117

영어교육 62권 4호 2007년 겨울

An Analysis of the Writing Sections in EFL English Textbooks

in Korea Using a Process Approach

Soo-Min Jwa
(Korea University)

Jwa, Soo-Min. (2007). An analysis of the writing sections in EFL English

textbooks in Korea using a process approach. English Teaching, 64(2), 117-144.
This study questions the adequacy of writing questions in high school English 1 and 2
textbooks using a process approach. Just as the process approach to writing attaches its
emphasis to the writer’s mind and writing process, this study focuses on how and how
much the high school textbook is relevant to the process approach in the generation and
developing of the thinking and ideas of students. For the analysis, four standards were
characterized as the factors of the process approach: organization, writing type,
familiarity with the topics, and genre. The results show that writing questions in English
1 textbooks continue to lean towards particular linguistic knowledge; most writing types
are controlled. Moreover, writing questions are used primarily to verify the degree of
comprehension of other language skills. In terms of genre, they tend to concentrate on a
specific genre, which can present an obstacle to students who have to ‘think out loud’
when they encounter certain social tasks. In the last section, English 2 textbooks are
analyzed in a comparison with the English 1 textbooks. As a result of the comparison of
the differences in the textbooks, this study is expected to raise significant issues related
to the writing education in Korea.

I. INTRODUCTION

As the result of undergoing changes to foster integrated communication, the seventh

national curriculum for English education in Korea was initiated in 2003. It dictated that
the four language abilities of listening, reading, speaking, and writing be equally and
comprehensively dealt with. Although these fundamental changes are strongly encouraged,
they are not necessarily enforced. An imbalance appears to exist in that writing activities
still appear to be neglected in the classroom. Due to difficulties regarding writing
instruction, learners have been responsible for their own ability in English writing. Several
contributing factors can be being pointed out regarding the waning influence of English
118 Jwa, Soo-Min

education. These include the limited vocabulary of students, fossilization of certain

repeated errors, a burdensome workload for teachers (Homstad & Thorson, 1996), the
difficulty of involved in offering objective evaluation, and the absence of a writing section
in the Korean university entrance exam. In addition, the ability to speak fluently has taken
priority over other abilities among non-native speakers of English in Korea. This biased
proclivity and attention towards speaking relatively overrides the importance of writing.
Previous studies (Hyunjung Kim, 2005; Jisuk Kim, 2005; Jiyoung Song, 2006) have
indicated that high school students spend a fair amount of time on reading, less time on
speaking and almost no time on writing.
However, a far more compelling explanation of the diminishing influence of writing in
class can be found in the prevailingly mistaken awareness by teachers and students
concerning writing. Not only have teachers thought of writing as a flawless product in
which errors should be meticulously rectified, but students also see it as a formidable test
that is used to evaluate them. This mindset represents no more than treading the outmoded
footsteps of the ‘product approach.’ The product approach, a traditional paradigm that held
sway from the 1950s to the early 1970s, placed emphasis on the written product and form
rather than on the writing process itself. A new paradigm that emerged in the 1980s after
extensive research, known as the concept of the ‘process approach’ to writing, revealed that
writing is a complex process of thinking, writing, reading, rethinking and revising (Emig,
1971). In this aspect, writing has been viewed as recursive rather than linear, and revision
as a process of rethinking and rewriting has also been stressed.
With reference to the process approach to writing, the major concern of this study
centers on an analysis of the English textbooks used in secondary education in Korea. A
textbook is the most tangible and material tool used by learners in English classes; it is thus
influential and is an essential element in the school curriculum. After touching on several
issues connected to the process approach, this paper investigates how eight textbooks from
four different publishers, four ‘English 1’ textbooks and four ‘English 2’ textbooks, reflect
the process approach in writing sections. First, in terms of the detailed requirements of the
‘process-oriented methodology,’ the nature of the writing questions in the English 1
textbooks are analyzed item by item. Second, the English 2 textbooks are compared to the
English 1 textbooks in terms of the process approach. Improvements are investigated, as is
tuning of the textbooks as they seek to provide an efficient thinking process for students.
Suggestions and implications for the further study are then followed.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

Writing is considered to be one of the most difficult skills to learn. Learning to write is
 An Analysis of the Writing Sections in EFL English Textbooks in Korea Using a Process Approach 119

not just a matter of developing a set of mechanical orthographic skills but instead involves
learning a new set of cognitive relationships. Scott (1996) suggested that writing is an
essential part of the learning process and that a connection between writing and cognitive
development exist. Hence, writing is considered an act of discovering as well as a means of
developing ideas in the cognitive process. The ‘process approach’ shares common ground
with the nature of writing, in which emphasis is placed not on the finished product but on
the thoughts and the development of ideas by the writer during the thinking process. It
places importance on a cycle of writing activities, from the generation of ideas and the
collection of data to the creation of a complete product. In this cycle, writers themselves
are highlighted as opposed to the correctness of a sentence and its formality.
A number of composition researchers have suggested several stage models. Among
them, the model proposed by Tribble (1996) is addressed here. According to his research,
the stages include ‘prewriting’, in which such processes as specifying a task, planning,
collecting data, and making notes take place; ‘composing’, where several drafts are
completed; ‘revising’, where the activities of reorganizing, shifting emphasis, and focusing
the information and style in terms of the readers are performed; and finally ‘editing’,
during which writers check their grammar along with surface features such as punctuation,
spelling, layout, quotation conventions, and references. It is taken for granted in this
approach for a writer to revisit backwards and forwards whichever of the activities is useful
for their cognitive movement. Hence, this process is also known as a recursive process.
Along with the notion that writing is closely linked to complex thinking, research
findings have shown that writing can be successfully taught as an intellectual and cognitive
means of idea generation in ESL/EFL classrooms, as is evidenced in many studies (Flower
& Hayes, 1981; Zamel, 1983; Horowitz, 1986, cited in Rafik-Galea, 2005). One study, on
the other hand, contended that strategies in L1 and ESL writing were inherently different
from those in EFL writing (Scott, 1996). In particular, English learners whose L1 can be
characterized by a different alphabet and different structural conventions are required to
practice to learn how to encode the target language system until this encoding becomes
automatic. In fact, transferring language-specific writing processes that have been acquired
in L1 to writing in L2 is not possible until a threshold level of the structural knowledge of
L2 has been reached (Saville-Troike, 2006). Although some strategies from the L1 writing
process can be reflected and may be partially transferred to the EFL writing process, it is
important that precise writing tasks suitable for EFL writing be proposed, when it is
considered that the EFL writing process differs from those of L1 and ESL.
Thus, when the process approach is applied in the EFL class, there are several ideas to
be considered. First, it should be made certain that writers have knowledge related to the
writing topics, as described below (Saville-Troike, 2006; Tribble, 1996, p. 43).
120 Jwa, Soo-Min

TABLE 1
Types of Knowledge for Prewriting
Content Knowledge Knowledge of the concepts involved in the subject area
Context Knowledge Knowledge of the context of the text to be read
Language System Knowledge Knowledge of those aspects of the language system
necessary for the completion of the task
Writing Process Knowledge Knowledge of the most appropriate way to preparing for a
specific writing task

The most important knowledge is content knowledge: writers need to formulate basic mental
concepts as regards the topic. Context knowledge would be required as well as writers gear their
writing to their readers. To complete the writing process, writers should be equipped with
language system knowledge such as grammatical resources. Knowledge related to the writing
process is least important among the four categories but remains important as it ultimately leads
to communicative competence, as noted by Stryker and Leaver (1997):

