Finally, this principled eclectic EFL writing approach seeks to cultivate among EFL students both a critical and pragmatic perspective on Western and theirLl writing practices and conventions so that they can make infonned choices in their writing that reflect who they are, and who they want to be (the principle of possibility). This principle is somewhatdi宜erentfrom Benesch's(1996: 733) critical writing curriculum
也 at contains intentionally built-in critical agenda such 品 activities challenging “the requirements,and those which worked outside the requirements to create possibilities for social awareness and action." The current author did not intentionally include any critical agenda in her writing curriculmn but provided students with an opinion-exchange platfonn-the reflection journal-to encourage them to reflect on the rhetorical di宜erences between English and Chinese and the di伍 culty they
encounter III meetmg "WTItmg reqUIrements 品 well as voice any concern they had in and outside the"Writing class-be it personal,curricular,scholastic,or pedagogical
One critical reflection made by most students in their jOlITl1al entries is on the rhetorical convention-thesis stat目nent. This slndent challenge is not premised on sociopolitical ideology as often seen in critical pedagogy but on pragmatics. They complained about thecons阻 ctioneffect of this rhetorical convention on their ideas and thus challenged its necessity in an academic essay in an indirect way.(“Is there always a th臼 is statement in an academ眩目say?") They thought that a th臼 IS statement IS prescriptive,stifli月 theircreativity both in ideas and fonns. (“The more I think about howtophr品 emy ideas in ath自 isstatement,the fewer ideas I have.") To them,ath自IS
statement is redundant. They did not understand why they need to pre-tell readers in a sentence about what follows in subsequent paragraphs where they will reveal their intentions in evolving examples. ("I explained my main ideas in the body paragraphs Why do I still need to repeat them in ath自 IS S阻tement?")
Wi位lessing this reaction in variousjournal 叩tries，the author felt it an opportnue time to hold a class discussion and examination of the merits and demerits of a thesis statement. She started the discussion by referring to the qu臼tions raised in student journal entries. She also brought up the notion of audience and asked slndents to reflect on who read their Ll writing. To this question,the unanimous answer was‘'the Chinese writing teacher". Then she asked them to pictnre a di宜erent audience that expected a
th臼 isto guide him/her through the text. Such an expectation,she told them,is derived :from a cultural literacy practice that places more responsibilities on the writer in written communication (Hinds,1987,1990)
The mentioning of audience in the discussion prompted some students to think about the functions of a thesis statement:from the reader's perspective. Somewe自 able
to see that such a rhetorical device is reader :friendly，品sistingreaders in identifying
wrIte血，ideas so that they can start to evaluate subsequent infonnation,explanation and arguments in the essay. (“The th臼 isstatement is useful to me when I dope叮 review.I
knowat once what my classmate's composition is about and can go on reading.") In addition to reader-friendliness, one student writer also mentioned that she used the thesis statement to check the appropriateness and relevancy of her explanations and arguments in the間 ay. ("I think the thesis statement is v叮 useful tome 品 a "WTIter Sometimes I write down something that is not related to the main idea. I'd check my writing against the thesis statement to see if my ide品 are side-tracked.") Afterlisti月
the enabling and limiting functions on the white board,the author asked students to weigh the pros and cons on the necessity of a thesis statement in an essay. The students reached a consensus that a thesis statement is necessary in this stage given their developing language proficiency, occasionally underdeveloped ideas, and developmental organizing skills.They decided that an early and explicit introduction of one's thesis imposes a less cognitive burden on the reader's part than an evolving point embedded in examples andme阻phorsand thus is more strategically appropriate. (“The earlier the writer introduceshis/h叮 thesis.Pthe e品ierit is for reader to know the writer's
mtentIons 可
The other critical reflection is similar to what Benesch tenned“challenging the requirements" (Ben臼 ch， 1996: 733), despite a lack of intention on the part of the author. One student named Catharine challenged the same grade she received on her 2nd and 3rd revisions (B) despite her effort at minimizing grammar mistakes and producing precise expressions. She used two of the more proficient speakers in the author's"Writing class to express their concerted position
I've talked to Elisa and Lily and they also wondered why they could not get a higher grade a立er they followed your advice [by co叮ecting the grammar mistakes and usingp白白se expre品 ions]
We are disappointed [with the grades] because we do not think that our efforts paid off.
