The Construction of EFL Writing Teacher Knowledge
in Romania, China and Mexico:
Plurilithic English at Work
Estela Ene
Indiana University Purdue University - Indianapolis
1. Draft Outline of Work in Progress
2. Institutional Description
3. Glossary
4. Digest of key theorists/frames used in the methods/ research design
1. Draft Outline of Work in Progress
NOTE: Since this workshop was approved, I published the Romanian case study in the
European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL in 2013. The current work will summarize
the findings and conclusions from the Romanian case study and will fold in the Chinese and
Mexican data in order to expand conclusions.
Problem/Justification
From Ene (2013):
“Teachers play a major role in shaping the teaching/learning experience, yet our
understanding of the knowledge-base that informs teachers’ work in the area of EFL writing
is limited (Lee, 2010). Since Hirvela and Belcher’s (2007) call for more research on teacher
education and the role of theorists in shaping it, little progress has been made, especially
with respect to EFL teacher education. Some of the existing studies found that EFL teachers’
choices in the classroom can be influenced by social, historical, and affective factors such
as: local attitudes toward English or western approaches of writing instruction, the history of
English-language teaching (Reichelt, 2005, 2009 a), and the growing international demand
for English writing skills, including for online and specific purposes (Ortega, 2009). Delicate,
often covert ideological difficulties may arise from conflicting needs to teach/learn how to
write in English while remaining true to the teachers’ and learners’ cultural identity. The
pedagogies that globalization helps spread are not compatible with some EFL contexts;
consequently, teachers’ and learners’ resistance to western writing conventions may affect
their willingness to teach or learn certain forms of writing (see Clachar, 2000, about Turkey;
Casanave, 2009; Leki, 2001; You, 2010 about China).
Practical, context-specific factors often shape EFL writing teachers’ praxis. The
pressure to teach to national tests and heavy teaching loads may limit their professional
development and desire to experiment with certain pedagogical approaches such as process
writing or feedback techniques. This has been the case in China and Poland, but less in
systems with more material resources such as Germany (see Reichelt, 2005, 2009 b for
comparisons between China, Spain, Poland, and Germany; You, 2004 a, 2004 b, 2010 and
Yang, Badger & Yu, 2006 about China). Pedagogical training specifically focused on EFL
pedagogy and on EFL writing, rather than theoretical linguistics or literature, enhances
teachers’ development by enforcing the habit of balancing theoretical knowledge and
practical constrains (Lee, 2010). Such training, however, cannot be assumed to exist
everywhere, and may in fact be available only in privileged contexts. Better defining what is
universal and what is context-specific about writing teachers’ formation in EFL contexts
requires that we examine more of them. In a world in which we are constantly reminded of
globalization, it is important to understand to what extent EFL contexts participate in the
formation and implementation of L2 writing theories and practices, and even how English as
a Lingua Franca (ELF; Jenkins, 2009) is enacted by teachers and learners around the
world.”
Theoretical framework
Pennycook (2010) and Hall (2012) argue that English itself is a plurilithic concept, as it
belongs to multiple communities of diverse users whose usage differs to various degrees
from one single homogenous and monolithic English. Hall (2012) proposes that this should
be taken into account in teaching and teacher training, as it cannot be assumed that
teachers and learners around the globe share the same interest in teaching/learning a
common variety of English in a common EFL pedagogy.
A growing body of research focuses on understanding the forces that drive SLW
philosophies and practices in EFL contexts. For the most part, U.S.-based composition
theory and language studies have been the lens through which EFL contexts have been
examined (Canagarajah, 1999; Silva, 1993?; other refs). Despite the bias inherent in it, this
comparative approach has revealed a number of ways in which the needs, beliefs, and
practices in EFL contexts both fit and do not fit the approaches that originate in the U.S. and
other English-speaking countries.
A point of interest in the SLW literature has been the role of globalization in the
spread of writing philosophies and practices that originate primarily in the U.S. An idea that
emerges prominently is that globalization is at the core of a complex interaction among the
global, the local, and the individual. On the positive side of things, “Life in globalized …
countries[,] carries on essentially as before but with a heightened sense of connectedness of
those who live here with others in the international sphere” (Moore Hanna, 2013, p.4). On
the other hand, such connectedness is countered by simultaneous “disconnectedness with
large groups of co-nationals” (Moore Hanna, 2013, p.4). From a critical, Bakhtinian
perspective, English and other local languages together with their “discourses -- stand in
dialogic tension with the other languages in the community, from varieties of a language
(standard American English vs. other world varieties) to competing ideological discourses
(English as a means to integrate into American communities vs. English as a means to
communicate with the rest of the world). (…) teachers in the (…) EFL classroom (…) are in
constant tension between our positions as nonnative speakers who are trying to teach
prescripted ways of talk presented in the textbooks (Cortez Roman, 2006, p.42). As Cortez
Roman (2006) notes in her application of Bakthin’s (1981) and Bourdieu’s (xxxx) ideas to
the EFL context in Mexico, even the choice to learn English is not truly voluntary in EFL
contexts, where the language is deemed necessary due to its practical value as cultural
capital on a sociopolitical level that transcends the individual.