“The fundamental organization of the curriculum is derived from the subject

matter, rather than forms, functions, situations, or skills. Communicative
competence is acquired during the process of learning about specific topics
such as math, science, art, social studies, culture, business, history, political
systems, international affairs, or economics.” (p. 268)

Second, another important concern is vocabulary; an undersized mental lexicon is considered

to be an impediment at the boundary of L1 and L2 writing. Perhaps the most conspicuous
cognitive process occurs when searching for the right word to ensure a seamless writing flow.
Whalen and Menard (1995, cited in Chon, 2007) suggested that ‘searching, accessing, and
retrieving linguistic forms’ represented nearly 77 % of all processing learners carry out at their
linguistic level. They considered this to be problematic. The fact the L1 writing style that EFL
writers understand is not transferred over to their L2 is also ascribed to a lack of elaborate
grammar and vocabulary skills of L2. That is to say, the failure by EFL learners to elicit the
equivalent L2 counterpart to a L1 word is seem as an obstacle to further advances in the writing
process. A study conducted by Calvez (2000, cited in Chaves, 2001) has shown that the
necessary vocabulary should be handled first in writing instruction and that retrieving
vocabulary is the hardest part of the process of L2 writing. Therefore, it should be taken into
account that EFL writers are typically stressed when grappling with a ‘half-baked’ lexicon.
Third, free writing is known to have a strong association with the process approach. According
to Raimes (1983), writing can be categorized into three types depending on the extent to which
the guidance and instruction are offered: controlled writing, guided writing, and free writing.
With controlled writing, instructors view the writing process as secondary to the skills involved
in the development of the archetypal format and the correctness of grammar. The advantages of
this approach include the prevention of frequently occurring errors, the clarification of tasks,
 An Analysis of the Writing Sections in EFL English Textbooks in Korea Using a Process Approach 121

prompt feedback, and curtailment of management time. However, excessive attention to

vocabulary and grammar do not play a critical role in improving the overall writing process
(Tomlinson, 1983). In terms of guided writing, classified as an “extension of controlled writing”
(Raimes, 1983, p. 103), a writer creates sentences or paragraphs with reference to the frame
already given; less importance is attached to sentence fragments and word choices compared to
the practice of controlled writing. To learners who feel overwhelmed when constructing
sentences and paragraphs, guided writing questions may be beneficial.
For the advancement of the writing process, however, free writing is recommended. This
style of writing involves an exercise in which students write quickly with little preparation
and with no judgment intended. It does not include stopping to correct writing. Paulston
and Bruder (1976) contend that free writing calls for ‘thinking’ to connect the content in
the mind to the linguistic symbol. As the instruction and desired directions are undefined,
both linguistic ability and logical and intelligent thinking should come into play in order to
create coherent writing. This is well-fitted to a process approach. Throughout their
intra-performance, students tend to sense the process that can best utilize their experiences
about the world and contexts. Eventually, these are transformed into their schemata as they
determine both the content and form of their writing.
Lastly, genre is taken into consideration in the process approach. The genre-based
approach is viewed as an updated process approach focusing on the discourse and
linguistic features of the task. Consideration toward the genre should be carried out before
writing to give ‘meaning’ to the reader. Through an inherent knowledge of genre, writers
can achieve their social and cultural goals, which are thought of as being indispensable on
the path toward communicative competence. Swales (1990) makes a reference to genre:

“A genre comprises a class of communicative events, the members of which

share some set of communicative purposes. These purposes are recognized by
the expert members of the parent discourse community and thereby constitute
the rationale for the genre. This rationale shapes the schematic structure of the
discourse and influences and constrains choice of content and style.” (p. 58)

As suggested in the study by Swales (1990), genre provides researchers with a fresh point
of view with which to reassess the effectiveness of teaching genre writing in class. Hicks
(1997) stated that the study of genre degenerates into the grammar instruction, more like the
product approach, where the use of rhetorical or linguistic forms is accentuated; in fact,
students in the genre approach are encouraged to mainly reflect on how language is used for
the purpose of fulfilling the demands of their readership (Gibbons, 2002; Muncie, 2002).
However, the activities of selecting adequate skills, structural patterns, and distinctive
knowledge identified in terms of the different types of genre are in effect performed in the
122 Jwa, Soo-Min

prewriting stage in the process approach. In this selection process, students can add to their
own imaginative resources and come to awareness not only of how to write, but also of what
to write (Tribble, 1996). With the perspective that the study of genre and the process
approach are largely complementary, the presentation of genre types can be considered as
factors to assess and analyze textbooks in terms of the process approach.

TABLE 2
Genre Writing Types
Literary Genres Non-literary Genres
Narrative Transactional
Stories, Novel, Biographies, Diary, Entries, Greetings/Farewells, Interviews, Invitations, Email,
Jokes, Nursery, Rhymes Questionnaires, Letters, Leaflets, Postcard
Non-narrative Procedural
Essays, Debates, Speeches, Plays, Poems, Messages, Recipe, Instructions, Directions
Songs, Recount, Bibliography Reports
Media Reports, Descriptions, Report, Investigation,
Reviews, Scientific Experiment, Dictionaries/Thesaurus,
Minutes of Meetings, Graphs/Tables/ Timetables
Expository
Class Talks, Lectures, Media Articles, Explanations,
Survey/Questionnaire, Press Release
Persuasive
Persuasive Essays, Editorials, Proposal, Submission,
Complaints, Advertisements

While research on the subjects of the process approach to EFL writing and analyses of writing
sections in EFL English textbooks are readily available in the literature, studies that address EFL
English textbooks based on the process approach appear only occasionally. There have been few
studies that take a specific view regarding EFL English textbook writing with regard to the process
approach and its effects on the output of writers. The present study attempts to focus on filling this
gap and studies of this type may help to contribute to the understanding by high school teachers of
the significance of process-based approaches when teaching English writing.

III. METHOD

1. Textbook Analysis

1) Textbook Sample

In this section, four ‘High school English 1’ textbooks and four ‘High school English 2’
textbooks currently in use were chosen and scrutinized in light of the process approach to
 An Analysis of the Writing Sections in EFL English Textbooks in Korea Using a Process Approach 123

writing. The book ‘High school English’ was excluded from this study in order to focus on
the development of the writing sections as ‘High school English 1’ students advanced to
‘High school English 2.’ Four publishing companies were selected, and the two textbooks
comprised a single set: High school English 1 and 2. The first set was published by Jihaksa
(written by Maengsung Lee et al., referred to here as A), and the second set was by
Chunjae Education (written by Byungmin Lee et al., referred to as B). The third set was
from Kumsung (written by Duckki Kim et al., referred to as C), and the fourth set was by
Jungang Education (written by Chung Bae Kim et al., referred to as D). Of the ten high
school English 1 and 2 textbooks, these four publications were selected randomly. All have
been newly introduced and in authorized use since 2003, reflecting the revised seventh
national curriculum, in which the systematic connection of the four linguistic functions of
listening, speaking, reading, and writing is regarded exemplary.

