Beliefs & practices

This article was downloaded by: [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries]
On: 02 January 2015, At: 07:15
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Language, Culture and Curriculum
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlcc20
Beliefs and practices of Chinese
university teachers in EFL writing
instruction
Luxin Yang
a
& Shaofen Gao
a
a
National Research Center for Foreign Language Education ,
Beijing Foreign Studies University , Beijing , People's Republic of
China
Published online: 23 May 2013.
To cite this article: Luxin Yang & Shaofen Gao (2013) Beliefs and practices of Chinese university
teachers in EFL writing instruction, Language, Culture and Curriculum, 26:2, 128-145, DOI:
10.1080/07908318.2013.794817
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2013.794817
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions

Beliefs and practices of Chinese university teachers in EFL writing
instruction
Luxin Yang* and Shaofen Gao
National Research Center for Foreign Language Education, Beijing Foreign Studies University,
Beijing, People’s Republic of China
(Received 8 June 2012; final version received 6 April 2013)
This study examined four experienced teachers’ beliefs and practices in teaching English
as a foreign language (EFL) writing at a university in China. Multiple sources of data
were collected over two semesters, including class observations, interviews, and
course materials. All the teachers perceived that they integrated product and process
elements of writing in their teaching. However, they varied in their views about the
focus and function of prewriting, multiple drafts, teacher written feedback, peer
review, and the teacher’s role in students’ learning to write. Three of the four teachers
showed consistency between their beliefs and practices in teaching writing, while the
remaining one’s practices were in some cases consistent with his beliefs and in other
cases contradictory. Variability in beliefs and practices about teaching writing was
related to individuals’ prior experiences as EFL learners and teachers, their
understanding of students’ capabilities, self-reflection, and collegial influences. The
development of their beliefs and practices in teaching writing paralleled the
development of L2 writing theories in the West, mirroring the worldwide spread of
English and of professional networks over recent decades. This study indicates that
teachers’ beliefs and practices need to be explicitly taken into account in designing
and implementing development programmes for L2 writing teachers.
Keywords: L2 writing teaching; EFL teachers; beliefs; practices
Introduction
Numerous theories of teaching second language (L2) writing have appeared in the pro-
fessional literature over the past four decades (Cumming, 2001; Grabe & Kaplan, 1996;
Hyland, 2003; Matsuda, 2003). Each theory has a distinctive focus, emphasising either
language structures, creative expression, composing processes, content, genres, or contexts
of writing. In the 1950s and 1960s, language teachers often used writing as a vehicle for
language practice. Current-traditional rhetoric was, and in some situations still remains,
one of the main teaching methods, emphasising correct usage, grammar, and rhetorical pat-
terns. In the 1970s, inspired by research and educators’ analyses, theories about L2 writing
instruction started to shift from a focus on structures of language and of written texts
towards an emphasis on the processes of composing. Theories about the processes of
writing developed in three main strands: the expressive view, the cognitive view, and the
© 2013 Taylor & Francis
*Corresponding author. Email: yangluxin@bfsu.edu.cn
Language, Culture and Curriculum, 2013
Vol. 26, No. 2, 128–145, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2013.794817
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Colorado
at
Boulder
Libraries]
at
07:15
02
January
2015

social view. The expressive view regards writing as a form of communicating personal
ideas that is progressively learnt, not taught, so rather than focusing narrowly on correct
grammar and usage, writers are encouraged to discover their own ideas while they
compose. The cognitive view regards writing as a, ‘non-linear, exploratory, and generative
process whereby writers discover and reformulate their ideas as they attempt to approximate
meaning’ (Zamel, 1983, p. 165). From a cognitive view, learning to write focuses on devel-
oping an efficient and effective composing process. The social view regards writing as situ-
ated acts that occur within particular situations and groups of people, so learning to write is
a process of socialising into an academic or other specialised community. Much discussion
has focused on these different theories and their implications for students’ L2 learning, but
scant attention has been given to how teachers actually teach, and learn to teach L2 writing
in real classrooms (Hirvela & Belcher, 2007; Leki, Cumming, & Silva, 2008).
There is a glaring gap between theories of writing instruction and actual practices of
classroom teaching (Hedgcock, 2010; Zhu, 2010). Theory is mainly seen to be the work
of scholars and empirical researchers, whereas practice is the work of teachers, many of
whom may deride theory as irrelevant to their classrooms (Clarke, 1994; Hedgcock,
2010). Nonetheless, teachers are one of the most available supports that students can
seek in their process of learning to write. In the context of English as a second language
(ESL), writing abilities in English are recognised as decisive for students in performing aca-
demic writing tasks at universities or college and in professional or vocational writing at
work (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Leki et al., 2008). In many contexts of English as a
foreign language (EFL) (e.g. China), writing abilities in English are often required not
only at the college and university level but also in secondary schools for various entrance
exams or qualifications. Grabe and Kaplan (1996, p. 6) stated that ‘writing abilities are not
naturally acquired’ but ‘culturally transmitted in every generation, whether in schools or in
other assisting environments’. To meet their writing demands, students definitely need good
writing instruction, for which qualified and experienced writing teachers are necessary. The
present study took up Hirvela and Belcher’s (2007) call for more research on writing tea-
chers by examining in-depth a sample of experienced EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices in
teaching L2 writing.
Research on L2 writing teachers
Only a small number of studies have investigated systematically how L2 writing is taught in
actual classrooms and how writing teachers perceive the teaching and learning of L2
writing. Among those existing studies, teachers’ beliefs have been found to impact directly
on their classroom practices (Burns, 1992) and to determine their reactions to pedagogical
innovations for writing instruction (Shi & Cumming, 1995; Tsui, 2003). In particular,
Cumming (1992) found that experienced ESL teachers systematically structure classroom
activities around students’ performance of writing, reading, and group discussion tasks.
Certain contextual conditions (e.g. institutional, curricular, or public examinations) may
constrain teachers’ realisations of their beliefs into practices (Lee, 2003; Tsui, 1996) or
influence teachers’ theories of L2 writing instruction (Sengupta & Falvey, 1998; Tsui,
2003). In turn, structured or stimulated reflection on their practices may help teachers inte-
grate their learned theories into new or improved practices and to develop more effective
ways of teaching (Farrell, 2006; Sengupta & Xiao, 2002; Tsui, 2003). Moreover, the edu-
cation of writing teachers may broaden in-service teachers’ perspectives on teaching writing
and help them to construct new identities as writing teachers (Lee, 2010).
Language, Culture and Curriculum 129
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Colorado
at
Boulder
Libraries]
at
07:15
02
January
2015

