This chapter reports results of the current investigation in two major sections.

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

This chapter reports results of the current investigation in two major sections.

The first section focuses on findings of the textbook content analysis and, the second section, results of the semi-structured interviews.

Textbook Writing Instructional Materials

Reported in the first major section are results from the analysis of the writing sections from the three series of textbooks—the Far East, San Min, and Lung Teng series (henceforth FE, SM, and LT). The succeeding sections first introduce the coverage and general organization of the writing sections in the three series. Results from the analysis of the materials based on the five variables (i.e. Grammar and Lexis, Rhetorical Organization, Composing Strategies, and Genres) are then presented.

Coverage of Writing Sections

An examination of the writing sections in the three series indicated that the FE series confined its composition instruction almost exclusively to the last two volumes.

The SM and LT series, by sharp contrast, addressed writing throughout all six volumes. Table 1 shows the proportions of writing materials in the three series.

Table 1. Proportions of Writing Materials in the Three Textbook Series

FE SM LT

Vol. WS % (WP/TP) WS % (WP/TP) WS % (WP/TP)

1 0 0.0% (0/196) 12 8.6% (16/187) 12 7.0% (15/213)

2 1 1.0% (2/199) 12 11.1% (25/226) 12 5.5% (12/217)

3 0 0.0% (0/224) 12 10.5% (25/237) 12 6.0% (15/249)

4 0 0.0% (0/248) 12 10.0% (25/250) 12 7.1% (19/267)

5 12 8.7% (28/323) 12 6.1% (19/312) 10 12.8% (29/227)

6 12 8.8% (26/297) 12 4.8% (12/252) 10 14.7% (34/231)

Total 25 3.8% (56/1487) 72 8.3% (122/1464) 68 8.8% (124/1404)

Note . Vol. = volume; WS = writing sections; WP = writing section pages; TP = total textbook pages

As illustrated in Table 1, the LT series contained the largest proportion of writing materials (8.8%), followed closely by the SM series (8.3%). The FE series, on the other hand, included less than half the proportions in the other two series (3.8%)

. The marked proportional difference between SM/LT and FE ensued from the inclusion of 72 and 68 writing sections in the former but only 25 such sections in the latter.

General Organization and Focuses of the Three Series

This section presents an overall picture of the three series regarding the general organization of their writing materials. It was found that, although all targeted at senior high school learners, the three series displayed differences in their selection and overall sequence of writing materials.

The FE Series

Close scrutiny of the FE series revealed that its writing sections were organized around two major focuses, namely, paragraph structure and genre applications, as illustrated in Table 2.

Table 2. Organization and Focuses of Writing Sections in the FE Series Vol. Organization and focus Number of writing sections

2 Form-filling exercise 1

5 Paragraph structure Text types

Sentence writing tasks Paragraph writing tasks

7 2 2 1

6 Genres 12

Total 25

Note. Vol. = volume. The vast majority of the writing sections in the FE series consisted of both

instruction and practice tasks. A small proportion, however, contained only practice tasks, including the

“form-filling exercise” from Volume 2, and the two “sentence writing” and one “paragraph writing”

tasks from Volume 5.

4

In the FE series, the only writing section throughout the first four volumes was in Volume 2, Unit 9.

This writing section, which followed a unit reading text discussing the genre of form, was designed to

provide immediate practice with filling out a form.

As indicated in Table 2, of the total 25 writing sections in the FE series, about one third (with 7 devoted to paragraph structure and 2 devoted to text types) dealt with rhetorical organization. All these writing sections were found in Volume Five.

Nearly half (12/25) were devoted to various genres, and all of them appeared in Volume Six.

These focuses seem to indicate the authors’ fundamental belief about the importance of paragraph structure and genres. Their sequence also suggests that paragraph structure is the foundation for all writing instruction.

The SM Series

The writing sections in the SM series were found to be structured in a distinct four-part format, i.e. paragraph structure, grammar, text types, and paragraph writing tasks. Table 3 displays the overall presentation sequence and focuses of the SM series.

Table 3. Organization and Focuses of Writing Sections in the SM Series Vol. Organization and focus Number of writing sections

1 Paragraph structure Brainstorming

11 1 2 Paragraph structure

Grammar

3 9

3 Grammar 12

4 Text types Genres

10 2 5 Paragraph structure

Brainstorming

Paragraph writing tasks

1 1 10

6 Paragraph writing tasks 12

Total 72

Note. Vol. = volume. The paragraph writing tasks above refer to those that stood alone without following any explicit presentation.

5

One special case in the FE series worth mentioning was in its Volume 5, Unit 1. This unit was designed obviously for composition instructional purposes: not only its writing section, but the entire reading text, was devoted to introducing important writing concepts and skills, such as paragraph organization, the process of writing, and idea generation. Note, however, that in the present

investigation, only pedagogical materials designed for the specific purpose of writing instruction—i.e.

writing sections—were included in the coding procedure, thus readily excluding reading texts.

As indicated in Table 3, paragraph structure appeared to be the first instructional focus in the SM series, accounting for more than one fifth of the total 72 writing sections (11 from Vol. 1, 3 from Vol. 2, and 1 from Vol. 5). Grammar emerged as the second focus, dominating Volumes Two and Three and occupying over one fourth of all writing sections (9 from Vol. 2 and 12 from Vol. 3). The instructional emphasis in Volumes Four to Six was ultimately shifted to text types and a myriad of paragraph writing tasks.

This presentation sequence appears to aim at navigating students through a fairly distinctive instructional cycle. The textbook writers seem to focus on the recognition and construction of the structural elements of a paragraph. Next, they emphasize the acquisition of an assortment of linguistic constructions. Then they proceed to various text types and finally to opportunities for students to practice writing paragraphs on different topics. This overall framework seems to project the textbook authors’ belief about the importance of rhetorical and linguistic knowledge as a preliminary basis for paragraph writing.

The LT Series

The sequencing and focuses of the writing sections in the LT series were not as

transparent and clear-cut. Yet close inspection revealed that these instructional

materials revolved around five major focuses: grammar, paragraph writing tasks,

genres, text types, and paragraph structure. Table 4 illustrates the general organization

and focuses of the writing sections in the LT series.

Table 4. Organization and Focuses of Writing Materials in the LT Series Vol. Organization and focus Number of writing sections

1 Grammar

Sentence writing tasks Paragraph writing tasks

8 2 2 2 Genres

Paragraph writing tasks Grammar

1 2 9 3 Grammar

Genres

Paragraph writing tasks Figurative devices

4 3 3 2 4 Transition

Genres Text types

2 4 6 5 Paragraph structure

Text types

5 5 6 Paragraph structure

Text types Genres Paraphrasing

2 3 4 1

Total 68

Note. Vol. = volume. The paragraph writing tasks and sentence writing tasks above are tasks that stood

alone without following any presentation. In the LT series, specific instruction paragraph writing occurred mainly in Volume Five and Volume Six.

