. ..- J'

4,...) ~

a
u
'0'; V
yum-

v.-

H!

:7»
3572:.
:5‘ 1

l
3.."

9325?;

y,
‘5

‘v ‘-, 6!
‘2 {iri'xé'v'i
19

fl

» v
A
r
.c
§|'x

“4%,
1,. . L
a”!‘ -—.
7w:
.‘ -
W:
3.”??-

”Yr.“

, is g 9
\ Q‘s?
"353“

NEH}!
. ‘1' I} i
i '1 '3," N
fgi'Mfi

.»

.7

[a

M.
«31:.
=r
”f
V IV

15*,
.... . ,
- -1 «.u
0......

"5

 

 

1

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

Analysis of Writing Activities in Korean English Textbooks

presented by

Moon-:ieung Chang

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MA. degree in Teaching English to Speakers
of Other Languages

 

Major Professor's Signature

April 27. 2004

 

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

 

 

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
- 75
'JUL K 1 [25055 5"”?! 31321205377
APR 1 at 2008

041408

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJClRC/DateDuepGS—p. 15

ANALYSIS OF WRITING ACTIVITIES IN KOREAN ENGLISH TEXTBOOKS
By

Moon-Jeung Chang

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment ofthe requirements
For the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Linguistics. Germanic, Slavic. Asian and African Languages

2004

ABSTRACT
ANALYSIS OI" WRITING ACTIVITIES IN KOREAN ENGLISH TEXTBOOKS
By

Moon-Jeung Chang

This study adopted textbook analysis, teacher and student surveys. classroom
observations. and teacher interviews to understand Korean English writing education. The
results of textbook analysis showed a mismatch between the guidelines of the National
Curriculum and writing activities in terms of length, open-endedncss, and use of group
work. Surveys revealed students“ and teachers‘ dissatisfaction with topics and a range of
writing activities. In interviews. teachers cited the gap in students’ proficiency levels.
level-inappropriate activities, and unmotivated students as difficulties they encounter in
teaching writing. Teacher-centered classroom atmospheres and the common practice of
skipping writing sections in textbooks were observed in classrooms. This study concludes
that better alignment among the National Curriculum, the College Scholastic Ability Test.
textbooks. and teacher and student views about English writing could actually bring

positive change to English writing education in Korea.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List ofTables ............................................................................................ v
List 01' I’igurcs .......................................................................................... vi
I. Introduction .......................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose of study ................................................................................. 1
1.2 Research questions .............................................................................. 3

2. Background literature ................................................................................ 4
2.1 Textbooks in language classrooms .............................................................. 4
2 .2 Writing education in EFL settings .............................................................. 7
2.3 English education In Korea” .9

2 ..3 1 National Curriculum and College Scholastic Ability Test ........................... 10
2.3. 2 English textbooks In Korea .............................................................. 14
2.3.3 English writing education in Korea ..................................................... 16

3. Research methodology ............................................................................. 17
3.1 Surveys ........................................................................................... 17
3.1.1 Survey development ................................................................. 18

3.1.2 Data collection ........................................................................ 19

3.2 Textbook analysis ............................................................................... 19
3.2.1 Textbook selection ..................................................................... 19

3.2.2 Writing activity coding ............................................................... 20

3.3 Classroom observations ......................................................................... 27
3.3.1. Participants ............................................................................ 27

3.3.2 Procedure .............................................................................. 28

3.4 Teacher interviews .............................................................................. 30
3.4.1 Participants ............................................................................ 30

3.4.2 Procedure .............................................................................. 31

4. Analysis and rcsults32
4.1 Surveys ........................................................................................... 32
4.1.1 Teacher survev32

4.1.2 Student survey ........................................................................... 42

4.2 Textbook analysis .............................................................................. 50
4.3 Classroom observations ........................................................................ 62
4.4 Teacher interviews .............................................................................. 66
5. Conclusion and recommendations ............................................................... 72

iii

Appendix ................................................................................................ 80

Appendix A ......................................................................................... 80
Appendix B .......................................................................................... 82
Appendix C .......................................................................................... 84
References .............................................................................................. 86

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 List of textbooks analyzed in this study ................................................ 20
Table 2 Writing activities and examples ......................................................... 24
Table 3 Participants in classroom observations ................................................ 28
Table 4 Class observation schedule ............................................................... 28
Table 5 Two academic high school teacher interviews ........................................ 31
Table 6 Teachers’ survey: language skills ranked highest ..................................... 33
Table 7 Teachers’ survey: language skills ranked lowest ...................................... 33
Table 8 Teachers‘ survey: students” reason to learn English writing ......................... 35
T able 9 Teachers’ survey: practice of teaching English writing ............................... 36
Table 10 Teachers‘ survey: the most effective class organization....................... . . . . .37
Table 1 1 Teachers‘ survey: obstacles in teaching writing ..................................... 38
Table 12 Teachers‘ survey: evaluation of writing activities in textbooks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
Table 13 Teachers‘ survey: evaluation of the different textbooks ............................ 41
Table 14 Students‘ survey: language skills ranked highest ................................... 43
Table 15 Students‘ survey: language skills ranked lowest .................................... 43
Table 16 Students’ survey: reasons to learn English writing ........................... . ...... 45
Table 17 Students" survey: preference of individual vs. group activities .................... 45
Table 18 Students’ survey: difference between written and spoken language .............. 46
Table 19 Students’ survey: experience of writing longer than a paragraph ................. 46
Table 20 Students‘ survey: most important thing in good writing ........................... 47
Table 21 Students’ survey: difficulties in English writing .................................... 47
Table 22 Students‘ survey: evaluation of writing activities ................................... 48
Table 23 Textbook analysis: length of writing .................................................. 52
Table 24 Textbook analysis: writing topics ..................................................... 54
Table 25 Textbook analysis: activity types ...................................................... 56
Table 26 Textbook analysis: open-endedness ................................................... 58
Table 27 Textbook analysis: use of group work ................................................ 60

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Teachers‘ perceptions of the four language skills ...................................... 34
Figure 2 Middle vs. high school teachers‘ perceptions of the four language skills. ........34
Figure 3 Teachers‘ survey: evaluation of writing activities ..................................... 40
Figure 4 Students‘ perceptions of the four language skills ..................................... 44
Figure 5 Middle vs. high school students‘ perceptions of the four language skills... . . . ....44
Figure 6 Students‘ survey: evaluation of writing activities ..................................... 49

vi

1. Introduction
1.1. Purpose of this study

A classroom teacher gives an English grammar lecture in Korean while fifty to
sixty students quietly listen to him and mechanically copy the blackboard. This used to be
a description of a typical English classroom in Korea. The introduction of the sixth and
seventh National Curriculums, which emphasize students‘ communicative language skills
and learning process. brought what may be seen as a positive change to Korean English
education.

First. the focus of classroom instruction moved from exclusive grammar teaching to
a more communication—centered one. Many speaking activities. including songs. chants.
games. and role plays. were introduced and studies have found teachers‘ and students‘
positive reactions to this change. Y.S. Lyoo (2002) reported that 91% of elementary
school English teachers thought these activities enhanced students‘ motivation. Similarly.
Lee et al. (2001) claimed that first year middle school students who participated in
communicative activities showed increased interest in English. Listening. which was not
a major part of classroom instruction, also has come to be stressed upon being included in
the College Scholastic Ability Test (EC. Lee, 2003).

Second. the introduction of new National Curriculums brought change in textbooks.
The authors use more visual aids. including colorful pictures and charts. and adopt
various topics. such as the lntemet. computer games. and sports. which may stimulate
students‘ interest (DJ. Kawk, 2002). Hwang (2002) also noted the improvement in
textbook design in terms of appearance and inclusion of diverse teaching materials and

tasks for students.

Third. the number of students per class has decreased as well. As of 2000. the
average elementary, middle. and high school were reported to have 35.8. 38. and 42.7
students per classroom. respectively. These have decreased from 41.4. 50.2. and 52.55 in
1990 (Ministry ofEducation, 2002).

Despite all of these positive changes. some studies reported writing was still often
neglected in classroom settings. In interviews with middle and high school students. Kim
and .100 (2001) found that most of the writing sections in textbooks were skipped in the
classroom. Kwak and Sung (2001) also noted most of the English class time was spent for
reading and listening activities. llJ. Kim (2001) criticized classroom situations where
reading and writing were taught in traditional ways. unlike speaking and listening, which
were taught by communicative methods. Many have blamed textbooks for creating
decreased interest in writing in English classrooms (MJ. Lyoo. 1998; Yun. 1996: and See.
2002). These studies, however, evaluated textbooks without considering the human
elements in education: Ieamers and teachers: thus they left other factors that may hinder
or improve English writing education in Korea untouched.

In this study. writing activities in the fifteen English textbooks currently used in
Korea are analyzed and compared with the results from teacher and student surveys.
classroom observations, and in-depth teacher interviews. The importance of this type of
triangulation has been supported by the claims of various scholars. C owles (1976) noted
the practice of textbook evaluation that lacks consideration of the real classroom situation
could cause problems. and he recommended the use of interviews with teachers and
students in selecting textbooks. Harklau (2002) also noted the need to adopt self-report.

such as interviews. to overcome the limitation of classroom recording to capture text-

based interactions. The employment of multiple methodologies in the present study will
not only increase the credibility of the results but also provide a more complete picture of

Korean English writing education.
1.2 Research questions
The present study attempts to answer the four following research questions about

English writing education in Korea.

1. What types of writing activities are provided in Korean English textbooks?

I»)

. What is the underlying writing theory (or pedagogical approach) adopted in
Korean English textbooks?
3. How do Korean English teachers and students view writing and evaluate writing
activities in Korean English textbooks?
4. How are the writing sections of Korean English textbooks implemented in real

classroom situations?

A content analysis was conducted to answer questions one and two. Two elementary. nine
middle. and four high school textbooks were coded according to five categories: length of
writing. topic. activity type. open-endedness. and use of group work. Question three was
answered by conducting teacher and student surveys and with data from teacher
interviews. F ifty-four English teachers and eighty students in middle and high school
participated in the surveys and commented on their textbooks and English writing.
Question four was addressed by observing six teachers‘ classes and interviewing them

about their classes and textbooks. By answering these questions. this study is expected to

serve as a sound starting point in locating the potential underlying problems and their

sources in English writing education in Korea and to find possible solutions.

h)

. Background literature

IQ

.l. Textbooks in language classrooms

A textbook plays a major role in language teaching and learning. For teachers. it
lessens the burden of developing materials from scratch. It also functions as a syllabus.
helping novice teachers‘ class preparation. For learners. textbooks generally provide rich
and level-appropriate language input and helpful study tips they need to acquire a
language.

’arious scholars have noted the importance of language learning and teaching
textbooks and suggested sets of guidelines' which teachers should consider in selecting the
best textbooks for themselves and their students. To name a few. Byrd (2001) emphasized the
lit among the textbook and the curriculum. the students. and the teachers. .1. Brown (1997)
stressed the usefulness of tasks in real situations. and Lake (I997) noted the possibility of
“learner training“ as an important factor in textbook selection. Others provided more detailed
criteria for textbook selection or evaluation. Hyland (2003) proposed eight criteria including
aims and approach. bibliographic features. design. organization. content. methodology.
usability. and overall quality. Ansary and Babaii (2002) recommended teachers consider
various features of their textbooks related to approach. content presentation. physical make-

up. and administrative concerns.

.—..—.~

' When presenting these guidelines. some used checklists (Cowles. 1976; Rivers. 1981; Williams. 1983:
Cunningworth. I984; Dougill. 1987: Sheldon. 1988: Lake. 1997; J. Brown. 1997: Byrd. 2001‘) and others
used graphic presentations (Tucker. 1978; Chambers. 1997: Ausary and Babaii. 2002).

 

Despite the positive roles of textbooks in language classrooms. there have been
anti-textbook arguments. Swales (1980) referred to textbooks for English l‘or Specific
Purposes courses as “problem[s]“. citing their inadequacy to fulfill the diverse needs in
language classrooms. Similarly. Allwright (1981) pointed out the limitations of materials
in English classrooms. In his analysis. which revealed the complexity of classroom
management problems. he noted a necessarily limited role for teaching materials in terms
of covering goals in language learning. deciding learning content, managing language
learning. and guidance in language learning. Sheldon (1988) also listed common
theoretical and practical problems of English textbooks. such as a failure to describe level
of target Ieamers. a mismatch between textbooks and teachers‘ needs. lack of cultural
sensitivity. and unsystematic selection of vocabulary. More recently. Robinson (1991)
criticized the practice of textbook selection based on practical considerations. such as cost.
rather than on pedagogic features of the textbooks.

In a model of the dynamic interaction among teacher. materials. and Ieamers in a
language classroom (adopted from Allwright. 1981). Hutchinson and Torres (1994)
countered the anti-textbook argument in English education. They claimed that a textbook
is an important means of satisfying diverse needs of Ieamers. teachers. and other
stakeholders in English education. In their argument for textbooks. they noted that
textbooks can serve as “guides" for students which enable them to learn a language more
eITectively and as “facilitating tools" for teachers for classroom interaction and
management. They also argued that textbooks can serve as effective agents of change.
Since the textbook can introduce changes gradually within a structured framework. it

provides support that relieves teachers from other burdens. such as responsibility for

introducing curricular changes, and provides guidance for teachers in implementing these
changes in the classroom. Their explanation about the role of textbooks can be directly
related to the Korean situation.

Textbooks in Korean English classrooms are more than a syllabus or a source of
language input; they directly reflect the National Curriculum. which every level of
educational institutions is required to follow. They also function as a main resource for
students preparing for the College Scholastic Ability Test. which has an English section2
including questions that can be answered by students who have studied their textbooks
well. The vocabulary used in the test is also from the current textbooks. Therefore.
English textbooks can act as guides for students. In addition. the introduction of a new
National Curriculum in 20003 brought a major change in each English classroom. placing
the huge burden of implementing it on teachers; thus textbooks. which reflect the changes
brought by the new National Curriculum. can act as facilitating tools for teachers in
dealing with changes.

Due to their important role in English education. textbooks have become one of the
most popular topics of educational research in Korea. Many studies have attempted to
analyze or evaluate English textbooks from various angles; some have focused on the
general qualities of the textbooks (Shin. 2000; Y. M. Kim, 2000; Hahn. 2001; DJ. Kwak.
2002) and others on the specific sections or language skills in textbooks (listening and
speaking: Y. T. Kim. 1992; El. Kim. 2001; listening: Cha and Hong. 2002). None of them.
however. has covered the whole range of public education in Korea (middle school: Shin.

2000; Hahn. 2001; DJ. Kwak. 2002: Y.T. Kim. 1992; El. Kim. 2001. high school: Y.M.

 

2 The level of English section of the College Scholastic Ability Test is supposed to be that of High School
English (textbook used for 1" year high school students).
3 The seventh National Curriculum was published in 1997. but it has been implemented only since 2000.

Kim. 2000; C ha and Hong. 2002) nor has considered other elements of English
classrooms. including Ieamers and teachers.

The textbook analysis this study takes is based on Byrd‘s (2001) recommendation
in which the fit among the textbook and the curriculum. the students. and the teachers was
considered in textbook selection and evaluation. This approach may solve some problems
of the previous studies. which lacked evaluation from teachers‘ or students‘ viewpoints. It
is also expected to add valuable information for curriculum revision.

Rather than simply taking an anti-textbook or pro-textbook position. this study
depicts what English textbooks look like. how they fit with the new National Curriculum.
how they are actually implemented in classrooms. and how they are viewed by their
ultimate users. teachers and students. By conducting this study. the role of textbooks in
this time of change and the potential problems that hinder the implementation of these

changes are also expected to be revealed.

2.2. Writing education in EFL settings

Writing has been generally known to have a consolidating effect on one‘s language
learning. providing opportunities to review grammar and vocabulary. Other various merits
have been acknowledged by many researchers as well. Byme (1984) noted that writing
can satisfy different learning styles and needs and provide tangible evidence of students‘
progress in language. Rivers (1981) emphasized writing can make heuristic and
cooperative learning possible and develop problem solving skills. benefiting from
students‘ L1 literacy. Tribble (1996) argued that writing can allow teachers to focus on

accuracy and give students opportunities for creative language use. He added that writing

in L2 can bring a positive effect on L1 writing development as well. More recently.
Harklau (2002) claimed that writing can facilitate students’ language acquisition process
by serving as a mnemonic strategy. fulfilling analytic purposes. and making self-paced
language learning possible.

