# Research on the Application of Blackboard Writing Images in College English Writing Teaching Aided by “POA” Theory

Authors: Haixia Du
Journal: Mathematical Problems in Engineering
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

English is the most widely used language in the world as an official language and the most widely used language in the world as a second language. Writing ability is one of the five basic skills of English learners. Writing a beautiful English article has high requirements on the learners’ thinking, vocabulary, grammar, organization, and appropriateness. Research shows that for most English learners, English writing is the most difficult, and learners generally have problems in writing, such as incoherent expression, poor logic, single structure, and lack of interest. In addition, the domestic English writing teaching mode still has the problem of “ignoring the output and focusing on the input”, which leads to poor teaching effect and the students’ writing level cannot be effectively improved. In response to the above problems, this paper proposes to design a college English writing teaching plan based on the output-oriented approach (POA), focusing on the three core teaching links of driving, facilitating, and evaluating. Analytical research is conducted. Experiments show that the effectiveness of blackboard writing image teaching and English writing teaching under the theory of “production-oriented approach” has been significantly improved.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

English writing is the use of English words, grammar, logic, and other English language factors to create. Because English writing examines students’ comprehensive ability in English learning and language output, English writing is a difficult part of English learning [1]. In traditional English teaching, most teachers’ teaching methods are not flexible enough so that although most students have mastered the skills and methods of English writing, they are still very weak in language output. The writing teaching of English majors in colleges and universities is also faced with such problems, so how to carry out writing teaching has become a difficult and important problem in the teaching work of English teachers. In large numbers, studies have found that even if a learner is in an English language environment, although he is immersed in English every day, he hears and speaks English, his English listening level and oral expression level can indeed improve rapidly, but the improvement of writing ability. But it is still a long and troublesome handle.The “Production-oriented Approach” (POA) theory was proposed by Professor Wen in 2015 in conjunction with Chinese foreign language teaching [2]. The theoretical system mainly includes teaching concepts, teaching assumptions, and teacher-mediated teaching processes. Among them, the teaching concept mainly refers to the three theories of learning-centered theory, learning-use-integration theory, and whole-person education theory, teaching hypotheses include three hypotheses of output-driven, input-driven, and selective learning, and the teaching process consists of three stages of driving, enabling, and evaluating. In the whole process, teachers only need to play an appropriate mediating role [3, 4]. POA theory emphasizes the effective combination of input learning and output application, and the “integration of learning and use” advocated by it overcomes the drawbacks of “separation of learning and use” in traditional English writing teaching practice, and improves the effect of college English writing teaching. In the process of implementing the teaching concept of POA theory, combined with the mind map founded by British scholar Tony Bazin in 1960, it can fully activate the inert knowledge accumulated in students’ minds, and facilitate learners to present their learning content. Using the images, keywords, curves, and other elements of the mind map, the learners handle the information of the large linear text, focus their attention on the core knowledge points, and also deal with the unnecessary information with interference, which not only saves money but also it takes time and promotes the input of effective information. Applying the thinking tool of mind map to college English writing teaching can make students’ thinking clear, focus on the theme of writing, expand divergent thinking under the guidance of teachers, carry out in-depth and infinite imagination, and fully stimulate writing. Therefore, when teaching college English writing, teachers try to combine POA theory with mind mapping, so as to improve the effect of English writing teaching, and try to make the input and output smoothly connect. At present, in the teaching of English writing in colleges and universities, most teachers explain the writing topics and writing requirements, and let students read several relevant model essays, and then students recite the model essays. This kind of teaching method is single and rigid, which restricts students to a certain mode, which leads to the solidification of their thinking, and the things they write seem to be carved out of the same template. In addition, the selected sample essays are often not good enough to increase students’ vocabulary. This teaching method is backward, and these writing methods are very ineffective, so as to change the above problems, the author uses the output-oriented method in English writing teaching in colleges and universities, and designs English writing teaching activities in a targeted manner. These activities have strong applicability. The purpose of doing this is to explore a method that can improve the writing ability of English majors in colleges and universities, through a reasonable evaluation of the teaching effect of this method, and then analyze the possibility of using POA theory in college English writing teaching, and find ways to effectively improve the teaching effect of this method. The method of students’ writing ability finally discusses the impact of output-oriented method on students’ writing ability.