Despite the threat of linguistic imperialism that English represents (refs from the
World Englishes perspective), authors have also noted local and individual adaptations of
practices largely made in English-speaking countries. Researchers of EFL writing have found
that some local, traditional approaches to teaching English and English writing endure when
they are perceived as culturally appropriate by teachers and learners alike, or in tune with
the learners’ needs. Thus, teachers may choose to focus their feedback on grammatical
accuracy in order to address both the learners’ need to improve linguistic accuracy and their
cultural expectation that a teacher should correct most or all errors (citation about China;
Japan; Poland; Romania). Even though they may be interested in implementing peer
reviews of student writing, EFL writing teachers my abandon their intention when they
understand that the students’ distrust of the process – related to linguistic insecurities and
cultural views of teacher-student roles – may undermine it (citations). In addition,
practicalities such as large class sizes, teacher workload, low pay, and the scarcity of
resources for professional development deepen the tension between realism and idealism
(citations), or what teachers can do and what they wish they could do in an EFL writing
course. Finally, negative attitudes towards English can cause EFL teachers to diminish the
use of pedagogical practices advocated in English-speaking countries (citations).
As a result of the simultaneous pull towards globalization and resistance to it, some
see English as a plurilithic construct. In this view, English is not a monolithic language that
belongs only to native speakers; neither is it a singular, monolithic variety of English used in
non-native English speaking countries. Rather, it is a compound of native and non-native
varieties that belong to both native users and each community of non-native users
(citations).
Research question(s)
In EFL contexts in which the teaching of writing is less important than teaching other
"skills" and the training of teachers may only marginally address writing pedagogy, what
does the term "EFL writing" truly encompass? How do EFL contexts participate in the
formation of writing theories and pedagogical practices? Answers to these questions will be
found by examining the processes by which EFL teachers from three different contexts
(China, Mexico and Romania) form their knowledge-base about EFL writing and the
principles that guide their practices.
Methodology
A common survey was completed by 41 in-service K-12 teachers in Romania, 18 K12 teachers from China, and 16 K-12 teachers from Mexico. The survey was completed at
the beginning of a workshop on Second Language Writing given by the researcher at the
universities where these teachers were completing their MAs in English.
A focus group was conducted with 9 of the Romanian teachers and all of the
participants from China and Mexico.
In-depth interviews were conducted with four Romanian teachers, two Chinese
teachers and two Mexican teachers.
Findings
From Romanian study (Ene, 2013):
“The ways in which the Romanian teachers in this study gained their knowledge about EFL writing and
pedagogy had a breadth that satisfied the teachers, for the most part, but also left them wanting more
focus. The teachers found themselves having to learn how to teach EFL writing by independent study,
trial and error, and extrapolation from coursework which only marginally addressed L2 pedagogy in
general or L2 writing pedagogy in particular. Admittedly, self-education plays an important role in any
teacher’s development anywhere in the world, and it has been noted to varying degrees as an intrinsic
part of teacher formation in other EFL contexts (see Manchón, 2009 about Spain; Reichelt, 2005, 2009 a,
2009 b about Germany and Poland; You 2010 about China). Manchón (2009) writes that in Spain
formal writing instruction (in either L1 or L2) is less commonly and less broadly provided
during schooling and therefore EFL writers develop competencies mostly through
experiential implicit processes afforded by repeated engagement with writing
assignments and some form of response from their teachers. (117)
A concern in the Romanian context, where both learners and teachers of EFL writing are formed this way,
is that the teachers seemed to rather uncritically embrace commercially-driven professional development
opportunities that focus on a single pre-determined pedagogical approach (namely, functional writing).
