Primary English Education

Investigating the Balance of Writing Tasks in Sixth-Grade English Textbooks

(글씨 크기 10pt)

Tae-Eun Kim (Seoul National University of Education)

Professor, English Education Department, Seoul National University of Education

(글씨 크기 10pt)

Kim, Tae-Eun. (2016). Investigating the balance of writing tasks in sixth-grade English textbooks. Primary English Education

(글씨 크기 9pt)

The present study investigated the nature of writing tasks in sixth-grade English textbooks from various perspectives in order to understand whether they provide balanced writing opportunities. The total of five English textbooks were analyzed; all of the writing activities included in the English textbooks were identified and investigated to explore the following research questions: (a) What is the balance in the orientation of writing tasks included in sixth-grade English textbooks? and (b) What is the level of writing sixth graders practice through English textbooks? In particular, the orientation of writing tasks was analyzed according to Dvorak (1986)’s categorization (i.e., transcription, composition) and Paulston’s (1972) and Aski’s (2003) categorization (i.e., mechanical drill, meaningful drill, communicative drill, communicative language practice). The results of the study suggested that meaningful drills account for the most substantial percentages in all of the five English textbooks with 56.43% on average; meanwhile, the second most frequent category of writing activities varies. From a broader perspective, approximately two-thirds of writing activities is devoted for transcription; one-third of them belongs to composition. As for the level of writing, the most frequent one goes to word-level writing followed by phrase-, sentence-, and discourse-level. The findings accentuate the need for providing students more opportunities for meaning negotiation processes during writing and for discourse-level writings, in order to help them successfully fulfill the standard of the English National Curriculum.

(글씨 크기 9pt)

Key Words: writing activities, English textbooks, orientation of writing, level of writing

(글씨 크기 10pt)

(글씨 크기 10pt)

I. Introduction

(글씨 크기 10pt)

The fact that the importance of writing becomes greater is represented in English textbooks published hitherto. In particular, the current 2015 revised national curriculum of English (Ministry of Education, 2015) presents standards of writing for sixth-graders as up to being able to write a short and simple text with or without a writing sample accompanied. It means that sixth-graders are expected to be able to create a set of sentences or a discourse to express what they intend to, for which they should link meaning to language forms. For successful writing learning and teaching, it is crucial to have English language learners engage in writing practices that lead them to create and negotiate meaning linking to language forms.

Writing tasks are employed for language learning and teaching for varying purposes. Writing is used to learn language items such as phonics, words, grammar points, syntactic structures, etc., and writing is also used to negotiate meaning to communicate ideas, thoughts, or feelings. Writing takes up much importance and room within the processes of language learning. Some writing tasks are form-oriented often when they are constructed for language learners to practice language items; other ones are meaning-oriented when leading them to engage in meaning negotiation processes, while linking meaning to language forms to express what they intend to. As Scott (1996) stated, writing helps learners achieve “two kinds of discovery: the discovery of language in a specific sense and the discovery of ideas” (p. 47). Both orientations of writing tasks are worthwhile to be engaged in because each orientation has its own purpose of teaching writing.

Such a balanced writing instruction is important for language learners to develop both accuracy and fluency in their writing, and for this both form-oriented and meaning-oriented writing tasks should be provided through language instruction. Accordingly, this study investigates the current nature of writing tasks provided through sixth-grade English textbooks. To explore this, the researcher established research questions as follows: (a) What is the balance in the orientation of writing tasks included in elementary school English textbooks?; (b) What is the level of writing sixth graders practice through English textbooks?

The study has significance in that it provides up-to-date information for educators or researchers to understand the nature of writing tasks currently represented in sixth-grade English textbooks, laying the foundation for suggesting enhanced or more appropriate ways of helping English language learners with their balanced development of writing abilities.

(글씨 크기 10pt)

(글씨 크기 10pt)

II. Theoretical Background

(글씨 크기 10pt)

1. Orientation of Teaching Writing

(글씨 크기 10pt)

The issue of orientation of teaching writing has been in a controversial debate over whether the learning and teaching of writing should be based on either traditional structured approaches focusing on language forms and writing conventions or process-oriented approaches focusing on meaning construction and communicating ideas and thoughts in meaningful ways. Based on two opposite orientations of teaching writing proposed by Dvorak (1986)―orientations of transcription and composition, the research creates a continuum which leads us to ponder where the optimal balance point of teaching writing for English language learners is.