## 2. Research Status of Production-Oriented Method at Home and abroad

Although the POA method is an educational method with Chinese characteristics proposed by Professor Wen, this method fully draws on the famous foreign input hypothesis and output hypothesis theory. So, in a sense, foreign scholars began to study and try the POA teaching method very early. Krashen pointed out that the input hypothesis is of great significance for language learning other than the mother tongue. For writing, an effective input hypothesis can build a good learning environment for learners, which is more conducive to learners’ understanding of languages other than their mother tongue. In-depth understanding, including language structure language habits [5–7]. Two researchers, Bereiter and Scardamalia, established a language writing learning model and verified the effect of the model through teaching practice. They believe that writing is the handle of externalizing the knowledge that students have internalized, so the teaching handle of writing must be scientific input assumptions, and at the same time give students enough output power [8–10]. Through in-depth research, La Pierre found that learners must have sufficient driving force for the learning of foreign languages, otherwise the learning efficiency will be affected, and writing learning must have sufficient understanding of the language, so if the output driving is insufficient, students easily have of difficulties and give up learning [11–13]. Grabe W took college English teachers as the specific research object and analyzed the role transition of teachers from input to output when using the POA teaching method. Teachers should stimulate students’ interest in learning through scientific output and then act as input. Students are taught writing knowledge in the classroom, and the teaching method is further improved through scientific evaluation and feedback [14, 15]. Hyland and K explored and tried the POA method in TCFL teaching. In the handle of teaching practice, he set reading as an elective course for language learning and writing as a compulsory course [16]. Hinkel optimized the teaching method of language writing course under the guidance of POA [17]. Kern took a college English writing course as an example to design a teaching experiment using POA. In the experiment, a control class and an experimental class were set up. The control class still used the traditional teaching method, and the experimental class used the POA teaching method. There is a significant difference in writing. The students in the experimental class are very satisfied with their learning, and their interest in learning has also been greatly improved [18].There are two aspects that need to be emphasized in POA teaching: first, this method is more suitable for foreign language learners with a higher level. For example, using the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages as a reference, the learner’s foreign language proficiency should be at least A2 level. Second, “production” has a different connotation than “output.” “Output” refers not only to the “output” of speaking and writing but also translation (interpretation and translation). Output includes both the handle of output and the result of output. In 2015, the book “New Generation of College English” was published under the theoretical guidance of POA, which was adopted as a teaching book by many colleges and universities. Yang Lifang revised the book many times, and then made a microlecture with the theme of the second unit in the book, introducing the problems that may be encountered in the application of POA theory [19]. After that, Cao took the fourth unit of this book as an example to explore how teachers can maximize the role of scaffolding in the teaching handle, including horizontal and vertical scaffolding [20]. In addition, Zhang also made a teaching test of the output-oriented method based on this theory [21]. Her research shows that output-oriented teaching methods can improve students’ reading level, stimulate students’ enthusiasm for learning English, and then improve their English learning confidence. Shi and Qi used the POA method in the listening and speaking class of English teaching, and studied how to use POA to improve students’ listening and speaking ability [22]. They found that the application of POA not only helps to enhance students’ interest in English learning but also greatly helps to improve their speaking ability. Zhang conducted a teaching practice based on POA in the university classroom. The experiment lasted for three weeks and was a writing training. The practical results show that the emotional experience of students in this handle is very high, and the language output is significantly higher than that of traditional teaching methods, and the output quality is also very good [23]. There are also many applications of POA in high school English teaching. Li made an exploration of the oriented teaching mode, hoping to improve the English reading level and the comprehensive use of English ability of high school students through this method [24, 25]. Through the application of output-driven-oriented theory, Chen designed a practice specifically for high school students, showing that this output-oriented teaching model can effectively improve the reading and writing ability of high school students, especially those with higher English proficiency and strong learning ability. Students with learning intentions have better grades.To sum up, after the POA theory was put forward, foreign scholars also used the theory to carry out teaching practice. The results found that POA teaching has a good effect on learning languages other than mother tongue; especially in writing, POA teaching effect is more significant. When using POA teaching, it is necessary to take students as the center and fully consider the subjectivity of students. At the same time, different input and output methods will also affect the final teaching effect. The application of output-oriented method has been extended to the training of basic skills in English teaching and has produced certain teaching effects. However, the scope is small and the degree is not deep enough. Most of these studies only study whether the output-oriented method improves students’ English writing ability and rarely points out which aspects of English writing ability are improved.


