- Email: [email protected]
English writing instruction in Iran: Implications for second language writing curriculum and pedagogy
Journal of Second Language Writing 32 (2016) 81–87
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Second Language Writing journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/seclan
Short communication
English writing instruction in Iran: Implications for second language writing curriculum and pedagogy Bakhtiar Naghdipour Faculty of Education, Department of English Language Teaching, Eastern Mediterranean University, Cyprus
A R T I C L E I N F O
Article history: Received 15 January 2015 Received in revised form 2 May 2016 Accepted 2 May 2016 Available online xxx Keywords: EFL writing L2 writing instruction L2 writing curriculum Iran
A B S T R A C T
[24_TD$IF]This paper reports on English writing instruction and the main factors shaping the dynamics of English writing at different levels of education in Iran. The data gathered from teachers and students using semi-structured interviews and class observations revealed, despite students’ need to develop competency in English writing, unsatisfactory writing skills, mainly because of the inadequacy of the English writing curriculum and pedagogy. The findings further indicated that English language education in general and writing skills in particular have fallen prey to the conflict between the post-revolutionary ideological sentiments behind the design and implementation of the English language curriculum and pragmatic forces that allure individuals to subscribe to the new multi-literate and multicultural world, which has come to embrace equal educational access and opportunities for its citizens. Exploring the dynamics of English writing in this under-represented context could offer insights for the similar EFL contexts where the role of writing as a means of enriching the personal and future professional life of new generation of students and language learners has yet to be recognized. ã 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
[25_TD$IF]1. Introduction With the rapid growth of globalization and global connectedness, the emergence of new channels of communication, the plurality of discourse communities, and the rise of English as the major medium of international communication and scientific scholarship, the significance of developing proficiency in English language, and English writing in particular, has gained wide recognition. In addition to its conventional role in helping students and language learners develop their competency in a new language, the importance of writing has recently been emphasized for having the potential to build students’ expertise in a discipline (Hyland, 2013; Manchón, 2011; Ortega, 2012). Despite this multi-functionality, credibility of writing as a game-changing language learning skill is far from being recognized in many EFL contexts, where outdated curricular policies and traditional pedagogical practices are still prevalent (Casanave, 2009; Reichelt, 2009). To promote or improve EFL writing instruction and inform scholarship on second language writing, some scholars (e.g., Al-Jarrah & Al-Ahmad, 2013; Cimasko & Reichelt, 2011; Reichelt, 1999, 2005; Tarnopolsky, 2000; You, 2004) have described and analyzed English writing instruction in different contexts. These studies have endeavored to throw light on the contextual forces and factors that interact to affect the status of English writing in the curriculum and the quality of writing instruction in each specific context. However, while the influence of cross-contextual differences on the practice of L2 writing instruction is widely recognized, there is still little research addressing the interface between context and
E-mail address: [email protected] (B. Naghdipour). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.05.001 1060-3743/ã 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
82
B. Naghdipour / Journal of Second Language Writing 32 (2016) 81–87
L2 writing dynamics (Ruecker, Shapiro, Johnson, & Tardy, 2014). The work reported here, which gives a contextualized account of English writing instruction in Iran, adds to our knowledge about the practice of L2 writing teaching in an underrepresented context in the literature, and is relevant to similar contexts where there is a need to improve the teaching and learning of English-language writing. Analyzing English writing instruction in Iran can also contribute to L2 writing research and practice. Given that many EFL contexts place a high premium on traditional pedagogical practices and approaches to teaching writing (Casanave, 2009; Lee & Coniam, 2013; Naghdipour & Koç, 2015), exposing the pitfalls of such practices could inform English language teachers and educators about the importance of advocating for more realistic curricula and deploying more effective instructional approaches to better accommodate the learning needs of students in writing classes. Likewise, the findings of such studies can serve as a resource (Ruecker et al., 2014) for researchers interested in investigating the contextual factors (e.g., educational policies and ideological forces) influencing the teaching and learning of L2 writing. [26_TD$IF]1.1. The importance of English writing in Iran Perhaps like other EFL contexts, developing English writing skills in Iran can benefit not only students but also various groups of people and professionals. To begin with, English major undergraduate and graduate students have to develop writing skills to deal with demanding written assignments, exams, and projects during their studies. Non-English major master and Ph.D. students who publish papers in English are also privileged for admission to and graduation from different programs, though the medium of instruction in national universities is Persian. In addition, university lecturers are struggling with the “publish or perish” anxiety as they need to prepare and publish their research in international outlets or present their findings at conferences and symposiums in order to get promoted. More importantly, developing essay writing abilities, as one of the components of high-stakes English proficiency exams such as IELTS and TOEFL, to satisfy the requirements of obtaining a visa to leave the country for better social, educational, and occupational opportunities has gained momentum; this phenomenon has turned Iran into one of the top countries with “brain drain” (WIPO, 2013). Last but not least, an ability to write in English is becoming an asset in doing business with the world outside because most international correspondence, electronically or paper-based, is carried out in English. [27_TD$IF]2. Methodology To describe English writing instruction in Iran and report on factors influencing its practice, this study draws on qualitative sources of data from interviews and observations. I interviewed teachers (N = 21) and students (N = 36) from four levels of education (middle school, secondary school, university, and private language school) in three parts of the country: Tehran in the north, Isfahan in the center, and Ahwaz in the south (see Table 1). An equal number of participants (seven teachers and 12 students) were randomly selected from different levels in each city, but primary school education (Grades 1–6) was excluded because teaching English starts from Grade 7. Given that education in Iran is centralized, in terms of the curricular goals and objectives, any province, however, could have been selected. The majority of private language institutes across the country are also franchised, thus adopting the same curriculum and instructional materials used by the “parent school.” The teacher interview protocol included 10 core questions with several follow-up questions probing mainly the teachers’ use of pedagogical approaches, instructional materials and activities, and feedback and assessment strategies. The teachers’ opinions were also sought on the various factors shaping students’ experience with English writing. Similar questions were used to interview students (see Appendix[28_TD$IF]). The interviews were all semi-structured and conducted in Persian. Each interview lasted for approximately 20 min for the teachers and less than that for the students. Having realized that Table 1 The Interviewed Participants and Observed Classes by Education Level and Grade. Level/Major