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

<Figure 1> Orientation of Teaching Writing

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

Such debate is derived from exclusively selecting one over the other approach to teaching writing, although each approach has its own purpose of focusing on different aspects of writing. For example, writing instruction for English language learners in Korea has focused more on practicing language forms. In contrast, the process approach with the primary focus on the processes of meaning construction through multiple stages of writing has been a trend in L1 writing and ESL classrooms in the U.S. However, there has been continuing criticism about the efficacy of the process approach for English language learners because it was not designed to teach language forms or literacy skills and failed to help students develop the fundamental literacy skills. Thus, researchers who critiqued such exclusive use of an approach have argued for the optimum combination of both form-focused and meaning-focused approaches to teach writing (Huie & Yahya, 2003; Savignon, 2002; Tompkins, 2000, 2003). Furthermore, teaching language conventions such as vocabulary, grammar, and English syntactic structures appears to be effective when taught in contextualized ways (Scarcellar, 1996; Weaver, 1996).

Given that the balanced approach to writing instruction may be more beneficial and effective for English language learners, the researcher has questioned at which point on a continuum between transcription and composition the optimal balance can be achieved encompassing two different orientations of teaching writing. Presumably the balance point may vary depending on students' grade levels or their writing proficiencies.

(글씨 크기 10pt)

2. Balance in Writing Instruction

(글씨 크기 10pt)

An interweaving of explicit instruction about language forms, writing skills or strategies with authentic writing opportunities can make a way for instructional balance in teaching writing. As Tompkins (2003) maintained, a balanced approach to teach writing is suitable and effective for English language learners in that both direct instruction and authentic, meaningful writing experiences are provided.

To keep a good balance in writing instruction, students should have both form-focused writing opportunities for learning conventions of language forms and writing conventions and meaning-focused writing opportunities for meaning construction and communicating ideas. In addition, opportunities for writing in varied modes of written discourse should be offered. Considering these aspects of balances in writing instruction facilitates the development of balanced writing proficiency, whereby both writing competence and writing performance get equipped.

Some people may think that teaching writing competence is not proper for English language learners especially at the early stage of language learning. However, Scott (1996) stressed that “teaching foreign language writing is essential at all levels of language study” (p. 141). The development of writing skills demands persistent efforts and time. It has no time to delay learning about writing until other language skills are fully developed. As Scott stated, if students are provided the earlier exposure to write, their language proficiency will get more well balanced.

Writing opportunities to learn about language and writing conventions as well as construct meaning in writing are all important to develop balanced writing proficiency. Thus, it would be critical to call for optimum combination of both form-focused and meaning-focused writing opportunities instead of exclusively or predominantly using one.

(글씨 크기 10pt)

3. Writing Categories

(글씨 크기 10pt)

Researchers defined the notion of writing from varying perspectives and presented different hierarchical systems of categorizing writing practices (Aski, 2003; Dvorak, 1986; Moffett, 1979; Paulston, 1972). Table 1 summarizes various categorizations of writing practices four researchers proposed.

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

<Table 1> Various Categorizations of Writing Practices

Moffett (1979)

Dvorak (1986)

Paulston (1972)

Aski (2003)

Handwriting

Transcribing

Paraphrasing

Crafting

Revising inner speech

Transcription

Composition

Mechanical drill

Meaningful drill

Communicative drill

Mechanical drill

Meaningful drill

Communicative drill

Communicative language practice

First, Moffett (1979) defined the notion of writing by classifying writing practices into five levels―handwriting, transcribing, paraphrasing, crafting, and revising inner speech. Handwriting refers to simply reproducing the letters or graphic symbols that stand for sound symbols, and transcribing means copying others' speech and texts. As for the upper levels, paraphrasing is a type of writing to summarize other writers' ideas, crafting is to construct sentences, paragraphs, and texts with a given topic or language form, and lastly revising inner speech involves expressing one's own original ideas.

For the second thing, Dvorak (1986) categorized writing practices into two orientations―transcription and composition. Transcription-oriented writing activities have a purpose of practicing language forms such as letters, words, grammar aspects, etc. in order to achieve language skills. Writing practice for transcription lays a foundation for English language learners to move on to the higher level of writing. Composition-oriented writing practices involve constructing meaning to express their own ideas, thoughts, and feelings through writing.

Next, Paulston (1972) suggested the classification of structural pattern drills, which includes mechanical drill, meaningful drill, and communicative drill, and these three drills are distinguished by the degree of learner control over response. Meanwhile, Aski (2003) pointed out the limitations of Paulston's categorization in that other types of writing except structural pattern drills cannot fit. Instead, Aski added one more category named communicative language practice to Paulston's categorization, in order to encompass writing practices that involve meaning construction.