Various scholars have studied writing education and among them extensive studies
have focused on similarities and differences between L1 and L2 writing (Hirose. 2003;
Zainuddin et al.. 2003; Larios. et al.. 2001: Silva. 1993). The effect of EFL vs. ESL
settings in writing education. however. has not received enough scholarly interest.
Writing education in EFL and ESL settings cannot but differ from each other. given the
differences in students. teachers. materials. and other external factors including society.

The consumers in English education. students. have different goals and needs in

learning English writing. Municie (2002: 182) noted:

The vast majority of students in state EFL [EFL settings] are not seeking to enter an
English-language discourse community. and will probably never need to produce a
written English text for anyone but their teacher.

Teachers in EFL settings also vastly differ from those in ESL settings. The majority of
EFL teachers are non-native English speakers with various educational backgrounds that
emphasize different responsibilities and roles as teachers. The classroom environment.
including class size and teaching equipment. in which they teach. is different as well.

As for materials. due to widespread access to the lntemet. collecting interesting and
level-appropriate authentic materials in EFL settings has become less difficult. However.
the difference can be found in one of the major materials used in language classrooms.

textbooks. Many of the textbooks published and used in EFL settings are written by non-

native English speakers. unlike in ESL settings. It is also common to find textbooks
covering all of the four language skills in one volume.

The last factor. the society. also reveals the different status of English in EFL and
ESL settings. As Tribble (1996) noted. even though English is used as a medium for
international communication. each setting has a unique status for English. forming
dill‘erent attitudes toward English education.

In order to have a more complete picture of writing education in a particular EFL
setting. Korea. this study will consider the four factors. students, teachers. materials
(textbooks). and the National Curriculum. which make Korean English writing education

different from that of an ESL setting.

2.3. English education in Korea

English is taught in Korea as a foreign language. The difference between English
and other foreign languages“ is its inclusion in the College Scholastic Ability Test as a
major subject which all university bound students must take. Other foreign languages are
available as elective courses; thus students may elect not to take them according to their
preference. Currently. English education in Korea starts from the third grade. Students
from grades three to ten take English as a “Common Required Course" and students in
grades 11 to 12 take “Elective English Courses" according to their interests and career
goals. Thus. Elementary School English (grade 3-6). Middle School English (grade 7-9).
and l-ligh School English (grade 10) are the basic English courses every student must take

and English 1, English 2. English Composition. English Conversation, and English

4 . . .. . . . . . .
German. French. Spanish. (.hmese. Japanese. RtlSSI'dn. and Arabic are the elective foreign language
courses in Korea.

Reading are electives.

English classrooms in Korea consist of students who are relatively homogenous in
temis of L1. age. and cultural background. They study English with somewhat similar
needs and goals as well. In general. students view English as a subject rather than a
communication tool due to its limited use in daily life and its inclusion in the College
Scholastic Ability Test. The expected role of teachers in English classrooms is. therefore.
an instructor who can prepare students to take the test and score high rather than make
them proficient English users. The following three sections summarize these
characteristics of Korean English education reflected in the National Curriculum. the

College Scholastic Ability Test. textbooks. and writing education.

2.3.1. National Curriculum and the College Scholastic Ability Test

Two factors that have a major influence on English classrooms in Korea are the
National Curriculum and the College Scholastic Ability Test. So far seven National
C urriculums have been issued in Korea. Each of them has provided fundamental
guidelines for English education. such as goals and objectives in teaching and learning
English. content. teaching methods. and evaluation guidelines. which have had a direct
effect on classroom instruction and textbook development.

The goal of elementary school English education listed in the 7'h National
Curriculum is to develop students‘ ability to understand and use basic English used in
everyday conversation. focusing on oral communication. Middle and high school English
aims at keeping students’ interest and motivation in learning English high and improving

basic English communication skills in both accuracy and fluency.

10

The 7lh National Curriculum recommends that the content of English classes
include both perception and production skills. thus making gradual improvement in
students‘ four language skills possible. It also lists guidelines for topics. cultural tips.
language use. vocabulary. and the length of sentences5 that will be introduced in English
classrooms.

In terms of teaching methods. the 7'h

National Curriculum emphasizes “task-
based.“ “level-sensitive” English education. In order to provide students differential
education to meet their individual differences. “level-sensitive” English teaching adopts
“deepening activities" and “remedial activities.“ In “deepening activities". students get
more challenging extra activities. and in “remedial activities". students who do not meet
the basic learning objectives get additional practice to review the language items of the
lesson before they move on to the next lesson.

For evaluation. the 7‘h National Curriculum discourages the use of paper tests for
elementary school students. In order to lessen students‘ stress. numerical evaluation is
discouraged and instead descriptive evaluation of students" participation. attitude. and
communicative ability is encouraged. For middle and high school students rather than a
discrete evaluation. an integrated one that evaluates all of the four language skills in temis
of communication is advised.

There are several changes that the 7‘“ National Curriculum has brought to English
education in Korea. The number of instructional hours of English education in public

elementary schools has decreased. 3lrd and 4‘h grade students take one 40-minute English

. . . m -
class weekly down from two 40-minute English classes weekly under the 6 National

 

5 . . . . . . ., l .
The NatIonal CurrIculum recommends English sentences Introduced In the 3'“ and 4" grades have fewer
than seven words and nine words for the 5‘" and 6'h grade sentences.

6 They are roughly equivalent to American gifled and remedial programs.

11

Curriculum. Instructional hours for older students remain the same. For 5‘'1 and 6‘“
students. English is taught for two 40-minute classes per week. 7‘“ and 8'“ graders have
three 45- minute English classes a week and 9'“ graders learn English in four 45-minute
classes. 10'“ graders must take four 50-minute English classes per week.

The new National Curriculum also aims at moving the focus of classroom
interaction from grammatical features to communication activities. It has been said that
English education in Korea focuses on the grammatical features of English without regard
for its communicative and cultural functions (Evans. 1980). More recently. Li (2001)
noted the predominance of text-centered and grammar-centered practices hinder the
introduction of the communicative approach in Korean English education. The 7’“
National Curriculum emphasizes communicative activities in which students‘ language
learning process is closely observed and considered. It also encourages teachers to teach
English through English. This change is reflected in the following goals of English

education7 listed in the 7‘“ National Curriculum.

To develop students’ basic communicative ability with which they can understand and
use everyday English and to make a ground for learning from other cultures to develop
ours and introducing our culture to the world
a. To raise students’ interest and confidence in English and to raise basic
communicative ability.
b. To naturally communicate on the general and everyday life related topics
c. To re-discover our culture and to develop sound viewpoints of life by
understanding other cultures.
( Curriculum Ion/foreign language. 1997:29)

This study will examine whether the guidelines and changes that the new National

Curriculum has brought are actually implemented in actual Korean English classrooms or

not.

 

7 . . .
They are translated from Korean Into English by the researcher.

12

Another important factor in Korean English education is the College Scholastic
Ability Test. English is a part of the College Scholastic Ability Test. which almost all high
school students take to continue their study at the university level“. The test was
developed and has been implemented by Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation
since 1993. Every November. third year high school students. or those who have
equivalent academic ability take the test. which includes the following five sections:
Verbal (Korean). Mathematics and Inquiry. Natural Science Inquiry. Social Studies
Inquiry. and Foreign Language (English). After the results of the test become available in
December. teachers help students to decide which universities they can apply to. The
score from the test plays a major role in university entrance admissions; thus it has
become one of the most important issues for both students and teachers.

E. G. Lee (2003) summarizes the following characteristics of the English section of
the College Scholastic Ability Test. First. it focuses on listening and reading. Second, it
avoids discrete point grammar tests and stresses the conveyance of meaning and grasp of
the content of passages presented in paragraphs or dialogues. Third. it emphasizes fluency
over accuracy. Fourth. it aims at testing students‘ problem solving skills. Lee expects
these characteristics of the test will bring improvement in students‘ listening skills and
shift of teaching methodology from grammar translation methods to a communicative
approach. He adds that the format of the College Scholastic Ability Test will change
students‘ concepts of English study from language knowledge leaming to a

communication tool.

 

a , . . . . . . . . . .
37% of univerSIty freshmen are selected based on other criteria: recommendation from prInCIpals or

teachers. high school GPA. graduation from vocational schools. residence in agricultural or fishing
regions. etc. ( Korean Council for University Education. 2004)

13

Despite these potential positive effects of the College Scholastic Ability Test on
English classrooms. there are several noticeable problems it has caused. The consistent
format of questions used in the test makes students emphasize test taking skills and lead
them to believe scoring high in the test is more important than learning the problem
solving skills it aims at. The gap between what is taught in classrooms and what is tested
in the College Scholastic Ability Test has been reported as well (Lym. 2003). In addition.
the emphases on fluency over accuracy has resulted in a problem of lower accuracy of
English usage by students as shown in the low scores of grammar questions in 2003 test
(EG. Lee. 2003). Most recently. Kwan (2004) blamed the format of the College
Scholastic Ability Test for causing Korean students’ low English writing ability.

Scoring high in the College Scholastic Ability Test and getting into a good
university is one of the major goals of students in Korea: thus its influence on classroom
instruction is indisputable. The present study considers the College Scholastic Ability Test
and the National Curriculum. as factors that have a potential effect on English writing
education and examines its influence by conducting surveys. classroom observations. and

teacher interviews.

2.3.2. English Textbooks in Korea

The Korean government publishes standardized elementary English textbooks.
fifteen private publishing companies publish Middle School English. and another fifteen9
publish High School English. Korean English language textbooks have been written by a

group of experienced teachers and university professors. Some textbooks are coauthored

 

9 Eight publishing companies publish both middle and high school textbooks:
Kyohak. Hyundai..1ungang. Kumsung. Daehan. C hunjae. Doosan. and Jihak.

14

by native speakers of English'0 but none was written by native speakers alone. After
being approved. by the Korean Ministry of Education. the textbooks become available for
classroom use.

In general. English textbooks currently used in Korea adopt various visual materials.
such as pictures. maps. and diagrams. The reading passages are from various sources.
Some are from the Intemet and others from print sources written by both Korean and
English native speakers. Readings contain diverse topics, some for teaching cultures of
English speaking countries and others about Korean culture. school. and family life.

In terms of the general structure of the textbooks. each lesson consists of specific
sections for listening. speaking. reading. and writing. Elementary school English
textbooks universally consist of 16 lessons and middle and high school textbooks
comprised 12 lessons. each of which include additional sections such as. “Grammar in
action (Doosan)." “Culture Tip (Hankook Kyoyook Media)". and “Vocabulary
(Kumsung)". Reflecting a recommendation of the 7'“ National Curriculum. “level-
sensitive English education”. all textbooks include sections for students who did not
fulfill each lesson’s objectives such as “Self-study (Hankook Kyoyook Media)“ and
“Additional Practice (Kumsung)”. They also include more challenging sections like
“Level-up (Hankook Kyoyook Media)” and “Deeper Study (Kumsung).” The length of
textbooks varies according to school level and the publishing companies. The average
length of the textbooks is 136. 276. and 318 pages for elementary. middle. and high

school textbooks respectively.

 

‘0 Middle school textbooks co-authored by native speakers of English:
Doosan. Chunjae. Didimdol. Kyohak. Sachan
High school textbooks co-authored by native speakers of English:
Kumsung. Nunglyul. Bubmun. Sisa. Kyohak. Chunjae

15

Various additional teaching materials accompany English textbooks. CD Roms and
picture cards for both students and teachers are provided for elementary school English
textbooks. Middle and high school English textbooks come packaged with cassette tapes.
This study will focus on the textbooks themselves excluding complementary materials

accompanying textbooks.

2.3.3. English writing education in Korea

In Korea. English writing is introduced in the 5‘“ grade. Until the 10'h grade. writing
is presented as a part of one lesson which usually comes after the listening. speaking. and
reading sections. In 11’“ and 12‘“ grades. students can choose English composition as an
elective and study it for one year. Unlike other electives. such as English I and English
2' '. only one textbook'2 is used for English composition.

In the introduction to the textbooks. many authors noted the importance of
integrating the four language skills. For example, authors of Kumsung High School
English claimed their textbook is developed to enhance students’ ability to communicate
and exchange information via both written and spoken language by maximizing
opportunities for students to listen. speak. read. and write in English. They also noted
their writing section is aimed at developing students‘ ability to write in paragraph length
English. Authors of Jihak Middle School English also noted the need for students to learn
reading and writing as an integral part of language ability. Doosan Middle School English
textbook developers stressed the importance of integrated development of the four

language skills as well.

 

” Eight publishing companies publish English I and English 2:

Kumsung. Jungang. Hankook Kyoyook Media. Sisa. Bupmoonsa. Jihak. Doosan. and Daehan.
12 .‘ . . . . . .
()nly one publishing company. Nunglyool. publishes English composition.

16

Their assertions about the integrated development of the four language skills have
been countered by Kim and 100 (2001) and Kwak and Sung (2001) in which the lack of
writing education in actual classroom situations is reported. Oh (2004) claimed the
limited English class time per week. large class size. and lack of students’ interest and
motivation are causing problems in English writing education in Korea. Studying in an
El‘l. setting. Korean students may have fewer reasons to write and need to write fewer
types of writing in English unless they want to work in international business or study
abroad. The limited amount of writing sections of the textbooks. and hours assigned in
teaching writing can be counted as other obstacles. The format of the College Scholastic
Ability Test. which includes 55 five-option multiple choice items testing mainly students‘
reading and listening skills. may drive many students away from taking English
( '(mtposition as an elective.

Until teachers and students are asked about their difficulties in learning or teaching
English writing. and actual classrooms in which writing education is implemented are
observed. the points mentioned in this chapter may remain as mere assumptions. For this
reason. this study will look into English writing education in Korea by analyzing writing
activities in textbooks. surveying teachers and students on writing education and their

textbooks. observing classrooms. and interviewing teachers.

3. Research methodology
3.]. Surveys
Surveys have been used as a major data collection tool in many studies due to their

convenience of implementation and ease of collecting large data sets. Scott et al. (1995)

17

used an attitude survey to understand teachers’ conceptions of writing. and Caudery
(1995) used surveys through the lntemet to check teachers’ perceptions of a “process
approach.” Pennington et al. (1997) also surveyed teachers about their opinions about the
ideal and actual situation of writing education. In this study. student surveys were also
conducted to include students’ opinions about English writing education. which have
generally been neglected in previous research. Considering the National Curriculum.
which emphasizes oral English skills in elementary school”, and the relatively limited
cognitive capacity of elementary school students. this survey focused on middle and high

school students and teachers.

3.] .1 . Survey development

The purpose of this survey was to understand the views of English teachers and
students on writing education and the writing activities of textbooks in Korea. Two
versions of the surveys were created, one for students and one for teachers. (See
Appendices A and B) At the beginning of both the student and teacher surveys.
respondents were informed of the purpose of the study and asked to write their age.
school level (teaching/leaming). and gender.

The survey used for both students and teachers consisted of two sections: English
writing instruction and textbook evaluation. The student survey contained 10 and 2
questions in the two sections; for a total of 12 questions. The teacher survey also
contained two sections and included 18 and 4 items in each section. The survey format

included open-ended questions. Likert-type ranking scales. and yes/no questions. It was

 

13 . . u . . . . 7 , . .
l he National Curriculum says. Elementary school English aims at developing students ability to
understand and use basic English used in everyday conversation focusing on spoken English." (p.28)

18

designed to take no longer than 30 minutes to finish. The information collected in the

surveys was treated as frequency data. and the results are reported by percentage.

3.1.2. Data collection

In September 2003, 60 teacher surveys were sent to the alumni club of Pusan
National University’s English Education Department; Fifty-four teachers returned their
surveys making a 90 percent return rate. Of these teachers. 16 of them were middle
school teachers (7 males and 9 females) and 38 of them were high school teachers (19
males and 19 females). With regard to their teaching experience. it varied greatly. The
average teaching experience was 12.3 years for high school teachers. ranging from one to
thirty two years. and that of middle school teachers was nine years. ranging from one to
twenty- live years.

For the students’ surveys. two teachers (one middle and one high school teacher)
who participated in the teacher survey also gave permission to survey their students. The
students’ survey was conducted in late October 2003. and 41 female first-year middle

school students and 39 male first-year high school students completed the questionnaire.