Participants
N
Data source
Grade/Degree
Middle school (Grades 7–9)
Student Teacher Class Student Teacher Class Student Lecturer Class Student Lecturer Class Student Instructor Class
6 3 3 6 3 3 9 6 3 6 3 3 9 6 3
Interview Interview Observation Interview Interview Observation Interview Interview Observation Interview Interview Observation Interview Interview Observation
9th Grade Associate (2-year) 9th Grade Senior B.A. Senior Senior M.A. & Ph.D. Senior Senior M.A. & Ph.D. Senior Upper-intermediate M.A. Upper-intermediate
Secondary school (Grades 10–12)
University (English)
University (Non-English)
Private language school
B. Naghdipour / Journal of Second Language Writing 32 (2016) 81–87
83
audio-recording could inconvenience the interviewees, I took notes of the participants’ responses and comments. I mainly focused on the key points the participants made in order to be able to cope with both asking questions and writing at the same time. However, I reviewed and annotated the notes immediately after completing each interview when my memory was still fresh. As an additional type of data, 15 English or English writing classes from four different levels were observed (see Table 1) in order to have a first-hand account of classroom-based activities students and teachers were involved in, including information about the most emphasized genres of writing, instructional techniques, assignments and tests, and feedback strategies. Five classes were randomly selected and observed from each city, and I did not observe the classes taught by the teachers interviewed, nor attended by the students interviewed, in order to collect additional information about how writing is taught elsewhere. The interviewees and observed classes were selected from the last grade/year of each school and from third-year university classes when students are offered their last writing or ESP course to ensure that participants had sufficient experience with English language or writing. I categorized the interview and observation notes into different levels before translating them into English. I then read and reviewed these notes several times to identify the relevant information about English writing instruction and to extract the most common factors shaping its dynamics. Additionally, I drew on my own knowledge and experience in the Iranian educational context to provide or confirm the contextual information (e.g., the number of hours middle school students study English per week) about English language or writing instruction. 3. English L2 writing in Iran 3.1. Middle and secondary schools Students study English as a school subject for three to four hours per week in Grades 7 and 8 and two to four hours in Grades 9 through 12. The locally developed textbooks emphasize teaching grammar, vocabulary, and short reading passages at the expense of oral and written skills. The interviewed teachers indicated that the traditional grammar-translation method is used to teach these areas of language learning. In the classes I observed, students’ writing experience in English is restricted to the phrase- or sentence-level writing while completing grammatical exercises and responding to “right there” or in-the-text questions following reading passages. In addition, the university entrance exam (Konkoor), which is a gatekeeping test for both state-run and private colleges and universities, does not test students’ writing in English. This multiplechoice exam, which covers different subjects that students study at secondary school, includes 25–70 questions (depending on whether they want to join English or non-English majors programs) on English, testing their grammar, vocabulary, and reading comprehension skills. As such, pre-university English language education in Iran appears to follow a “truncated” curriculum in that it ignores productive language learning skills such as speaking and writing. [29_TD$IF]3.2. Universities 3.2.1. English majors Undergraduate students majoring in English are offered three 90-min writing courses beginning in the second year: paragraph development in the third semester, letter writing in the fourth semester, and essay writing (four to five paragraphs) in the fifth semester. However, while this order varies from one university to another and from one program (such as English literature) to another (such as English translation), the content of curriculum has been there for a long time. “This writing curriculum,” as one experienced lecturer said, “has remained unchanged for nearly three decades.” Most of the writing textbooks used in the classrooms I observed cover the structure and components of different types of paragraphs, letters, and essays. However, they do not contain process- and genre-based activities such as pre-writing and brainstorming, multi-drafting and revising, collaborative writing, and reading-to-write tasks like paraphrasing and summarizing; nor do the lecturers deal with new genres or text types such as reports, memos, cover letters and application letters in their writing classes. The lecturers cited insufficient time, heavy workload, students’ low English proficiency, and their lack of experience with English writing as reasons for opting not to incorporate these writing activities or genres in their classes. In particular, the lecturers complained that students enter English programs without having a basic knowledge of writing, one noting that, “Most of the students who join these programs have difficulty writing grammatically correct and meaningful sentences.” The interviewed students, on the other hand, reported that teachers spend most of the class time lecturing about how to write rather than getting students engaged in writing itself. “The teacher uses slides and sample texts to help us write better, but we have no chance to practice writing or work together in the class,” one student said. Although the lecturers I interviewed and observed vary in their feedback provision strategies, they use a few common practices. Among them, some lecturers reported treating their students’ writing assignments as a routine practice students have to engage in, opting then not to correct and return each and every paper submitted. To have a chance to offer oral feedback on as many papers as possible during a single session, some of the lecturers I observed ask students to read their writing aloud in class. Another common strategy I observed is selecting one student’s work and projecting it on the board or making copies for all students to involve them in the feedback provision process. However, the lecturers said they predominantly focus on students’ writing accuracy because grammatical errors are prevalent in their writing, and students also expect more feedback on grammar, probably due to many years of experience with grammar instruction at
84
B. Naghdipour / Journal of Second Language Writing 32 (2016) 81–87
pre-university level. As one lecturer noted, “Students’ concern with improving their knowledge of grammar does not allow us to focus on more global areas of writing such as content, audience, and rhetorical expectations.” [30_TD$IF]3.2.2. Non-English majors Non-English major undergraduate students, who constitute the overwhelming majority of the student population in the country, take one General English course, offered during the first year, and two ESP courses, offered in or after the second year. The General English course is a review or continuation of the lessons or areas students have covered in high school, whereas the ESP courses aim to develop students’ knowledge of technical terms and their ability to read and comprehend academic texts in their field of study (see http://www.msrt.ir/fa/prog/Pages/Home.aspx). Instructors teaching ESP courses hold an M.A. or Ph.D. degree in English and hence do not share the same disciplinary knowledge with students. Instructors and students indicated that the focus of instruction in these classes is on translating into Persian the content of the locally developed textbooks by The Organization for Researching and Composing, which is affiliated with the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology (http://www.en.samt.ac.ir). The interviewed students reported that they are not