中央财经大学，北京市，100101；
摘要：为解决来华留学研究生在学术写作中普遍存在的句子层面表达瓶颈，本研究旨在检验以“动态评估”为核心的教学干预，对其句子改写能力的提升成效。研究对42名受试者进行了为期三周、结合对话式反馈与同学互评的动态评估教学干预，并采用单一组前后测设计及配对样本t检验进行分析。结果显示，干预后学生的句子改写总分得到了统计上的极度显著提升，且在“内容准确性”“表达连贯性”“语言正确性”与“学术规范性”四个维度上均有显著进步，其中以“学术规范性”与“内容准确性”的进步幅度最为突出。本研究结论表明，动态评估是提升学习者学术句子改写能力的有效路径，其教学设计与实证结果可为高级汉语学术写作的教学实践提供有价值的参考。
关键词：动态评估；句子改写；学术写作；来华留学生
参考文献
[1]钱希, 孟亚茹, & 岳真. (2023). 动态评估融入的混合式教学对学术英语转述能力发展的影响研究. 外语教学, 44(2), 63–68.https://doi.org/10.16362/j.cnki.cn61-1023/h.2023.02.014
[2]Ardelia, I., & Tiyas, Y. R. (2019). THE ACQUISITION OF PARAPHRASING AND ITS IMPACT ON TEACHING AND LEARNING QUOTATIONS TO AVOID PLAGIARISM. English Education Journal, 6. https://ejournal.bbg.ac.id/geej/article/view/873
[3]Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1
[4]Chandler, B. W., & Sayeski, K. L. (2021). Teaching Writing Through Content: Six Instructional Activities to Improve Students’ Sentence-Level Writing Skills. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 56(5), 336-344. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599211050087
[5]Crossley, S. A. (2020). Linguistic features in writing quality and development: An overview. Journal of Writing Research, 11(3), 415-443. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.11.03.01
[6]Crossman, J., & Kite, S. L. (2012). Facilitating improved writing among students through directed peer review. Active Learning in Higher Education, 13(3), 219-229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412452
[7]Daneshfar, S., & Moharami, M. (2018). Dynamic Assessment in Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory: Origins and Main Concepts. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(3), 600-607. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0903.20
[8]Deane, P. (2014). Using writing process and product features to assess writing quality and explore how those features relate to other literacy tasks (ETS Research Report Series, RR-14-03). ETS. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12002
[9]Geng, Z., & Jin, Z. (2024). A review of interlanguage fossilization in English learning. Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, 26, 153-160. https://doi.org/10.54097/z4kvfr08
[10]Harris, J. (2006). Rewriting: How To Do Things With Texts. University Press of Colorado. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt4cgnf2
[11]Ito, T., Kuribayashi, T., Kobayashi, H., Brassard, A., Hagiwara, M., Suzuki, J., & Inui, K. (2020). Assisting authors to convert raw products into polished prose. The Journal of Cognitive Science, 21, 101-137.
[12]Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, S. V. A., Wormuth, D. R., & Hartfiel, V. F. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Newbury House Publishers.
[13]Liu, Q., & Deng, L. (2019). Chinese MA Student Writers’ Identity Construction in Citation Practices. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 42(4), 365-385. DOI:10.1515/CJAL-2019-0022
[14]Rabbianty, E. N., Azizah, S., & Virdyna, N. K. (2023). AI in academic writing: Assessing current usage and future implications. INSANIA: Jurnal Pemikiran Alternatif Kependidikan, 28(1a), 14-35. https://doi.org/10.24090/insania.v28i1a.9278
[15]Rets, I., & Ilya, A. (2018). Eliciting ELT students' understanding of plagiarism in academic writing. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 193-211. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.464115
[16]Reynolds, B. L., & Teng, M. F. (2021). Innovating teacher feedback with writing activities aimed at raising secondary school students’ awareness of collocation errors. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 11(3), 423-444. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2021.11.3.6
[17]Truong, K. D., & Do, N. T. (2021). Selecting complex sentence structures to teach in academic writing: A corpus-based innovation. English Australia Journal, 37(2), 48-53. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1324180.pdf