2) Analysis Standard

The major concern involves measuring the extent to which the organization and content of
English textbooks reflect process approaches to writing, how these approaches are applied into
practice, and in what aspects they are substantially embodied. According to the points addressed
in the literature review, four analysis standards are utilized for this analysis. First, taking a
comprehensive view of the organization of the textbooks, this study addresses the entire flow of
the textbooks and makes a determination as to whether it is equated with the suggested writing
process (prewriting, drafting, revising, and editing). Writing itself has a specific nature in the
cognitive activities of students. In all cases, writing sections are placed last. As long as the
writing section is followed by sections for listening, speaking, and reading, well-structured
content and its coherence throughout the preceding sections may contribute to brainstorming for
the actual writing, provoking thinking and organizing scattered ideas. The second standard
involves the share of each writing type, classified into controlled, guided, and free writing,
which reflects how much the process approach is substantiated in textbooks. As shown by
Raimes (1983), free writing provides students with authentic experiences of process writing in
that it excludes regulation-imposed instructions and frees them from being judged by the set
answers required in controlled writing or occasionally in guided writing. Thus, the more free
writing questions appear, the more opportunities students have to develop their ideas in the
context, naturally leading to process writing. Third, familiarity with the subject matter is
discussed. In terms of the importance of knowledge for prewriting, especially content
knowledge (Saville-Troike, 2006; Tribble, 1996), as well as vocabulary as discussed above
(Calvez, 2000), it is assumed that a lack of familiarity with the topic and subsequently
lexicon-burdened uneasiness will prevent further thinking by students. Although the
relationship between the possession of subject matter knowledge and writing text about the
124 Jwa, Soo-Min

subject matter is not commonly investigated (Bart & Evans, 2003), it has been suggested that
subject matter knowledge affects the quality of texts (McCutchen, 1986) Thus, to understand
thoroughly the topics given is one of the best means of overcoming apprehension when
engaging in free writing. Students who understand the topic well are expected to state, debate,
instruct and present their opinion well. In this sense, topics are gleaned from familiar areas for
learners or from what appears to be intriguing so that students are free from whatever
constraints are imposed on their thinking. In this regard, it is important that topics associated
with their life and concerns as adolescents facilitate their thinking with little interference in it.
Fourth, it is necessary that diverse genres be provided. All of the information acquired from
learning the characteristics of genre, such as structural patterns and distinctive features of each
genre, may offer resources from which students can draw. For example, in a letter, students
acquire an idea that the first sentence starts with cordial questions about weather, health, or
recent events, whereas an argument essay includes supporting, persuading, or refuting
statements. Therefore, it is thought that studying genre gives students a clear idea of what to
write as well as how to write, which facilitates their thinking process.

IV. RESULTS

1. Organization of the textbooks

As illustrated in Table 3, the organization of the textbooks is Listening, Speaking,

Reading, and Writing in that order. Unlike the sixth national curriculum under which the
organization is ordered as Listening, Reading, Speaking, and Writing, receptive and
productive functions are intertwined with one another, suggesting that productive skills
such as speaking and writing for communication are being treated as contributing factors
working in a consistent flow, far from playing a subsidiary role in the textbooks. As for the
characteristics of textbook A, when judged according to the number of activities that
appear throughout all of the chapters, listening seems to be the section onto which
emphasis is attached. While the listening section occupies three to four pages of each
chapter, only one page is assigned to the writing section. Occasionally, listening activities
are interposed as a facilitating tool in the writing section. A variety of types of writing
activities are interspersed among all parts; that is, writing questions are not utilized as ‘real’
writing, as they appear. They appear to exist so as to function as a checking tool for
comprehension of other skills such as listening or reading. The substantial writing activity
in textbook A lies only in the sections ‘Let’s Write’. However, the ‘Let’s Write’ section in
each chapter uses only one page, and half of that page is for filling in blanks after listening.
This type of construction appears in five writing sections (‘Let’s Write’) out of twelve.
 An Analysis of the Writing Sections in EFL English Textbooks in Korea Using a Process Approach 125

TABLE 3
Organization of Textbook A, B, C, and D
A B C D
Warm-Up On Your Mark Think Back
Warm Up
Listening Listen & Get Ready Listen and Do Listen Listen and Do
Listen & Check
Listen & Do
Dialog (& Monolog) Dialogue Speak Speak and Act 1
Let’s Talk Shall We Talk? Speak and Act 2
Let’s Communicate
Reading Before You Read Before You Read Before You Read Read and Think
Unit
Reading Let’s Read Read Read
Organization
After You Read After You Read After You Read After You Read
Word and Language Work Words and Expressions Vocabulary
Grammar Study Use It Right
Writing Let’s Write Let’s Write Write Write Right
Word and Language Wrap Up
Grammar Study Awareness

Review Review & Check Let’s Have Fun! Group Activity Work It Out
Further Work 1 On Your Own Review Challenge
Further Work 2 Go Further Go for It

Throughout each chapter, one characteristic is constant: the writing section following the
listening, speaking, and reading sections allow sufficient time for learners to generate ideas
and to stimulate background knowledge unconsciously as it relates to the writing topic.
Moreover, the ‘Language Work’ section, in which various language forms and useful
expressions are taught, can be referred to by students when they write. Thus, learners can
acquire knowledge of the acceptable styles, including syntax and the diction of words.
Given that EFL students commonly find themselves having to retrieve adequate grammar
and words when composing a text, learning words and grammar beforehand, while not
necessarily helpful in all cases, it may lift a burden from students in some way.
Textbook B also follows the seventh curriculum, setting ‘Listening,’ ‘Speaking,’
‘Reading,’ and ‘Writing’ in that order. In textbook B, only one page is assigned to a
writing section, as in the textbook A, while listening is somewhat integrated into other
sections. Instead, learning each skill tends to be finalized in each area. Understanding of a
recorded tape is emphasized in the listening section while using specifically patterned
expressions is in the focus of the speaking section. It is likely that pre-thinking and
brainstorming about the writing topic are not carried out before and each section does not
appear to be closely connected in context, even though subtopics do not digress to a great
extent from the main subject.
Compared to textbooks A and B, textbooks C and D are significantly different in terms
of organization in that they present grammar resources or word formations after a writing
section. Especially with textbook D, as a ‘Wrap Up’ section that deals with multivocal
126 Jwa, Soo-Min

words, expressions, structures, and communication functions, is placed after the writing
section, the use of specific expressions on which the book writers purport to concentrate
cannot be used by students in their writing. If this type of knowledge is shown beforehand
and practiced, it may spare students from trouble and save them time, allowing them to
concentrate more on nourishing the ideas in a flow.
In addition to the organization, two pages are allotted as a writing section in textbooks C
and D. This is suitable in proportion to the number of pages given to other sections as it
enables guided or free writing which both require more space. Additionally, some of
writing practices in the listening or speaking sections in textbooks C and D bear a trace of
‘brainstorming,’ leading to a reduction of the possibility that students will experience a
lack of sufficient information or ideas, the so-called writer’s block. For example, in
textbook C, every speaking section includes a group activity such as a play or a discussion;
this activity leads directly to a writing question. The following passages are excerpted from
the pages 174 and 185.

C. 앞으로 20년 후에 컴퓨터는 어떤 일을 하게 될지, 또한 청소년의 생활은

어떻게 달라질지에 대해 의견을 나누며, 간단히 메모해봅시다. (p. 174, in
speaking section)
[Let’s take a note how the lives of teenagers will change in 20 years related with
what computers do.]
E. 위의 정보를 이용하여 20년 후의 세상을 그려 봅시다. (p. 185, in writing
section)
[Using the information above, picture the world in 20 years]

Another example can be found in textbook D. The instruction in the speaking section
that has students produce the right words describing their impressions of the pictures
allows students to become familiar with emotional vocabulary beforehand.
 An Analysis of the Writing Sections in EFL English Textbooks in Korea Using a Process Approach 127

Regardless of whether the word choice of a student appropriately portrays his feelings,
the storage of vocabulary associated with the topic, in this case happiness, can ultimately
become a good basis for his own specific writing topic and can strengthen or elaborate his
voice in writing. Questions in the reading section (p. 222) also help students to consider the
topic ‘happiness’ and to invoke memories that can be used in their writing. An excerpt is
given below.