Since the categorizations proposed by Paulston (1972) and Aski (2003) are used for the study, more detailed explanation on each of four drills needs to be provided (The samples of writing activities of four drills are provided in Chapter IV). Writing tasks for a mechanical drill frequently involve substituting or manipulating language forms. In this type of exclusively form-focused writing, only a single correct answer exists, which means it has complete control over learners' response. As for meaningful drills, it is required for learners to comprehend the input and the output, which is different from mechanical drills. However, writing activities falling on this category still bear full control of the learners' response, which means there is only one response possible. Meaning negotiation processes are not generated so that learners do not construct their own meaning at all during the activities.

Communicative drills, unlike mechanical and meaningful drills, learners get allowed to generate their own responses because there is no control of the response. Thus, there is no single correct answer. Rather, opportunities for writing unknown or new information are given. However, as in meaningful drills, communicative drills contain a formulaic and highly structured format. In other words, a part of a sentence or a short text is prompted, and the rest of the part which often has a blank line should be filled in by writing words or phrases to express their personal experience, feelings, thoughts or knowledge. Beyond three kinds of drill-type writing practices, communicative language practices provide learners with writing opportunities in which they get to experiment a language and express what they want freely in a meaningful context. Although learners have limited knowledge of language, opportunities to use their knowledge they have so far to express their own ideas or information can develop their abilities to write.

(글씨 크기 10pt)

(글씨 크기 10pt)

III. Methodology

(글씨 크기 10pt)

1. Textbooks and Writing Activities in Analysis

(글씨 크기 10pt)

Textbooks in analysis for the study include sixth-grade English textbooks made by the 2009 revised national curriculum. Five English textbooks (Choi et al., 2015; Ham et al., 2015; Yoon et al., 2015) were analyzed, and they were coded as T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5 randomly.

All of the activities included in textbooks were examined to determine which activity belongs to a writing activity by the researcher and an elementary school English teacher. With 98% of strong agreement they determined the range of writing activities as follows. A part of textbooks exclusively designed for practicing writing skills was considered as a writing activity. In addition, although some activities were presented to practice other language skills such as listening, speaking, and reading but they involved a certain writing act, these writing-involved activities were also counted as writing activities. For example, a part named Act Out is designed to practice speaking, but if the part contains a writing act like writing a script for acting out, this writing activity part was taken into account in analysis. Table 2 summarizes a list of English textbooks and the number of writing activities identified and included in analysis from each textbook.

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

<Table 2> Code of English Textbooks and the Number of Writing Activities

Code of English textbooks

The number of writing activities identified

T1

97

T2

103

T3

113

T4

101

T5

131

(글씨 크기 10pt)

2. Data Analysis

(글씨 크기 10pt)

To answer the first research question, the orientation of writing activities represented in English textbooks was investigated with the basis on two different categorization systems (refer to Table 3). The first categorization used is Dvorak (1986)’s categorization which is composed of transcription and composition. The second categorization is based on Paulston’s (1972) and Aski’s (2003) categorization, which has components of mechanical drill, meaningful drill, communicative drill and communicative language practice (refer to Chapter II for the detailed explanation).

As for analysis of data, all of the writing activities were categorized as one of the two categories—transcription and composition—to investigate the extent of balance between the orientation of form and meaning in writing activities, and they were coded as Trans and Comp. For further detailed analysis, all of the writing activities were also categorized as one of the four categories—mechanical drill, meaningful drill, communicative drill, and communicative language practice—and coded as MechD, MeanD, CommD, and CLP respectively. Then, to measure the orientation of writing, the number and percentage of writing activities which belongs to each category was tallied.

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

<Table 3> Framework of Data Analysis for the Study

Orientation of writing

Level of writing

Dvorak (1986)

Aski (2003)

Transcription

Composition

Mechanical drill

Meaningful drill

Communicative drill

Communicative language practice

Letter

Word

Phrase

Sentence

Discourse

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

In particular, MeanD is divided into two subcategories, MeanD-G (MeanD-Given) and MeanD-F (MeanD-Free). Among meaningful drills, if resources to write are given such as words to select and use to fill in the blanks, such writing activities were categorized as MeanD-G. And if resources to write are not given and there is only one answer expected to write, such activities were categorized as MeanD-F. Communicative drills tend to include sentence starters and have learners fill in the blank lines with what they want to write and accompany a writing sample often times. Communicative language practice may accompany a writing sample but should not contain sentence starters which restrict what to write and keep learners from negotiating meanings and expressing freely in writing.