While these may help meet immediate teaching needs, they do not expose the teachers to a wide array
of theoretical and pedagogical options to choose from freely. Moreover, it reinforces the textbook-driven
teaching that is pervasive in many EFL contexts, resulting in a limited, top-down interpretation of learner
needs and possibly misguided pedagogical choices (Cowling, 2007: 427). It seems that the Romanian
context would benefit from coursework which focuses purposefully on L2 writing pedagogy, and even
affords the teachers opportunities to apply and reflect on teaching techniques. Lee (2010) also noted that
a teacher’s education is a very complex composite. After tracing the effects of a course of study on a
group of teachers and MA students from Hong Kong, she concluded that writing teacher education is
transformative. Her study participants developed critical thinking about writing theories and a stronger
understanding of the principles of effective teaching, broadened their understanding of the writing
process, and pondered the importance of balancing idealism and realism in their work context.
As a result of acquiring their knowledge about L2 writing pedagogy as described above, the
Romanian EFL writing teachers in this study were guided by theoretical principles (Question b) based on
prior coursework, personal teaching experience, cultural views, and contextual constraints. In a positive
development compared to the days of audiolingualism which dominated language teaching in Romania
well into the 1990s, all of the participants assigned crucial importance to addressing learner needs.
However, as noted above, these were pre-established in the curriculum and the textbooks chosen by the
Ministry of Education. The idea that functional writing best meets the needs of students – to which the
participants adhered unanimously – is also promoted by policy and textbook recommendations. Romania
is similar in its evolution towards learner-centeredness and communicative approaches to situations
documented in China (You 2004 a, b), another country in which national policy and textbook structure
have great impact. Improved preparation in L2 writing would empower EFL writing teachers in Romania
and other EFL contexts to approach their work with a better informed, critical eye, and to become
genuinely learner-centered.
A subset of important theoretical beliefs of the Romanian teachers highlight the importance of
the cultural context in shaping teacher beliefs and practices. Those beliefs are related to the importance
of strong L1 literacy skills for the development of an L2; teacher and student roles with regard to
corrective feedback (with implications for the use of writing processes such as peer- and self-reviews);
and the importance of grammatical accuracy and vocabulary. It is unlikely for the participants in this
study to have formed their positions based on the scattered exposure to L2 writing literature. The fact
that the only framework they conceived of as such was summed up under the label of “functional writing”
indicates that it is more likely that such beliefs emerged organically from their own experience as learners
and teachers, as well as from their cultural beliefs. The idea that strong L1 and L2 literacy skills are
linked, or that strong reading skills correlate with strong writing have been long advocated in the L2
writing literature (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Grabe, 2008). In the Romanian context such principles are
linked to a culturally engrained respect for education, which the participants in this study espoused.
Similarly, many researchers of L2 writing would support the idea that teaching writing should include at
least some attention to form. In EFL contexts, the attention to accuracy is also justified by the fact that
most often writing is subservient to writing-to-learn-language, or – less frequently – to the need for
writing-to-learn how to write (Manchón, 2011). In the Romanian teachers’ case, their cultural view of
teacher roles determined their view of process writing and accuracy. Cultural beliefs have been known to
sometimes trump other types of knowledge in other EFL contexts (You, 2004 a, b). This case study
further illustrates the role of culture in the formation of EFL writing teachers, especially where the
training of EFL teachers is rather general.
Another influential contextual shaper of teachers’ approach to EFL writing is the harsh reality of
high teaching loads and low pay triumph. Their impact has been seen in China in the Asian context, and
Poland in the Eastern European one (see Lee, 2010 and You, 2004 a, 2004 b about China; see also
Reichelt, 2009 b about China, Poland, Japan, Germany and Spain). In the Romanian case, cultural views
restricted somewhat the participants’ confidence in process-oriented writing. However, even when its
potential benefits were acknowledged, the Romanian participants pointed out that much of the approach
was impracticable for them due to the time commitment it requires. Clearly, lower teaching loads and
class enrollment would improve the teaching-learning conditions in English classes such as those of the
participants in this study.
Finally, the most limiting factor that emerged from this study was the administration of Romania’s
national education policy. The frequent changes that have been reshaping it since 1989 are giving
teachers a sense of loss of direction which percolates into their work. Due to reforms in the Romanian
educational system, including second chances at taking exams or the availability of both public and
private universities where admission is less demanding, national exams do not exert great pressure.
However, the fact that there are frequent – almost yearly policy changes – distracts and confuses. The
disempowerment of teachers in front of national and international policy makers was evident in the
discourse of a few vocal participants who spoke not only of the broadened horizons brought about by
globalization, but also of some of its less positive effects (such as weakened L1 literacy among students,
plagiarism, and the propagation of English as an L1 discourse structures).”
Remaining question: what similarities and differences exist between the Romanian, Chinese and Mexican
contexts?