Studies by Pennington et al. (1997), Cumming (2003), and You (2004) are particularly
relevant to the present study. Pennington et al. (1997) found that many teachers in the Asia–
Pacific region took ‘a middle-of-the-road approach’ to integrating process and product
teaching elements in order to accommodate constraints in their educational contexts.
Cumming (2003) found that experienced writing teachers in a range of different countries
and programme types had similar conceptualisations of ESL/EFL writing curricula. He
attributed this uniformity to the broader contexts in which these teachers worked, involving
the worldwide spread of English and influences of professional networks, conferences, pub-
lications, and graduate education in English-speaking countries. You (2004) found that
English writing for non-English majors in a Chinese university tended to be taught with
a current-traditional rhetoric approach, focusing on correct language forms rather than on
helping students to develop their thoughts or writing expertise.
In terms of research methods, Pennington et al. (1997) and Cumming (2003) relied on
survey questionnaires or single-occasion interviews rather than lengthy classroom obser-
vations, so their studies did not reveal much about the details of teaching practices or indi-
vidual teachers’ beliefs. Similarly, You’s (2004) observational study of college teaching of
English writing provided little in-depth information about teachers of English writing in
China. Further research is needed, therefore, to examine ESL/EFL teachers’ beliefs and
practices in teaching writing.
Most of the studies reviewed above were conducted in English-dominant contexts. More
research is needed to understand the relatively distinct situations of teaching writing in EFL
contexts. Countries such as China, for example, have enormous numbers of EFL learners. In
2009, about 21 million students attended universities in Mainland China, almost all of whom
were taking some English courses as degree requirements (National Bureau of Statistics of
China, 2010). Each year millions of university students take the College English Test
Band 4 or 6, which has a writing component (Reichelt, 2009; You, 2004). How teachers
teach these students impacts directly on how the latter learn to write and perform in such
tests. Unfortunately, teacher education focused on English writing remains underdeveloped
in China. Many EFL teachers lack knowledge about composition, tending to see themselves
more as teachers of language rather than teachers of writing, as Reichelt (2009) observed in
other EFL contexts. Obviously, teacher education is crucial for effective EFL writing instruc-
tion and learning in schools and institutions in China and similar EFL contexts. Knowledge of
experienced EFLwriting teachers’ beliefs and practices, and especially of the development of
their beliefs and practices, is needed to provide insights for the education and professional
development of new entrants. The present study is intended to contribute to this goal by
examining the beliefs and practices of four experienced university EFL writing teachers.
We had three research questions:
What are the beliefs of experienced university teachers concerning the teaching of L2 writing?
What are the practices of experienced university teachers in teaching L2 writing?
What factors contribute to experienced university teachers’ beliefs and practices in teaching L2
writing?
Context
This study took place at an English department of a major university in China. The writing
programme in the department started in the 1980s, and since that time has been using teach-
ing materials developed by its instructors. The programme consists of three levels of writing
130 L. Yang and S. Gao
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Colorado
at
Boulder
Libraries]
at
07:15
02
January
2015

courses offered to undergraduate students who are either English majors (96 students per
year) or majors in Journalism and Translation (96 students per year). Specifically, the
first year focuses on paragraph and essay writing of summaries, narrations, descriptions,
and expositions; the second year focuses on argumentation and research-paper writing;
and the third year focuses on writing in particular disciplines. Our study focused on the
instructors who were teaching in the first and second years of the programme.
Participants
The participants were selected according to their years of teaching at this English department.
Table 1 presents the profiles of each participant in terms of gender, age, years of teaching
English, years of teaching English writing, education background, academic field, TEFL
(teaching English as a foreign language)/TESL (teaching English as a second language)
training, and academic position. The four teachers, who we call Chen, Hong, Dong, and
Liang, collectively had experiences of 5–12 years of teaching English writing and
9–48 years of teaching English. At the time of the study, Chen was teaching expository
writing to the first-year English majors, whereas Dong, Hong, and Liang were teaching argu-
mentative writing to the second-year English majors. The participants represent the four gen-
erations of writing instructors in this department. So our examination of their beliefs and
practices in teaching EFL writing reflects the historical development of EFL writing instruc-
tion in this university through successive hiring of new generations of faculty members.
The four instructors had all received their undergraduate education in China. Chen and
Hong were graduates of the university where they were now employed. Chen had officially
retired more than 10 years earlier but was invited by the programme chair to teach at least
one course each semester so as to mentor young teachers. All the four instructors had
experiences of studying in the USA for periods of one to six years. Chen did a year-long
Master’s degree in American literature in the early 1980s in the USA, during which time
she also worked as a teaching assistant (TA) responsible for marking students’ compo-
sitions. Dong studied in the USA for six years, earning his Master’s degree in Linguistics
and his doctorate in American literature while working as a writing instructor for local
freshmen. Hong and Liang each had opportunities to study in the USA for one year as visit-
ing scholars in the early 2000s.
The four professors had taught a wide range of other courses besides writing. Chen had
rich experience teaching undergraduates English language courses such as intensive
reading, extensive reading, speaking, and listening. Hong had taught undergraduates inten-
sive reading courses for 10 years before teaching writing courses. Dong and Liang offered
courses on American literature to the senior undergraduates and graduate students. Like
most English teachers in China, they had not received any training in English language
teaching pedagogy before they became university professors.
Data collection
Our data collection consisted of two stages, lasting for five months, starting from March 2008
to June 2008 and then from November 2008 to December 2008. In the first stage, we took
turns observing the four teachers’ classes. At the second stage, we observed each teacher
for two sessions (one complete unit of teaching) to verify our initial data interpretations. In
total, we observed Chen and Dong for nine sessions (18 hours) each and Hong and Liang
for seven sessions (14 hours) each. These periods of classroom observation deepened our
understanding of the four participants’ beliefs and practices in teaching writing. As requested
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Colorado
at
Boulder
Libraries]
at
07:15
02
January
2015