## 3. The Driving Force of English Writing under POA Theory Promoting the Design of Teaching Links

The production-oriented method can be abbreviated as POA according to its English initials. The composition of this theoretical system includes teaching concepts, teaching assumptions and teaching handles, as shown in Figure1. Language output is the most important link in college English writing teaching. In college English writing teaching, most of the teachers in our school use the traditional teaching method, first explaining writing skills in class and then conducting writing sentence training. Although students’ English writing level has been improved to a certain extent, there are still many problems in writing teaching. The independent college where the author teaches sets up reading courses and listening and speaking courses, but there is no special writing course. This kind of course setting separates reading and writing courses, and the lack of input of reading materials makes it difficult to output effectively in writing. In the environment of exam-oriented education, the themes of writing teaching mainly focus on the four styles of narrative essay, argumentative essay, expository essay, and applied essay. Students only recite template essays in preparation for the test, forming a mindset, which leads to students lacking in English writing. The author tries to adopt POA theory and uses mind map for writing teaching to guide students to analyze, integrate, and recreate language, so as to accelerate the internalization and acquisition of foreign language knowledge. This teaching method has certain advantages and can improve students’ foreign language writing ability.Figure 1
Production-oriented method theory system.


### 3.1. Using Mind Maps to Build Corpus

In the driving part, the author selects the third unit Text A in the “New Edition College English Comprehensive Course 1” Public Attitudes Toward Science as the material to introduce topics. The text is an argumentative essay, with the topic of science and technology closely related to students’ lives, which can not only stimulate students’ desire for language production but also stimulate students to think deeply. Output driven under POA theory emphasizes that output can drive students’ desire to learn more than input learning. In the driving teaching link, the teacher first presents the communication scene, introduces the topic of science and technology, and makes the students think about what things in the surrounding environment are related to science and technology. Then, organize the students to discuss for 20 minutes and draw a mind map, let the students put all the information in the tree structure diagram on paper, write technical keywords and phrases on each branch, and summarize the number of occurrences in the students’ minds. When teachers ask Do all inventions always change our lives for the better? Give examples to explain your opinions. Let students use mind maps to list and explain their answers, so as to train students to think divergently. In addition, use mind maps to sort out and analyze the logic and writing techniques of argumentative essays in the original textbooks, explore, and refine the themes and main points of the essays, and present them more intuitively to improve the output effect, as shown in Figure2.Figure 2
Tree-like divergent thinking carding diagram.


### 3.2. Using Mind Maps to Integrate Ideas

Based on the three principles of POA theory, the principle of cluster handling, the principle of contextuality, and the principle of integration of learning and application are to ensure the effectiveness of language project activities. Specifically, language recognition exercises, contextual sentence pattern memory exercises, and graphic output exercises are used to achieve the promotion of writing language projects. (1) Language recognition exercises. Select the high-frequency vocabulary closely related to the writing topic as the target vocabulary, use multiple-choice questions and fill-in-the-blank questions as the practice form, follow the principle of clustering processing, and cluster according to the vocabulary structure and semantics. Ask students to choose appropriate synonyms from the newly learned target vocabulary to replace the underlined vocabulary in the sentence, or ask students to reorganize the sentence, shuffle the given vocabulary, but use the target sentence pattern to identify and analyze words with similar meanings in the sentence. Fill in the appropriate word. (2) Contextual sentence pattern memory practice. By choosing the text corpus closely related to the writing topic, select 5 to 10 different sentences or sentence groups, and let students practice English-Chinese translation. According to the situational principle, students practice and memorize Chinese sentence patterns through re-reading language recognition, improve the sensitivity of key vocabulary sentence patterns through repeated practice, and consciously recall relevant phrases and sentence patterns. (3) Graphical output exercises. Students describe relevant pictures using the vocabulary, phrases, and sentence patterns they have learned. According to the principle of integrating learning and application, students carry out in-depth processing of new language items, extract the language they have learned, and apply creatively. When teachers guide students to learn writing vocabulary, phrases, and sentence patterns, they can practice while reading so that the learning is easy to remember and achieve the purpose of output. In the process of writing, teachers should conduct dynamic evaluation in a timely manner, find problems, and remedy them in time.