As for the second research question, the level of writing provided for students to experience through writing activities in English textbooks was explored. The level of writing was measured by five levels, which include letter-, word-, phrase-, sentence-, and discourse-level (refer to Table 3). Letter-level writing includes practicing alphabets; word-level writing involves writing single words or compound words. Phrase-level writing means writing more than one word but less than a level of sentence.

Sentence-level writing denotes writing a complete sentence(s). If an activity involves writing more than one sentence but they are not connected or related in terms of content, it falls on the sentence-level of writing. Meanwhile if one word as a sentence frame is given such as She ~ or ~ and, ~, it was considered as a sentence, but if an expression with contraction (e.g., It's) is given as a sentence starter, it was considered as two words and categorized as a phrase.

Lastly, when an activity involves writing multiple sentences which address the same topic or content, they were considered as discourse and categorized as discourse-level writing. Activities that aim for students to generate a final project (e.g., creating a poster) were counted as discourse-level. To be a discourse, almost all of the discourse should be written by a student.

There were cases when an activity has a mixed level of writing, for example, two word-levels, two phrase-levels, and three sentence levels. In such cases, the number of each level of writing was calculated, and the most frequent level of writing was selected as the level of writing. If the same number of different levels of writing is included, the most upper level of writing was selected as the level of writing.

All of the writing activities were assigned one of the five categories which represents the level of writing. To measure the level of writing, the total number of writing activities that fall in each category was calculated to yield percentages of each category.

(글씨 크기 10pt)

(글씨 크기 10pt)

IV. Results and Discussion

(글씨 크기 10pt)

1. Types of Writing Activities

(글씨 크기 10pt)

1) Mechanical Drill Writing

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

Mechanical drill writing represented in English textbooks involved five types―dictation, copying, rearranging alphabets, decoding, and transformation. Students have to listen to a audio/video file or what their friends say and dictate what they hear. The second type of mechanical drill writing is copying given words, phrases, or sentences. Figure 2 shows students are asked to copy the given sentences after deciding where to insert the word because.

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

<Figure 2> Copying Given Sentences (Excerpted from T4)

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

The third type is to rearrange alphabets to make a word; the fourth type of mechanical drill is writing with codes to decode words, phrases, or sentences. As Figure 3 displays, writing what each symbol denotes leads students to construct a part of a sentence.

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

<Figure 3> Decoding Sentences (Excerpted from T4)

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

The fifth type of writing activities for mechanical drill is to transform a sentence to another form of sentence just like the given example. It mostly aims to practice a certain grammar aspect. Figure 4 illustrates a writing activity which practices the expression be going to by transforming sentences.

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

<Figure 4> Transforming Sentences (Excerpted from T4)

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

2) Meaningful Drill Writing

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

Writing for meaningful drills is largely divided into two types depending on whether words, phrases, or expressions to write are given or not. The first type or MeanD-G is when sources to write are given. Some writing activities for meaningful drills provide words, phrases, or information for students to select and use to fill in the blanks of a sentence, a text, a dialogue, or a script. Like an example shown in Figure 5, information about Alice including name, birthday, a place to live, etc., is given to use to fill in the blanks of a text.

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

<Figure 5> Fill-in-the-Blanks with Given Information (Excerpted from T1)

Another example is where words or phrases to use are provided and students are to select proper ones describing a given picture and fill in the blanks of a dialogue. In addition, students are asked to rearrange jumbled words or phrases to make a proper sentence. This type of writing activities also features that things to write such as words are given for students to think of which meaning should be expressed for the appropriate flow of a dialogue or a text and rearrange them to make a sentence.

The second type of meaningful drill or MeanD-F is when sources to write are not given. In this type of writing activities, students should fill in the blanks of a sentence, a text, a dialogue, or a script with appropriate words or phrases mostly in order to describe a given material such as a picture. Similarly, there are writing activities which lead students to fill in the blanks of sentences or tables in order to summarize or write about what they read. Students have to decide which words or phrases to use because words to write are not given. For example, as Figure 6 displays, students have to fill in the blanks of sentences which describe the given picture by using comparatives. After that, students are asked to fill in the blanks of sentences that could reflect the content of a short reading text titled Short Grass after reading it.

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

<Figure 6> Completing Sentences to Describe a Picture (Excerpted from T5)

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

In addition, students are asked to find incorrect parts of sentences and correct them to describe a picture properly (refer to Figure 7). Or there are cases when parts to correct are denoted with underlines and students make correct sentences.

