TEXTBOOK EVALUATION, ADAPTATION, AND
SUPPLEMENTATION FOR A GRADUATE-LEVEL
COURSE IN ACADEMIC WRITING
AT A CHINESE UNIVERSITY
By
Luke Hendricks Petschauer
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for
the degree of Master of Letters in English Language Teaching
University of St Andrews
August 2010
Abstract
This dissertation is an evaluation of McKay and Rosenthal’s
textbook Writing for a Specific Purpose (1980) for use in a graduate-level
academic writing class taught to Chinese students at the Chinese
Academy of Social Science. The dissertation will first consider current
understandings of the role of textbooks in the language classroom,
methods of textbook evaluation, and types of adaptation; the Chinese
academic context is then explored, focusing on rhetorical structure
common in writing by Chinese students and washback on students’
English writing from writing instruction for the College English Test (CET).
This is followed by descriptions of currently used methodologies of writing
instruction. Following the literature review, a process for evaluation is
proposed based upon current theories of materials evaluation and
techniques used by experienced teachers; this process of evaluation is
then applied to Writing for a Specific Purpose. Following an evaluation of
the textbooks, suggestions are made for adaptation and supplementation
of the text so to better be able to meet the desired course outcomes in a
context-appropriate way.
i
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my dissertation advisor, Catherine Kerr-Dineen,
for her advice, feedback, support, and, most especially, her patience
during the research for and writing of this dissertation. Without her
guidance and assistance the following work would have been much the
poorer.
My most sincere thanks and appreciation also go to Sandra Piai,
Ally Malcolm-Smith, and Kerry Tavakoli for their excellent classes and the
always-helpful feedback and ideas they provided me throughout the term
at the University of St Andrews.
I am deeply grateful to the University of St Andrews and the British
Council for providing financial support of my studies through the Scotland
Saltire Scholarship.
I also wish to acknowledge Professor Liu Runqing, Professor Wen
Qiufang, Professor Chen Guohua, and Professor Zhou Yan of the National
Research Centre for Foreign Language Education at Beijing Foreign
Studies University for the roles each of them have played in developing my
appreciation for the scientific study of language and language learning.
Finally, I have not the words to express the profound sense of
gratitude and love I feel for my parents; to merely offer them “thanks”
would be an injustice.
ii
Contents
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1 ‘Academic Reading and Writing’ at the Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences ..................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Overview of the Dissertation ................................................................... 5
2. Materials Evaluation and Adaptation ............................................................ 6
2.1 Why Are Textbooks Used? ...................................................................... 7
2.2 How Are Textbook Evaluated? .............................................................. 11
2.3 How Are Evaluations Acted Upon? ...................................................... 16
3. The Chinese Educational Context .............................................................. 17
3.1 Student Expectations and High Stakes Testing in China ................. 18
3.2 Writing Instruction in China ................................................................... 22
4. Teaching Writing ............................................................................................ 25
4.1 Methodologies for Teaching Writing ..................................................... 25
4.1.1 Product Writing: A Cognitive Approach ............................................ 25
4.1.2 Process Writing: A Social Approach ................................................. 26
4.1.3 Genre Analysis: A Cognitive-Textual Approach .............................. 27
4.1.4 Language Choice and Academic Writing ......................................... 29
4.2 Teaching Writing to Chinese Students ................................................ 30
5. Evaluation Methodology .............................................................................. 34
6. Evaluation of Writing for a Specific Purpose ............................................ 37
6.1 Data Collection ........................................................................................ 37
6.1.1 Published Articles About Writing for a Specific Purpose ............... 37
6.1.2 Objective Description of the Textbook .............................................. 39
6.1.3 Description of Chapter 5: assert/substantiate ................................. 41
6.2 Subjective Evaluation of the Textbook ................................................. 46
6.2.1 General Evaluation of the Textbook ................................................. 46
6.2.2 Writing for a Specific Purpose and CASS’s Learning Outcomes 50
6.3 Suggestions for Adaptation and Supplementation ............................ 53
6.3.1 Planning and Structuring Essays ...................................................... 53
6.3.2 Use of Academic Language ............................................................... 54
6.3.3 Citing and Paraphrasing ..................................................................... 55
6.3.4 Research Skills .................................................................................... 56
6.3.5 Process Writing .................................................................................... 56
6.4 Defence of the Proposed Adaptations ................................................. 57
7. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 60
7.1 Limitations ................................................................................................ 60
7.2 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 62
References ......................................................................................................... 64
iii
Appendix 1: ‘Academic Reading and Writing’ Course Description ............... i
Appendix 2: Sample Adaptations for Writing for a Specific Purpose .......... xi
iv
1. Introduction
This dissertation is an evaluation of the textbook Writing for a
Specific Purpose (McKay & Rosenthal 1980), the only textbook assigned
for the Graduate University of the Chinese Academy of Social Science’s
‘Academic Writing and Reading’ course, a semester-long class required of
incoming graduate students. The focus of the evaluation will be how
McKay and Rosenthal’s textbook may be adapted and supplemented to
best facilitate the teaching of academic writing skills to Chinese students in
China, taking into account (a) the drastic changes in the philosophies of
language teaching and instruction of academic writing that have occurred
since the publication of the textbook; (b) current theories of textbook use,
evaluation, and adaptation; (c) the unique “Chinese EFL learning context
and learning culture” (Zhang 2003: 285); and (d) CASS’s desired
outcomes for the class.
McDonough and Shaw (2003) observe that the process of textbook
evaluation typically results in deciding whether or not to adopt a textbook;
adaptation may then be carried out upon the adopted textbook to make it
more suitable to the learning and teaching context. Deciding whether to
adopt a textbook is an example of pre-use evaluation; it has been
frequently observed that evaluation may take place pre-, during-, and postuse, though pre-use evaluation is the most common (Ellis 1997; McGrath
2002; McDonough & Shaw 2003). The literature on material evaluation
reflect the tendency towards pre-use investigations of course materials,
1
especially textbooks, for the purpose of textbook selection or purchasing.
For classroom teachers not involved in the purchasing process, it is
primarily the process of adaptation that is of interest. In lieu of discussion
of whether or not to adopt the textbook, and rather than questioning
whether or not Writing for a Specific Purpose should have been adopted,
possible factors guiding the selection of the textbook by the institution will
be explored.
Current understandings of materials evaluation generally hold the
process to be a subjective one that is both complex and nuanced
(Masuhara 1998); these complexities are deepened when teaching in a
cultural context other than one’s own. As Kramsch and Sullivan observe,
“[t]he use of materials not only reflects local and international needs…but
also practices arising from the culture of the classroom itself” (Kramsch &
Sullivan 1996: 202). This has been noted to be especially true in the
teaching of writing:
when applying Western writing approaches for local use, writing
teachers need to heighten their consciousness of the literary
practices, educational tradition, student needs, and instructional
constraints in the local context (You 2004a: 98).
It is hoped that this work may serve as a starting point for developing
solutions to the question of how novice western English language teachers
(ELTs) who choose to work in English as a foreign language (EFL)
environment may use published research and accounts of previous
evaluations of materials to evaluate, adapt, and supplement assigned
textbooks so to teach in a way that uses effective, up-to-date methodology
2
while also being culturally appropriate and sensitive to the local learning
and teaching context.
1.1 ‘ACADEMIC READING
AND
WRITING’
AT THE
CHINESE ACADEMY
OF
SOCIAL
SCIENCES
The Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
(CASS) is a government-funded graduate institution located in Beijing.
CASS faculty members advise only one student at a time, and thus the
student body is both small and carefully selected. Students at CASS
specialise in subjects including economics, law, literature and language,
urban planning, linguistics, and history. ‘Academic Reading and Writing’ is
a required course intended to prepare students to read and write academic
papers in English and pursue independent research. Although the contents
of the class includes practice and instruction in academic reading and
critical thinking, the focus of this dissertation is on the the instruction of
writing in the class. This limitation has been made so to better focus upon
the sole textbook assigned for the course, Writing for a Specific Purpose.
CASS hires native speakers of English, all of whom hold at least a
masters degree in English, TESOL, or applied linguistics, to teach
‘Academic Reading and Writing’. The Academic Writing class meets once
a week for three hours over the course of a sixteen week semester, for a
total of 108 class hours. Class size is capped at thirty students; the typical
class contains twenty to twenty-five students. Upon completion of the
3
Academic Writing class, students are expected to have mastered the
following writing skills:
1. Writing analytic and persuasive research essays via
process writing.
2. Outlining and planning essays.
3. Conducting library and online research.
4. Citing correctly.
5. Using appropriate academic language in writing.
Special emphasis is placed upon learning the skills of process writing
(discussed in section 4.1.2), especially the skill of editing or revising after
receiving feedback. Teachers are expected to provide explicit grammar
instruction and assign weekly grammar exercises and writing assignments
as homework. Course instructors are also responsible for selecting and
reproducing reading texts that are judged to be of interest to the students
and relevant to the students’ academic disciplines. All written assignments
must be marked to department standards and used for assessment.
Students save their homework and in-class assignments to create a
writing portfolio, which is submitted to the instructor and, ultimately, the
English department, at the end of the term. The course culminates with
students researching and writing a two thousand word paper on a topic of
their own choosing. Each semester foreign teachers are expected to teach
three sections of Academic Writing along with two or three other classes,
for an average of seventeen contact hours per week. In a typical semester,
a foreign teacher will work with approximately seventy-five Academic
Writing students and one hundred students in other courses.
4
1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE DISSERTATION
In this dissertation an evaluation of Writing for a Specific Purpose is
undertaken following a systematic investigation and description of
materials evaluation. First, consideration is given to the role of the
textbook in the language classroom, exploring criticisms and defences of
the use of textbooks in general. Subsequent to this, current theories for the
evaluation of textbooks and the processes of adaptation and
supplementation of the same are explored. This is followed by exploration
of details of the Chinese educational context that may be relevant to
writing instruction, including Chinese methods of teaching writing in both
Chinese and English; western and Chinese perceptions of Chinese
rhetorical style; and differences in Chinese and western expectations of
teaching styles and conceptions of what constitutes learning. Following
this are descriptions of current methods of English-language writing
instruction and how writing instructors have adapted these methods for
use with classes of Chinese students. After presentation of this
background information, a procedure for evaluation is put forth, a
description of Writing for a Specific Purpose is given, and an evaluation of
the textbook is made. Finally, suggestions are made for adaptation of the
textbook and possible criticisms of the suggested adaptations are
considered.
5
2. Materials Evaluation and Adaptation
The terms materials evaluation and materials assessment are both
used to describe “[t]he systematic appraisal of the value of materials in
relation to their objectives and to the objectives of the learners using
them” (Tomlinson 1998: xi). These terms are so commonly understood to
describe the same process that they are often used interchangeably, even
in the same piece of writing (Stoller et al 2006). In this dissertation the
term materials evaluation will be used exclusively to describe such
appraisal of materials. This choice has been made not only so to reduce
confusion, but also to avoid the connotations carried by the word assess,
which may be understood to imply materials evaluation is a teachercentred process which is or may be carried out with a high level of
objectivity and scientific detachment. These assumptions are at odds with
current understandings of the materials evaluation process as
fundamentally subjective and context-specific, shaped by the needs of the
institution, teacher, and student alike (Ellis 1997; Islam & Mares 2003); we
evaluate texts to “reach our own conclusions regarding the suitability of the
materials for specified groups or individuals” (McDonough & Shaw 2003:
71). This focus upon the appropriateness of a text relative to the context
and the needs of student and teacher means that an evaluation considers
the relative, rather than absolute, merits of a textbook when used in a
specific context.
6
McDonough & Shaw’s description of the purpose of materials
evaluation and its focus on students and context makes clear why
evaluation of the textbook can only be one aspect of the task to be
undertaken by this dissertation. Since the task at hand is to determine how
to best use an assigned textbook, rather than delineating how to best
select an appropriate textbook, it is also necessary to explore and describe
the process of adaptation, the “extension or exploitation of the existing
material” for use in a specific teaching context that has its own unique
demands (McGrath 2002: 59). What follows is an exploration of current
understanding of the benefits and drawback of textbooks and how to
evaluate them with the ultimate goal of adaptation of the textbook for use
in a foreign teaching environment.
2.1 WHY ARE TEXTBOOKS USED?
The current relationship between teacher and textbook is often
described as an uneasy one, inasmuch as many teachers report that they
are not fully satisfied with the textbooks from which they are required to
teach (Harwood 2005), with some teachers describing their class textbook
as a “road block”, a “millstone”, and a “straitjacket” (McGrath 2006: 174).
Researchers now suggest a continuum of textbook usage by teachers
(McGrath 2002); before the discovery and identification of continua came
into vogue, it was common to dichotomise between those who taught from
textbooks, and those who preferred a “do-it-yourself” ethos and eschewed
textbooks (Block 1991; Thornbury & Meddings 2001).