Table 1. Profiles of the four writing instructors.
Teacher Gender Age
Years of teaching
English
Years of teaching
writing
Education
background Academic field
TEFL/TESL
training Academic position
Chen Female 71 48 10 MA (USA) American
literature
Limited (as a TA) Professor
Dong Male 51 23 12 MA (USA) Linguistics Limited (as a TA) Professor
PhD (USA) American
literature
Hong Female 40 15 5 MA (China) American study No Associate
professor
PhD (China) American study
Liang Male 36 9 7 MA (China) American
literature
No Associate
professor
PhD (China) American
literature
132
L.
Yang
and
S.
Gao
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Colorado
at
Boulder
Libraries]
at
07:15
02
January
2015

by the participants, we did not video- or audio-record the classes that we observed, but instead
took detailed field notes (i.e. recording the instructional procedures, interactions between
teacher and students, and students’ activities). Copies of lecture slides were collected with
the instructors’ permission, helping us to prepare for our interviews. In addition, we talked
to each professor after class to understand certain of their teaching decisions. We also had
two formal interviews with Chen, Dong, and Hong and one interview with Liang, with
each interview lasting from 30 minutes to two hours. The interviews were based on our class-
room observations, covering questions about the nature of writing, the role of writing instruc-
tion, teaching content and approach, and teacher development. These interviews were first
transcribed verbatim. Later the transcripts were sent to the participants for verification. In
the present article, utterances originally spoken in Chinese have been translated into
English and are presented here in normal font. Utterances of the participants originally in
English are presented in italics. Our own contextual explanations are in brackets.
Data analysis
Our analyses emphasised the identification of key themes through constant comparison and
contrast (Merriam, 1998; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Our initial theme analysis was done
during data collection. Then, after obtaining the complete set of data, we read through
them and refined the themes related to teachers’ theories of EFL writing instruction across
observation notes, teaching slides, and interview transcripts. The classroom observation
notes were summarised for a macro view of the classroom as a social context in order to ident-
ify influences that the settings might have had on the teachers’ beliefs in teaching writing. We
read the interview transcripts individually to distinguish the main themes. We then compared
our individual thematic analyses and grouped these into larger themes through discussion and
by reference to our research questions. Eventually, we established three main themes concern-
ing the teachers’ beliefs about: (1) the focus of writing; (2) teaching approach, including pre-
writing, multiple drafts, teacher feedback, and peer review; and (3) the teacher’s role in
students’ learning to write. Three themes concerning the sources of teachers’ beliefs in teach-
ing writing were also identified: (1) learning from one’s experience as a student; (2) learning
from one’s classroom teaching; and (3) learning from one’s colleagues. To verify our interpret-
ations we then discussed with the four teachers individually their beliefs in teaching writing.
Findings and discussion
The purpose of our study was to examine the four teachers’ thinking about EFL writing
instruction, rather than to directly look for evidence of the impact of particular practices,
derived from particular beliefs, on students’ learning. For this reason, we relied primarily
on observations and observation-based interviews to establish our findings. We first
report the four teachers’ beliefs in teaching L2 writing. Then we present the four teachers’
practices in teaching L2 writing. Finally, we trace the sources for the development of the
four teachers’ beliefs and practices in teaching L2 writing.
Teachers’ beliefs about teaching L2 writing
The focus in teaching writing
The four professors all stated that they believe writing is a process of thinking, but each
teacher expressed differing perceptions about the focus of teaching writing. Chen indicated
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Colorado
at
Boulder
Libraries]
at
07:15
02
January
2015

that writing was a process of understanding truths about life because ‘writing can stimulate
students to think’ and ‘the purpose of writing is to understand others and be understood by
others’. A basic requirement for university student writers was to express themselves
clearly. Compared with her students in the 1950s and 1960s, Chen stated that many students
nowadays were poor in language accuracy and used many Chinglish expressions such as
‘Life at college is boring, just like a glass of boiled water’. Chen considered clarity of
expression as her focus in teaching writing because ‘poor language quality will lead to mis-
understanding in writing’. These sentiments echo the view of Paula, a participant in
Sengupta and Xiao’s (2002) study.
Hong agreed with Chen’s view of the importance of accuracy in teaching writing, citing
the pervasiveness of language problems in students’ writing as learners of English. She
doubted the effectiveness of teachers’ help regarding students’ use of English, however,
because ‘it depends on both teachers’ English proficiency and students’ sensitivity to
English’. Hong stressed that ‘writing is to express thinking clearly in words’ and thus
‘thinking clearly is the first step for writing’. Therefore, her focus in teaching was to
help students notice and solve logical problems in their writing.
Like Hong, Dong perceived that students’ writing problems mainly came from poor
thinking abilities. He stated that, ‘writing is to express one’s thinking and writing is a
process of creative thinking and critical thinking’. He argued that the primary focus of
teaching writing was not to teach techniques of using language and rhetorical patterns,
but to train students to think creatively and critically. He said that, ‘a composition
without any grammatical mistakes is not good writing if it has no interesting ideas’.
Liang agreed with Dong that training students’ thinking abilities should be the focus of
teaching writing. He thought that ‘if a student can think both creatively and critically, his
writing must be excellent’. Liang perceived that few students could have creative ideas and
strong English competence simultaneously. Thus, the challenge was to balance a focus on
language and a focus on ideas in teaching. In particular, Liang stressed that writing needs
emotional involvement in addition to language and creative ideas. That is, ‘if writing cannot
touch readers, despite correct grammar and good language, it is meaningless’.
Approach to teaching writing
The four teachers believed that written products and processes should be integrated rather
than separated in teaching, and sufficient reading input was essential for learning to write.
They all regarded their teaching approaches as a mixture of product and process orientations
to writing. However, each professor had different emphases in conceptualising their teach-
ing methods. Chen stressed the importance of the quality of written products in teaching.
She argued that, ‘No matter which approach is used, the written product is expected.
Without a written product, teaching writing is meaningless’. Liang valued a balance
between products and processes in teaching writing, because ‘writing needs both product
and process’. In contrast, Hong and Dong strongly believed that writing instruction
should first focus on the process of writing, particularly to help students with developing
ideas at the prewriting stage, and then should focus on language use and rhetorical patterns
at the revision stage.
The professors all considered that prewriting activities (e.g. brainstorming) were crucial
for students to prepare for writing, but each teacher had different views about the purposes
of students’ engagement. Chen stated that ‘prewriting can help students think clearly’.
Hong indicated that ‘prewriting can help students find a proper focus’. Liang observed
that, ‘students should spend more time in prewriting, such as searching related information,
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Colorado
at
Boulder
Libraries]
at
07:15
02
January
2015

