ADMINISTRACIÓN DE LA PESQUERÍA

experience

Observation data suggested that in general, all teachers’ classroom teaching still adopted a traditional teacher-centred style. By the early 1980s, literacy pedagogy had transferred from traditional teacher-centred positions to student-centred positions concerned with classroom interactions (Rose & Martin, 2012). The fundamental principle of successful language learning is teachers’ guidance for students in the context of shared experience through interaction (Halliday, 1975; Painter, 1991; Rose & Martin, 2012). The main phase of class teaching often involves task- based pursuit by interacting with teachers/peers, which is crucial to the final achievement of students’ independent working (Christie, 2005). Nevertheless, pre-workshop observations revealed that teachers’ oral instruction dominated most teachers’ classroom teaching of writing. It was not evident that teachers focused their attention on how to pursue the goal of helping students to become independent writers. Teachers’ limited approaches were derived from teachers’ curriculum knowledge regarding material selection, and the pedagogical methods that teachers had adopted, which will be further discussed in the following sections. No teacher was observed to provide students with any materials. Teachers argued for the importance of reading in learning to write, and even regarded it as the most important language skill. Their belief was in line with Krashen (1993) who argued that writing practice alone cannot lead to the development of second

language writing skills, but requires extensive reading. Yet in teaching practices, the only source of information input for students was the PowerPoint. No reading materials were offered to students in paper handouts. Neither were other materials prepared for students’ reference. Students sometimes appeared to have experienced difficulties in catching up with teachers’ instructions when the information displayed on the PowerPoint was overwhelming.

To gain further insight into the constraints on teachers’ application of effective pedagogy for teaching writing, teachers’ expertise and related educational experience are discussed in the next part of this section. Borg (2003) argues that on the one hand, TC shapes teaching behaviours; on the other hand, TC is shaped in return by the accumulation of the teachers’ experience. Teachers develop their personal practical knowledge from both personal and professional experiences (Clandinin, 1985). In the present study, more attention was paid to the impact of professional experiences, because investigating the potential of the genre pedagogy in the present study was based on teachers’ exposure to the pedagogy in the workshops.

Interview data indicated that the teacher participants in the current study had educational backgrounds in linguistics, but lacked pedagogical learning experience. As shown in Table 4.1, all of the teacher participants had teaching experience of between 7 to 20 years and held Master’s degrees majoring in Linguistic or English Education. However, except for completing a writing course as a part of Bachelor and Master’s degrees, no teacher had received any professional development activities with regard to teaching writing. As EFL language teachers, none of them had any formal professional training experience in English speaking countries. Probably Mike’s case mirrored all teachers’ similar experience: “A writing course I learned when I was a student is the only professional training I’ve received so far” (Mike, Int.1T). Teachers’ lack of professional training resulted from a lack of opportunities and motivations. Mike explained the situation in detail as follows:

There’re some research workshops or conferences…It mainly depends on yourself. For example, when sometimes those activities do not take place in holidays, engaging in

them is related to the problem of changing classes which is a big concern. Even if it’s in the holidays, there are still many aspects to consider…some reasons prevent you. (Mike, Int.1T)

Because of the barriers to accessing professional training, teachers relied on self-study and sometimes sought discussions with colleagues to cope with the challenge of teaching writing. The students’ textbook was the teachers’ main self-study source. Cathy shared her experience of learning to teach writing on her own: “From some of the guidelines in the course book… and also some of the resources online, I learned to teach writing myself… I also communicate with my colleagues…” (Cathy, Int.1T). Similarly, Amy and Kate mainly derived their writing pedagogy from the students’ textbook. These findings were supported by some researchers (Breen et al., 2001) who stated that experienced teachers appear to develop “a personal repertoire of tried and favoured practices” (p.495). Probably because of the insufficient professional training experience, teachers (Jane & Cathy) thought their teaching of CE writing was not consciously informed by writing theories. Jane explained that:

… firstly because we ourselves lack knowledge of theory and knowledge of Literal Arts. Hence in the teaching practice, maybe what we can do is only to focus on the article itself rather than providing macro theoretical guidance to the students. (Jane, Int.1T)

By contrast, other teachers (Amy, Kate, Mike & Patty) believed that the teaching of CE writing was driven by theories, even though teachers were not sure what the theories were. That was because there were theories underpinning the designs of all those textbooks that teachers followed in teaching. For instance, Patty observed: “We just follow those textbooks for our teaching…But those textbooks won’t tell us what underlying theories are applied to support that way of teaching” (Patty, Int.1T). Mike concluded that Chinese teachers’ teaching behaviours were surely oriented by some writing theories, but many of the teachers were not doing so consciously. It is argued that language teachers need to be informed of current research and research-supported approaches to L2 writing to enhance their teaching preparation (Zen, 2005). The evidence above suggested that

the teachers probably lacked L2 writing theories as they were not aware of the theories underlying the content of their textbooks. However, teachers claimed that their professional development needs, and their willingness to learn more modern writing theories and related methodologies, were in agreement. Amy, for example stated:

Teachers should get to know the role of these writing approaches in the history, the advantages or the limitations…to know various approaches…then to try different approaches in classroom practice…to get to know their results and then combine their advantages. (Amy, Int.1T)

In the statement above, Amy pointed out the necessity for teachers to have knowledge of various writing approaches and the need to apply them in an eclectic way. “What teachers know and can do - affects all the coretasks of teaching” (Fullan, 2001, p.244). Teacher participants’ lack of sound knowledge in terms of L2 writing theories and associated pedagogies was very likely to affect their support for students’ writing development. Teachers’ expertise and related educational experience seemed to have suggested a need for all CE teachers to have professional training, in order to provide students with better support and finally help them achieve the CECR goal. This need became even more evident when discussing the other issues in relation to teachers’ pedagogical knowledge, which are described in the following sections.