This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Pennington, M. C. Articles by Niedzielski, K. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Teaching of English-as-a-Second-Language Writing in the Asia-Pacific Region: a Cross-Country Comparison

University of Luton (UK)

Sufumi So

Cornell University (USA)

Keiko Hirose

Aichi Prefectural University (Japan)

Vrginia Costa

City University of Hong Kong

Joe Li Wai Shing

Hong Kong Institute of Education

Krystyna Niedzielski

Los Angeles, California (USA)

A comparison of the practices of native and non-native teachers of English-as-a-second-language writing in Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand, and Singapore based on a Questionnaire and follow-up interviews revealed a gap between teachers' ideal and actual practice, similar perceptions of the constraints preventing them from teaching according to their Preferred practice, and a general lack of training in process writing. Many of the teachers took a middle-of-the-road approach combining product and process teaching philosophies, with a somewhat more traditional approach taken by non-native speakers of English and those teaching in Asian countries. Those teaching in Australia were the most process-oriented in theory and practice, those teaching in Japan were the most product-oriented in theory and practice, while those teaching in the other countries of the survey showed a greater difference between theory and practice and more variation across individual teachers.

The results can be interpreted to mean that the community of explanation (theory or ideal for practice) and the community of practice (actual practices) among teachers of English composition are not always well-aligned. While the rhetoric of process writing is generally the basis of the teachers' ideal or teaching philosophy, this rhetoric may mask a shallow commitment to the practices of process writing, and teachers may undermine the basis of process writing in attempting to selectively implement its tenets or to blend process and product elements in their teaching of writing. On the other hand, it may be that teachers of English in the Asia-Pacific region are developing a compromise teaching approach that combines process and product elements in a new synthesis.

RELC Journal, Vol. 28, No. 1, 120-143 (1997)
DOI: 10.1177/003368829702800108


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Cumming ESL/EFL instructors' practices for writing assessment: specific purposes or general purposes? Language Testing, April 1, 2001; 18(2): 207 - 224. [Abstract] [PDF]