As shown in Table 4, grammar surfaced as the initial emphasis in the LT series,

occupying over one fourth of all writing sections (8 from Vol. 1, 9 from Vol. 2, and 4

from Vol. 3). Also included in the first three volumes were seven paragraph writing

tasks (2 from Vol. 1, 2 from Vol. 2, and 3 from Vol. 3), explaining about one tenth of

the total number of writing sections. Genres and text types constituted the next two

major focuses. Genres occupied close to one fifth of all writing sections (1 from Vol. 2,

3 from Vol. 3, 4 from Vol. 4, and 4 from Vol. 6) and text types, over one fifth of them

(6 from Vol. 4, 5 from Vol. 5, and 3 from Vol. 6). Finally, six writing sections were

devoted in the last two volumes to instruction in basic paragraph structure (4 from V5 and 2 from V6).

On the whole, this organizational sequence reveals a preferred initial emphasis on grammar presentation and practice. It also shows that certain genres and text types were in fact addressed previous to the treatment of paragraph structure. In other words, the textbook writers of this series believe that students can learn to produce different genres and texts without first learning to construct a basic paragraph. This suggests that to the LT textbook authors, knowledge of the basic structure of a paragraph does not seem to be a prerequisite for paragraph writing.

To sum up, the FE series was organized in the sequence of paragraph structure and genres; the SM series, in the sequence of paragraph structure, grammar, text types, and paragraph writing tasks; and the LT series, in the sequence of grammar, paragraph writing tasks, genres/text types, paragraph structure, and text types/genres.

Overall Distributions of the Instructional and Task Variables

All materials from the writing sections in the three textbook series were extracted and classified based on the coding system used in the current study.

To reiterate, the system consists of four instructional variables (i.e. Grammar and Lexis, Rhetorical Organization, Composing Strategies, and Genres) and one task variable. Results from the coding procedure will be reported in two stages, with the first focusing on the four major instructional variables and the second on the task variable.

Instructional Variables

Table 5 presents the overall distributions of the four instructional variables across the three series.

6

As defined in Chapter One, each identifiable instructional objective—a clear intention to instruct in a

certain concept—was coded as an instructional unit. On the other hand, each discrete exercise, activity

or writing topic with its own task format was coded as a task unit.

Table 5. Distributions of the Instructional Variables in the Three Series Series

FE SM LT

Instructional variables

IU % IU % IU %

Grammar and Lexis 0 .0% 26 37.7% 23 35.4%

Rhetorical Organization 10 45.5% 27 39.1% 27 41.5%

Composing Strategies 1 4.5% 12 17.4% 3 4.6%

Genres 11 50.0% 4 5.8% 12 18.5%

Total 22 100.0% 69 100.0% 65 100.0%

Note. IU = the number of instructional units. Note that under the variable of Grammar and Lexis, the

instructional units devoted to lexis (vocabulary) occupied only a tiny proportion; therefore, a high percentage of instructional units under Grammar and Lexis implies a major focus on linguistic, rather than lexical, treatment.

Table 5 reveals several major cross-series distributional differences. First, instructional units coded under Grammar and Lexis occupied more than one third of the total units in both the SM and the LT series. In the FE series, however, not a single instructional unit was found under this category. As for the category of Composing Strategies, the SM series devoted a proportion (17.4%) that was three times larger than the other two series. The variable of Genres also received different weight in the three series. As can be seen, the FE series covered a percentage of instructional units devoted to genres eight times higher than the SM series and almost three times higher than the LT series.

To corroborate the perceived overall heterogeneous distributions across the three

series, a chi-square test was run. Results reached a statistically significant level (χ2 =

33.329, df = 6, p < .000), suggesting different writing instructional emphases in the

three textbook series. To further illustrate the differences among the three textbook

series, their distributional proportions of the four variables are displayed in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Proportions of the Instructional Variables in the Three Series

Figure 4 illustrates several salient distributional differences among the three series. Overall, the FE series appeared notably different from the SM and LT series.

For the FE series, Genres and Rhetorical Organization represented the top two variables, together covering an exceedingly high 95% of its total units. As composing strategies accounted for the remaining 5%, grammar and vocabulary were left entirely unaddressed.

The SM and LT series, on the other hand, exhibited greater similarities in that they—apart from a shared major focus on rhetorical forms—both gave heavy weight to linguistic forms, an area untreated in the FE series. Also shown in Figure 5 is that SM and LT were highly similar in their distributions of Rhetorical Organization and Grammar, displaying proportional differences no larger than 3% under either variable.

The largest difference between the two series was their focus on strategies and genres.

Specifically, the third focus in the SM series was Composing Strategies (17.4%) and,

in the LT series, Genres (18.5%).

In brief, writing instruction in the SM and LT series was dominated by a major focus on linguistic and rhetorical forms. The major difference between them was their third focus on strategies and genres respectively. The FE series, on the other hand, was characterized by its nearly exclusive attention to rhetorical treatment and genres.

Task Variable

As stated in Chapter Three, to investigate task features and focuses, all task units identified in the three series were categorized into four major task types, namely, word-level, sentence-level, paragraph-level, and non-writing tasks. Table 6 displays the distributional proportions of the four task type categories in the three textbook series.

Table 6. Distributions of the Task Types in the Three Series Series

FE SM LT

Task types TU % TU % TU %

Word-level tasks 4 7.5% 9 6.1% 11 7.4%

Sentence-level tasks 2 3.8% 34 23.0% 32 21.6%

Paragraph-level tasks 20 37.7% 45 30.4% 50 33.8%

None-writing tasks 27 50.9% 60 40.5% 55 37.2%

Total 53 100.0% 148 100.0% 148 100.0%

Note. TU = the number of task units

As shown in Table 6, for all three series of writing sections, the most pronounced task type was represented by non-writing tasks, followed by paragraph-level tasks.

While word-level tasks were of minimal importance, sentence-level tasks displayed greater cross-series variation, which constituted over one fifth of the total number of units in both SM and LT, but less than 4% in FE.

An examination of task types across the three series indicated a relatively similar

distribution pattern of the four categories in the three series, save for a distinctly lower

percentage of sentence-level task units in FE. More specifically, the SM and LT series were similar in their distribution patterns, with proportional variations lower than 4%

for all four task type categories. The FE series included a slightly larger proportion of non-writing and paragraph-level tasks and a markedly smaller percentage of

sentence-level tasks.