required to write for ESP classes, as the final assessment of these courses only tests their ability to translate short texts and lexical items from English into Persian. This was also reflected in the margins of students’ textbooks I observed, which were filled with the Persian equivalents of the new words and phrases. [31_TD$IF]3.3. Private language schools A considerable number of Iranians attend private language schools to learn English for immigration, business, or more personal purposes. A group of these language learners are students who enroll in these schools to improve their oral skills, as the neglected areas in the school or university curriculum. Other enrollees are children whose parents send them to learn English for social prestige or for their future studies. The private language schools observed in this study use imported commercial textbooks, which generally contain one or two writing tasks in the middle or end of each unit. Apart from preparation classes for the internationally recognized proficiency exams such as IELTS and TOEFL, which focus on four main skills using both commercial and locally compiled textbooks, private language schools rarely emphasize teaching writing. Besides, they lack the practical resources to do so, such as trained teachers and tailor-made instructional materials. However, the teachers I observed adopt traditional product-based approaches and resort to rote-learning strategies to teach writing in IELTS and TOEFL preparation classes. Some teachers, for instance, advise students to memorize patterns for writing the introduction and conclusion or other parts of a five-paragraph essay. The teachers often offer feedback on different aspects of students’ essay writing including task achievement, organization, language, and lexical resources, but they do not encourage further drafting and revision of students’ work. Justifying this strategy, one teacher said, “These exams test students’ timed writing ability, so revisions are not going to help.” In regular language learning courses, however, the interviewed students indicated that teachers check students’ writing assignments to ensure they have completed them, but they rarely provide feedback on them. “The teacher checks our assignments, but he does not correct or collect them because we usually write in the book,” one student commented. Some teachers also exploit writing to enhance students’ confidence in speaking. As one teacher noted, “We ask the weak or less confident students to prepare notes about their favorite topics at home and use them to talk in the classroom.” [32_TD$IF]4. Influences on English L2 writing in Iran Various push-and-pull factors have been at work to shape the dynamics of EFL writing in Iran. Among the alluring factors, the interviewed teachers referred to the global rise of English as the main language of written communication, the emergence of new online forums and mobile technologies whereby people from all walks of life are communicating via the written word, and the increasing importance of English writing for immigration, professional, and academic purposes. Nevertheless, the teachers indicated that English writing instruction has been overlooked in the country as a consequence of inadequate support for teaching English in general. This lack of leverage for teaching English is one of the repercussions of the Cultural Revolution, following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which has created a rift between leftists, who support teaching English to accommodate the needs of those who aspire to learn and communicate in English, and fundamentalists, who advocate teaching an indigenized and localized version of English, rather than a more international or global English, to guard against the cultural hegemony of the West and the spread of secularism (Borjian, 2013). The educational policies, which have been formulated and implemented by the latter group, have ever since pushed for a late start of English in school curriculum (Borjian, 2013), although the motivation to learn English is strong among Iranians (Riazi, 2005), especially the youth who are cognizant of the educational and social access and mobility that come along with knowing English. Apart from these ideological and cultural concerns, English writing instruction has also been directly or indirectly limited by logistical, institutional, and practical problems. Most of the university lecturers interviewed expressed their reluctance to teach writing because they are involved in overtime work and private tutoring and, therefore, do not want to allocate more after-school time giving feedback and commenting on students’ papers. Besides complaining about the crowded classes (over 50 in some cases), heavy teaching load, and low payment, the lecturers pointed out that the inadequate institutional support to attend conferences and conduct research has precluded them from keeping abreast of the new pedagogical breakthroughs in L2 writing. “There are insufficient funds and incentives to conduct research or attend international
B. Naghdipour / Journal of Second Language Writing 32 (2016) 81–87
85
conferences and workshops,” one lecturer remarked. Likewise, the lecturers believed that the existing local English language teaching programs lack the rigor to produce writing teachers. As one lecturer said, “Academic English programs are too general to train student teachers to teach writing, and teachers generally teach the way they were taught as students.” As another factor influencing the dynamics of English-language writing instruction in Iran, private language schools have promoted a belief associating “knowing” a language more with an ability to speak than to write it, thus paying inadequate attention to the teaching and leaning of English writing. The private language schools I observed attach more importance to enhancing language learners’ oral communicative abilities, offering a wide range of listening and speaking courses such as English Conversation, Free Debate, and Movie Discussion. According to one teacher, “Private language schools do their best to expose students to the everyday use of English because they have very little chance to meet native speakers or use English outside the class.” However, while all interviewed teachers unanimously viewed private language schools as being more successful than their state-run counterparts in developing language learners’ communicative competence in English, some university lecturers held them responsible for their students’ lack of interest in formal writing. “Students used to write like a book in the past; nowadays they are writing the way they talk,” one lecturer said. Similarly, another lecturer, who reported that a great number of students in his essay writing class were attending private language institutes, noted, “Those students who go to private language schools tend to use more informal and casual language in their writing.” [3_TD$IF]5. Discussion and conclusions The findings of this study indicate that, despite students’ need to develop their writing skills, teaching English writing per se was only supported for students majoring in English and language learners attending preparation classes for international proficiency exams at private language schools. Wherever writing was included in the curriculum, however, teachers followed traditional pedagogical approaches in their classes. In particular, incorporating formative assessment tools, collaborative tasks, portfolio writing, and other process- and genre-based strategies were among activities absent from the majority of writing classes. Also, most of the teachers’ feedback practices were retrospective and corrective, addressing mainly grammatical errors without offering students a road map for their future learning. Consistent with previous findings in EFL contexts (e.g., Al-Jarrah & Al-Ahmad, 2013; Reichelt, 2005; You, 2004), the teachers referred to various contextual factors such as ideological, institutional, and practical obstacles depriving them of opportunities to advocate more effective pedagogical practices in their writing classes. The insights shared in this report could offer several implications for second language writing curriculum and instruction. First, the findings suggest that, as Ruecker et