Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Textbook Evaluation Adaptation and Suppl
Textbook Evaluation Adaptation and Suppl
Textbook Evaluation Adaptation and Suppl
By
Luke Hendricks Petschauer
University of St Andrews
August 2010
Abstract
English writing from writing instruction for the College English Test (CET).
context-appropriate way.
i
Acknowledgements
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.
Ally Malcolm-Smith, and Kerry Tavakoli for their excellent classes and the
Saltire Scholarship.
Qiufang, Professor Chen Guohua, and Professor Zhou Yan of the National
Studies University for the roles each of them have played in developing my
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
Specific Purpose (McKay & Rosenthal 1980), the only textbook assigned
China, taking into account (a) the drastic changes in the philosophies of
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
adaptation may then be carried out upon the adopted textbook to make it
frequently observed that evaluation may take place pre-, during-, and post-
use, though pre-use evaluation is the most common (Ellis 1997; McGrath
1
especially textbooks, for the purpose of textbook selection or purchasing.
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.
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:
It is hoped that this work may serve as a starting point for developing
2
while also being culturally appropriate and sensitive to the local learning
SCIENCES
CASS faculty members advise only one student at a time, and thus the
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.
‘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
3
Academic Writing class, students are expected to have mastered the
English department, at the end of the term. The course culminates with
their own choosing. Each semester foreign teachers are expected to teach
three sections of Academic Writing along with two or three other classes,
4
1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE DISSERTATION
the use of textbooks in general. Subsequent to this, current theories for the
instruction and how writing instructors have adapted these methods for
the textbook is made. Finally, suggestions are made for adaptation of the
considered.
5
2. Materials Evaluation and Adaptation
describe the same process that they are often used interchangeably, even
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,
institution, teacher, and student alike (Ellis 1997; Islam & Mares 2003); we
evaluate texts to “reach our own conclusions regarding the suitability of the
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
specific context.
6
McDonough & Shaw’s description of the purpose of materials
evaluation and its focus on students and context makes clear why
material” for use in a specific teaching context that has its own unique
evaluate them with the ultimate goal of adaptation of the textbook for use
are not fully satisfied with the textbooks from which they are required to
teach (Harwood 2005), with some teachers describing their class textbook
into vogue, it was common to dichotomise between those who taught from
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
should be presented to the learner; the art of the teacher is to decide how
strategies so to best make use of materials. This difference view has been
that teachers and students have neither the qualifications nor the
them (Block 1991). The argument that textbook authors should not be
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
profit” (Sheldon 1988: 239), that are poorly written and so filled with
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
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
dictionary” (Thornbury & Meddings 2001: 12) and using these materials to
work with authentic texts. Block (1991) suggests replacing textbooks with
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
role of teachers and students in making sense of textbooks and the role of
alike, showing what has been and will be taught and learned; some argue
the target lexical items or grammar structures (O'Neill 1982). For students,
class” (McGrath 2002: 11), while for the teacher it provides support for
10
lessons preparation and serves as a reference for subject-area
knowledge.
language. Others (Hutchinson & Torres 1994; Littlejohn 1998) argue that
textbooks can serve, as Littlejohn (1998: 190) puts it, as a “Trojan Horse”
instructor, learner, and the English language. Textbooks are thus “the
jumping-off point of teacher and class” that, “like any other medium, have
course outcomes, and the teaching context. McDonough and Shaw (2003)
11
of goals for the program in which the materials are to be used. From this
the text which may then be used for evaluation. McDonough and Shaw
evaluation” (McDonough & Shaw 2003: 59) of the textbook, during which
“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
preference for lesson plans and style of teaching. Littlejohn suggests that
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
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
starts with “making judgements about the effect of the materials on the
people using them” (p. 15). Emphasis has been placed on the allowing
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 learner-
wants and needs for a textbook may rob the procedure of materials
evaluation of its objectivity. She suggests that while both types of desires
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
classroom experience and need rely upon textbooks less they are better
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
on the teaching context and teaching strategies that have been been
but these lists have been criticised as being too general, not attuned to the
criterion such as use of illustrations; while this criterion may seem simple
and pleasant to look at?, such criteria should be used only after careful
the explicit and implicit assumptions inherent in the use of such standards.
upon the reviewer to define how they are to be interpreted, a task that
15
2.3 HOW ARE EVALUATIONS ACTED UPON?
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
that is not of the same type as that provided in the textbook is considered
selected textbook.