B. Discuss the following questions in groups.

1. Who do you think is the happiest person in the world?
2. What do you think is the most important thing for you to do in order to be happy?
3. Have you ever done volunteer work before? If so, how did you feel about it and
what did you learn from it?

The subject of happiness continues up to the ‘Write Right’ section, and students are
asked to create free-writing about the happiest moment that they have ever felt in life (p.
230) and about their volunteer experiences (p. 235). An additional item that should be
pointed out in textbook D is that the writing section termed ‘Write Right’ always begins
with a visualized chart or a picture that are meant to assist students as they generate ideas
and vocabulary. Rafic-Galea (2005) held that visual tools such as mind maps, flow charts,
tree diagrams, and images indirectly lay the groundwork for the development of critical
and creative thinking in writing. Visual tools provide an overview of the patterns,
interrelationships, and interdependencies of ideas. That is to say, the spread of the ideas of
students is clustered into groups with the help of these visual tools, and several of these
clustered ideas can be chosen, revised, rearranged, and used directly in the writing process.

Although none of the sections in textbook D evince ‘writing process knowledge,’

prewriting activities such as visualized clustering or scheming as a part of brainstorming
are likely helpful and make it possible for learners to discover the most adaptable writing
processes to suit their particular style. Hence, it can be said that textbook D takes into
account the prewriting stage more sympathetically compared to textbook A.
128 Jwa, Soo-Min

2. Categorization of Writing Questions in the Textbooks

For the categorization of writing questions, three categories from controlled and guided
to free writing were used in reference to Tomlinson’s (1983) classification. All of the
writing questions in all varieties of forms are too many in number to be specifically
enlisted; hence, some were expediently merged and are counted here as one category.
Table 4 illustrates the extent to which writing questions are used for non-writing sections
and writing sections. ‘Others’ denotes other sections that cannot be included in the
categories of listening, speaking, reading, and writing sections; examples are ‘Language
Work,’ ‘Review & Check,’ and ‘Further Work 1 and 2’ for textbook A; ‘Words and
Expressions,’ ‘Use It Right,’ ‘Let’s Have Fun!,’ ‘On Your Own,’ and ‘Go Further’ for
textbook B; ‘Vocabulary,’ ‘Language Awareness,’ ‘Group Activity,’ ‘Review,’ and ‘Go
for It’ for textbook C; ‘Wrap Up,’ ‘Work it Out,’ and ‘Challenge,’ for textbook D.

TABLE 4
Writing Questions in Non-Writing Sections and Writing Sections
Types of A B C D
Section Con Guid Free Con Guid Free Con Guid Free Con Guid Free
Listening 24 0 0 6 1 0 18 0 1 18 0 0
(13.3%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (7.2%) (4.0%) (0.0%) (14.7%) (0.0%) (20.0%) (14.7%) (0.0%) (0.0%)
Speaking 1 6 0 1 5 0 0 3 0 2 14 0
(0.5%) (17.1%) (0.0%) (1.2%) (20.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (5.6%) (0.0%) (1.6%) (35.9%) (0.0%)
Reading 20 0 0 6 1 0 17 4 0 14 3 0
(11.1%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (7.2%) (4.0%) (0.0%) (13.9%) (7.5%) (0.0%) (11.4%) (7.6%) (0.0%)
Writing 14 10 1 6 11 7 9 37 1 27 15 7
(7.7%) (28.5%) (50.0%) (7.2%) (44.0%) (44.0%) (7.3%) (69.8%) (20.0%) (22.1%) (38.4%) (77.7%)
Others 121 19 1 64 7 0 78 9 3 61 7 2
(67.2%) (54.2%) (50.0%) (77.1%) (28.0%) (0.0%) (63.9%) (16.9%) (60.0%) (50.0%) (17.9%) (22.2%)
TOTAL 180 35 2 83 25 7 122 53 5 122 39 9
(100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%)
Note: ‘Con’ means ‘Controlled writing,’ ‘Guid’ means ‘Guided writing,’ and ‘Free’ means ‘Free writing’.

More than half of the writing questions are used in a controlled form and they are seen
more in the listening, reading and others sections, which shows that writing is regarded as a
means for evaluating the comprehension of other English skills. A further reflection on the
controlled writing questions mostly used in others sections demonstrates that controlled
writing is effective for gaining rapid responses and verifying their accuracy. In textbook A,
the number of controlled writing exercises is far greater compared to the other three
textbooks; in addition, only two free writing questions exist. As for textbook B, controlled
writing questions are not sporadically distributed over all sections. Here, evaluating the
comprehension of studnetss in terms of listening, speaking, and reading is accomplished
not through writing but through choosing the best choice. In textbook C, a remarkable 37
 An Analysis of the Writing Sections in EFL English Textbooks in Korea Using a Process Approach 129

guided writing questions exist in the writing section, which represents approximately 70%
of the total; in fact, many of them are used for the purpose of brainstorming before writing,
which is desirable in the process approach. The number of free writings exercises is
considerable in textbook D, while they scarcely exist – even in the writing section in
textbook A. Table 5 shows the types of writing questions.

TABLE 5
Types of Writing Questions in the Textbooks
Type Writing Activity A B C D
Filling in blanks deliberately left in a text 43 (19.8%) 2 (1.7%) 3 (1.6%) 17 (10.0%)
Selecting the best of various alternatives 11 (5.0%) 26 (22.6%) 50 (27.7%) 20(11.7%)
to fill in blanks
Transforming an expression by changing 14 (6.4%) 16 (13.9%) 11 (6.1%) 2 (1.1%)
Controlled the structure of a lexical item
Writing Rearranging jumbled words to form 18 (8.2%) 3 (2.6%) 2 (1.1%) 11 (6.4%)
grammatical and meaningful sentences
Rearranging jumbled sentences to form 8 (3.6%) 2 (1.7%) 0 (0.0%) 7 (4.1%)
a cohesive and coherent paragraph
Answering after reading or listening 65 (29.9%) 21 (18.2%) 40 (22.2%) 43 (25.2%)
Combining two sentences into one 3 (1.3%) 4 (3.4%) 6 (3.3%) 0 (0.0%)
Completing sentences 7 (3.2%) 4 (3.4%) 2 (1.1%) 3 (1.7%)
Revision 8 (3.6%) 1 (0.8%) 6 (3.3%) 6 (4.5%)
Selecting the best of various alternatives 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.5%) 9 (5.2%)
to fill in blanks after reading and listening
Doing a dictation 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.5%) 0 (0.0%)
Filling in blanks to describe pictures 3 (1.3%) 4 (3.4%) 0 (0.0%) 9 (5.2%)
Subtotal 180 (82.9%) 83 (72.1%) 122 (67.7%) 122 (71.7%)
Rearranging jumbled words and adding 15 (6.9%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (1.7%)
words to form grammatical sentences
Rearranging jumbled sentences and adding 3 (1.3%) 1 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Guided connective to form a coherent paragraph
Writing Transforming utterances 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.5%) 3 (1.7%)
(Conversation to Narrative, etc)
Writing after a group discussion 7 (3.2%) 10 (8.7%) 14 (7.7%) 6 (3.5%)
Completing an outline of a text 0 (0.0%) 5 (4.3%) 15 (8.3%) 7 (4.1%)
Following a given strategy and suggestion 1 (0.4%) 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.5%)
Making a new sentence 4 (1.8%) 5 (4.3%) 18 (10.0%) 15 (8.8%)
Writing a summary after reading or listening 3 (1.3%) 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.5%) 2 (1.1%)
Describing pictures or charts 2 (0.9%) 2 (1.7%) 3 (1.6%) 2 (1.1%)
Subtotal 35 (16.1%) 25 (21.7%) 53 (29.4%) 39 (22.9%)
Free 2 (0.9%) 7 (6.0%) 5 (2.7%) 9 (5.2%)
Writing
Subtotal 2 (0.9%) 7 (6.0%) 5 (2.7%) 9 (5.2%)
Sum 217 (100%) 115 (100%) 180 (100%) 170 (100%)

