Discussion of the Instructional Variables in the Three Series

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION

This chapter discusses results based on the analyses of the writing sections in the three textbook series and the semi-structured interviews.

Discussion of the Instructional Variables in the Three Series

This section discusses the major results regarding the focuses of instruction in the three series, the textbook authors’ underlying beliefs, and several phenomena that emerged in a cross-examination of these instructional focuses.

Instructional Focuses and Underlying Composition Pedagogies

The current study explored the writing sections in three senior high school English textbook series. The four instructional variables identified in the three series represented pedagogical manifestations of the four prominent pedagogies reported in the history of ESL writing, i.e. Controlled Composition, Current Traditional Rhetoric, the Process Approach, and the Genre Approach/EAP. These instructional focuses

could then be mapped onto the writing pedagogies the three series each reflected, as summarized in Table 23.

Table 23. Writing Pedagogies in the Three Textbook Series

Instructional focuses Writing pedagogies FE SM LT

Grammar Controlled Composition ** **

Organization Current-Traditional Rhetoric ** ** **

Strategies The Process Approach *

Genres The Genre Approach/EAP ** *

Note.

As suggested in Table 23, the four pedagogies surfaced in the three textbook

series in varying degrees to guide and shape their instructional focuses. Each series

was found to recycle two or more of the four instructional orientations salient, or once

salient, in ESL composition history. The FE series was characterized by an almost

exclusive focus on rhetorical organization and genres. The SM series, on the other

hand, focused mainly on grammar and rhetorical organization, and gave some weight to writing strategies. The LT series also laid particularly heavy emphasis on grammar and rhetorical organization and yet, unlike the SM series, had its third focus placed on genres rather than strategies. Evidently, each series featured multiple focuses adopted from different instructional approaches.

The implementation of a compound approach appears to suggest that the writers of the three series are aware of the existing writing pedagogies in the ESL discipline.

It also implies that they are cognizant of the potential inadequacies of relying on one single approach to writing instruction. In other words, writing instruction, to these textbook writers, entails teaching different components of writing.

Textbook Writers’ Underlying Beliefs About Writing Instruction

The multiple focuses of each textbook series and their sequence, furthermore, reveal the authors’ underlying beliefs about what constitutes good writing instruction.

The FE series’ emphasis first on paragraph structure and later on genres indicates an attempt to introduce the structural elements of a paragraph as a rhetorical basis for preparing learners for their acquisition of genres. This arrangement suggests that the authors of the series believe that students need to acquire the structure of a paragraph before ultimately performing various communicative functions (i.e. genres).

The SM series, on the other hand, familiarized learners initially with basic paragraph structure and then with a range of linguistic constructions. Following this, different text types were presented to introduce rhetorical possibilities for organizing a paragraph. To the authors of this series, learning to write appears to be a process of mastering basic paragraph structure and various grammatical patterns, followed by the development of the ability to construct different text types.

In addition, the SM series, different from the other two series, gave much greater

emphasis to invention and editing strategies. This strategic emphasis seems indicative

of the textbook writers’ belief that aside from linguistic and rhetorical forms, it is necessary to equip students to generate ideas for drafting and eradicate errors in written products. Researchers (e.g. Silva, 1990) have highlighted the need, however, for learners to postpone treating linguistic errors to smooth their drafting process. In the SM series, unfortunately, no effort was made to train students to delay error treatment. As a result, students might end up focusing on error correction throughout, and this might impede the efficiency of their composing process.

Finally, as shown in Chapter Four, the LT series started with various grammatical patterns, and then proceeded directly to several paragraph writing tasks

. Next, it presented certain genres and text types before dealing with the basic structure of a paragraph and, finally, introduced some more genres and text types. This sequence suggests that learning to write, in the view of the LT textbook authors, first entails creating a preliminary linguistic basis. It then involves attaining communicative goals by means of various genres, and familiarizing students with basic paragraph structure and different text types.

As has been noted, in the LT series, several writing tasks, genres, and text types were presented before a formal introduction to paragraph structure. This arrangement can be problematic in that knowledge of the elements of a paragraph, to the authors, does not seem to be a prerequisite for approaching writing tasks or acquiring text types and genres. In other words, linguistic patterns, in their opinion, are more

important as a basis for writing than a rudimentary knowledge of paragraph structure.

In sum, the textbook writers’ differential adoption of instructional focuses revealed their different beliefs about the optimal way to teach writing. For the FE textbook writers, learning to write seems to entail learning paragraph structure for the purpose of performing different communicative functions. To the SM textbook writers,

14

These were paragraph writing tasks that stood alone without following any preceding instruction.

developing one’s writing ability appears to be a process of mastering paragraph structure, consolidating a linguistic basis, and learning various text types along with invention and editing strategies. The LT textbook writers seem to believe that writing instruction starts with building a preliminary linguistic basis and continues with the learning of basic paragraph structure, genres, and a range of text types.

Cross-Examination of Instructional Focuses

A cross-examination of the focuses of the three series revealed several important phenomena, including the dominance of rhetorical instruction, general neglect of strategy training, controversy over grammar instruction, and differential impacts of the genre approach.

Dominance of the Rhetorical Approach

In the present study, Current Traditional Rhetoric was found to be the most dominant approach. This appears to suggest that the central concern of the authors of all three series was “the composed product rather than the composing process” (Silva, 1990, p. 13). This finding is congruent with Silva’s (1990) observation of the

continuing influence of the rhetorical approach as reflected in myriads of well-known ESL writing textbooks.