## 3.1. Using Mind Maps to Build Corpus

In the driving part, the author selects the third unit Text A in the “New Edition College English Comprehensive Course 1” Public Attitudes Toward Science as the material to introduce topics. The text is an argumentative essay, with the topic of science and technology closely related to students’ lives, which can not only stimulate students’ desire for language production but also stimulate students to think deeply. Output driven under POA theory emphasizes that output can drive students’ desire to learn more than input learning. In the driving teaching link, the teacher first presents the communication scene, introduces the topic of science and technology, and makes the students think about what things in the surrounding environment are related to science and technology. Then, organize the students to discuss for 20 minutes and draw a mind map, let the students put all the information in the tree structure diagram on paper, write technical keywords and phrases on each branch, and summarize the number of occurrences in the students’ minds. When teachers ask Do all inventions always change our lives for the better? Give examples to explain your opinions. Let students use mind maps to list and explain their answers, so as to train students to think divergently. In addition, use mind maps to sort out and analyze the logic and writing techniques of argumentative essays in the original textbooks, explore, and refine the themes and main points of the essays, and present them more intuitively to improve the output effect, as shown in Figure2.Figure 2
Tree-like divergent thinking carding diagram.


## 3.2. Using Mind Maps to Integrate Ideas

Based on the three principles of POA theory, the principle of cluster handling, the principle of contextuality, and the principle of integration of learning and application are to ensure the effectiveness of language project activities. Specifically, language recognition exercises, contextual sentence pattern memory exercises, and graphic output exercises are used to achieve the promotion of writing language projects. (1) Language recognition exercises. Select the high-frequency vocabulary closely related to the writing topic as the target vocabulary, use multiple-choice questions and fill-in-the-blank questions as the practice form, follow the principle of clustering processing, and cluster according to the vocabulary structure and semantics. Ask students to choose appropriate synonyms from the newly learned target vocabulary to replace the underlined vocabulary in the sentence, or ask students to reorganize the sentence, shuffle the given vocabulary, but use the target sentence pattern to identify and analyze words with similar meanings in the sentence. Fill in the appropriate word. (2) Contextual sentence pattern memory practice. By choosing the text corpus closely related to the writing topic, select 5 to 10 different sentences or sentence groups, and let students practice English-Chinese translation. According to the situational principle, students practice and memorize Chinese sentence patterns through re-reading language recognition, improve the sensitivity of key vocabulary sentence patterns through repeated practice, and consciously recall relevant phrases and sentence patterns. (3) Graphical output exercises. Students describe relevant pictures using the vocabulary, phrases, and sentence patterns they have learned. According to the principle of integrating learning and application, students carry out in-depth processing of new language items, extract the language they have learned, and apply creatively. When teachers guide students to learn writing vocabulary, phrases, and sentence patterns, they can practice while reading so that the learning is easy to remember and achieve the purpose of output. In the process of writing, teachers should conduct dynamic evaluation in a timely manner, find problems, and remedy them in time.


