How to Teach English Writing in China?

For TESOL, I am particularly interested in teaching speaking and writing. Recently, I have finished reading Chapter 9 “Writing” in Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom (Tricia Hedge, 2000, Oxford: Oxford University Press.) I am going to share my own experience of learning English writing and ideas of how English writing should be taught in the EFL context in my city.

Process Approach & Text-based Approach

This chapter introduces and compares two English writing teaching methods, process approach and text-based approach. The latter one is often refereed to as “the traditional” one. In fact, this is the kind of teaching method that my classmates and I know most about. (Or say, this is probably the only one way we have been taught so far.) To be specific, it includes activities such as analyzing features of different genres, appreciating well-written essays, memorizing useful expressions and imitating them in writing exercise. The first one is called “process approach” because it attaches importance to all the steps involved in writing, from coming up with ideas to adding final touches. Therefore, it requires teachers to tutor students in deciding topics, arranging structures, choosing expressions, and refining the article in the end. A variety of activities can be conducted, such as drawing mind maps and checking each other’s drafts in groups.

Ideal and Reality: English Wiring in University Entrance Examination as an Example

The process approach is a relatively recent method and becomes increasingly popular. I believe this approach is very likely to be effective. Nevertheless, looking back to the actual circumstances of teaching and learning English writing in high school, I should say that it is not allowed to, or say does not need to be adopted in the EFL context in my city. All we can do is to carry over something that fits the teaching goal and examination system here.

Firstly, there is no need to spend time helping students generate ideas. It is said that this approach is most suitable for L2 students who do not receive adequate writing exercise in L1 classes. Whereas for my classmates and I, practice of coming up with ideas was too much in the Chinese classes. Furthermore, the English writing task in University Entrance Examination is not very difficult and sometimes the topics are even predictable. In a word, most students write similar opinions and we are not required to think of anything innovative. As a result, we all feel bored with activities such as drawing mind maps or group discussions, which are not of high value in improving our marks in exams.

Secondly, teachers should take responsibility for the revising part. The process approach is against that teachers take charge of revising and encourages students to self-correct or correct each other in groups under teachers’ guidance. As for teachers giving tips to invite students to self-correct, I would say it will work rather well because it provides both scaffolding and challenge. However, that would mean a new homework for students and for every writing a teacher has to correct twice. Whereas English writing task in University Entrance Examination takes up merely 25 of 150 marks and the gap of marks is relatively insignificant (I remember that most students get 20-24). Moreover, students generally do not dedicate much time to English in the last few months before the exam, and a teacher teaches at least two classes (100 students) with two to three writing exercises every week. These realistic factors determine that it is best for students to write and for teachers to mark and improve the work. Lastly, speaking of correcting classmates’ writing in a group, my teachers seldom asked us to do so. To be honest, we feel reluctant to support this activity since no one is willing to spend time on feedback not certainly right during the suffocating preparation for University Entrance Examination.

Surface-level Features

Several studies mentioned in this chapter illustrate that “good” writers concentrate on content but not form in writing. Zamel (1983) found that linguistic problems seemed to concern the participants least; Raimes (1985) noted that poor composing competence was a more serious problem than poor language competence; Perl (1979) and Sommers (1980) contended that it was less experienced writers who were always worried about language features.

Different researches adopted different criteria to distinguish between “good” and “poor” writers. Whereas I should say for English writing in University Entrance Examination, surface-level features are far more significant than what these studies thought about. As I just said, students write similar content, so based on my own observation, writings marked higher than 23 are all characterized by excellent “surface”: great words and phrases, complicated sentences, appropriate logical conjunctions, and most importantly, beautiful handwriting. Thus, teaching English writing here should pay much attention to surface-level features, which are equally important to ideas and organization.

Finally, I have something to say about the writing course in my first year at college. Although it was called “preliminary writing”, I did not think the foci targeted at the right point. The teacher spent a whole year telling us what all of us had already understood. For example, how to arrange opinions in different paragraphs, how to write a thesis statement, how to make examples and how to interpret them…… In contrast, we benefited a lot from a short lecture about the correct uses of punctuations and subtle differences between synonyms (e.g. “symbol”, “sign”, and “mark”). All in all, surface-level features are something that we, L2 writers, are most able to and most eager to improve in L2 writing classes.

References

Hedge, T. 2000. Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Perl, S. 1979. ‘The composing processes of unskilled college writers.’ Research in the Teaching of English 13/4: 317-36.

Raimes, A. 1985. ‘What unskilled ESL students do when they write: a classroom study of composing.’ TESOL Quarterly19/2: 229-55.

Sommers, N. 1980. ‘Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers.’ College Composition and Communication 31/4: 378-88.

Zamel, V. 1983. ‘The composing processes of advanced ESL students: six case studies.’ TESOL Quarterly 17/2: 165-87.