The effects of this emphasis in the three series on rhetorical forms, however, can be far-reaching. Given EFL teachers and students’ heavy reliance on textbooks (Kulm, Roseman & Treistman, 1999), the textbook authors’ underlying assumptions can exert a direct impact on teaching and learning outcomes. The three series may hence direct teachers and students to view writing essentially as a process of “identifying,

internalizing and executing” predetermined rhetorical forms (Silva, 1990, p. 14).

Under this instructional framework, meaning does not seem to determine form. Rather,

it appears to be shaped in conformity to form. Students may just consolidate their

manipulation of paragraph elements and discourse patterns but neglect their actual

experiences and personal meanings (Hyland, 2003).

Several observations regarding rhetorical instruction merit further discussion.

First, compared to the other two series, the FE series’ treatment of paragraph structure appears relatively brief and rough in that it merely serves as a basis for the subsequent focus on genres. Moreover, the FE series gave very limited attention to text types.

Due to these weaknesses, the FE series may fail to assist students sufficiently in the acquisition of rhetorical forms, which are important for future essay exams.

Regarding text types, results of the study suggested that the SM series attended mainly to expository writing and the LT series mainly to descriptive writing. The many expository text types included in the SM series—e.g. definition, cause and effect, and classification—reflect the authors’ belief about the ability to explain being the most important rhetorical skill for EFL learners. The purpose of this focus on expository writing may be to prepare students to deal with writing of an academic nature, or to handle the Department Required English Test (DRET) in the future.

It has been suggested that expository and argumentative text types in general are more challenging than narrative text types (Richards & Schmidt, 2002). Yet in the SM series, numerous complex expository text types such as definition and causation as well as persuasion were all presented prior to narrative writing. This presentation sequence seems to be inconsistent with the aforestated view on the supposed difficulty levels of text types. Hence students’ initial encounter with text types may be rendered unnecessarily effortful in that those more challenging ones are presented first.

The thorough treatment of descriptive writing in the LT series, on the other hand,

appears to signify the weight the authors give to writers’ capacity to describe. It is

likely that to these authors, in writing, it is more essential for students to learn to

describe different people or objects from multiple viewpoints. This emphasis may also

imply that the textbook authors are rather concerned with students’ ability to deal with

the same subject with flexibility and diversity. The repeated treatment of this text type apparently gives it greater depth and hence may allow students to express themselves more adequately in descriptive writing.

Aside from text types, also worth attention is the special emphasis on the use of transitional devices in the SM and LT series. This emphasis seems to illustrate that using appropriate transition devices is an important quality of an effective writer.

Another implication is that transitional devices may represent an area of special difficulty for learners and, consequently, deserve greater instructional attention.

Finally, essay writing was practically unaddressed across the three series. This lack of attention to essay writing apparently ensued from a consideration of the length, complexity, and resulting challenge it might pose to senior high school students. Yet since college entrance exams usually require students to produce multiple paragraphs, neglect of essay writing in the three series will fail to prepare students in this regard.

Clearly, greater attention in future textbook compilation is required on essay writing.

To sum up, focusing on rhetorical forms appears necessary given the reality of essay exams and the need for writers to meet reader expectations. However, it is also very important to focus on meaning and processes so that writing will not turn into an exercise of manipulating rhetorical patterns.

General Neglect of Strategy Training

Contrasted with the heavy emphasis on rhetorical patterns in the three series is their general neglect of composing processes and strategies. The Process Approach, as evidenced in the three series analyzed in the current study, appears to be the most underrepresented pedagogical orientation. Its translation into pedagogical practices was found to be largely partial and limited. This shows that even with its merits widely reported in the literature (e.g. Akyel & Kamisli, 1996; Graham & Harris, 2003;

Sengupta, 2000), strategy training still does not seem to have resonated much with

these textbook publishers and authors in Taiwan.

As reported in Chapter Four, slightly more weight was given to strategies in the SM series. However, strategy training in this series was confined to the initial and concluding stages of writing. That is, student attention was guided only toward idea generation and editing. No effort was made to address planning, intermediate drafts, subsequent teacher/peer feedback, or multiple revisions. This appears indicative of the textbook writers’ inattention to writing as a creative and recursive process involving meaning discovery, self-expression and problem solving (Silva, 1990). Students using the SM series, as a result, are still offered little guidance during their drafting. It is significant that both the SM series and the other two series—aside from editing and invention techniques—also include strategies that help navigate students through their composing processes. Meanwhile, different teachers may conceptualize strategies differently. Hence the textbook writers of the threes series are advised to elaborate in teacher’s manuals on the definition and teaching of strategies.

Another problem is the little attention given in the series to the importance of postponing treating linguistic inaccuracies until the final editing stage. Students might be led, therefore, to edit their texts throughout their drafting process, a typical feature of EFL/ESL unskilled writers (Raimes, 1985). Efforts should be made in future textbook compilation to direct student attention first to the arrangement of ideas before the correction of errors.

To sum up, the common focus on rhetorical forms and general inattention to

strategies substantiates Kim’s (2001) observation that writing in EFL classrooms is

still taught in “traditional ways.” By and large, rhetorical forms remain the focus of

instruction in the three series. To assist students to compose more effectively, the

textbook writers of the three series are encouraged to devote greater attention to

strategy instruction than is currently paid.