7
Allwright’s seminal article “What do we want teaching materials
for?” (1981) serves as the locus for much of our current understanding of
textbook use. In the article, Allwright argues forcefully for the limited use of
textbooks, since “[t]he whole business of…language learning is far too
complex to be satisfactorily catered for by a pre-packaged set of decisions
embodied in teaching materials” (Allwright 1981: 9). Allwright considers
two approaches to understanding the role of textbooks in the classroom: a
deficiency view, in which textbook “save learners from our deficiencies as
teachers” (ibid: 6) and a difference view, in which “teaching materials [are]
‘carriers’ of decisions best made by someone…[with appropriate]
expertise” (ibid). Allwright goes on to argue that materials are developed
by experts qualified to make decisions about what information can and
should be presented to the learner; the art of the teacher is to decide how
best to adapt the information so to present these decisions effectively,
while learners can be empowered by receiving training in learning
strategies so to best make use of materials. This difference view has been
criticised as a crypto-deficiency view, since it is predicated upon the belief
that teachers and students have neither the qualifications nor the
knowledge to create materials and therefore cannot meaningfully critique
them (Block 1991). The argument that textbook authors should not be
questioned by classroom teachers has been seen as disenfranchising or
“seem[ing] to absolve teachers of responsibility” (Hutchinson & Torres
1994: 315), allowing, or relegating, them to act the role of shepherd or
cheerleader rather than expert. It has also been argued that rather than
8
simply teaching students strategies for learning and leaving them to deal
with the textbook, the teacher’s decision making process of should include
“the learner’s cognitive, emotional and pragmatic needs” (Clarke 1989b:
133), as realised by the use of a negotiated syllabus in class.
Textbooks have also been criticised for being commercial products,
“the tainted end-product of an author’s or a publisher’s desire for a quick
profit” (Sheldon 1988: 239), that are poorly written and so filled with
cultural bias they cannot be used in foreign countries without heavy
adaptation (Alptekin 1993; Kramsch & Sullivan 1996). Other criticisms of
the use of textbooks are grounded in Communicative Language
Teaching’s preference of the use of texts that are authentic, arguing that
the positive elements of authentic texts are nullified when such a text is
presented in a textbook: “Coursebook texts – because they are in fact
pretexts for packaging the structure of the day – are dead on the page,
and it takes all the teacher’s skills to reanimate them for the
learner” (Thornbury & Meddings 2001: 11). More moderate voices worry
that texts lose their authenticity when removed from their original context
or when abridged or simplified to aid student comprehension (Guariento &
Morley 2001; Clarke 1989a). Thornbury and Meddings argued that
students would be best served by purchasing “a grammar and a
dictionary” (Thornbury & Meddings 2001: 12) and using these materials to
work with authentic texts. Block (1991) suggests replacing textbooks with
teacher-created materials because such materials would (a) take into
9
account the individual context of the students; (b) be created with current
materials, rather than the dated materials and references so often found in
textbooks; and (c) would demonstrate dedication to the students, thus
motivating them to study. Skepticism of home-made teaching materials
runs strong among some academics. Sheldon observes that, “teachergenerated material (which potentially has a dynamic and maximal
relevance to local needs) often has less credibility than a published
textbook…[because it lacks] the public endorsement implied by printed
covers” (Sheldon 1988: 238).
More recently, theorists have argued for a compromise view on the
role of teachers and students in making sense of textbooks and the role of
textbooks in leading a class, recognising both benefits and drawbacks in
the use of textbooks. In this compromise view, textbooks are often
described as playing a vital role in the classroom, in spite of their
shortcomings, because they provide structure for teacher and student
alike, showing what has been and will be taught and learned; some argue
that the feeling of structure imparted by textbooks is what makes them
appealing, as it fulfils a human need (Hutchinson & Torres 1994).
Textbooks also provide explanation, exercises, and a variety of samples of
the target lexical items or grammar structures (O'Neill 1982). For students,
this feature of textbooks “offers support for learning outside
class” (McGrath 2002: 11), while for the teacher it provides support for
10
lessons preparation and serves as a reference for subject-area
knowledge.
Some see textbooks as “cultural artefact[s]” that serve an
“ambassadorial” (Gray 2000: 274) function in spreading the target
language’s culture, which some hold as necessary for comprehension of a
language. Others (Hutchinson & Torres 1994; Littlejohn 1998) argue that
textbooks can serve, as Littlejohn (1998: 190) puts it, as a “Trojan Horse”
to spread new methodologies and “syllabus models” to the world. Rather
than understanding textbooks as rigid and unassailable, they are seen as
“a collection of choices” (Wala 2003: 59) that have meaning in themselves
and may be evaluated by considering the assumptions made in relation to
instructor, learner, and the English language. Textbooks are thus “the
jumping-off point of teacher and class” that, “like any other medium, have
inherent limitations” (O' Neill 1982: 110). Adaptation is therefore a natural
step to take following textbook selection as it is necessary to make up for
the limitations of the textbook.
2.2 HOW ARE TEXTBOOK EVALUATED?
In the case of the evaluation of an assigned textbook, the desired
outcome of evaluation is to allow for informed adaptation of the textbooks,
which is intended to allow teachers to compensate for “noncongruence” (McDonough & Shaw 2003: 76) between textbook, desired
course outcomes, and the teaching context. McDonough and Shaw (2003)
suggest beginning the evaluation process with the creation of a statement
11
of goals for the program in which the materials are to be used. From this
statement of goals, evaluators may determine the criteria with which to
evaluate the textbook and then undertake an evaluation of the text.
McGrath concurs when he recommends the evaluation process gradually
transition from descriptive to subjective by starting each evaluation with
the creation of an “objective, verifiable description” (McGrath 2002: 22) of
the text which may then be used for evaluation. McDonough and Shaw
also recommend performing a superficial “external
evaluation” (McDonough & Shaw 2003: 59) of the textbook, during which
one notes claims made by the author.
Followed an external evaluation, evaluators may conduct an
“internal investigation” (McDonough & Shaw 2003: 66) of the text in which
the author’s claims are investigated and evaluators apply their own
criteria. It is suggested that while creating such criteria evaluators use their
own course objectives, knowledge of student level of knowledge, and
preference for lesson plans and style of teaching. Littlejohn suggests that
evaluation be restricted to considering the merits of the textbook as a
“pedagogic device” (Littlejohn 1998: 192), focusing on its publication, or
physical aspects, and design, which includes “the thinking underlying the
materials” and “what learners are asked to do” (ibid: 193). The evaluator
should take into account how the textbook under evaluation will combine
with “materials already in use” (Chambers 1997: 30). Thus, an evaluator
must consider not only goals, but also negative washback from materials
12
in use that may not serve the goals well. After an evaluation has been
completed, the evaluator may make decisions about the materials, which
may either be adopted, used as-is from the textbook, or adapted, changed
so to better fit teaching goals or the learning environment.
Student needs are now understood to be at least as important and
teacher needs; Tomlinson (2003) rightly observes that materials evaluation
starts with “making judgements about the effect of the materials on the
people using them” (p. 15). Emphasis has been placed on the allowing
students an active role in “syllabus…materials design, and in actual
classroom methodology” (Clarke 1989b: 133). While a class syllabus may
be created by experts with an understanding of skills required in the
academic context, it is argued that by allowing students the opportunity to
negotiate their own interests and desired outcomes into the syllabus,
students will be more engaged in and committed to class, and thus more
likely to learn, with Saraceni (2003) arguing for taking an entirely learnercentred approach to materials evaluation. Masuhara (1998) warns that
evaluators must be mindful of the difference between wants and needs;
the idiosyncratic and unpredictable application of the reviewing teacher’s
wants and needs for a textbook may rob the procedure of materials
evaluation of its objectivity. She suggests that while both types of desires
are influenced by the evaluator’s personal and professional traits, wants
can be identified by observing when teachers show preference for
something that is unnecessary or undesirable to others. Institutional needs
13
are also a part of the process of evaluation; in an evaluation such as this,
where the textbook has already been selected, institutional needs are
represented by incorporating the institution’s desired course outcomes into
the statement of goals used to evaluate the textbook.
It is widely accepted that a key to the effectiveness of materials
evaluation is the evaluator’s teaching experience and knowledge of
language theory, second language acquisition research, and language
teaching pedagogy (McGrath 2002; Tomlinson 2003). In addition, teaching
experience in the “local classroom” (Gearing 1999: 122) is identified as
being especially important. It has been argued that as teachers gain
classroom experience and need rely upon textbooks less they are better
“qualified to interpret [a textbook’s] intentions or evaluate its content and
method” (Williams 1983: 251). While novice teachers graduating from
undergraduate or graduate study in education may have knowledge of
pedagogy and second language acquisition theory from their coursework,
a lack of teaching experience appears to greatly affect how they approach
materials evaluation. Research has shown that teachers with varying
levels of teacher education and teaching experience do use different
criteria when evaluating textbooks. Teachers with less experience tend to
seek guidance for class structure and classroom management from
textbooks, whereas more experienced teachers evaluate textbooks based
upon their previous experiences in the classroom (Johnson et al 2008).
Johnson also notes that a less experienced teacher may evaluate many
14
different part of the textbook, while an experienced teacher may consider
only one chapter of the book. Novice teachers might try to learn from the
evaluation techniques of experienced teachers and use published reports
on the teaching context and teaching strategies that have been been
successfully employed in their particular educational context.
Various checklists for evaluation have proposed to simplify the
evaluation process for inexperienced teachers (Ur 1996; Gearing 1999),
but these lists have been criticised as being too general, not attuned to the
context, and incorporating “implicit assumptions about what ‘desirable’
materials should look like” (Littlejohn 1998: 191). One example of an
implicit assumption is the inclusion on materials evaluation checklists of
criterion such as use of illustrations; while this criterion may seem simple
to answer, perhaps by the evaluator asking Were the illustrations relevant
and pleasant to look at?, such criteria should be used only after careful
consideration of the students’ cultural backgrounds and full investigation of
the explicit and implicit assumptions inherent in the use of such standards.
“Correct” interpretation of illustrations requires culture-specific information
(Hewings 1991). If such criteria are used in evaluation, it seems incumbent
upon the reviewer to define how they are to be interpreted, a task that
requires knowledge of the context. A checklist does not seem to be a timesaving device if it requires extensive research to be used properly.
15
2.3 HOW ARE EVALUATIONS ACTED UPON?
Many now see adaptation as a necessary and natural part of the
teacher’s interaction with the textbook: “The teacher takes over where the
textbook leaves off, and he or she must be able to assess its strengths
and weaknesses” (Williams 1983: 254). However, exactly how one should
go about adapting a text is not clear; “the process of materials adaptation
is…left in the teachers’ hands, and it is largely based simply on their
intuition and experience” (Saraceni 2003: 73). Identifying what actions
comprise adaptation is a matter of debate. McGrath (2002) provides a
relatively simple model of adaptation by suggesting that it consists of only
of making additions or changes to the original text. Any additional material
that is not of the same type as that provided in the textbook is considered
by McGrath to be supplementation, “adding something new…[after]
recogni[sing] a deficit” (McGrath 2002: 80). While McGrath holds that
supplementation is distinct from adaptation since it introduces novel
materials, others suggest that supplementation is a part of adaptation.
McDonough and Shaw (2003) include supplementation in their description
of adaptation as a process carried out by the teacher that may include of
adding, deleting, modifying, simplifying, or reordering the content of a
selected textbook.
16
3. The Chinese Educational Context
As discussed above, to evaluate materials it is necessary to
possess knowledge of a diverse array of information about the students.
Useful knowledge includes not only an understanding of the students’
desires and needs for the course to be taught, but also the students’
educational culture, background, and expectations. Having explicit
knowledge of the students’ learning environment, including the teaching
and learning styles typical in their education system, seems especially
important for teachers working in a foreign educational context because it
will have shaped student expectations for the foreign teacher’s class.
Teachers working in their own educational context are able to use
their own knowledge of the education system gained from both years of
experience in the system as a student and student teacher and formal
knowledge from teacher training courses designed to prepare novice
teachers to function within the system. Native teachers may also avail
themselves of opportunities to communicate with in-service teachers.
Since these avenues to understanding were not available in the writing of
this dissertation, in this attempt to understand the educational background
that can reasonably be expected of a group of Chinese graduate students
of subjects other than English, peer-reviewed research on and accounts of
foreign teachers giving English-language writing instruction in China have
been used instead.
17
3.1 STUDENT EXPECTATIONS AND HIGH STAKES TESTING IN CHINA
China’s ethnic and linguistic diversity, along with the growing chasm
between nation’s socioeconomic classes and the disparity of resources
available to rural and urban schools, make it impossible to use
generalisations to describe student experiences in the Chinese
educational system (Cortazzi & Jin 1996; Yan & Huizhong 2006). Because
of China’s diversity, it has been suggested that one should refer to
Chinese cultures of learning in recognition of the impossibility of fitting the
Chinese reality into one definition (Jin & Cortazzi 2006). In the following
discussion of the Chinese educational context, care has been taken to
restrict the focus of enquiry as much as possible to the likely student
population that will use Writing for a Specific Purpose. While some
generalisations about Chinese culture must be made, they are written with
the caveat that they are intended to describe the experiences and beliefs
of the majority, rather than the entirety, of the student population.
Cortazzi and Jin (1996) describe a number of differences between
Chinese and western expectations for education. A primary difference is
between the learning goals common in China and those common in the
west. Chinese language learners often hope to gain “mastery of
knowledge” (p. 65), which may be achieved by listening to the teacher,
studying the textbook, learning grammar rules, and studying vocabulary.
Western language learners tend to value the development of
communicative skills through interaction, the use of tasks, and gaining
18
understanding the function and use of lexical knowledge. Researchers
frequently contrast the collectivist nature of Chinese society with the
individualist nature of the west, sometimes crediting collectivism with
Chinese students’ frequent use of indirect argumentation and
unwillingness to make use “I…” statements in writing (Wu & Rubin 2000).