<Figure 7> Correcting Incorrect Parts (Excerpted from T1)

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

3) Communicative Drill Writing

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

The main feature of communicative drills different from meaningful drills is that writing activities provide students with a room for meaning negotiation processes in which they express their own ideas, thought, feelings, or information about themselves. Thus, there is no single, predetermined answer, but multiple writing products can be elicited. However, writing activities for communicative drills contain a frame of writing such as sentence frames, and students are restricted to follow what to write about. Meanwhile, in some cases a writing sample can be accompanied as a scaffold. For example, when writing about a place traveled before, students can fill in the blanks of a short text with their own information, thought, or feelings (see Figure 8). This writing activity contains sentence frames (e.g., ~ is a beautiful ~., I want to ~.), which restricts students what to write about, but it provides a room or blanks to experiment language in order to express what they want to.

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

<Figure 8> Writing with Personal Information
(Excerpted from T5)

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

There is another example of a writing activity for communicative drills. It offers a writing sample about summer vacation plans to refer, but it is not necessary to always copy what is written in the sample. Students have a choice to put what they want to write about their own summer vacation plans in the given blanks although they are directed to complete sentence frames.

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

4) Writing for Communicative Language Practice

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

A range of writing genres were employed in writing activities aimed for communicative language practice, which include creating books, advertisements, invitation cards, posters, dictionaries, signboards, or name cards, and writing a diary or a poem. These writing activities tend to be like a project, allowing students to be free to express their ideas, thoughts, or feelings. Thus, sentence frames are not provided, but only a topic to write about is guided. A writing sample can be accompanied, but students can entirely control what they write about a given topic. As examples, Figure 9 illustrates a writing activity coupled with a writing sample as a model, and Figure 10 displays the other without it.

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

<Figure 9> Writing with a Writing Sample
(Excerpted from T1)

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

<Figure 10> Writing without a Writing Sample (Excerpted from T5)

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

Another form of communicative language practice was found in writing activities designed for brainstorming words or ideas about a topic to write to prepare for the next writing step. For example, before writing three sentences about what I can do when I become a middle-school student in the writing activity, students are guided to brainstorm possible ideas to write in advance.

In fact, each of four categories, mechanical drill, meaningful drill, communicative drill, and communicative language practice bear its own purpose; however, the most important one is communicative language practice because the other three forms of drills are performed in order for students to be capable of writing on their own. Their writing abilities ought to be culminated in writing activities for communicative language practice. Nevertheless, most of the English textbooks investigated provided a little guidance and a confined space to writing activities for communicative language practice. For example, as Figure 11 shows, a writing task is to introduce a famous place in my neighborhood. It appears to lack detailed examples or information on how to conduct a project. And if they occupy an insufficient space, chances to treat them with less care may increase.

In contrast, the textbook T5 features careful attention to communicative writing practice. That is, it assigns much space to this writing practice and contains preparatory steps for it. For example, as seen in Figure 12, students engage in brainstorming about where to go and things to do during the summer break, have a chance to talk with group members to decide the place to travel, and then create a travel plan together. In order to accomplish successfully C writing activity, A and B writing activities play a role of the writing processes.

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

<Figure 11> Communicative Writing Practice with Little Space (Excerpted from T4)

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

<Figure 12> A Good Model of Communicative Writing Practice (Excerpted from T5)

(글씨 크기 10pt)

2. Orientation of Writing Activities

(글씨 크기 10pt)

In an attempt to investigate the orientation of writing, writing activities from all of the five sixth-grade English textbooks were identified and analyzed based on Paulston’s (1972) and Aski’s (2003) categorization, which consists of mechanical drill (MechD), meaningful drill (MeanD), communicative drill (CommD), communicative language practice (CLP). In addition, Dvorak (1986)’s categorization was also applied for further analysis to find out the balance of orientation of writing on the continuum with transcription at one end and composition at the other end.

As shown in Table 4, the total number of writing activities identified from five English textbooks comes to 537. When considered individually, 97 writing activities were discovered in T1, 95 in T2, 113 in T3, 101 in T4, 131 in T5. Among four writing categories, meaningful drills (bold numbers in Table 4) constitute the most substantial percentages in all the English textbooks, ranging from 51.15% to 61.86%. When averaged across the five textbooks, with 56.43% meaningful drills are the most predominant type of writing activities. Among 56.43%, meaningful drills with given sources (MeanD-G) account for 16.02%, and meaningful drills free of sources (MeanD-F), 40.41%, which means that MeanD-F appears more frequently in writing activities than MeanD-G.