thinking and writing an outline’. Dong claimed that prewriting was an important stage for
students if they are to develop creative thinking abilities, and therefore, teachers at this point
should be less judgemental and encourage students to articulate their ideas without concerns
for accuracy.
The four teachers all asked their students to do multiple drafts of their compositions, as
required by programme policies. But the teachers each had different attitudes about the use-
fulness of multiple drafts. Chen doubted the benefits of multiple drafts, observing that mul-
tiple drafts made students depend excessively on teachers’ feedback for revisions,
especially in regards to language use. Chen argued that students made concerted efforts
to use language and rhetorical structures properly if they did not have another chance to
change their grades. Liang considered it optimal to give students his feedback on ideas
and outlines at the prewriting stage when students were collecting information, thinking,
and outlining for a writing topic. He doubted the necessity of the requirement for multiple
drafts given his students’ motivation for developing writing expertise, though he observed
that the language use in a composition could be improved after several rounds of revisions.
Dong perceived that two drafts were sufficient for his university students to change their
ideas or content substantially in their writing, noting that more drafts did not make much
difference because students’ language proficiency would not improve greatly over a
short period of time. In contrast, Hong was highly positive about students writing multiple
drafts because ‘good writing is the result of multiple revisions’. She stated that multiple
drafts provided students with opportunities to polish their language and to clarify their
thinking under a teacher’s guidance. She emphasised that teachers’ guidance was crucial
for students to benefit from multiple drafts.
Moreover, the four teachers differed in their beliefs about the focus and functions of tea-
chers’ written feedback. Chen stated that teachers should focus on content and structure to
see whether students meet teachers’ requirements (e.g. in terms of topic selection, rhetorical
patterns) in the first draft of a composition, but for the second draft, teachers’ feedback
should focus on the use of language, especially those expressions which cause misunder-
standing or are inappropriately used. In contrast, Hong believed that teachers’ feedback
should focus on logic and coherence because students could easily handle typos and gram-
matical errors themselves. Both Chen and Hong viewed providing written feedback as a
teacher’s responsibility, though it was an enormous consumption of time and energy, and
they felt rewarded when their students made improvements in writing as a result of their
written feedback:
I spend most of my time commenting on students’ writing. Sometimes I spent one afternoon
reading one essay, thinking how to help this student improve his writing without hurting
him. It is time consuming to write down my feedback. But whenever I see my students
express themselves clearly with the support of my feedback, I really feel rewarded. (Chen)
Compared with peer review, students highly valued teacher feedback. I think it’s a teacher’s
responsibility to respond to students’ writing carefully. Commenting on students’ writing is
a process of dialoguing with students and exploring their thinking. I feel happy when I see
my students make progress in writing. (Hong)
Dong consistently expressed the view that he focused on idea development in his feed-
back rather than on grammar errors. Like Hong, he perceived that students could self-correct
their grammar errors. Thus, he usually underlined students’ grammar errors, believing that
‘students will have deep impressions about that grammar use if they correct their own
grammar errors’ and ‘they need this process of learning to use grammar properly’.
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Colorado
at
Boulder
Libraries]
at
07:15
02
January
2015

Liang indicated that he had a dilemma. He spent a lot of time reading and comment-
ing on students’ writing each week, but he did not see his students’ writing get better
with his corrections and comments. He stressed that ‘writing cannot be taught’ and stu-
dents should have the desire of ‘I want to write well’ or ‘I want to be creative’. Liang
doubted the usefulness of telling students about formulaic rules because, to write well,
students need to ‘have life experience, read good writing, have a memory of good
writing, and think’. Despite his dilemma, like the participant Peter in Sengupta and
Xiao’s (2002) study, Liang often focused on accuracy in his written feedback, for
which he explained:
The content is constrained by their personal experiences, which is difficult to improve within a
short time, even with teacher feedback. In contrast, language correction is more useful to stu-
dents and can bring immediate effect to their next writing.
Furthermore, the four teachers had differing views about the usefulness of peer review.
Chen and Hong considered that peer review could raise students’ awareness of audience
and nurture their critical thinking abilities:
In the process of identifying the problems in their peers’ essays, they could reflect on their own
writing. And in responding to their peers’ comments, they need to decide to accept or refuse
them, which exercises their critical thinking. (Chen)
Peer evaluation is complementary to teacher feedback. Peer review engages students in the
process of self-evaluation. This participation allows students to exercise their judgment and
raise language awareness. It is also a process of training their consciousness of audience and
critical thinking abilities. (Hong)
In contrast, Dong and Liang indicated that students might not benefit from peer review,
because some students tended to be reserved in their opinions or comments about other stu-
dents’ writing. Dong and Liang held that peer review could be beneficial to students (as
writers and readers) only when they took peer review seriously and were willing to give
their opinions candidly to each other:
Some capable students can do peer review very well, but they are not devoted. American stu-
dents may express frankly what they think, so it is easy to carry on peer discussions, whereas
our Chinese students tend to reserve their opinions during team work. (Dong)
If students regard peer review just as an assignment, peer review is then just a task. As a result,
little difference exists between the first draft and the revised draft. Most of the time I find peer
review doesn’t achieve its purpose. (Liang)
The teacher’s role in students’ learning to write
The four teachers also had diverse beliefs about the teacher’s role in students’ learning to
write. Chen stressed that teachers needed to give students guidance and to require them
to follow rules in English at the early stages:
In teaching expository writing, I ask students to have a thesis statement. Students then question
why they have to do this. They want more freedom, but they don’t know the differences in
writing between Chinese and English. I tell them ‘you must do it this way. Once you
develop writing competence to a certain level, you could be a little freer in how to write in
English’. I have to push them to make efforts to meet my requirements.
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Colorado
at
Boulder
Libraries]
at
07:15
02
January
2015