To examine the overall distribution patterns of the four task types across the three series, a chi-square test was performed. Results of the analysis did not achieve a level of statistical significance (χ2 = 10.736, df = 6, p = .097). This suggests that the previously perceived differences between FE and SM/LT under the categories of sentence-level, paragraph-level, and non-writing tasks were of no overall statistical importance. Thus, the three series on the whole were considered fairly homogenous in their overall task focuses.

To sum up, the distributions of the instructional categories were significantly different, indicating that, overall, the three series exhibit distinct instructional focuses.

The task type categories, conversely, were statistically homogeneous in their distributions across the three series.

Specific Instructional and Task Subcategories

To further explore the nature and types of instructional and task materials presented in the three series, the five variables were examined individually. Results concerning the specific frequencies, percentages, and presentation of their

subcategories are presented in the succeeding sections.

Grammar and Lexis

To delve into the role of grammar and vocabulary in the three series of writing

sections, all content elements designed to provide linguistic and lexical training were

analyzed based on the twenty one subcategories under Grammar and Lexis. Table 7

displays the fifteen subcategories identified and their percentages in the three series.

Table 7. Grammar and Lexis in the Three Series

Grammar and Lexis FE SM LT

Subcategories IU % IU % IU %

Clauses 0 0.0% 11 42.3% 0 0.0%

Sentence patterns 0 0.0% 4 15.4% 9 39.1%

Participial constructions 0 0.0% 3 11.5% 0 0.0%

Modifiers 0 0.0% 2 7.7% 2 8.7%

Prepositional phrases & phrasal verbs 0 0.0% 1 3.8% 2 8.7%

Lexical items 0 0.0% 1 3.8% 2 8.7%

Voice & Speech 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 8.7%

Punctuation 0 0.0% 2 7.7% 0 0.0%

Agreement 0 0.0% 2 7.7% 0 0.0%

Pronouns 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 4.3%

Quantifiers 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 4.3%

Comparatives 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 4.3%

Subject verb typology 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 4.3%

Modal auxiliaries 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 4.3%

Conditionals 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 4.3%

Total 0 0.0% 26 100.0% 23 100.0%

Note. IU = the number of instructional units

As revealed in Table 7, great variation existed across the three series. The FE series was characterized by a total absence of linguistic or lexical instruction in its writing sections. Nevertheless, the series was not without grammatical or lexical elements. They were covered, instead, in “grammar focus” and “vocabulary” sections and were not dealt with in the writing sections. The SM and LT series, while similar in their heavy emphasis on grammar (as displayed in Table 5), differed to a large extent in the focus of their grammar instruction.

The SM series in general concentrated on constructions of higher linguistic

complexity. For example, clauses (42.3%), the highest ranking subcategory, subsumed

an array of complex clause types, sentence fragments, and run-on sentences. The

subcategory of participial constructions (11.5%) likewise addressed a composite of

participial phrases and their applications in sentences.

The LT series, on the other hand, focused on a range of relatively basic

grammatical patterns and concepts. Sentence patterns (39.1%) represented the single most salient subcategory as none of the other subcategories exceeded 10%. This top subcategory introduced the forms and functions of a number of fundamental patterns, such as “would rather,” “as…as…” and “…said to….”

Of all the total 26 instructional units coded in the SM series under Grammar and Lexis, thirteen of them merited special mention in that they represented specific efforts to relate grammar with writing. Five of these thirteen units (19.2%) pertained to editing strategies. They treated common grammatical misuses, dealing with modifiers, agreement, and clauses. The remaining eight units (30.7%) sought to integrate grammar with paragraph writing by introducing linguistic constructions in conjunction with text types/genres. For example, in Volume 4, Unit 10, sentence patterns such as “There are… two/several/many types of…” were presented along with the text type of classification for students to effectively organize their thoughts.

One obvious difference observed during the analysis of the SM and LT series concerned the contextualization of grammar instruction. In the SM series, linguistic rules or patterns were presented and illustrated explicitly, with little or no reference to context. Each linguistic pattern in the LT series, by contrast, was usually preceded by a relevant context that either preferred or required its use to achieve communicative effectiveness. Within this context, the pattern would then be presented or discussed.

For example, in Volume 2, Unit 9 of the LT series where the pattern “would…

rather…” was introduced, the following instruction was given:

“I’m sick of eating rice every day!” When you’re sick of doing something you

don’t like, what would you rather do? Some people hate taking out the trash

during their favorite TV show. Here is what they might say while walking

toward the garbage truck: “I’d rather be watching TV than taking out the

trash.”

To recapitulate, although the SM and LT series contrasted with the FE series in their heavy linguistic emphasis, they differed conspicuously in their instructional focuses. Whereas the SM series tended to address complex clause structures, the LT series focused on fundamental sentence patterns.

Rhetorical Organization

Typical rhetorical instruction addresses the structural elements of a paragraph or an essay along with different patterns of its organization. For this reason, the

subcategories under Rhetorical Organization were further grouped into

paragraph/essay structure and text types. Table 8 displays the twelve subcategories identified and their percentages in the three series.

Table 8. Rhetorical Organization in the Three Series

Note. IU = the number of instructional units. Controlling idea differs from topic sentence in that

it—previous to introducing the elements of a paragraph—simply introduces to students the notion of a more general concept that governs smaller ideas.

Rhetorical Organization FE SM LT

Subcategories IU % IU % IU %

Paragraph/essay structure

Transition & coherence 1 10.0% 8 29.6% 5 18.5%

Overall paragraph structure 2 20.0% 2 7.4% 1 3.7%

Topic sentences 2 20.0% 1 3.7% 1 3.7%

Support sentences 1 10.0% 1 3.7% 3 11.1%

Other devices 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 11.1%

Controlling idea 1 10.0% 2 7.4% 0 0.0%

Formal features 1 10.0% 1 3.7% 1 3.7%

Concluding sentences 0 0.0% 1 3.7% 1 3.7%

Subtotal 8 80.0% 16 59.3% 15 55.6%

Text types

Expository 0 0.0% 8 29.6% 3 11.1%

Descriptive 0 0.0% 1 3.7% 8 29.6%

Narrative 1 10.0% 1 3.7% 1 3.7%

Argumentative 1 10.0% 1 3.7% 0 0.0%

Subtotal 2 20.0% 11 40.7% 12 44.4%

Total 10 100.0% 27 100.0% 27 100.0%

Overall, Table 8 shows that in the SM and LT series, both paragraph structure (over 50%) and text types (over 40%) were given great prominence. The FE series, on the other hand, gave foremost primacy to paragraph structure (80%) but downplayed the role of text types (20%)

.