2. Institutional Description
Estela Ene, Assistant Professor in the English Department, Director of the English for Academic Purposes
Program at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). She teaches composition courses
for native and non-native speakers of English, at the graduate and undergraduate level, as well as
undergraduate and graduate linguistics and TESOL courses. Her research focuses on academic writing in
international and electronic contexts.
3. Glossary
SLW = second language writing
WE = world Englishes (varieties of English around the world)
Also see theoretical framework above
4. Digest of key theorists/frames used in the methods/ research design
Pennycook (2010) and Hall (2012) argue that English itself is a plurilithic concept, as it
belongs to multiple communities of diverse users whose usage differs to various degrees
from one single homogenous and monolithic English. Hall (2012) proposes that this should
be taken into account in teaching and teacher training, as it cannot be assumed that
teachers and learners around the globe share the same interest in teaching/learning a
common variety of English in a common EFL pedagogy.
Also see parts 1 and 2
Other sources:
Donahue, C. (2009). “Internationalization” and compositions studies: Reorienting the
discourse. College Composition and Communication, 61(2), 212-243.
Hall, C. J. (2012). Cognitive contributions to plurilithic views of English and other languages.
Applied Linguistics, 1-22.
Jenkins, J. (2009). English as a lingua franca: interpretations and attitudes. World
Englishes: 28(2), 200-207.
Pennycook, A. (2007). The myth of English as an international language. In S. Makoni and
A.
Pennycook (Eds.), Disinventing and reconstituting languages. Multilingual Matters,
90–115.
APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANT BACKGROUND SURVEY
Personal Information
Name ___________________________ Age ______Email :
Phone:
Degree you are pursuing:
BA
MA
Ph.D.
Are you willing to participate in a
follow-up interview? Yes / No
Teaching Experience
Do you currently teach English? __________________
What grade?
_____________________
Where do you teach English (city and name of the
school)______________________________________
How long have you been teaching English? __________
How many students do you have in each English class you teach? 20 30
Other:
How many classes do you teach? How many hours do you spend in the classroom each
week?
How many hours do you spend each week preparing for class?
How many hours do you spend each week grading English homework?
Training
From which of the following did you learn most about how to teach English writing:
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Not
agree
disagree
applicable
Individual study
(reading and copying
the style or models)
Teaching methods
courses
Special courses on
second language
writing
Other courses in
applied linguistics
Teacher comments
on term papers from
literature courses
Literature courses
In grades 1-8
In high school
During my BA studies
During my MA
studies
Professional
conferences/meetings
for English teachers
Courses in Romanian
studies (list them)
Other (explain):
How well prepared do you feel for teaching English writing:
Very well prepared Well prepared
Poorly prepared
If you could ask the university for something that would help you be better prepared for
teaching English writing, what would you ask for? Why?
If you could ask the government for something that could help you be better prepared for
teaching English writing, what would you ask for? Why?
Classroom Practices
How important are the following skills to your students? [1 = most important; 4 = least
important]
Reading
Writing
Speaking
Listening
What determines your choice of writing topics and activities (choose up to 3):
o student needs
o student likes/dislikes
o textbook structure
o your own expertise/comfort with a topic or activity
o national curriculum (programa)
o other (explain):
What activities do you focus on most often, in class and in homework (check up to 3 items):
o Grammar
o Reading
o Academic writing (ex: persuasive essays, research papers, summaries,
literary analysis)
o Professional writing (ex: job applications, CVs)
o Expressive/creative writing (ex: narratives, plays, poems)
o Personal, informal writing (ex: emails, letters)
o Speaking (ex: interviews, presentations)
o Listening
o Other (explain):
Which writing activities/assignments help students actually improve their writing? List three:
Which activities/assignments are most difficult for your students? List three and explain
why:
Which activities/assignments are most enjoyable for your students? List three:
What do you look for when grading student writing?
Do you think your students read the comments and corrections you make on their writing?
How frequently do you do the following in your writing class:
Very frequently
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Write many
comments on
student papers
Correct the
grammar in a
student paper
Comment on the
ideas and
organization of a
student paper
Ask for more
than one draft of
an assignment
Ask the students
to review each
other’s papers
Explain the
grading criteria
when you begin a
writing project
List three important ideas that guide the way you teach English-language writing. What are
they based on? (ex: teaching experience, theories of writing, etc.) (Continue on back if
necessary.)
How has the teaching of English-language writing changed in Romania since the beginning
of your career or since you were a student? How do you think it will continue to evolve?
What is the difference between Romanian-language writing and English-language writing?
What is the difference between teaching Romanian-language writing and English-language
writing?
How has globalization affected the way you teach English-language writing?