Chen believed that students benefit from learning language forms because these forms enable
them to generate and express ideas when successfully appropriated. Her belief echoes
Devitt’s (1997) argument that, ‘Only when we understand genres as both constraint and
choice, both regularity and chaos, both inhibiting and enabling will we be able to help stu-
dents use the power of genres critically and effectively’ (p. 54; cited in Dean, 2000, p. 54).
Hong viewed the development of students’ writing competence as mainly dependent on
students’ own practices and intentions. To write well, students need to have formed ‘good
writing habits’ such as considering audience and purpose. Before becoming independent
writers, students need a teacher’s guidance and support to get rid of ‘bad writing habits’
they had formed in high school and ‘to offer them more opportunities to change their pre-
vious perceptions about writing’.
Dong used the metaphor ‘coach’ to describe his role in writing instruction. He empha-
sised that students should take the responsibility for their own learning, so teachers need to
set up tasks to stretch students’ potential. He believed that ‘students have the potential to
learn well and will learn from writing and making mistakes’. Similarly, Liang valued stu-
dents’ autonomy more than formal classroom instruction. Advocating the view that writing
ability is not acquired through teaching but is learnt from abundant reading, Liang argued
that teachers need to ‘encourage students to read, think, and write as well as to give
responses at the stage of prewriting’.
Teachers’ practices in teaching L2 writing
The classroom observations revealed that Chen, Hong, and Dong’s beliefs were consistent
with their teaching practices, whereas Liang’s belief was not closely matched with his teach-
ing practice. Chen, in line with her belief that language accuracy and basic writing techniques
were crucial to students’ development of writing competence, gave more attention to rhetori-
cal conventions, writing techniques, and error analyses in her teaching. Chen organised her
classroom teaching based on the in-house textbook. Each unit focused on a specific writing
technique, which was completed within four class periods with 50 minutes per period. In the
first two class periods, Chen spent most of the time introducing rhetorical rules and writing
techniques (e.g. how to write a topic sentence) through analysing model essays and exercises.
Towards the end of the class, she usually gave students several topic choices for their writing
assignment and asked them to submit the first draft prior to the next class. In the latter two
class periods, Chen mainly discussed students’ drafts. Primarily, Chen showed the class
their errors she found in their drafts and offered her revised versions. Overall, Chen’s class-
room teaching was teacher-dominated, well organised, and informative.
Hong organised her classroom teaching based on the in-house textbook, supplemented
with an American college composition textbook. Different from Chen, Hong spent little
time discussing the rhetorical rules and writing techniques covered in the in-house text-
book, believing that students could read themselves. Instead, she briefly went through
the key points in the textbook and spent most of the class time discussing model essays.
Commenting on her practice, Hong said:
Students expect the teacher to tell them explicitly what good writing is, and they expect the
teacher to give them model essays to follow. In the process of analysing the model essays, stu-
dents get to know the teacher’s requirements on their writing.
Unlike Chen, Hong actively involved students in class discussions on model essays and
students’ writing by questions and comments. Viewing logical issues as the major problems
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Colorado
at
Boulder
Libraries]
at
07:15
02
January
2015

in student writing, Hong spent plenty of time in class analysing students’ writing and guided
them to identify their logical fallacies.
Differently from Chen and Hong, Dong used his own teaching materials covering the
major themes of the in-house textbook but emphasising the training of students’ thinking
abilities. Dong encouraged students to actively participate in class discussions, which he
viewed as important for his classroom teaching:
New ideas will not occur without discussion. Discussions can make my teaching easier and
make me feel comfortable in class. If there is no communication, it will be difficult for me
to teach because I can only imagine the possible problems they have rather than know
exactly what they have difficulty with.
Dong seldom stayed behind the teacher’s desk in class; he kept on stepping forth and back
around the classroom with a very rich body language. He vigorously responded to students’
questions and comments in class discussions and guided students to perceive the same issue
from different perspectives.
Similarly to Dong, Liang used his self-selected materials for his teaching in line with the
themes of the in-house textbook. He put these materials in his PowerPoint (PPT) slides. His
PPT courseware was tremendously rich and involved various aspects of each theme. For
example, when coming to the topic ‘beauty’, he demonstrated differing perceptions of
beauty from the ancient to the modern, illustrated with vivid pictures and poems in order
to broaden his students’ vision. Unlike Chen, Hong, and Dong, Liang’s writing teaching
practices were both contradictory to and consistent with his beliefs. On the one hand,
Liang did introduce rhetorical rules and techniques for English writing and conduct error
analysis as other writing teachers did, though he believed that students could not develop
their writing abilities simply through his teaching. On the other hand, he was interested
in sharing his views about life with his students, as he believed that good writing came
from rich life experiences. However, in presenting his slides concerning art, poems and edu-
cation, he appeared to be engaged in lecturing without much communication with his stu-
dents. He arranged his students to do group discussions, but he stood behind or near the
teacher’s desk, reading his materials, rather than walking around the classroom and
responding to his students.
The four teachers varied in practising the requirement of multiple drafts, depending on
their beliefs in the usefulness of multiple drafts. Chen, Dong, and Liang showed less interest
in students’ drafts beyond the second one, whereas Hong was positive about students’ efforts
towards multiple drafts. Chen gave students detailed written comments on the first draft,
which she scored for her own reference. Students were required to do peer review on their
second draft. Some students made revision according to peer feedback whereas some did
not. Chen scored and gave written feedback to their second draft or revised second draft as
well as offered her comments on peer evaluation. It was up to students to do the final
draft, but Chen did not award students higher scores for their further drafts.
Differently from Chen, Hong required students to do peer review on both their first
and second drafts following her checklist. Hong did not score the first draft but the
second one. She encouraged multiple drafts and gave higher scores to the third or even
further draft depending on the quality of revision. She also held writing conferences reg-
ularly in her spare time with those students who may have unresolved problems or con-
fusions about her instruction or their writing. Like the teacher in Diab (2005), Hong
regarded conferences and peer reviews as useful feedback methods, supplementary to
teacher written feedback.
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Colorado
at
Boulder
Libraries]
at
07:15
02
January
2015