Close scrutiny further suggested obvious differences of emphasis among the three series in terms of general instruction in paragraph structure. The FE series gave more weight to the presentation of overall paragraph structure (20%) and the construction of topic sentences (20%). The SM and LT series, on the other hand, focused on transition and coherence (29.6% and 18.5%, respectively). This

subcategory in both series covered instructional units designed to introduce the use of transitional devices to accentuate the links between sentences. In the SM series, efforts were also made to address the applications of such devices in various text types.

One other apparent difference between SM and LT was that in the LT series, supporting sentences and other devices represented two additional salient

subcategories (over 10% under both subcategories). The former introduced the

functions of supporting sentences, the use of dialogues to support a topic sentence (i.e.

in narration), and the emphatic effects of enumerating specific supporting sentences.

Other devices discussed the figurative devices of metaphors and similes as well as

techniques for paraphrasing.

Aside from the differences in paragraph structure, obvious variation was also detected across the three series with regard to text types. SM and LT, although each devoting a proportion (over 40%) two times higher than FE (20%), displayed apparent

7

In fact, the reading text in volume 5, unit 1of the FE series addressed rhetorical issues such as unity, paragraph development, transition, and even overall thesis structure. These concepts, however, were introduced in a reading, rather than writing, section, and thus not calculated in the coding procedure.

8

For example, in Volume 4, Unit 5, transitional expressions such as as a consequence, due to, and

therefore are introduced in tandem with the text type of causation to assist in expressing cause and

effect relations.

differences in their instructional focuses. The SM series covered a broad range of text types, with eleven units discussing all four text types. The foremost text type was the expository mode, explaining almost 30% of the total units coded under Rhetorical

Organization. It encompassed seven patterns of development, including process, illustration, explanatory, cause and effect, comparison and contrast, definition, and classification. In the LT series, in comparison, the single most prevalent text type was found to be descriptive (almost 30%). It covered descriptions of people, places, objects, or descriptions in various tones (e.g. ordinary, romantic, or suspicious) and from a variety of viewpoints. The series also attended to process, causation, and definition under expository as well as the narrative mode of writing, leaving argumentative the only main text type unaddressed. In these two series, no explicit

reasons were provided to account for their respective focuses on the expository and descriptive modes of writing.

In addition to the above results, the SM and LT series were also found to feature more elaborate rhetorical instruction than the FE series. In the FE series, the basic structural elements of a paragraph were rather briefly introduced, with concluding sentences left uncovered. Moreover, the introduction of narrative and argumentative text types in this series merely touched upon the need to organize ideas in sequence and on the basis of sound arguments. Little instruction was given as to how exactly to construct a narrative and argumentative text. By contrast, the SM and LT series both included detailed instruction in the structure of a paragraph and rhetorical techniques for developing different text types.

Notwithstanding all the aforementioned differences, however, a number of

similarities were found to exist among the three series. All three addressed overall

paragraph structure, topic and supporting sentences, transitional devices, and formal

features. Yet none of them attended to essay writing.

To sum up, the FE series gave predominant weight to paragraph structure but minimized its treatment of text types. The SM and LT series stressed both the central components of a paragraph and patterns of its organization but differed greatly in their emphasized patterns, dealing with expository and descriptive writing, respectively.

Composing Strategies

To inspect the degrees of integration of writing strategies into the three series, all instructional elements designed in each series for strategy training were analyzed by means of the seven subcategories under Composing Strategies. Table 9 presents the two strategic subcategories identified along with their percentages in the three series.

Table 9. Composing Strategies in the Three Series

Composing Strategies FE SM LT

Subcategories IU % IU % IU %

Editing 1 100.0% 7 58.3% 1 33.3%

Invention techniques 0 0.0% 5 41.7% 2 66.7%

Total 1 100.0% 12 100.0% 3 100.0%

Note. IU = the number of instructional units.

According to Table 9, the SM series, although giving more weight to strategy training than the other two series, concentrated on invention techniques and editing skills. The invention techniques covered in the SM series were heuristics and brainstorming. The editing skills introduced dealt with such elements as basic

paragraph formatting, sentence fragments, run-on sentences, and misused modifiers.

Also with the scope of their strategies confined to invention and editing

techniques, the LT and FE series were found even more limited in the treatment of

strategies. In the LT series, the two units coded under invention techniques introduced

the technique of heuristics. The unit under editing simply presented the standard

formatting of a paragraph. Throughout the FE series, only one unit was found coded

under Composing Strategies, for editing commonly made paragraph format errors.

In brief, composing strategies received some attention in the SM series but were barely treated in the other two series. This limited treatment of strategy instruction was further characterized by its confinement to generating ideas and editing written products in the three series. Hallmarks of process writing including planning, multi-drafting, peer review, and revising were basically left unaddressed.

Genres

Based on the fourteen genre subcategories, all content elements were analyzed to reveal the range of genres in the three series, with the results presented in Table 10.

Table 10 . Genres in the Three Series

Genres FE SM LT

Subcategories IU % IU % IU %

Letter 4 36.4% 1 25.0% 5 41.7%

Summary 0 0.0% 1 25.0% 6 50.0%

Personal expression 0 0.0% 2 50.0% 1 8.3%

Card 2 18.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Message 1 9.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Notes 1 9.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

(Auto)biography 1 9.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Form 1 9.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Resume 1 9.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 11 100.0% 4 100.0% 12 100.0%

Note. IU = the number of instructional units.

As illustrated previously in Table 5, genres were given the greatest salience in FE (50% of its total instructional units), moderately portrayed in LT (close to 20%), and quite marginally treated in SM (less than 6%).

Table 10 further indicates apparent differences among the three series in their

9

The FE series in fact did touch briefly upon several other relevant concepts (in Volume 5, Unit 1),

including brainstorming and overall writing processes. They were uncoded due to their presentation in

a reading, rather than writing, section.

instructional focuses on genres. The FE series stretched across seven subcategories and dedicated more than a third of the total units coded under Genres to letter. In comparison, the SM series merely covered three subcategories (i.e. letter,

summary, and personal expression), with the emphasis placed upon personal expression. On the other hand, the LT series—although with its instructional units coded under the exact same three subcategories—gave prominence to summary and letter rather than personal expression. Discussions of summary in the LT series involved a wide range of functions and contexts, e.g. summarizing something to share with someone, to report a public event or, in an academic context, as an assignment. Letter likewise touched upon a variety of functions associated with letter writing, including writing a personal letter, and writing a letter to arrange a meeting, or to discuss problems.