3.2 Textbook analysis
- .2.1 Textbook selection

The target of the textbook analysis of this study is the two Elementary school
English textbooks (grade 5 and 6) and the thirteen middle and high school English
textbooksl4 used by the 54 English teachers who participated in teachers’ survey. Table 1

summarizes the textbooks analyzed in this study.

 

H Nine Middle School English (grade 7-9) and four High School English (grade 10) textbooks are analyzed.

19

Table 1. List of textbooks analyzed in this study

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Publisher Title Author(s) Grade (13:1) 2.3:]
MOEl5 Elementary School English 5 5 16 136
MOE Elementary School English 6 6 16 136
Middle School English 1 7 12 262
, Middle School English 2 Sung Hae Lee 8 12 27?
JI-Hak 83
Middle School English 3 9 12 287
High School English Mang Sung Lee 10 12 319
Middle School English 1 7 12 256
Doo san Middle School English 2 Yong Woe Chang 8 12 264
Middle School English 3 9 12 296
Middle School English 1 7 12 254
Chunjae Middle School English 2 Byung Min Lee 8 12 263
Middle School English 3 9 12 302
Kumsung High School English Duk Gi Kim 10 12 311
Nunglyul High School English Chan Sung Lee 10 12 318
L KyblyiltiikKhiltdia High School English Hong 800 Lee 10 12 319

 

Typically. Korean English textbooks include specific sections for writing. such as
“Let’s Write" (Doosan), “Write” (Kumsung), and “Write It” (Nunglyool). Most of the
textbooks, however. introduce writing activities in other sections aiming at the integrated
development of the four language skills. Therefore. writing activities. both in writing

sections and in other sections of the textbooks. are the target of analysis in this study.

3.2.2 Writing activity coding
Writing activities in this study mean activities in which students need to encode any
unit of language in written format according to instructions given by textbooks; thus they

include both writing as written modality and composition. The writing activities that were

 

'5 MOE stands for Ministry of Education.

20

analyzed in this study met all of the following criteria: F irst. multiple choice questions
and simple matching activities were excluded. Second. activities which were not listed in
the writing activity sections and that did not clearly mention whether students need to
answer in written or oral language were excluded. Third. writing activities which were
listed in the appendix were excluded from the analysis. Lastly, if one activity consisted of
several mini-activities which were in the same format, it was counted as one activity.

There have been various attempts to classify writing activities. To name a few.
Rivers (1981) mentioned copying. reproduction. recombination. guided writing. and free
writing as main writing tasks. D. Brown (2001) classified writing according to the degree
of communication: imitative, intensive, self-writing. display-writing. and real writing.
Olshtain (2002) classified writing activities as initial writing skills (letter/word
recognition and discrimination). production (spelling. punctuation. and capitalization) and
more communicative tasks (writing lists. messages. diary. and school assignments).

In this study. a more detailed classification was adopted to not only depict writing
activities in Korean English textbooks but also compare them with the guidelines given
by the 7"1 National C urriculum'b. In order to do that. each writing activities in the 15
Korean English textbooks were coded on the basis of the following subcategories: length
of writing. topics. task types. openness of answers, and use of group work.

The first classification criterion to be evaluated is the length of writing which
students are asked to produce. The seventh National Curriculum emphasizes students’
ability to write paragraphs expressing their ideas on general topics and advises avoiding
sentence level translation. Length was included as a variable under the assumption that

shorter written products are often requested in grammar drills or vocabulary practices not

 

'6 See Appendix C for objectives of English writing education listed in the National Curriculum.

21

in actual composition. The length of writing in this study was further divided into

letter/letters. words/phrases. sentence. and sentences or longer as explained below.

1. Letter/letters
Ex) Please fill in the blank with the appropriate letters and complete a word.
2 It was a very hot day. and after lunch everyone was very sl_ _ py.
Middle School English 2 (p.18) Doosan
2. Words/phrases
Ex) Please complete the following sentence by writing either one. it. or those.
:> I needed a computer. so my parents bought for me.

High School English (p.53) Kumsung
3. Sentence:

Ex) Please combine two sentences into one.
The man went back to Tim’s house. He left his umbrella in Tim’s house.

:> Middle School English 3(p.65) Doosan

4. Sentences or longer (including paragraphs):
Ex) Please write about your day.

2 High School English (p.73) Hankuk Kyoyuk Media

Second. the topics of writing activities were compared with those listed in the seventh

National Curriculum. It suggests the following 17 topics'7 to be included in the textbooks.

. personal life

. family and living

. school and friends

. neighbors and social relationship

. habit. health. and sports

. hobbies. leisure. and travel

. animals. plants. seasons. and weather

. foreign culture

. Korean culture

10. morality. rules. public good

1 1. environment. volunteering. community

12. politics. economics. history. geography. science. telecommunication. space. ocean.
and expedition

13. art and literature

14. diligence. frugality. careers

\OOOQOSMAWN—

 

17 , - . .
These are translated from Korean Into English by the researcher.

22

15. equality(man/woman). human right. and democracy
16. topics to raise rational thought and sound mind
17. topics to develop patriotism and national security
(Curriculum forforeign language. 1997:50)

Considering the potential effect of interesting topics on students’ motivation in learning
English writing skills. the result of this analysis was compared with the students’ surveys.
in which students evaluated writing activities in their textbooks.

Third. types of writing activities were described. What students are asked to write
were classified into the following categories: correction. translation. combining.
answering comprehension questions, copying (simple/complex). conversion. completion
(word/tableIX/sentence/dialogue/paragraph). and extended writing (guided/free'9 writing).

In this coding scheme. correction is an activity in which students correct grammar.
spelling. and punctuation errors. Translation includes both English-Korean and Korean-
English translation. and combining means sentence-combining activity where students are
given two sentences and asked to combine them into one. Answering comprehension
questions are post-listening or post-reading activities in which students answer questions
about the content of the reading or listening. Conversion is a writing activity where
students change sentences into another forms according to a certain grammar rule.

Copying activities were divided into two types: simple copying and complex
copying. Unlike simple copying. complex copying activities require students to select the
best answer among the given choices and then copy it. What makes it different from

sentence completion is that the latter requires students to change the form of the given

 

18 It includes chart. graph. and memo completion.

19 In this study. free writing is an activity where nothing or only one topic is provided to help students: it is
slightly different from a “freewriting activity" in which students explore their ideas by writing whatever
they want without worrying about grammar or structure.

23

choices and then write them down to complete a sentence. In that sense. sentence
completion is more challenging than complex copying.

Extended writing, which includes both guided writing and free writing. is a
category where students produce more than sentence-level writing. If one or more of the
following is provided. the activity is grouped as guided writing: title. sentence(s).
expressions. words. information to include. models. styles. and outlines. Free writing is an
activity where nothing or only one topic is provided to help students. Examples of these

writing activities are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Writing activity types and examples

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. Activity types Example and source
Please read the following sentences and correct them.
1 Correction What happened for America?
:> Middle School English 2 (p.209) Doosan
Choose one old Korean saying and translate it into
2 Translation English.
:> High School English (p.102) Nunglyul
Please combine the following two sentences into one.
3 Sentence combining She is beautiful. Do you think so?
:> Middle School English I (p.196) Chunjae
Answering Read the following article and write the answer.
4 comprehension Who wrote this letter?
questions :> Middle School English l(p.224) Jihaksa
Please change the sentence according to the instruction.
5 Conversion Sujin has finished the riddle book. (Change it to a question.)
:> Middle School English 2 (p.84) Didimdol
a sim le Copy the following cursive letters.
' p -_—> Middle School English llp. 19) Jihaksa
' Fill in the blanks with the words in the box.
6 COP) 1 want to become a __ English teacher. To improve my
b. complex . l memorize new words every day...
leonverse. dialogue. information. successful. fluent... I
High School English (p.26) Kumsung

 

 

 

24

Table 2 (cont’d)

 

7 Completion

Add one letter and make a complete word.

 

 

 

a. word :> Concer__ Middle School English 2((p.80) Doosan
Look at your friends and complete the following table.
b table Happy Tired Nice Unhappy

 

 

 

 

 

 

Middle School English 2(p.25) Doosan

 

c. sentence

Please complete the sentence using the given words.
(as if/everything/he/see) :> The man talked
High School English (p.69) .li Hak

 

 

d. dialogue

Complete the dialogue and practice with your partner.
A: How's Sumi doing? B:
A: Say hello to her. B:

Middle School English 2(p. l 7) Doosan

 

 

 

e. paragraph

Fill in the blank and complete the summary.

:> The name Philip comes from the Bible. It means _.

The name was very popular in Europe a long time ago...
High School English (p.47) Kumsung

 

Extended
writing

 

 

Read the below example and write your own passage
introducing Korea using the given expressions.

 

 

a. guided Hint)The Land of Moming Calm/Its green-colored mountains
are beautiful across the country/Its people are warm-hearted.
:> Middle School English 3( p.202) .1 ihak
b. free Write an entry In your diary.

 

:> Middle School English 2(p.75) Doosan

 

Fourth. the openness of answers was also considered. Open-ended questions have a

variety of possible answers, thus they make students discover their ideas while answering

the questions. C lose-ended questions. however. have only a limited number of possible

answers confined to certain content or grammatical forms. Since the latter mainly focus

on students’ linguistic knowledge. they should be distinguished from the open-ended

activities.

Open-ended writing
Ext) Complete the following table with your own daily schedule and talk about it.

:>

High School English (p.28) Kumsung

25

 

Close-ended writing
Ex) Please rewrite the sentence as in the example.
Why is this happening to me? -—> I don’t know why this is happening to me.
:> Why is he so down? —> I don’t know ...........
Middle School English 3 (p.82) Chonjae

Fifth. whether the writing activities require students to work individually or
cooperatively was recorded. The seventh National Curriculum advises adopting various
group or pair work in the classrooms. It says. “Together with individual work. lots of
small group work should be used to help students to experience power of collaborative
work.(p. 22)” It also adds. “Use various individual. pair. group. whole class activities to
make student-centered classrooms (p. 47).” This study examined how these guidelines are

reflected in the textbooks.

Individual work:
Ex) Write the appropriate answer to each question.
What’s your favorite subject? : Middle School English I (p.227) Jungang

Pair work
Ex) Write about roles of male and female in this society and compare it with your partner.

:;> Middle School English 3 (p.122) Doosan

(iroup work

Ex) Work in groups to make a sign which will be posted on the school cafeteria.

=> High School English (p.61) Kumsung
Textbook analysis using the above-mentioned live criteria will not only show the

types of writing activities in the textbooks but also reveal the underlying writing

pedagogy that the textbooks are based on. Whether the textbooks emphasize linguistic

accuracy of the final product or the writing process will be checked by adopting the

categories like open-endedness and grouping.

26

In addition. unlike previous attempts to analyze writing activities in textbooks.
several additional steps were taken to guarantee the objectiveness of the study. First.
coding was invented to establish reliable categorization across textbooks. Second. by
having a second coder code two randomly selected textbooks independently and reporting

the reliability” of coding. objectivity was approximated.

3.3. Classroom observations

Classroom observation has been often used in writing research. Cumming (1992).
Riazi and Aetal (1996). and Weissberg (1994) observed writing classrooms to understand
the practice of teaching writing. In this study. six classrooms were observed to provide a
better picture of English writing education in Korea by providing information about real

classroom situations and implementations of writing activities across school levels.

3.3.]. Participants

As a method of triangulation of the teacher and student survey of this study and to
see actual classroom situations. six English classes (one elementary. three middle. and
two high schools) were observed. Four middle and high school teachers who volunteered
their classrooms were graduates of Pusan National University’s English Education
Department. One female teacher volunteered to be observed after watching another
teacher in her school participate in this study. In order to recruit elementary school
teachers. an email recruiting participants was sent to the English teachers club. “Busan

Elementary English Teachers.” One female elementary school teacher agreed to open her

 

2" lnterrater agreement was 91.04% and 89.94% for the middle school textbook and high school textbook
respectively.

27

classes. The basic information about the teachers including their gender. teaching

experience. school level they teach. and the textbooks they use is summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Participants in classroom observations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teacher Gender School level Teaching experience2| Textbooks
A Female Elementary 5’h 5 years MOE
B Female Middle 2nd 3 years Jihak
C Male Middle lSt 5 years Jihak
D Male Middle 2"d 2 years Doosan
li Female High 1" 16 years Nunglyool
L F Male High lSt 7 years Nunglyool

 

 

3.3.2. Procedure

The date and time of each classroom observation was determined by the teachers.

The schedule of the observations is presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Class observation schedule

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teacher School level lSt Observation 2"d Observation 2"d observation Time
A Elementary 5'h Dec 8. 2003 Dec 11.2003 101404 1:20
B Middle 2"d Dec 16. 2003 Dec 17.2003 '03“ I :I0
C Middle 1" Dec 6. 2003 Dec 8. 2003 2:33-3:40
D Middle 2"d Dec 17. 2003 Dec 18.2003 970-955
E High 1" Dec 23. 2003 Dec 24. 2003 1330-I :40
r High 1" Dec l5. 2003 Dec 16. 2003 9:2:5- I 0: I 0

.-

 

 

21 . . . . .
None ot these teachers has experienced in ESL programs or professional development programs
overseas.

28

 

 

Normally. in Korea. students stay in their homeroom and teachers move from class
to class with the exception of music. PE. or art classes. in which students need to go to the
specific classrooms or the playground. All of the six classrooms observed were equipped
with a blackboard. a TV. a computer. and a VCR. Two middle school teachers carried a
cassette player to the classrooms.

Before the actual observation started. the teachers were informed of the general
purpose of the study. analysis of textbook activities. but were not told that the main focus
was on writing. To avoid possible teachers’ resistance against a possible evaluation of
their teaching. they were told that the focus of the observation was on the textbook. not on
their teaching or students’ learning. The observer’s effect on both teaching and learning
was reduced by observing two class sessions of the same class and using the data from
only the second observation in this study.

In this study. non-participant observations were conducted where the researcher sat
quietly in the comer of the back of the classroom trying to be as unobtrusive as possible.
Some of the students. especially the high school students. showed interest in the presence
of the researcher at the first observation. but their interest faded by the second observation.

During the observations. detailed field notes on the classroom interactions and the
use of textbooks were taken. The teachers’ dependence on their textbooks was checked by
looking at whether the teachers added or skipped any activities in their textbooks. The
classroom interactions in teaching and learning writing activities were also noted. The use
of group work in teaching writing activities was examined by counting the number of

individual. pair. or group activities.

29

The role of teachers in writing activities was considered in the observations and has
been studied by various researchers. Tribble (1996) noted that teachers in writing classes
should act as an audience. assistant. evaluator. and examiner. Belle (1997) argued that
writing teachers need to not only provide learners opportunities to write but also help
them to find their own voices. Campbell (1998) emphasized the role of teachers.
vigilantly observing individual students and addressing their various writing processes.
The role of Korean English teachers in teaching English writing was expected to be
revealed through the classroom observations. In addition. the information collected in

observations was used as a basis for the interviews with teachers.

3.4 Teacher interviews

Interviews have been adopted in many studies as a main research tool to collect
data from writing teachers. Cumming (2003) interviewed teachers to gather information
about their practice of teaching writing, and Shi and Cumming (1995) used teacher
interviews to show different ideas of teachers about L2 writing instruction. In this study.
interviews were adopted not only to provide more information about writing education in
Korea. but also to alleviate teachers’ resistance to the researcher’s observation of their
classes. The resistance from teachers due to the possibility of implicit and explicit
evaluation of teaching noted by Polio (1996) is expected to be lowered by providing

teachers an opportunity to explain why they did certain things in class.