As shown in Table 5, controlled writing questions prevail in all textbooks, exceeding 70% of
the total. In particular, the category of ‘answering questions after listening and reading’
represents the largest share. Textbook B uses fewer writing questions, amounting to 115 in total.
130 Jwa, Soo-Min

This falls short of the average of other textbooks. For textbook C, 53% of the writing questions
follow a guided writing form, and it was found that most of these writing questions ask for the
formulation of supporting sentences for the argument; this can serve as a preliminary exercise
before free writing and can facilitate the thinking process of the student. The number of free
writings exercises in textbook D is greater by compared to the number of free writing exercises
in textbook A. Overall, textbook D takes appropriate steps for a process approach.

3. Familiarity with the Subject

By dealing continually with the same subject throughout every section, the textbook
implicitly contributes to an accumulation of related ideas when students are faced with a
writing task. In addition, if the subject is student-friendly, his background knowledge may
add to the reality of the writing. Although guided or free writing questions were not
commonly observed in the textbooks, the matters in which the book writer deals with
writing and how the book is intended to prepare a student for this type of work can be
inferred by comparing the topics in all of the textbooks. Table 6 schematically shows the
representative topics of each chapter in each textbook.

TABLE 6
Subject of Each Chapter in Textbooks A, B, C, and D
Unit A B C D
1 Laughter Internet manners Volunteer work Classmates
2 Role of the conductor Folk tales Exercise in life Oral Hygiene
3 Basketball game Arts of Pharaohs Effective listening Concerns of high
school students
4 Nazca’s figures and The history of Interesting mistakes Future life
life bowling
5 Future rocket planes Digital cash Fire safety education Monkey’s folly and
fox’sartfulness
6 Unification of German Korean-style food Spirit of adventure Trip to Europe
7 Racial discrimination Trip Anecdote of three Firefighter’s sacrifice
and women’s rights sisters
8 Value of Mandala White lies Future jobs Fusion cultures
9 Astronomy Creative thinking Ultrasound Korea’s high
technology
10 Mistakes The joy of sharing A would-be The handicapped,
detective’s success Happiness
11 Social conscience Preservation of water Living in space Genome project
Resources
12 English as an Greek mythology Kimchi Aptitude test
international language

As shown in Table 6, the subjects in textbook A, as compared to the other textbooks, do

not lend themselves easily to free writing. Upon a closer look at Table 6, it can be assumed
 An Analysis of the Writing Sections in EFL English Textbooks in Korea Using a Process Approach 131

that the subjects of textbook A are much more challenging to utilize as a writing topic, as
they bear little relation to the life of a high school students. Subjects such as the value of
Mandala, a role of a conductor, Nazca’s culture, a rocket plane, astronomy, and racial
discrimination might be intelligible in terms of the cognitive level of high school students,
but are not closely intermixed with their experience and common thoughts. Hence, these
topics are not likely to facilitate their thinking in terms of free writing. In order to do this, a
fairly substantial amount of time would be needed to gather data. It can be argued that their
attempts at ‘free writing’ about the unfamiliar topics are likely to fail due to a lack of
vocabulary and ideas, which would then hamper the process approach to writing. It is also
inferred that it would be difficult to create appropriate free writing questions from the main
subjects. As such, textbook A tends to use most of the writing questions for comprehension,
amounting to an increase in the number of controlled writing exercises.
Other specific subjects chosen for each chapter generally do not seem difficult to handle
and each subject is constant in each chapter. However, coherence in terms of the subjects
appears mainly in the reading and writing sections. In general, the listening and speaking
sections focus on mechanical accomplishments instead of on conveying the meanings of
the subject; it is rather the reading section and the group activities that serve as a
foundation from which a writing idea might be generated. In textbook D, for instance, the
reading material about a trip to Europe in Chapter 6 advances into town-introduction
writing and advertisement writing exercises, whereas the reading material on fusion culture
in Chapter 8 is expanded to a first-hand investigation of fusion products and to free writing
built on that information. Moreover, several group activities entailing writing are a
distinguished feature of textbook D. While discussing the subject with group members,
students can ascertain what they are missing and broaden the scope of their thinking.
Textbooks B and C are, however, somewhat self-contained in terms of a writing section.
Textbook B often shows a sample and asks students to ‘free-write’ as a response to the sample.
Of course, the writing topic falls within the purview of the overall subject, but the writing by the
student is likely to be more connected to the sample instead of to the subject under discussion.
Textbook C shows the particular steps within the writing section that should be taken in order to
prepare for a complete writing exercise using guided questions. Referring to Table 4,
approximately 70% of the guided writing exercises are used in the writing section; in fact, all of
the guided writing exercises are intended to generate supporting ideas for a complete paragraph.
For instance, the example below (p. 225) indicates how effectively the writing questions are
being used for promoting the thinking processes of students.

A. 미래에는 어떤 일이 일어날 지 골라봅시다.

[Choose one below in terms of what will happen in the future.]
□ There will be too many people to feed.
132 Jwa, Soo-Min

□ People will take trips to the moon.

□ Prisons will be crowded.
□ There will be only one nation in the world.
□ Humans will live until 200 years of age.
B. 다른 일들을 상상하여 적어봅시다.
[Let’s write down what can happen in the future.]

C. 20년 후에는 고등학교 생활이 어떻게 바뀔 지 추측하여 써 봅시다.

[Write down what the life in high school will be like in 20 years.]

D. 20년 후에는 어떤 것이 많아지고 어떤 것이 사라져 갈지 추측하여 세 개

씩 써 봅시다.
[Write down each about what will appear and what will disappear in 20 years.]

E. 위의 정보를 이용하여 20년 후의 세상을 그려 봅시다.

[Draw the world in 20 years using the information above.]

As seen in these examples, textbook C helps students prepare for free writing by
providing supporting sources that can be used in their writing. The generic subjects used in
textbooks B, C, and D are comparably easy to comprehend, dealing with common themes
and facilitating brainstorming and the overall writing process of students. If the writing
topics are linked to everyday life, extensive writing activities demanding free play of the
imagination of students can be performed. Thus, it applies to the use of vocabulary.