An analysis of the genres presented in the three series materials revealed obvious differences in instructional treatment between SM and the other two series. In the SM series, discussions of genres usually focused on their structural aspects, without much reference to their social and functional purposes. In the FE and LT series, however, student attention was oriented toward the functions, routines and, occasionally, useful expressions associated with a particular genre.

In sum, FE was characterized by wider coverage of genres than the SM and LT.

In terms of instructional contents, FE attached the greatest importance to letter, SM to person expression, and LT to summary and letter. Finally, both FE and LT placed

more emphasis than SM on the functional and communicative dimensions of genres.

10

In the SM series, the unit coded under letter did not present personal letter or email, but instead, the

particular genre of application letter.

Tasks

As indicated in Chapter Three, all tasks were classified into four major task type categories, namely, word-level tasks, sentence-level tasks, paragraph-level tasks, and non-writing tasks. These four categories consist of three, five, thirteen, and seven subcategories, respectively. Task units were analyzed on the basis of the four

categories and their subcategories to illustrate the most prominent task formats in the three series. Drawing on the total twenty eight subcategories, the three most

pronounced task subcategories in each series were then derived. Table 11 presents these top three subcategories for each series.

Table 11. Top Three Task Subcategories in the Three Series

FE SM LT

Top 3 subcategories % Top 3 subcategories % Top 3 subcategories %

Reading 32.1% Reading 18.9% Reading 25.0%

Paragraph writing 17.0% Paragraph writing 17.6% Paragraph writing 19.6%

Identification 13.2% Sentence writing 14.2% Sentence writing 14.2%

Note. In Table 12, the percentages of the top three subcategories in each series were obtained by dividing the numbers of task units under these subcategories by the total task units coded in the series.

As shown in Table 11, reading and paragraph writing represented the top two task subcategories across all three series. As for the third most salient subcategory, it was found to be identification in FE, and sentence writing in both SM and LT.

Reported next are results regarding each task type category and the percentages of its subcategories in the three series.

Word-Level Tasks. As shown previously in Table 6, word level-tasks occupied

only a negligible proportion across the three series. Table 12 below provides the

specific percentages of the three word-level task subcategories in the three series.

Table 12. Word-Level Tasks in the Three Series

Word-level tasks FE SM LT

Subcategories TU % TU % TU %

Fill-in-the-blanks 1 25.0% 6 66.7% 6 54.5%

Form filling 2 50.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Listing 1 25.0% 3 33.3% 5 45.5%

Total 4 100.0% 9 100.0% 11 100.0%

Note. TU = the number of task units.

According to Table 12, the highest ranking word-level task type was form-filling in the FE series and fill-in-the- blanks in the SM and LT series. The two form-filling exercises in the FE series allowed opportunities for learners to fill out forms. In the SM and LT series, fill-in-the-blank exercises provided practice with verbs, transitional expressions, subordinating clauses, and other similar constructions.

Sentence-Level Tasks. As illustrated earlier in Table 6, sentence-level tasks

featured rather strongly in SM and LT—over one fourth of the total task units in both series—but occupied only a tiny fraction in FE. Table 13 displays results from the analysis of the sentence-level task subcategories in the three textbook series.

Table 13. Sentence-Level Tasks in the Three Series

Sentence-level tasks FE SM LT

Subcategories TU % TU % TU %

Sentence writing 2 100.0% 21 61.8% 21 65.6%

Error correction 0 0.0% 10 29.4% 0 0.0%

Picture description 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 9 28.1%

Answering questions 0 0.0% 2 5.9% 2 6.3%

Translation 0 0.0% 1 2.9% 0 0.0%

Subtotal 2 100.0% 34 100.0% 32 100.0%

Note. TU = the number of task units.

As can be seen, sentence writing was the most prevalent sentence-level task

subcategory, covering over three fifths of the total sentence-level tasks in all three

series (100% in FE). SM and LT both had an additional second salient subcategory, attending to error correction and picture description, respectively.

Despite being the top sentence-level task subcategory in all three series, sentence writing had a different composition in each of them. In both the FE and SM series, the

focus of sentence writing tasks was upon sentence combining. In the FE series, the only two sentence writing tasks involved no preceding instruction. They simply directed students to combine given sentences using relative pronouns or subordinating conjunctions. Similarly, the sentence writing tasks in the SM series were mainly sentence combining exercises. These exercises were designed to enhance student control of various linguistic constructions and transitional devices. In the LT series, on other hand, sentence writing tasks usually directed students to generate sentences.

They sought to increase familiarity with grammatical concepts such as modals, modifiers, and conditionals by requiring students to create sentences of their own.

Also worth noting are the error correction tasks in the SM series and the picture description exercises in the LT series. The error correction tasks in the SM series, which made up almost 30% of all its sentence writing tasks, addressed linguistic issues including sentence fragments, run-on sentences, and modifier or clause misuses.

Exercises to describe pictures in sentences appeared exclusively in the LT series.

These exercises drew on pictures to elicit from students simple grammatical forms such as subjects, verbs, pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, and modifiers.

In brief, sentence-level tasks had virtually no place in FE, yet featured quite heavily in other two series. SM focused on sentence combining and error correction exercises, whereas LT on sentence making and picture describing tasks.

Paragraph-Level Tasks. As indicated in Table 6, paragraph-level tasks prevailed in all three series as a major task type category second only to non-writing tasks.

Table 14 presents its thirteen subcategories and their percentages in the three series.

Table 14. Paragraph-Level Tasks in the Three Series

Paragraph-level tasks FE SM LT

Subcategories TU % TU % TU %

Paragraph writing 9 45.0% 26 57.8% 29 58.0%

Paragraph elements 3 15.0% 11 24.4% 6 12.0%

Arranging sentences 3 15.0% 2 4.4% 3 6.0%

Paragraph rewriting 2 10.0% 2 4.4% 4 8.0%

Summary 0 0.0% 2 4.4% 7 14.0%

Picture writing 0 0.0% 2 4.4% 1 2.0%

Essay writing 2 10.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Note taking 1 5.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 20 100.0% 45 100.0% 50 100.0%

Note. TU = the number of task units.

As shown in Table 14, paragraph writing and paragraph elements were the most prevalent paragraph-level tasks. These two types of tasks together subsumed 60%, over 80%, and 70% respectively of the total paragraph-level tasks in FE, SM, and LT.