Seemingly due to its Confucian and Taoist heritage, Chinese culture tends
to hold texts and tradition in high esteem and value the appearance of
harmony and agreement (Cortazzi & Jin 1996; Kirkpatrick 1997). From this
it may be seen why teachers might be expected to be exemplars to their
students, serving as models of morality and scholarship (Jin & Cortazzi
2006). These beliefs are held to inform Chinese views on “face” and, as
described below, shape discourse patterns.
The feature that may best define the Chinese educational context is
its system of standardised testing (Qi 2005). For most undergraduate
students, the most important standardised exam is the College English
Test (CET), an English language examination intended for students of
subjects other than English. Since China’s opening in the 1980s, demand
for university graduates with knowledge of the English language has
grown exponentially; the CET is intended to evaluate students’ proficiency
in English. High marks on the CET are seen by students to be a guarantee
of a high-paying job after graduation, and are required for admission to
graduate study (Wang 2008). Preparation for the CET is supported by the
National College English Teaching Syllabus (NCETS), the syllabus by
19
which university instructors are expected to teach and upon which
textbooks for university students are based (Chuntian & Yujuan 1998; You
2004a). Following its revision in 2006, the test is comprised of four
sections: listening, reading, writing and translation, and a cloze exercise
(Zheng & Cheng 2008). In addition, students may elect to sit an optional
speaking test.The CET is divided into six “bands”; to leave university,
students must pass the CET-4 (Lai 2003), while students that wish to
pursue graduate study are expected to pass the CET-6, which requires a
productive vocabulary of 2,800 words, a receptive vocabulary of 5,300
words, and requires students to be able to read at a speed of 70 words per
minute and comprehend language spoken at a rate of 150-170 words per
minute. Reading texts in the CET Band 6 have an average Flesch
readability index of 49.1 (Yan & Huizhong 2006).
Because high-stakes standardised testing is used to assess
language knowledge, if not language proficiency, throughout the education
system, and because centralised syllabuses are made available for
teaching to the various tests, it is essential to consider washback effects of
the test. Proponents of the CET argue that the test should be accepted as
a valid benchmark of student language ability, and that washback from the
examination is positive:
[t]he CET has been shown to meet the international
standards of educational assessment and measure
objectively, impartially and accurately the English proficiency
of college and university students in China…The CET has
been proved a good measure of students’ ability to
communicate in English. (Yan & Huizhong 2006: 22)
20
Critics respond that despite the changes made to the test in 2006 it does
not assess the test takers’ communicative competence (Zheng & Cheng
2008). It is also argued that the since the CET emphasises the avoidance
of syntactic errors in student writing, there is a negative washback effect in
the cohesion and originality of student writing (Cai 2002; You 2004a; You
2004b), discussed in more detail below in section 4.2.
In part because of the perception that high-stakes tests like the CET
are interested in form rather than function, communicative competence
often is not of interest for students with practical or pragmatic views on
language learning. Communicative language teaching initially was a failure
when introduced in China because students did not perceive speaking to
be a useful skill (Rao 1996; Hu 2002). Students that are interested in
achieving communicative competence in the language may wish to do so
primarily for practical reasons, such as improving chances of future
employment, rather than from a love of language learning for its own sake
(Gao 2006). The teaching of communicative skills may be complicated by
the use of western pedagogies; Alptekin notes that “task-based and
problem-solving activities…involve Western modes of communication
which may not be in harmony with the traditions of some cultures” (1993:
139). Rao (2002) observes that Chinese students are quite sensitive to the
difference between learning English in an EFL and ESL environment; one
student noted, “here in China, the majority do not need to use the
language except in the English class. Furthermore, students in ESL
21
situations can hear and speak English outside class…which is unavailable
for us” (Rao 2002: 96). Students also voice preference for “traditional”
methods of learning, a sense of respect for the past that may again be
linked to their Confucian cultural heritage.
3.2 WRITING INSTRUCTION IN CHINA
Writing instruction in China relies heavily upon copying,
memorisation, and emulation of model texts (You 2004a). As Matalene
(1985) points out, memorisation must have a central role in Chinese
reading and writing education since hànzì (現字), the Chinese system of
writing, is non-alphabetic, requiring students to commit thousands of
characters to memory. A number of memorisation techniques are used for
learning hànzì, including the use of rhymes, proverbs, and maxims.
Matalene identifies a carryover into writing of the memorisation and use,
typically without citation, of chunks of texts from well-known works, arguing
that the western and Chinese use of rhetoric are fundamentally different:
Our Western sense of rhetoric…[is] an exploratory
technique for approaching the truth, as an arena for
combatants, as a means of acting upon an audience to
inspire action and change…For the Chinese, then, the
primary function of rhetoric is to preserve the general
harmony and to promote social cohesion; and
therefore, its appeal is always to history and to
tradition and to the authority of the past. (Matalene
1985: 795)
Chinese argumentative writing is often crafted in an indirect or
inductive style, utilising quotations from proverbs and poems, while
western texts are written in a direct, deductive way (Chien 2007; Chen
22
2008). While a western writer is expected to put the main point before
supporting details, Chinese writers are often taught to do the opposite.
Though some have argued that two traditional Chinese styles of text, the
eight-legged essay (八股文) and the four-legged essay (起承孩合), both of
which are written using inductive text structures, are responsible for this
difference in rhetorical style, consensus has begun to emerge that instead
it is cultural values that are reflected in the writing (Kirkpatrick 1997; Wu &
Rubin 2000; Liu 2005). Liao and Chen’s (2009) fascinating comparison of
rhetorical strategies taught in English and Chinese writing textbooks show
that the eight- and four-legged essay formats are little taught. However,
Chinese textbooks encourage writing students to “[give] personal
responses towards the issue such as, ‘Those who are unaware that they
abuse the right of liberty to violate rules should be more careful!!’” (Liao &
Chen 2009: 705). In contrast, western textbooks place much more
emphasis upon the structure of individual paragraphs and creating
appearance of authorial neutrality.
In a summary of research on Chinese learner strategies, Zhang
(2003) has observed that relatively little investigation has been conducted
on the topic of Chinese EFL students’ writing strategies. However,
research has found that Chinese students in China often use Chinese to
plan their English-language writing. Since Chinese English-language
writing classes are often taught in Chinese and communicative use of
English is often ignored, the habitual use of Chinese to write English texts
23
may come as little surprise (You 2004a). The use of Chinese rhetorical
patterns in English writing may then be a form of negative transfer from the
writer’s L1. Students are often self-conscious of the weaknesses in their
writing: in Evans and Green’s (2007) survey of more than 8,000 university
students in Hong Kong, the use of academic language as the most difficult
part of writing. Participants also reported difficulties with “style, grammar,
and cohesion” (3). This may be why, as Zhang (op cit) notes, Chinese
students have been found to spend less time preparing for Englishlanguage writing tasks than for Chinese-language writing.
24
4. TEACHING WRITING
Having established a background for materials assessment,
adaptation, and supplementation, relevant methods of L2 writing
instruction and how they have been adapted for use in the Chinese
classroom will now be considered.
4.1 METHODOLOGIES FOR TEACHING WRITING
During the twenty years between the late 1970s and the late 1990s,
teaching writing to English language learners (ELLs) was based almost
entirely upon the methods used for L1 writing instruction. The methods
used to teach writing are commonly grouped by the type of learning
associated with each. Cognitive approaches to writing, such as product
writing and genre analysis, tend to focus on knowledge of or knowledge
about desired outcomes of writing projects, while social approaches
attempt to impart the communicative import of writing and the use of a
recursive cycle of writing and editing. Teachers have since begun to
expand upon Brookes and Grundy’s (1991) view of writing as a “deficit
skill” by focusing instruction on grammatical and lexical features identified
in research from corpus linguistics as common to academic writing.
4.1.1 PRODUCT WRITING: A COGNITIVE APPROACH
Product writing is “primarily about linguistic knowledge, with
attention focused on…vocabulary, syntax, and cohesive devices” (Badger
& White 2000: 153), taking a highly proscriptive approach to the teaching
25
of writing. This approach to writing (as described in You 2004a; 2004b) is
widely used in China to prepare students for the CET and other
standardised examinations. Product writing is typically understood to be a
generalised approach to writing, rather than one intended for a specific
discipline or genre (Jordan 1989); students are taught rules and forms that
are meant to be universally accepted western writing standards. The
product approach to writing was often combined with functional-notional
approaches to language learning (Jordan 1997). The functional-notional
approach comes from Wilkins’s (1981) idea of the notional syllabus, which
he describes as being based upon the language knowledge required by
the learners to communicate effectively in a given social situation. Focus
on form is important to product writing; students are given model texts to
evaluate and emulate as closely as possible (Canagarajah 2001). In the
west, product writing, especially in classes for graduate students, has
been largely supplanted by genre writing, discussed in section 4.1.3, which
combines the tenets of product writing with an awareness of the specific
requirements of the genre in which the author writes.
4.1.2 PROCESS WRITING: A SOCIAL APPROACH
While product writing focuses solely upon the creation of a finished
work that meets certain standards, the process approach understands
writing as a multi-step process dependent upon a recursive cycle of
feedback, usually from teachers and peers, and revision that is repeated
until publication of a final product (Keh 1990). The stages of the writing
26
process are referred to by various names, but the literature seems to
reveal a consensus that the writing process consists of four or five steps
including “prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing” (Peregoy &
Boyle 2000: 231; Badger & White 2000); in a school setting, publishing is
submission of a final document for formal assessment by the instructor.
The influence of communicative language teaching upon process writing
seems clear when considering the focus placed upon the development of
the writers’ awareness of their audience. While product writing is
concerned with creating a text that meets certain standards, process
writing focuses upon reader feedback as vital to the writing process (Leki
1998). Because of this emphasis upon feedback, it is supposed that the
writer will begin writing in a way that engages the reader, and it is hoped
that student writers will develop both a sense of a self as a writer and a
sense of purpose in their writing. This focus on the writers’ journey through
the process of writing and interacting with their readers leads some to
reject the use of model texts as “imposition[s]” upon the student that
dehumanise the process, ultimately making writing less interesting and
more difficult (Brookes & Grundy 1991: 9). Other writing instructors have
argued for a judicious use of student-created model texts in limited roles,
such as exemplars for use in in-class editing exercises (Silva et al 1994).
4.1.3 GENRE ANALYSIS: A COGNITIVE-TEXTUAL APPROACH
Swales (1990) suggested investigation of various genres of writing,
defining genre as “a class of communicative events, the members of which
27
share some set of communicative purposes” (p. 58). In this definition, it is
the communicative purpose of the constituent parts of the text that takes
precedence over the structure of the writing, but it is seen as vital to
“sensiti[se] students to key features of the organizational structure…” of
the sorts of text they are or will be expected to create (Flowerdew 2000:
372). Because of this, the use of model texts is encouraged in genre
writing, as these texts are believed to show students what is possible,
though not what is perfect. An interesting recommendation for the use of
models is Flowerdew’s suggestion that teachers use student-created texts,
rather than those written by native speakers, since they may serve as
examples of “realistic…writing performance for…students” (p. 370).
Because of the specific knowledge that genre analysis can provide
students about writing in their discipline, it has been suggested that the
key strength of this approach is the motivation it may provide students by
being continually relevant (Flowerdew 2000). Writing tasks in an ESP
genre class have a clear connection to meaningful outcomes in the
students’ area of study. Even students uninterested in the the study of
English might be expected to respond to extrinsic motivation from tasks
that provide them with outcomes they recognise as being meaningful.
A difficulty with teaching genre writing to mixed EAP classes is that
the various academic disciplines have unique standards and structures for
academic writing and use language in different ways (Hyland 2008).
Hyland (2002) is an especially vocal proponent of this criticism, points out
28
that the use of first person pronouns varies drastically from discipline to
discipline; as such, it can be a disservice to tell a mixed class of writing
students “Never use I in your essays”. Such advice is typically good when
given to scientists, but could be disastrous if given to an anthropologist.
Since EAP teachers cannot possibly have knowledge of the writing
conventions in all academic subjects (McDonough 1985), researchers
have used corpus data to investigate the language used for academic
writing, as “effective academic writing depends on appropriate language
choices” (Hyland 2002, p. 357). However, EAP researchers are divided as
to how students can become aware of what language and lexical items are
used in their discipline and the discipline-specific meanings and
connotations of these lexical items.
4.1.4 LANGUAGE CHOICE AND ACADEMIC WRITING
Computer analyses of large bodies of text (see, for example,
Hunston & Francis 2000), have allowed researchers to discover more
patterns in language use, especially as it relates to language use in
specific genres of writing. Coxhead (1998; 2000) used corpus analysis to
develop the academic word list and the new academic word list, which she
believed could “show learners with academic goals which words are most
worth studying” (Coxhead 2000, p. 213). The academic word list was then
adapted for practical use in textbooks like Focus On Vocabulary:
Mastering the Academic Word List (Schmitt & Schmitt 2005). Debate
continues over whether or not lists of academic vocabulary are, in fact,
29
helpful or even meaningful to students who write across a variety of
disciplines (Hyland & Tse 2007). According to Hyland (2008), the lexical
chunks used in academic writing in different fields vary to such an extent
that the discipline for which a text was written can often be predicted by an
analysis frequency of the lexical chunks used. From this, Hyland
concludes that lists of lexical chunks such as the academic world list are,
in fact, not helpful for, if not detrimental to, English language learners
studying academic writing. In a more general example, researchers have
found that hedging, the use of “cautious language” in speech and writing
(Jordan 1997: 240) differs in use and implementation in different subjects
areas. Thus, when teaching lexis, one must consider how items collocate
in the students’ various disciplines. Strategies for dealing with this variance
are discussed in the following section.