al. (2014) maintained, contextual factors can strongly influence the teaching and learning of English-language writing. More specifically, a distrust of spreading English language and culture, as well as inadequate support for teaching writing, in the contexts where ideological sentiments override realities on the ground could contribute to students’ underdeveloped English writing. This situation is more evident in the Iranian context where students experience a truncated English language curriculum, particularly during the pre-university education, in which productive language learning skills are neither valued nor emphasized. These outdated curricular policies lead to students’ development of low general English language proficiency, which, as Sasaki (2000) observed, could curb students’ development in different competencies conducive to fostering effective L2 writing skills. Second, the findings suggest that L2 writing pedagogy in Iran and similar EFL contexts need to be reevaluated in the light of more recent breakthroughs in writing scholarship. In fact, a reliance on product-based approaches to language teaching may not have much potential to provide EFL students with opportunities to develop various areas of their writing (Casanave, 2009; Lee & Coniam, 2013). Writing teachers in this study advocated a learning-to-write orientation by focusing on strategies that help students learn how to write, rather than a writing-to-learn orientation or using writing as a springboard for students’ development of disciplinary content knowledge (see Manchón, 2011 for a review). However, teachers’ overemphasis on a “how” to write agenda might deprive students, wittingly or unwittingly, of the opportunity to make the most of writing as a multifunctional skill. To have a more comprehensive view to writing pedagogy, teachers can incorporate reading-to-write activities, especially at tertiary level, so that students learn not only how to write and what to write about but also deepen their understanding of disciplinary content. Third, the findings imply that advocating an indigenized and localized version of English (Borjian, 2013) in EFL contexts is sometimes justified on ideological grounds, yet the time, cost, manpower, and other resources allocated to teaching such programs should also be justified on ethical grounds. In other words, insensitivity to the real needs of today’s generation of students in an era when the notions of bilingualism and biliteracy or even multiliteracy (Bunch & Willett, 2013; New London Group, 1996) are associated with educational, professional, economic, and social power could lead to creating ill-prepared students who have difficulties functioning as fully-fledged individuals in the new competitive academic and professional world (Busse, 2013; Tardy, 2011). Teaching writing from earlier years of schooling, by contrast, would better equip students to cope with challenging writing tasks in later disciplinary and professional contexts. Overall, the picture painted here illustrates that both state-run and private English programs have yet to meet the demand for developing students’ L2 writing because they subscribe to ineffective writing curricula and pedagogies. In response to this increasing need, therefore, it behooves the Iranian educators to assume more responsibility to prepare students “for a complex literate world” (Bunch & Willet, 2013, p. 141), where the possibility of encountering emerging text types, discourses, and genres outside school is on the rise. This accountability should be inculcated in pre-service as well as in-service training programs to equip teachers with essential theoretical knowledge and practical know-how to help
86
B. Naghdipour / Journal of Second Language Writing 32 (2016) 81–87
students write for different purposes (Gebhard, Chen, Graham, & Gunawan, 2013). Furthermore, writing intervention programs need to be introduced (see Bunch & Willett, 2013; Naghdipour & Koç, 2015) to initiate EFL students into writing literacies at pre-university level and into disciplinary writing at higher education (Gebhard et al., 2013). It can be concluded that failing to live up to the global standards of English education in the name of ideological conservatism is a missed opportunity for Iran and other EFL contexts where teachers and students face similar challenges in the teaching and learning of writing. Instead, framing a new English curriculum that recognizes the importance of writing would better prepare students for the future challenges and opportunities while at the same time respecting linguistic and cultural diversity. Acknowledgments I would like to thank the editor of JSLW and the anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Appendix.
[34_TD$IF]A: Teacher interview protocol 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
How do you teach English writing? What approaches/methods do you follow to teach writing? What are some of the common instructional activities you use in your writing classes? What types of assignments do you give? What types of instructional materials do you use? What feedback strategies do you employ to respond to students’ work? How do you assess your students’ writing performance? Are students motivated to improve their writing? Why/why not? What are the main macro-level factors (e.g., curricular, political, ideological, and social) affecting students’ writing in English? 10. What are the main micro-level factors (e.g., students’ needs, motivation, L2 proficiency, and L1 writing ability) affecting students’ writing in English?
B: Student interview protocol 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Are you satisfied with your English writing ability? Why/why not? How is English writing taught at this school/university? What are some of the common activities you do in the writing class? What types of writing assignments are you given? What types of feedback do you receive on your work? How is your writing performance assessed? Are you motivated to improve your writing? Why/why not? What challenges or difficulties do you have with writing in English?
References Al-Jarrah, R. S., & Al-Ahmad, S. (2013). Writing instruction in Jordan: past, present and future trends. System, 41, 84–94. Borjian, M. (2013). English in post-revolutionary Iran: from indigenization to internationalization. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Bunch, G. C., & Willett, K. (2013). Writing to mean in middle school: understanding how second language writers negotiate textually-rich content-area instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 141–160. Busse, V. (2013). How do students of German perceive feedback practices at university? A motivational exploration. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 406–424. Casanave, C. (2009). Training for writing or training for reality? Challenges facing EFL writing teachers and students in language teacher education programs. In R. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: learning, teaching, and research (pp. 256–277).Buffalo: Multilingual Matters. [35_TD$IF]Foreign language writing instruction: principles and practices. In T. Cimasko, & M. Reichelt (Eds.). Anderson, SC: Parlor Press. Gebhard, M., Chen, I.-A., Graham, H., & Gunawan, W. (2013). Teaching to mean, writing to mean: SFL, L2 literacy: and teacher education. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 107–124. Hyland, K. (2013). Faculty feedback: perceptions and practices in L2 disciplinary writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 240–253. Lee, I., & Coniam, D. (2013). Introducing assessment for learning for EFL writing in an assessment of learning examination-driven system in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 34–50. Manchón, R. M. (2011). Writing to learn the language: issues in theory and research. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 61–82).Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Naghdipour, B., & Koç, S. (2015). The evaluation of a teaching intervention in Iranian EFL writing. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24, 389–398. New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–92. Ortega, L. (2012). Epilogue: exploring L2 writing–SLA interfaces. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 404–415.