Paragraph writing, the most pronounced task subcategory in the three series,

covered over two fifths of the total paragraph-level tasks in all three of them. Across the three series, however, these paragraph writing tasks exhibited different practice focuses. The FE series focused primarily on practice with different genres, such as letters, cards, and messages.

The SM series, in keeping with its instructional focus of text types, concentrated on a variety of expository text types. The paragraph writing tasks in the SM series, on the other hand, mainly provided students with practice with different types of descriptive writing.

Paragraph elements, another salient subcategory, occupied over one fourth of the

total paragraph-level tasks in SM. It appeared to feature less prominently in FE and LT, taking up 15% and 12% respectively of their paragraph-level tasks. These

11

In the FE series, both an autobiography and an application letter consist of multiple paragraphs and

were coded under essay writing rather than paragraph writing.

paragraph-element tasks generally required students to practice construct basic paragraph structural elements.

The provision of extended writing tasks

in the three series served to indicate the amount of discourse-level practice provided for learners. FE consisted of 11 (nine paragraph and two essay writing tasks), SM of 30 (twenty six paragraph writing, two picture writing, and two summary writing tasks), and LT of 37 (twenty nine paragraph writing, seven summary writing, and one picture writing tasks) extended writing tasks respectively. Extended writing tasks constituted one fourth of all task units in LT (37/148), providing the most writing practice on the discourse level. They occupied slightly over one fifth in both FE (11/53) and SM (30/148).

Finally, it was found that representative process writing tasks including free writing, journal writing, and peer feedback were all absent from the three series. This suggests that almost all paragraph-level tasks in the three series were product-focused.

In sum, the three series mainly drew upon paragraph-element and paragraph writing tasks to provide learners with writing training on the paragraph level. Over one fifth of all tasks in each series (one fourth in the case of LT) presented themselves as extended writing tasks. Yet hardly did any attention appear to be given to practice with the use of composing strategies.

Non-Writing Tasks. As displayed previously in Table 6, non-writing tasks

represented the most common task type category in all three series. To further explore the types of non-writing tasks incorporated into the three series, all tasks entailing no actual writing production were analyzed based on the seven non-writing task

subcategories. Results of the analysis are presented in Table 15.

12

Extended writing tasks refers to those that required text production beyond the sentence-level,

including five task subcategories, i.e. paragraph writing, picture writing, summary, essay writing, and

writing project.

Table 15. Non-Writing Tasks in the Three Series

Non-writing tasks FE SM LT

Subcategories IU % IU % IU %

Reading 17 63.0% 28 46.7% 37 67.3%

Identification 7 25.9% 19 31.7% 10 18.2%

Group work 0 0.0% 6 10.0% 5 9.1%

Ordering 3 11.1% 3 5.0% 3 5.5%

Punctuation 0 0.0% 4 6.7% 0 0.0%

Subtotal 27 100.0% 60 100.0% 55 100.0%

Note. TU = the number of task units.

As evident from Table 15, reading and identification were found to be the top two non-writing task subcategories across all three series. Closer examination of the reading tasks in the three series revealed that the vast majority of these reading tasks served as model texts. Only a rather small proportion of them were to be responded to or summarized. Of the 28 reading tasks in the SM series, twenty two were samples to be emulated in writing tasks or models for instructional purposes. Only six required students to respond to (n = 5) or summarize a text (n =1). Of the 37 reading tasks in the LT series, only one entailed student responses, and three involved summarizing.

The remaining reading tasks, as in the SM series, were either samples for writing tasks or models used for purposes of instruction. Finally, in the FE series, no reading materials were to be responded to or summarized. All 17 reading tasks were models.

Identification exercises, the second most prevalent non-writing tasks in all three series, primarily involved recognition practice with basic paragraph structural elements and transitional devices. Typically, they required choosing or crossing out topic/supporting/concluding sentences or transitional expressions students had identified in a paragraph.

Table 15 also revealed differences among the series in terms of group work. In

FE, no tasks required group work. Both SM and LT, however, involved some degree

of interaction between learners. The six group activities in SM required students to participate in discussions according to task instructions (n = 5) and collaborate in the completion of writing tasks (n = 1). Similarly, group work in LT engaged students in discussions (n = 1), in sharing task outcomes (n = 2), and in task collaboration (n = 2).

To recapitulate, the non-writing tasks in the three series of materials were comprised primarily of reading and identification exercises. The majority of reading tasks were found to serve as models. Only a limited proportion of them required efforts to make further use of reading materials either via responding or summarizing.

Use of group work was far from frequent in SM and LT, and totally absent from FE.

The results section has thus far presented major findings of the textbook content analysis. In its remainder, outcomes of the teacher interview analysis will be reported.

Interview Results

This section presents results from one-on-one semi-structured interviews with six senior high school English teachers. Two teachers for each textbook series were interviewed, resulting in a total of six interview data sets. Table 16 provides brief background information on the six interviewees, referred to henceforth by T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, and T6, respectively.

Table 16. Background Information on the Six Teacher Interviewees

Textbook series FE SM LT

Interviewee T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Gender Female Female Female Female Female Female

Years of teaching 20 11 19 26 8 8

As shown in Table 16, all six teachers were female, with teaching experience

ranging from eight to twenty-six years. The teachers’ responses to the interview

questions were classified into three main themes, namely, philosophy, practice, and

evaluation, and are presented successively in the following subsections.

Philosophy

The first four interview questions delved into the teachers’ purposes of teaching composition, beliefs about writing instruction, desired instructional materials, and the factors shaping their beliefs. Results from the analysis of responses to these four questions were analyzed and labeled under the first main theme: philosophy.

Rationale for Writing Instruction

In the analysis of replies to the first question (What are your purposes of teaching writing?), eight factors were identified that motivated the teachers’ writing

instruction. A list of these eight factors is presented in Table 17.

Table 17. Rationale for Writing Instruction

Rationale for writing instruction Teachers N T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Examinations ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ 6

Expression ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ 5

Integration & reinforcement ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ 4 Evidence of progress & problems ˇ ˇ ˇ 3

Communicative functions ˇ ˇ ˇ 2

Post-reading activity ˇ 1

Note. N represents the total numbers of teachers that gave the reasons listed above for teaching writing.

As revealed in Table 17, examinations emerged as the single most dominant factor driving the six teachers’ instruction. Variation was found, however, in individual attitudes toward the role exams played. For example, one teacher (T5) acknowledged the influence of exams yet regarded them more as a stimulus to writing instruction that created a higher incentive for learning. For another, exams appeared to be the most important motivating factor in writing instruction. She suggested:

The single most important purpose of writing instruction is to cope with

exams… Writing will be tested, so we teach it. If it weren’t, many of my

colleagues and I simply would not teach it at all due to time constraints (T3).