16
3. The Chinese Educational Context
desires and needs for the course to be taught, but also the students’
will have shaped student expectations for the foreign teacher’s class.
their own knowledge of the education system gained from both years of
teachers to function within the system. Native teachers may also avail
17
3.1 STUDENT EXPECTATIONS AND HIGH STAKES TESTING IN CHINA
China’s ethnic and linguistic diversity, along with the growing chasm
educational system (Cortazzi & Jin 1996; Yan & Huizhong 2006). Because
Chinese reality into one definition (Jin & Cortazzi 2006). In the following
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
between the learning goals common in China and those common in the
18
understanding the function and use of lexical knowledge. Researchers
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
2006). These beliefs are held to inform Chinese views on “face” and, as
The feature that may best define the Chinese educational context is
subjects other than English. Since China’s opening in the 1980s, demand
graduate study (Wang 2008). Preparation for the CET is supported by the
19
which university instructors are expected to teach and upon which
textbooks for university students are based (Chuntian & Yujuan 1998; You
(Zheng & Cheng 2008). In addition, students may elect to sit an optional
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
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:
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
the cohesion and originality of student writing (Cai 2002; You 2004a; You
In part because of the perception that high-stakes tests like the CET
employment, rather than from a love of language learning for its own sake
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
student noted, “here in China, the majority do not need to use the
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
reading and writing education since hànzì (現字), the Chinese system of
that the western and Chinese use of rhetoric are fundamentally different:
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
Though some have argued that two traditional Chinese styles of text, the
which are written using inductive text structures, are responsible for this
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
that the eight- and four-legged essay formats are little taught. However,
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 &
(2003) has observed that relatively little investigation has been conducted
research has found that Chinese students in China often use Chinese to
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
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
and cohesion” (3). This may be why, as Zhang (op cit) notes, Chinese
students have been found to spend less time preparing for English-
24
4. TEACHING WRITING
instruction and how they have been adapted for use in the Chinese
During the twenty years between the late 1970s and the late 1990s,
entirely upon the methods used for L1 writing instruction. The methods
& 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
discipline or genre (Jordan 1989); students are taught rules and forms that
approach comes from Wilkins’s (1981) idea of the notional syllabus, which
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
Boyle 2000: 231; Badger & White 2000); in a school setting, publishing is
seems clear when considering the focus placed upon the development of
writing focuses upon reader feedback as vital to the writing process (Leki
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
more difficult (Brookes & Grundy 1991: 9). Other writing instructors have
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
the sorts of text they are or will be expected to create (Flowerdew 2000:
rather than those written by native speakers, since they may serve as
students about writing in their discipline, it has been suggested that the
the various academic disciplines have unique standards and structures for
28
that the use of first person pronouns varies drastically from discipline to
students “Never use I in your essays”. Such advice is typically good when
have used corpus data to investigate the language used for academic
to how students can become aware of what language and lexical items are
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
Mastering the Academic Word List (Schmitt & Schmitt 2005). Debate
29
helpful or even meaningful to students who write across a variety of
disciplines (Hyland & Tse 2007). According to Hyland (2008), the lexical
that the discipline for which a text was written can often be predicted by an
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
found that hedging, the use of “cautious language” in speech and writing
areas. Thus, when teaching lexis, one must consider how items collocate
in the students’ various disciplines. Strategies for dealing with this variance
China as well research on the same topic when she claims that the CET
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
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
score; similarly, students showed little interest in those skills not perceived
process writing are considered important (Hu 2005; Badger & White
2000; Keh 1990). You (2004b) notes that Chinese students often prefer
and higher order concerns” (Keh 1990: 296), where lower order
concerns are surface errors in writing and higher order concerns have
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
to be sure that they have correctly understood the author’s intent and
culturally familiar and the unfamiliar” (Alptekin 1993: 141) as they train
32
must be able to create texts such as a curriculum vitae, email to
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
assigning the class general topics that might well be of interest to none
area of expertise.
33
5. Evaluation Methodology
The methodology for this evaluation has been developed using the
for no other reason than the structure and security they may provide for
adopted for use at CASS because of its perceived merits; this decision,
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
Shaw 2003).
34
2. Overview of journal articles written about Writing for a Specific
Purpose.
This list may be understood as being divisible into two parts, the first
Rather than using a statement of goals for the writing program class
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
representation of the rest of the book. This not only makes efficient use of
36
6. Evaluation of Writing for a Specific Purpose
punctuation in its chapter titles and section headings. Chapter titles are
typeset in all lowercase letters, section titles are also set in lowercase, and
substantiate.
Lyons & Heasley 1984: 209). The reviewers argue for evaluating writing
textbooks based upon how well the books teach skills necessary for the
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
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.
Vann and Abraham (1990) in their investigation into the learning strategies
4-2 (McKay & Rosenthal 1980: 46-47), is taken from a chapter focusing on
officer and write an accident report from six sentence fragments and a
drawing of the scene of the accident. Vann and Abraham note that
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
who was able to draw connections between her own experience with traffic
student who did not draw the same connection. Interestingly, the student
who was least successful in the task concluded that there was only one
recognised that the prompt allowed for some creative liberty, and felt free
their English for academic work and careers” (McKay & Rosenthal 1980:
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
and figures: data tables, Venn diagrams, maps, blueprints, cut-away views
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.