Controversy Surrounding Grammar Instruction

Controlled Composition was found to be the second most dominant pedagogy in the three series. Nevertheless, the role of grammar in the three series still appears somewhat controversial. In the current study, the SM and LT series were found to contain abundant grammar teaching. The FE series, however, featured a complete lack of such instruction. This result is in accordance with Chan (2001). She found that of the three ESL composition textbooks she analyzed, two devoted more than 40%, whereas one less than 5%, of their total space to grammar instruction. Chan’s research and the present study therefore illustrate that debate to this date probably still remains as to whether to treat linguistic issues while teaching writing.

This controversy over grammar implies two different perspectives on the role of grammar in writing. First, the emphasis on grammar in the SM and LT series may be indicative of the authors’ perceived need for EFL writers to address formal correctness in their texts. At the same time, grammar may appear to them the one part of writing that is easier to teach and, as a result, frequently taught (Raimes, 1979). On the other hand, the FE textbook writers seem to believe that linguistic knowledge does not translate into good writing directly (Frodesen & Holten, 2003). Teaching grammar, in their view, simply cannot produce effective writers and, for this reason, is probably unnecessary.

Further analysis of the SM and LT series, however, identified attempts in both

series to justify their incorporation of grammar into writing instruction. In the SM

series, one portion of grammar (almost 20%) was taught to assist students to edit and

polish written products. This result corresponds to Muncie’s (2002) suggested need

for an explicit link between grammar and editing. Another portion (more than 30%)

was presented in tandem with instruction in text types to relate sentence patterns to

paragraph writing. These findings indicate that about half of the linguistic instruction

was taught intentionally in association with writing, as opposed to for its own sake.

The grammar instruction in the SM series nonetheless was not without its

inadequacies. As shown in the content analysis, the series focused mainly on different complex clause types. This emphasis suggests that the authors consider it essential for learners to acquire a repertoire of complex clausal constructions to express their ideas unambiguously. These constructions for the most part, however, were presented in isolation, without any effort to contextualize them. Thus much of the linguistic

instruction in the SM series, due to this decontextualization, may not really contribute to students’ actual composing ability. Grammar, as underscored by Celce-Murcia (1991), is of little avail to writers when learned in a decontextualized manner.

The LT series, on the other hand, dealt with a range of relatively simple grammatical constructions. Unlike the SM series, the LT series made a concerted effort to contextualize these constructions, highlighting their communicative functions.

Each construction was usually preceded by a situational context that required the use of the construction to be communicatively effective. This style of presentation appears to typify a focus on form rather than forms (Muncie, 2002)

, and will more likely increase students’ chances of transferring learned structures into writing. It suggests that the textbook writers of the LT series construe grammar as a tool for facilitating communication and expressional efficacy.

In brief, the examination of linguistic instruction in the three series yielded some evidence for its contentious nature. It is suggested that grammar, when incorporated, be directly linked to strategies for editing composed products. Also important is the need to contextualize grammar instruction and relate each construction to its function.

15

According to Muncie (2002), a focus on forms is mainly concerned with accumulating grammatical

knowledge, whereas a focus on form employs grammar as a means to facilitate communication.

Differential Impacts of the Genre Approach

The Genre Approach, though exercising a greater instructional influence than the Process Approach, exhibited differential degrees of adoption in three series. To be more specific, genres featured heavily in the FE series, but moderately in the LT series and marginally in the SM series. This variation implies that the authors of the three series possess fairly diverse levels of confidence in the value of genres. However, it also indicates that these authors, to varying degrees, acknowledge that writing is intended to perform particular communicative objectives (Badger & White, 2000).

The FE series, for example, included genres applicable to a variety of situational contexts such as personal communication, social interaction, and job seeking.

Typically, each genre was discussed in association with its communicative purposes, social routines, and reader expectations. This orientation appears to associate writing training with equipping students to operate appropriately in various social domains. It endorses Johns’s (2003) view that genres permit shortcuts to effective communication in diverse written discourse events. Hence in this context, students may become increasingly aware of the diverse functions writing is able to perform. The genres in the FE series can be quite beneficial in that they have the potential to help learners appreciate the practical advantages of learning to write. One problem, however, pertains to the presentation of these genres in Volume Six of the series. The pressure of the upcoming entrance exam may well reduce the incentive to teach and learn genres in students’ last semester since genres are rarely tested.

Those genres portrayed in the SM series, although representing a rather small

number, appear to exhibit an obvious academic touch, including summary, personal

response, and letter. Specifically, the series was found to address EFL students’ typical

need to summarize and respond to a reading text. It further instructed students to write

application letters to pave the way for future college applications. This treatment of

genres not only shows that genres are “goal-oriented, purposeful” activities (Martin, 1984, p. 25), but to a certain degree, reflects the authors’ attempt to cater for students’

“academic needs” (Raimes, 1991, p. 410). However, to aid students in other real-life situations, more attention could be directed toward genres and their applications that are not strictly academic by nature.