3.4.1. Participants
The participants of the teacher interviews were the six teachers who volunteered

their classes for classroom observation and two additional academic high school teachers

30

who were originally asked to open their classrooms. Unlike the original plan. the
observations of these two teachers were not conducted because they had already finished
their textbooks. and they were doing reading activities using other books. In order to
grasp a more complete picture of English writing education. interviews with these two
academic high school teachers were still included in this study. Interviews with the six
teachers were conducted right after the second observation of their classes. The date and

time of the two additional interviews are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5. Two academic high school teacher interviews

 

 

 

Teacher Gender Experience Level Date Time
G Male 5 years High 15’ Dec 16. 2003 7:00-8:10 pm
11 Male 10 years High 1St Dec 23. 2003 10:00-10:55 am

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.4.2. Procedure

The interviews were conducted in the teachers’ lounge where only the teacher and
the researcher were present. and each interview took about one hour. In order to make the
teachers feel comfortable talking with the researcher. each interview began with general
questions on their daily schedule and their students; then it moved on to the more specific
questions about English writing instruction and textbook evaluation. Questions regarding
whether the observed class was unusual or not were asked to make sure that the class
observed was typical. Each interview was conducted as a guided one following the topics

presented below.

31

Teacher Interview topics
A. Personal information (teaching experience)
B. Observed class period
Difference from regular class periods
Reasons for doing certain activities in certain ways
C. Views on general English education in Korea
Changes in English education after the implementation of the 7’h national curriculum
Problems in English education in Korea (possible solutions)
Difficulties they have in teaching English
Students’ motivation and views of learning English
D. Writing education
Amount of class time
Assessment
Activities (Open-ended/close—ended writing activities)
Reasonable length of writing
Difficulties in teaching writing
Students’ motivation in learning English writing
Problems of English writing activities in textbooks
E. Textbook use and evaluation
Use of textbooks
Problems and merits of textbooks
Suggestions for textbook improvement

Other questions were added to elicit more information from teachers when appropriate.

Interviews were audio recorded with teacher consent. Each interview was conducted and

transcribed in Korean then translated into English for reporting.

4. Analysis and results
4.1 Surveys
4.1.1. Teacher survey

The first part of the teachers’ survey focused on the teachers’ perception of the four
language skills and practice of English writing education in classroom situations.
Teachers ranked the four language skills according to their relative importance. amount of

class time allotted. and confidence in teaching in questions 1 through 3. According to the

32

surveys. reading was viewed not only as the most important language skill. but also the

one on which the most class time is spent. Teachers also said they are most confident in

teaching reading to students. The results are summarized in Tables 622 and 7.

Table 6. Teachers’ survey: language skills ranked highest

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most important % Most time % Most confident %
Mid High Mid High Mid High
Listening 25 31.58 18.75 2.63 6.25 0
Speaking 37.5 21.05 25 0 6.25 2.63
”laddii—ig 25 39.48 56.25 97.37 87.5 97.37
Writing 12.5 7.89 0 0 0 O
i- Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

 

Note: "Mid” stands for middle school and “High” stands for high school

Table 7. Teachers’ survey: language skills ranked lowest

 

Least important %

Least time %

fl‘l
Least confident %

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mid High Mid High Mid High

Listening 18.75 5.26 18.75 0 25 7.89

Speaking 6.25 10.53 0 36.84 12.5 26.32
Reading 12.5 5.26 12.5 0 6.25 0

Writing 62.5 78.95 68.75 63.16 56.25 65.79

:7de 1 00 100 100 1 00 100 1 00

 

 

 

Although there was some variation in the rankings. in general. teachers evaluated

reading most positively and writing most negatively on all three factors. Nine of the

teachers who rande reading as the most important skill. counted the format of the

College Scholastic Ability Test and its usefulness in an EFL setting as the reasons why

reading is so important. The respondents justified their ranking. reporting that “students

 

2 , .
2 fables 6 to 27 report percentages rather than raw numbers.

33

need to study reading to get into a good university” and “students need to be able to read
English infomiation provided on the Internet”. The results for questions I through 3 are

illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Teachers’ perceptions of the four language skills

 

I importance
8 class time
CI confidence

 

 

 

 

listening speaking rearing writing

The tendency to favor reading over other language skills is obvious from Figure I.
To examine whether experiences differed by grade level. post hoc analyses were
conducted. separating middle school and high school teachers’ and students’ responses.
Indeed. teachers’ perceptions of the four language skills did differ when the data were

separated for middle school versus high school teachers.

Figure 2. Middle vs. high school teachers’ perceptions of the four language skills

Middle school teachers High school teachers

 

I importance
class time
CI confidence

 

 

 

   

L S R W

Note: L — listening. S —- speaking. R - reading. W — writing

34

As illustrated in Figure 2. the emphasis on reading is most pronounced in high school
teachers’ reports.

Question 4 asked teachers about the reason why their students learn English writing
skills. The choice “in order to communicate with other people” was the most popular
answer. followed by “in order to learn how to think critically.” Table 8 presents the results

ofthis question.

Table 8. Teachers’ survey: students’ reason to learn English writing

 

 

 

 

Reasons23 Good grade Good univ. Communication Think critically Other

b Middle 31.25% 6.25% 43.75% 18.75% 0
i.” High 10.52% 26.32% 31.58% 28.95% 2.63%
Total 16.67% 20.37% 35.17% 25.92% 2.63%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unlike middle school teachers. many high school teachers (26.32%) chose “in order to
enter a good university” as the primary reason for students to learn English writing. This
might be a natural response. since they teach students who are often concerned about
getting into a good university. However. the answer seems odd considering the format of
the College Scholastic Ability Test. which does not test students’ writing ability directly.
Questions 5 through 15 were designed to understand teachers’ practices in teaching
writing by asking whether each of the following plays a major part in their classrooms.
These questions were expected to reveal not only how they actually teach English writing

but also their philosophies in teaching writing. The results are summarized in Table 9.

 

23 Good grade: to get a good grade on school exams
Good univ.: to get into a good university
Communication: to communicate with others
Think critically: to develop ability to think critically

35

Table 9. Teachers’ survey: practice ofteaching English writing

*—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

School Level 32:33:; High 0Sochool Total %
Answer Yes No Yes No Yes No
5.Discusslng characteristics OfWL24 375 62.5 60.53 39.47 53.7 46.3
6. Writing more than a paragraph 18.75 81.25 31.58 68.42 27.78 72.22
7. Teaching writing process 18.75 81.25 13.16 86.84 14.81 85.19
8. Writing multiple drafts 12.5 87.5 10.53 89.47 11.11 88.89
9. Revising drains25 56.25 43.75 23.68 76.32 33.33 66.67
10. Providing real audience 56.25 43.75 15.79 84.21 27.78 72.22
1 1. Writing assignment 75 25 55.26 44.74 61.11 38.89
fiilgfilgpeer review 6.25 93.75 7.89 92.11 7.41 92.59
13. Adding other writing activities 25 75 13.16 86.84 16.67 83.33
M14. Writing test 50 50 13.16 86.84 24.07 75.93
15. Providing feedback 43.75 56.25 15.79 84.21 24.07 75.93

 

 

As seen in the above table. most teachers neither teach the writing process to their
students nor ask them to write multiple drafts. Few. four out of fifty-four (7.41%).
reported that they have used peer review in the classroom and nine (16.67%) answered
that they have adopted other writing activities not listed in the textbooks.

For question 11. 61% of teachers responded that they do provide writing
assignments. “Answering writing exercises in the textbooks” was the most common
assignment for middle school students (41.67%) and writing an English diary (33.33%)
was the second most popular answer. Eleven high school teachers answered that they
made students write a short essay (52.38%). Writing a letter (19.05%). a summary

(14.29%). a future plan (9.52%). and a self-introduction (4.76%) were reported as other

24 V ‘ U
W L stands for written language.

25 r. . . . . . . , . .
llle answers 1n this question are mconsrstent in that. only l 1.1 1% 01 teachers answered they requlre
students to write multiple drafts.

36

assignments given to high school students.
Question 16 asked teachers to choose the most effective class organization in

teaching students English writing.

Table 10. Teachers’ survey: the most effective class organization

 

 

 

 

 

Group work Pair work Individual work Whole class Total

LMiddle school 31.25% 25% 31.25% 12.5% 100%
High school 36.84% 15.79% 42.1 1% 5.26% 100%
Total 35.18% 18.52% 38.89% 7.41% 100%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As illustrated in Table 10. 29 teachers chose group or pair work (53.7%) and 21 teachers
(38.89%) said individual activities work most effectively in classroom situation.

For question 17. which asked teachers about the obstacles in teaching English
writing. 15 teachers (25.43%) chose “lack of time”. The second most popular answer was
“lack of students’ interest” (16.95%). Interestingly. all four of the high school teachers
interviewed cited the format of the College Scholastic Ability Test as the most important
obstacle in English writing education. yet only 16% of the survey respondents answered
that way. This may be because most respondents chose to write only one obstacle and
some of the obstacles they wrote are not independent. For example. since only the reading
and listening abilities of the students are tested on the College Scholastic Ability Test.

students. especially high school students. might not be interested in learning English

writing.

37

Table 1 1. Teachers’ survey: obstacles in teaching writing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obstacles Middle School High School Total
Lack oftime 18.75% 27.9% 25.43%
Lack of students’ interest 6.25% 20.93% 16.95%
ii—Large class size 25% 6.98% 1 1.86%
Format of College Scholastic Ability Test 0 16.28% 1 1.86%
Lack of students’ ability 18.75% 6.98% 10.17%
Lack of teachers’ ability 12.5% 9.3% 10.17%
Textbook problems 6.25% 6.98% 6.78%
Different linguistic system 12.5% 0 3.39%
Difficulty in evaluation 0 4.65% 3.39%
Total 1 00% 1 00%26 100%

 

 

 

 

 

 

For an additional response. six teachers mentioned “lack of teachers’ ability” as an
obstacle in writing education. This can be understood by looking at question 3. in which
34 teachers (63%) reported writing is their least confident teaching skill.

Question 18 asked teachers about their knowledge of a “process-oriented approach”
and a “product-oriented approach” in teaching writing. Forty-three teachers (79.63%)
answered that they are not familiar with these terms. Among the 11 teachers who
answered that they know these concepts. eight reported that the writing sections of their
textbooks are based on a “product-oriented approach” and three answered that they reflect
a “process-oriented approach”.

The second section of the teachers’ survey was focused on evaluation of writing
activities in their textbooks. To the question which asked whether they participate in
textbook selection. 38 teachers (70.37%) answered that they do (9 middle school. 29 high
school teachers) and 16 teachers (29.63%) said they do not (7 middle. 9 high school

teachers). They also reported that when they select textbooks. they consider level

 

2f, . .
Three teachers listed two obstacles and one gave three.

38

appropriateness (23.68%). students’ interest (21.05%). content and topics (15.79%).
reading (13.16%). speaking (5.26%). balanced focus on the four skills (10.53%). teaching
ease (7.89%). and practical skills (2.63%).

In question 2 of the second section. teachers evaluated writing activities in their
textbooks in terms of level appropriateness. interesting activities. activity diversity. topics.
students’ needs. and objectives of the National Curriculum using a Likert-type ranking

scale. The results are summarized in Table 12.

Table 1227. Teachers’ survey: evaluation of writing activities in their textbooks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Middle school % High school % Total %
A N D so A N D so A N D so
Level 50 18.75 31.25 0 42.11 28.95 21.05 7.89 44.44 25.93 24.07 5.56
Interest 43.75 31.25 25 0 15.79 23.68 44.74 15.79 24.07 25.93 38.89 11.11
”Diversity 31.25 31.25 37.5 0 31.58 13.16 39.47 15.79 31.48 18.52 38.89 11.11
Topic 37.50 31.25 31.25 0 18.42 15.79 52.63 13.16 24.07 20.37 46.30 9.26
Need 18.75 31.25 43.75 6.25 23.68 21.05 44.74 10.53 22.22 24.08 44.44 9.26
LObj—e—c’tives 18.75 56.25 25 0 31.58 26.31 31.58 10.53 27.78 35.18 29.63 7.41
”— Total 33.33 33.33 32.29 1.04 27.19 21.49 39.04 12.28 29.01 25 37.04 8.95

 

 

Note: SA: strongly agree. A: agree. N: neither agree nor disagree. D: disagree. SD: strongly disagree

As shown in Table 12. teachers had problems with boring writing topics (55.56%) and
uninteresting activities (50%) in their textbooks. Fifty-four percent of the teachers
answered writing activities in the textbooks could not fulfill students’ needs to learn
English writing.

Figure 3 illustrates different patterns of middle versus high school teachers’

evaluation of writing activities in their textbooks. “Positive” evaluation in these charts

 

Iliere was no SA response in the teachers survey; thus Table 12 does not include SA column.

39

includes “Strongly Agree” and “Agree” responses from the survey; “Negative” evaluation

includes “Strongly Disagree” and “Disagree”; “Undecided” represents neutral responses.

Figure 3. Teachers’ survey: evaluation of writing activities

 

 

     
   

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

Middle school teachers High school teachers
-/"'1“
\\ /,,2 “x.--
/ \ \.
' \ / \..
\ Un- \
’ Negative Positive
33.33% 33.33% .
Negahve
51.32%
Positive
\ Undecided \ 27.19%
\ 33.33% '
/ /
\\.‘_ /// ’//-

 

 

As shown in Figure 3. in general. high school teachers evaluated textbooks more
negatively than their middle school counterparts. While more than 50 percent of high
school teachers evaluated writing activities in their textbooks negatively. only 33% of
middle school teachers evaluated theirs the same way.

In order to see different patterns of evaluation according to the different textbooks.

the survey results were reformulated according to textbook (three middle and four high

school textbooks) in Table 13.

3536 bwcobm ”Om .oocmmfln no .3386 .5: poems 856: ”Z .98? H< dogma bm—Stm H<m ”202

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_: 3m 3m E o of dam mom on o 4.2 _.:. a: Em c on at. mom 8 o .2:
_: _: mm 3.4 o be. mm am S: o 3 dd. 3H 6mm 0 o 3H we. 8 o 8286.30
2. 9mm _.: mam o be. 6mm 62 52 o 3 on 3. wow. o 52 S. cm 5.2 o 882
_: 63 NH _: o of 8.8 a 52 o 02 4.9. 3.. 68 o o 98 5.2 S. o oafi
_: _: NR 9?. o o 3w o S: o 2; mom a: seam o S. 8 we. Z: c 5235
mum 33. NR. _: o no. we. a E. o of ad. E. 68 o o new of o o sees
o mam Sun mum o 2.: o 52 Se o 2: 8 one. Ni. o o 3... S. oo o 32.5
on. o z < <m mm o z < <m am a z < <m am a z < <m
s. v. 3: as 2 :2: e... z :9: e... a :9: e828

 

 

 

 

 

 

388on 305% LEE .5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o :4 3m 2: o 2. EN 2: mm o o SN 2. 6...... o .38
o n? oo 32 o o 9. S. on o c o 8 cm 0 82830
o Se o a? o om cm 8 o o o 9. S. cm o 8oz
o 2m mm.“ mm o o 3 cm oe o o cm 2. 9. o oafi
c Se 3.... o o c on S. 9. o o 8 e. S. o 3225
o of cm on o o om on 8 o o 2. cm 9. o 83::
c on o E... o 9 cm 2. ca o o 9. cm 9. o as:
am a z < <m am a z a. <m am a z < <m
.1232 3.062322 . 322222 . 5.26.228

 

 

3005on 32% 22:2 .m

9.009on :Eotfi 23c :o_§:m>o racism ..flozomfl. .2 28:.

41

Except textbook 1. there were almost an equal number of middle school teachers who
evaluated their textbook positively and negatively. In textbook .1. teachers expressed their
dissatisfaction about the diversity of writing activities in their textbook. In the high school
case. a more obvious pattern was found. Across the textbooks. all of them were evaluated
negatively. The number of negative evaluations. “D” and “SD”. was almost twice that of
positive evaluations. “A” and “SA”. for all of the high school textbooks.

In response to the last question of this survey. “What do you think should be added
or changed in the textbooks’ writing sections?”. middle school teachers mentioned more
diverse and interesting activities (5). more guidance for students (2). different textbook
structure (2). and change of the format of the College Scholastic Ability Test (2).
Similarly. high school teachers said more interesting writing topics (5). easier writing
activities (2). more essays or reports (7). and an emphasis on the writing process (2) are

necessary to improve English writing activities in the textbooks.

4.1.2. Student survey

Forty-one female first-year middle school students and 39 male first-year academic
high school students participated in this survey. Questions 1 through 4 were designed to
see how students view writing and writing classes. Students ranked the four language
skills according to their relative importance. amount of class time. confidence. and
enjoyability. As shown in the following table. writing was viewed as the least important.
confident. and enjoyable skill by both middle and high school students. The results are

summarized in Tables 14 and 15.