4. Types of Genre in the Textbooks

The particular mode of presenting genre in the textbooks is thought of as one of the
essential yardsticks when discussing the process approach to writing. As discussed earlier,
genre is defined as a category of works that shares a common form, purpose or content.
Given that students will feel inclined to write for a special occasion or are sometimes
compelled to do so, they need to select the genre that best fits the purpose they have in mind
for their writing. With knowledge of the commonly shared attributes of each genre, they can
expand their ideas and create convincing opinions with ease. Therefore, genre study can have
a positive effect on the thinking process of writing. Hence, textbooks should show how
genres differ from one another and how the same genre can vary in terms of how it is
accepted by readers. In this way, students can consciously identify the unique characteristics
of each genre. Figure 1 shows the distribution of genre writing in textbooks A, B, C, and D.
 An Analysis of the Writing Sections in EFL English Textbooks in Korea Using a Process Approach 133

FIGURE 1
Types of Genre shown in Textbooks A, B, C, and D

4 A
3 B
C
2
D
1

0
Narrative Non- TransactionalProcedural Reports Expository Persuasive
narrative

This figure does not consider samples of genre writing that are inserted into reading
materials or listening scripts; only exemplary genre samples in the writing questions, at least
those in the form of guided and free writing that require special nuances of form, structure,
voice, and use of language particular to each genre are counted as it is possible to exclude
such writing questions that seek to accomplish purposes other than teaching the
characteristics of genres. As Figure 1 shows, genre writings were scarcely found in textbook
A and only a few such examples were found in textbook B. In contrast, there were fourteen
and eight examples of genre writings introduced as exercises in textbook C and textbook D,
respectively. Transactional writing and reports are the most commonly found parts in all
textbooks. It can be assumed that these writing types are relatively easy for students to carry
out given the proper information or at least an easy preparation, though the final result may
be sloppy. Transactional writing and reports deal with the fact and do not impose much
pressure on students compared with other genre writings such as poems or stories, which
require imagination and creativity. Transactional writing includes giving information,
requesting information, making complaints, making corrections, and making suggestions that
require feedback. The example below is an excerpt from textbook D.
134 Jwa, Soo-Min

This is among the reports in which the goal is to give information regarding what
happened to a general reader. Writing with self-investigation is preferable as opposed to
abrupt writing with little knowledge, in that it is more likely for students to be motivated
about writing if they are allowed to turn the assorted and amorphous data they have
gleaned into writing. In this matter, textbooks C and D are somewhat superior to textbooks
A and B. All of the textbooks, however, have a shortcoming in that none provides adequate
explanation for a methodical comprehension of each genre. Despite the fact that most of
the writing questions in textbooks C and D have the form of guided writing, without clear
instructions or directions, students are apt to mimic the expressions given in a patterned
sample, and not deeply contemplate the format. Hence, additional chances should be given
to learners to make writing using their own specific forms and organizational patterns.

5. Analysis of English 2 textbooks

It was expected that marked or gradual changes would be revealed as the programs using
English 1 textbooks advanced to using English 2 textbooks. There was ample room for
change in the English 1 textbooks in light of the process approach. The English 2 textbooks,
in fact, can be where book writers to some degree attempt to meet the challenges that they
have delayed introducing in consideration of the linguistic level of the student. It is
generally assumed that the level of intelligence of general high school students is elevated,
as is their knowledge of English, which together helps to keep them abreast of the various
writing skills.
The English 2 textbooks generally maintain the same organization and format of the
manner in which they display each section; listening – speaking – reading – (grammar and
word study) – writing – grammar and word study – review, with receptive and productive
skills intertwined. Additionally, one page each in textbooks A and B is made available for
the writing section and two pages are used for this purpose in textbooks C and D. In
addition, there were significant alterations in terms of how genre writing is presented;
rather, the textbook commonly overlooked the importance of genre study as the number
and variety of the genre writings were considerably reduced to four for each textbook on
average.
However, in terms of the types of writing questions displayed in the English 2 textbooks,
some conspicuous changes occur. Using horizontal lines, Figure 2, 3, 4, and 5 show the
number of controlled, guided, and free writing questions that are used in the listening,
speaking, reading, writing, and other sections. These figures were created by counting the
number of writing questions in the English 2 textbooks and combining the data from Table
4. Textbooks were analyzed in the same order from A to D. Figure 2 describes the changes
that occurred for textbook A.
 An Analysis of the Writing Sections in EFL English Textbooks in Korea Using a Process Approach 135

FIGURE 2
The Number of Writing Questions in English 1 and 2 for Textbook A

English2
Total
English1(Free) Others
Writing
English2
Reading
English1(Guided) Speaking
English2 Listening

English1(Controlled)

0 50 100 150 200 250

A remarkable change can be seen in Figure 2 regarding textbook A. Controlled writing

questions in the writing section have been decreased by half; as an alternative, guided
writing questions have increased in number by eight. Specifically, the category of ‘making
a new sentence’ is the most commonly used category in the writing section. In addition, the
number of controlled writing questions in the reading section shows a two-fold increase,
which can be interpreted as more writing questions being required to assist with
comprehension of the reading material, which is on a higher level compared to that of the
English 1 textbook. No further changes are made in the free writing questions.

FIGURE 3
The Number of Writing Questions in English 1 and 2 for Textbook B

English1(Free) Total
Others
English1(Guided) Writing
Reading
English1(Controlled) Speaking
Listening
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Figure 3 illustrates how textbook B deals with the writing questions. The controlled
writing questions in the reading section have increased in number in the English 2 textbook,
which reflects a concern for full understanding. As for the guided writing, the number of
writing questions in most sections rises gradually due to the increased number of group
activities requiring an end product written in English. However, the number of free
writings exercises has been decreased from seven to five.
136 Jwa, Soo-Min

FIGURE 4
The Number of Writing Questions in English 1 and 2 for Textbook C

English2
Total
English1(Free)
English2 Others
English1(Guided) Writing
English2 Reading
English1(Controlled) Speaking
Listening
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

The conditions of the English 1textbook are identical to those of the English 2 textbook.
Textbook C is comparably the most suitable for the process approach, as it uses more
guided writing exercises to give an impetus to brainstorming in the actual writing process.
Compared to the other three textbooks, there are twice as many guided writing questions in
the writing section of textbook C. These questions are chiefly located in the ‘Completing a
skeleton of a text,’ ‘Making a new sentence,’ ‘Writing a summary after reading or
listening,’ and the ‘Describing pictures or charts’ sections. Particularly, the use of pictures
and charts has a positive effect, providing a natural opportunity to write.

FIGURE 5
The Number of Writing Questions in English 1 and 2 for Textbook D

English2
Total
English1(Free) Others
English2 Writing
English1(Guided) Reading
English2 Speaking
Listening
English1(Controlled)

0 50 100 150

Figure 5 gives an account of the change occurring in textbook D. Not many changes were
made except for the overall increase shown in the number of controlled writing exercises.
Twenty more writing questions were added to the controlled writing total, indicating that the
book writers are focusing on grammar checking and reading and listening comprehension,
adhering to the product approach. Moreover, it can be seen in Figure 5 that the writing
questions in the writing section are divided almost equally between controlled and guided
 An Analysis of the Writing Sections in EFL English Textbooks in Korea Using a Process Approach 137

writing exercises. In contrast, relatively more are considered guided writing exercises in other
textbooks, implying that textbook D shows a worsening condition regarding writing types.
Table 7 shows the main subjects of the English 2 textbooks.

TABLE 6
Subject of Each Chapter in English 2 Textbooks A, B, C, and D
Unit A B C D

1 Books and reading Cultural awareness Laws of life The way we are
2 Deep Listening Shyness and Peculiar jobs Individual selfishness
relationship
3 Jazz musician, Louis The joker Ways of reading Die-hard
Armstrong determination
4 Mom’s gift The history of Fairy tales Advertisements
clothing
5 Waste and recycling Emigration Volunteer works Thoughts and beliefs
6 A boy’s ambitious The Iron Silk Road Cultural Rules of survival
dream communication
7 Korean literature Coincidence Math’s wonders Curing arts
readings
8 Paul Cezanne The paper news Arts of mural Sharing and caring
paintings
9 Genetically Foods modified Grandpa’s challenge Balanced diets
Business
10 Friendship Genomes Map making Math in our lives
11 Importance of Lord of the Flies Detective story Internet
thinking
12 War and humanity Graduation and Earth’s environment The most important
future moment

In fact, the main subjects in the English 1 textbooks tend to deal with particular episodes,
facts, and explanatory information, all of which can be seen as easy but provoke
sympathetic understanding in high school students with difficulty, as student lack
experience and knowledge regarding the topics in the English 1 textbooks. However,
considering Table 6 above, the subjects chosen overall in the English 2 textbooks are
inclined to the interests of adolescents, including the social and future planning issues
relevant to them, as well as to various concerns typical to students at this stage of their
development.