4.2 TEACHING WRITING TO CHINESE STUDENTS
You (2004a; 2004b) cites her own observations of writing classes in
China as well research on the same topic when she claims that the CET
drastically informs English writing instruction to undergraduate students of
subjects other than English. In the university English classes You
observed, teachers taught students to write essays using an explicit three
paragraph form and making use of specific “key words” for each topic (You
2004a: 101). For each essay prompt, students were provided with a model
essay to copy, commit to memory, and appropriate as they wished as the
basis for their own writing. Before sitting the CET, the teachers and
30
students spent weeks reviewing old prompts and formulating possible
prompts and writing and memorising essays for them. Because teacher
pay is linked to student performance on the CET, teachers only instructed
students in skills perceived to be most efficacious for achieving a high CET
score; similarly, students showed little interest in those skills not perceived
to be relevant to the CET.
There are a number of accounts of successful application of
process writing instruction in China, though the cultural context does
necessitate the technique be taught differently than it is to western
students, often incorporating explanation of why the various stages of
process writing are considered important (Hu 2005; Badger & White
2000; Keh 1990). You (2004b) notes that Chinese students often prefer
providing classmates with written, rather than oral, feedback, a
possible reflection of cultural norms related to student interaction (Hu
2005) or student discomfort with oral communication. Teaching in an
ESL environment, Keh (1990) reports success in motivating Chinese
students to provide feedback on peer writing after helping students to
understand the importance of feedback. Keh’s approach to feedback is
unique, as she worked with students to differentiate between “lower
and higher order concerns” (Keh 1990: 296), where lower order
concerns are surface errors in writing and higher order concerns have
to do with organisation, critical thinking, and focus. Keh argues that
many, though not all, of the students trained in providing feedback on
31
higher order concerns in their peers’ writing were better able to identify
the same errors in their own writing. Hu (2005) notes that peer reading
and evaluation is best done in class, as students are often not
motivated to do such work outside of class. Hu also suggests that
readers be given a chance to ask questions of the writer before
providing written feedback; it is suggested that this allows the readers
to be sure that they have correctly understood the author’s intent and
will provide meaningful feedback.
The tendency among Chinese students to “expect the teacher to
assume a more authoritarian role and employ a transmission model of
instruction” (Silva et al 1994: 201) may account for skepticism among
Chinese students towards peer review in process writing, preferring
feedback from the teacher (Hu 2005). To overcome this, it is suggested
that instructors provide texts written by previous students to be used
for in-class correction and critique and to serve as models of realistic
accomplishments for the students (Silva et al 1994). Doing so may
help the students to “try to build conceptual bridges between the
culturally familiar and the unfamiliar” (Alptekin 1993: 141) as they train
themselves to identify errors made by other students. More importantly,
such an introduction of peer revision may make students more
receptive to other process writing techniques.
Silva et al (1994) rightly observe that “academic writing”
consists of much more than writing research papers. An academic
32
must be able to create texts such as a curriculum vitae, email to
colleagues, cover letters, and research proposals. As such, there are
any number of “real life” writing tasks that may be introduced to the
EAP writing classroom which (a) will both familiarise and give students
experience with important and necessary forms of writing and (b) can
be used to practice and reinforce grammar necessary for larger writing
projects. McDonough (1985) reports success with using writing
practice for examinations in preparation for essay writing. The students
in McDonough’s class study a variety of academic subjects; rather than
assigning the class general topics that might well be of interest to none
of the students, at the beginning of the term McDonough asked
students to create a list of potential exam questions about their area of
study. After activities in which the questions were revised, McDonough
began to use each student’s questions as individualised writing
prompts, thus giving students the opportunity to practice writing in their
area of expertise.
33
5. Evaluation Methodology
The methodology for this evaluation has been developed using the
suggestions for materials evaluation described in section 2.2, and is
predicated upon the following assumptions about textbooks: Firstly,
textbooks are understood to be imperfect but adaptable. Secondly,
textbooks are held to be generally beneficial in the Chinese classroom, if
for no other reason than the structure and security they may provide for
students. Thirdly, it is assumed that Writing for a Specific Purpose was
adopted for use at CASS because of its perceived merits; this decision,
having been made by veteran Chinese educators, should be shown
respect in any evaluation and adaptation of the book.
The purposes of this evaluation are (a) to determine the merits of
Writing for a Specific Purpose in relation to the context in which it will be
used, (b) to determine how these merits may be best exploited in the
classroom, and (c) to propose ways in which the book might be adapted
and supplemented to ensure that all course objectives are met using
materials and methods appropriate to the teaching context.
From the review of literature about materials evaluation in Chapter
2 the following features were chosen to make up this evaluation:
1. List of expected course outcomes (adapted from McDonough &
Shaw 2003).
34
2. Overview of journal articles written about Writing for a Specific
Purpose.
3. Brief, objective description of the textbook (McGrath 2002).
4. Objective description of one chapter of the textbook, to be used to
evaluate the book as a whole (Johnson et al 2008).
5. A subjective evaluation of the textbook, taking into account course
outcomes and the wants and needs of students, institution, and
teacher alike. (Chambers 1997; Masuhara 1998; Tomlinson 2003)
6. Suggestions for adoption, adaptation, and supplementation.
7. Possible criticisms of the suggested adaptations and a defence of
what has been suggested.
This list may be understood as being divisible into two parts, the first
objective and the second subjective.
Rather than using a statement of goals for the writing program class
to create criteria for evaluation as the first step of the evaluation, as
suggested by McDonough & Shaw (2003), the list of course outcomes
determined by the institution (described in section 1.2) is taken to be what
guides the evaluation and adaptation of the book. Since the textbook has
already been adopted by the institution and course outcomes have been
set by the head of the department, the constituent parts of the evaluation
are all predicated upon the goal of gaining a better understanding of the
35
textbook and how it may be used, rather than evaluating whether or not it
is an appropriate textbook for the class.
Although only two published instances of reviews or use of Writing
for a Specific Purpose could be found, they are discussed before
beginning collection of primary data. Primary data collection consists of a
general description of the book and an in-depth description of one chapter.
Because each chapter of the textbook is organised using the same
components, an description of one chapter may be assumed to give a fair
representation of the rest of the book. This not only makes efficient use of
time but also makes use of a textbook evaluation strategy reported as
being used by an experienced classroom teacher (Johnson et al 2008).
Finally, a subjective evaluation of the textbook is offered, followed
by suggestions for adaptation. This is done taking into account the
Chinese educational context (as described in section 3), methods of
writing instruction (section 4.1), and writing instruction in China (section
4.2). The recommended adaptations are then justified and defended.
36
6. Evaluation of Writing for a Specific Purpose
Writing for a Specific Purpose uses non-standard capitalisation and
punctuation in its chapter titles and section headings. Chapter titles are
typeset in all lowercase letters, section titles are also set in lowercase, and
subsections and exercises are typeset in all capital letters. These
standards have been maintained in the description below.
6.1 DATA COLLECTION
This section is divided into three parts: an overview of all published
material reviewing or making use of Writing for a Specific Purpose, a
description of the book, and a detailed description of Chapter 5: assess/
substantiate.
6.1.1 PUBLISHED ARTICLES ABOUT WRITING FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE
Writing for a Specific Purpose was featured in an article published
in English Language Teaching Journal reviewing eight “textbooks
commonly used for teaching writing beyond intermediate level” (HampLyons & Heasley 1984: 209). The reviewers argue for evaluating writing
textbooks based upon how well the books teach skills necessary for the
creation of texts that effectively communicate the author’s intended
meaning to the reader. To this end, each book is evaluated based upon
seven “criteria of textuality” (ibid: 209). Student feedback was also elicited
from both pre-sessional EAP classes for entering university students and
adult ESL classes. The evaluation sees Writing for a Specific Purpose as
37
being especially strong in its handling of “reader directed strategies” (ibid:
210) in addition to crediting the book with “wide coverage” of the writing
skill of coherence and the discourse skill intentionality. The textbook is
assessed as providing “fair coverage” of four of the remaining five criteria
(ibid: 211). The review itself is overwhelmingly positive, highlighting the
textbook authors’ use of various contexts to create hypothetical situations
that require “students to do a lot of writing beyond the sentence level” (ibid:
214). The reviewers like the concept of asking students “to put themselves
into imaginary situations” (ibid: 214), even though they report that students
who actually used the text found such exercises boring. The reviewers
suggest that the shortcomings perceived by the students might have been
avoided had the book provided more support for the teacher.
One of these exercises that learners found so uninspiring is used by
Vann and Abraham (1990) in their investigation into the learning strategies
utilised by poor language learners. The exercise in question, SITUATION
4-2 (McKay & Rosenthal 1980: 46-47), is taken from a chapter focusing on
the skills of analysis, specifically the sub-skill of describing a sequence of
events. The exercise requires students to assume the role of a traffic
officer and write an accident report from six sentence fragments and a
drawing of the scene of the accident. Vann and Abraham note that
because the form of writing (a police accident report) probably is unfamiliar
to students, the task requires “engagement and risk taking” (Vann &
Abraham 1990: 188). The unfamiliarity of the type of writing and the
38
inability to apply previously learned writing schema to the task are both
cited as sources difficulty for the students. Lack of familiarity with the
context was cited as a major source of concern for students; a student
who was able to draw connections between her own experience with traffic
accidents was able to more successfully respond to the prompt than a
student who did not draw the same connection. Interestingly, the student
who was least successful in the task concluded that there was only one
“right” way to respond to the prompt; a more successful student
recognised that the prompt allowed for some creative liberty, and felt free
to add her own opinions in the writing.
6.1.2 OBJECTIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE TEXTBOOK
Writing for a Specific Purpose is a 157 page textbook divided into
ten chapters and three appendices. The textbook is written following a
functional-notional syllabus, and is intended “for students in intermediate
and advanced English-as-a-Second-Language classes who intend to use
their English for academic work and careers” (McKay & Rosenthal 1980:
ix). The book’s chapters are organised following a P-P-P (Presentation–
Practice–Production) structure: each chapter begins with the description
and presentation of a skill; exercises encouraging or requiring controlled
practice of the skill; presentation of lexical chunks, orthographic rules, and
grammar points relevant to the skill; and role-play situations meant to
inspire original writing production that requires students to put to use the
skills and functions taught in the chapter. Some chapters include a section
39
titled writing the essay that provides advice on using the skill at hand when
writing an essay. The textbook makes use of a number of types of charts
and figures: data tables, Venn diagrams, maps, blueprints, cut-away views
of machinery, flow charts, and line drawings.
Chapter Title
1. inform/focus
2. clarify
3. classify
4. analyze
5. assert/substantiate
6. compare/contrast
7. recommend
8. agree/disagree
9. predict
10. the research paper
Concepts
topic sentences, paragraph form
define, describe, exemplify
nonrestrictive clauses
hypothetical examples and analogies
exclusivity and overlap, outlining,
colon use
analyze [sic] by: time, task,
importance, space, effect
passive voice, present & past simple
and perfect tenses, prepositions
recognising asertations, introducing
statistics and quotations
capitalisation
qualifying asertaions
comparative adjectives, semicolon
use
modal verbs
commas between clauses
conditionals
outlining, note taking, using
quotations, paraphrasing, footnotes,
creating a bibliography, typing the
paper
the parts of a business letter
the parts of a memorandum
A1. business letter
A2. memorandums
A3. combining reading and
identifying the functions served by the
writing: a functional
sentences in an essay
approach
Figure 1. Topics covered in each chapter of Writing for a Specific
Purpose (McKay & Rosenthal 1980: iii-vii).
The majority of the desired course outcomes are mentioned only in
the final pages of the book. Outlining is briefly mentioned twice, once in
both Chapters 3 and 10 (McKay & Rosenthal 1980: 33, 145). Quoting,
40
paraphrasing, and using citations are also discussed in Chapter 10
(McKay & Rosenthal 1980: 146-150). Process writing is not featured at all
in the textbook.
6.1.3 DESCRIPTION OF CHAPTER 5: ASSERT/SUBSTANTIATE
Chapter 5 (pp. 64-80) of Writing for a Specific Purpose, titled assert/
substantiate, deals with making and supporting assertions in paragraph
form. The chapter is seventeen pages long, making it one of the longest in
the textbook, and consists of five sections: recognizing [sic] assertions and
examples, introducing statistics as examples, introducing quotations,
grammar/punctuation, reported speech and paraphrasing. The chapter
begins with three paragraphs introducing and defining the terms assertion
and substantiate: “[a]ssertations are generalizations the writer believes to
be true…[substantiation is] the presentation of specific and relevant facts
to support an assertion” (McKay & Rosenthal 1980: 64). Examples of
substantiation are given using an assertion about the importance of
tourism to Hawaii’s economy. The authors then discuss how substantiation
may help assertions to “appear reasonable” (ibid: 64); an example
assertion about why students would choose to enrol in a class beginning
at eight in the morning is substantiated with two suggestions: “either they
needed to do so because of their work or class schedule, or they did so
because no other section was open” (ibid: 64). Finally, the authors
differentiate between direct substantiation, using data collected directly
from the subjects, and the use of outside research.
41
The introduction is followed by the “recognizing assertions and
examples” section, which begins with a short paragraph in which the
chapter’s key terms are defined again, using slightly different wording. The
concept of a topic sentence is introduced by stating that assertions are
typically placed at the beginning of a paragraph and are followed by
sentences that substantiate the assertion by providing examples of why it
is true. This paragraph is immediately followed by a subsection entitled
PRACTICE USING TERMS, which begins with EXERCISE 5-1, in which
students are asked to label nine sentences as assertions or examples.
