31.1992, Review: Applied Linguistics: Seloni, Henderson Lee (2019)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-31-1992. Wed Jun 17 2020. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 31.1992, Review: Applied Linguistics: Seloni, Henderson Lee (2019)

Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Jeremy Coburn
Managing Editor: Becca Morris
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Robinson, Lauren Perkins, Nils Hjortnaes, Yiwen Zhang, Joshua Sims
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Jeremy Coburn <jecoburn at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:06:17
From: Dung Tran [davy.tran at my.utsa.edu]
Subject: Second Language Writing Instruction in Global Contexts

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36605897


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/31/31-171.html

EDITOR: Lisya  Seloni
EDITOR: Sarah  Henderson Lee
TITLE: Second Language Writing Instruction in Global Contexts
SUBTITLE: English Language Teacher Preparation and Development
SERIES TITLE: New Perspectives on Language and Education
PUBLISHER: Multilingual Matters
YEAR: 2019

REVIEWER: Dung My Tran, University of Texas at San Antonio

SUMMARY

The book “Second Language Writing Instruction in Global Contexts: English
Language Teacher Preparation and Development” edited by Lisya Seloni and Sarah
Henderson Lee talks about the education of teachers who will teach English
writing skill in non-English speaking countries. It is composed of 14
chapters, each of which is a study that investigates an aspect related to the
training of writing teachers in various countries in Asia, Europe, the Middle
East and South America.

Chapter 1 is written by Alan Hirvela, who focuses on the adaptive expertise of
writing teachers. When it comes to expertise, teachers are usually judged
based on the rigid novice-expert dichotomy. Therefore, Alan introduces the
framework named adaptive expertise, which distinguishes adaptive and routine
writing teachers. While routine teachers only perform the same skills and
learn to be automatic, adaptive teachers are more flexible and creative in
coping with different situations and teaching contexts. Alan asserts that
courses that train writing teachers should help them change from being routine
to adaptive in their teaching of the English writing skill.

In Chapter 2, Icy Lee presents her research on the development of feedback
literacy of two writing teachers in Hong Kong. Literature has shown that
writing teachers have a limited understanding of feedback; thus, courses that
help them to obtain feedback literacy are necessary. Icy organized such a
course in Hong Kong and studied her two students named Joyce and Susan. She
found that the course had a positive impact on them. Specifically, although
teaching writing in Hong Kong meant having to comply with rigid conventions,
such as using unfocused written corrective feedback, the feedback literacy
course helped them realize that those conventions did not necessarily benefit
students. 

Chapter 3 written by Zhiwei Wu and Xiaoye You presents a study on how writing
teachers in China used local resources to improve their teaching. Via
interviews with seven teachers at three institutions in China, it was
concluded that six of them taught writing the way they had been taught by
their own writing teachers. Teachers also used four types of local resources
including workshops and National Excellent Courses, and sometimes utilized
journal articles or academic conferences. They first evaluated their teaching
situations such as students’ proficiency levels and expectations to define
problems in their classrooms. After that, they used four resources to
understand how those problems were solved and selected appropriate ways to
deal with them.

In Chapter 4, Keiko Hirose and Chris Harwood detail three factors that
influence the English writing instruction in Japan, including the course of
study proposed by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science
and Technology, university entrance English exams and local constraints on the
English writing instruction. Specifically, the updated course of study and new
university entrance exams required thorough training of writing teachers and
this could provide teachers with opportunities to develop professionally.
Moreover, local constraints such as big class sizes resulted in a heavy
workload for writing teachers in teaching writing and the use of outdated
grammar-translation method demotivated students in learning to write in
English.

Chapter 5 written by Sarah J. McCarthey reports her qualitative study on how
teachers were trained to teach English writing at primary and secondary
schools in Singapore. Results indicated that factors that influenced the
training in teaching writing were the way languages were used in Singapore,
the national curriculum, classroom-related problems and the exam-driven
culture of Singapore. Specifically, students were not fluent in either their
foreign language, English or their mother tongue, Chinese, which made it
difficult to teach them English writing. Besides, although the national
curriculum of Singapore was supposed to be efficient, it was in fact highly
standardized and required ineffective writing pedagogy including the use of
templates. This prevented teachers from teaching writing successfully in the
classrooms. Furthermore, Singaporean students tended to be obedient and
passive, so they did not feel comfortable writing genres such as argumentative
essays, which caused much difficulty to writing teachers. Finally, the
Singaporean education system was considerably exam-focused so writing was
simply taught so students could pass the writing tests. That entailed teaching
the format of the writing test so there was not time to practice other kinds
of writing, which limited the advancement of students’ writing proficiency.

