Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Introduction
In respond to an increasing need for Chinese EFL (English as a Foreign Language)students to conduct English-medium academic studies，the cultivation of the students'academic writing ability has become a key at the tertiary level of education. As Bruce(2011) espoused, "... an essential part of a student's bid to join an academic orprofessional discourse community is the development of their academic writing ability"(p.118).Although the significance of academic writing competency has been widelydiscussed, Chinese college EFL students' general academic writing performance hasbeen disappointing. Observations made by university instructors suggested that students'sometimes failed to reach an acceptable level of competency concerning their thesiswriting after years of learning in universities. Students tended to ascribe theirinadequacy in academic writing to the insufficient instruction they received in theirclasses. They complained that the English writing classes did not provide them withenough support to become independent and competent academic writers.Educators and researchers have made various attempts were made during the pasttwo decades to explore effective methods for Chinese EFL college students to acquireacademic literacy, especially writing competence. Although different curriculumframeworks have been implemented for the cultivation of the students' academic writingability，it was found that a majority of the pedagogical decisions were made from atheoretical point of view. Very little information was available from the learners'perspective. There was a general lack of research regarding how university studentsconduct their learning and writing in a writing course or program. Hence，this studyprovided an in-depth qualitative account of two Chinese college students' learningprocesses in an innovated writing curriculum aimed at developing students' academicwriting competency.
1.2 Research Background
The current study targeted an academic writing course in the English departmentof a leading foreign studies university. Recently, the writing course underwent a series of transitions. The innovations were part of the department's general efforts incurriculum reconfiguration. The innovation process was in response to the currentheated discussions on the core value of the tertiary-level foreign language education. Itwas argued that foreign language learning and instruction，as a significant component ofhumanistic education, was no longer viewed as skill training. Educators believed thatthis aspect of the university's instruction should also cultivate students' disciplinaryknowledge and critical thinking ability (Jin, 2010; Sun et al., 2011).Responding to this shift in educational psychology, many pedagogical reforms havebeen made by the department. One of the initial attempts regarding the transition ofacademic writing course was to alter the general academic writing curriculum to beempirical-research based and discipline-specific. The primary goal has been determinedto build upon the students' competencies and skills acquired in research-based academicwriting and help them become independent writers of research papers indiscipline-specific areas (Zhang, 2013). Although the innovative curriculum wasproposed and implemented，rather little empirical research was conducted to inform us(researchers and educators) of the students' actual learning experience under the newcurriculum. Hence this study attempted to provide an interpretive qualitativeunderstanding of the students' learning processes in the curriculum.
…….
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1 Three Generations of Activity Theory
Sociocultural Theory (SCT) originated from the Russian scholar Vygotsky，sSociocultural Theory of Mind (Frawley & Lantolf, 1985). It emphasizes a dialectical，inseparable connection between the mind and the social context (Vygotsky，1978). Beingan elastic and comprehensive framework, SCT and its relevant insights have inspirednumerous scholars to explore EFL learning from a socially situated and mediatedperspective. Among the numerous concepts of SCT，the most relevant notion to thecurrent study is Activity Theory. Thus, tiie literature pertaining to this concept and itsapplication to EFL writing has been presented.A review of the literature yielded three distinct generations of Activity Theory.Vygotsky, Leont'ev and Engestrom were the primary authors in the area. They didground-breaking work，research and writing in this aspect. These three individuals ledthe field to determine the parameters and influence of the Activity Theory.
……..