Featuring the same range of genre types as SM, the LT series nonetheless appears less academically-based. The same genres in the LT series were given much greater weight and, thus, received more diverse treatment. The LT series also sought to train students to summarize and respond to texts. Yet it explored summaries not only in regard to their functions in academic settings (e.g. summarizing a text in class), but in daily situational contexts as well (e.g. summarizing a movie for a friend, reporting a public event). Similarly, a variety of communicative goals were presented for the genre of letters to address their different contextual applications (e.g. writing a personal letter, discussing a problem). This presentation of genres can help learners recognize that writing along with its purposes is, in fact, dynamic (Badger & White, 2000). It demonstrates to learners that a genre such as letter actually corresponds to different audiences and functions depending on the situational context in focus.

The inclusion of genres in the three series can foster an awareness of the social and contextual dimensions of language use often lost in focused attention to language, organization, or processes alone (Hyland, 2003). Yet it is recommended that adequate attention be given to the applications of genres in both academic settings and daily situations, as in the case of the LT series. Doing so in the other two series will help better serve their student users’ needs in different contextual settings.

To sum up, the three series appear to reveal a strong inclination toward forms.

This focus on forms implies that focal attention is given to products, and processes are

marginalized. Composition instruction in the three series hence can be described, in

Blanton’s (1995) terms, as text-privileged. In other words, the instructional beliefs held by the writers of the three textbook series still remain largely product-oriented.

To achieve an appropriate balance between form and meaning, greater attention in the three series to composing strategies is required. Or else, teachers should provide extra practice with process writing to address the limitations of their existing materials.

Comparison with the MOE Guidelines

The three series of textbooks were written on the basis of the Curriculum

Standards for Senior High Schools promulgated and released in 1995 by the Ministry of Education (MOE) of the R.O.C. These standards put forward guidelines for the teaching of high school English composition, suggesting three major instructional focuses, i.e. grammar, paragraph organization, and genres (e.g. memo, letter, email, and personal response). It was discovered, based on the results of the study, that

overall the FE series (paragraph organization and genres) and the SM series (grammar, paragraph organization, and strategies) each followed two of these focuses. The LT series (grammar, paragraph organization, and genres), on the other hand, was found to correspond most closely to all three focuses.

These MOE guidelines, as most of the textbook writers and teachers, gave the utmost importance to paragraph organization, followed by grammar and genres.

Relatively scant attention, however, was given to the teaching and learning of

strategies in writing instruction. Hence, to achieve the optimal instructional effects, it is important that the MOE incorporate strategy training into its guidelines for the teaching of writing. Such an emphasis on strategies in the MOE guidelines should encourage textbook writers to modify their instructional materials accordingly.

Discussion of the Task Variable in the Three Series

Major parallels were found between the three series in the major task types they

employed to structure students’ writing development. The three series all arranged for

students to practice identifying and constructing fundamental paragraph elements, and thereafter scaffolded their writing through extensive use of model texts.

Prior to writing paragraphs, the SM and LT series initially involved students with substantial sentence writing practice. These sentential exercises served to reinforce previously presented linguistic constructions. Their inclusion seems to underline the authors’ belief that the competence to form accurate sentences is a prerequisite for paragraph level production. In other words, they believe that it is critical for students to equip themselves linguistically before expressing personal thoughts in extended stretches of discourse. This belief reflects the view that writing is essentially an accumulation of grammatical sentences. That is, writing mainly entails constructing sentences and arranging them into paragraph form. Such linguistically-based tasks in the SM and LT series appear largely prescriptive and therefore may reinforce form but restrict thinking, which might eventually fail to motivate students.

As for paragraph writing tasks, the three series proceeded in a similar manner.

The progression from the recognition and construction of a paragraph to paragraph writing practice seems to provide guidance, but does not do much to promote thinking.

The textbook writers of the three series are thus advised to incorporate more process writing tasks that stimulate students’ thoughts and facilitate their self-expression.

As shown in the textbook analysis, reading and paragraph writing tasks were the

top two task types in all three series. The prevalence of these two task types reflects

the textbook writers’ general awareness of the link between reading and writing. This

awareness appears congruent with current research that indicates the facilitative role

of reading experience in writing development (Ferris, 1998; Reid, 1993). However, to

best draw on this connection, it is critical to include tasks that entail both processing

and responding to reading texts (Ferris, 1998; Reid, 1993). It is a pity, then, that the

effort by the three series to exploit the reading-writing relation does not seem to have

advanced much further than the mere provision of model texts. Across the three series, the majority of the reading tasks linked to writing tasks simply served as input for emulation, for providing scaffolding for learners (Hyland, 2003). These reading tasks hence offered limited opportunities for the re-exploration or extension of text contents (Zamel, 1992). At the same time, such heavy use of reading texts as models warrants the need to avert what Tribble (1997) terms “slavish imitation” (p. 58). This is

alarming especially in case of the SM series, where the sharing of topics by paragraph writing tasks and their model texts may encourage imitation. Teachers using this series should therefore highlight the need for students to express their own ideas and avoid mindless imitation or copying.

Also worth noting is the three series’ arrangement of extended writing tasks.

Extended writing tasks refer to those that provide discourse-level writing practice.

These tasks, as revealed by the textbook analysis, had a different constitution in the three series. Specifically, the FE series was found to focus such tasks on genres; the SM series, on text types; and the LT series, on both genres and task types. As genres are discourse events with inherently communicative goals and social functions (Biber, 1998), writing tasks designed to practice genres seem to resemble what Hyland (2003) describes as real-world tasks. Tasks focusing on text types, on the other hand, are similar to those he refers to as pedagogical tasks in that they seek to enhance students’

control of rhetorical forms. In this regard, the FE series can be viewed as giving particular emphasis to real-world tasks; the SM series, to pedagogical tasks; and the LT series, to both. Of these three series, it seems that the LT series—focusing on both types of writing tasks—attends more evenly to learners’ pedagogical requirements and their need for carrying out real-world tasks. The authors of the other two series, as a result, are advised to orient their design of writing tasks to both these types of needs.