Similarly to Hong, Dong asked students to do peer review on their first draft with his
checklist. He scored and provided his feedback to students’ first revised draft, second
draft, and peer evaluation. In contrast, Liang occasionally asked students to do peer
review and usually responded to students’ first drafts with the focus on language use. He
scored but rarely offered feedback to students’second drafts, because he did not see students
make substantial improvement in terms of language and content between the two drafts.
In short, Chen, Hong, and Dong all had good control over the classroom activities and
were highly devoted to classroom teaching. Our observations show that Chen was more
director-oriented and Hong and Dong played mixed roles in their teaching: on the one
hand, Hong and Dong offered their forceful guidance to students; on the other hand,
they tried to create more opportunities to communicate with students and facilitate them
in their process of writing. In contrast, Liang seemed to be detached from his students.
In spite of his belief that teachers should play a role of stimulating students’ interest in
writing and developing their competence in independent learning, Liang appeared to let stu-
dents ‘learn to swim by swimming themselves’.
Development of teachers’ beliefs and practices in teaching L2 writing
The four teachers learned to teach EFL writing, and thus formed their beliefs and practices
of teaching writing, primarily through their experiences as EFL learners and teachers, their
understanding of students’ capabilities, and collegial influences. Coincidentally, the devel-
opment of each of their beliefs in writing instruction was in parallel with the historical
development of theories of L2 writing in the West, related to their ages and periods of uni-
versity employment. In particular, Chen’s beliefs displayed principles of current-traditional
rhetoric; Dong’s and Liang’s beliefs were close to the expressive view of process writing;
and Hong’s beliefs combined current-traditional rhetoric with views of writing as a cogni-
tive process.
Chen: the current-traditional rhetoric view
Chen began to teach English at the university in the late 1950s, which was also the popular
period for product-oriented pedagogy in the West. She recalled that English writing at that
time was done to introduce China to the world. With this purpose in mind, accuracy and
appropriateness were highly valued as indicators of a person’s education among colleagues.
Moreover, due to the shortage of pedagogical materials, teachers at that time emphasised
imitation and repetition in English learning, including learning to write. Writing was inte-
grated into reading courses to help students read and grasp vocabulary and grammar. She
learned to teach English writing by observing the head teacher’s classes and being observed
herself by the head teacher. Chen said that the teaching method came from their instincts
and experiences of learning to write in their first language (Chinese) at that time.
Another influence was native-English-speaking teachers with whom Chen worked. In
the late 1970s, an American teacher drew her attention to the Chinglish expressions in the
student compositions she collected for the in-house writing materials. The 1970s were the
time of promoting the process-oriented writing instruction and criticising the product-
oriented writing instruction in the West. Thus, it is not surprising that this teacher introduced
Chen to distinctions between product and process writing pedagogy. In the early 1980s,
another American teacher made Chen and her colleagues aware of how to teach writing sys-
tematically by organising lessons according to genres or rhetorical patterns:
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Colorado
at
Boulder
Libraries]
at
07:15
02
January
2015

Before this American teacher worked with us, we taught English writing following the ways of
teaching Chinese writing. We never taught students about a topic sentence, rhetorical patterns,
and so on. The American teacher and six teachers in our department formed a group of writing
teachers. We all wrote about the topics which our students were going to write about, and then
we met and discussed our own writing. He gave us his comments and graded our writing as well.
The requirement for Chen and her colleagues to write themselves before they asked their
students to write helped Chen to understand the needs and problems students might encoun-
ter in writing (cf. Casanave, 2004) and to realise that using rhetorical patterns can structure
the process of expressing ideas readily in English (cf. Dean, 2000).
The third influence was Chen’s experience studying at an American university in the
mid-1980s. Working as a TA for writing courses during that time, Chen noticed that accu-
racy was an important criterion for evaluating students’ writing. This experience reinforced
her beliefs about the importance of accuracy in English composition:
As a TA, I didn’t need to correct errors in student writing, but I needed to indicate the type of
error such as agreement or tense … In the training session for TAs, a run-on sentence was con-
sidered a serious writing problem. Accuracy was quite important. Poor control of language in
writing makes one look poorly educated.
Chen’s attention to accuracy was even further strengthened by her observations of inap-
propriate uses of English in students’ writing, even though many students could get their
intended meanings across. With these three primary influences, Chen was oriented to the
current-traditional rhetorical view of teaching writing, complemented by some elements
of process writing. That is, she required students to use formulaic patterns in their
writing while attending to the processes of composing such as prewriting, multiple
drafts, teachers’ feedback, and peer reviews.
Dong and Liang: the expressive view
Dong and Liang perceived that teachers should encourage students to discover their own
ideas at the prewriting stage and that writing is learnt rather than taught, echoing principles
of the expressive view of writing. Dong firmly believed that ‘good thinking is the foun-
dation of producing good writing’. He identified two primary sources for his view of
writing. First, his view came from his teaching experiences in the USA in the early
1990s, when the process approach to teaching writing was prevalent in many American uni-
versities. Basically, Dong learned to teach writing by teaching as he had never taught
writing before studying abroad:
I attended a TA course on teaching writing when I studied at the USA. We were encouraged to use
the process writing approach in our teaching. Then I had to rely on myself in classroom teaching as
I didn’t have a mentor. The whole writing course focused on argumentation and logical fallacies.
Critical thinking was an important ability that students needed to grasp in this writing course.
Second, after returning to China in the mid-1990s, Dong observed that lack of ideas was the
main problem in Chinese students’ writing, which he attributed to students’ thinking abil-
ities. Thus he put a special emphasis on ‘finding a way of training students’ creative and
critical thinking abilities’ in his teaching.
Unlike Dong, Liang attributed his beliefs about writing instruction to his own learning
experiences as a student. Liang said that one of the professors in his master’s programme
had a great influence on him:
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Colorado
at
Boulder
Libraries]
at
07:15
02
January
2015

When I was in the MA program, one of my professors asked us to read one book each week. He
set a good example for us. He said to us, ‘Every day I read one book and translate one poem
either from Chinese into English or vice versa. Now I ask you [students] to read one book per
week. I think you can do it.’ He required us to read carefully because he would ask any sort of
question regarding the book in class. I did as he required. After a year, I felt I made great
improvements in my English.
This experience taught Liang that a teacher’s responsibility is to guide students’ learning,
inspiring students to explore further themselves. Students benefit more from extensive
reading than from classroom instruction on the use of formulaic language or rhetorical pat-
terns. However, Liang admitted that he did not realise his beliefs in his practices. He was
uncertain about how to make his teaching interesting, finding it difficult to design tasks
and organise students in discussions. Liang attributed his ineffective teaching to his preju-
dice towards linguistics and his few reflections on his teaching:
I always consider linguistics useless as it is quite away from classroom teaching. I don’t know how
to make my students accept my views, probably because I don’t know teaching methodology.
Also, I rarely reflect on my teaching. When the class is over, I feel I’ve done my teaching job.
Hong: a mixture of product- and process-oriented writing instruction
Hong perceived that she mixed product and process pedagogy in her teaching of writing. On
the one hand, she followed the arrangement of genres (e.g. narration, description, exposition,
and argumentation) and of rhetorical patterns (e.g. exemplification, classification, definition,
comparison, and contrast) that appeared in the in-house textbooks. On the other hand, Hong
followed process-oriented methods in her teaching, starting with explanation of formulaic
patterns and prewriting, then first drafts, followed by peer evaluation and teacher feedback,
and then second drafts. Hong identified three primary influences in developing her approach
to teaching writing: her teachers, her colleagues, and her own reflection. Hong’s initial
approach to teaching writing, particularly of formulaic patterns, came from her own appren-
ticeship in observing Chen’s teaching. Chen was Hong’s writing teacher during her under-
graduate studies and then Hong’s mentor when she started teaching.
Hong learned the terms ‘process writing’ and ‘critical thinking’ from her colleague
Dong in their group lesson-planning meetings. But reflecting on her learning experience,
Hong observed that elements of process writing were actually embedded in the approaches
to teaching in this department: students were often told to think clearly and make an outline
before writing. The concept of composing processes clarified Hong’s understanding of the
nature of writing and gave her the meta-language to explain to students how to write.
Moreover, Hong’s ongoing reflections about her own teaching prompted her to refine
the efficiency and effectiveness of her methods for helping her students:
Generally speaking, our students are highly proficient in English. I often wonder how to help
them make great progress in their university studies. Writing is the weakest skill compared to
their speaking, listening, and reading abilities … Sometimes, I am not satisfied with my teach-
ing. After class, I ask myself, ‘Why do my students have so many questions about this issue?
What should I do for the next class?’
Conclusion and implications
This study examined four experienced Chinese EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices in teach-
ing writing and identified the primary sources for the development of their beliefs and
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Colorado
at
Boulder
Libraries]
at
07:15
02
January
2015