42

Table 14. Students’ survey: language skills ranked highest

 

Most important % Most time % Most confident % Most fun
Mid High Mid High Mid High Mid High

Listening 24.39 30.77 60.98 5.13 41.46 12.82 41.46 17.95

Speaking 60.97 64.10 9.75 2.56 17.07 2.56 24.39 35.9

 

Category

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reading 7.32 5.13 21.95 64.1 34.15 79.49 26.83 41.02
Writing 7.32 0 7.32 28.21 7.32 5.13 7.32 5.13
g Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

 

Table 15. Students’ survey: language skills ranked lowest

 

Most important % Most time % Most confident % Most fun %
Mid High Mid High Mid High Mid High

Listening 19.51 7.69 12.2 28.21 14.64 17.95 19.51 12.82

Speaking 2.44 10.26 36.58 51.28 31.7 43.59 7.32 20.51

 

Category

 

 

 

 

 

Reading 14.64 20.51 21.95 0 12.2 2.56 12.2 2.57
Writing 63.41 61.54 29.27 20.51 41.46 35.9 60.97 64.1
Total 100 100 100 100 100 l 00 100 1 00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: “Mid” stands for middle school and “High” stands for high school

Compared to their teachers. students tend to have a more balanced view of the four
language skills in the context of relative importance. amount of class time, confidence.
and enjoyability. Speaking was evaluated as the most important language skill by both
middle school and high school students. 60.97% and 64.10% respectively. However.
unlike the middle school students. who ranked listening as their most confident (41.46%)
and enjoyable (41.46%) skill. high school students chose reading over listening (79.49%
for confidence and 41.02% for enjoyability).

The reported amount of class time for learning each skill at school was different in
middle school and high school students’ responses. Twenty-five middle school students
(60.98%) answered most of the class time is spent learning listening skills and 25 high

school students (64.10%) said reading is the main part of classroom instruction. Again.

43

the pattern of high school students’ answers can be understood by looking at their current
situation. where they need to develop their reading skills most urgently due to the format
of the College Scholastic Ability Test. The results of questions 1 through 4 are illustrated

in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Students’ perceptions of the four language skills

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100~
80’ I importance
60 class time
40‘ E] confidence
20l
0‘ 5 fun

 

 

 

 

 

listening speaking reading writing

When post hoc analysis was conducted. separating middle school and high school
students’ responses. a different pattern was found in their perceptions of the four language
skills. As in Figure 5. similar to their teachers. high school students emphasized reading
over other skills. Middle school students tended to equally favor the four language skills

but they still rank writing very low.

Figure 5. Middle vs. high school students’ perceptions of the four language skills

Middle school students

 

High school students
100
I importance 80
class time so
Uconfidence 40
8 fun 0

 

 

 

 

 

L S R W

Note: L w listening. S ~— speaking. R -_ reading. W — writing

44

The results of question 5, which asked students about their reasons to leam English
writing. are summarized in Table I6. Thirty students (37.5%) answered that they learn
writing to get into a good university/'28. 23 (28.75%) to communicate with others, and 18
(22.596) to get a good grade on school exams. One student chose “to get a better job in the

future” as a reason to learn English writing.

Table 16. Students’ survey: reasons to learn English writing

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good grade Good univ. Communication Think critically Other

Middle school 26.83% 26.83% 34.15% 9.75% 2.44%
"'“iligll school 17.95% 48.72% 23.08% 10.25% 0%
in Total 22.5% 37.5% 28.75% 10% 25%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question 6 asked students’ preference of individual vs. group or pair activities. As
illustrated in Table 17, group work (46.25%) was the most popular activity for both

middle (36.59%) and high school students (56.41%). Fifteen students (18.75%) answered

they prefer individual work and 16 (20%) favor whole class activity.

Table 17. Students’ survey: preference of individual versus group activities

 

 

 

 

 

 

In this survey. students reported that they did not learn about differences between

written and spoken English. Seventy-three out of 80 students (91.25%39) answered they

 

 

 

 

Group work Pair work Individual work Whole class Total
Tvlfliddle school 36.59% 26.83% 14.63% 21.95% 100%
~ High school 56.41% 2.56% 23.08% 17.95% 100%
I____7t_5131___L 46.25% 15% 18.75% 20% 100%

 

 

2" This data is surprising considering the format of the College Scholastic Ability Test. which does not
directly test students’ writing ability.
29 This is surprising in that, 53.7% ofthe teachers answered they discuss the characteristics of written
language in their classes.

45

 

have never learned the characteristics of both written and spoken language; thus they do

not know how these two language formats differ. Table 18 is a summary of this question.

Table 18. Students” survey: difference between written and spoken language

 

 

 

 

 

Answer Middle School High school Total
Yes 14.63% 2.56% 8.75%
No 85.37% 97.44% 91.25%
in Total 100% 100% 100%

 

 

 

 

 

Among the seven students who answered that they know the difference. three mentioned
“spoken language is more fun”. “Spoken language is easy to learn”. and “Spoken
language has a dialect but not written English” as the differences.

About the question that asked whether they have written longer than a paragraph in

English. 41 .25% of the students reported that they have.

Table 19. Students’ survey: experience of writing longer than a paragraph

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Answer Middle school High school Total
_ Yes 58.54% 23.08% 41.25%
No 41.46% 76.92% 58.75%
“Guilt-ital 100% 100% 100%

 

 

Unlike middle school students, about 77% of high school students answered that they
have not written a paragraph length English writing. This may be explained by the
common practice of high school English education which often skips the majority of
writing activities in textbooks, as reported in the classroom observations and teacher

interviews of this study.

46

1n question 9. students listed what they think is the most important thing in English
writing. “Correct grammar (35%)” was the most popular answer for middle school

students (39.02%) and “good expressions” was cited as the most important thing in good

English writing by high school students (35.90%). Around 28% of students selected

"well-constructed structures.”

Table 20. Students’ survey: most important thing in good writing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Middle School High School Total

T—i—Grammar 39.02% 30.77% 35%
Expression30 26.83% 35.90% 31 25%
Structure 29.27% 25.64% 27.5%
Content 4.88% 7.69% 6.2 5%
L Total 1 00% l 00% l 00%

 

 

As presented in Table 20. only five students (6.25%) considered the content of writing as

most important.
Table 21 illustrates difficulties that students reported to have when they write in

English.

Table 21. Students’ survey: difficulties in English writing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obstacles Middle School High School Total
Grammar and word order 48.78% 63.63% 57.29%
Shortage of vocabulary 39.02% 25.45% 31.25%
Topic unfamiliarity 9.76% 3.65% 6.25%
()thers 2.44% 7.27% 5.21%
Total 100% 1 00%" l 00%

30 This includes tone. vocabulary. and appropriateness of word choice.
31 14 high school students listed two difficulties and one student gave three.

 

47

As shown in Table 21. both middle and high school students cited “poor grammar
knowledge (57.29%)” and “lack of vocabulary (31.25%)” as the main factors causing
dilliculties in English writing. Two students mentioned “lack of practice opportunities”
and three other students counted “anxiety” as an inhibiting factor.

In the second section of the survey. students were asked to evaluate the writing
activities ill the textbooks they use according to the following four categories: level
appropriateness. interesting activities. diverse activities. and interesting topics. The results

are summarized in Table 22.

Table 22. Students’ survey: evaluation of writing activities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Middle school % High school 946 Total %
L—SA A N D so SA A N D so SA A N D so
level 7.3 39 44 9.8 0 10.3 66.7 23.1 0 3.8 25 55 16.3 0
Interest 2.4 17.7 53.7 12.2 14.6 0 12.8 43.6 41 2.6 1.3 15 48.8 26.3 8.8
-l_)iversii}' 0 34.2 41.5 19.5 4.9 0 12.8 48.7 23.1 15.4 0 23.8 45 21.3 10
Topic 0 19.5 53.7 17.1 9.8 2.6 20.5 43.6 33.3 0 1.3 20 48.8 25 5
7.3141 2.4 27.4 48.2 14.6 7.3 0.6 14.1 50.6 30.1 4.5 L6 20.9 49.4 22.2 5.9

 

 

Note: SA - strongly agree. A agree. N — neither agree nor disagree. D — disagree. SD — strongly disagree

Generally speaking. middle school students evaluated their textbooks more positively
than high school students. The pie charts in Figure 6 provide easy comparison of the
answers from middle school students and high school students. In particular. high school
students complained about the boring activities (43.59%) and lack of diverse writing

activities (38.46%) in their textbooks.

48

Figure 6. Students’ survey: evaluation of writing activities

 

 

--2 _ 2---.-- "ml

 

Middle School Students High school students
/\ /’0\
I" . . ‘ /
/ Posltlve / \
Undecided Negative \
29.870 Ul'l-
48.2% decided
-// 50.6%
‘ Negafive
\\ 22%

 

 

 

 

 

 

The last question of this survey asked students to provide suggestions to improve
their textbooks. Middle school students wanted more games or group work (15). writing
activities on current social issues (5). and real writing activities (4). High school students
hope to have more group work (8). interesting topics for teens (11). current social issues
(12). and real writing activities (4). Some wanted new teaching methods (2) and more
class time for writing (2).

111 sum. both teachers and students considered writing as the most difficult. the
least enjoyable. and the least confident language skill. Writing was also reported to be
dealt with least during the class. In terms of textbook evaluation, high school teachers and
students evaluated the writing activities in their textbooks more negatively than their
counterparts in middle school. Lack of diversity in activity types and uninteresting

writing topics were the two major complaints reported from the surveys.

49

4.2 Textbook analysis

Writing activities in the 15 textbooks were coded according to the five categories:
length of writing. topics. activity types. openness of answers. and use of group work. The
total number of writing activities was 2019, which includes 101 activities in the two
elementary school textbooks, 1216 from the nine middle school textbooks. and 702 in the
four high school textbooks. Middle school textbooks had a similar number of writing
activities. which went up slightly in the higher grade levels. The total number of writing
activities in three middle school textbooks from publisher D was 400 and that of
textbooks from publishers C and J were 422 and 394 respectively. Unlike the middle
school textbooks. which contain similar numbers of writing activities. the number of
writing activities in the high school textbooks varied according to the publishing
companies. Textbook J had almost twice as many activities as textbook M (223 vs. 118).

In order to check the reliability of coding. a second coder coded two randomly
selected textbooks individually: second year middle school textbook D and High school
textbook K. For the middle school textbook. there was 97.01% agreement for length of
writing. 78.36% for topics. 90.30% for activity type. 94.03% for openness. and 95.52%
for use of group work. In terms of the high school textbook. agreement was 89.57% for
length of writing. 80.37% for topic. 93.87% for activity type. 87.73% for openness. and
98.16% for use of group work. Since the agreement on every category could be
considered high. no further discussion or re-coding was conducted.

The first coding category was the length of writing that students are asked to
produce. “Words/phrases” was the most common across school levels (55.72%). followed

by “sentence” (23.92%). In middle school textbooks. the number of “sentence and

50

longer” activities went up as the grade level increased. However. the percentage of
“sentence and longer” activities was lower in high school textbooks (14.39%) than in
middle school textbooks (18.10%). Compared to other middle school textbooks.
textbooks from publisher D had 31 “letter/letters” length activities (7.75%) and textbooks
from publisher J had 103 “sentence and longer” length activities (26.14%). The results of

writing activity analysis on length of writing are summarized in Table 23.

51

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o2 w 2: OS 00. GE oo_ oo_ oo— oo_ CE oo_ oo. oo. oo. oo_ oo_ axe—30F
We o wd o 0 5o 0.0 wd hd c o o wd w._ 5; TN @550
mac— m.m_ 0.2 5.: Wm. ORN mm v.mm m.m_ vam— w 5mm 0.: v.__ _.o_ o newcoq
own _.mm Wm h.w_ Qw— cdm Know mflm m._m o.©m fem m4; m._m w.mm _.3.. o mocuucom
5mm. v4.0 meow clue mfic 7:. men. 0.3. 5mm 0m m.mo m._m wdm v.3.“ ..3. Wow mEOB
5m m._ 0.x. # To 5.0 ad 0; m 5.9 gm Wm N6. 0.9 0 _.mm .5301—
v. E z a .8... LE 2. : B 8 C B .8 5 . go i.
.23 s... 5.6;: s 232 _ e... .5555 5.623

 

 

2

 

 

 

h...

:c::.$.3 Ewcfi Emszcm 4:2:on .mm 2%;

52

Table 24 is a summary of the topics adopted in the textbooks. As shown below.
“family and living” and “school and friends” were the most popular topics across all
school levels. 26.55% of total writing activities were about family/living and
school/friends. Out of 2019 activities. 599 (29.66%) did not have topics specified.
Compared to other topics. equality/democracy (0.35%). rational thought (0.40%). and
patriotism/security (0.69%) were less popular in all of the textbooks. Only two high

school textbooks. N and M. included writing activities related with patriotism/security.

53

52:39.0 28 .288 .82? .cocooEzEEoooE. .oocofim .zcaflwoom $.82; .mo_Eo:ooo .8975 £535 2%: 2503044. ”802

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2.58

8.2.. Ed. 2?. menu 5.3 2:: on 2.: 3. a? 2.2 ammo 2.3 :43. 8.2 oooo 8oz

ooo o 2% film 0 o o o o o o o o o o o 526:5

25 o o :5 o 2.. o o m: 2: m; o o o o o 2255 .2223:

no o o .2 o ”no. o o o o o o o 2:. o o 39858}:an

E: o who 2: own oo.o :3 o o moo N; o o o o o .ooooo\.§_ooé...oo=ow_E

o _ .m o 8.: mom on... moo :3 o m o o 82. «mm o: o o 2222:2224

moo No 2..» no.3 2:. .43 .3 o m. moo So 2.: :24 sod o o as: 2583.

Sam 3 .o oo: 2:. z .m woo go o 2.... woo Nos 8.. who o: o o 82563558235

o3 mam o 2:. 4.3 3.». NE 82 o 3.8. o: om.» 23 2% o o 22:52

mom o 23 ooo Elm 2% .3. a; o o; o Moo ..3 one o o 23.8 523:

mod m3. 2% :2 on... mod ooo o m? 2: o: mm: o; 23 oo: o 2.28 owes”:

.3 2: o o o: oo.o ”3.. ohm Boo :12 9.2. mod 2:. oo.~ who 22 ooaaeosfioéé

23 3 .o o _ .o. 2:. ohm mom a: 2.; So 2:: one So was 23 5.: on: eoosmaiooo:

3.4 mm: :3 z: of a: _ owo 2o m o 3.: o mom 3: who moo meooeéoooaoo:

2: o o _o._ :5 mm: .3. o 2.. 2.: a... o 3m o: o o aeomoooowoz

mo: Moo: Moo 2.: So on: 42: oo: moo m2 3.: 51.. 2:: 5% 9.2. o 8:22.823

3.: o: 2.8 wow 2:. So woo. 2.2. no.” 2:; so: 2.: mo: 2.: 2.8 o: 33:22:55.

9.2 Go 3&1 a: an o 3% 22 mom who moo mo...” 2o 2: so... o e: 32er _
.2 2 . z 2 2 Q : 8 U C 8 8 5 So go .2

:2: 2.12.2 2 a... so: 2 o... @955: 22; W

 

 

3&2 wag?» ”£2.22: .4908on .3. 2%:

54

The third category was the activity types. Among the 14 activity types shown in
Table 2 in chapter 3.2.2. sentence completion and table completion were the most
frequently introduced writing activities. As presented in Table 25, 454 (22.5%) sentence
completion activities and 292 (14.46%) table completion activities were introduced in the
15 textbooks. 1n elementary school textbooks, simple copying (28.71%) was the most
frequent activity followed by sentence completion (18.81%). One noticeable difference
between middle and high school textbooks was found in the dialogue completion and free
writing activities. Dialogue completion was almost twice as common in the middle school
textbooks (11.35%) as in the high school textbooks (6.27%). Eighteen free writing
activities were included in the middle school textbooks from publishers D and C but only
one free writing activity was found in the all of the high school textbooks.

