英语写作在高中英语学习中有着重要地位，它需要学生综合应用所学的英语知识，是学生语言能力、逻辑组织能力、思辨能力与创造能力等英语能力与素养的体现。然而，当下的英语写作教学存在碎片化、浅层化、机械化等现象，无法促进学生深度学习的发生，也无法帮助学生获得适应信息化时代所需的能力与素养。为此，有学者主张在英语写作教学中实施英语学习活动观有利于促进深度学习的发生。而在目前的相关研究中，相较于阅读、听说与词汇等，基于英语学习活动观的写作教学的实证研究较少，且这种模式的教学与深度学习的影响研究也非常有限。因此，本研究旨在探讨以下三个问题：在高中英语写作学习过程中，当代高中生的深度学习现状如何？基于英语学习活动观的高中英语写作教学应该如何设计？基于英语学习活动观的高中英语写作教学如何影响高中生的深度学习？

为回答上述问题,笔者采用准实验研究的方法,在A市某高中高一年级进行了为期三个月的实验。其中，实验A班由笔者亲自授课，在英语学习活动观指导下进行写作教学，而对照B班的写作课则是由该班教师采用其原来的授课方法进行教学，且这种教学方法有别于英语学习活动观。在实验开始前和实验结束后，笔者通过试卷测试、量表测量与访谈的方式收集了学生的写作水平、学习投入水平和深度学习能力水平的相关数据，以检验基于英语学习活动观的英语写作教学对高中生深度学习的影响。

在整理分析数据的基础上，本研究得出以下结论：（1）基于对前测数据的分析可以总结出在英语写作学习过程中，当代高中生的深度学习现状，具体如下：总体上，在英语写作学习过程中，高中生的深度学习水平偏低。在写作表现上，高中生在作文的结构、内容和语言表达上容易出现错误，如结构不完整或分段不合理，内容不正确或不完整，语言表达匮乏和语法问题频出等；在学习投入上，高中生的认知和情感投入水平偏低，没有意识到写作的重要性，对写作不感兴趣，没有形成良好的写作态度和习惯，学习的自主性较低，语言基础不牢固；在深度学习能力上，高中生合作意识不足，小组活动参与度低，不善于沟通和表达，且自主学习能力较低。（2）在教学实施上，经过对后测数据与学生访谈结果的分析，笔者发现基于英语学习活动观的写作教学实施效果良好，改变了学生对写作教学的看法，一定程度上激发了学生的写作兴趣和积极性，提高了学生的课堂参与度，培养了学生思考和反思的写作习惯等；（3）基于对后测数据的分析，笔者发现基于英语学习活动观的写作教学对于提高学生的英语写作水平、学习投入水平与深度学习能力均有明显的促进作用。因此，笔者认为基于英语学习活动观的写作教学总体上可以促进学生的深度学习，改善浅层学习的现状。

English writing plays an important role in the English learning of high school, as students are required to comprehensively employ what they have learned for writing. English writing is a reflection of students' English proficiency and literacy, including language ability, logical ability, critical thinking ability, and creative ability. However, the current English writing teaching is fragmented, shallow, and mechanized, failing to promote the occurrence of deep learning for students which can help them acquire the abilities and qualities required for adapting to the information age. Therefore, the activity-based approach to English learning is advocated for promoting the occurrence of deep learning in English learning. At present, compared to reading, listening and speaking, and vocabulary learning, empirical research on adopting the activity-based approach to English learning in writing is relatively limited, and research on the impact of such learning model on deep learning is also very limited. Therefore, this research aims to explore the following three questions: How is the deep learning among high school students during their learning of English writing currently? How to effectively design English writing courses with the activity-based approach to English learning? What is the impact of such writing courses on the deep learning of high school students?

To answer the above questions, a three-month quasi-experimental research was designed and conducted in Grade 1 of a high school in City A. Specifically, Class A, the experimental group, received an English writing courses that were designed by the author who employed the activity-based approach to English learning. However, Class B, the control group, had writing courses provided by its original teacher who used his usual teaching methods different form the activity-based approach to English learning. In this research, writing testing, scale measurements, and interviews were employed to collect data on students' writing level, learning engagement level, and deep learning ability. Two rounds of tests before and after the research were conducted.