B. Naghdipour / Journal of Second Language Writing 32 (2016) 81–87
87
Reichelt, M. (1999). Toward a more comprehensive view of L2 writing: foreign language writing in the U.S. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 181–204. Reichelt, M. (2005). English-language writing instruction in Poland. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 215–232. Reichelt, M. (2009). A critical evaluation of writing teaching programmes in different foreign language settings. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: learning, teaching, and research (pp. 183–206).Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters. Riazi, A. (2005). The four language stages in the history of Iran. In A. Lin, & P. Martin (Eds.), Decolonization, globalisation: language-in-education policy and practice (pp. 98–115).Clevendon: Multilingual Matters. Ruecker, T., Shapiro, S., Johnson, E. N., & Tardy, C. M. (2014). Exploring the linguistic and institutional contexts of writing instruction in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 401–412. Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: an exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 259–291. Tardy, C. M. (2011). The history and future of genre in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 1–5. Tarnopolsky, O. (2000). Writing English as a foreign language: a report from Ukraine. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 209–226. WIPO (2013). Study on intellectual property and brain drain—a mapping exercise. Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization. You, X. (2004). New directions in EFL writing: a report from China. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 253–256. Bakhtiar Naghdipour holds a PhD in English Language Teaching (ELT) from Eastern Mediterranean University, Cyprus. He has been teaching English as a foreign language at different levels of education for two decades. His main research interests focus on writing curriculum and pedagogy, blended learning, and computer assisted language learning.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Second Language Writing journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/seclan
Short communication
English writing instruction in Iran: Implications for second language writing curriculum and pedagogy Bakhtiar Naghdipour Faculty of Education, Department of English Language Teaching, Eastern Mediterranean University, Cyprus
A R T I C L E I N F O
Article history: Received 15 January 2015 Received in revised form 2 May 2016 Accepted 2 May 2016 Available online xxx Keywords: EFL writing L2 writing instruction L2 writing curriculum Iran
A B S T R A C T
[24_TD$IF]This paper reports on English writing instruction and the main factors shaping the dynamics of English writing at different levels of education in Iran. The data gathered from teachers and students using semi-structured interviews and class observations revealed, despite students’ need to develop competency in English writing, unsatisfactory writing skills, mainly because of the inadequacy of the English writing curriculum and pedagogy. The findings further indicated that English language education in general and writing skills in particular have fallen prey to the conflict between the post-revolutionary ideological sentiments behind the design and implementation of the English language curriculum and pragmatic forces that allure individuals to subscribe to the new multi-literate and multicultural world, which has come to embrace equal educational access and opportunities for its citizens. Exploring the dynamics of English writing in this under-represented context could offer insights for the similar EFL contexts where the role of writing as a means of enriching the personal and future professional life of new generation of students and language learners has yet to be recognized. ã 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
[25_TD$IF]1. Introduction With the rapid growth of globalization and global connectedness, the emergence of new channels of communication, the plurality of discourse communities, and the rise of English as the major medium of international communication and scientific scholarship, the significance of developing proficiency in English language, and English writing in particular, has gained wide recognition. In addition to its conventional role in helping students and language learners develop their competency in a new language, the importance of writing has recently been emphasized for having the potential to build students’ expertise in a discipline (Hyland, 2013; Manchón, 2011; Ortega, 2012). Despite this multi-functionality, credibility of writing as a game-changing language learning skill is far from being recognized in many EFL contexts, where outdated curricular policies and traditional pedagogical practices are still prevalent (Casanave, 2009; Reichelt, 2009). To promote or improve EFL writing instruction and inform scholarship on second language writing, some scholars (e.g., Al-Jarrah & Al-Ahmad, 2013; Cimasko & Reichelt, 2011; Reichelt, 1999, 2005; Tarnopolsky, 2000; You, 2004) have described and analyzed English writing instruction in different contexts. These studies have endeavored to throw light on the contextual forces and factors that interact to affect the status of English writing in the curriculum and the quality of writing instruction in each specific context. However, while the influence of cross-contextual differences on the practice of L2 writing instruction is widely recognized, there is still little research addressing the interface between context and
E-mail address: [email protected] (B. Naghdipour). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.05.001 1060-3743/ã 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
82
B. Naghdipour / Journal of Second Language Writing 32 (2016) 81–87
L2 writing dynamics (Ruecker, Shapiro, Johnson, & Tardy, 2014). The work reported here, which gives a contextualized account of English writing instruction in Iran, adds to our knowledge about the practice of L2 writing teaching in an underrepresented context in the literature, and is relevant to similar contexts where there is a need to improve the teaching and learning of English-language writing. Analyzing English writing instruction in Iran can also contribute to L2 writing research and practice. Given that many EFL contexts place a high premium on traditional pedagogical practices and approaches to teaching writing (Casanave, 2009; Lee & Coniam, 2013; Naghdipour & Koç, 2015), exposing the pitfalls of such practices could inform English language teachers and educators about the importance of advocating for more realistic curricula and deploying more effective instructional approaches to better accommodate the learning needs of students in writing classes. Likewise, the findings of such studies can serve as a resource (Ruecker et al., 2014) for researchers interested in investigating the contextual factors (e.g., educational policies and ideological forces) influencing the teaching and learning of L2 writing. [26_TD$IF]1.1. The importance of English writing in Iran Perhaps like other EFL contexts, developing English writing skills in Iran can benefit not only students but also various groups of people and professionals. To begin with, English major undergraduate and graduate students have to develop writing skills to deal with demanding written assignments, exams, and projects during their studies. Non-English major master and Ph.D. students who publish papers in English are also privileged for admission to and graduation from different programs, though the medium of instruction in national universities is Persian. In addition, university lecturers are struggling with the “publish or perish” anxiety as they need to prepare and publish their research in international outlets or present their findings at conferences and symposiums in order to get promoted. More importantly, developing essay writing abilities, as one of the components of high-stakes English proficiency exams such as IELTS and TOEFL, to satisfy the requirements of obtaining a visa to leave the country for better social, educational, and occupational opportunities has gained momentum; this phenomenon has turned Iran into one of the top countries with “brain drain” (WIPO, 2013). Last but not least, an ability to write in English is becoming an asset in doing business with the world outside because most international correspondence, electronically or paper-based, is carried out in English. [27_TD$IF]2. Methodology To describe English writing instruction in Iran and report on factors influencing its practice, this study draws on qualitative sources of data from interviews and observations. I interviewed teachers (N = 21) and students (N = 36) from four levels of education (middle school, secondary school, university, and private language school) in three parts of the country: Tehran in the north, Isfahan in the center, and Ahwaz in the south (see Table 1). An equal number of participants (seven teachers and 12 students) were randomly selected from different levels in each city, but primary school education (Grades 1–6) was excluded because teaching English starts from Grade 7. Given that education in Iran is centralized, in terms of the curricular goals and objectives, any province, however, could have been selected. The majority of private language institutes across the country are also franchised, thus adopting the same curriculum and instructional materials used by the “parent school.” The teacher interview protocol included 10 core questions with several follow-up questions probing mainly the teachers’ use of pedagogical approaches, instructional materials and activities, and feedback and assessment strategies. The teachers’ opinions were also sought on the various factors shaping students’ experience with English writing. Similar questions were used to interview students (see Appendix[28_TD$IF]). The interviews were all semi-structured and conducted in Persian. Each interview lasted for approximately 20 min for the teachers and less than that for the students. Having realized that Table 1 The Interviewed Participants and Observed Classes by Education Level and Grade. Level/Major
