (1), 103-110.
Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 31, 378-388.
Song, M. H., & Xia, W. R. (2002). Combination of textual cohesive ties and textual teaching for the teaching of English writing: a statistical analysis of the good and poor compositions written by non-English major freshmen. Journal of the Foreign Language World, 92 (6), 40-44. 
Spack, R. (1984). Invention strategies and the ESL college composition students. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 649-670.
Spiegel, D. L., & Fitzgerald, J. (1990). Textual cohesion and coherence in children’s writing visited. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 48-66.
Stallard, C. K. (1974). An analysis of the behavior of good student writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 8, 206-218. 
Taboada, M. T. (2004). Building coherence and cohesion: Task-oriented dialogue in English and Spanish. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 
Thompson, L. J. (1986). An examination of relationships: Writing apprehension levels, semantic encoding performance, and holistic assessments of writing of tenth grade students (writing anxiety, analysis of cohesion, writer's block). Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Georgia State University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 3654.
Tribble, C. (1996). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against error correction. Language Learning, 46 (2), 327-369.
--------------(2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272.
Reid, J. (2001). Writing. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds). The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rifkin, B., & Roberts, F. (1995). Error gravity: A critical review of research design. Language Learning, 45, 511-537.
Rohman, D. G. (1965). Prewriting: The stage of discovery in the writing process. College Communication and Composition, 26, 106-112. 
Warschauer, M. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57-71. 
Warschauer, M. & Whittaker, F. (1997). The Internet for English teaching: Guidelines for teachers. TESL Reporter, 30(1), 27–33.
Wei, C. W. (2004). The effects of mind mapping and summary instruction on reading comprehensive and summarizing ability of fifth graders in elementary school. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.
Weissberg, R., & Buker, S. (1990). Writing Up Research: Experimental Research Report Writing for Students of English. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
White, R., & Arndt, V. (1991). Process Writing. Harlow: Longman.
Wible, D. (1996). Generative linguistics and wittgenstein problems with rules. 
Journal of Humanities, 8, 125-139.
Wible, D., & Chen, E. (2000). Linguistic limits on metalinguistic negation: Evidence from Mandarin and English. Language and Linguistics, 2, 233-255. 
Wible, D., Kuo, C. H., Chien, F. Y., Liu, A., and Tsao, N. L. (2001). A web-based EFL writing environment: Exploiting information for learners, teachers, and researchers. Computers and Education, 37, 297-315.
Wible, D., Kuo, C. H., Tsao, N. L. and Hung, T. H. (2006). A ubiquitous agent for unrestricted vocabulary learning in noisy digital environments. Paper presented at TALN 2006 Workshop on NLP and CALL, Belgium.
Wible, D., Kuo, C. H., Tsao, N.L, and Lin, H.L. (2003). Bootstrapping in a language learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 90-102. 
Wible, D., Kuo, C. H., Tsao, N. L., Liu, A. (2001). An Online Writing Platform for Language Learners. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 7(3), 278-89. 
Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
Witte, S. P., Daly, J. A., & Cherry, R. D. (1986). Syntactic complexity and writing quality. In D. A. McQuade (Ed.), The territory of language (pp. 150-164). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Witte, S. P., & Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. College Composition and Communication, 32, 189-204. 
Yi-Fan, S., Jian-Ting, L., & Jing-Ru, L. (2000). IWiLL (Intelligent Web-based Interactive Language Learning): Teachers’ manual (Draft version). Taipei: CAN Lab & REAP Lab.
Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 195-209.
Zhour, X. H. (2007). Application of English Cohesion Theory in the Teaching of Writing to Chinese Graduate Students. Journal of US-China Education Review, 4 (7), 31-37.