The sentences are organised roughly by length and difficulty, where
difficulty is judged by sentence length and instances of embedding, and
subordination. The sentences range in length from thirteen to twenty-nine
words, with an average length of eighteen words, and the average Flesch
readability score for the sentences is 39.4, meaning that by this measure
they are more difficult to read than the passages found on the CET Band 6
(see section 3.2). All of the sentences are concerned with immigration to
the United States, with most focusing on emigration from Europe and
famous European émigrés. Immigration to the United States by East
Asians is mentioned only in reference to asylum-seekers from Vietnam
following the Vietnam War. This exercise is followed by EXERCISE 5-2, in
which students are asked to use some of the sentences from EXERCISE
5-1 to “write a paragraph about some aspect of immigration” (McKay &
Rosenthal 1980: 65). Students are cautioned to use only one assertion in
the composition of the paragraph. Following this exercise is a subsection
42
entitled EXPRESSIONS YOU NEED TO KNOW, which contains fourteen
lexical chunks use to introduce assertions and examples. Of these
fourteen lexical chunks, only four appear in EXERCISE 5-1: generally
(used twice), generally speaking, many, and on the whole.
The section focusing on “introducing statistics as examples” begins
with Exercise 5-3, which asks student to “write an introductory phrase for
each of the following statistics” (McKay & Rosenthal 1980: 66) and
provides five sentences about immigration to the United States and a
source for each:
1. There are 8.2 million illegal immigrants in the United States. (U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service) (ibid: 66).
This is followed by another EXPRESSIONS YOU NEED TO KNOW
subsection, which provides two forms for introducing references:
“According to (X)” and “X calculates/estimates/figures that…” (ibid: 66-7).
No examples are given of these phrases in use.
“introducing quotations” begins by differentiating between objective,
approving, and critical introductions of outside data and giving an example
of each in a sentence. EXERCISE 5-4 then asks students to identify four
sentences as objective, approving, or disapproving. Three of the four
sentences introduce sources using lexical chunks that have not previously
been introduced to the reader. The second part of EXERCISE 5-4 asks
students to read four quotations and write introductory an sentence for
each. This activity is followed by EXPRESSIONS YOU NEED TO KNOW,
which introduces fourteen phrases that may be used to introduce a
43
quotation, thirteen of which are new. The phrases are divided into three
groups: objective introductions, approving introductions, and disapproving
introductions.
The penultimate section of material focuses upon ‘grammar/
punctuation’, specifically the correct capitalisation of letters. Rules for
capitalisation of sentences, proper nouns, and published works are briefly
introduced, and in EXERCISE 5-5 students are asked to fix punctuation
and capitalisation errors in six sentences. The sentences include names of
American magazines and periodicals, American department stores (one of
which, Gimbel’s, is long out of business), country names, and holidays.
Following this exercise, the use of inverted commas (“quotation marks”),
comas, and colons with quotations is explained and an example is given.
This is followed by EXERCISE 5-6, which requires students to correct
punctuation and capitalisation in two paragraphs totalling 194 words in
length. The paragraphs are completely bereft of punctuation and
capitalisation and include a number of given and surnames and place
names. While the paragraphs are largely comprised of quotations, the
quotations are only introduced objectively and some new phrases are
used to introduce quotations.
The final instructional section of the chapter is entitled ‘reported
speech and paraphrasing’. Students are told that if
a quotation is in the first person, in reported speech change it to
third person. If the reporting is about an even, change the tense to
the past. If the reporting is about an act or feeling that doesn’t
44
change, leave the tense in the present. (McKay & Rosenthal 1980:
70)
This is followed by a quotation (43 words) and a rewritten version of the
quote (51 words) in which only verb tenses and pronouns are changed. No
effort is made to reword or restate the sentences:
original
rewrite
I buy my automotive parts at Macy’s …he buys his automotive parts at
because I trust the salespeople
Macy’s because he trusts the
there.
salespeople there.
I like to tinker with automobiles.
He likes to tinker with automobiles.
I drive a bus all day, but when I
He drives a bus all day, but when he
come home, I go right into the
comes home, he goes right into the
garage…
garage…
(adapted from McKay & Rosenthal 1980: 70)
EXERCISE 5-7 asks students to change four sentences into reported
speech using the present tense and three sentences into reported speech
using the past tense. The section concludes with two sentences about
paraphrasing, defined as “restating information in your own words” (ibid:
71), and an example paraphrase of a quotation. Students are asked in
EXERCISE 5-8 to paraphrase five sentences, arranged in ascending order
according to length and complexity.
The chapter concludes with six hypothetical situations with
associated writing tasks, similar to that described above in section 6.1.1.
Students are asked to imagine themselves in a variety of roles, imagine a
certain situation, and complete a writing task based upon the given role
and situation. In this chapter, students are asked to assume the roles of an
immigration officer, a US government analyst, a science textbook writer, an
45
advertising executive, an ESL student, and a management consultant
(McKay & Rosenthal 1980: 74-9).
6.2 SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION OF THE TEXTBOOK
This subjective evaluation is divided into two parts. The first
considers the textbook by itself, evaluating the relative merits and faults of
the textbook. The second part addresses how the five learning outcomes
for the ‘Academic Writing’ class (listed above in section 1.2) are addressed
by the textbook.
6.2.1 GENERAL EVALUATION OF THE TEXTBOOK
There are several positive and compelling features of Writing for an
Academic Purpose. First, the book does provide students with a large
number of phrases and expressions that may be used in writing. For
Chinese students used to instruction and assessment based upon
memorisation and regurgitation of lexical chunks, the presence of these
patterns will probably be reassuring and familiar. Second, the textbook
gives clear instruction in punctuation by making explicit use of grammar
knowledge. Since Chinese students typically study in grammar-centred
language classes, this sort of instruction should be both familiar and useful
to them. Third, the book does make occasional efforts to link the various
functions to essay writing. Unfortunately, not all chapters include writing
the essay sections, and textbook only contains one chapter dedicated
wholly to essay writing.
46
There are a number of deficits in the book that must be considered.
First, the presentation of content in Writing for a Specific Purpose is
consistently problematic. Set phrases and collocating headwords are
typically not presented in any sort of context, and there is little repetition of
lexical context or examples of language in actual use following its
introduction. Worse, the various phrases are presented in clumps of text
on the page, making it easy to create incorrect collocations. Consider the
following table, abridged but presented in the same layout as in the text:
The
(basic
(primary
(principal
(central
(main
(ultimate
(chief
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
In this paper, I
(emphasis)
of this (work ) is to
(intent
)
(paper )
(purpose )
(thesis )
(focus
)
(essay )
(thrust
)
(aim
)
(goal
)
(aspect )
(intend to
)
(hope to
)
(adapted from McKay & Rosenthal 1980: 4)
From this, a student could create poorly collocated sentences such as
“The ultimate thrust of this essay is to…” or “The chief goal…”. The table is
laid out on the page in such a way that it would not be out of the question
for students to incorrectly combine components of the personal and
impersonal statements of purpose: “In this paper, I aspect…”. When
teaching from the text, care must be taken to work with students to identify
appropriate collocations.
A weakness of the functional-notional approach that becomes
apparent from this textbook is the approach’s assumption that students will
47
be able to draw upon knowledge of their native language to ascertain how
functions are to be used in writing. Since Chinese texts are typically
structured so differently than western ones, and since Chinese culture is
understood to dictate a respect for authority and harmony, it seems
reasonable to assume that knowledge of writing functions will not apply
directly from Chinese-language to English-language writing. Thus, the
instructor must take care to contextualise what is presented in the
textbook. While Writing for a Specific Purpose disavowed the use of model
texts, judicious use of models might make the functions described in the
book more clear to students.
The book was written for foreign students studying in the United
States rather than students studying English in an EFL context. The vast
majority of activities concern topics relating to American government,
history, geography, and politics. This decision may well be appropriate for
materials intended for use in the United States, but one must wonder if it
will hold the interest of Chinese graduate students. Similarly, role playing
the parts of various labourers may well be a disincentive to learning for
graduate students who are set upon a certain career path. Most of the
diagrams and illustrations in the book also seem to be of little relevance or,
probably, interest to students in the social sciences: labeled diagrams in
the book include microscopes (McKay & Rosenthal 1980: 17), cathode-ray
tubes (ibid: 20), and automobile carburettors (ibid: 21). One might consider
the commonly made suggestion that it is important for texts to refer to
48
situations, events, and figures that are both familiar and relevant to
students (Block 1991); Writing for a Specific Purpose generally discusses
topics neither familiar nor relevant to Chinese graduate students.
Provided that the students have been primarily educated in writing
for the purpose of sitting the CET-6, the writing prompts and topics used in
the book are a source of great concern. As mentioned in section 3.2, the
CET essay prompt is typically about a current event or trend in China wellknown enough that a typical university student could be expected to have
knowledge of it. The prompts and topics in Chapter 5 and the rest of the
book are completely unrelated to life in modern China and probably would
be of little interest to graduate students. Apart from any boredom, ennui, or
hostility this might invoke in students, in light of SLA research on noticing
(Schmidt 1990), it seems problematic to ask language learners to divert
cognitive resources from language and its use to determining, for example,
what opinion they might have about Boris Karloff having to wait for years
before being allowed to immigrate to the United States.
The written texts in the book are not examples of academic writing,
but instead casual or formal writing meant to exemplify how various forms
can be used. The authenticity of included texts is not addressed by the
authors; the vast majority of texts used in the textbook seem to have been
written specially for it, thus providing students with neither authentic texts
nor models upon which they might base their own writing. While there are
three pieces of realia incorporated in the book (McKay & Rosenthal 1980:
49
82, 83, 144), they generally are not relevant to the course outcomes and
presumably will be of little interest to students; one would question why
Chinese graduate students might possibly wish to read the menu of the
Rusty Scupper Restaurant and if such a skill will assist students in learning
to write academic papers.
6.2.2 WRITING FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CASS’S LEARNING OUTCOMES
Generally, Writing for a Specific Purpose lacks information relevant
to the institutionally set course outcomes. The only way in which the book
does meet the class goals is in providing the student with a number of
lexical chunks, or forms,for use in writing. As mentioned above, the
presentation of these chunks is poor, as they are typically presented by
themselves in lists, without any context. Students may assume that
variants of the forms are equal in weight or meaning; to avoid this,
supplemental materials with examples of the forms in use might help
students to better understand their use.
It is disconcerting that the sole textbook for a class in which
students are expected to produce analytical, persuasive, and research
papers dedicates so little space to writing papers. The final chapter is the
only part of the textbook dedicated to formal paper writing. It is intended
“to help the students use the functions they have practiced throughout the
text to develop an academic paper” (McKay & Rosenthal 1980: xii) and
50
also provides an explanation of how to write a bibliography; this is an
ambitious fifteen pages of text, to be sure.
The majority of the students will likely bring to the classroom an
expectation of English-language writing classes as being lecture-based,
focused on product and form, and strictly conforming to an externally-set
syllabus. Student expectations for class may be meaningfully considered
using Masuhara’s (1998) distinction between needs and wants discussed
in section 2.2; current research in language learning seems to recognise
there exist tangible benefits to teaching language in a communicative way.
While student wants or expectations may be for lecture-based learning,
the use of a communicative approach might allow students to learn
language in a more meaningful and useful way. Adaptation of the textbook
must take this into account.
If one were to consider only the textbook and and desired learning
outcomes for the ‘Academic Reading and Writing’ class, it might seem that
the book is a poor selection and is largely inappropriate for the class’s
stated outcomes. Among other shortcomings, the book does not discuss
process writing, there are only two pages of instruction on outlining and
planning, no attention is given to APA citing standards or citations in
general, and the suggested research methods and materials are dated
and not commensurate with the expectations for students and resources
available at a research institution like CASS. However, by taking into
consideration the educational context from which the students have come,
51
the adoption of Writing for a Specific Purpose begins to make sense and,
in its own way, seem appropriate for the students at CASS. Most of the
students are non-English majors who have received English-language
writing instruction in large, product-oriented classes designed to prepare
them to write high-scoring essays on various bands of the CET. Prior to
2006, the NCETS (discussed above in section 3.1) was a functionalnotional syllabus; it may be that the similarity of organisation of the two
was the primary factor in the selection of this book.
The Chinese academic culture, which holds a deep respect for
texts, should also be considered while adapting Writing for a Specific
Purpose. It seems necessary to balance adaptation and supplementation
with the desire to allow the text to retain some of its authority. If the
textbook is adapted and supplemented so drastically that it retains no
authority in the classroom, it would seem that the book would then become
useless. Such an adaptation might be seen as an insult to those who
selected the book, or a rejection or doubting of their knowledge of
teaching. Additionally, one might consider the effects such treatment of the
textbook might have on student opinion of the teacher. Researchers have
found that Chinese students tend to assume that foreign teachers of
English have both different language teaching expertise and knowledge
than a Chinese teacher (Cortazzi & Jin 1996), thus dichotomising between
“us” and “them”. A foreign teacher who is seen by the students as either
rejecting or subverting a textbook that was chosen by Chinese teachers for
52
use in a Chinese institution might be seen as culturally unaware or, worse,
insensitive. From this, it would seem reasonable to suggest that effective
adaptation must do all it can to leave the textbook as intact and
empowered as is possible.