The experimental results show that: (1) The pre-test data indicated that during their learning of English writing, the deep learning of high school students was at a relatively low level. Specifically, in the writing test, students were prone to errors in the structure, content, and language expression, such as incomplete or improper structure or paragraphing, incorrect or incomplete content, improper language expression, and frequent grammar mistakes; in terms of learning engagement, students had a low level of cognitive and emotional engagement in writing learning. For example, they failed to realize the importance of writing and form good writing habits and attitudes, and had little interest and autonomy in writing learning, which led to weak language foundation; in terms of deep learning ability, students were not good at deep learning. For example, they lacked a sense of cooperation, and they were unwilling to participate in group activities, and not good at communication, expression and self-learning. (2) The testing and interview data showed that the activity-based approach to English learning had a positive impact on students’ writing learning. Specifically, it could change students' attitudes towards writing learning, to some extent arouse their interest in writing learning, enhance their classroom participation, and cultivate their writing habits of thinking and reflection; (3) The post-test data suggested that the activity-based approach to English learning significantly improved students' writing, learning engagement level, and deep learning ability. Therefore, to some up, the activity-based approach to English learning can overall promote the occurrence of deep learning of high students.

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., & Samuel, B. (2000). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives longman, New York 2001. European Legacy, 114(458), 1013-1014.

Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 427-445.

Barsalou, H. L. W. (1995). Explanation content and construction during system learning and troubleshooting. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(4), 385-436.

Betty Lou Leaver & Jane R. Willis (Eds.). (2004). Task-Based Instruction in Foreign Language Education. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Biazak, J. E., Marley, S. C., & Levin, J. R. (2010). Does an activity-based learning strategy improve preschool children's memory for narrative passages?. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(4), 515-526.

Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Research monograph.. Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd. Radford House, Frederick St. Hawthorn 3122, Australia.

Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Origin and description of the solo taxonomy. Evaluating the Quality of Learning, 17-31.

Biggs, J.. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education, 8(4), 381-394.

Biggs, J.. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university : what the student does. McGraw-Hill/Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Bransford, J., Brown A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washing-ton, DC: National Academy Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Harvard Univer. Press.

Conley, D.T., Darling-Hammond, L., & Adamson, F. (2015). Building Systems of Assessment for Deeper Learning.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Macmillan Publishing.

Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. New York: Croom Helm.

Eric Jensen, & LeAnn Nickelsen. (2008). Deeper learning: 7 powerful strategies for in-depth and longer-lasting learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Fredricks, J. A. (2014). Eight myths of student disengagement: creating classrooms of deep learning. Corwin Press.

Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014) A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. London: Pearson

Haq, Z. U., Khurram, B. A., & Bangash, A. K. (2017). Development of speaking skills through activity based learning at the elementary level. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER), 17(69), 241-252.

Houghton, W. (2004). Engineering subject centre guide: Learning and teaching theory for engineering academics. Leicestershire: Loughborough University.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau. (2003). Emile, or, On education. Prometheus Books.

Leontyev, Aleksei. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall.

Loyens, S. M. M., Gijbels, D., Coertjens, L., & Cité, Daniel J. (2013). Students' approaches to learning in problem-based learning: Taking into account professional behavior in the tutorial groups, self-study time, and different assessment aspects. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(1), 23-32.

Marton, F., & Booth, S. A. (1997). Learning and Awareness. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I-Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1): 4-11.

Mert, E. L. (2013). The effect of activity based lexis teaching on vocabulary development process. Educational research & reviews, 8, 822-831.

National Survey of Student Engagement. (2000). The NSSE 2000 report: National benchmarks of effective educational practice. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.

Pellegrino, James W., Ed. (2013). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. New York: National Academies Press.

Pestalozzi, J. H., & Cooke, E. (1915). How Gertrude teaches her children: An attempt to help mothers to teach their own children and an account of the method. G.allen & Unwin Ltd. Syracuse N.y.c.w.bardeen.

Piaget, J. (1955). The language and thought of the child. New York: Meridian Books.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & Mckeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (mslq). Educational & Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801-813.

Rickles, J., Zeiser, K. L., Yang, R., O'Day, J., & Garet, M. S. (2019). Promoting deeper learning in high school: Evidence of opportunities and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(2), 214-234.

Salmerón, L., Naumann, J., García, V., & Fajardo, I. (2017).zai Scanning and deep processing of information in hypertext: an eye tracking and cued retrospective think-aloud study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33, 222–233.

Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765-781.

Turner, M., & Baskerville, R. (2013). The experience of deep learning by accounting students. Accounting education, 22(6), 582-604.