In Chapter 6, Tanita Saenkhum reports her qualitative study that examined
teachers’ writing instruction and preparedness in primary and secondary
schools in Thailand. It was concluded that teachers considered grammar and
vocabulary vital in improving students’ writing ability. Moreover, some
teachers taught various steps of writing such as brainstorming, writing
multiple drafts and peer-reviewing, which was praise-worthy. Unfortunately,
although all the teachers in the study had at least a bachelor’s degree in
teaching English, none of them had any particular training in teaching English
writing.

Chapter 7 written by Sarah Henderson Lee and Shyam B. Pandey provides
information on English writing instruction in Nepal regarding their
preparedness and development, pedagogical difficulties, teaching resources and
support systems. First, teachers and teacher trainers in Nepal indicated that
they were not prepared to teach English writing in the classroom. For example,
they were taught theories related to writing at university, but could not
apply them in their classrooms. Also, many teachers showed dissatisfaction
with the professional development sessions that emphasized oral skills and
disregarded writing skills. Next, some pedagogical difficulties were that the
teachers themselves did not write in English and students had low motivation
to learn to write. Finally, teachers had limited access to teaching materials
and technology, as well as very few teachers were supported by mentors who
could provide guidance in teaching English writing.

In Chapter 8, Thomas D. Mitchell and Silva Pessoa detail the improvement of a
design professor who wanted to improve the guidelines of his writing
assignments at a university in Qatar. In fact, the professor did not have a
proficient English writing skill to clarify his expectations for his
assignments. With the assistance of Thomas and Silva, he could finally write
clear assignment guidelines. He said that the collaboration was helpful. He
also learnt that instead of writing short guidelines, longer and more detailed
ones could help him convey his expectations more effectively to his students.

Chapter 9 written by Aylin Unaldi, Lysya Seloni, Sebnem Yalcin and Nur
Yigitoglu Aptoula reports a survey study in Turkey. The study examined a
program that trained Turkish teachers to teach English writing and explored
their opinions on and experiences with writing. Results showed that the
program was designed to include reading tasks to provide meanings or contents
to the writing tasks. Instructors of the program also gave considerable
feedback to teachers so they could boost their writing competency. Regarding
teachers’ opinions on and experiences with writing, many teachers learnt
English extensively before joining the program, used English frequently to
communicate in videogames, read websites, talk with international friends and
travel abroad. Nevertheless, only around half of the teachers thought
positively of writing in English. 

In Chapter 10, Alev Ozbilgin-Gezgin and Betil Eroz report their study on
experiences and beliefs of teacher students in writing courses and the way
those courses were taught in a university in Northern Cyprus. It was concluded
that teachers thought positively of the courses because they helped them know
what good writing entailed and how to organize their writing. Those courses
also gave teachers the chance to practice academic and personal writing, which
motivated them to keep writing. Regarding the teaching methodology of the
course, instructors paid individual attention to the teachers and encouraged
them to write a journal so they could feel more confident in writing English.
They also used pre-writing activities, peer feedback, teacher feedback and
writing rubrics to help teachers develop their writing proficiency.

Chapter 11, written by Lourdes Cerezo, Belen Gonzalez-Cruz and Jose Angel
Mercader, presents their study that investigated the role of English writing
in the Spanish education system. Results indicated that English writing was
not of much concern in the education of teacher candidates who would teach at
primary schools. Furthermore, not a lot of degree programs included a course
that showed teachers how to teach English writing properly. The study included
a questionnaire and the answers to it revealed that most teachers had not
attended any course on English writing pedagogy. Additionally, many teachers
learnt to teach writing on their own through teaching their own writing
classes, reading online materials, following guidelines of Cambridge or Oxford
and consulting their colleagues. Finally, almost all teachers believed that it
would be useful for them to be trained to teach English writing.