practices. Like the teachers in Shi and Cumming (1995), the present instructors each con-
ceptualised their work differently even though they taught in the same programme and had
similar educational backgrounds. The variability in their conceptualisations related to their
theories of learning, as described in van Lier’s (1996) theory of practice. Chen considered
that students’ linguistic knowledge determined the quality of their EFL writing, supporting
Schoonen, Snellings, Stevenson, and van Gelderen’s (2009) research findings about the sig-
nificance of linguistic knowledge in foreign language writing. Chen perceived that students
needed to follow formulaic patterns under a teacher’s guidance before they became compe-
tent writers. In contrast, Hong, Dong, and Liang perceived that students’ thinking was the
underlying force which made their writing clear and meaningful because they assumed that
their students already had a reasonably good command of English. These three thus took up
more process-oriented pedagogy in their teaching even though they focused differently on
training students’ thinking abilities (Dong), awareness of audiences for their writing
(Hong), and reading extensively (Liang).
In another sense, Chen and Hong were similar in their focus on the moral values of
teaching, particularly responsibility and devotion. Chen and Liang attended more to
language use in their teacher feedback compared to Dong and Hong. Dong and Liang con-
sidered students’ autonomy to be crucial in the success of their learning to write. In sum,
like the teachers in Farrell (2006), Pennington et al. (1997), and Shi and Cumming
(1995), these four teachers took a blended approach, occupying a kind of middle ground
between product- and process-oriented extremes according to their understanding of stu-
dents’ needs and their beliefs about learning. The four teachers could also be regarded as
practitioners of post-process pedagogy (Matsuda, 2003) because they took the elements
important to their teaching from principles of both product- and process-oriented writing
pedagogy.
Our study also showed that the four teachers’ development of their beliefs and practices
in teaching writing related to the historical development of L2 writing theories, even though
the professors had little formal training in the teaching of writing, as is the case with many
L2 writing teachers in other contexts (Lee, 2010; Reichelt, 2009). This coincidence of per-
sonal and historical trends might be related to the international spread of English and the
influences of professional networks and cross-cultural exchanges (Cumming, 2003; Pen-
nington et al., 1997). Direct contact with American colleagues exposed Chen and Dong
to current thinking and practices for teaching L2 writing in the West in the late 1970s,
1980s, and 1990s. Chen and Dong then passed on their understanding of teaching L2
writing to the next generation (here Hong and Liang) through regular group lesson-planning
meetings and mentorship. In these ways, writing teachers in China and other EFL contexts
may be consolidating their practices around, ‘a common basis of pedagogical or content
knowledge unique to second language writing instruction’ (Shi & Cumming, 1995, p. 104).
The four professors’ experiences of EFL learning and teaching also significantly shaped
their beliefs and practices in teaching writing and may continue to influence them through-
out their careers. As in previous, related studies (Burns, 1992; Sengupta & Xiao, 2002; Shi
& Cumming, 1995), the present study points to the importance of valuing teachers’ beliefs
because teachers’ beliefs tend to ‘have a personal significance which differs from prescribed
models of educational theory’ (Cumming, 1989, p. 47) and ‘lie at the heart of teaching and
learning’ (Burns, 1992, p. 64). From this perspective, one sensible approach to the devel-
opment of writing teachers would be to ground the curriculum in their beliefs. It is crucial
that teachers would have an opportunity to bring their own experiences into professional
development activities, as teachers are ‘in a strong position to judge the relevance and trans-
ferability of researchers’ pedagogical suggestions’ (Belcher, 2007, p. 398). Such an
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Colorado
at
Boulder
Libraries]
at
07:15
02
January
2015

approach can promote teachers’ further awareness and reflection on their beliefs and prac-
tices, helping teachers to see the relevance of writing research to their own practices. As
Ortega (2009, p. 249) rightly put it, ‘a blend of realism and idealism is our best hope to
deliver successful L2 writing instruction across EFL contexts’.
The four professors paid attention to both product- and process-orientations in their
teaching of writing because they considered both orientations integral to the real needs
and abilities of their students. These conceptual orientations may be of particular value
for helping novice writing teachers identify the aspects of their students’ writing they
should focus on. Whether in ESL or EFL teaching contexts, educators can expect to
address issues related to the focus of writing instruction (on language or ideas development)
and on writing processes (e.g. prewriting, multiple drafts, teachers’ feedback, and peer feed-
back). Novice teachers can relate their knowledge and expertise to these issues in designing
and providing instruction with, ‘the orientations most appropriate for particular curriculum
contexts, student groups, and individual teaching styles or preferences’ (Cumming, 2003,
p. 87).
Teaching is not only intellectual in nature, but necessarily involves a moral dimension –
a point not captured in much other research on the teaching of writing or other aspects of
language education, as Johnston (2003) has observed. In the present study, Chen and Hong
showed their dedication to their teaching by spending long periods reading and commenting
on students’ writing because they believed that teachers’ devotion and engagement can
influence students’ attitudes towards efforts in writing. Indeed, a teacher’s willingness to
reflect, and to find alternative ways to make teaching effective, depends critically on the
extent of their dedication to their teaching. Moral dimensions of responsibility and commit-
ment play a decisive role in teaching practices, as ‘morality is integral to the whole process
of teaching and learning’ (Wylie, 2005, p. 16) and ‘learning requires a personal relation-
ship’ like pastoral care (Wilson, 1997, p. 5). Teacher education and development cannot
afford to miss this fundamental point, though further research is needed to examine pre-
cisely how morals and values actually influence the teaching and learning of L2 writing.
Our study revealed how certain critical incidents shaped the four teachers’ beliefs and
practices of teaching EFL writing, but we could not trace the professors’ actual processes of
learning to teach writing, given the essentially cross-sectional (in four teachers of different
ages who had already developed their experienced abilities) rather than longitudinal design
of our inquiry. Longitudinal research is needed to substantiate our understanding of how
writing teachers develop and how they implement their beliefs in classroom teaching.
Special attention needs to be given to the role of reflection and collegial support in pro-
fessional development. Teaching writing is a decision-rich, intellectual, social, and moral
enterprise, but above all it is an individual and highly personal undertaking (Clarke,
1994). Helping writing teachers engage with and challenge their beliefs and bring improve-
ment to their practices through ongoing critical reflection should be the core concern of edu-
cation on writing teachers.
Acknowledgements
The research reported in this paper was granted by the Project Sponsored by the Scientific Research
Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars, State Education Ministry of China
(#20071108) to the first author. We would like to express our deepest gratitude to Alister
Cumming and Ling Shi for their precious comments and suggestions on the earlier versions of this
article. We are also grateful to the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments
on the earlier version of the paper. Our appreciation also goes to our participants for their willingness
to share their time and insights with us.
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Colorado
at
Boulder
Libraries]
at
07:15
02
January
2015