## 4. Analysis of Production-Oriented Approach Writing Teaching Research

This paper combines the teaching process in the “production-oriented approach” theory and the actual situation of English writing teaching classroom to try to design a new writing teaching process. The author refers to this as the “One Three Two N″ teaching process. Among them, “one” refers to one drive: teachers make selective input to set goals; “three” refers to the three promotions of viewpoint promotion, language promotion, and structure promotion; “two” refers to the two evaluation modes of teacher-student mutual evaluation and student-student mutual evaluation. “N” means the drive contributes to the evaluation of N cycles. This study takes Unit4 “The Man in the Water” as an example to demonstrate the design process of teaching activities guided by POA. In the article of this unit, the author not only recounts the good people and deeds in the accident but also expresses his feelings and admiration for the kindness of human nature. The deep-rooted thought that “at the beginning of man, nature is good” has existed in our minds for thousands of years, but people are always accustomed to idealization, and not all things are good or bad. At the end, the author highlights and strengthens the theme of the article: when man competes with nature, although nature is ruthless; but man is sentient, and the kindness of human nature is invincible in the face of cruel nature. The most common essays in writing are narrative and argumentative essays. A subject like this article is again the preference of the author. What does teaching teach? What do you want students to learn? Correct outlook on life, values, and ethics. The topic of this article can stimulate students to “see” the good people and good deeds around them with their hearts in today’s indifference of the whole people, reflecting the concept of “learning and using as one.”


### 4.1. Analysis of Differences in English Writing Level before Experiment

The research objects selected in this study are two classes of first-year English majors in a normal university. The first class of 42 people is the control class, and the second class of 40 people is the experimental class. Before the experiment, so as to determine the English level of the students, the author conducted a test on the students of two classes. Before the experiment, the control class and the experimental class conduct an English composition test to compare the students of the two classes. Because the test questions used in the experiment are the real questions of the CET-4 for English majors, the scoring standard is based on the CET-4 for English majors. This study adopts the method of overall scoring (15 points) and subitem scoring. The subitem scoring is scored from five dimensions: organizational structure, ideological content, grammar, word usage, and appropriateness. Each score is 50 points and 10 points, respectively, 20 points, 15 points, and 5 points, these five items are written out of 100 points. In order to test whether there is a difference in the writing level of the first two classes in the experiment, this study used SPSS statistical software to conduct an independent samplet-test on the pretest composition scores and suscores. The results are as follows:According to Table1, 40 people in the experimental class and 42 people in the control class have all participated in the pretest composition test. The p value was 0.832 > 0.05, and there was no significant difference in the writing scores between the two classes before the experiment.Table 1
Independent samplet-test results for the overall score of the pretest composition in the control class and the experimental class.
ClassNumber of casesMeanStandard deviationT valueP valueControl class428.292.540−0.2120.832Experimental class408.402.318−0.0010.001According to Table2, the mean values of the writing subitems of the control class are 25.31 points for ideological content, 5.64 points for organizational structure, 11.07 points for grammar, 8.24 points for vocabulary, and 3.14 points for decency. The average values of the five dimensions of the pretest writing subitems of the experimental class are 26.43 points for ideological content, 5.90 points for organizational structure, 11.18 points for grammar, 8.30 points for vocabulary, and 3.40 points for appropriateness. The difference between word usage and appropriateness is 1.12, 0.26, 0.11, 0.06, and 0.26, respectively, and the subitem means have little difference. The independent sample T-test results show that the P values are all greater than 0.05. There was no significant difference in the scores of the students in the two classes on the composition test.Table 2
Independent samplet-test results of pretest writing in control class and experimental class.
ClassNumber of casesMeanStandard deviationT valueP valueClassThought contentControl class4225.319.035-0.5890.557Experimental class4026.438.051-0.0010.001OrganizationControl class425.641.819-0.6850.496Experimental class405.901.566-0.0010.001GrammarControl class4211.073.523-0.1390.890Experimental class4011.183.210-0.0010.001VocabularyControl class428.242.801-0.1070.915Experimental class408.302.409-0.0010.001AppropriatenessControl class423.14952-0.8840.379Experimental class403.401.614-0.0010.001