The author held a group conference with them after learning about these students'
grumble. All three exp扭扭edthe frustration of not being able to receive a much higher grade compa自dwith their less able classmates whose oral English proficiency is not on a par with theirs but whose compositions received a B. They also pointed out that their conversation teachers gave them much higher scores such 品 A-to match their excellent oral perfonnance in class. (“Ourconyers甜onteachers gave us much higher scores and we felt our efforts have been recognized. ")
After understanding the source of their fiustration,the author espoused to them her grading practice and re-explained the grading criteria of that particular composition (AdvantageslDisadvantages of a Modem Technological Device),which 品 cusedmore on persuasiveness and thoroughness of their arguments and their ability to paraphrase ideas from source materials. Then she took one step further by showing them a concrete example from another student's composition that met the requirements and received an A- (Appendix I). The visible contrast between that student's rich content and underdeveloped paragraphs common to the three's compositions (see Catherine's composition in Appendix II) cleared their doubts about the author's score range and criteria. Italso clarified their misconceptions about the relatively more weighting of
nu叮o issues at the sentence level (i.e., linguistic accuracy) than macro on臼 (i.e.，
content and unity) in overallwriti月
The foregoing critical examination and thoughtful adoption of a thesis statement in their essay signal studentwrite血， active understanding of this rhetorical convention rather than an unavoidable cultural "tipping to the opposite that results from excesses, regardless of human intention" (Li,2008: 17). This activeunderstandi月 is a result of collective critical analysis rather than an imposition of the teachers' selιinitiated agenda 品 reported in Benesch's critical writing classroom (2001). Similarly, the challenge of classroom requirem叩ts was initiated by stud叩ts th個lselvesrather than by the current author. Like their native-speaking and ESL counte中arts， some EFL students "qu臼tionthe status quo"(Ben臼ch，2001: 167) but others do not. The current author concurred with Santos (2001) 也 at students should not be prompted by
activist-minded teachers to practice the latter's personal political agenda in a writing classroom. The writinb2: instructor's task. in the~~~~U~~~~~ ~ ~~~~L ， ~~~ ~~~_ author法。IDllllOn. IS~~U~_~ ~ -t' ~~u_~~ ， ~~ to nfomote an~- t'
egalitarian atmosphere in the class,equip students with necessary knowledge and skills they need in their academic settings,provide them with pragmatic analytical tools to question and challenge academic standards and approaches,and establish an avenue for them to raise their questions and challenges,in case they wish to do so
Conclusion
The author has briefly outlined and demonstrated a principled eclectic approach to teaching writing in English as a foreign language. This principled eclectic approach is premised on the three guiding principles-particulari句， practicali旬， and possibility of Kumaravadivelu's (2006) ruacrostrategic framework ofpost-me也odpedagogy. The principle of particularity emphasizes an active lU1derstanding of local exigencies,an area in which non-native writing instructors of English assume more authority than native speakers of English. The principle of practicality enco盯ages EFL writing instructors to rely on their understanding of local studen妞， needs to create and tailor their own pedagogy to remedy the situation where ruainstream approaches fail. In this case,it is the explicit and procedmalized instruction. The principle of possibility is to give students guidance on making infonned choices in theirwriti月(間， confonni月 to
or challenging extant academic nonns and focusing more attention on global issu臼)
that reflect who they are,and who they want to be
It is a known fact that a single writing approach is inadeql也te to cope with the diversified needs of EFL students in the writing class, be it linguistic, rhetorical, cognitive, social, cultural, and political. A principled eclectic approach appears a feasible solution,and the one proposed here is an example:from the author's partie叫ar
class. EFL writing instructors need to take themselves,the writer,the reader,the text, the context,and the interaction of all these elements into account to devise their own
principled eclectic approach. Given the space constraints, this author limited her discussion to only topic sentences. More writi月 issues such as plagiarism and summary writing should be approached :from a local practitioner's perspective under the proposed framework
References
Atkinson,D. (2003). L2 writingin 也e post-proc帥的 Introduction. Journal ofSecondLα咿咿 Writi嗯.12(1)， 3-15
Benesch,
s.
