한국의 대학 신입생의 영어 요약문 작성 능력 분석

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study aimed to investigate characteristics of English summary skills of Korean college freshmen. To achieve this aim, 120 English summary writings were collected from an English diagnostic test for college freshmen. Two texts with different features were used for the test. Text A is a persuasive essay with a problem/solution structure, and Text B is an expository essay with a collective structure. Fifty-three students summarized Text A and the others Text B. For each of the text groups, students were classified into two groups by their summary level. In the analysis of the writings considering the genre of the original text, organization, and adherence to summarization rules, it was found that the learners summarized the persuasive essay better than the expository essay. The high-ability group used various transition words and followed the structure of the original text when they organized their writings. As for summarization rules such as invention, selection, and paraphrasing, Text A group did not show any difference in their creation skill of topic sentence between the high- and low-ability group. On the other hand, the high-ability group that read Text B was better at creating general sentences than the low group. There was not a significant difference between the high- and low-ability groups in their paraphrasing skills, Text A group in general performing better than Text B group. Further suggestions and pedagogical implications are discussed.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 황수정, "한국 고등학생의 영어 텍스트 요약에 영향을 미치는 요인들:사용언어,능숙도,텍스트 구조를 중심으로" 서울대학교 2002
• 2 심지영, "텍스트의 수사구조가 한국인 영어 학습자의 영문 독해에 미치는 영향" 이화여자대학교 1996
• 3 전원대, "텍스트 의미구조 유형에 따른 요약하기 지도 방안" 부산대학교 2010
• 4 김봉순, "설명적 텍스트의 중심내용 분석 원리" 9 : 141-170, 1999
• 5 Hill,M, "Writing summaries promotes thinking and learning across the curriculum-but why are they so difficult to write" 34 (34): 536-539, 1991
• 6 Keck,C, "The use of paraphrase in summary writing:A comparison of L1 and L2 writers" 15 : 261-278, 2006
• 7 Harmer,J, "The practice of English language teaching(4th ed)" Pearson 2007
• 8 Carrell,P, "The effects of rhetorical organization on ESL readers" 18 (18): 441-469, 1984
• 9 Cordero-Ponce,W, "Summarization instruction:Effects on foreign language comprehension and summarization of expository texts" 39 (39): 329-350, 2000
• 10 Winograd,P, "Strategic difficulties in summarizing texts" 19 (19): 404-425, 1984
• 11 Troyka,L, "Simon & Schuster handbook for writers(8th ed)" Pearson 2007
• 12 Hidi S, "Producing written summaries:Task demands,cognitive operations,and implications for instruction" 56 (56): 473-493, 1986
• 13 Myhill,D, "Prior knowledge and the(re)production of school written genres.In Writing in context(s):Textual practices and learning processes in sociocultural settings" Springer 117-136, 2005
• 14 Kirszner,L, "Patterns for college writing:A rhetorical reader and guide(5th ed)" St. Martin’s 1992
• 15 Kirkland,M, "Maximizing student performance in summary writing:managing cognitive load" 25 (25): 105-121, 1991
• 16 Kintsh,E, "Macroprocesses and microprocesses in the development of summarization skill" 7 (7): 161-195, 1990
• 17 Brown,A.L, "Macro rules for summarization texts:The development of expertise" 22 : 1-14, 1983
• 18 Ellis,B, "How to write successfully in high school and college(4th ed)" Barron 2005
• 19 Fahnestock,J, "Genre and rhetorical craft" 27 (27): 265-271, 1993
• 20 Meyer B, "Effects of discourse type on recall" 21 (21): 121-143, 1984
• 21 Graesser,A, "Advanced outlines,familiarity,and text genre on retention of prose" 48 (48): 281-290, 1980