CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS
This chapter starts with a summary of major findings of the present study, followed by pedagogical implications for ESL writing instruction. Limitations of the study and suggestions for further research are also provided.
Summary of Major Findings
The current study attempts to expand the existing body of writing textbook evaluation research. To that end, it investigated the writing sections in three series of senior high school English textbooks. Then for each series, semi-structured interviews were conducted with two English teachers to explore their beliefs, practice, and assessment of their textbook writing sections. Summarized below are major findings from the textbook and interview analyses.
Textbook Analysis
The present analysis illustrated that the four prominent approaches featured in different depths and often in adapted forms in the three series. Grammar has been an issue of much controversy and debate, and yet was still given salient importance in the LT and SM series. Specifically worth noting is its portrayal in these two series, which was shown to differ somewhat from earlier form-based instructional models.
The LT series oriented the teaching of grammatical structures toward their
communicative functions. The SM series, on the other hand, made an effort to relate grammar to editing strategies or integrate it with the presentation of text types.
Instruction in paragraph structure and rhetorical patterns is as dominant and prevalent as it has always been, permeating all three sets of materials. On the whole, the three series dealt with paragraph elements in fundamentally the same way, although much less elaborately in the FE series. Greater differences were observed in their selection and treatment of rhetorical text types.
Among the four major instructional focuses, strategies were given the least
treatment. They were represented partially at best in the three sets of instructional materials. One series (i.e. the SM series) devoted more efforts to strategy instruction but, like the other two series, limited its instruction to invention and editing strategies.
Strategy training in the three series was thus confined to pre- and post- writing stages, providing little guidance through the complexities of the drafting process itself.
The three series dedicated greater attention to genres than to strategies, but exhibited diversity in their emphasis on genres and in their instructional contents. The FE series gave the greatest prominence to genres, covering a wide assortment of applied genres of daily practical use. The SM series, in contrast, gave the least attention to genres, with its treatment limited to those of an academic nature. The LT series, while focusing on a similar range of genres, treated them with much greater depth and diversity.
The three textbook series also involved extensive use of tasks, including writing and non-writing tasks. Writing tasks refer mainly to sentence writing tasks (except in the FE series) and paragraph writing tasks. They were intended to provide sentential and discourse-level practice. The most important types of non-writing tasks included identification exercises, designed to facilitate concept building, and reading tasks, designed to provide scaffolding or for students to respond to. The majority of reading tasks were simply model texts used to provide linguistic, rhetorical, or genre input.
Only a limited number of these reading tasks allowed students to re-explore texts.
Teacher Interviews
The interviews conducted in the present study sought to investigate the teacher interviewees’ philosophy, use, and assessment of their writing sections. To start with, these teachers’ writing instruction was mainly driven by the reality of exams, the need for self-expression, and the potential of writing to integrate formerly learned materials.
Their beliefs were found to be predominantly rhetorical and largely linguistic, with
the focus on paragraph structure, transition, and sentence patterns. As revealed in the interviews, large amounts of reading and writing practice were also considered important for achieving writing success. These instructional beliefs, as has been shown, derived chiefly from the teachers’ formal training courses and the conferences or workshops they attended.
Also investigated were the teachers’ general writing instruction and the use of their textbook writing sections as well as support materials. Formal writing instruction, according to the teachers, began in students’ third year. For freshmen and sophomores, the goal was to raise students’ awareness of certain concepts associated with writing.
The majority of the teachers used the writing sections in their textbooks, but only selectively. They adopted only those materials that were concise and relevant. As regards supplementary materials, these teachers favored picture writing materials and published composition textbooks most. One teacher completely ignored her writing sections mainly due to their irrelevance to monthly tests, their lesson final positions, time constraints, and her own beliefs about English textbooks.
The teachers’ comments on their textbook writing sections were mixed except for the variable of Rhetorical Organization received mixed feedback. The treatment of rhetorical forms in all three series was generally perceived as important and relevant.
With regard to both Grammar and Genres, however, the majority of the teachers held favorable opinions. As for Composing Strategies, only two teachers exhibited a positive attitude, with the other four showing apparent reservations. When asked to comment on the tasks in their writing sections, four teachers pointed out specific problems, and two generally considered them adequate.
Implications
Based on the analyses of the three series of writing sections and the teacher interviews, pedagogical or practical implications are offered for the treatment of grammar, rhetorical organization, composing strategies, genres, and writing tasks.
First, textbook writers are advised to make a concerted effort to relate grammar to writing if they intend to incorporate grammar into writing sections. To be specific, for grammar instruction to be optimally effective, it is fundamental to consolidate the link between grammar and editing (Muncie, 2002). For example, should the textbook writers of the FE series decide to incorporate grammar, they are advised to connect it to editing. Linguistic instruction aimed at the development of editing skills will assist learners to become editors of their own written production. Also important is the need to relate linguistic constructions to their communicative functions. To establish a link between form and its function, textbook writers need to make a specific attempt to contextualize grammar points. As Celce-Murcia (1991) points out, decontextualized linguistic constructions are of little use to writers as they compose a text. The SM series, with about half of its grammar structures presented in a decontextualized style, should strive to provide sufficient contextualization for these structures.