(1996). Needs analysis and curriculum development in EAP: An ex血nple of a critical approach. TESOLQUal 此U鈔'. 30,723-738Benesch, S. (2001). Critical pragmatism: A politics of L2 comp的 ition. In T. Silva & P. K
M甜uda (Eds.), One sι ond i，仰伊αge writing (pp. 161-172). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Blass, L., & Pike-B此y，M. (2000). Mosaic one: A content-based 、 ritingbook. New York:The McGraw-Hill
Brown,H. D. (1994). Teaching by principle: An interactive 中)proach to langu，α'gepedagogy Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall Regents
Cameron,D. (2002).Globalizationand 也eteaching of 'communication skills.' In D. Block& D
已ameron(Eds.),Globalization andlangω~ge tea正 hing(pp. 67-82). London: Routledge Casanave,C. P. (2004). Controversi臼 in secondIan伊αgewriting: Dilemmas and decisions in
research 叫d ir，的佇立Jction.AnnArbor,MI: The University of Michigan Press
Connor,U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Crοss-ω1的ralaspects ofsecond-langL的~ge writing
C缸nbridge， UK: Cambridge University Press
Cummin臣， A. (2003). Exp叮 ienced ESL/EFL writing instructors' conceptualizations of their teaching: Curriculum options andimpli閃lions.hi B.Kroll (Ed.),Expioringthe 再'ynami口 of
secondL仰伊的'gewriting(pp. 71-92).Cambrid阱， UK 巳ambridge Universi可 Press Den臣，X. (2007). A pedagogicalresponse 抽出edifferentapproach自 tothe teaching ofESL!EFL
自S呵 writing.STETSLa咿咿 &CommunicationRe 叫叫 6(1)， 15-20
Fe血，S.(1998). "fl叫t-based syllαbusm臼ign.Sydney,Australia: McQuarieUniversity/A瓦拉S
Flower,L 日，& Hayes, 1.R. (1981). Aco伊lt1ve process 加oryof writing. College Co的position andComm肌 ieation. 32(4),365-387
Gao,1. (2007). Teaching writing in Chineseunivers由自 Findingan eclectic approach. Asian
EFL Journal: Professional Teaching Articles,20,A-2. Retrieved March 21,2008,from
http://asi血l-efl-joumal. comlpta-孔1ay-07-jg.php
Hinds, 1. (1987). Reader ve凹的啊iterresponsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R Kaplan (Eds.),Writing acrossL仰伊αrge: Ana似的 oj立即xt(pp. 141-152). MenloP缸k， CA
Addison-Wesley
Hin缸， 1.(1990).1nducti間， deducti間， qu剖i-inductive: Exp的 itorywriting in Japanese,Kor聞工1，
Chinese,and Thai. In U. Connor & A. M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: R臼削rch
andpetit.α'gogicalpelψectives(pp. 87-109). Alexandria,VA: TESOL
Hyl阻止 K.(2003a).Second language writing. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press Hyland,K. (2003b). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process.Journal of Second
Language Writing. 12,1-29
Hyla叫 K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language,I阻 acyand L2 writi月 instruction. .It.ωmaiof SecondLangt的'geWriting,16,148-164
Jo恤，A. M. (1997). Text,role and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambrid阱， UK
Cambridge University Press
Ki阻止&Kim,1.(2005). Teaching Korean university writing class:Balancin臣也eprocess and
也e genre approach. Asian EFL J/山4月叫 7(2)， A-5. Retrieved M缸·ch 21, 2008, from
http://asiar凹fl-joumal. co叫June 的 yk&jk.pdf
Kramsch, C. (2000, M缸d呼 Linguistic identiti目前也e boundaries. Paper PI自 ented at 也e 缸mualconvention ofAmericanAssoci訕。nfor Applied Linguisties,Vancouver,Canada Kroll,B. (1991). Teaching writi月 m 也e ESL context. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), TIωching
English as a second orfo陀ign ianguα'ge(2nd ed.) (pp. 243-263). New York: Newbury House
Kroll, B. (1993). Teachin臣、vntm臣的 teaching reading: Trainin臣也e new teacher of ESL composition. In 1. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.),Rωding in the composition classroom (pp 61-81). Boston: Heinle and HeinlePubl凶lers