Vos, N., Meijden, H. V. D., & Denessen, E. (2011). Effects of constructing versus playing an educational game on student motivation and deep learning strategy use. Computers & Education, 56(1), 127-137.

Warburton, K. (2003). Deep learning and education for sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 4(1), 44–56.

William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. (2013) Deeper learning defined. Retrived April 23, 2013, from http://www.hewlett.org/strategy/deeper-learning/.

Zubaak Haq. (2019). Development of reading skill through activity based learning at grade-vi in khyber pakhtunkhwa. Bulletin of Education and Research, 41.

安富海. (2014). 促进深度学习的课堂教学策略研究. 课程.教材.教法, 34(11), 57-62.

毕少琴, 曾燕文. (2022). 指向深度学习的高中英语听说教学设计策略. 中小学外语教学(中学篇), 45(03), 38-43.

卜彩丽. (2018). 深度学习视域下翻转课堂教学理论与实践研究. (博士学位论文). 陕西师范大学.

常玉梅. (2019). 高中英语写作教学智能化探索. 教育理论与实践, 39(20), 51-53.

陈世克. (2019). 基于英语学习活动观的高中英语阅读教学实践. 基础教育课程(14), 50-56.

陈新忠. (2019). 英语学习活动观解析及实践案例分析. 福建教育(36), 47-49.

崔藏金, 周密. (2023). 学习活动观指导下的高中英语写作教学策略探究. 黑龙江教师发展学院学报, 42(05), 110-113.

高洪德. (2018). 英语学习活动观的理念与实践探讨. 中小学外语教学(中学篇), 41(04), 1-6.

葛炳芳, 印佳欢. (2020). 英语学习活动观的阅读课堂教学实践. 课程.教材.教法, 40(06), 102-108.

郭华. (2016). 深度学习及其意义. 课程.教材.教法, 36(11), 25-32.

郭亦荣. (2018). 深度学习的本质、困境及策略. 教学与管理(34), 1-4.

郭元祥. (2015). 课堂教学改革的基础与方向──兼论深度教学. 教育研究与实验(06), 1-6.

韩金龙, 秦秀白. (2000). 体裁分析与体裁教学法. 外语界(01), 11-18.

何玲, 黎加厚. (2005). 促进学生深度学习. 现代教学(05), 29-30.

金雨诸. (2023). 英语学习活动观视角下的一堂初中英语听说课的反思与改进. 英语教师(03), 110-115.

康淑敏. (2010). 外语教育中的文化意识培养. 教育研究, 31(08),85-89.

李金红. (2006). 国外主流写作理论对我国外语写作教学的启示. 国外外语教学(02), 41-46.

李松林, 贺慧, 张燕. (2018). 深度学习究竟是什么样的学习. 教育科学研究(10), 54-58.

李涛涛, 田建荣. (2021). 英语学习活动观实施的困境与超越. 课程.教材.教法, 41(05), 96-102.

梁文花, 康淑敏.(2010). “体裁教学法”在英语写作教学中的实践研究. 课程.教材.教法, 30(09), 74-79.

梁文花. (2009). 澳大利亚学派“体裁教学法”的发展及应用研究. 山东外语教学, 30(06), 58-62.

刘小梅, 唐利平. (2013). 内容教学法及其在英语写作教学中的应用. 科技信息(18), 184+186.

刘哲雨, 郝晓鑫. (2017). 深度学习的评价模式研究. 现代教育技术, 27(04), 12-18.

龙芸. (2018). 基于六要素整合的高中英语读后续写教学探究. 英语教师, 18(09), 78-83.

罗明礼. (2008). 国外外语写作教学法之回顾. 国外理论动态(11), 96-99.

骆爱凤. (2006). 任务语言教学法应用于英语写作教学的实证研究. 职业时空(21), 55-56.

梅德明, 王蔷. (2018) 改什么?如何教?怎样考?:高中英语新课标解析. 北京: 外语教学与研究出版社.

梅德明. (2021). 致力于培养具有中国情怀、国际视野和跨文化沟通能力的时代新人. 英语学习(03), 60-65.

潘瑶珍. (2009). 迈向深度学习: 基于核心概念的综合实践活动课程单元. 全球教育展望, 38(05), 15-18+24.

邵珺. (2023). 学习活动观在小学英语语法教学实施中的困境与对策. 小学教学设计(Z3), 96-98.

沈小丹. (2022). 基于英语学习活动观的高中英语语法作业设计——以定语从句为例. 福建基础教育研究(10), 71-73.