Differences in individual textbooks were also found. Middle school textbook D had
much less sentence combining. correction, conversion and answering comprehension
questions compared to the other two textbooks. Instead, it had 29 word completion
(7.25%). 74 dialogue completion (18.5%), and 49 guided writing activities (12.25%.
Middle school textbook C had 60 table completion (14.22%), 119 sentence completion
(28.2%). 27 correction (6.4%). and 45 answering comprehension questions (10.66%). In
high school textbooks. less difference among individual textbooks was found. Unlike .1
and N. where sentence completion was the most frequent activity (26.91% and 32.83%
respectively). textbook had table completion (33.89%) and textbook K had complex

copying (19.63%) as their most popular activities.

55

..mco..mozv :o.m:o;oa:.0u wEEBmco; 33E 3.5.53.2 .202

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oo. co. co. oo. co. co. oo. oo. co. co. oo. oo. co. co. co. oo. o... .59...
Sam Noam mwd .o.. 2... o Q... om... 3.... and NoM .0... 2mm 03‘ wow o... 22.5
coo. mm. co. mo.m mm.» om: 9.0 mmd no.» o. .2 ma. end 3... .m.m oo. o m:.:o.$m:<
.56 o mwd o c o o o 3N 32m 3... mogm mud n». o o 02... magi?
No. 8... mo... m . .m. 5.0 .md 8.2 owe. cob cw... mm.”V on... 3...: No... 3.2:. o 32:0 concexm
22m was c .2. w . .N. .md .méo and no» This. o 3.. mud o o o :o_m._o>:ou
o . é mwd 32m mo. m mod Now 2...». me 5.0. me... me...” o xv. mm. 00.. c 5.88.50
3.. Nm.m o 5.. 32m omh Q... o m and mud o o o o o wEEnEoU oucoEom
cod o o .o.. Sac 3.. o o 3.9 mud o mm. mud and o o :0.5382
3.0 Dim mo... mote. mm... mm... wwd v. .N. mg no...“ 0... 0w... xiv v. .0 mac. o 2.92982.
02. BM mo... mo.m 3.x max“. 8.... EN. v mmm now 36. m . .om md. ow... o osmofia
mam NEE mo. .. mmdm 3.0m 5...... zdm mod. $.vm ..mom 3.3 2.4.. mwdm and. 8.9. o 85.5%
3.3 0...: 3.3. mmmm .md. mmd. mod. 22m. o. 9...». who. .m.o 50 0.6.. wow and 2an
mo.m .od “.50 .o. med cod 3.6 o m 0 ad 3.x mm.m ow... o 0.6m v.53 :28.qu0
332 $6. KN. 3...... $6 .md Sin. 3.... mm.» on... 3d. mm.w 09m. 05m. cw... o... 5.9.80
m. o o o o o o 3... o o R... o o mod So. 2...? 225m .38
. .1. 2 z o. 2 2 2 .2 8 8 C 2.. 8 .o . go so .
m .3 o... 9o .
. .23.. :2: 22:5. m 2.55595 . moat 2...).84. m
. mug». 2...»..om .m.m>..n:.m 403.29.... .mm 923.

56

Table 26 illustrates the results of analysis of the open-endedness of writing
activities. Across all school levels. close-ended writing activities were the majority
(72.2%). 84.75%. 69.62%. and 73.48% of writing activities in the elementary. middle.
and high school textbooks were close-ended questions. Middle school textbooks from
publisher 1) included more open-ended activities (39%) than the other two companies
(25.83% and 25.63%). Among high school textbooks. textbook N had more open-ended
activities (37.88%) than textbook J. which had only 33 open-ended writing activities

(14.80940.

57

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

co. co. co. co. co. 1 cc. co. co. co. cc. co. co. co. co. co. co. 05.80...
0.2. how 0.8 ..mo wa mama ”do 92.0 S. .mmn 22.2. 2?. 22$ 0mm. 3w ..3 30.0
SN 2.“ .2... 32 a... 2. 2... mm ..m in .8 2. _ v 22 E... 3: 2.... :25

v. 2 _ z 2 M2 N2 .2 B 8 6 _ 8 .8 .o .20 gm :2.
EB . xi... $22.22 22./.5552. _ 2.2.0

 

 

 

$023.55-:on ”warm...“ 5.09.25..- .cm uEnH

58

The classification of individual and group writing activities is presented in Table 27.
Out of 2019 activities, 1515 (75%) were individual writing activities. More specifically.
91.35%. 71.68%. and 78.7 % of writing activities were supposed to be done by
individual students in elementary. middle. and high school. Among middle school
textbooks. textbook C showed the highest rate of individual activity (85.07%). followed

by textbook J (66.75%). Textbook N had more group activities (29.30%) than other high

school textbooks. The results are summarized in Table 27.

59

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

co. co. co. oo. 09. oo. oo. co. co. oo. oo— oo. oo. oo— oo. oo. o\c .50..

m0 0.... 0.. 0.0 w.m c 2... v mgr. 2km 0... m0. NR. ~20 o o tan. 4.03

0.0m .010 ..0. 5 mm m. mdm mdm ..3. m. 0.0 0.3 0.0m ..MN 0.7m Nd. ..5 9.0.0 9.0.0

.2. _ 0.0m m.mw 0.00 “.10.. 0.00 ..w0 0.0 0.2.x 0.0m ..0w :0 0.00 N.m0 w.0w 0.m0 .9655:—
v. 2 z 2 22 N2 .2 B 8 .0 B 8 .0 so .22

.83 _ o... a... as 2%.: .2. 0955:. 2.2.85

 

 

 

 

 

0.3.5 9.0% ..o 3... @7328 0.002...qu Hm 0.2.2.?

60

In this paper. live coding categories were introduced to depict Korean English
language textbooks. In terms of length of writing that students are asked to produce.
“words/phrases” was most common across school levels (55.72%). followed by
“sentence” (23.92%). Analysis of the second category. writing topic. revealed that “family
and living (12.93%)” and “school and friends 03.62%)” were the most popular topics
across all school levels. Sentence completion (22.5%) and table completion (14.46%)
were the most frequently introduced writing activities in all of the middle school and high
school textbooks. As for the openness of the activities. 84.75%. 69.62%. and 73.48% of
writing activities in the elementary. middle. and high school textbooks were close-ended
questions. Many more individual activities (1515) than group work (504) were found in
the textbooks analyzed.

These findings suggest the Korean English language textbooks used in this study do
not reflect the recommendations of the 7’h National Curriculum well. The 7’h National
Curriculum emphasizes students’ ability to write paragraphs expressing their ideas.
However. 59.39% of writing activities in the textbooks analyzed ask students to write less
than a sentence. Lack of open-ended activities. which help students to discover their ideas.
and too much emphasis on close-ended activities. which mainly focus on students’
linguistic knowledge. not only are against the recommendation given by the National
Curriculum but also may hinder students’ development of well-balanced writing abilities
in the long run. Considering the 7lh National C urriculum. which emphasizes the
importance of group activities. more cooperative writing activities are necessary in

textbooks.

61

4.3 Classroom observations

The observations focused mainly on 1) teachers’ dependence on their textbooks. 2)
classroom interaction during writing activities. and 3) role of teachers in writing activities.
In the observations. most of the teachers. especially those who work with younger
students. taught all of the writing activities in their textbooks without skipping them. All
of the elementary and middle school teachers covered all the writing activities and added
extra writing activities as needed.

In teacher A’s elementary school classroom, she taught both of the two writing
activities from the lesson. following the order presented in the textbook. Then she added
two writing activities, “Air writing” and “Guess what and fill in the blank”. providing
more practice opportunities for students after they leamed new words from each lesson
and making students be more involved in writing activities. In “Guess what and fill in the
blank.” students made three questions where they omitted one letter from a word. for
example. sun _y. They switched their notebooks with their partners and solved the
problems. In both of the activities she added, students followed the instructions smoothly
even though the instruction was given in English. Teacher A later commented that these
two activities are classroom routines.

The same pattern was found in the middle school classrooms. After covering the
writing activities in his textbook. “Write and make a story” and “Did you know”. teacher
D added another writing activity. “I need your help.” in which students wrote their
problems and worries in their own words and asked their classmates for some advice.
Teacher C used a pop quiz as an additional writing activity. After covering the usage of

“and” and “but” through the writing activity. “Let’s write.” in the textbook. he made

62

students solve ten questions. each of which had one blank that should be filled with either
“and” or “but”. In teacher B’s class. a writing assignment was given. She introduced a
new expression, “instead of.” and had students practice its usage through the writing
activity listed in the “Let’s write” section in the textbook. At the end of the class. she
directed students to make three sentences using “instead of” as homework.

In the two high school classroom observations. however. a somewhat different
pattern in use of textbooks in teaching writing was found. In teacher E’s class. when she
taught the writing activity in the textbook where students were asked to convert sentences
using “who can say...” she answered the questions herself and then she had her students
copy the answers written on the blackboard. As an additional writing activity, she wrote
down the answers for reading questions in the textbooks and made her students copy them
down.

Unlike other teachers in the observations. high school teacher F’s class did not
include any writing activities from the textbook. Instead. he used a teacher-made
worksheet for teaching students writing. In his worksheet. 20 vocabulary questions in
which students translate Korean words into English were presented. As he explained in
the interview. he always skips the writing activities in the textbook due to the
inappropriateness of the level. What were common in the two high school classrooms
were: I) the teachers wrote the answers on the blackboard and made the students copy
them. and 2) the teachers checked their students’ textbooks to see whether they followed
the teachers’ instructions or not. Therefore. both high school classrooms had a strong

teacher-centered atmosphere.

63

The second focus of the observations was on the classroom interaction. Classroom
interactions during the class were coded as I) teacher-student interaction. 2) student-
student interaction. and 3) teacher-students (whole class) interaction. Since no video or
audio recording was conducted, types of writing activities. either group. pair. or
individual work. were recorded in the researcher’s field notes.

Both elementary and middle school teachers used either group or pair work in
teaching writing activities. In elementary school teacher Teacher A’s class, students sat in
groups when the class started. They worked either in groups or pairs when directed by
their teacher. As a form of group work. the teacher made her students brainstorm words
which belong to four categories: writing utensils. colors. body parts. and animals. She
also introduced pair work. “Guess what and fill in the blank”.

Teacher B used pair work when teaching her middle school students the usage of a
new language item. “instead of’. Students worked with their partners to combine two
sentences presented in the textbook. Later in the interview. the teacher explained. “I use
pair work a lot.... Even if the activities are somewhat difficult for their level. they
accomplish it together. I think it is good. Even though the class can get noisy. I think it’s
worth it.” Teacher C used pair work to teach coordinators “and” and “but”. In the “Let’s
Write” section of the textbook. students were asked to combine two words with either
“and” or “but”. The teacher had his students work cooperatively to answer the questions.
Teacher D also had his students sit in groups and solve questions in the writing activity.
“Write and make a story.” He introduced group competition when checking the answers
and kept track of scores for each group. After the class. he checked each group’s score

and gave a corresponding number of stickers to students.

64

‘7-”(m-“e

Unlike elementary and middle school classrooms. no pair or group work was
introduced in the two high school classrooms; thus. there was no specific student-student
interaction. In teacher F ’5 class. students were directed to work individually to solve
questions on the worksheet. He called on individual students to check their answers
(teacher-student interaction), but mainly the classroom interaction was teacher-centered
teacher-students interaction. The same pattern was found in teacher E’s classroom. Since
she did not use any cooperative activities. students worked individually copying down the
answers of the writing activities.

The role of teachers in each writing activity was another focus of the class
observations. In all of the six classrooms observed. the role of teachers was mainly
instructor. They introduced new language items and explained each of them; then they
directed students to do writing activities where students practiced the newly-learned
language items. The teachers were the only decision makers in terms of activity selection.
leaving students’ needs or opinions in choosing activities or topics unrefleeted. This was
most obvious in the two high school classrooms. The teachers provided instruction for
each activity but then gave the answers themselves. What the students had to do was copy
the answers written on the blackboard.

The role of teachers as assistant was limited in all of the classrooms as well. While
students were involved in writing activities. teachers A and D walked around the class
checking whether students were on task or not. Teacher B provided individual instruction
while other students were working on the activities. However. she couldn’t help more
than three students due to the time constraint. There was no evidence of other roles of

writing teachers. such as audience. evaluator. and facilitator who helps students to find

65

their own voices and to address their diverse writing processes. in the observed class
sessions.

In the observations. several big differences between high school and younger
students’ classrooms were found. The dependence on textbooks in teaching writing was
high in elementary and middle school classrooms but not in high schools. The classroom
atmosphere in the lower grade levels was more student-centered. The role of the teachers.

however. was primarily instructor across all school levels.

4.4 Teacher interviews

()ne of the main purposes of conducting teacher interviews was to provide
opportunities for the teachers to explain what they did in their classrooms. Teacher A
explained the “Air writing”. which worked very smoothly in the observed session. was a
routine in her elementary school class. She said. “I use a writing routine called ‘Air
writing’.... Every time a new word is introduced. after I teach it to students. I ask them to
spell the word out in the air. Kids like it too.” Teacher D also explained the reason why he
introduced additional writing activities in his middle school classroom. To the question
asking about his intention in introducing a new writing activity. where students wrote
their worries and problems and got a classmate’s advice. he said. “I think students don’t
have to write in full sentences. Even though they write only one word. I think it means
something. Cause they use English for communication. I try to use activities like that as
often as possible.”

High school teacher Teacher F explained why he did not use writing activities from

the textbook this way: “They are too difficult. Besides. if I test writing. students’ grades

66

would drastically drop. To compete with other students to get into a college. my students
need to get a good score. That’s why I do not teach writing activities which will not be
included in the tests.” Teacher E explained the reason why she had to provide answers to
her high school students for writing activities herself. rather than asking them for answers.
She said it is because of the low academic ability of her students: “Students cannot follow.
I have to answer all the questions myself. Maybe. it is my problem because I do not have
good skills to teach English writing to students (laugh).”

The interviews also were aimed at eliciting teachers’ answers about the three topics.
difficulties in teaching writing. textbook evaluation. and suggestions for textbook
imprtwement. The gap in students’ proficiency levels32 was one of the major difficulties
the teachers encountered in teaching writing. Teacher A said. “The gap in proficiency of
[elementary school] students is the biggest problem. Some of my students cannot even
write the alphabet and some can write in paragraphs.” The same was noted by middle
school teacher Teacher D. He mentioned. “Some students bring authentic English books
and ask questions but some don’t even know the alphabet.”

Another obstacle in teaching writing was the students’ lack of interest in learning
English writing. All of the teachers agreed writing was not their students’ favorite activity.
Teacher A said. “Compared to other language skills, writing is considered hard by
students. Especially. boys hate it.” Teacher D also commented on his middle school
students’ low motivation in learning writing. He explained. “They think it [writing] is

difficult and they just don’t want to write.” Teacher E described her high school students

 

32 The overdependence on private English education in Korea. which has resulted in huge proficiency gaps
between students. has been reported (“52% of two to three year old Korean children receive private
Iinglish education.” 2004; “Mothers need to be decisive.” 2003). Kwan (2003) also reported 44.58% of
the middle and high school teachers he surveyed think their students are taking private English tutoring.

67

this way: “They do listening and speaking a bit. But they hate reading and writing. They
don’t write even when they are told to.”

About the suggestions for textbooks. the teachers had specific requests. Teacher A
answered. “I wish my textbook would have phonics sections which can help students read
and write better. And more interesting topics and activities that can attract students should
be added.” Teacher C requested more grammar-focused writing activities in his middle
school textbook. He said. “I wish the textbook would include sections for grammar
teaching. Due to the emphasis on the communicative skills. grammar has come to be
neglected in English classrooms. But I do believe it is important to teach grammar. So.
more writing activities which are combined with grammar instruction should be included
in the textbook.”

Teachers E. D, and B wanted to have students’ writing workbooks or good teachers’
resource books. Middle school teacher Teacher B said, “I wish the publishing companies
would make a separate writing book or at least a workbook where students can practice
writing..-” Teacher D also said. “... I need more practical aids like various handouts or
workbooks that I can use in classrooms.” Teacher E noted the need for level-appropriate
textbooks or workbooks together with teachers’ books: “What I really think the
government [and publishing companies] should do is to develop level appropriate
textbooks and workbooks... Even though we have the same textbooks. if three different
levels of teachers’ books were provided, that would solve many problems.” The other
high school teacher Teacher F also said. “... sharing material developed by teachers’
groups would be more helpful to teachers. Handouts and worksheets for students would

be necessary.”