Kub呦，R.,& Shi,L. (2005). Instruction and readi月 samplesfor opinionwriti月 inLl junior high school textbooks in China and Japan.Journal ofAs的nPacific communic.αtion， 15(1), 97-127
Ku臼r， S. B.,& Silva,C. (2006). TI的chingthe dimensions of literacy.Mahw拙， NJ:La啊en臼
ErlbaumAssoci刮目
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1992). Mαas仕 ategies for the second/forei伊 language teacher. Modern LanguageJournai,76,41-49
Kumaravadivelu,B. (2003). Criticallanguage pedagogy: Apostme也odperspective onE時lish
language teaching. Worid Engiishes,22(4),539-550
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, CI叫lenging 虹 ends. TESOL
Quarter鈔， 40(1)， 59-81
L明凹-Freeman，D. (2000). Techniqu臼 andprinciples in languαge teaching 巳ambrid阱， UK Oxford University Press
Leki, 1. (2002). T，間ching L2 writing at the tum of the centurγandnew p叮sp配tives. In R Manchon (Ed.), Writing in the L2 ci，αssroom: Issu臼 in research andpedago紗，學ec的l
Issue ofIn的71叫'ionaiJoumai of Engiish Studies(pp. 197-209).M叮cia， Spain:Universi可 ofM叮Cia
Leki,1. (2003). Coda: PushingL2 、.vritingresearch. Journal of secondLαnguα~ge Writing,12, 103-105
Li, X. (1999). Writing 仕om 也e vantage point of an outsider/insider. In G. Braine (Ed.),
Non-native educators in English language teaching(pp. 43-56).Mahw拙， NJ:E山 aum
Li,X. (2008). Fromcontr阻tiverhetoric to intercultural rhetoric: A search for collectiveident句
In U. Connor,E. N agelhout & W. V. Rozycki (Eds.), Con身。stiverhetoric: R的ching to intercultural rhetoric(pp. 1-24). Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Liu,Y.(2008). Taiwanesesluden阻，negotiationswi也 academicwriting:Becoming ‘ playwrigh旭
and film directors".Journal ofSecondLanguα'ge Writi嗯. 'i佇7， 86-101 Ma抽站肌ud由a， P.K.， C咀a嗯gam可J州a迎h，A. S.,Ha祉r此kl岫a叩LU，L.,H時yl岫a缸祖工nd， K.， &Wa阻I且3吋cl咖t
C叩u盯叮rren帥旭!u s間e叩n吋d la祖工ng伊ua嗯ge w啊n址ting research: A 叩 lloq伊uium. Jou叫F丹?η叫2叫αaiofSecωOωn吋ld Languα'ge 呵riting.'i2,151-179
Mellow, 1. D. (2002). Towards principled eclecticism in language teaching: The
two-dimensior叫 model and the centering principle. TESL-EJ,5刊)， A-I.R.由 ieved M叫 20，
2008,fromh句/此teslj .org!Technique州 oonan-noticing.html
Mohan,B. A.,& Lo,W. A. Y. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and development factors. TESOLQu，αrter趴'i 9(3)， 515-533
Prabhu,N. S. (1990). There is no best method.Why?TESOLQuarter鈔， 24， 161-176 回
Reid,1. (2001). Writing. hi R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambri 中eguide to t的ching Engiish to speakers of other ianguages(pp. 28-34). Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUnivers吋
Press
Rodg帥， T. (2001). Lan伊α'ge teaching methodoiogy (ERIC Issue Paper). W剖hington， DC ERIC Clearinghouse onL副19ua耳目 andLinguistics
Santos，士 (2001).The place ofpolitics in second language writing. InT. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.),On secondiangu，αgewriting(pp. 173-190). Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Silva,T. (1990). Second language composition instruction:Developments，因U間，and divections
in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.),Second 仰伊α~gewriting:Resea叫 insightsfor the classroom
(pp.11-2月 Cambridge，UK: Cambridge University Press
Sil珊，士(1 993).Toward an understanding of the distinct nature ofL2 writing: The ESL research andi旭 implications. TESOLQuarter，鈔， 27(4)， 657-675
Smith,F. (1983). Reading like a writer.Languα'geA 巾， 60,558-567
TsuiA. B.M心 Ng，M. (2000). Dosecond 叮 L2writers benefit from peer comments?Journal ofSecond LanguageWritinι9(2)， 147-170
Williams,J. (2005). Teaching writing in secondand戶reign fa時間~geclassrooms. BurrRidge, 1L:The 孔1cGraw-Hill