6.3 SUGGESTIONS FOR ADAPTATION AND SUPPLEMENTATION
Writing for a Specific Purpose has little content about planning and
outlining essays, correct citation of sources, or conducting research,
though the textbook does at least mention each of these topics. This
means that the textbook may at least serve as a starting point for each,
allowing it to retain its role of authority in the classroom. The following
sections suggest adaptations of the textbook to better fit the requirements
of CASS’s ‘Academic Writing’ class.
6.3.1 PLANNING AND STRUCTURING ESSAYS
Taking into account the considerable differences in Chinese and
western rhetorical structure (described in section 3.2), the vague,
generalised approach taken in Writing for a Specific Purpose to describing
paragraph and essay structure must be supplemented with more explicit,
direct instruction in and examples of acceptable western writing style. The
first chapter of the book, inform/focus, deals with writing thesis sentences
and introductory paragraphs only superficially. In the reading component of
the class, time may be taken to examine paragraph and essay structure to
further reinforce acceptable writing styles. In addition, Writing for a Specific
53
Purpose’s discussion of the use of outlining may be expanded upon to not
only describe different ways of planning, but also to use outlining as a way
of checking whether or not paragraphs start, rather than end, with topic
sentences. Rather than forcing students to use alphanumeric outlines,
they might be shown a variety of ways to organise ideas, including the use
of mind mapping software such as the free, open source program
FreeMind. Appendix 2 contains sample activities that may be used in
conjunction with the textbook to make clear acceptable paragraph
structure.
6.3.2 USE OF ACADEMIC LANGUAGE
The following suggestions for adaptation are predicated upon
Lewis’s (2000a) observation that there is a difference between declarative
knowledge, that which “involves stating facts or rules” (Lewis 2000a: 156),
and procedural knowledge, “the ability to actually do something” (ibid). The
students to be taught with Writing for a Specific Purpose will have
declarative knowledge of or, at least, exposure to, more than 5,000
discreet pieces of vocabulary from their preparation for the CET, and will
have had formal instruction in most aspects of English grammar. It seems
a worthwhile and practical goal to teach an awareness of and sensitivity to
variance of meaning depending on context, following Lewis’s suggestion
that “intermediate students would improve dramatically if they…simply
learned to use the words they already know in the huge number of
collocations of which these words are parts” (Lewis 2000b: 14).
54
Rather than requiring students to memorise lists of rarely used
words, they might instead be asked to investigate how collocations of
common headwords are used within their discipline. The use of
concordancing with non-linguists to improve language awareness and
academic writing has been used successfully in the past (Weber 2001);
doing the same with graduate students in a mixed class might prove to be
motivating to the students, as it would give them the opportunity to pursue
specialist work. These investigations may be supported by a textbook
focusing on Coxhead’s academic word list, such as Focus on Vocabulary
(Schmitt & Schmitt 2005), which could be used as an addition to the
various lexical chunks listed in Writing for a Specific Purpose. This
instruction in sensitivity to language would necessarily be linked to
grammar instruction, both fulfilling an expectation of the CASS
administration and following Munice’s (2002) suggestion that grammar
instruction be a part of writing classes.
6.3.3 CITING AND PARAPHRASING
Rather than focusing upon correct use of APA citations, the focus
here will be upon teaching students proper techniques for paraphrasing
and quoting. Writing for a Specific Purpose is disappointing in its
presentation of paraphrasing; students who paraphrased in the same way
the book does would be liable for disciplinary action for committing
plagiarism. Building off of the ideas discussed above about using old
vocabulary in new ways, students must be given the opportunity to learn
55
and practice the skill of rewording, incorporating sensitivity of language
and willingness to recycle in novel ways previous lexical knowledge.
6.3.4 RESEARCH SKILLS
Research skills are inadequately covered in Writing for a Specific
Purpose, but their instruction will not be described in detail in this
dissertation since research instruction was not featured in the literature
review. In short, it would seem that effective instruction would include the
use of databases, search engines like Google Scholar, and making
students responsible for finding the most important journals in their
respective fields.
6.3.5 PROCESS WRITING
Teaching process writing is an interesting challenge. Since Writing
for a Specific Purpose does not engage in discussion of process writing,
the topic must be taught almost entirely through supplemental material.
However, this supplementation should be planned so that Writing for a
Specific Purpose can be used as a partner text to whatever supplements
are chosen. From reading experiences of other writing teachers, the
following suggestions for teaching process writing are made:
1. Introduce process writing to the class with a lecture on the topic.
Use research to explain real benefits caused by using the process
writing method (following the example of Hu 2005).
56
2. Scaffold from students’ explicit knowledge of grammar to discuss
the difference between surface errors (grammar, lexis) and deep
errors (problems of organisation, flaws in argumentation).
3. Practice editing as a class using student-produced work from
another class.
4. Allow students time in-class to read and critique each others’ work
and ask questions of each other before writing feedback.
5. Provide opportunities for group student-teacher conferences about
student writing. Because of the number and size of the classes,
meeting with each students several times a semester might not be
possible; instead, it would be feasible to use a voice recorder to
create mp3 files of commentary for each student’s essays. This
would allow for highly personalised feedback that might seem less
formal than written feedback.
6. Transition over time from students providing peers with written
feedback to students providing oral and written feedback.
Writing for a Specific Purpose may be used with and by the students for
identifying various functions used in writing and as reference when
correcting both surface errors and some deep errors.
6.4 DEFENCE OF THE PROPOSED ADAPTATIONS
First, the adaptations proposed above might be criticised for being
too teacher-centred or not focusing on communicative competence. Many
57
of my suggestions for adaptation have to do with using the book as part of
larger, teacher-centred explanations about how or why to do things. This
choice has been made for two reasons: first, Chinese students typically
receive instruction in such a manner. To expect students to attend and
learn from a three-hour long writing class that is drastically different from
all of their previous courses seems a bad idea. Second, students may be
uncomfortable with or uninterested in speaking in class. While course
expectations over the term will evolve to require more speaking, in the
name of creating classroom harmony, it seems important to not demand
too much out of the ordinary of the students at the beginning.
Secondly, the use of corpus data to investigate collocations may be
questioned as being boring for students or needlessly time consuming. In
response to this criticism, it should again be noted that this is a technique
that has been used successfully with non-linguist graduate students.
Additionally, by adding this opportunity to investigate how language is
used in their subject area, students may be able to avoid the generality of
the academic word list. To make such collocation activities successful, it
would seem that they must be scaffolded in to the curriculum with lecture
content and the use of course materials, including the assigned textbook.
To introduce such activities on their own would lower their chances of
success.
Finally, the suggestion that a lexical approach be used to teach
academic vocabulary might be criticised as lazy; wouldn’t it be better that
58
students learn new vocabulary rather than being taught how to reuse what
they already know? Especially in the Chinese system, where “learning” is
often measured by the quantity of knowledge memorised, attempting to
learn more by memorising less may be seen as undesirable. However, this
method has been chosen for its promise of developing textual awareness;
if students are to read articles and potentially write for publication, it is vital
that they understand nuances of language so to both communicate their
own thoughts clearly and understand implications in others’ writing. There
is a secondary benefit to this style of teaching: students may learn to
question and analyse any text for secondary meanings and assumptions.
This not only reenforces one of the desired course outcomes of developing
critical thinking skills, but also has liberatory implications for the students.
59
7. Conclusion
Limitations of the evaluation are discussed before conclusions are
drawn about the use of Writing for a Specific Purpose at the Chinese
Academy of Social Sciences.
7.1 LIMITATIONS
A persistent difficulty encountered while researching teaching
methodology in the Chinese English writing classroom is that much of the
literature about teaching in China is written in Chinese. Similarly, the vast
majority of literature written in English about providing writing instruction to
Chinese students describes teaching in English-speaking countries. Given
that Chinese students are sensitive to the differences between ESL and
EFL teaching (Rao 2002), it would seem that teachers ignore this
difference at their own risk. In this dissertation I have attempted to find a
workable medium by considering concerns voiced by Chinese students in
the EFL context and using these concerns when considering suggestions
made by teachers working with Chinese students in an ESL classroom.
However, the research and suggestions above have been greatly hindered
by my inability to read Chinese at more than a basic level. Vast quantities
of research has been conducted on best practices for implementing
modern teaching methods in China, washback effects of the CET on
student writing, and application of process writing to the Chinese
classroom.
60
While it is commonly suggested that teachers pilot books as part of
the evaluation process (Donovan 1998; Tomlinson 2003), this
recommendation may not be possible for teachers preparing to work in a
foreign country; doing so has not been been possible during the writing of
this dissertation. Thus, the suggested adaptations, supplements, lessons,
and activities, and the potential criticisms of each, represent best guesses
informed by SLA theory and research as well as the published experiences
of veteran teachers. While this limitation may be inherent to all pre-use
evaluations, in the case of this dissertation it must be taken especially
seriously because of my very limited amount of classroom experience, and
no relevant writing teaching experience, upon which to base my
suggestions. Instead, I relied upon accounts of writing instruction for
Chinese students written by experienced teachers and published in peerreviewed journals.
Similarly, the dissertation is hampered by my lack of communication
with CASS’s administrators about their rationale for choosing this textbook
and with current foreign teachers at the university, who might have acted
as sources of information for my evaluation and proposed adaptations of
the book. Had I sought out information from the classroom, rather than
from the literature, the evaluation and suggestions above doubtlessly
would be the richer for it.
A final limitation of the dissertation is that it ignores what may be the
most important question of all: How is language best learned and taught?
61
The suggestions for adaptation/supplementation above are largely based
upon Michael Lewis’s Lexical Approach to language teaching and current
work in cognitive linguistics. If these approaches to language learning and
language teaching are not as effective as they have been assumed to be,
then this will have negative impacts upon the class.
7.2 CONCLUSIONS
That Writing for a Specific Purpose continues to be used, in spite of
the weaknesses described above, may be understood as a reflection of
how subjective the process of materials evaluation is. The book almost
certainly is used because it, like the CETS, uses a notional-functional
approach to teaching language. This criterion must have been held to be
more important than using a book that focused more on academic writing
or was written around process writing methodology.
Materials evaluation can be a powerful cross-cultural learning
experience if the evaluator attempts to understand why the textbook was
adopted. While it may be easy for a teacher to recognise that perceptions
of textbooks and their use in the classroom reflect cultural bias, it may be
more difficult for teachers that intend to work in a foreign academic culture
to remember to be aware of how their own prejudices and cultural
schemata influence their judgement of textbooks and textbook evaluation.
Finally, to assist teachers in bettering their understanding of the
Chinese academic cultures for the purpose of materials evaluation, we
62
might begin by recognising a need, if not a mandate, for western and
Chinese English language teachers to begin collaborative, comprehensive
reviews of previously published literature in Chinese and English on the
topics of materials evaluation and English-language writing instruction for
Chinese students. There is a vast amount of extant literature and
knowledge currently inaccessible because of language barriers. While
research in the field should progress, it seems important to also dedicate
some energies to making what has already been discovered as accessible
as possible.
14,325 words
63
References
Allwright, R.L., 1981, What do we want teaching materials for? ELT
Journal, 36(1), pp. 5-17.
Alptekin, C., 1993, Target-language culture in EFL materials, ELT Journal,
47(2), pp. 136-43.
Badger, R. & White, G., 2000, A Process Genre Approach to Teaching
Writing, ELT Journal, 54(2), pp. 153-60.
Block, D., 1991, Some thoughts on DIY materials design, ELT Journal,
45(3), pp. 211-7.
Brookes, A. & Grundy, P., 1991, Writing for study purposes, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Cai, J., 2002, Influence of CET Writing Requirements and Scoring Criteria
on Chinese Students' Compositions, Journal of PLA University of
Foreign Languages, 25(5), pp. 49-53.
Canagarajah, S. 2001, Addressing issues of power and difference in ESL
academic writing, in J Flowerdew & M Peacock (eds), Research
perspectives on English for Academic Purposes, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp. 117-31.
Chambers, F., 1997, Seeking consensus in coursebook evaluation, ELT
Journal, 51(1), pp. 29-35.
Chen, J., 2008, An investigation into the preference for discourse patterns
in the Chinese EFL learning context, International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 18(2), pp. 188-211.
Chien, S.C., 2007, The role of Chinese EFL learners’ rhetorical strategy
use in relation to their achievement in English writing, English Teaching:
Practice and Critique, 6(1), pp. 132-50.
Chuntian, C. & Yujuan, Z., 1998, A perspective on the college English
teaching syllabus in China, TESL Canada Journal, 15(2), pp. 69-74.
Clarke, D.F., 1989a, Communicative theory and its influence on materials
production, Language Teaching, 22(02), pp. 73-86.
Clarke, D.F., 1989b, Materials adaptation: why leave it all to the teacher?
ELT Journal, 43(2), pp. 133-41.
Cortazzi, M. & Jin, L., 1996, English teaching and learning in China,
Language teaching, 29(02), pp. 61-80.
Coxhead, A., 1998, An academic word list, Occasional publication, 18.
Coxhead, A., 2000, A new academic word list, TESOL quarterly, 34(2), pp.
213-38.
Donovan, P. 1998, Piloting - A publisher' s view, in B Tomlinson (ed),
Materials development in language teaching, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp. 149-89.
64
Ellis, R., 1997, The empirical evaluation of language teaching materials,
ELT Journal, 51(1), pp. 36-42.
Evans, S. & Green, C., 2007, Why EAP is necessary: A survey of Hong
Kong tertiary students, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(1),
pp. 3-17.