Participants
N
Data source
Grade/Degree
Middle school (Grades 7–9)
Student Teacher Class Student Teacher Class Student Lecturer Class Student Lecturer Class Student Instructor Class
6 3 3 6 3 3 9 6 3 6 3 3 9 6 3
Interview Interview Observation Interview Interview Observation Interview Interview Observation Interview Interview Observation Interview Interview Observation
9th Grade Associate (2-year) 9th Grade Senior B.A. Senior Senior M.A. & Ph.D. Senior Senior M.A. & Ph.D. Senior Upper-intermediate M.A. Upper-intermediate
Secondary school (Grades 10–12)
University (English)
University (Non-English)
Private language school
B. Naghdipour / Journal of Second Language Writing 32 (2016) 81–87
83
audio-recording could inconvenience the interviewees, I took notes of the participants’ responses and comments. I mainly focused on the key points the participants made in order to be able to cope with both asking questions and writing at the same time. However, I reviewed and annotated the notes immediately after completing each interview when my memory was still fresh. As an additional type of data, 15 English or English writing classes from four different levels were observed (see Table 1) in order to have a first-hand account of classroom-based activities students and teachers were involved in, including information about the most emphasized genres of writing, instructional techniques, assignments and tests, and feedback strategies. Five classes were randomly selected and observed from each city, and I did not observe the classes taught by the teachers interviewed, nor attended by the students interviewed, in order to collect additional information about how writing is taught elsewhere. The interviewees and observed classes were selected from the last grade/year of each school and from third-year university classes when students are offered their last writing or ESP course to ensure that participants had sufficient experience with English language or writing. I categorized the interview and observation notes into different levels before translating them into English. I then read and reviewed these notes several times to identify the relevant information about English writing instruction and to extract the most common factors shaping its dynamics. Additionally, I drew on my own knowledge and experience in the Iranian educational context to provide or confirm the contextual information (e.g., the number of hours middle school students study English per week) about English language or writing instruction. 3. English L2 writing in Iran 3.1. Middle and secondary schools Students study English as a school subject for three to four hours per week in Grades 7 and 8 and two to four hours in Grades 9 through 12. The locally developed textbooks emphasize teaching grammar, vocabulary, and short reading passages at the expense of oral and written skills. The interviewed teachers indicated that the traditional grammar-translation method is used to teach these areas of language learning. In the classes I observed, students’ writing experience in English is restricted to the phrase- or sentence-level writing while completing grammatical exercises and responding to “right there” or in-the-text questions following reading passages. In addition, the university entrance exam (Konkoor), which is a gatekeeping test for both state-run and private colleges and universities, does not test students’ writing in English. This multiplechoice exam, which covers different subjects that students study at secondary school, includes 25–70 questions (depending on whether they want to join English or non-English majors programs) on English, testing their grammar, vocabulary, and reading comprehension skills. As such, pre-university English language education in Iran appears to follow a “truncated” curriculum in that it ignores productive language learning skills such as speaking and writing. [29_TD$IF]3.2. Universities 3.2.1. English majors Undergraduate students majoring in English are offered three 90-min writing courses beginning in the second year: paragraph development in the third semester, letter writing in the fourth semester, and essay writing (four to five paragraphs) in the fifth semester. However, while this order varies from one university to another and from one program (such as English literature) to another (such as English translation), the content of curriculum has been there for a long time. “This writing curriculum,” as one experienced lecturer said, “has remained unchanged for nearly three decades.” Most of the writing textbooks used in the classrooms I observed cover the structure and components of different types of paragraphs, letters, and essays. However, they do not contain process- and genre-based activities such as pre-writing and brainstorming, multi-drafting and revising, collaborative writing, and reading-to-write tasks like paraphrasing and summarizing; nor do the lecturers deal with new genres or text types such as reports, memos, cover letters and application letters in their writing classes. The lecturers cited insufficient time, heavy workload, students’ low English proficiency, and their lack of experience with English writing as reasons for opting not to incorporate these writing activities or genres in their classes. In particular, the lecturers complained that students enter English programs without having a basic knowledge of writing, one noting that, “Most of the students who join these programs have difficulty writing grammatically correct and meaningful sentences.” The interviewed students, on the other hand, reported that teachers spend most of the class time lecturing about how to write rather than getting students engaged in writing itself. “The teacher uses slides and sample texts to help us write better, but we have no chance to practice writing or work together in the class,” one student said. Although the lecturers I interviewed and observed vary in their feedback provision strategies, they use a few common practices. Among them, some lecturers reported treating their students’ writing assignments as a routine practice students have to engage in, opting then not to correct and return each and every paper submitted. To have a chance to offer oral feedback on as many papers as possible during a single session, some of the lecturers I observed ask students to read their writing aloud in class. Another common strategy I observed is selecting one student’s work and projecting it on the board or making copies for all students to involve them in the feedback provision process. However, the lecturers said they predominantly focus on students’ writing accuracy because grammatical errors are prevalent in their writing, and students also expect more feedback on grammar, probably due to many years of experience with grammar instruction at
84
B. Naghdipour / Journal of Second Language Writing 32 (2016) 81–87
pre-university level. As one lecturer noted, “Students’ concern with improving their knowledge of grammar does not allow us to focus on more global areas of writing such as content, audience, and rhetorical expectations.” [30_TD$IF]3.2.2. Non-English majors Non-English major undergraduate students, who constitute the overwhelming majority of the student population in the country, take one General English course, offered during the first year, and two ESP courses, offered in or after the second year. The General English course is a review or continuation of the lessons or areas students have covered in high school, whereas the ESP courses aim to develop students’ knowledge of technical terms and their ability to read and comprehend academic texts in their field of study (see http://www.msrt.ir/fa/prog/Pages/Home.aspx). Instructors teaching ESP courses hold an M.A. or Ph.D. degree in English and hence do not share the same disciplinary knowledge with students. Instructors and students indicated that the focus of instruction in these classes is on translating into Persian the content of the locally developed textbooks by The Organization for Researching and Composing, which is affiliated with the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology (http://www.en.samt.ac.ir). The interviewed students reported that they are not required to write for ESP classes, as the final assessment of these courses only tests their