### 4.2. Analysis of Differences in English Writing Level of Postexperiment Test

After one semester of output-oriented teaching in the experimental class, two classes were given a composition test in the 16th week of teaching. Total grades and subscores are still used. Using SPSS statistical software, independent samplet test was performed on the post-test composition scores of the control class and the experimental class.According to Table3, the mean scores of the post-test composition scores of 42 people in the control class and 40 people in the experimental class were 8.05 and 10.00, respectively. We can find that compared with the pretest composition score, the post-test composition score of the control class decreased by 0.24 points, and the post-test composition score of the experimental class increased by 1.6 points, indicating that the output-oriented teaching modus has improved students’ composition scores. The post-test composition score of the experimental class using the output-oriented modus was 1.95 points higher than the post-test composition score of the control class. According to the independent sample t test results, the P value is 0.000 < 0.05, indicating that there is a significant difference in the post-test composition scores between the control class and the experimental class. After one semester of output-oriented teaching method, the composition scores of the experimental class have been significantly improved.Table 3
Independent samplet-test results for the overall score of the post-test composition in the control class and the experimental class.
ClassNumber of casesMeanStandard deviationT valueP valueControl class428.052.152−4.4190.001Experimental class4010.011.826−0.0010.001According to Table4, the average of the writing subitem of the control class is 24.98 points for ideological content, 5.62 points for organizational structure, 10.69 points for grammar, 8 points for vocabulary, and 3.05 points for decency. The mean values of the writing subitems of the experimental class were 31.83 points for ideological content, 6.93 points for organizational structure, 13.08 points for grammar, 9.98 points for vocabulary, and 3.73 points for decency. The experimental class is higher than the control class in terms of writing ideological content, organizational structure, grammar, vocabulary, and decent average. The differences are 6.85 points, 1.31 points, 2.59 points, 1.98 points, and 0.68 points, respectively. Compared with the composition subitems of the pretest, the data of each dimension of the experimental class have been improved. These data show that through one semester of output-oriented teaching modus, the average score of the writing subitem of the experimental class has improved. Therefore, the above data can show that the use of output-oriented teaching modus not only has a significant improvement in students’ overall composition scores but also has a significant impact on students’ composition scores in all dimensions. This shows that the output-oriented teaching method is a comprehensive and effective teaching method for students’ writing ideological content, overall organizational structure, grammar, vocabulary, and appropriateness.Table 4
Independent samplet-test results of the post-test writing in the control class and the experimental class.
ClassNumber of casesMeanStandard deviationT valueP valueClassThought contentControl class4224.987.419−4.3150.001Experimental class4031.836.928−0.0010.001OrganizationControl class425.621.396−4.4580.001Experimental class406.931.248−0.0010.001GrammarControl class4210.693.064−3.8170.001Experimental class4013.082.556−0.0010.001VocabularyControl class428.002.209−4.5640.001Experimental class409.981.656−0.0010.001AppropriatenessControl class423.050.764−4.2380.001Experimental class403.730.679−0.0010.001