Flowerdew, L., 2000, Using a genre-based framework to teach
organizational structure in academic writing, ELT Journal, 54(4), pp.
369-78.
Gao, X., 2006, Understanding changes in Chinese students' uses of
learning strategies in China and Britain: A socio-cultural reinterpretation, System, 34(1), pp. 55-67.
Gearing, K., 1999, Helping less-experienced teachers of English to
evaluate teachers' guides, ELT Journal, 53(2), pp. 122-7.
Gray, J., 2000, The ELT coursebook as cultural artefact: how teachers
censor and adapt, ELT Journal, 54(3), pp. 274-83.
Guariento, W. & Morley, J., 2001, Text and task authenticity in the EFL
classroom, ELT Journal, 55(4), pp. 347-53.
Hamp-Lyons, L. & Heasley, B., 1984, Survey review: Textbooks for
teaching writing at the upper levels, ELT Journal, 38(3), pp. 209-16.
Harwood, N., 2005, What do we want EAP teaching materials for? Journal
of English for Academic Purposes, 4(2), pp. 149-61.
Hewings, M., 1991, The interpretation of illustrations in ELT materials, ELT
Journal, 45(3), pp. 237-44.
Hu, G., 2002, Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The
case of communicative language teaching in China, Language, Culture
and Curriculum, 15(2), pp. 93-105.
Hu, G., 2005, Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers,
Language Teaching Research, 9(3), pp. 321-42.
Hunston, S. & Francis, G., 2000, Pattern grammar, John Benjamins Pub.
Co., Amsterdam.
Hutchinson, T. & Torres, E., 1994, The textbook as agent of change, ELT
Journal, 48(4), pp. 315-28.
Hyland, K. & Tse, P., 2007, Is There an "Academic Vocabulary"? TESOL
Quarterly, 41(2), pp. 235-53.
Hyland, K., 2002, Options of identity in academic writing, English
Language Teaching Journal, 56(4), pp. 351-8.
Hyland, K., 2008, As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary
variation, English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), pp. 4-21.
Islam, C. & Mares, C. 2003, Adapting Classroom Materials, in B Tomlinson
(ed), Developing materials for language teaching, Continuum, London,
pp. 86-100.
65
Jin, L. & Cortazzi, M., 2006, Changing Practices in Chinese Cultures of
Learning, Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(1), pp. 5-20.
Johnson, K., Kim, M., Ya-Fang, L., Nava, A., Perkins, D., Smith, A.M.,
Soler-Canela, O. & Lu, W., 2008, A step forward: investigating expertise
in materials evaluation, ELT Journal, 62(2), pp. 157-63.
Jordan, R.R., 1989, English for academic purposes (EAP), Language
Teaching, 22(03), pp. 150-64.
Jordan, R.R., 1997, English for Academic Purposes: A guide and resource
book for teachers, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Keh, C.L., 1990, Feedback in the writing process: a model and methods
for implementation, ELT Journal, 44(4), pp. 294-304.
Kirkpatrick, A., 1997, Traditional Chinese text structures and their influence
on the writing in Chinese and English of contemporary mainland
Chinese students, Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(3), pp.
223-44.
Kramsch, C. & Sullivan, P., 1996, Appropriate pedagogy, ELT Journal,
50(3), pp. 199-212.
Lai, E., 2003, Teaching English as a private enterprise in China, English
Today, 17(02), pp. 32-6.
Leki, I., 1998, Academic writing: Exploring processes and strategies, 2 ed.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lewis, M. 2000a, Learning in the lexical approach, in M Lewis (ed),
Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach,
Heinle, Boston, pp. 155-84.
Lewis, M. 2000b, There is nothing as practical as a good theory, in M
Lewis (ed), Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical
approach, Heinle, Boston, pp. 10-27.
Liao, M.T. & Chen, C.H., 2009, Rhetorical Strategies in Chinese and
English: A Comparison of L1 Composition Textbooks, Foreign
Language Annals, 42(4), pp. 695-720.
Littlejohn, A. 1998, The Analysis of Language Teaching Materials: Inside
the Trojan Horse, in B Tomlinson (ed), Materials development in
language teaching, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.
190-216.
Liu, L., 2005, Rhetorical education through instruction across cultures: a
comparative analysis of select online instructional materials on
argumentative writing, Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(1), pp.
1-18.
Masuhara, H. 1998, What do teachers really want from coursebooks? in B
Tomlinson (ed), Materials development in language teaching,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 239-60.
66
Matalene, C., 1985, Contrastive rhetoric: An American writing teacher in
China, College English, 47(8), pp. 789-808.
McDonough, J. & Shaw, C., 2003, Materials and methods in ELT, 2 ed.
Blackwell, Oxford.
McDonough, S., 1985, Academic writing practice, ELT Journal, 39(4), pp.
244-7.
McGrath, I., 2002, Materials evaluation and design for language teaching,
Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
McGrath, I., 2006, Teachers' and learners' images for coursebooks, ELT
journal, 60(2), pp. 171-80.
McKay, S. & Rosenthal, L., 1980, Writing for a Specific Purpose, PrenticeHall, New Jersey.
Muncie, J., 2002, Finding a place for grammar in EFL composition classes,
ELT journal, 56(2), pp. 180-6.
O'Neill, R., 1982, Why use textbooks? ELT journal, 36(2), pp. 104-11.
Peregoy, S.F. & Boyle, O., 2000, Reading, writing, and learning in ESL,
Longman,.
Qi, L., 2005, Stakeholders' conflicting aims undermine the washback
function of a high-stakes test, Language Testing, 22(2), pp. 142-73.
Rao, Z., 1996, Reconciling communicative approaches to the teaching of
English with traditional Chinese methods, Research in the Teaching of
English, 30(4), pp. 458-71.
Rao, Z., 2002, Chinese students' perceptions of communicative and noncommunicative activities in EFL classroom, System, 30(1), pp. 85-105.
Saraceni, C. 2003, Adapting courses: A critical view, in B Tomlinson (ed),
Developing materials for language teaching, Continuum, London, pp.
72-85.
Schmidt, R.W., 1990, The Role of Consciousness in Second Language
Learning, Applied linguistics, 11(2), pp. 129-58.
Schmitt, D. & Schmitt, N., 2005, Focus on vocabulary: Mastering the
academic word list, Longman, White Plains.
Sheldon, L.E., 1988, Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials, ELT journal,
42(4), pp. 237-46.
Silva, T., Reichelt, M. & Lax-Farr, J., 1994, Writing instruction for ESL
graduate students: Examining issues and raising questions, ELT
Journal, 48(3), pp. 197-204.
Stoller, F.L., Horn, B., Grabe, W. & Robinson, M.S., 2006, Evaluative
review in materials development, Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 5(3), pp. 174-92.
Swales, J.M., 1990, Genre analysis, Cambridge University Press Press,
Cambridge.
67
Thornbury, S. & Meddings, L., 2001, Coursebooks: The roaring in the
chimney, Modern English Teacher, 10(3), pp. 11-3.
Tomlinson, B., 1998, Materials development in language teaching,
Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge.
Tomlinson, B. 2003, Materials Evaluation, in B Tomlinson (ed), Materials
development in language teaching, Continuum, London, pp. 16-36.
Ur, P., 1996, A course in language teaching: Practice and theory,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Vann, R.J. & Abraham, R.G., 1990, Strategies of unsuccessful language
learners, Tesol Quarterly, pp. 177-98.
Wala, D.A.S. 2003, A Coursebook is What It is because of What It has to
Do: An Editor' s Perspective, in B Tomlinson (ed), Developing materials
for language teaching, Continuum, London, pp. 58-71.
Wang, Y., 2008, "College English" in China, English Today, 15(01), pp.
45-51.
Weber, J.J., 2001, A concordance-and genre-informed approach to ESP
essay writing, ELT journal, 55(1), p. 14.
Wilkins, D.A., 1981, Notional Syllabuses Revisited, Applied Linguistics,
2(1), pp. 83-9.
Williams, D., 1983, Developing criteria for textbook evaluation, ELT
Journal, 37(3), pp. 251-5.
Wu, S.Y. & Rubin, D.L., 2000, Evaluating the impact of collectivism and
individualism on argumentative writing by Chinese and North American
college students, Research in the Teaching of English, 35(2), pp.
148-78.
Yan, J. & Huizhong, Y., 2006, The English proficiency of college and
university students in China: As reflected in the CET, Language, Culture
and Curriculum, 19(1), pp. 21-36.
You, X., 2004a, "The choice made from no choice": English writing
instruction in a Chinese University, Journal of Second Language
Writing, 13(2), pp. 97-110.
You, X., 2004b, New directions in EFL writing: A report from China, Journal
of Second Language Writing, 13(4), pp. 253-6.
Zhang, L.J., 2003, Research into Chinese EFL learner strategies:
Methods, findings and instructional issues, RELC Journal, 34(3), pp.
284-322.
Zheng, Y. & Cheng, L., 2008, Test review: College English Test (CET) in
China, Language Testing, 25(3), pp. 408-17.
68
Appendix 1: ‘Academic Reading and Writing’ Course Description
Academic Reading and Writing
I. Course Introduction
1. Target audience: MA and Ph.D. candidates who specialize in social
sciences that include:
a. Economic finance
b. Political sciences / world economics and politics
c. Law
d. Industrial economics
e. Asia-Pacific studies
f. Rural development
g. Chinese literature / foreign literature
h. Linguistics
i. History
j. Religion
k. Philosophy
2. Principal Textbook: Writing for a Specific Purpose, by Sandra
McKay and Lisa Rosenthal, Prentice Hall, NJ.
3. Additional Materials:
a. Notebook for daily in-class exercises
b. Folder to collect portfolio assignments such as first in-class essays,
the Research Proposal and other relevant pieces of academic
writing to be placed in the Writing Portfolio.
c. Additional folders are to be used and brought to class throughout
the whole course so as to eliminate the possibility of losing or
misplacing lecture notes and lesson materials.
d. Students are also expected to purchase a Vocabulary Notebook to
be used for recording new vocabulary. This Notebook is to be
brought to all classes on a regular basis.
e. To enable self-directed study, students are advised to purchase an
English-English dictionary, and a grammar book. The following
dictionary is considered useful for advanced-level ESL students:
Collins COBUILD English Dictionary. 1995. (new ed.). London:
Harper Collins
4. Broad aims of course:
The main purpose of Academic Reading and Writing is to improve
academic reading and writing skills in the English language at
graduate level whilst developing skills in the areas of reading and
writing academic social sciences materials. By the end of the course,
both M.A and Ph.D. students are expected to produce a two
thousand word Academic Research Paper. A research proposal will
explain the relevance and impact of the research project.
The final paper will meet international academic standards and be
formally defended. Students will be able to conduct research that will
i
contribute to the academic discussion by drawing conclusions on a
specific topic pertaining to their field of study/expertise.
5. Intended learning outcomes
Subject specific skills: By the end of the course, students should be
able to demonstrate a degree of fluency in writing, with an ability to
control organization at whole text and paragraph levels, to
successfully handle the interaction among topic, audience, purpose
in relation to content, organization, style and form.
Core academic skills: By the end of the course, students will show
appropriate levels of competency in reading and writing for general
academic purposes within their own subject area.
Key skills: By the end of the course, students will have a greater
understanding of the skills required for writing in an academic
context. Also, additional skills are important: ICT (Information and
Computer Technology), skills associated with self-management and
task achievement, problem-solving, personal skills in relation to
others, communication as a foreign language and meta-cognitive
awareness (through self-evaluation, success in communication and
monitoring of performance).
6. Course structure
Advanced Reading and Writing is a part-time program of study of 3
hours per week (in conjunction with Academic Listening & Speaking).
Students are expected to further their self-learning skills in the
following areas: reading skills, writing skills, mechanical skills, selfstudy skills and computer literacy skills.
7. Prerequisites
Minimum entry requirements
Advanced Reading and Writing is based upon a satisfactory result in
the university placement test.
Course description
1.
Integrated structure
The structure of Academic Reading and Writing is based on two
integrated subjects:1. Critical Literacy (Reading component), 2.
Academic Reading and Writing. Within these two components, the
two macro-skills are taught with reference to the language skills
required for academic study. Particular attention is given to
developing critical thinking and analysis with regard to reading
academic texts and expressing an opinion in written forms. The
course also focuses on the development of independent study skills.
2.
Computer Learning Center
Students acquire and practice computer literacy skills, such as
PowerPoint, e-catalogue library search and word-processing.
Students are also encouraged to use the Computer Learning Center
for self-access learning purposes. They should further expand their
ii
knowledge and practice self-study skills online by exploring the
World Wide Web and using self-teaching websites and relevant links.
All students have access to:
a. Relevant online self-teaching tools (provided by tutor)
b.Mailbox: ENGLISHATCASS@163.COM
Students are expected to download the following from the mailbox:
a. Essay Revision Form (download and fill in); To be handed over
with the Final Essay
b. Course Policies (download)
c. Teaching materials (download)
3) Reading room (3d floor main building)
The Reading room is designed for student self-access for
independent learning
in reading, writing, vocabulary, study skills and grammar. Students
are expected to locate and research sources that will act as evidence
to back up to the thesis (Argumentative Research Paper) or possible
answers to the research question (Analytical Research Paper).
Useful Secondary sources include: books, journal articles, scholarly
journals and periodicals, graduate essays, excerpts, interviews,
professional magazines, etc.
4) Structure of classes
The classes may be structured as a lecture or workshop format.
