Yang and Zhang 2010_图文.doc

Yang and Zhang 2010_图文 导读：就爱阅读网友为您分享以下“Yang and Zhang 2010_图文”的资讯，希望对您有所帮助，感谢您对92的支持! 480 Language Teaching Research 14(4)differences at the macro level such as organization or development of ideas. And 25% of reformulations (17 out of 68) were unnoticed and the model text was not fully analysed beyond the lexical level at Stage 2. Some errors (i.e. 6 punctuations, 4 sentence struc-tures, 2 words, 1 verb tense) made at the pretest were repeated at the posttest. This sug-gests the importance of the teacher?s intervention in the comparison stage such as having a whole-class discussion of reformulated texts and model texts to help students learn proper language usage. As Allwright et al. (1988) suggested, the class discussion might be more influential than the language model itself in raising students? awareness of their language holes and influencing their subsequent revisions. Based on the above findings, we derive several implications for L2 writing pedagogy. We support that reformulation is a valid pedagogical tool (Cohen, 1982, 1983; Thorn-bury, 1997; Qi amp; Lapkin, 2001), but we also propose that a model text could also be an important teaching tool. A reformulated version may provide students with a sample of native writing on that particular sentence, but the model text can offer students with a ?good? sample of native writing for not just the specific sentence but the whole discourse as well (Allwright et al, 1988). Especially, in a real foreign language classroom, it is so time-consuming, if not impossible, for a language teacher to reformulate every single composition of every student in a given class. It is even unrealistic for each student to find a native speaker to reformulate his or her writing, especially in EFL contexts. Offer-ing a model text, in addition to selecting one or two student writings for reformulation, might be more practical for the class to identify the native-like