68

In terms of textbook evaluation. the elementary and middle school teachers
evaluated their textbooks positively and said they teach almost all of the activities listed
in the textbooks. Teacher A said, “I think it [the elementary school textbook] is quite well
made. The difficulty level is suitable and the amount that teachers teach is appropriate.”
Teacher D also noted the improvement of the activities in his middle school textbook. He
said. “The activities have improved a lot. More interesting and diverse activities are
added. More activities mean more options for teachers”. Teacher C commented on
positive changes in the textbooks of the 7"1 National Curriculum. He said, “Compared to
the textbooks of the 6"1 National Curriculum, I think most of the sections of the current
textbook are well made. The speaking sections. especially, are interesting and well
arranged.”

Unlike the elementary and middle school teachers, high school teachers evaluated
their textbooks somewhat negatively, citing reasons of inappropriate difficulty level and
irrelevancy to the College Scholastic Ability Test. Teacher E said, “ the reading
sections are way too difficult and long.” She also added that the reason why she usually
skips the “Write it” section of the textbook was simply because the students cannot follow.
Teacher F also commented on the level inappropriate activities which are irrelevant to the
College Scholastic Ability Test. He said. “Writing activities are too difficult for students,”
and “As long as the College Scholastic Ability Test persists, any changes in the textbooks
may be meaningless. We have to teach students what they need, meaning. if their goal is
getting into a college then we have to make them score high in the test.”

One interesting finding from the interviews was the teachers’ negative attitude

toward seminars given by Korean professors. Teacher D said. “Rather than seminars and

69

workshops. I need more practical aids...” Teacher F also preferred more practical aids.
such as handouts and worksheets. He said “I hate seminars or talks given by professors or
so-called experts. They don’t know what’s going on in actual classrooms...” Other
teachers requested English classes for teachers themselves or seminars given by
experienced teachers. Teacher C wished for English language classes for teachers given
by native speakers of English. He said. “I wish for native speaker teachers who can teach
us. teachers. correct English usage...” Teacher B said, “I wish teachers who had a lot of
experience would share their knowledge and teaching experience with us.”

In the additional interviews with two academic high school teachers, the following
two characteristics were found. First, they finished textbooks much earlier than vocational
high schools, where chapters II and 833 of their textbooks were covered during the
observations. In interviews with three academic high school teachers, S. K. Kim (1994)
found that the teachers finished their textbooks early, and during the 12th grade year, they
made students practice only test taking skills. Two academic high school teachers
interviewed in the present study also shared a similar story. Teacher G explained he had to
finish the textbook early to make his students ready to compete with students from other
schools. He said. “We need to make our students get ready to take the College Scholastic
Ability Test. Since our students have to compete with students in other schools. we should
do the same things that other school teachers do. I even heard some private school
English teachers do not cover their textbooks at all... In fact, teaching textbooks
thoroughly does not really help students score higher in the College Scholastic Ability
Test. (laugh) It's true!” Teacher H also said he finished the textbook in the first semester.

adding that it happens in every academic high school.

 

’3 Each textbook has l2 chapters in total.

70

Second, unlike other teachers interviewed, the two academic high school teachers
stressed the importance of other classroom activities. noting that textbooks had a minimal
etl‘ect on their classrooms and students. Teacher H said, “I focus on the reading section of
the textbook and skip other sections then I use other books focusing on reading skills.” He
cited the format of the College Scholastic Ability Test for this practice. Teacher G noted.
“The catch in the guidelines [of the 7‘h National Curriculum] is that there are more than
IS textbooks published by different publishing companies... Since we choose only one
textbook out of 15. we cannot cover all the vocabulary that will show up in the College
Scholastic Ability 'I‘est. Besides, the reading passages of the exam do not come from
textbooks. In the textbook. all the reading passages are long, like three or four pages. But
the reading passages in the exam are very short, I think they are about three to four
paragraphs long. That's why so many schools and cram schools don‘t consider textbooks
important teaching material.”

Students“ low motivation in learning English writing was cited as a major factor
that hinders writing education in academic high school classrooms as well. Teacher G
said. “Students are very practical. Since writing is not included in the College Scholastic
Ability Test. they don’t study it at all. They think it is a waste of time. So. ifl teach
writing in my class, not only the students and parents but also my principal would feel
upset. Therefore. I blame the College Scholastic Ability Test, which does not test writing
at all.”

To sum up. the teachers viewed the proficiency gaps between students. lack of
students' motivation, and the fomtat of the College Scholastic Ability test as the main

difficulties in teaching English writing in their classrooms. In terms of textbook

71

evaluation. compared to the elementary and middle school teachers. the two vocational
high school teachers evaluated their textbooks more negatively, giving the reasons of
level inappropriate activities and irrelevance to the College Scholastic Ability Test.
Teachers also had various requests for their textbooks, such as more grammar-related
writing activities, workbooks. handouts, and good teachers‘ books. They preferred
seminars given by English native speakers or teachers with experience rather than Korean
professors. The additional interviews with two academic high school teachers revealed
the practice of skipping sections other than reading and listening. and finishing textbooks
early to allow time to teach students test taking skills as preparation for the College

Scholastic Ability test.

5. Conclusion and recommendations

The present study addressed the following four research questions:

I. What types of writing activities are provided in Korean English textbooks?

I'J

. What is the underlying writing theory (or pedagogical approach) adopted'in
Korean English textbooks?
3. How do Korean English teachers and students view writing and evaluate writing
activities in Korean English textbooks?
4. How are the writing sections of Korean English textbooks implemented in real

classroom situations?

The first two research questions were answered by conducting a content analysis of

Korean English language textbooks. An analysis of the writing activities in the fifteen

72

textbooks revealed the following characteristics: “Words/phrases” (55.72%) was the most
common length that students were asked to produce. “School life and friends” was the
writing topic most frequently given (13.62%). Sentence completion (22.49%) was the
most common activity type, followed by table completion 04.46%). complex copying
activities (l2.23%), and guided writing (10.20%). There were only l9 (0.94%) free
writing activities across all school levels. In particular. the four high school textbooks
included only one free writing activity. In terms of the open-endedness of writing
activities and use of group work. close-ended activities (72.l6%) and individual work
(75.04%) were observed most often.

The second research question asks: “What is the underlying writing theory (or
pedagogical approach) adopted in Korean English textbooks?” The findings from the li rst
research question led to the conclusion that Korean English textbooks put an emphasis on
final written product. There was little focus on the students’ writing processes and fluency.
Words/phrase length writing, where students complete sentences or tables with new
vocabulary or grammar items. comprised the majority of writing activities pcrfomted by
students. In addition. close-ended and individual writing activities in the textbooks
focused on linguistic accuracy rather than fluency; the latter can only be developed by an
exploration of ideas in open—ended activities and with peer intervention during
cooperative learning. It is doubtful whether such short. close-ended. and individual
writing activities can develop students’ actual writing abilities with which they can
communicate with others and learn about other cultures. as the National Curriculum

suggests.

73

Surveys were adopted to answer the third research question, which examines
teachers’ and students’ views about English writing education and writing activities in
their textbooks. Both middle and high school teachers and students considered writing to
be their most difficult and least enjoyable language skill and writing was the one about
which they were least confident. They also reported that the least amount of class time is
spent teaching and learning writing skills. In terms of textbook evaluation, more high
school teachers (51.32%) evaluated their textbooks negatively than their middle school
counterparts (33.33%) did. They complained about uninteresting activities and boring
writing topics. High school teachers also pointed out the lack of diversity in activities
(55.26%) as being a problem of the textbooks. Similarly. high school students evaluated
their textbooks more negatively than middle school students on the same criteria.

The last research question, “How are the writing sections of Korean English
textbooks implemented in real classroom situations?”, was answered by classroom
observations and teacher interviews. In general, teachers played the role of instructor
across school levels. However, their dependence on textbooks and use of group work in
teaching English writing varied between high school and younger students’ classrooms. A
more student-centered classroom atmosphere and a stronger dependence on textbooks in
teaching writing were found in the elementary and middle school classroom observations.
In addition. unlike elementary and middle school teachers, who covered all the writing
activities and added extra activities, one vocational high school teacher skipped all
writing activities while the other vocational high school teacher used them rarely. When
she did, she answered the questions herself. The interviews with the two academic high

school teachers revealed a common practice of skipping textbook sections other than

74

reading and listening. and finishing textbooks early to allow time to teach test-taking
skills.

The purpose of this study was to get a better picture of English writing education in
Korea by conducting textbook analyses, surveys, class observations, and teacher
interviews. This was based on the belief that a real picture of writing education can be
depicted only when the dynamic interaction of the major educational elements in real
classroom situations is considered.

Textbook analysis in this study revealed the problems of the unrealistic English
education policy. Comparing the guidelines given by the National Curriculum with the
actual textbook activities and classroom implementation, a mismatch between real
classroom situations and the national policy was revealed. The National Curriculum
recommends both the use of various types of group work and a student-centered
classroom atmosphere. It also stresses the use of English as a communication tool. but its
recommendations are not well reflected in the textbooks and classrooms.

In the surveys of this study. both teachers’ and students’ views on writing education
and their needs and problems related with writing activities in their textbooks were
revealed. Teachers complained about uninteresting writing topics and a lack of range in
writing activities. Students were reported to prefer group or pair work when leaming
writing. Surveys also showed unsuccessful implementation of the objectives of English
writing education given by the 7th National Curriculum. which includes making students
write longer than a paragraph. 77 % of high school students answered that they never

have written English in paragraphs.

75

Classroom observations in this study disclosed a teacher-centered classroom
atmosphere in Korean English classrooms and improved upon the problems of the
previous textbook analyses, which disregarded the flexible use of textbooks in classrooms.
adopting or skipping activities to maximize the effect of classroom instruction. In all of
the classes observed. teachers were the only decision makers in activity selection, acting
mainly as instructor. All the way up to middle school classrooms, students worked either
individually or cooperatively to solve writing questions provided in the textbooks or by
teachers. In the two vocational high school cases, however, students passively copied
down the answers given by their teachers, which was explained as a common practice due
to their low academic ability in the teacher interviews.

In teacher interviews. the difficulties teachers have in their classrooms were
uncovered. Elementary and middle school teachers mentioned the gap in the proficiency
levels of students as the major difficulty they routinely encounter. High school teachers
were struggling with level-inappropriate writing activities and unmotivated students
whose immediate concerns are centered on the Collage Scholastic Ability Test. They
argued the objectives of English writing education listed in the National Curriculum
cannot be achieved as long as the current format of the English test in the Collage
Scholastic Ability Test, which does not directly test writing, remains unchanged. They
also reported their desire to teach open-ended and communicative writing activities in
their classrooms but are discouraged by their students’ lack of ability.

Despite the positive effects of writing on Ieaming. such as satisfying students’
diverse learning styles and facilitating their language acquisition process. English writing

has been unreasonably neglected in Korean English classrooms. The results of this

76

phenomenon were recently reported by Kwan (2004). He found that Korean high school
students" writing abilities were far lower than those of Japanese and Chinese students,
whereas their listening and reading skills were stronger than the other two on the GTEC”.
In the writing section of the test, Korean students scored an average of 52.135 which was
much lower than the Japanese (84.8) and the Chinese (84.2) students. Kwan blamed the
format of the current Korean College Scholastic Ability Test for this result and suggested
its revision. However. the change of the College Scholastic Ability Test alone may not
bring a solution for this situation. Relevant changes in the National Curriculum, the
College Scholastic Ability Test, textbooks. and the views of teachers and students would
provide a solution which can actually bring a positive change to this situation based on
the findings of the current study.

This study suggests several implications for English writing education in Korea.
First, the National Curriculum and the actual classroom situations need to be more
aligned. Teachers need to be involved in design of the National Curriculum so that levels.
needs. and goals of students as well as the pedagogical stances of teachers can be
reflected in the National Curriculum. In addition, various in service support for teachers
to implement the National Curriculum should be provided. However, the most important
barrier to the implementation of the National Curriculum may be students’ low motivation
for learning to write in English, largely driven by the format of the College Scholastic
Ability Test. Therefore, the College Scholastic Ability Test, which has a huge influence

6

on both teachers3 and students. especially in high school. also should be adjusted to

 

3’ It is an English test developed in Japan. In Kwan’s report. 14.000 high school students' scores ('5. 100
Korean, 4.500 Chinese, and 4,400 Japanese) were compared.

”5 The perfect score for this section was 160.

3" In Kwan (2003). 60% of the middle and high school teachers admitted the influence of the College

77

include a writing test, thus making the integrated development of the four language skills
possible and avoiding the practice of skipping writing sections in English textbooks.

Second, textbook developers need to develop level-appropriate writing activities
that are interesting and diverse in terms of topic and group work, reflecting the needs and
interests of textbook users, teachers and students. They also need to develop various
open—ended group activities in which students produce more than sentence-level writing
and can develop their actual writing skills.

Third. and most importantly. both teachers and students need to shift their views on
English writing. Students need to change their views on writing from a difficult and
uncnjoyable language skill that they seldom use into a necessary and effective way of
communication with which they can explore their ideas and communicate with people in
other parts of the world in a web-based society. Teachers. who carry the burden of
implementation of the new National Curriculum, need to make a choice that can satisfy
not only their students’ practical and immediate needs but also their own pedagogical
philosophies. They also need to recognize that ignoring writing and covering only what
students will be tested on in the current version of the College Scholastic Ability Test will
not make their students competent English users. Additionally, they should be better
prepared for teaching English writing by more thorough teacher education and
professional development programs. Only when these changes in all five major factors in
Korean English education are made, will English textbooks serve as guides for students.

facilitating tools for teachers. and effective agents of change successfully.

 

Scholastic Ability Test on teaching English.

78

This study improves upon various problems of previous studies on textbook
analysis and evaluation by reflecting on various factors involved in English education and
triangulating through surveys, classroom observations, and interviews. There are.
however. a few caveats in this study. Convenience sampling for teachers’ and students’
surveys may limit the generalization of the results to other situations. The student surveys.
which were completed by two intact classes. may not represent the range of middle and
high school students, who may have different backgrounds and goals in learning English.
especially English writing. In addition, due to the small number of sample textbooks. the
results should be interpreted with caution.

As follow-up research, studies with a larger subject group using random sampling.
and analysis of all 50 of the textbooks that are currently used in Korea are recommended.
Longitudinal studies of Korean students’ English writing experiences are also necessary.
These studies are expected to provide meaningful insight into English writing education

in Korea.

79

APPENDICES
Appendix A

Teacher survey
Age: Gender: Male/ __Female Teaching experience: years
School level: Elementary school/ _Middle school/ High school

English writing instruction
1. Among 4 language skills, which do you think should be emphasized more?

Please order them according to the relative importance.
1: least important — 4: most important
__ Listening Speaking Reading ___Writing
Please specify your answer.

IJ

. Please number each skill according to the amount ofactual class time you spend in teaching it.
1: least time — 4: most time
w” Listening Speaking Reading ~Writing
Please explain why you do that.

3. Which skill do you think you teach with most confidence?
1: least confidence — 4: most confidence
‘_____ Listening Speaking Reading Writing

4. What do you think is your students’ reason to learn English writing?
Please choose the most relative answer.

______ - to get a good grade in school exam
_-_- to get into a good university
_ __~____to communicate with others
__... to develop ability to think critically
other(p|ease specify -)

 

5. Do you discuss the characteristics of written language with your students?
Yes No

6. Do you make your students write more than a paragraph length English writing?
~_ “___Yes No
If no. please explain the reason.

 

7. [)0 you teach students writing process i.e.. planning. drafting, revising, and editing?
______Yes ____.No

8. Do you make your students write multi drafts?
______ch No

9. Do you make them revise their works?

___"___”Yes No

If yes. do you provide guidelines of revision to your students?
______uYes No

If yes. what are the guidelines?

 

80

l0. Do you provide a real audience other than you?
_ Yes No

I I. Do you give writing assignments to your students?
_. _Yes No
If yes, what kinds of assignments do you give?

 

12. Have you ever used a peer review or workshop?
_____ _Yes ___No
If yes. what were the good points and bad points about it?

13. Do you add other writing activities in your class?
Yes No
If yes. what are they?

 

 

14. Do you test students’ writing skills?
““Yes No

If yes.

a) how often?

b) in what format?

c) criteria for evaluation?

