A three dimensional review : Considerations for teaching L2 writing within cross-cultural contexts
by Damian Rivers
- 2

Teacher beliefs and attitudes toward L2 writing

Sengupta & Falvey, (1998) examined the ways in which L2 writing is perceived and its pedagogy conceptualized by English language teachers in Hong Kong secondary schools. They adopted the theoretical basis offered by Flower, 1989; Nystrand et al 1993 and Silva, 1993 who stated that in any form of writing research, cognitive and contextual factors shape the teaching and learning of writing. Flower, (1989) acknowledges that how cognition and context interact within the classroom is not well documented and this is where Sengupta & Falvey aimed to provide solid research data. Sengupta & Falvey also stated that through an exploratory investigation they wished to explore questions connected with how these beliefs are acquired, justified and explained by the teachers, and what social and cognitive implications these justifications have for future curriculum development.

Raimes, (1985) had previously stated that L2 writers need to be taught:

- How to be aware of and make use of the processes involved in their writing
- How to develop and organize their ideas
- How to deal with language related concerns

Sengupta & Falvey, (1998) suggested that teachers should be aware of these factors stating, “there is much more to the teaching of successful writing than the mere teaching of accuracy in lexis and syntax” (p.73). This raises a number of questions concerning the role of the ESL teacher. The majority of L2 teachers tend to rely on the teaching of grammatical rules at the expense of other writing areas. Zamel, (1987) notes, “It seems that ESL writing teachers view themselves primarily as language teachers, that they attend to surface-level features of writing and that they seem to read and re-act to text as a series of separate pieces at the sentence level or even clause level, rather than as a whole unit of discourse" (p.700).  This is not surprising when we consider that writing is an artifact, which has to meet certain standards of social acceptability (Widdowson, 1983). In many high-context societies such those found in Asia, this social acceptability is directly gained through the quality of examination results rather than through any form of communicative competence. Indeed, Sengupta, (1996) had stated prior that L2 teaching in Hong Kong is primarily teacher dominated and product centered. Tse, (1993) had also earlier pointed out that in Hong Kong, studying to pass examinations is the norm and the teaching of writing is very much examination orientated.

Sengupta & Falvey, (1998) identified two research questions as being central to their research. These were; 1) What is/are the central aspect/s of writing pedagogy that Hong Kong teachers refer to when discussing writing?  And 2) How do teachers rationalize their perceptions? They found that grammatical and lexical accuracy was the most commonly mentioned aspect of L2 writing that Hong Kong teachers referred to when talking about teaching and learning L2 writing. The teaching of writing is very much geared to writing structurally correct sentences. Language as a tool for making meaning was never discussed by the teachers and the quality of the language was paramount. Many teachers felt it was not their job to address issues of developing or formulating ideas. This would seem to support the ideas stated earlier (e.g., Zamel, 1987:700). It also reinforces those theoretical views from the 1960’s, which essentially saw L2 writing as an activity in which there was absolutely “no freedom to make mistakes” (Pincas, 1982, p91). In those rare cases where teachers were open to alternatives they stated the pressure of student examinations, unsupportive department heads and city officials as well as a lack of teaching ability as obstacles in changing the way L2 writing was taught. The emphasis on examination scores represents not only an educational problem but also a cultural one, which cannot be solved without a thorough social debate. Sengupta & Falvey, (1998) do accept that even with massive injections of cash and re-from, change will be slow coming and they point out that if Hong Kong wishes to keep its image as a sophisticated, economical strong city then the trilingual abilities of its residents require continued improvement.

To page 3 of 5

To the print-friendly version

To the articles index