Finally, regarding discourse writing practice, the FE series provided only eleven

extended writing tasks compared to more than thirty such tasks in the other two series.

Given that learners’ fluency in writing increases with the amount of practice they receive, the sufficiency of discourse-level practice in the FE series is cast into doubt.

Not only is more discourse-level practice needed, such practice should also be offered at an earlier time rather than deferred until students’ last year in senior high school.

Based on above results, it is suggested that writing task design promote fluent expression in addition to linguistic and rhetorical accuracy, encourage students to respond to reading texts, and cater for both their pedagogical and real-world needs.

Discussion of Interview Results

This section discusses the interview results from the perspectives of the teachers’

philosophy, practice, and evaluations of their textbook writing sections.

Teacher Philosophy

Discussions of the teachers’ philosophy focus on their rationale for teaching writing, their instructional beliefs as well as desired writing materials, and the factors that shaped their beliefs.

For Exams, Expression, Reinforcement, and Communication

As revealed in the interviews, the teachers taught students to write mainly for the sake of exams, self-expression, reinforcement, and communication. Exams in the current study apparently compelled the teachers, albeit perhaps to different degrees, to attach greater importance to writing. This reality of teaching writing for the sake of exams illustrates the positive washback effects of large scale exams on teachers’

pedagogical practices. In other words, testing writing makes teaching it a necessity.

Exams, however, were not the only factor that motivated the teachers to teach

writing. Most of them stressed that writing provided an outlet for students’ ideas and

viewpoints. Apparently, they were also concerned with students’ thoughts as well as

their ability to articulate them through writing. This attention to students’ thoughts

echoes the claim made by process writing proponents that an essential goal of writing is to allow self-expression (Silva, 1990). Another important reason for teaching writing, as some teachers expressed, was that writing could reinforce formerly introduced concepts in textbook lessons and indicate students’ progress or problems.

This reflects the teachers’ general concern with students’ language development and the potential of writing to contribute to that development. Writing, in this sense, was used by these teachers to serve other more “important” skills, such as grammar.

Furthermore, some teachers viewed writing as a means to enable communication between individuals. This communicative focus could have been attributable to the more recent pedagogical trends they were exposed to in their prior formal training. It is likely, then, that they believe that highlighting the communicative functions of writing is essential in demonstrating to students the value of learning to write. Writing was also taught to equip students to perform common social functions (e.g. writing an application letter or a resume). To some extent, this implies a belief that writing is essentially meant to “do jobs” (Tribble, 1997, p. 57). These incentives for writing instruction illustrate that writing is no longer merely a skill required for academic purposes. It is a communicative, functional skill that will enable students to convey messages and function in various situational contexts. Ultimately, the best way to motivate students is perhaps for teachers to show that writing is useful because of its communicative nature, not its relation to tests.

In sum, the teachers’ writing instruction was driven primarily by exams and a compound of other factors. This phenomenon, to some extent, reflects the teachers’

awareness of the multi-functional nature of writing. Meantime, it is reminiscent of the

multiple instructional focuses of the three series, indicating that both the teachers and

the textbook writers were able to recognize the value of teaching students to write.

Focuses on Rhetorical Forms, Grammar, Reading, and Practice

Results of the interview analysis indicated that the teachers’ concept of learning to writing was based mainly on the acquisition of paragraph structure. Many of them also underlined the importance of transitional devices and sentence patterns. These preferences suggest that the teachers, while stressing the importance of students’

self-expression, base this ability to express thoughts largely on a rhetorical as well as linguistic foundation. The result generally coincides with Pickett’s (1977) L1 writing research finding that grammar and rhetorical patterns were the most valued writing textbook components among instructors. Decades later, it seems that emphasis on linguistic and rhetorical forms still remains dominant and central. Apparently, the teachers are still concerned with accuracy and end-products. Insufficient attention is given to the processes that result in these end-products.

Aside from basic paragraph structure, learning to write for most of the teachers entailed ample exposure to reading. This concept suggests the teachers’ belief in the importance of scaffolding EFL students’ writing development through reading models.

Apparently to these teachers, writing success necessitates adequate reading support.

Indeed, writing skills, as Ferris (1998) points out, “cannot emerge by dint of practice alone” (p. 35). The emphasis on reading input by no means denies the importance of writing practice. Half of the teachers held that opportunities for hands-on writing practice were crucial for writing success. This belief may have been based on the view that writing fluency is enhanced mainly through actual writing practice, through sufficient output (Oxford & Scarcella, 1992). To these teachers, learners “learn to write by writing” (Ivanic, 2004, p. 225).

Another important finding in terms of the teachers’ instructional focuses was a

special emphasis on such dimensions of writing as communication, context, and

strategies. Two teachers, who had taught English for a relatively short period, had

presumably been exposed to more recent instructional trends in their formal training during their graduate studies. It is possible, then, that the distinction between them and the other teachers stemmed from the differences in their training. Such differences point to the potential of formal training to influence, or even transform, teacher beliefs.