In Chapter 12, Dario Luis Banegas, Marianela Herrera, Cristina Nieva, Luisina
Doronuk and Yanina Salgueiro present their study on pre-service teachers’
perceptions of writing in an online program in Argentina as well as their
motivation and identity associated with English writing. It was found that
pre-service teachers appreciated joining the program as it could help them to
be effective teachers in the future. Furthermore, they were highly motivated
to study in the program because they wanted to improve their English
proficiency so they could be competent teachers in the future and could engage
in the professional community.

Chapter 13 written by Solange Aranha and Luciana C. de Oliveira investigates
whether teacher training and language courses in Brazil included courses that
instructed teachers to teach English writing. Results revealed that writing
teacher education did not receive much attention in universities in Brazil.
Even in programs that trained teachers to teach English writing, much theory
on how to teach were mentioned but not many chances to practice teaching were
provided.

In Chapter 14, Melinda Reichelt addresses how contextual elements influence
English writing instruction in various countries in the world. First, local
practices and perceptions of writing can affect the instruction of English
writing. For example, in Poland and Japan, writing in Polish or Japanese does
not get much attention so it is difficult to teach students to write in
English. Moreover, some cultures such as Turkey resist the teaching of English
writing, as the teachers do not like the fact that English writing conventions
conflict with Turkish writing styles. Second, whether resources are available
can affect English writing instruction. For instance, many countries lack
qualified English teachers and not many teachers are trained in teaching
English writing. Third, the status of English in different countries can
affect English writing instruction. In Jordan, English has become a medium of
teaching in many universities so English writing instruction has become
important. In contrast, Iran does not value the status of English, so it is
challenging to teach English writing at school. Finally, the purpose of
writing in English can influence students’ motivation in classrooms. For
instance, students in Ukraine consider English writing essential for their
future career so they are devoted to learning to write in English. On the
other hand, in countries where the English education is test-oriented, writing
is usually taught in a way that helps students to pass the test.

EVALUATION

The book “Second Language Writing Instruction in Global Contexts: English
Language Teacher Preparation and Development” has many strengths. First, it is
remarkably informative. The book includes studies of English writing education
in various parts of the world, which broadens my understanding. It also makes
me realize that English writing education does not get much attention in many
countries and this is discouraging. However, many researchers in this book
have proposed suggestions to deal with this issue so hopefully the English
writing education will be improved in the future. Second, the book includes
studies that research various topics using different frameworks of adaptive
expertise, written corrective feedback, motivation and identity. These studies
also use a variety of data collection instruments such as questionnaires,
interviews and document analysis, which expand my knowledge of how to conduct
qualitative research. Finally, the book focuses on the English writing
education in non-English speaking countries. This significantly contributes to
the field of researching English writing education as the majority of studies
on this topic are conducted in English speaking countries. In other words,
this book helps the readers view English writing education and instruction
from a different perspective and understand the differences between teaching
English writing in English speaking and non-English speaking countries.

This book, however, has one minor weakness. Although it succeeds in providing
the big picture of English writing education in the world, it does not address
specific classroom issues such as what kinds of instructions EFL teachers use
when teaching English writing and whether they encounter any difficulties. I’m
also interested in knowing how EFL teachers instruct writing conventions of
English, which can differ significantly from the those of their first
languages. 

Despite the weakness, the book is significantly useful as it provides much
information on the education of English writing teachers in non-English
speaking countries. It is also suitable for a variety of readers including
students, teachers and researchers interested in knowing more about the topic.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Dung (Davy) Tran is currently a first-year doctoral student in the PhD program
of Culture, Literacy and Language at the University of Texas at San Antonio.
She is also a graduate research assistant and the coordinator of 2 English
programs in the Department of Bicultural Bilingual Studies, UTSA. Her research
interests are language assessment and second language writing.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***************************    LINGUIST List Support    ***************************
 The 2019 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
  to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
     ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
               https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list-2019

                        Let's make this a short fund drive!
                Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
                    https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-31-1992	
----------------------------------------------------------