5) Language used in context
A central aspect of this course is language used in context. Detailed
attention is given to specific features of English as it is used in
academic contexts. Grammar is taught in context so that students
understand the importance of writing English accurately for an
intended college audience. In addition, in-class workshops provide
students with a better insight on mechanical issues.
6) Independent study skills
Students are expected to be active learners who exercise a sense of
responsibility in their study. Being self directed and self-motivated
are considered important student characteristics, which are
demonstrated by students being punctual and prepared for all
lectures and workshops. Successful achievement in all assignments
and the course overall is dependent on students attending all
scheduled classes each week. In addition, students are expected to
devote a further 3 hours a week to research, revision, and study
outside scheduled class time.
8. Course Policies
1) Plagiarism
Plagiarism involves dishonesty; it is the theft of another intellectual
property. Details of the penalties applied to plagiarism and cheating
iii
are explained in the Student Handbook. Plagiarism is a form of
cheating. It is unacceptable and will be penalized.
a. Plagiarism occurs when: Students buy papers, hire others to
write papers for them, simply allow or request someone to write a
paper for them and then claim the work is their own. Copying
work from other students and sharing your work with other
students are also considered forms of cheating. Using published
material without referencing the author is also considered a form
of cheating. It occurs when students copy, quote, paraphrase, or
summarize a source (including Internet resource materials)
without properly documenting it; neither intentionally or
unintentionally (see MLA guidelines concerning citation, quotation
and paraphrase). Students submit work that has been submitted
and evaluated for credit in another course without making major
alterations or modifications to meet the specific requirements of
the present course, but claim that the paper is an original work for
the current course.
b. Students can avoid Plagiarism by: Preparing and writing their
own assignments and assessment tasks, Acknowledging and
documenting all primary and secondary sources used in the final
papers and other mid-term assignments, Practicing the writing
skills of summarizing and paraphrasing.
c. Penalty system
Plagiarized work will result in: In-class/homework assignment.
Plagiarized work will result in the following:
-First fraud: Students will be forced to produce another
assignment (on a different topic). The final grade will not exceed
70 points.
- Second fraud: course failure End-of-term/final assignment.
Plagiarized work will result in the following:
- Course failure
- Students will be forced to produce another assignment (on a
different topic).
2) Attendance
Students should remember that full attendance is compulsory for
the entire duration of the course. Students who will fail to attend
class four times during the course will face disciplinary action
resulting in failure of the course. To avoid failing the course,
absentees should notify the English department before the end of
term. Students are expected to return to the office a fully
completed Authorization for Leave of Absence (included in the
portfolio), which must be signed by the Department Officer. They
may also be asked to produce written proof/evidence (i.e. medical
note) for a prolonged absence.
3) Layout Presentation
iv
Students must include a fully completed Essay Revision Form
(Included in the portfolio) with their final paper. They must also
familiarize themselves with the guidelines concerning the
presentation of academic work (See MLA standards concerning
cover page, abstract, bibliography, source referencing). At the
exclusion of in-class assignments, each written work should be
word-processed and properly formatted. It must also imperatively
include a cover page. Failure to observe these rules will result in a
penalty (20%).
4) Deadlines
Students are expected to meet all deadlines. In fact, it is an
intricate part of the course requirements. Failure to produce written
assignments on time will result in a penalty (20%). To avoid being
penalized, students need to make sure that you keep the tutor
informed in the event of any exceptional circumstances that may
prevent them from meeting their deadlines.
5) Rights and responsibilities
a. Students have the right to disagree with an idea expressed by
the class instructor or other learners
b. When a professor or a colleague is speaking, it is professional
discourtesy to use this time to carry on a secondary
conversation elsewhere. The use of mobile phones is also
prohibited for similar reasons (use of mobile phones for personal
calls and texts is not permitted and considered inappropriate in
class). I reserve the right to ask any student who is disrupting
the class through noise, conversation or other unprofessional
behaviors to leave the classroom.
c. Students have the opportunity to bring a tape recorder to class.
d. If you miss a presentation for which you were scheduled or inclass exercise, these cannot be made up at a later date.
6) Course assessment
Number Components Value In-Class
Exercises/Quizzes/Reading Reports 20%
Portfolio Assignments and In-Class Assignments 20%
1 Quiz plagiarism 5%
1 Research Proposal 10%
1 Peer Edited Draft 5%
1 Teacher Conference Draft 5%
1 Oral Presentation (Final Essay) 5%
1 Final product: Analytical Research Paper + Essay Portfolio
(Detailed Outline and Teacher Conference Draft) 30%
Total 100%
7) Final grades
v
A grade below 70% does not meet the minimum required
standards of Advanced Reading and Writing as summarized below.
Pass grade Point 70%- 35
8) Assignments
During the course of the semester, students will be expected to
produce one in-class essay and at least two portfolio assignments
(writing to inform / writing to persuade). In addition, students will
produce a final end-of-term research paper. Each of these any
drafts of the final assignment must be word-processed and in
appropriate format. Each of these assignments must be turned in
inside your portfolio folder. Any assignments or drafts that are late
are penalized by the loss of one letter grade for each day it is late.
Oral presentations and group exercises may not be made up. Do
not turn in loose pages; each page of the assignment must be
stapled and placed in your folder or it is an automatic loss of five
points. Appropriate format means that margins are 1.5 inches, font
is 12pt, and text is double-spaced. For the research paper, a Title
page, an Outline, and a Reference page (or Works Cited page) will
also be included. It is important to remember that:
a. Failure to meet your deadline will result in your assignment being
automatically penalized (20%).
b. Assignments may not be emailed unless you have a documented
emergency
(in this case, the student is responsible for making arrangements
with the class instructor ahead of time).
c. You are expected to be present in class to present your report (or
make your oral presentation). If you are unable to attend class
because of an emergency on the date an assignment is due, it
should be dropped off by someone by the beginning of class.
II. Course Outline
1. READING - Critical Literacy
1) Introduction
The aim of this subject is to focus on developing the ability to read
and think critically. Critical thinking, a core attribute of critical
literacy, is considered a fundamental skill for higher learning and is
required by the faculty. Therefore, students need to be exposed to
a range of texts and tasks that develop the ability to think critically
about ideas and information. In addition, other critical functions
such as problem solving, the ability to evaluate the quality of ideas
and the capacity to evaluate the effectiveness and credibility of
support and sources, which are essential academic functions, will
also be integrated in the course.
2) Reading and text analysis
Students are introduced to the concept and skills of critical literacy
by working with a range of texts that will vary in nature and length.
vi
Other critical thinking functions are introduced using different types
of analytical texts as summarized in the following table.
Literacy skills and Reading abilities
Reading comprehension
Speed reading
Academic vocabulary
Critical reading
Note-taking from reading
Paraphrasing & summarizing
Summary writing
Researching for information: E-skills
3) Core objectives
Students should be able to demonstrate competency in the
following areas:
a. Demonstrate the ability to read a range of text types using
critical
thinking skills
b. Write descriptive summaries
c. Write paraphrases
d. Show a comparison and contrast between two or more
readings
e. Develop and express opinions about topics in written forms
f. Work collaboratively and independently in class to complete
assignments
g. Use an expanded vocabulary based on readings
h. Understand stylistic issues pertaining to the use of formal
language
Sample activities
Activities Outcomes
Various reading selections
Introducing reading techniques
Academic vocabulary (weekly)
Speed reading practice (weekly)
Finding the main idea
Distinguish topic/main idea
Various reading selections
Phrase comprehension
Understand in context
Implied and stated main idea
Retaining details/Outline/text structure
Connect details with main idea
Recognize patterns to organize ideas
Recognize transitional devices and connections
Skimming/scanning for overview
Use clues to organize ideas
Scan and skim for specific information
Organizing thoughts
vii
Essay samples
Task: Formal Vs Informal Outlining
Stylistic issues: Formal Vs informal
Determining inferences
Technical jargon: journal article
Determining various shades of meaning
Various reading selections
Determining tone/style
Common literary device (tone)
2. WRITING -Advanced Reading and Writing
1) Academic writing
Students are introduced to the research and language skills
needed when writing for an academic audience. Two main essays
will be considered: The Argumentative Research Paper and the
Analytical Research Paper. Students are expected to master
various skills ranging from selecting an appropriate essay question
to evaluating source materials and writing the first draft.
2) Language use in context
Attention is given to the way language is used purposefully in
specific contexts. Students are taught to identify the different ways
language is used in different contexts. Students are expected to
develop greater awareness of these differences so that they can
demonstrate appropriate language choices in their own academic
writing. Students are also taught to summarize and paraphrase
sources accurately and to use them effectively in academic
writing. In addition, students are taught how to integrate sources,
paraphrase and summarize so that they know how to avoid
plagiarism and to acknowledge sources appropriately. Grammar
instruction and revision also forms an important part of this
subject. Students are expected to develop effective control over
syntax and mechanical issues including grammar, punctuation and
spelling both at sentence and paragraph levels. Acquiring an
effective control of the writing conventions of the English language
is a basic requirement of Advanced Reading and Writing and will
be assessed accordingly in all written assignments.
3) Core objectives
Students should be able to demonstrate competency in the
following areas:
a. Conduct library and internet research
b. Analyze essay questions
c. Write in-text and bibliographical references accurately
d. Write a bibliography
e. Write an essay outline
f. Write an academic essay expressing an opinion based on a
thesis
viii
g. Use appropriate academic language accurately and fluently
h. Demonstrate the logical development of an argument
i. Use evidence convincingly and sources accurately
j. Demonstrate the ability to revise and edit work
4) Final product: The Research Paper
Students are expected to produce substantial amounts of writing
for this course. In addition, there will be a final project and paper.
Students will hand in a written essay of up to 2000 words in which
they discuss a research problem. The essay should be well
organized and appropriately formatted. It will be consistent with all
the requirements for research papers and follow academic
guidelines.
5) Tentative outline: The Research Paper Content
a. Phases of the writing process: prewriting, organizing, drafting,
revising, editing
b. Paragraph and essay development: Unity, structure,
coherence, logic, purpose and audience, composition forms
(persuasive analytical)
c. Mapping, outlining
d. Paragraphing: topic sentence, counter-argument, supporting
statement, transition, concluding sentence, evidence and
supporting material
e. Essay structure: Developing an argument, showing logical
connection between question, thesis, supporting claims,
conclusion
f. Steps in Writing the Research Paper:
a) Topic
b) Scope
c) Thesis/question
d) Research process
e) Outline
f) First draft
g) Revision process
g. Stylistic issues, blunders to avoid
h. Documenting sources, writing a bibliography
i. Writing an abstract
j. Summarizing, paraphrasing Skills
Students will:
- Consider purpose and audience
- Write composition with a clear thesis, introduction, body and
conclusion
- Develop topic sentences, supporting sentences, concluding
sentences
- Develop supporting materials and evidence to support claim
- Read and develop academic vocabulary
ix
- Built well-constructed paragraphs- Use academic
conventions of English writing
- Use style adequate for the intended college audience
- Use different sources and appropriate research methods to
gather information
- Write Research Paper (Analytical &; Argumentative) with
correct documentation
x
Appendix 2: Sample Adaptations for Writing for a Specific Purpose
Lesson Plan: Teaching Paragraph Structures and practicing summarising
1. Students have read Chapter 3: classify
2. Students open Writing for a Specific Purpose to page 33 to the blank
outline.
3. Brief discussion of how to identify how the structure of a paragraph
may be broken down to fit into outline form.
4. Example paragraph, the first paragraph from the article “Family
Structure” (Schmitt & Schmitt 2005: 23-4), is broken into outline form.
5. Students work in pairs to create outlines of second and third
paragraphs by labelling sentences “II” “A”, “B”, “C”, etc.
6. Class checks work together.
7. Students now are asked to use expressions for classifying, when
appropriate, to summarise and create outlines for paragraphs four and
five.
8. Check of work.
9. Students are given the opportunity to do the same work with a
student-created inductive text.
10. Discussion of how the inductive text is different than a deductive text in
terms of structure; how does outlining allow us to check whether a text
is inductive or deductive?; what are the advantages and
disadvantages to both types of paragraph structure? why might
deductive writing be the preference of (western) academics?
xi
Lesson Plan: Process Writing: Getting Used to Giving Feedback
1. Students are asked to write a four paragraph essay in response to
SITUATION 8-4.
2. Students divide a piece of notebook paper into thirds, labelling the
first third “Content”, the second third “Grammar & Language”, and
the third “Spelling/Punctuation”.
3. Students trade their essays with a partner. Each reads the other’s
essay, making notes in the appropriate column as they read.
4. After having read each other’s essay, students have three minutes
each to ask any questions they may have about their partner’s
essay.
5. Following the question period, students write a short critique of the
essay and give it to their partner, along with the original notes.
6. Students are given time to read the comments and re-read their
original essays.
7. Class discussion about reactions to the experience.
xii
Lesson Plan: Collocations and Academic Language
To be undertaken as a homework and in-class project.
1. Students and instructor discuss the expressions listed in Writing for
a Specific Purpose for making recommendations.
2. Students are asked to use the list of vocabulary on pages 100-101
and the vocabulary from Chapter 10 of Focus on Vocabulary.
3. Using concordancing software (such as Collocate, available free
online), students are asked to select ten words total from the two
texts and investigate what other words the keywords collocate with
in subject-area corpora created by the instructor.
4. Students are expected to create a list to bring to the next class.
5. In the next class: students work in groups of four to share their
chosen words and compare how the words tend to collocate in
different genres.
xiii