For example, one teacher, who was pursuing her master’s degree at the time of the study, called for greater attention to strategy training. This attention to strategies, derived quite likely from the training courses she had taken, seems to have moved beyond a common preoccupation with written products. It reveals this teachers’

awareness of students’ writing processes and strategic development.

The Influences of Training, Conferences, Exams, and Materials

The factors the teachers reported in the formation of their instructional beliefs included former training, the conferences they attended, the influence of exams, and the materials they used. The predominant influence of former training echoes Lai’s (2004) finding that prior learning had a substantial effect on teachers’ beliefs about writing instruction. Hence training received during different periods may well have largely different effects on the way teachers deliver their instruction. This finding in turn illustrates the importance of conferences, another major source of influence on the teachers’ beliefs about EFL writing. These teachers’ regular attendances at conferences point to the potential of EFL conferences to inspire or redirect teachers’

beliefs about writing instruction.

One other factor that influenced the teachers’ instructional beliefs was that of exams. The majority of the teachers found their beliefs shaped at least in part by exam trends in that the focus of exams may well have become the focus of instruction.

Teaching to the test in an EFL context such as Taiwan may be a common phenomenon.

Yet it is critical for teachers to attend to more than just the linguistic and rhetorical

forms favored by exams. Most likely, only when students are equipped with the

knowledge of essential writing functions and strategies will they begin to compose as effective writers.

Finally, some teachers reported that their beliefs about writing instruction were shaped partly by the source materials they had been exposed to. It is very important, hence, that senior high schools and textbook writers provide appropriately designed materials for teachers to use. Teachers should also learn to select suitable support materials in case they find their textbook writing sections insufficient.

Practice

All the teachers stated that their formal writing instruction did not begin until

grade 12 in that it was during this one-year period that students were given time for

such focused training. This finding echoes Pan’s (2003) observation that in Taiwan

formal composition instruction was unavailable for senior high school students

typically until their third year. Within the educational context of Taiwan, English

writing is taught formally in the third year most probably for the sake of preparing

students for college entrance exams. This practice is problematic since writing skills,

as most other skills, take time to develop. The problem is aggravated by the fact that

each week, only one hour is allocated to the teaching of writing. With limited teaching

hours, writing instruction over such a limited period appears to have failed in its

attempt to empower students to write effectively. This ineffectiveness of instruction is

clearly reflected in students’ disappointingly low mean scores for essay writing in

their entrance exams. Given Taiwanese high school students’ poor writing proficiency,

it is perhaps necessary for the Ministry of Education to make adjustments to the

Guidelines for the Senior High School Curriculum. This is particularly significant in

view of the fact that under the influence of globalization, good English writing skills

are becoming increasingly important. The authorities in charge of the Senior High

School Curriculum should also urge textbook writers to incorporate a set of

well-designed writing materials in their published English texts.

Whereas all teachers started their formal writing instruction in students’ last year in high school, some teachers managed to arrange additional writing practice for students. They organized activities including email exchanges, journal writing, and responses to novels, though they did not teach students step-by-step how to write.

These activities offered opportunities for students to communicate with others and cultivated their ability to express their ideas and thoughts. They provided a platform not only for early exposure to writing practice, but for the promotion of a view of writing as a means of communication and self-expression. This may help students recognize that writing is not only a skill to be learned for academic or test purposes. It is also for expressing thoughts and communicating messages. Certainly, an important implication is for textbook writing sections to incorporate these additional practice activities.

As for the issue of using the target writing materials, the vast majority of the teachers reported using the writing sections in their English textbooks. Yet they only selected those sections that were concise, easy to follow, and closely linked to unit reading texts or students’ life. Since high school teachers have very limited classroom hours, textbook writers should design writing materials that meet these preferences to increase their appeal to English teachers.

One special case is the total neglect by one teacher of all the writing sections in her textbooks. This teacher provided a number of reasons for her non-use of these materials, such as their irrelevance to monthly exams, their lesson-final position, and time constraints. Her account reflects a general dilemma confronting English teachers in their teaching of writing. In order to effectively teach students to write, it is

essential for the authorities in the MOE and textbook writers to consider her concerns

and respond accordingly. For example, a writing component can be included in

monthly exams. The resulting washback effects will oblige teachers and students alike to attach greater importance to these textbook writing sections.

Regarding the use of supplementary materials, the most popular types, as the teachers stated, were picture writing materials and published composition textbooks.

All the teachers used materials designed to practice picture writing clearly due to the current examination trend toward picture writing. Some teachers adopted commercial writing textbooks in that they appeared more systematic and comprehensive, thus providing stronger guiding support. This common practice of adopting support materials indicates the insufficiency of the materials provided by the writing sections.

As a solution, textbooks writers may consider compiling a separate set of systematic instructional materials, possibly with additional references for English teachers.

Evaluation

This section discusses the teachers’ evaluative comments on the presentation of the writing sections in the textbooks they used.

The FE Series

The two teachers using the FE series regarded its focus on paragraph structure as

essential and the tasks presented as acceptable. Stressing the centrality of rhetorical

forms, they even suggested more in-depth treatment of paragraph structure and text

types. Yet although both teachers observed a lack of strategies in this series, neither

considered it necessary to dedicate greater emphasis. Their comments reflect their

primary concern with rhetorical forms and written products, on the one hand, and

indifference to composing strategies and processes, on the other. Facing the reality of

college entrance exams, the teachers’ emphasis on appropriate rhetorical forms can

easily be understood. Their lack of interest in strategies implies either that they are

highly constrained by their limited class time or that strategies, in their view, do not

seem useful to high school students. One other possibility is that they have little idea

what writing strategies are. Hence, in addition to laying greater emphasis on strategies, the textbook writers of the FE series should present them in an easily digestible way.