<Table 4> Percentage and Average of Categories of Writing Activities

T1

T2

T3

T4

T5

Average

MechD

5.15

(5/97)

8.42

(8/95)

11.50

(13/113)

22.77

(23/101)

6.87

(9/131)

10.80 (58/537)

MeanD

61.86

(60/97)

56.84

(54/95)

59.29

(67/113)

54.46

(55/101)

51.15

(67/131)

56.43 (303/537)

MeanD-G

22.68

(22/97)

7.37

(7/95)

27.43

(31/113)

4.95

(5/101)

16.03

(21/131)

16.02

(86/537)

MeanD-F

39.18

(38/97)

49.47

(47/95)

31.86

(36/113)

49.50

(50/101)

35.12

(46/131)

40.41

(217/537)

CommD

9.28

(9/97)

24.21

(23/95)

19.47

(22/113)

9.90

(10/101)

11.45

(15/131)

14.71

(79/537)

CLP

23.71

(23/97)

10.53

(10/95)

9.74

(11/113)

12.87

(13/101)

30.53

(40/131)

18.06

(97/537)

Note. Numbers without parentheses are percentages; Numbers in parentheses are raw data for frequency, expressed as (the number of writing activities of each category/the total number of writing activities appearing in each textbook).

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

Meanwhile, there are variations of percentages for the second most category of writing activities, as underlined numbers in Table 4 indicate. In T1 and T5 the second most frequent writing category is communicative language practice with 23.71% and 30.53% respectively. Differently in T2 and T3, communicative drill is the second most writing category with 24.21% and 19.47%. In T4, it goes to mechanical drill with 22.77%.

If these four categories are viewed in a broader perspective, the orientation of writing can be divided into two aspects―transcription and composition. Writing activities for mechanical and meaningful drills belong to form-oriented transcription tasks, and those for communicative drill and communicative language practice belong to meaning-oriented composition tasks. Figure 13 depicts the percentages of transcription and composition by text. On average, 67.23% of writing activities is devoted for transcription to practice language items, whereas 32.77% is designed for composition to offer opportunities for experimenting language through meaning negotiation processes. If viewed individually, the percentages of composition vary ranging from 22.77% in T4 to 41.98% in T5.

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

<Figure 13> Percentage of Transcription and Composition by Text

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

Therefore, the balance of form-oriented and meaning-oriented writing activities appears to somewhat lopsided. Figure 14 illustrates the current point between transcription and composition on the continuum. In particular, T1, T2, T3, and T4 except T5 need to be supplemented with composition tasks, in order to maintain a good balance of writing practice.

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

<Figure 14> Orientation of Writing on the Continuum

(글씨 크기 10pt)

3. Level of Writing Represented in Writing Activities

(글씨 크기 10pt)

The following Table 5 summarizes the percentages and averages of level of writing represented in five textbooks. When it comes to the averages, the most frequent level of writing appearing in five textbooks is word-level writing (37.24%), followed by phrase-level (33.52%) and sentence-level writing (20.86%). The least frequent level of writing is discourse-level (8.38%). Approximately two-thirds of the writing activities appear to focus on practicing writing words and phrases. In contrast, what we should be aware of is that relatively little opportunities to engage in discourse-level of writing.

If viewed individually, it displays varying results regarding the frequent levels of writing employed in five English textbooks. In T2 and T4, the most frequently appearing level of writing (refer to bold numbers in Table 5) belongs to word-level, and the second frequent one (refer to underlined numbers in Table 5) goes to phrase-level. In reverse, T3 and T5 include phrase-level writing most frequently and word-level writing, second most frequently. Meanwhile, T1 shows somewhat different results, which mean the most frequently used level of writing is sentence-level, followed by word- and phrase-level.

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

Note. Numbers without parentheses are percentages; Numbers in parentheses are law data for frequency, expressed as (the number of writing activities of each category/the total number of writing activities appearing in each textbook).

<Table 5> Level of Writing Represented in Five English Textbooks

T1

T2

T3

T4

T5

Average

Word

28.87

(28/97)

51.58

(49/95)

31.86

(36/113)

44.56

(45/101)

32.06

(42/131)

37.24

(200/537)

Phrase

22.68

(22/97)

37.89

(36/95)

40.71

(46/113)

27.72

(28/101)

36.64

(48/131)

33.52 (180/537)

Sentence

35.05

(34/97)

4.21

(4/95)

23.01

(26/113)

18.81

(19/101)

22.14

(29/131)

20.86

(112/537)

Discourse

13.4

(13/97)

6.32

(6/95)

4.42

(5/113)

8.91

(9/101)

9.16

(12/131)

8.38

(45/537)

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

Given that lower-level writing practice is needed for students to be able to produce a discourse-level text in writing at the end, we should keep in mind that sufficient opportunities for discourse-level writing are imperative to be provided. In addition, according to the current National Curriculum, the standard for English writing for fifth and sixth graders states that they should be able to write a short text with or without a writing example referred. However, such importance of discourse-level writing is not reflected well in all of five English textbooks. The percentages of discourse-level writing activities found in English textbooks range from 4.42% to 13.4% at the greatest.