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
begins with three paragraphs introducing and defining the terms assertion
because no other section was open” (ibid: 64). Finally, the authors
41
The introduction is followed by the “recognizing assertions and
chapter’s key terms are defined again, using slightly different wording. The
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
which students are asked to use some of the sentences from EXERCISE
Rosenthal 1980: 65). Students are cautioned to use only one assertion in
42
entitled EXPRESSIONS YOU NEED TO KNOW, which contains fourteen
with Exercise 5-3, which asks student to “write an introductory phrase for
each of the following statistics” (McKay & Rosenthal 1980: 66) and
1. There are 8.2 million illegal immigrants in the United States. (U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service) (ibid: 66).
sentences introduce sources using lexical chunks that have not previously
been introduced to the reader. The second part of EXERCISE 5-4 asks
introductions.
quotations are only introduced objectively and some new phrases are
44
change, leave the tense in the present. (McKay & Rosenthal 1980:
70)
quote (51 words) in which only verb tenses and pronouns are changed. No
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)
speech using the present tense and three sentences into reported speech
using the past tense. The section concludes with two sentences about
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
45
advertising executive, an ESL student, and a management consultant
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.
Academic Purpose. First, the book does provide students with a large
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
the essay sections, and textbook only contains one chapter dedicated
46
There are a number of deficits in the book that must be considered.
typically not presented in any sort of context, and there is little repetition of
following table, abridged but presented in the same layout as in the text:
“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
teaching from the text, care must be taken to work with students to identify
appropriate collocations.
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
textbook. While Writing for a Specific Purpose disavowed the use of model
texts, judicious use of models might make the functions described in the
The book was written for foreign students studying in the United
States rather than students studying English in an EFL context. The vast
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
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,
the book include microscopes (McKay & Rosenthal 1980: 17), cathode-ray
tubes (ibid: 20), and automobile carburettors (ibid: 21). One might consider
48
situations, events, and figures that are both familiar and relevant to
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 well-
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
cognitive resources from language and its use to determining, for example,
what opinion they might have about Boris Karloff having to wait for years
The written texts in the book are not examples of academic writing,
but instead casual or formal writing meant to exemplify how various forms
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
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 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
papers dedicates so little space to writing papers. The final chapter is the
“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
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
general, and the suggested research methods and materials are dated
and not commensurate with the expectations for students and resources
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
with the desire to allow the text to retain some of its authority. If the
authority in the classroom, it would seem that the book would then become
teaching. Additionally, one might consider the effects such treatment of the
than a Chinese teacher (Cortazzi & Jin 1996), thus dichotomising between
“us” and “them”. A foreign teacher who is seen by the students as either
52
use in a Chinese institution might be seen as culturally unaware or, worse,
empowered as is possible.
Writing for a Specific Purpose has little content about planning and
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,
first chapter of the book, inform/focus, deals with writing thesis sentences
the class, time may be taken to examine paragraph and essay structure to
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
they might be shown a variety of ways to organise ideas, including the use
structure.
knowledge, that which “involves stating facts or rules” (Lewis 2000a: 156),
discreet pieces of vocabulary from their preparation for the CET, and will
learned to use the words they already know in the huge number of
54
Rather than requiring students to memorise lists of rarely used
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
Rather than focusing upon correct use of APA citations, the focus
the book does would be liable for disciplinary action for committing
plagiarism. Building off of the ideas discussed above about using old
55
and practice the skill of rewording, incorporating sensitivity of language
review. In short, it would seem that effective instruction would include the
respective fields.
56
2. Scaffold from students’ explicit knowledge of grammar to discuss
another class.
4. Allow students time in-class to read and critique each others’ work
would allow for highly personalised feedback that might seem less
Writing for a Specific Purpose may be used with and by the students for
57
of my suggestions for adaptation have to do with using the book as part of
choice has been made for two reasons: first, Chinese students typically
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
expectations over the term will evolve to require more speaking, in the
used in their subject area, students may be able to avoid the generality of
would seem that they must be scaffolded in to the curriculum with lecture
content and the use of course materials, including the assigned textbook.
success.
58
students learn new vocabulary rather than being taught how to reuse what
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
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
drawn about the use of Writing for a Specific Purpose at the Chinese
7.1 LIMITATIONS
that Chinese students are sensitive to the differences between ESL and
EFL teaching (Rao 2002), it would seem that teachers ignore this
the EFL context and using these concerns when considering suggestions
However, the research and suggestions above have been greatly hindered
classroom.
60
While it is commonly suggested that teachers pilot books as part of
foreign country; doing so has not been been possible during the writing of
and activities, and the potential criticisms of each, represent best guesses
reviewed journals.
with CASS’s administrators about their rationale for choosing this textbook
and with current foreign teachers at the university, who might have acted
the book. Had I sought out information from the classroom, rather than
most important question of all: How is language best learned and taught?
61
The suggestions for adaptation/supplementation above are largely based
language teaching are not as effective as they have been assumed to be,
7.2 CONCLUSIONS
how subjective the process of materials evaluation is. The book almost
more important than using a book that focused more on academic writing
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
62
might begin by recognising a need, if not a mandate, for western and
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 re-
interpretation, 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, Prentice-
Hall, 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 non-
communicative 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
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
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, self-
study 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.
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)
4) Structure of classes
The classes may be structured as a lecture or workshop format.
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.
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.
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)
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
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
8. Check of work.
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
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.
6. Students are given time to read the comments and re-read their
original essays.
xii
Lesson Plan: Collocations and Academic Language
xiii