## 4.1. Analysis of Differences in English Writing Level before Experiment

The research objects selected in this study are two classes of first-year English majors in a normal university. The first class of 42 people is the control class, and the second class of 40 people is the experimental class. Before the experiment, so as to determine the English level of the students, the author conducted a test on the students of two classes. Before the experiment, the control class and the experimental class conduct an English composition test to compare the students of the two classes. Because the test questions used in the experiment are the real questions of the CET-4 for English majors, the scoring standard is based on the CET-4 for English majors. This study adopts the method of overall scoring (15 points) and subitem scoring. The subitem scoring is scored from five dimensions: organizational structure, ideological content, grammar, word usage, and appropriateness. Each score is 50 points and 10 points, respectively, 20 points, 15 points, and 5 points, these five items are written out of 100 points. In order to test whether there is a difference in the writing level of the first two classes in the experiment, this study used SPSS statistical software to conduct an independent samplet-test on the pretest composition scores and suscores. The results are as follows:According to Table1, 40 people in the experimental class and 42 people in the control class have all participated in the pretest composition test. The p value was 0.832 > 0.05, and there was no significant difference in the writing scores between the two classes before the experiment.Table 1
Independent samplet-test results for the overall score of the pretest composition in the control class and the experimental class.
ClassNumber of casesMeanStandard deviationT valueP valueControl class428.292.540−0.2120.832Experimental class408.402.318−0.0010.001According to Table2, the mean values of the writing subitems of the control class are 25.31 points for ideological content, 5.64 points for organizational structure, 11.07 points for grammar, 8.24 points for vocabulary, and 3.14 points for decency. The average values of the five dimensions of the pretest writing subitems of the experimental class are 26.43 points for ideological content, 5.90 points for organizational structure, 11.18 points for grammar, 8.30 points for vocabulary, and 3.40 points for appropriateness. The difference between word usage and appropriateness is 1.12, 0.26, 0.11, 0.06, and 0.26, respectively, and the subitem means have little difference. The independent sample T-test results show that the P values are all greater than 0.05. There was no significant difference in the scores of the students in the two classes on the composition test.Table 2
Independent samplet-test results of pretest writing in control class and experimental class.
ClassNumber of casesMeanStandard deviationT valueP valueClassThought contentControl class4225.319.035-0.5890.557Experimental class4026.438.051-0.0010.001OrganizationControl class425.641.819-0.6850.496Experimental class405.901.566-0.0010.001GrammarControl class4211.073.523-0.1390.890Experimental class4011.183.210-0.0010.001VocabularyControl class428.242.801-0.1070.915Experimental class408.302.409-0.0010.001AppropriatenessControl class423.14952-0.8840.379Experimental class403.401.614-0.0010.001


## 4.2. Analysis of Differences in English Writing Level of Postexperiment Test

After one semester of output-oriented teaching in the experimental class, two classes were given a composition test in the 16th week of teaching. Total grades and subscores are still used. Using SPSS statistical software, independent samplet test was performed on the post-test composition scores of the control class and the experimental class.According to Table3, the mean scores of the post-test composition scores of 42 people in the control class and 40 people in the experimental class were 8.05 and 10.00, respectively. We can find that compared with the pretest composition score, the post-test composition score of the control class decreased by 0.24 points, and the post-test composition score of the experimental class increased by 1.6 points, indicating that the output-oriented teaching modus has improved students’ composition scores. The post-test composition score of the experimental class using the output-oriented modus was 1.95 points higher than the post-test composition score of the control class. According to the independent sample t test results, the P value is 0.000 < 0.05, indicating that there is a significant difference in the post-test composition scores between the control class and the experimental class. After one semester of output-oriented teaching method, the composition scores of the experimental class have been significantly improved.Table 3
Independent samplet-test results for the overall score of the post-test composition in the control class and the experimental class.
ClassNumber of casesMeanStandard deviationT valueP valueControl class428.052.152−4.4190.001Experimental class4010.011.826−0.0010.001According to Table4, the average of the writing subitem of the control class is 24.98 points for ideological content, 5.62 points for organizational structure, 10.69 points for grammar, 8 points for vocabulary, and 3.05 points for decency. The mean values of the writing subitems of the experimental class were 31.83 points for ideological content, 6.93 points for organizational structure, 13.08 points for grammar, 9.98 points for vocabulary, and 3.73 points for decency. The experimental class is higher than the control class in terms of writing ideological content, organizational structure, grammar, vocabulary, and decent average. The differences are 6.85 points, 1.31 points, 2.59 points, 1.98 points, and 0.68 points, respectively. Compared with the composition subitems of the pretest, the data of each dimension of the experimental class have been improved. These data show that through one semester of output-oriented teaching modus, the average score of the writing subitem of the experimental class has improved. Therefore, the above data can show that the use of output-oriented teaching modus not only has a significant improvement in students’ overall composition scores but also has a significant impact on students’ composition scores in all dimensions. This shows that the output-oriented teaching method is a comprehensive and effective teaching method for students’ writing ideological content, overall organizational structure, grammar, vocabulary, and appropriateness.Table 4
Independent samplet-test results of the post-test writing in the control class and the experimental class.
ClassNumber of casesMeanStandard deviationT valueP valueClassThought contentControl class4224.987.419−4.3150.001Experimental class4031.836.928−0.0010.001OrganizationControl class425.621.396−4.4580.001Experimental class406.931.248−0.0010.001GrammarControl class4210.693.064−3.8170.001Experimental class4013.082.556−0.0010.001VocabularyControl class428.002.209−4.5640.001Experimental class409.981.656−0.0010.001AppropriatenessControl class423.050.764−4.2380.001Experimental class403.730.679−0.0010.001