ability to translate short texts and lexical items from English into Persian. This was also reflected in the margins of students’ textbooks I observed, which were filled with the Persian equivalents of the new words and phrases. [31_TD$IF]3.3. Private language schools A considerable number of Iranians attend private language schools to learn English for immigration, business, or more personal purposes. A group of these language learners are students who enroll in these schools to improve their oral skills, as the neglected areas in the school or university curriculum. Other enrollees are children whose parents send them to learn English for social prestige or for their future studies. The private language schools observed in this study use imported commercial textbooks, which generally contain one or two writing tasks in the middle or end of each unit. Apart from preparation classes for the internationally recognized proficiency exams such as IELTS and TOEFL, which focus on four main skills using both commercial and locally compiled textbooks, private language schools rarely emphasize teaching writing. Besides, they lack the practical resources to do so, such as trained teachers and tailor-made instructional materials. However, the teachers I observed adopt traditional product-based approaches and resort to rote-learning strategies to teach writing in IELTS and TOEFL preparation classes. Some teachers, for instance, advise students to memorize patterns for writing the introduction and conclusion or other parts of a five-paragraph essay. The teachers often offer feedback on different aspects of students’ essay writing including task achievement, organization, language, and lexical resources, but they do not encourage further drafting and revision of students’ work. Justifying this strategy, one teacher said, “These exams test students’ timed writing ability, so revisions are not going to help.” In regular language learning courses, however, the interviewed students indicated that teachers check students’ writing assignments to ensure they have completed them, but they rarely provide feedback on them. “The teacher checks our assignments, but he does not correct or collect them because we usually write in the book,” one student commented. Some teachers also exploit writing to enhance students’ confidence in speaking. As one teacher noted, “We ask the weak or less confident students to prepare notes about their favorite topics at home and use them to talk in the classroom.” [32_TD$IF]4. Influences on English L2 writing in Iran Various push-and-pull factors have been at work to shape the dynamics of EFL writing in Iran. Among the alluring factors, the interviewed teachers referred to the global rise of English as the main language of written communication, the emergence of new online forums and mobile technologies whereby people from all walks of life are communicating via the written word, and the increasing importance of English writing for immigration, professional, and academic purposes. Nevertheless, the teachers indicated that English writing instruction has been overlooked in the country as a consequence of inadequate support for teaching English in general. This lack of leverage for teaching English is one of the repercussions of the Cultural Revolution, following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which has created a rift between leftists, who support teaching English to accommodate the needs of those who aspire to learn and communicate in English, and fundamentalists, who advocate teaching an indigenized and localized version of English, rather than a more international or global English, to guard against the cultural hegemony of the West and the spread of secularism (Borjian, 2013). The educational policies, which have been formulated and implemented by the latter group, have ever since pushed for a late start of English in school curriculum (Borjian, 2013), although the motivation to learn English is strong among Iranians (Riazi, 2005), especially the youth who are cognizant of the educational and social access and mobility that come along with knowing English. Apart from these ideological and cultural concerns, English writing instruction has also been directly or indirectly limited by logistical, institutional, and practical problems. Most of the university lecturers interviewed expressed their reluctance to teach writing because they are involved in overtime work and private tutoring and, therefore, do not want to allocate more after-school time giving feedback and commenting on students’ papers. Besides complaining about the crowded classes (over 50 in some cases), heavy teaching load, and low payment, the lecturers pointed out that the inadequate institutional support to attend conferences and conduct research has precluded them from keeping abreast of the new pedagogical breakthroughs in L2 writing. “There are insufficient funds and incentives to conduct research or attend international
B. Naghdipour / Journal of Second Language Writing 32 (2016) 81–87
85
conferences and workshops,” one lecturer remarked. Likewise, the lecturers believed that the existing local English language teaching programs lack the rigor to produce writing teachers. As one lecturer said, “Academic English programs are too general to train student teachers to teach writing, and teachers generally teach the way they were taught as students.” As another factor influencing the dynamics of English-language writing instruction in Iran, private language schools have promoted a belief associating “knowing” a language more with an ability to speak than to write it, thus paying inadequate attention to the teaching and leaning of English writing. The private language schools I observed attach more importance to enhancing language learners’ oral communicative abilities, offering a wide range of listening and speaking courses such as English Conversation, Free Debate, and Movie Discussion. According to one teacher, “Private language schools do their best to expose students to the everyday use of English because they have very little chance to meet native speakers or use English outside the class.” However, while all interviewed teachers unanimously viewed private language schools as being more successful than their state-run counterparts in developing language learners’ communicative competence in English, some university lecturers held them responsible for their students’ lack of interest in formal writing. “Students used to write like a book in the past; nowadays they are writing the way they talk,” one lecturer said. Similarly, another lecturer, who reported that a great number of students in his essay writing class were attending private language institutes, noted, “Those students who go to private language schools tend to use more informal and casual language in their writing.” [3_TD$IF]5. Discussion and conclusions The findings of this study indicate that, despite students’ need to develop their writing skills, teaching English writing per se was only supported for students majoring in English and language learners attending preparation classes for international proficiency exams at private language schools. Wherever writing was included in the curriculum, however, teachers followed traditional pedagogical approaches in their classes. In particular, incorporating formative assessment tools, collaborative tasks, portfolio writing, and other process- and genre-based strategies were among activities absent from the majority of writing classes. Also, most of the teachers’ feedback practices were retrospective and corrective, addressing mainly grammatical errors without offering students a road map for their future learning. Consistent with previous findings in EFL contexts (e.g., Al-Jarrah & Al-Ahmad, 2013; Reichelt, 2005; You, 2004), the teachers referred to various contextual factors such as ideological, institutional, and practical obstacles depriving them of opportunities to advocate more effective pedagogical practices in their writing classes. The insights shared in this report could offer several implications for second language writing curriculum and instruction. First, the findings suggest that, as Ruecker et al. (2014) maintained, contextual factors can strongly influence the teaching and learning of English-language writing. More specifically, a distrust of spreading English language and culture, as well as inadequate support for teaching writing, in the contexts where ideological sentiments override realities on the ground could contribute to students’ underdeveloped English writing. This situation is more evident in the Iranian context where students experience a truncated English language curriculum, particularly during the pre-university education, in which productive language learning skills are neither valued nor emphasized. These outdated curricular policies lead to students’ development of low general English language proficiency, which, as Sasaki (2000) observed, could curb students’ development in different competencies conducive to fostering effective L2 writing skills. Second, the findings suggest that L2 writing pedagogy in Iran and similar EFL contexts need to be reevaluated in the light of more recent breakthroughs in writing scholarship. In fact, a