苏航, 杨磊. (2001). 结果教学法与过程教学法——谈英语写作教学改革. 北京第二外国语学院学报(02), 98-102.

苏佩玲. (2022). 基于英语学习活动观的初中英语听说课研究——以Unit 1 I always like birthday parties为例. 英语教师, 22(14), 113-118.

孙晓慧, 李阳, 车向军. (2019). 深度学习理念下的初中英语阅读教学探究. 基础外语教育, 21(06), 89-93+111.

田慧生. (1998). 关于活动教学几个理论问题的认识. 教育研究(04), 46-53.

王初明, 牛瑞英, 郑小湘. (2000). 以写促学——一项英语写作教学改革的试验. 外语教学与研究(03), 207-212+240.

王初明. (2012). 读后续写——提高外语学习效率的一种有效方法. 外语界(05), 2-7.

王春晖. (2019). 英语学习活动观的认识与实践. 基础外语教育, 21(05), 32-38+106-107.

王军起, 章策文. (2019). 以写促读的探究式课堂: 主题语境下的深度学习. 基础教育课程(14), 44-49.

王鹂. (2020). 运用学习活动观优化初中英语听说教学设计的研究. 英语教师, 20(08), 155-158.

王蔷, 孙薇薇, 蔡铭珂, 汪菁. (2021). 指向深度学习的高中英语单元整体教学设计. 外语教育研究前沿, 4(01), 17-25+87-88.

王蔷, 周密, 孙万磊. (2022). 重构英语课程内容观,探析内容深层结构——义务教育英语课程标准(2022年版)》课程内容解读. 课程.教材.教法, 42(08), 39-46.

王蔷. (2018). 《普通高中英语课程标准(2017年版)》六大变化之解析. 中国外语教育, 11(02), 11-19+84.

王蔷. (2022). 课程实施是落实核心素养培养目标的关键环节和重要保障. 教学月刊.中学版(外语教学)(05), 3-11+19.

王锐. (2023). 基于深度学习的中学英语读写结合教学实践. 中学生英语(16), 49-50.

魏恒建. (2019). 促进词汇深度学习的教学策略探究. 中小学外语教学(中学篇), 42(12), 1-7.

文秋芳. (2015). 构建“产出导向法”理论体系. 外语教学与研究, 47(4), 547-558+640.

吴利利. (2020). 高中英语读写整合教学的设计与实施. 新课程研究(31), 95-96.

邢文骏. (2020). 高中生英语写作困境的表现、归因与对策. 中小学外语教学(中学篇), 43(11), 34-37.

殷常鸿, 张义兵, 高伟, 李艺. (2019). “皮亚杰—比格斯”深度学习评价模型构建. 电化教育研究, 40(7), 13-20.

于飞, 张慧芬. (1996). 写作教学中的“成果教学法”、“过程教学法”和“内容教学法”浅析. 外语界(3), 38-40.

张浩, 吴秀娟, 王静. (2014). 深度学习的目标与评价体系构建. 中国电化教育(7),51-55.

张浩, 吴秀娟. (2012). 深度学习的内涵及认知理论基础探析. 中国电化教育(10), 7-11+21.

张辉蓉, 唐佳欣, 杨淏璇. (2021). 基于深度学习的中小学生STEAM学习质量评价指标体系构建. 中国电化教育(1), 102-109.

张静. (2020). 高中英语听说教学中引导学生深度学习的研究. 中小学外语教学(中学篇), 43(12), 30-35.

张秋会, 王蔷, 蒋京丽. (2019). 在初中英语阅读教学中落实英语学习活动观的实践. 中小学外语教学(中学篇), 42(1), 1-7.

郑葳, 刘月霞. (2018). 深度学习: 基于核心素养的教学改进. 教育研究, 39(11), 56-60.

中华人民共和国教育部. (2022). 普通高中英语课程标准(2017年版2020年修订). 人民教育出版社.

中华人民共和国教育部. (2022). 义务教育英语课程标准(2022年版). 人民教育出版社.

朱芬. (2018). 基于英语核心素养提升的深度教学模式探究. 教学与管理(30), 102-104.

朱丽娜. (2023). 促进深度学习的高中英语教学策略——以“The Chinese Writing System:Connecting the Past and the Present”的教学为例. 教学月刊·中学版(外语教学)(04), 33-38.

祝智庭, 彭红超. (2017). 深度学习: 智慧教育的核心支柱. 中国教育学刊(05),36-45.