2.2 The Implications of Activity Theory on EFL Writing
From SCT's perspective, writing is viewed “as a mode of social action, not simplya means of communication”（Prior，2008，p. 58). Sociocultrural approach to writing“reject[s] the simple equation of writing with material texts or acts of inscription，seeingwriting as chains of short- and long-term production, representation, reception，anddistribution" (Ibid). Instead, it views writing as a distributed and mediated process. Itrecognizes 'that all writing is collaborative，involving divisions of labor and forms ofcoauthorship" (Ibid).Studies that utilized Activity Theory to explore EFL writing have mushroomed inthe past two decades. For example. Prior (1998) studied writing as a mediated literateactivity whose functional systems "involve co-genesis of persons, practices, artifacts,institutions, and communities" (p.32). Russell (1995，1997a, 1997b) devoted a series ofstudies to the analysis of Activity Theory in writing and its implications for writinginstructions. In his 1995 work, Russell preformed a detailed analysis of the activitysystem of a first-year student's composition course. Afterward, he (1997b) utilizedActivity Theory to evaluate the effectiveness and to investigate the problems in ageneral writing skills instruction program (GWSI). Russell and Yanez (2003) also usedthe Activity Theory to understand the discontentment of students in a Midwesternuniversity who took an Irish history course that involved writing. Their study suggestedthat those who are learning to write may struggle among different goals with differentactivity systems.
……….
Chapter 3 Methodology........ 11
3.1 Context of the study........ 11
3.2 Research Questions........ 14
3.3 Participants ........ 15
3.4 Data Collection........ 16
3.5 Data Transcription........ 17
3.6 Data Analysis ........19
3.7 The Role of the Researcher........ 20
Chapter 4 Initial Data Analysis and Presentation........ 22
4.1 Huan........ 22
4.1.1 Background and Learning Goals........ 22
4.1.2 Learning Processes........ 23
4.2 Yun........ 47
4.2.1 Background and Learning Goals ........47
4.2.2 Learning Processes ........48
Chapter 5 Data Analysis and Discussion........ 70
5.1 Learning Processes Mediated by Motives ........70
5.2 Learning Processes Mediated by Class Activities........72
5.3 Learning Processes Mediated by the Instructor........75
5.4 Learning Processes Mediated by the Utilization of Cases and Examples........ 77
5.5 Learning Processes Mediated by the Introduction of Rules........ 78
Chapter 5 Data Analysis and Discussion
5.1 Learning Processes Mediated by Motives
The initial data analysis in the previous chapter suggested that the participants of thepresent study came to the learning situation with different motives. Huan selected theacademic course in the linguistic discipline because she “liked the instructor". She"benefited greatly" from what she had learned about argumentative writing with thisparticular professor. Thus, she decided to study further with the same instructor. However,Huan did not have a good understanding of the linguistic discipline. She also did not showmuch interest in the area. Whereas, unlike Huan, Yun had no prior learning experience withthis instructor. Yun selected the course because her previous academic experience oflanguage and linguistics intrigued her. She wanted to leam more about the discipline andhoped to grow as an independent researcher in the field of linguistics.Regarding academic writing，both Huan and Yun did not have a clear and concreteunderstanding at the beginning of the semester. They both expressed their desire to leamthe basic skills of academic writing. Nevertheless, Huan and Yun demonstrated differentfoci of learning to write. Huan was more aware of her logic while writing. She believedthat "lack of logic，，in writing greatly influenced her writing performance. Yun believedthat the key issue in academic writing development was “to learn how to analyze andpresent more complicated ideas and more complex topics".
………
Conclusion
The present study adopted the Activity Theory as its theoretical framework both forperceiving the implementation of the curriculum and analyzing the classroom activities. Itfocused on probing into two participant studente' learning processes in a newlytransformed English academic writing class. Based upon the data analysis and discussion,several findings can be summarized as follows:First, the participant students differed in their motives for taking the course and theirparticipation in the learning activities thereby varied in a great deal. They both wanted todevelop the practical skills of English academic writing，but obviously one demonstratedmore interest than the other in the disciplinary knowledge offered by the course. Huan'sinitial reason for selecting the course was her previous learning experience with theinstructor. Huan's practical goal was that she would be able to develop her graduationthesis in the same manner as some of the former students. Huan paid more attention to thelogic of writing because she regarded it as one of her weaknesses in writing. Yun, bycontrast, selected the course because she was intrigued by the linguistic knowledge sheencountered in her previous coursework. She primarily focused on the discipline-specificcontent of her writing. Yun expected to improve her research ability, especially the study oflinguistic issues.#p#分页标题#e#
…………
Reference (omitted)