(글씨 크기 10pt)

(글씨 크기 10pt)

V. Conclusion and Educational Implications

(글씨 크기 10pt)

This study offered a chance to examine the nature of writing tasks currently included in sixth-grade English textbooks. In particular, the orientation and level of writing activities sixth-graders get to engage in through English textbooks at school were investigated in order to explore whether balanced writing opportunities were provided.

The findings of this study have demonstrated where the current point is on the continuum of the orientation of writing practices with, at one end, form-oriented transcription and, at the other end, meaning-oriented composition. Based on Paulston’s (1972) and Aski’s (2003) classification system, meaningful drills are most predominant in all of the five English textbooks with 56.43% of writing activities identified on average, although the second most predominant category of writing activities varies among these textbooks. From a broader perspective, 67.23% of writing activities involves form-oriented transcription tasks; 32.77% accounts for meaning-oriented composition practices. In short, the balance of the orientation of writing activities represented in the current sixth-grade English textbooks appears to be somewhat lopsided. In addition, the results regarding level of writing represented in sixth-grade English textbooks show that word-level writing most frequently appears whereas discourse-level writing is least frequently included in English textbooks with 8.38% on average.

If meaning-oriented composition practices and discourse-level writing opportunities were more added to English textbooks, it will generate a better balance of writing practices and also help them fulfill one of the writing standards for sixth grade that they are able to write a short, simple text with or without a writing sample accompanied.

In ESL classrooms in the U.S where the process approach with the primary focus on the processes of meaning construction has been often employed in teaching writing, second language learners failed to develop fundamental literacy skills (Huie & Yahya, 2003; Savignon, 2002; Tompkins, 2003). Presumably more meaning-oriented writing instruction in the U.S. and more form-oriented one in Korea would all need to find an optimum point on the continuum of writing orientation with, at one end, transcription and at the other end, composition.

In light of these results, when planning writing instruction and writing English textbooks, educators and researchers need to take into careful consideration how writing opportunities can maintain a balance in terms of the orientation and level of writing. Meaning negotiation in writing and discourse-level writing would be absolutely not easy for English language learners. It is imperative to provide scaffolds in writing instruction and English textbooks to help them reach the final goal of writing. Various types of drills such as mechanical, meaningful, and communicative drills are all pre-steps to reach the final destination of writing for communicating their own ideas, thoughts, or feelings. Thus, it is important to enable learners to accomplish the very final writing for communicative language practice. To put on more emphasis and scaffolds, it would be better to assign greater space for this final stage of meaning-oriented writing, just as T5 does.

This study examined sixth-grade English textbooks only. English textbooks used for other grades including third-, fourth-, and fifth-grades would be also worthwhile to research further to find out whether English textbooks for upper grades are well aligned with ones for lower grades in terms of the orientation and level of writing. Moreover, further research is needed to prove what the effective ways to teach writing are and which steps to scaffold writing would be supportive for English language learners at elementary school.

(글씨 크기 10pt)

(글씨 크기 10pt)

References

(글씨 크기 10pt)

Aski, J. M. (2003). Foreign language textbook activities: Keeping pace with second language acquisition research. Foreign Language Annals, 36(1), 57-65.

Choi, H. G., Seo, J. Y., Lee, M. H., Park, M. A., Lee, H. J, Lee, H. J, Lee, H. M., Yoon, J. Y., Jo, S. H., & Jung, H. S. (2015). Elementary school English 6. YBM.

Dvorak, T. (1986). Writing in the foreign language. In B. H. Wing (Ed.), Listening, reading, writing: Analysis and application (pp. 145-167). Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.

Huie, K., & Yahya, N. (2003). Learning to write in the primary grades: Experiences of English language learners and mainstream students. TESOL Journal, 12(1), 25-31.

Ministry of Education. (2015). English Subject Curriculum. Ministry of Education.

Moffett, H. (1979). Integrity in the teaching of writing. Phi Delta Kappan, 61(4), 276-279.

Paulston, C. B. (1972). Structural pattern drills: A classification. In B. A. Harold & N. C. Russell (Eds.), Teaching English as a second language: A book of reading (pp. 129-138). McGraw-Hill.

Savignon, S. J. (2002). Communicative curriculum design for the 21st century. English Teaching Forum, 40(1), 2-7.