V. DISCUSSION

Eight English 1 and 2 textbooks were analyzed under the process approach to writing.
Although all of these textbooks reflect the seventh national curriculum well as they
138 Jwa, Soo-Min

embrace an integrated style of education in terms of the four language skills of listening,
speaking, reading, and writing, they do not dispel the notion that writing still plays no more
than a subsidiary role. In other words, the implementation of the seventh national
curriculum, demanding the equivalent distribution of attention on four skills, somehow has
a countervailing effect against the development of writing in the textbooks. Through
analyses, this study found that the writing practices mostly consist of those intended for
controlled or guided writing. In addition, over half of the writing practices are used in
listening, speaking, and reading sections for comprehension checks of those functions. It
was found that the importance of writing in terms of eliciting refined thinking from
students is not acknowledged and recognized by material.
However, writing should be stressed more than it is now and should be understood as a
set of processes. It is closely associated with cognitive activities from which all types of
learning draws. At present, the process approach to writing seems an appropriate model
that resembles the nature of writing itself in that it expounds what writers actually do in
process of writing. In this sense, free writing, genre study, student-friendly topics and
vocabulary learning can serve as tools to foster process-based learning in writing
instruction.
By engaging in free writing, students can afford to pay attention to exploring what they
think about a given topic. Recommended processes inclusive of drafting, revising, writing
and editing can be accompanied through free writing, although textbooks do not make
sufficient space for these activities. Genre study in process-based learning can play a
pivotal role, as it is suggestive of what to write. It presents a general frame of work that, in
the end, lends itself to writing sources. Even if genre study through writing is one method,
consistent exposure to sample genre writing is another way of making it easy to write
depending on the demands or expectations of the specific genre.
Moreover, it is clear that familiar topics can be effective when students undertake free
writing. For EFL students who are subject to the pressure of a small store of vocabulary
and a lack of ideas, it is important to make the situation less harsh, all things being equal,
by presenting less burdensome subjects. Otherwise, more prewriting stages should be
given, suggesting that sufficient time should be given to students to think about the topics
and genres before they write. However, given a condition in which a prewriting stage is not
fully provided in a textbook, during the class time it is perhaps best to mitigate the level of
the topics so that they match what is familiar to students or provide lucid explanations of
genre writing so that students can concentrate on brainstorming and put more effort into
coherent organization of their writing.
English textbooks, as they are restricted in terms of space, should play an important role
to draw out the potential of students and to provide opportunities for prewriting using a
process approach. In this approach, students are viewed as an independent producer of
 An Analysis of the Writing Sections in EFL English Textbooks in Korea Using a Process Approach 139

texts, and special attention is attached to how their ideas are being formed and developed
into words through planning. Therefore, textbooks for writing need to be tendered in the
way that the emphasis is on fostering the fluency of the writing process with less
consideration mechanical errors. This innovation will lead to the enhancement of
communicative competence, the ultimate goal in English education. As such, writing
should not remain a subsidiary tool for facilitating other skills but an independent device
that can bring effective communication to fruition. This cannot be achieved in one writing
section in one chapter of a textbook, but should be extensively included throughout all
chapters. More attention and awareness should be given to textbook construction.

VI. CONCLUSION

1. Main Research Findings

The study attempts to examine how writing questions and practices in high school English
1and 2 textbooks are presented in terms of a process approach. Four standards were selected
for analyses of four English 1 textbooks and four English 2 textbooks: organization, type of
writing, familiarity with the topics, and genre. All writing questions and practices intend to
foster learning; however, the criteria here are contrived to test if writing questions in the
textbooks are teach the writing process, including ‘prewriting – (drafting) – writing –
editing,’ which has recently been highlighted in the field of writing education. Ultimately,
this study centers on how the writing exercises in the textbooks cater to the facilitation of the
thinking process of students based on the four aforementioned criteria.
Textbooks C and D are superior to textbooks A and B in terms of the four standards.
This is shown by the fact that only one page in textbooks A and B compared to two pages
in C and D involve an independent writing section. However, most of the exercises involve
controlled or guided writing questions such as ‘Filling in blanks,’ ‘Selection the best of
various alternatives to fill in blanks,’ ‘Answering after reading or listening,’ ‘Writing after
a group discussion,’ ‘Completing a skeleton of a text,’ or ‘Making a new sentence.’ With
the use of writing as a mechanical practice, writing in the textbooks cannot function as a
proper tool for promoting the ability to express opinions freely. The writings are
necessarily limited to the boundaries of the given instruction. Writing is actually used for
other skills such as listening, speaking, and reading; ultimately, the manner of dealing with
writing is not directly conducive to free writing. This is especially salient in textbook A.
Even if comparably many free writing exercises were found in textbooks C and D, the little
space allotted for writing can discourage motivation and interest in students.
In addition to the types of writing questions, one point was important in relation to the
140 Jwa, Soo-Min

main topics. Compared to textbooks B, C, and D, textbook A is composed of relatively

difficult topics such as ‘the interpretation of the Nazca’s figures,’ ‘racial discrimination and
women’s right,’ ‘aesthetic value,’ ‘astronomical observation,’ and others that require
schema and related vocabulary. Moreover, devising related exercises about these subjects
is a challenge at this level. As a lack of background knowledge concerning the topics
encumbers creative thinking, it should be considered that students need to be aware of and
be familiar with the topics beforehand. Topics that they feel indifferent about will not help
to inspire them to write and may instead discourage them to write about their experiences.
Furthermore, sufficient explanations and exercises for genre study are not provided in all
textbooks. It is impossible to imagine that all types of writings are being produced through
the same set of processes; therefore, students need to learn the context and the purpose in
which their writing takes place. A genre study would help the development of the thinking
process; recognition of the characteristics of the genre before writing will assist students
with mapping out the frame of writing, an exercise chiefly performed in the prewriting
stage. Genre samples are shown more in textbook C compared to the other textbooks, but
their special convergence to the task of ‘report’ leaves room for improvement. Efforts to
expose students to various genres will advance wide-range thinking when students
encounter unfamiliar writing situations.
Comparing and contrasting the English 1 textbooks to the English 2 textbooks, few
distinctive signs for improvement were seen. In terms of organization, it was identical
across all textbooks. On average, four genres were found in each textbook. Based on the
number of writing types, guided writing questions have increased in number in two English
2 textbooks, B and C, with more pictures and charts; yet, overall, writing questions
primarily involve writing exercises. Based on Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, and Table 7 above, it can
be seen that the English 2 textbooks have more guided writing exercises and are more apt
to deal with student-friendly in an effort to lessen the burden of writing. However, it cannot
be said that the English 2 textbooks have improved in the direction of the process approach
as the degree of change, as shown in the present analysis, is not remarkable. Even the slight
change may have been caused by other factors. As such, the increase in the number of
controlled writing exercises in the English 2 textbooks can be traced to the intellectual
level of subjects being treated, as controlled writing is usually employed as a check of
comprehension. Therefore, it can be concluded that a number of points remain to be
considered regarding the process approach to writing.