References
Belcher, D. (2007). A bridge too far? TESOL Quarterly, 41, 396–399.
Burns, A. (1992). Teacher beliefs and their influence on classroom practice. Prospect, 7(3), 56–66.
Casanave, C. P. (2004). Controversies in second language writing: Dilemmas and decisions in
research and instruction. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Clarke, M. A. (1994). The dysfunctions of the theory/practice discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 9–26.
Cumming, A. (1989). Student teachers’ conceptions of curriculum: Towards an understanding of
language teacher development. TESL Canada Journal, 7, 33–51.
Cumming, A. (1992). Instructional routines in ESL composition teaching: A case study of three tea-
chers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 17–35.
Cumming, A. (2001). Learning to write in a second language: Two decades of research. In
R. M. Manchon (Ed.), International Journal of English Studies, Special Issue, 1(2), 1–23.
Cumming, A. (2003). Experienced ESL/EFL writing instructors’ conceptualizations of their teaching:
Curriculum options and implications. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring dynamics of second language
writing (pp. 71–92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dean, D. M. (2000). Muddying boundaries: Mixing genres with five paragraphs. English Journal,
90(1), 53–56.
Devitt, A. J. (1997). Genre as language standard. In W. Bishop & H. Ostrom (Eds.), Genre and
writing: Issues, arguments, alternatives (pp. 45–55). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Diab, R. L. (2005). Teachers’ and students’ beliefs about responding to ESL writing: A case study.
TESL Canada Journal, 23(1), 28–43.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2006). Reflective practice in action: A case study of a writing teacher’s reflections on
practice. TESL Canada Journal, 23(2), 77–90.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. New York, NY: Longman.
Hedgcock, J. (2010). Theory-and-practice and other questionable dualisms in L2 writing. In T. Silva
& P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Practicing theory in second language writing (pp. 229–244). West
Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Hirvela, A., & Belcher, D. (2007). Writing scholars as teacher educators: Exploring writing teacher
education. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 125–128.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnston, B. (2003). Values in English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Lee, I. (2003). L2 writing teachers’ perspectives, practices and problems regarding error feedback.
Assessing Writing, 8, 216–237.
Lee, I. (2010). Writing teacher education and teacher learning: Testimonies of four EFL teachers.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 143–157.
Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing in
English. Abingdon: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Processes and post-processes: A discursive history. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 12, 65–83.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2010). Zhongguo tongji nianjian-2010 [China Statistical Year
Book-2010]. Beijing: China Statistics Press.
Ortega, L. (2009). Studying writing across EFL contexts: Looking back and moving forward. In
R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and
research (pp. 232–255). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Pennington, M., Costa, V., So, S., Shing, J., Hirose, K., & Niedzielski, K. (1997). The teaching of
English-as-a-second-language writing in the Asia–Pacific region: A cross-country comparison.
RELC Journal, 28, 120–143.
Reichelt, M. (2009). A critical evaluation of writing teaching programmes in different foreign
language settings. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning,
teaching, and research (pp. 183–206). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Schoonen, R., Snellings, P., Stevenson, M., & van Gelderen, A. (2009). Towards a blueprint of the
foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands of foreign language writing. In
R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research
(pp. 77–101). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Colorado
at
Boulder
Libraries]
at
07:15
02
January
2015

Sengupta, S., & Falvey, P. (1998). The role of the teaching context in Hong Kong English teachers’
perceptions of L2 writing pedagogy. Evaluation and Research in Education, 12(2), 72–95.
Sengupta, S., & Xiao, M. K. (2002). The contextual reshaping of beliefs about L2 writing: Three tea-
chers’ practical process of theory construction. TESL-EJ, 6(1). Retrieved from http://www.tesl-ej.
org/wordpress/issues/volume6/ej21/ej21a1/
Shi, L., & Cumming, A. (1995). Teachers’ conceptions of second language writing instruction: Five
case studies. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 87–111.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for devel-
oping grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tsui, A. B. M. (1996). Learning how to teach ESL writing. In D. Freeman & J. Richards (Eds.),
Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 97–123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tsui, A. B. M. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies of second language tea-
chers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity.
London: Longman.
Wilson, J. (1997). Caring for children: Some long-term issues. Journal of Pastoral Care in Education,
15(4), 4–7.
Wylie, K. (2005). The moral dimension of personal and social education. Journal of Pastoral Care in
Education, 23(3), 12–18.
You, X. (2004). ‘The choice made from no choice’: English writing instruction in a Chinese univer-
sity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 97–110.
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case-studies. TESOL
Quarterly, 17, 165–187.
Zhu, W. (2010). Theory and practice in second language writing: How and where do they meet? In
T. Silva & P. Matsuda (Eds.), Practicing theory in second language writing (pp. 209–228). West
Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Downloaded
by
[University
of
Colorado
at
Boulder
Libraries]
at
07:15
02
January
2015

Beliefs & practices

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Beliefs & practices

Similar to Beliefs & practices (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Beliefs & practices