CONSIDERACIONES PARA LA PROPUESTA E INTEGRACIÓN DEL PLAN DE MANEJO DE PESQUERÍAS DE ESCAMA

The successful transformation of subject matter knowledge into representational forms that are comprehensible to students requires an adequate understanding of students themselves (Tsui, 2003). The teacher participants’ knowledge of their students concerns two major aspects: Students’ needs in writing development; and students’ passive attitudes towards learning writing.

Teachers’ knowledge of students’ writing learning needs could be summarized into three important respects with regard to language expression, argument ideas and L1 influence, although they were not necessarily pointed out directly by all teachers in interviews. First, students should improve their language expression (Amy, Kate & Mike). For example, Amy described when

being asked about her students’ writing development needs: “…for example, the coherence…also some grammar mistakes…vocabulary, of course…they don’t have enough reading. As a result, they can only accumulate very little vocabulary” (Amy, Int.1T). It is clear in Amy’s view that students should improve their language skills including vocabulary, grammar and coherence. Second, students should extend their reading to develop argument ideas in writing (Amy, Jane & Kate). Amy pointed out that students’ lack of reading resulted in a content similarity in their writing: “…because of students’ lack of reading…they haven’t their own ideas or thoughts. I think their writing skills can be developed by improving their reading ability” (Amy, Int.1T). Jane and Kate echoed her view. As Jane described: “They seem to have no argument ideas…I think that’s mainly because they haven’t got enough reading accumulation” (Jane, Int.1T).

Last, L1 influence was another major writing difficulty experienced by students (Cathy & Jane). Jane stated that “[students’] writing is largely influenced by L1 transfer…what they normally do is to think in Chinese then translate into English” (Jane, Int.1T). Accordingly, students were unable to achieve good writing products due to their high dependency on L1 in writing expression, and the differences of L1 from the target language.

Based on their understanding of students’ writing development needs, most teachers (Cathy, Jane, Mike & Patty) believed that a bottom-up method of teaching writing, together with frequent practice and rewriting, should be effective in supporting students. Tan’s ‘step-by-step’ idea could be viewed as a summary of the other three teachers’ views. She explained: “Step by step, from the very easy tasks… maybe from sentence to paragraph and then the whole passage” to teach students how to write (Tan, Int.1T). Jane’s statement below is typical:

I think the most important thing is their interests in writing and their perseverance to keep practicing their writing…writing is not something only individual but more often occurs in groups. After writing, they may have peer discussion or communicate with their teachers about the mistakes they made in their drafts. Based on the peers’ and the

teacher’s feedback, they can rewrite with careful consideration, practice repeatedly, practice to write…or write based on repeated corrections. (Jane, Int.1T)

Jane’s comment points out the necessity of discussion and accuracy. In particular, she highlights the importance of rewriting after receiving feedback from peers and the teacher.

Teachers’ descriptions of students’ writing learning needs often did not reflect the ideals of the aforementioned pedagogies, and were often of incongruous value. On the one hand, teachers thought their students had difficulties in language expression, finding argument ideas, and avoiding L1 influence; on the other hand, the pedagogical ideas that teachers asserted were not sufficient or practical enough to meet students’ needs. To learn writing techniques is surely helpful for test preparation purposes, but in itself it is no solution for addressing any of the three writing difficulties discussed above. Similarly, if the purpose of rewriting focuses on the language forms, it might be useful in correcting grammatical errors, but it is of limited effectiveness in developing argument ideas and improving other aspects of language expressions. Even though teaching writing in a step-by-step manner sounds ideal, it is an unachievable ideal, as very limited time is assigned to the teaching of CE writing. The idea of frequent writing practice is not practical for the same reason of time constraints. And paradoxically, although Jane expressed concern about the L1 influence on students’ writing, her own writing instruction was L1 dominated (see Section 5.2.3.5). Consequently, there was a lack of relevant support for students’ writing needs.

One observation may not be sufficient evidence to argue that teachers’ knowledge about their students’ needs did not shape their teaching practices. However, it at least indicated that to some extent, what teachers teach does not necessarily satisfy what students need. One quote from Mike might be helpful to explain this mismatch: “Our most important purpose [of teaching writing] is to help students pass CET4 and CET6. To improve their language application ability in reality is the next step” (Mike, Int.1T). Nevertheless, because for most of the students, their attendance at CET exams is the hallmark of completing two-year’s CE study (see Section 1.2.1 for CECR),

“the next step” (Mike, Int.1T) that Mike refers to probably will never happen in CE classes. Such a situation of learning and teaching CE writing supports Fang’s (2010) argument, that Chinese students learn English just to pass exams and their teachers’ lectures focus on assisting students to achieve this goal. As such, students’ writing difficulties were unable to be fully assisted, even though teachers were aware of their students’ needs.

Another aspect of teachers’ knowledge of students was related to students’ passive learning attitudes towards learning writing. It was acknowledged by all of the teachers as the main issue when responding to questions about students’ unsuccessful writing development. Amy commented that students’ attitudes towards learning writing were only to “cope with…they lack active participation in writing” (Amy, Int.1T). On the other hand, efforts made by teachers to correct this passive learning attitude were not evident in their attempts to motivate their students to learn writing. For example, as discussed earlier, few activities were designed to encourage students’ engagement. Aside from one example of group work found in Kate’s class, T-S interaction was the only activity style employed by most of the teachers to encourage student engagement.