Notwithstanding the overriding impact of exams, a number of other factors were found to be at play in the teachers’ writing instruction. Five teachers (save T3) highlighted the expressive power of writing. They stressed that learning to write empowered students to access thoughts and express viewpoints; writing created a platform for language “output” (T4 and T6) and thus transformed a passive knowledge-receiver into an “active creator” (T2 and T4).

Another recurrent theme in the teachers’ reported rationale for writing instruction was the potential of writing to contribute to language development. Two thirds of the teachers concurred that the very act of composing provided opportunities to review, reinforce, and integrate formerly learned materials. Student writing, according to these teachers, in turn could act as an indicator of students’ progress or, conversely, their problems, if any mistakes were made (T2, T3, and T4). One teacher (T2) thus depicted writing output as a “concrete representation of student learning.”

Apart from support for self-expression and language development, writing was also discussed from a functional standpoint. Two teachers (T5 and T6) particularly accentuated a fundamental purpose of writing as an integral part of language, that is, writing, to them, was a form of communication. It was to communicate messages and share information. To another teacher (T1), practical applications of writing such as application letters or resumes were also important reasons for teaching writing.

One last reason for teaching writing in English class, according to Table 18, pertained to the merits of writing as a pedagogical tool. One teacher (T4) stressed that writing functioned as a primary post-reading activity or a substitute for tests. Writing, to her, was a perfect technique for displaying students’ comprehension of texts without actually testing them.

In sum, the majority of the teachers taught writing for three common reasons: for

the sake of entrance exams, to enable self-expression, and to aid students in

integrating or reinforcing learned materials. All six teachers provided additional factors that motivated them to teach writing, suggesting an awareness of the multi-functional nature of writing.

Focuses of Writing Instruction

An examination of responses to Interview Question 2 (What are your beliefs about writing instruction?) revealed that there were eight elements considered

essential in the teachers’ writing instruction. Table 18 lists these eight elements.

Table 18. Focuses of Writing Instruction

Focuses of writing instruction Teachers N T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Paragraph structure ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ 5

Sentence patterns ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ 4

Ample reading practice ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ 4

Extensive practice ˇ ˇ ˇ 3

Communication ˇ ˇ 2

Context ˇ ˇ 2

Vocabulary ˇ ˇ 2

Transition ˇ 1

Note. N represents the total numbers of teachers that indicated the elements listed above as important.

As shown in Table 18, the teachers’ beliefs about instruction were found to be guided by their concern with four central emphases, namely, paragraph structure, sentence patterns, reading, and extensive writing practice. All but one teacher (T6) highlighted the centrality of paragraph organization, stressing the importance of unity, development, and logical sequence of ideas. Yet for these teachers, to advance

students’ writing development adequately, instruction in paragraph structure alone did

not suffice. As can be seen, two thirds of the teachers underscored the need to expand

and consolidate students’ repertoire of sentence patterns. One teacher, in particular,

made the following case:

Senior high school students have reached a high level of maturity in their thinking. They have a lot of interesting thoughts and ideas… The ultimate problem is that they lack tools for effectively expressing these ideas. A good variety of commonly used sentence patterns give them these tools. (T2) This teacher maintained that it was basic sentence structures that required substantial teacher attention and guidance. She believed that teaching paragraph writing generally involved building an overall concept and was therefore relatively straightforward.

Moreover, many of students’ L1 rhetorical patterns, according to her, could find close parallels in English and were simply waiting to be “activated.” Sentence patterns, on the other hand, enabled students to express their basic thoughts. Without them, the teacher emphasized, students often found it hard to articulate their ideas smoothly.

Table 18 also indicated that particular emphasis was placed on the facilitative role of extensive reading and the necessity for abundant writing practice. Two thirds of the teachers believed that large amounts of reading were contributory to the formulation of important writing concepts. Half of them highlighted the primacy of ample opportunities for actual writing practice. One teacher (T1), for example, stated,

“Writing success doesn’t come from instruction alone. Without sufficient hands-on practice, students simply won’t learn to write.”

Two teachers (T5 and T6), different from the other four teachers, underlined the need to recognize the communicative aspects of writing. They stated that instruction was meant to make communication successful. In keeping with this view, they held that teachers should strive to make the give-and-take of messages between individuals possible through contextualized and interactive writing activities.

In sum, half of the teachers (T1, T3 and T4) stated that composition instruction

involved three common cores: offering training in paragraph structure, equipping

learners with useful sentence patterns, and providing sufficient reading input. Overall,

the teachers’ instructional belief systems were found to be largely rhetorical and

linguistic. Ample reading support and writing practice were frequently mentioned as two important contributors to student writing success.

Favored Instructional Materials

Responses to Interview Question 3 (What do you think constitutes good writing instructional materials?) indicated six categories of preferred instructional materials,

as listed in Table 19.

Table 19. Favored Writing Materials

Favored writing material Teachers N T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Paragraph structure ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ 6

Sentence patterns ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ 4

Transition ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ 4

Vocabulary ˇ ˇ 2

Composing strategies ˇ 1

Contextualization ˇ 1

Note. N represents the number of teachers that indicated the above material categories as desirable.

“Transition” was emphasized in Table 19 but not in Table 18 most probably because it was important to these teachers but did not really come to mind until they were asked about their favored material types.

As illustrated in Table 19, paragraph structure, sentence patterns, and transition were most frequently regarded as desired writing material elements. In fact, they were found to be the central components of writing materials to two thirds of the teachers (T1, T2, T3 and T4). All six teachers were unanimous in considering paragraph structure an essential and necessary instructional material type. This common

preference reflected their previously reported belief about the importance of focusing on paragraph structure in writing instruction. Four of them (T1, T2, T3 and T4) further underscored the need to incorporate commonly used sentence patterns in writing materials. The perceived need, once again, was in congruence with the four teachers’ beliefs about the fundamental utility of sentence patterns.

Aside from paragraph structure and sentence patterns, these four teachers

suggested that it was also essential for writing materials to address transitional devices.

The reason to include transitional devices in writing materials was that these devices could usually be recognized and understood when encountered in reading texts, but frequently posed challenges for students in their actual composing.

Finally, composing strategies and contextual guidance were suggested only by T6 and T5 as desirable for inclusion in writing materials. T6’s emphasis on strategies was in fact a result of her observation of students’ frequent struggle to initiate and maneuver through a writing task. The importance of providing sufficient contextual support in both writing instruction and writing tasks was stressed by T5. Without such contextualization, according to her, writing instruction and practice might appear less meaningful and would fail to motivate students.