Two suggestions are also provided for the treatment of rhetorical forms. First, it is essential for textbook writers to attend to text types commonly assessed on college entrance exams. For example, the most relevant text types in the Scholastic Aptitude Test in Taiwan have been picture and narrative writing for the past several years.
Hence emphasizing these text types in writing materials would help teachers prepare students for their future essay writing tests. In view of this examination trend, all three series are encouraged to devote greater attention to narrative and picture writing. The second suggestion is for the authors of the LT series, who are advised to introduce the basic elements of a paragraph before presenting different text types. This arrangement
would guide learners to construct a basic paragraph and use it as a rhetorical basis for exploring possibilities for developing this paragraph.
As revealed in the textbook analysis, strategy training in the three series was both scarce and limited to idea generation and editing. Obviously, effective composing entails more than just generating thoughts or correcting errors. The textbook authors of the three series should direct greater attention to strategies for planning, multiple drafting, peer review, and discourse-level revision. Such strategies, as Troia (2002) indicates, are essential in establishing a set of mental routines that guide students through the complexities of the drafting process. During textbook compilation, these authors are also advised to take advantage of teacher’s manuals to elaborate on the value of writing strategies. In the meantime, English teachers will need to recognize strategies—through teacher’s manuals or further training—as practical tools to help students compose more effectively as autonomous writers. Once made aware of the usefulness of these navigational tools, teachers can involve support materials to focus on strategies. This is particularly so when the main materials are predominantly linguistic or structural. Then they should guide students to see the text as stemming from processes that are fluid, recursive, and creative, rather than the product of a one-shot effort.
Teaching genres leads students to perceive the communicative aspects of writing and potentially helps them recognize the practical functions of learning to write. To aid students in coping with both academic and regular social contexts, textbook writers should attend to both academic genres (e.g. summary, application letter) and daily situational genres (e.g. email, resume, and card). It is thus suggested that the SM series give greater attention to situational genres and the FE series to academic genres.
With regard to writing tasks, three specific suggestions were made. First, it is essential for the textbook writers of all three series to incorporate more reading-based
writing tasks to capitalize on the link between reading and writing (Ferris, 1998).
Tasks that require responding to reading, as Zamel (1992) indicates, offers valuable opportunities to re-explore the content and meaning of a text. Second, aside from pedagogical tasks, adequate attention should be given to real-world tasks to address students’ need to carry out real-world communicative functions. Third, model texts in writing assignments should not be selected only on the basis of the text structure in question. For greater material integration, these model texts must also strive for content relevance to unit reading texts, as pointed out by one teacher interviewee. If a reading text deals with a great man in history, for instance, the model text used in the writing section can seek to relate in some way to this man or at least a similar figure.
The gap between current research, materials, and teacher beliefs and practices, indicates a need for ongoing teacher training. Teachers can, for example, attend conferences or pursue post-graduate studies. Meanwhile, there should be more open channels for dialogs between teachers and materials writers. Finally, schools may also consider assessing writing on monthly exams to motivate teachers to teach writing.
Limitations of the Study
The current research examined three sets of EFL writing materials involving the research techniques of a coding system and semi-structured teacher interviews. Data analysis has demonstrated the efficacy of this composite methodological approach.
Yet the generalizability of results from the investigation may have been affected to some extent by its contextual constraints. To begin with, the interviewees’ responses may not represent those of all senior high school English teachers as a result of the relatively small interview sample size and its confinement to northern Taiwan. Also, the study failed to consider the potentially different teaching contexts of the teacher interviewees, which might have played a role in their beliefs about writing instruction.
One further limitation concerns the possibility of discrepancies between teachers’
reported beliefs and practices and their instructional behaviors in the classroom.
Finally, the research did not interview the textbook writers of the three series due to time constraints. Doing so would have allowed the researcher to more faithfully report these textbook writers’ beliefs about writing instruction.
Directions for Further Research
Future research could overcome the above interview limitations by involving a larger interview sample size, and conducting classroom observations as well as in-depth interviews with the textbook writers of the three series. Further studies can even probe into students’ perceptions of writing and its many instructional approaches and practices. Such methodological improvements will serve to augment both the generalizability and validity of research results and allow more solid conclusions to be made. Furthermore, published senior high school English textbook series in Taiwan are under constant revision with new editions released on a regular basis. This indicates the necessity of future replications of the current research to report changes in textbook content elements and perhaps in instructional pedagogy. Such replications will, at the same time, assist in gauging the comprehensiveness and, in turn,
explanatory capacity of the coding system. Lastly, research efforts are warranted to address the “lesson-final effects” for writing sections and the feasibility of using an affiliated but separate textbook.