reliance on product-based approaches to language teaching may not have much potential to provide EFL students with opportunities to develop various areas of their writing (Casanave, 2009; Lee & Coniam, 2013). Writing teachers in this study advocated a learning-to-write orientation by focusing on strategies that help students learn how to write, rather than a writing-to-learn orientation or using writing as a springboard for students’ development of disciplinary content knowledge (see Manchón, 2011 for a review). However, teachers’ overemphasis on a “how” to write agenda might deprive students, wittingly or unwittingly, of the opportunity to make the most of writing as a multifunctional skill. To have a more comprehensive view to writing pedagogy, teachers can incorporate reading-to-write activities, especially at tertiary level, so that students learn not only how to write and what to write about but also deepen their understanding of disciplinary content. Third, the findings imply that advocating an indigenized and localized version of English (Borjian, 2013) in EFL contexts is sometimes justified on ideological grounds, yet the time, cost, manpower, and other resources allocated to teaching such programs should also be justified on ethical grounds. In other words, insensitivity to the real needs of today’s generation of students in an era when the notions of bilingualism and biliteracy or even multiliteracy (Bunch & Willett, 2013; New London Group, 1996) are associated with educational, professional, economic, and social power could lead to creating ill-prepared students who have difficulties functioning as fully-fledged individuals in the new competitive academic and professional world (Busse, 2013; Tardy, 2011). Teaching writing from earlier years of schooling, by contrast, would better equip students to cope with challenging writing tasks in later disciplinary and professional contexts. Overall, the picture painted here illustrates that both state-run and private English programs have yet to meet the demand for developing students’ L2 writing because they subscribe to ineffective writing curricula and pedagogies. In response to this increasing need, therefore, it behooves the Iranian educators to assume more responsibility to prepare students “for a complex literate world” (Bunch & Willet, 2013, p. 141), where the possibility of encountering emerging text types, discourses, and genres outside school is on the rise. This accountability should be inculcated in pre-service as well as in-service training programs to equip teachers with essential theoretical knowledge and practical know-how to help
86
B. Naghdipour / Journal of Second Language Writing 32 (2016) 81–87
students write for different purposes (Gebhard, Chen, Graham, & Gunawan, 2013). Furthermore, writing intervention programs need to be introduced (see Bunch & Willett, 2013; Naghdipour & Koç, 2015) to initiate EFL students into writing literacies at pre-university level and into disciplinary writing at higher education (Gebhard et al., 2013). It can be concluded that failing to live up to the global standards of English education in the name of ideological conservatism is a missed opportunity for Iran and other EFL contexts where teachers and students face similar challenges in the teaching and learning of writing. Instead, framing a new English curriculum that recognizes the importance of writing would better prepare students for the future challenges and opportunities while at the same time respecting linguistic and cultural diversity. Acknowledgments I would like to thank the editor of JSLW and the anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Appendix.
[34_TD$IF]A: Teacher interview protocol 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
How do you teach English writing? What approaches/methods do you follow to teach writing? What are some of the common instructional activities you use in your writing classes? What types of assignments do you give? What types of instructional materials do you use? What feedback strategies do you employ to respond to students’ work? How do you assess your students’ writing performance? Are students motivated to improve their writing? Why/why not? What are the main macro-level factors (e.g., curricular, political, ideological, and social) affecting students’ writing in English? 10. What are the main micro-level factors (e.g., students’ needs, motivation, L2 proficiency, and L1 writing ability) affecting students’ writing in English?
B: Student interview protocol 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Are you satisfied with your English writing ability? Why/why not? How is English writing taught at this school/university? What are some of the common activities you do in the writing class? What types of writing assignments are you given? What types of feedback do you receive on your work? How is your writing performance assessed? Are you motivated to improve your writing? Why/why not? What challenges or difficulties do you have with writing in English?
References Al-Jarrah, R. S., & Al-Ahmad, S. (2013). Writing instruction in Jordan: past, present and future trends. System, 41, 84–94. Borjian, M. (2013). English in post-revolutionary Iran: from indigenization to internationalization. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Bunch, G. C., & Willett, K. (2013). Writing to mean in middle school: understanding how second language writers negotiate textually-rich content-area instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 141–160. Busse, V. (2013). How do students of German perceive feedback practices at university? A motivational exploration. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 406–424. Casanave, C. (2009). Training for writing or training for reality? Challenges facing EFL writing teachers and students in language teacher education programs. In R. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: learning, teaching, and research (pp. 256–277).Buffalo: Multilingual Matters. [35_TD$IF]Foreign language writing instruction: principles and practices. In T. Cimasko, & M. Reichelt (Eds.). Anderson, SC: Parlor Press. Gebhard, M., Chen, I.-A., Graham, H., & Gunawan, W. (2013). Teaching to mean, writing to mean: SFL, L2 literacy: and teacher education. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 107–124. Hyland, K. (2013). Faculty feedback: perceptions and practices in L2 disciplinary writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 240–253. Lee, I., & Coniam, D. (2013). Introducing assessment for learning for EFL writing in an assessment of learning examination-driven system in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 34–50. Manchón, R. M. (2011). Writing to learn the language: issues in theory and research. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 61–82).Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Naghdipour, B., & Koç, S. (2015). The evaluation of a teaching intervention in Iranian EFL writing. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24, 389–398. New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–92. Ortega, L. (2012). Epilogue: exploring L2 writing–SLA interfaces. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 404–415.
B. Naghdipour / Journal of Second Language Writing 32 (2016) 81–87
87
Reichelt, M. (1999). Toward a more comprehensive view of L2 writing: foreign language writing in the U.S. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 181–204. Reichelt, M. (2005). English-language writing instruction in Poland. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 215–232. Reichelt, M. (2009). A critical evaluation of writing teaching programmes in different foreign language settings. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: learning, teaching, and research (pp. 183–206).Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters. Riazi, A. (2005). The four language stages in the history of Iran. In A. Lin, & P. Martin (Eds.), Decolonization, globalisation: language-in-education policy and practice (pp. 98–115).Clevendon: Multilingual Matters. Ruecker, T., Shapiro, S., Johnson, E. N., & Tardy, C. M. (2014). Exploring the linguistic and institutional contexts of writing instruction in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 401–412. Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: an exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 259–291. Tardy, C. M. (2011). The history and future of genre in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 1–5. Tarnopolsky, O. (2000). Writing English as a foreign language: a report from Ukraine. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 209–226. WIPO (2013). Study on intellectual property and brain drain—a mapping exercise. Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization. You, X. (2004). New directions in EFL writing: a report from China. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 253–256. Bakhtiar Naghdipour holds a PhD in English Language Teaching (ELT) from Eastern Mediterranean University, Cyprus. He has been teaching English as a foreign language at different levels of education for two decades. His main research interests focus on writing curriculum and pedagogy, blended learning, and computer assisted language learning.