To sum up, the most desirable instructional materials included those designed to address paragraph structure, sentence patterns, and transition.

Factors Shaping the Teachers’ Beliefs

The analysis of responses to Interview Question 4 (What factors have shaped your beliefs?) yielded five major contributory factors that shaped the teachers’ beliefs.

These factors are presented in Table 20.

Table 20. Factors Shaping the Teachers’ Beliefs

Factors shaping the teachers’ beliefs Teachers N T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Formal training ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ 5

English conferences ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ 4

Exams ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ 4

Instructional experience ˇ ˇ ˇ 3

Composition materials ˇ ˇ 2

Note. N represents the total numbers of teachers whose beliefs were shaped by the factors listed above.

As indicated in Table 20, formal training played the most crucial role in the

formation of the teachers’ beliefs. One teacher (T4), for example, indicated that her

formal training in college had not only contributed most to her own writing skills, but influenced her beliefs about writing instruction. Another teacher (T5), who was pursing a master’s degree in TOESL, similarly attributed her beliefs about writing instruction mainly to the training courses in her graduate program.

The second most important factors contributing to the teachers’ beliefs were conferences and exams. Two thirds of the teachers reported attending conferences regularly. EFL conferences or workshops, according to them, offered opportunities to receive updated knowledge about EFL writing. Exams were found to be another salient factor that influenced the teachers’ beliefs. Two thirds of the teachers noted the impact of college entrance exams. They found their writing instruction guided, at least to some extent, by the trends and demands of these large scale exams.

Experience of teaching writing over the past years, as stated by T2, T4, and T5, also played a part in molding their philosophy of writing instruction. For example, one teacher (T2), based on her teaching experience, commented that practice with sentence patterns was inevitably important and could not be ignored.

A factor less frequently mentioned was exposure to and experience with various types of instructional materials. Two teachers (T3 and T6) reported that their

instructional beliefs were, to some extent, influenced by the source materials they used. T3, for instance, explained that most of the ESL composition textbooks she had access to focused essentially on sentence patterns, paragraph structure, and different text types. These focuses had naturally resulted in her primary concern with linguistic and rhetorical forms in composition classes.

In brief, previous and/or current formal training was found to the most critical

factor in the shaping of the teachers’ belief systems. To half of the teachers, formal

training along with conferences and exams jointly molded their personal beliefs about

the teaching of writing.

Practice

This section addresses the second main theme, teacher practice, based on responses to Interview Questions 5 to 7. The three questions probed into the teachers’

general instructional practice, use of their textbook writing sections, and inclusion of supplementary materials.

General Composition Instruction

Responses to Question 5 (Do you teach writing?) indicated that all teachers taught writing and, by and large, approached their instruction following a general pattern: for freshmen and sophomores, the focus was on awareness raising, and for juniors, a formal writing course was offered to provide step-by-step writing

instruction. In the first two years, no specialized writing training was given. The aim during this period was to heighten students’ sensitivity to writing, typically through reading. One teacher described her way of raising such awareness:

For 1

and 2

graders, my instruction is more fragmented. Whenever I think it appropriate, I try to raise student awareness about writing in English. I’d say, for example, “Look, the last sentence in this paragraph is clearly linked to the next paragraph.” I hope by doing so, they can gradually absorb such concepts.

This, I think, helps prepare students for their future writing course. (T3) Two teachers, nonetheless, differed from the others in that they made additional efforts to expose their students frequently to writing practice. One teacher (T4) had her freshmen keep journals in English and sophomores respond to novels. The other (T6) arranged for her students to exchange email messages with foreign e-pals.

Textbook Material Use

Responses to Interview Question 6 (Do you use the writing sections in your English textbooks?) demonstrated that five of the teachers utilized the writing sections

in their English textbooks, but only selectively. Detailed analysis revealed five general

criteria for their selection. Table 21 lists each criterion along with the teachers that

involved it in their decision making processes.

Table 21. Criteria for Material Use

Criteria for material use Teachers N T1 T3 T4 T5 T6

Conciseness ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ 5

Relevance ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ 4

Interest ˇ ˇ 2

Difficulty ˇ 1

Interaction ˇ 1

Note. N represents the total numbers of teachers that involved the criteria listed above.

As displayed in Table 21, the two most significant factors in the teachers’ use of their writing sections were conciseness and relevance. All five teachers suggested that they would use those writing sections that were concise and easy to follow due to limited class time. Relevance, the second key factor, refers herein to the relevance of writing sections to the materials in reading sections or to students’ needs. Four teachers emphasized that the higher the relevance, the stronger the incentive to use these writing sections. Other criteria for selecting writing sections included levels of interest, difficulty, and interaction.

One teacher, T2, indicated that she did not use the writing sections in her textbook for several reasons. The most important reason was time constraints: there was too much to cover in the writing sections and time was always limited. Another reason was the skipping of roughly three lessons in each volume. Her school

explicitly stated that these skipped lessons were used as outside reading, yet they left the writing sections “discontinuous and unsystematic” and therefore difficult to use.

Other reasons for the teacher to skip her writing sections altogether included the

irrelevance of these sections to monthly exams, their lesson-final positions, and a

common association of textbooks with grammar, vocabulary, and reading, but not

writing. As a result, she adopted a published writing textbook to teach writing.

Supplementary Materials

Responses to Question 7 (Do you use any supplementary materials?) indicated that each teacher involved some supplementary materials in their writing classes.

Results of the analysis are displayed in Table 22.

Table 22. Supplementary Writing Materials

material types Teachers N

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Picture writing ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ 6

Composition textbooks ˇ ˇ ˇ 3

Conference materials ˇ 1

Reading materials ˇ 1

Note. N represents the total numbers of teachers that involved the support material types listed above.

As can be seen in Table 22, two major types of supplementary materials were picture writing practice materials and composition textbooks. All six teachers reported having adopted materials for picture writing, which, according to them, was a remedy for the inadequate treatment of picture writing in their textbook writing sections. A typical solution was to resort directly to a picture writing workbook. One teacher, T6, additionally used a section in a magazine for regular picture writing exercises. She even asked certain students to draw comic strips for other students to write about.

In addition to picture writing materials, half of the teachers adopted published writing textbooks. These textbooks contained components including sentence patterns, model texts, various writing topics, and guidelines for approaching a writing task. The teachers claimed that these published materials had the merits of being more

“systematic,” “comprehensive,” and providing stronger “guiding support.”

Other support resources included those obtained from conferences and some

additional reading materials. For example, T6 frequently attended conferences and

obtained materials from conference speakers and other participant teachers. She noted