(1) general response from students?

l5. Do you provide feedback to your students’ writing?
“*ch No
If yes. a) what do you mainly comment on?

b) What format of feedback do you use?

c) Do you ask them to rewrite the paper?

 

16. Which activities do you think more effective in teaching students English writing?
__g_ Group work Pair work Individual work Whole class
Why do you think that way?

l7. What would be the most serious obstacle to teach English writing in your class?

18. Are you familiar with product-oriented approach and process-oriented approach in English
writing education?

___ Yes No

If yes. a) what are the main differences between them?

 

 

b) which of the two do you think your writing class is based on?
____Product-oriented approach _ Process-oriented approach

Textbook evaluation

1. Do you participate in the textbook selection process?
__-_ Yes No

ll’ycs. on what do you focus most?

 

2. How would you evaluate writing activities in the textbook that you are using?
Please circle the closest answer.

81

a) Writing activities in the textbook are level appropriate
strongly agree agree neither agree disagree strongly disagree
nor disagree

b) Writing activities in the textbook are interesting.
strongly agree agree neither agree disagree stronglydisagree
nor disagree

c) Writing activities in the textbook are diverse.
strongly agree agree neither agree disagree strongly disagree
nor disagree

(I) Writing activities in the textbook have proper and interesting topics.
strongly agree agree neither agree disagree strongly disagree
nor disagree

e) Writing activities in the textbook can fulfill students’ need in learning English writing.
strongly agree agree neither agree disagree strongly disagree
nor disagree

f) Writing activities in the textbook can lead students to accomplish the objectives listed in the
national curriculum.
strongly agree agree neither agree disagree strongly disagree

nor disagree

3. What do you think is the background writing approach of the textbook?
_____ Product-oriented approach Process-oriented approach
Please explain why you think that way.

4. What do you think should be added or changed in the textbooks’ writing sections?
Appendix B

Student survey

This survey is conducted to better understand the English writing education in Korea. This
consists of two sections: English writing instruction and textbook evaluation. There are no ‘right’
or “wrong’ answers to these questions and I am interested in your personal opinion. Your
participation will guarantee the success of this study. Thank you very much for your help.

Age: Gender: Male/ Female
Please read and answer the following questions accordingly.

English writing instruction
1. Among 4 language skills, which do you think should be emphasized more?
Please order them according to the relative importance.
l: least important — 4: most important
_____ Listening Speaking Reading Writing

2. Please rank these categories from most to least in which is addressed in English classes.

1: least time — 4: most time
_____ Listening __ Speaking Reading _.__Writing

82

3. Which skill are you most confident?
I : least confidence —— 4: most confidence
‘ Listening Speaking Reading Writing

4. Which activities do you enjoy most?
1: least enjoyable — 4: most enjoyable
Listening Speaking Reading Writing

5. Which of the following categories do you feel is the most important reason for you to learn
English writing?

___ to get a good grade in school exam

._-.._ to get into a good university

____4 to communicate with others

___ to develop ability to think critically

____()lll€l‘(pl€83€ specify )

 

6. Which activities do you like most in learning English?
________ Group work Pair work Individual work Whole class

7. Do you know the difference between written language and spoken language?
__ __ Yes No
If yes, please briefly explain the difference.

 

8. Have you ever written a passage longer than a paragraph in English?
Yes No
If yes. please briefly explain the steps you took when writing it.
Ex) brainstorming—writing—revising

9. What do you think is the most important thing in writing?

____ correct grammar

---__ good expressions

___. coherent structure

_ g” content/ idea

_____ otherstplease specify )

 

10. What are the difficulties you encounter when writing in English?

Textbook evaluation

1. How would you think about the writing activities in the textbook you are using? Please circle
the closest answer.

a) Writing activities in the textbook are
too easy easy neither easy nor diflicult difficult too difficult

b) Writing activities in the textbook are
very interesting interesting so-so boring too boring

c ) Textbook provides a range of writing activities.

strongly agree agree neither agree disagree strongly disagree
nor disagree

83

d) Writing activities in the textbook have interesting topics.
strongly agree agree neither agree disagree strongly disagree
nor disagree

2. Do you have any suggestions on how the textbook’s writing activities can be improved?
Appendix C

Objectives of English writing education for grade 5 to 10 in the 7th national curriculum
(Translated by the researcher)

Grade 5

SWBAT write upper/lower case letters of the alphabet

SWBAT write or copy words they have learned

SWBAT write words that correspond realia or objects in the pictures
SWBAT write words they hear

SWBAT type words they have learned

Grade 6

SWBAT write easy and simple words

SWBAT write phrases or sentences they have learned

SW BAT correctly write upper/lower case letters of the alphabet and use correct
punctuation (period and question mark)

SWBAT describe a picture or an object following models

SWBAT write simple and easy thank you notes or birthday cards

Grade 7 ———a

SWBAT dictate sentences they have learned

SWBAT write answers to personal questions

SWBAT correctly punctuate sentences (comma. quotation mark. exclamation mark)
SWBAT write in cursive

SWBAT describe pictures or graphs about everyday life

SWBAT write answers to questions about family

Grade 7-b

SWBAT write about everyday life using simple and easy language

SWBAT write answers to questions about everyday life

SWBAT summarize what they read in one or two sentences

SWBAT complete a sentence

SW BAT correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors in short sentences
SWBAT describe a picture or an object in writing

Grade 8- a

SWBAT write a diary in simple sentences

SWBAT write a passage introducing themselves or their family

SWBAT complete a sentence using given words

SWBAT rewrite a story by changing characters and verb tense

SWBAT write questions which may elicit given answers after reading a simple dialogue

84

SWBAT write a plot of a story by looking at pictures which describe what they have
learned

Grade 8-b

SWBAT write a simple passage about daily life

SWBAT write a simple letter that includes their hobby, school life, and family
SWBAT write how they feel when looking at an object or a picture

SWBAT correct capitalization, spelling, and grammar errors in a short passage
SWBAT reorder mixed sentences and summarize the content

Grade 9 a

SWBAT write a diary about what they think and feel in everyday life
SWBAT write a simple and basic passage on a general topic
SWBAT summarize what they have heard

SW BAT use correct punctuation( colon, semi colon. and hyphen)
SWBAT complete a short passage by adding a last sentence

SWBAT dictate a simple passage on a general topic

Grade 9 b

SWBAT rewrite a passage after hearing to what they have learned in their own wording
SWBAT write a passage about a general topic with simple language

SWBAT write the thesis statement of a reading passage

SWBAT expand sentences by adding information

SWBAT dictate a controversial dialogue distinguishing the pros and cons

Grade 10 a

SWBAT summarize what they have heard

SWBAT write about their ideas on a general topic

SWBAT write a thesis statement of a passage on a general topic
SWBAT rewrite a sentence or a paragraph following examples
SWBAT fill out forms used in everyday life

SWBAT write a creative passage about what they have learned

Grade 10 b

SWBAT write a logical passage on a general topic

SW BAT take telephone messages and memos, and write simple questions
SWBAT write about past experiences and future plans

SWBAT write a simple resume

SWBAT logically write about their opinion on a general topic

85

REFERENCES

Allwright. R.L. (1981). What do we want teaching materials for? ELTJournal, 36, 5-18.
Ausary. H.. & Babaii, E. (2002). Universal characteristics of EFL/ESL textbooks: A step
towards systematic textbook evaluation. The Internet TESL Journal, 8. Retrieved Jul 4,

2003. from http://itcsljorngrticlcs/Ansary-I’extbooksl.

Bello. T. (1997). Improving ESL learners’ writing skills. Retrieved Jan 23. 2004. from
httfipz.’/ww weal .org/nc le.

Brown. J. B. (1997). Textbook evaluation form. Retrieved Aug 23. 2003. from
http://langue.hyper.chubu.acgjp/jalt/pub/tlt“)7/oct/brown.html.

Brown. H.D. (2001 ). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy.
2"d ed. San Francisco: San Francisco State University Press.

Byrd, P. (2001). Textbooks: evaluation for selection and analysis for implementation.
In M. C elci-M urcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second orforeign language.
(pp 415-427). Boston, MAzHeinle & Heinle.
Byrne, 1). (1984). Teaching writing skills. Essex: Longman.
Campbell. C. (1998). Teaching second language writing. Pacific Grove: Heinle & Heinle.
C audery, T. (1995). What the “Process Approach” means to practicing teachers of second
language writing skills. TESL-El 1(4). Retrieved Feb 12. 2004. from

http://wwwiwritingberkeleyedu/TESLjEJ/§j()4/a3.html.

(’ha. K.H.. & Hong. SK. (2002). The analysis oflistening activities in high school English
textbook. Studies in Korea Education. 17. 141-158.

Chambers. F. (1997). Seeking consensus in coursebook evaluation. ELTJournal. 51. 29-35.

Cowles. H. (1976). Textual materials evaluation: A comprehensive checklist. Foreign
Language Annuals, 9, 300-303.

Cumming, A. (1992). Instructional routines in ESL composition teaching. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 1, 17-35.

(furnming. A. (2003). Writing instructors’ conceptualizations on teaching. In B. Kroll (Ed).
Exploring the dynamics ofsecond language writing. (pp 71-92). NY: Cambridge

University Press.

(Tunningworfh. A. (1984). Evaluating and selecting ELTmateria/s. Oxford: Heinemann.

86

(' 'urrieulumforfbreign language. (1997). Korean Ministry of Education.

Dougill. J. (1987). Not so obvious. In L.E. Sheldon (Ed.). ELTtextbooks and materials:
problems in evaluation and development. ELT Document 123. 29036. Oxford: Modern
English Publications.

52% of two to three years old Korean children receive private English education. (2003.
Jan 21). Hankyoreh Daily News.

Hahn. J.W. (2001). Analysis and evaluation ofthe middle school English textbooks.
English Teaching, 56. 329-347.

l-larklau, L.(2002). The role of writing in classroom second language acquisition. Journal
ofSecond Language Writing, 1 I, 329-350.

llirosc. K. (2003). Comparing L1 and 1.2 organizational patterns in the argumentative
writing of Japanese EFL students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 181-209.

Hutchinson. T.. & Torres, E. (1994). The textbook as agent of change. E TL .lournal. 48.
314-328.

Hwang. LG. (2002). The characteristics of new high school English textbooks. Textbook
Studies, 38. Retrieved Jan 23, 2004, from www.kotrii.re.kr.

 

I-lyland. K. (2003). Second language writing. NY: Cambridge University press.

Kim. E. J. (2001). A Study on the listening and speaking activities in the middle school
English textbooks. English Teaching. 56, 219-243.

Kim. H.J. (2001). The transition of the national curriculum. In Park. K.J (Ed). Intrmluction to
English education. (pp 679-729). Seoul: Pakyoungsa.

Kim. S.C. & Joo, Y.G. (2001). Teaching English writing. In Park, K.J (Ed.). Introduction to
English education. (pp 191-201 ). Seoul: Pakyoungsa.

Kim. SK. (1994). A study on the correlation between high school English education and the
learning ability test for college education. Unpublished master’s thesis. Yonsei

U niversity, Seoul, Korea.

Kim. Y.M. (2000). The suggestion for the content of high school English textbooks.
Educational Study, 8, l05- I 44.

Kim. Y. T. (1992). The analysis ofcommunicative function of middle school English
textbook. Language Education, I, 125-135.

Kwak. DJ. (2002). The analysis of the first grade middle school English textbook. Studies
in Educational Science. 7. 1-1 I.

87

Kwak. H.Y., & Sung. GB. (2001). English teaching methods in Korea. In Park. K.J (lid).
Introduction to English education. (pp 321-350). Seoul: Pakyoungsa.

Kwan. OR. (2003. November). Narrowing the gaps between ideals and realities in TEFL.
Paper presented at Asia TEFL Inaugural C onference. Busan. Korea.

Kwan. OR. (2004. March). Benesse Corporation’s comparative study of the English
abilities of Chinese. Korean and Japanese high school students: interpretations and
considerations from a Korean perspective. Paper presented at Benesse Corporation
Presentation, Seoul, Korea.

Lake. N. (1997). Learner training in EFL coursebooks. ELTJournal, 5], 169-182.

Larios. J .. Marin, J.. & Murphy. L. (2001). A temporal analysis of formulation processes
in L1 and L2 writing. Language Learning. 51, 497-538.

Lee. E.G (2003). 2003 college entrance exam English test analyses. KIC'E Education Plaza. 6.
30-33.

Lee. M.J. (2002). The possibility of adopting level appropriate English assessment in Korea.
RICE Education Plaza. I 5. 82-86.

Lee. W.G, Choi.Y.H., Bu, K.S., & Lee. J.W. (2001). An investigation into the effect of
elementary English education: A follow-up study on first-year middle school students.
English Teaching, 56, 21 1-241.

Li. I). (2001). Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in
South Korea. In D. Hall & A. Hewings (Eds). Innovation in English language teaching:
a reader (149-166). London: Routledge.

lym. C .B. (2003). Objectives in English education and the new direction of contents. KICE
Education Plaza. 19, 72-77.

Lyoo. M.J. (1998). An analysis of writing activities in high school English textbooks.
Unpublished master’s thesis. Korea University. Seoul. Korea.

1.) oo, Y. S. (2002). An analysis and evaluation research of field validity on elementary

school coursebooks of the 7th National Curriculum. Seoul: Korea Textbook Research
Foundation.

Mothers need to be decisive. (2004, Feb 27). Maeil Daily News.

Muncie. J. (2002’). Finding a place for grammar in EFL composition classes. EL'I’Journal. 56.
180-186.

Oh. J.W. (2003). Method of developing English communicative ability through writing
activities. Madang 21, March. Retrieved Feb 24. 2004. from
,1]_ttp_:_/_/w wwmadangll .or.kr/2003_03/0303/T-0 l tpagcl l l .htm,

88

()lshtain. E. (2002’). Functional tasks for mastering the mechanics of writing and goingjust
beyond. In M. Celci-Murcia (Ed.). Teaching English as a second or foreign language,
(pp 207-217). Boston. MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Pennington, M., Costa, V., 80, S., Wai 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. RELCJournal, 28. 120-143.

Polio. CG (1996). Issues and problems in reporting classroom research. In J. Schachter & S.

Gass (Eds). Second language classroom research: Issues and opportunities (pp6 I -79).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rivers. W. (1981). Teachingfineign language skills. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Riazi. A & Aetal. (1996). Observing ESL writing instruction: A case study of four teachers.
Journal oflntensive English Studies, 10, l9-30.

Robinson. RC. (1 991). ESP today: a practitioner Is guide. Prentice Hall International.

Scott. R.. & Rodgers, B. (1995). Changing teachers’ conceptions ofteaching writing: A
collaborative study. Foreign Language Annals, 28. 234-246.

Seo. J .E. (2002). An analysis of the writing activities in high school first year English
textbook. Unpublished master’s thesis, Sookmyung Women’s College, Seoul, Korea.

Sheldon, E. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELTJournal, 42. 237-246.

Shi. I... & Cumming. A. (1995). Teachers’ conceptions of second language writing
instruction: five case studies. Journal of Second Language Writing. 4. 87-11 1.

Shin. H. S. (2000). An analytic comparison and a study on the improvement measures of the
third grade middle school English textbook. Study of English Education, I 7, 187-213.

Silva. T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: the ESL
research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 665-77.

Swales. J. (1980). ESP: the textbook problem. ESP .lournal l (1), 11-23.
Tribble. C. (1996). Writing. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Tucker, GA. (1978). Evaluating beginning textbooks. In H. Madsen & J. Bowen (Eds).
Adaptation in language teaching. (pp 219-237). Rowley. MA: Newbury House.

Weissberg. B. (1994). Speaking of writing: some functions of talk in the ESL composition
class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3. l2l-39.

Williams. D. ( 1983). Developing criteria for textbook evaluation. ELTJournal, 3.7. 251-255.

89

Yun. CE. (1996). The efficient methods ofteaching writing skills for middle school students.
Unpublished master’s thesis, Chungnam National University, Taejun, Korea.

Zainuddin. H.. & Moore, R. (2003). Audience awareness in L1 and L2 composing of
bilingual writers. TESL-El, 7(1). Retrieved Mar 5. 2004, from
httpz/Iwww-writing.berkclcy.edu/'I’ESl.-I'{.I/ej25/aZ.html.

 

90

t‘l

   

ltittrtrtttrjttt1111]]th