## 5. Conclusion and Outlook

The writing teaching of English majors in colleges and universities based on POA can effectively improve the English writing ability of English majors. Judging from the change of students’ writing scores before and after the test, the average score of the post-test composition in the experimental class taught by the output-oriented modus is 1.60 points higher than the average score of the pretest composition. Score: from the comparison between the experimental class and the control class, the post-test composition score of the experimental class is 1.95 points higher than that of the control class. The experimental results show that the output-oriented teaching method can significantly improve the English majors’ writing scores and improve their writing level.


## 6. Summary

(1)
The production-oriented approach teaching can improve the writing level of English majors, and the POA-based college English majors writing teaching can effectively improve the English writing ability of English majors. Judging from the change of students’ writing scores before and after the test, the average score of the post-test composition score in the experimental class taught by the output-oriented modus was 1.60 points higher than the average score of the pretest composition score; from the comparison of the experimental class and the control class, the post-test composition score of the experimental class is 1.95 points higher than the post-test composition score of the control class. The experimental results show that the output-oriented teaching modus can significantly improve the English majors’ writing scores and can improve their writing level.(2)
The production-oriented approach has had a positive impact on the ideological content, organizational structure, and language in students’ writing. Judging from the experimental results after the implementation of the new model, through the statistics and analysis of the ideological content, organizational structure, and language in the writing ability, it is found that in terms of ideological content, it can be seen from the composition of the students’ pre-experimental test that the major Some students’ views are generally clear, but some students have inconsistent points, and some students have views but no examples, or examples but no views, or examples are not convincing, so they cannot clearly explain their views. In the post-test composition, most of the students can express their views clearly, without contradictions, and have sufficient and appropriate examples to illustrate their views. It can be seen from the results that the average score of ideological content of the students in the experimental class before and after the experiment improved the most by 5.40 points.


### 6.1. Prospect

Although the research has achieved certain results, there are still many problems that need to be improved. The research prospects are as follows:(1)
This research enriches the data results of the output-oriented modus research; the experimental results show that this teaching method can indeed improve the English composition level of English majors, but there are still many problems in this regard. Research. The study, which took more than three months, was not long enough to fully investigate a new teaching model. In addition, the cultivation of students’ writing ability takes a long time, and later research needs to be further expanded to enhance the persuasiveness of the results.(2)
In the traditional English teaching in colleges and universities, teachers are always the mainstay. Now, under the influence of new teaching ideas, this phenomenon has changed a lot. The focus of teaching begins to shift to students, which can stimulate students’ learning initiative and initiative. But POA’s philosophy suggests that if you blindly accommodate students, education deviates from its essence. But how to make learning as the center, many teachers are puzzled. In POA’s teaching activities, teachers play different roles in different links, but their most important role is to lead and support.


## 6.1. Prospect

Although the research has achieved certain results, there are still many problems that need to be improved. The research prospects are as follows:(1)
This research enriches the data results of the output-oriented modus research; the experimental results show that this teaching method can indeed improve the English composition level of English majors, but there are still many problems in this regard. Research. The study, which took more than three months, was not long enough to fully investigate a new teaching model. In addition, the cultivation of students’ writing ability takes a long time, and later research needs to be further expanded to enhance the persuasiveness of the results.(2)
In the traditional English teaching in colleges and universities, teachers are always the mainstay. Now, under the influence of new teaching ideas, this phenomenon has changed a lot. The focus of teaching begins to shift to students, which can stimulate students’ learning initiative and initiative. But POA’s philosophy suggests that if you blindly accommodate students, education deviates from its essence. But how to make learning as the center, many teachers are puzzled. In POA’s teaching activities, teachers play different roles in different links, but their most important role is to lead and support.



---

*Source: 6829622-2022-08-26.xml*