Scarcellar, R. C. (1996). Secondary education in California and second language research: Instructing ESL students in the 1990s. CATESOL Journal, 9(1), 129-151.

Scott, V. M. (1996). Rethinking foreign language writing. Heinle & Heinle.

Tompkins, G. E. (2000). Teaching writing: Balancing process and product. Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Tompkins, G. E. (2003). Literacy for the 21st century. Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Weaver, C. (1996). Teaching grammar in context. Heinemann.

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

(글씨 크기 9.5pt)

Tae-Eun Kim (Professor)

English Education Department, Seoul National University of Education

Seochojungang-ro 96, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06639, Republic of Korea

Tel: (02) 3475-2551

Email: tekim@snue.ac.kr

(글씨 크기 9pt)

(글씨 크기 9pt)

Received September 30, 2016

Revised November 20, 2016

Accepted December 5, 2016

논문제목-Times New Roman, 진하게, 16pt, 가운데정렬

논문 전체적으로 ( ) 참고하여 빈 줄의 글씨 크기 설정

저자명과소속-중고딕, 보통, 9.5pt

저자 이름은 이름과 성의 순으로

각주에 저자의 소속과 직위 명시, 주석 내용은 중고딕 보통, 8pt, 내어쓰기 10pt, 줄간격 140%

초록 저자명 표기 방법 유의 – full name을 영문으로 제시하되, 성을 먼저 쓰고 뒤에 쉼표

영문초록 – Times New Roman, 보통, 9pt, 좌우여백 25pt, 줄간격140%

200단어 이내로 작성하고 원어민 proofreading필수

연구 목적, 연구 방법, 주요 연구 결과 요약이 모두 포함되도록 작성!

주제어-중고딕, 보통, 9pt, 좌우여백 25pt, 줄간격140%, 내어쓰기 80pt, 양쪽정렬

Key Words – 첫글자 대문자

영어 주제어는 모두 소문자로

장제목-견고딕, 보통, 12pt, 줄간격 여기부터 160%, 양쪽정렬, 들여쓰기없음

장제목은 로마자 Ⅰ, Ⅱ 등으로 구분, 장 제목 전에는 2줄 띄우기, 장제목 후에는 1줄 띄우기

본문에서의 참고문헌 인용 ()는 앞의 글자와 한 칸 띄우기

○ English (Ministry of Education, 2015)

× English(Ministry of Education, 2015)

본문-Times New Roman, 보통, 9.5pt, 줄간격160%, 양쪽정렬, 들여쓰기10pt

절제목-중고딕, 진하게, 11pt, 줄간격160%, 들여쓰기 없음

절제목은 1, 2, 3...

표가 두 쪽에 걸쳐져 분리되지 않도록 표의 위치 조정

본문에서 표에 대한 언급 시 below, above 등의 표현을 사용하는 것 지양 (표의 위치를 바꾸면서 본문의 표현은 수정하지 않는 경우가 많음)

표제목-중고딕, 보통, 9.5pt, 가운데정렬, 줄간격160%

표내용-Times New Roman, 보통, 9pt, 가운데 또는 왼쪽 정렬, 줄간격140%

표속성 - 세로줄 없음

테두리에서 맨 위의 줄은 두줄모양

본문 내 영문 참고문헌 인용에서

3인 이상 공동저자의 경우

1) 본문에서 인용할 때는

국문과 동일하게

“○○○ 외, 년도” 혹은 “○○○ 외(년도)”와 같이 표시

예: Brewster 등(1992)은...

2) 괄호 안에서 인용할 때는

“제1저자 성 et al., 년도” 혹은 “제1저자 성 et al. (년도)”와 같이 표시

예: ... (Brewster et al,, 1992).

소제목은 1) 2)와 같이 표기

소제목-Times New Roman, 보통, 9.5pt, 줄간격 160%, 들여쓰기 없음

그림 제목 줄간격 160%

참고문헌 제목-중고딕, 진하게, 12pt, 가운데정렬

참고문헌 제목 위에 두 줄 띄우기

참고문헌 내용-Times New Roman, 보통, 9.5pt, 내어쓰기35pt, 줄간격 150%

저자 20명까지 성과 이니셜 명시

출판사 이름만 명시 (출판도시 및 출판지 삭제)

학술지 논문-권과 호수 모두 제시,

저널명과 권은 이탤릭, 호는 보통

( )에 직위 추가

수정본 제출시 저자 정보 포함

이 샘플을 참조하여 동일한 형식으로 작성

Received: 논문제출일로 저자가 기입

Revised: 1차수정본 제출일, 저자기입

Accepted: 편집위원회에서 기입