2. Implications of this Study

All of the textbooks under analysis deserve praise for their efforts to integrate writing
into other skills such as listening, speaking, and reading, positively reflecting the ideals of
 An Analysis of the Writing Sections in EFL English Textbooks in Korea Using a Process Approach 141

the seventh curriculum. However, this welcoming change still belies a diminishing role of
writing in textbooks. The results shows that controlled writing continues to demand of the
bulk of pages devoted to writing, which indicates that English writing education in Korea
has yet to abandon the product approach, which considers writing as being primarily about
linguistic knowledge, with attention focused on the appropriate use of mechanical devices.
On the other hand, it can be interpreted that writing is beginning to be used as an
evaluating tool for other skills. In this situation, the present study reveals a lack of writing
instruction and the detrimental relegation of the writing section in EFL English textbooks.
As not many attempts in terms of the process approach are enforced in the textbooks, a
compelling argument can be made that book writers and teachers should understand and be
aware the importance of the process approach to writing and apply it to the actual teaching
activities, as well as in the textbooks.
If writing is left outside the classroom and textbook, students will be deprived of
opportunities to practice thought-provoking strategies. They are likely to regard writing as
a type of painstaking homework to be completed or as a grammar-free product if a teacher
does not refer to writing from a process-based viewpoint that emphasizes the development
of thinking and the coherence of writing. Although to the space limitations of textbooks as
well as time constraints in class are acknowledged, writing instruction should be performed
with careful attention and care. Otherwise, due to these difficulties, the role of the teachers
should be highlighted in writing instruction.
It is during the prewriting stage that cognitive thinking for writing is expanded and
arranged. In particular, the prewriting stage is closely related to the motivation and
confidence writers have to generate texts. As stated above, textbooks can contribute by
stimulating them by presenting familiar writing topics, displaying genre samples, arranging
each language section coherently, and utilizing visual tools. However, it would be teachers
themselves who are positioned to induce students to engage in self-discovery, gather data,
or to use their own experiences as writing sources. These self tasks are introspective; thus,
a textbook falls short in their observance. Teachers should therefore hold themselves
responsible for this and propose various strategies to encourage students.
Many strategies have been investigated by many researchers. The further focus here in
the process approach is on vocabulary and feedback. Vocabulary learning is an effective
instruction that enables students to think aloud regardless of the topic. In particular, EFL
learners strive to fill the gap between concepts they know in L1 and the counterpart word
in L2. Therefore, unlike the model proposed by Willis (1996) regarding task-based
teaching, language analysis and practice are worthy of attention before writing tasks in the
process approach. A lack of lexical knowledge is an obstacle to the flow of thinking.
Conversely, inspirational ideas can be aroused by rich vocabulary, as smooth transitions
from ideas to words built upon them.
142 Jwa, Soo-Min

In addition to vocabulary teaching, teachers also respond to compositions that students

create in the process known as ‘feedback.’ Feedback is one of the suggested processes
recommended in the process approach to writing. However, it is somewhat implausible to
expect students to carry out this process within a textbook. Teachers are in charge of
feedback after students finish writing, and feedback is highlighted due to its influence on
the further development of writing. However, feedback is not limited to corrections of
mechanical errors in the process approach. Rather, feedback must remain within bounds in
order to adjust scattered ideas into consistent output and to encourage students to develop
further ideas. Thus, the nature of feedback is flexible and does not try trap students using
an authoritative boundary.

3. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

This study has several limitations. First, as the analysis of the study is limited to only
four publications out of the ten approved by the Ministry of Education and Human
Resources, the result of this study cannot be generalized to all textbooks now in use. Future
researchers should look at as many textbooks as possible to generalize their results to
convey the importance of the process approach. Second, the study does not take into
consideration all of the confounding factors that are naturally given in a textbook, such as
space limitations and the values of each author concerning the textbook. Rather, this
focuses only on revealing how the process approach is embodied in writing questions and
does not pursue a broader approach. Third, the analysis criteria used in this study were
selected in relation to the process approach by the researcher; therefore, this study should
be complemented with a more solid theoretical foundation in a future study. Finally, future
research can determine a pre-post test appropriate for establishing a much stronger
relationship between process-based approaches and the quality of English writing by
Korean students.

REFERENCES

김지숙. (2005). 공통영어 교과서의 쓰기 활동 분석. 석사학위 논문. 고려대학교

교육대학원.
김현정. (2005). 중학교 영어교과서의 쓰기 활동 분석 연구. 석사학위 논문. 중앙
대학교 교육대학원.
송지영. (2006). 영어작문 교과서의 쓰기 활동 유형 분석. 석사학위 논문. 고려대
학교 교육대학원.
 An Analysis of the Writing Sections in EFL English Textbooks in Korea Using a Process Approach 143

Bart, W. M., & Evans, K. M. (2003). An investigation of the importance of domain specific
knowledge for writing proficiency (Technical Report Series, No. 21). MN:
University of Minnesota.
Calvez, D. J. (2000). Advanced undergraduate french composition: Problems and solutions.
Foreign Language Annals, 33, 93-102.
Chaves, F. (2001). Foreign Language Writing: A Survey and Implications for the
Classroom. Unpublished manuscript.
Chon, Y. V. (2007). Identification of lexical competence problems in L2 writing process of
Korean EFL university students. English Teaching, 62(1), 3-30.
Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College
Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language and scaffolding learning: Teaching second
language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Horowitz, D. M. (1986). What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL
classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 445-462.
Hewins, C. P. (1986). Writing in a foreign language: Motivation and the process approach.
Foreign Language Annals, 19, 219-223.
Hicks, D. (1997). Working through discourse genres in school. Research in the Teaching of
English, 31, 459-485.
Homstad, T., & Thorson, H. (1996). Using writing-to-learn activities in the foreign language
classroom (Technical Report Series, No. 14). MN: University of Minnesota.
McCutchen, D. (1986). Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development
of writing ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 431-444.
Muncie, J. (2002). Finding a place for grammar in EFL composition classes. EFL Journal,
56, 180-186.
Paulston, C. B., & Bruder, M. N. (1976). Teaching English as a second language techniques
and procedures. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
Rafik-Galea, S. (2005). Visual thinking tools in enhancing ESL students’ writing ability.
English Language & Literature Teaching, 11(2), 67-89.
Raimes, A.. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. NY: Oxford University press.
Saville-Troike, M. (2006). Introducing second language acquisition. NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Scott, V. (1996). Rethinking foreign language writing. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle
Publishers
Stryker, S. B., & Leaver, B. L. (Eds.). (1997). Content-based instruction for the foreign
language classroom: Models and methods. Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
144 Jwa, Soo-Min

Tomlinson, B. (1983). An approach to the teaching of continuous writing in ESL classes.

ELT Journal, 37(1), 7-15.
Tribble, C. (1996). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Whalen, K., & Menard, N. (1995). L1 and L2 writer’s strategic and linguistic knowledge: A
model of multiple-level discourse processing. Language Learning, 45(3), 381-418.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. London: Longman.
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies.
TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 165-187.

Applicable levels: secondary education

Key words: process approach, textbook analysis, teaching English writing, writing process

Soo-Min Jwa
Dept. of English Language and Literature
Korea University
5ga, Anam-dong, Seongbuk-gu
Seoul 86-5, Korea
Email: forjasmine1@hanmail.net

Received in August, 2007

Reviewed in September, 2007
Revised version received in November, 2007