If necessary, teacher’s manuals can be used to promote teachers’ basic understanding of strategies.

Concerning the lack of attention to grammar and the full treatment of genres in the FE series, these two teachers, as shown in the interviews, expressed mixed views.

Their diverse views on grammar and genres could have resulted from the differences between their students’ proficiency levels. More specifically, T1 probably considered that her students were rather proficient linguistically and, for this reason, did not need much grammatical guidance in their writing sections. In turn, her students’ higher proficiency may have allowed her to direct some attention to the functional aspects of writing, to the acquisition of genres. T2, however, described her students as still in need of basic linguistic support and thus deemed it essential to equip them with linguistic patterns first. On the other hand, genres—unlike grammar or rhetorical forms—were not tested on exams and, as a result, may have failed to arouse much interest in this teacher. To encourage the teaching of genres, it is suggested that textbook writers highlight their goal-oriented nature and communicative functions, most likely through teacher’s manuals. Also important is the need to incorporate genres that correspond to the target functions learners may need to perform. As for grammar, if it is incorporated, textbook writers must strive to contextualize and relate each linguistic construction to its function.

The SM Series

The two teachers who used the SM series articulated similar opinions regarding

its presentation of genres, strategies, and rhetorical forms. Both teachers commented

on the usefulness of genres, noted their paucity, and proposed including more useful

ones. Their demand for even more genres indicates that they are motivated to offer

students shortcuts to successful communication in diverse contexts (Johns, 2003). In other words, the communicative nature of genres probably provides the two teachers with an incentive to teach something that students can apply to daily situations.

Regarding the limited treatment of strategies in the SM series, the two teachers did not consider it a problem. These two teachers, as did the two teachers using the FE series, exhibited a disinterest in strategy training. T3, for instance, described writing strategies as “too professional” and therefore “unnecessary” for high school students.

In actuality, however, strategies have bee proven highly instrumental in assisting both skilled and novice writers (Graham & Harris, 2003; Graham & Harris, 2006). These four teachers’ perception of writing strategies could have been related to a possible lack of focus on strategies in their previous training. Their perception may even reflect a general lack of understanding of strategies among English teachers. To address the issue, teacher’s manuals again can be used to increase teachers’ familiarity with strategies and improve their incentive to teach these navigational techniques.

As for paragraph structure, both teachers viewed its treatment as facilitative to writing development. The perception of paragraph structure as inevitably important does not simply illustrate the impact of essay exams. It shows that the influence of the rhetorical approach is deeply ingrained in the teachers’ instructional frameworks.

However, their reported comment on the excessive difficulty of several text types implies that the textbook writers may have neglected their target audiences’ levels.

Teachers confronted with this situation could of course teach text types selectively according to their students’ needs. Then they may adopt support materials to focus on those particularly relevant ones.

The sequence of the text types in the SM series was also questioned. T4 stated

that several complicated text types such as classification, causation, and persuasion

were all introduced before simpler ones such as narration. This observation is in fact

consistent with the finding of the textbook analysis regarding the SM series’ text types.

Apparently, the teacher is sensitive to the typical progression from description through narration and exposition to argumentation. In general, text types such as causation and persuasion involve more complex and thorough thinking. Thus introducing them prior to narration is likely to result in undue difficulties on the part of learner writers.

As to the presentation of grammar and tasks, the two teachers displayed greater differences of opinion. First, in terms of grammar, whereas T3 was overall pleased with the linguistic structures covered, T4 thought it problematic that the series sometimes treated several complex concepts simultaneously. While not opposed to grammar instruction, the teacher is obviously aware that such dense treatment has little chance of transferring successfully into student writing. Evidently, once given, grammar instruction should aim at maximum clarity and contextualization, opposed to quantity.

Regarding tasks, T3 regarded the series as satisfactory, but suggested enhancing

the relevance of paragraph writing task topics to reading materials. This suggestion

indicates that the relevance of writing tasks to previously introduced reading materials

influences teachers’ willingness to use these tasks. T4, on the other hand, identified

some task-related problems in the series. First, she pointed out that writing samples

often had the exact same topics as writing tasks, which encouraged imitation rather

than invention. Evidently, this teacher is concerned about students merely imitating,

instead of creating, texts. She further stated that certain grammar points were not

adequately presented before practiced in drills. Her statement reveals that, to her,

grammar in writing instruction will be useful only if presented clearly and understood

adequately. That is, covering a concept is not always equal to its acquisition or its

successful application in writing. It is necessary to contextualize and clearly present a

given structure before its practice in grammar exercises.

The LT Series

The two teachers using the LT series overlapped substantially in their comments on its presentation of rhetorical forms, strategies and genres. First, both agreed that the treatment of rhetorical forms was a major strength of the series. However, T5 suggested that adjustments be made to the arrangement of certain text types before basic paragraph structure in this series. Knowledge of the rudiments of a paragraph, to her, serves as a basis for developing it in different patterns. Apparently, one likely outcome of presenting text types before paragraph structure is that learners may be writing different patterns of paragraphs without an initial understanding of “what a paragraph looks like.” Learners may then be forced to re-construct their concept of the paragraph when taught later about its structural elements. So it is suggested that textbook authors present the structure of a paragraph before dealing with its patterns of organization.

When asked about strategies, these two teachers, different from the other four, proposed incorporating more strategy training into the LT series. Their awareness of the paucity of strategies in the SM series and the need to address the issue, again, may have resulted from the relatively recent training they had received. It could also have been attributed to their greater sensitivity to students’ difficulties with writing. T5, for example, observed her students’ frequent struggle at pre-writing stages, which, according to her, illustrated the importance of teaching strategies for idea generation.

It is believed that through adequate training, most teachers can obtain such awareness as possessed by these two teachers.

As for genres, both teachers held a positive attitude toward them, and appreciated

their appeal and relevance to students’ life. Worth mentioning, however, is the fact

that T4 was initially resistant to the idea of teaching genres as a result of their lack of

test relevance. Later she somehow came to realize and acknowledge the practicality of

learning to construct various genres in that they performed different communicative functions. This shift in the teacher’s attitude toward genres suggests the possibility of altering teachers’ instructional beliefs about other aspects of writing. Further training, for instance, may help the teachers who used the other two series begin to appreciate the value of strategy training in writing instruction.

In terms of grammar and writing tasks, the two teachers who used the LT series clearly differed in their evaluative feedback. T6 reported that the linguistic concepts presented in the series were, though not absolutely important, generally relevant. T5, on the other hand, stated that writing sections did not even need to include grammar.

This comment seems to have stemmed from her belief about the ineffectiveness of focusing on grammar in writing instruction in the first place. Obviously, this teacher is well aware that teaching grammar and teaching writing are fundamentally different.

As Ferris (1998) notes, however, some grammar teaching may be necessary to assist learners to become self-sufficient editors of their texts. If taught, grammar should be linked directly to editing (Muncie, 2002), and should be as contextualized as possible (Celce-Murcia, 1991). All in all, a judicious amount of grammar instruction presented properly should still have a role to play in writing instruction.

Regarding writing tasks, the two teachers also gave quite different comments.

Those presented in the LT series, once again, seemed overall satisfactory and effective to T6. T5, however, stated that in the series, the presentation of several paragraph writing tasks before awareness tasks required adjustment. She proposed that

awareness tasks precede writing tasks. Presumably, this arrangement can help students

build a better conceptual framework prior to their actual writing practice. Raising

students’ awareness before engaging them in writing tasks, indeed, is likely to provide

better task guidance and support.

Discussion of the Textbook Writers, the Teachers, and the Researcher

The current study uncovered a general match between the textbook writers and the teacher interviewees in terms of their writing instructional focuses. Results of the study suggest that the textbook authors predominantly believe rhetorical organization to be the basis for writing instruction. Quite commonly, they also consider grammar and genres important focuses of writing instruction. For the most part, however, the role of strategies is deemed peripheral. Regarding tasks, effective design to these authors mainly involves practice with paragraph writing based on given models. Thus for most of the textbook writers, an ideal textbook seems to be one that underscores paragraph organization, focuses on grammar and genres, and incorporates adequate writing tasks scaffolded with writing samples.

These beliefs of the textbook authors are largely consistent with the teachers’

reported focuses of writing instruction, possibly with the exception of genres. Like the textbook writers, the teachers refer to rhetorical organization as the essential

foundation for writing. Linguistic structures, likewise, are described frequently as an important aspect of instruction. As in the case of the textbook writers, strategies also occupy a fairly unimportant position in these teachers’ writing instruction. Further, according to them, extensive reading practice allows access to large amounts of written input necessary for writing output, congruent with the textbook writers’

extensive use of writing models. The most pronounced difference, as suggested above, lies in the teachers’ relative inattention to genres. These similarities indicate that the teachers’ instructional beliefs as well as needs are generally consistent with those of the textbook writers.

To adequately develop students’ writing ability, however, instruction evidently

needs to go beyond linguistic forms and rhetorical patterns. To help learners become

autonomous writers, the textbook authors must devote more materials to strategies for

tackling the different stages of composing. These authors are also advised to illustrate to teachers the value of focusing on common written genres through, for example, teacher’s manuals. As for task design, paragraph writing tasks based on writing models—commonly found in the three series—may be inadequate. Future textbook compilation should direct more effort toward encouraging students to express their opinions regarding a given reading text.

Ultimately, a balanced approach should seek to address the necessary strategies

for generating and arranging ideas, the appropriate rhetorical and linguistic forms

within which to present these ideas, and the range of real-life functions one can

perform through different genres. In practice, it is suggested that textbook writing

instruction begin with an overview of the writing process to equip students with a

fundamental concept of writing. This can be followed by an introduction of basic

writing strategies to promote the expression of thoughts. Next, students can be

formally presented with the structure of a paragraph to frame these thoughts within

appropriate rhetorical forms, along with different text types and genres. Depending on

the text types or genres focused on, linguistic constructions can be introduced where

necessary to facilitate the presentation of personal opinions. Finally, tasks should be

appropriately designed to balance between offering scaffolding through models and

promoting personal expression. Instructional materials following this approach will

more likely help teachers address both students’ writing processes and the resulting

products. Such materials will hence allow access not just to form, but to its meaning

and function as well.