Teaching Writing in Chinese Speaking Areas

STUDIES IN WRITING

VOLUME 16

Series Editor:

Gert Rijlaarsdam, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Editorial Board:

Linda Allal, University of Geneva, Switzerland Eric Esperet, University of Poitiers, France David Galbraith, Staffordshire University, UK Joachim Grabowski, University of Heidelberg, Germany Ronald Kellogg, St. Louis University, USA Lucia Mason, University ofPadova, Italy MartaMilian, Universitat Autonoma Barcelona, Spain Sarah Ransdell, Florida Atlantic University, USA Liliana Tolchinsky, University of Barcelona, Spain Mark Torrance, Staffordshire University, UK Annie Piolat, University of Aix-en-Provence, France PaiVi Tynjala, University ofJyvdskyld, Finland Carel van Wijk, Tilburg University, The Netherlands

Springer publishes the international book series Studies in Writing, founded by Amsterdam University Press and continued by Kluwer Academic Publishers. The intended readers are all those interested in the foundations of writing and learning and teaching processes in written composition. The series aims at multiple perspectives of writing, education and texts. Therefore, authors and readers come from various fields of research, from curriculum development and from teacher training. Fields of research covered are cognitive, socio-cognitive and developmental psychology, psycholinguistics, text linguistics, curriculum development, instructional science. The series aims to cover theoretical issues, supported by empirical research, quantitative as well as qualitative, representing a wide range of nationalities. The series provides a forum for research from established researchers and welcomes contributions from young researchers. All studies published in the series are peer-reviewed.

Mark Shiu Kee Shum De Lu Zhang Editors

Teaching Writing in Chinese Speaking Areas

springer

Mark Shiu Kee Shum, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong De Lu Zhang, Ocean University of China, China

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A CLP. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN-10: 0-387-26392-6 ISBN-13: 9780387263922 Printed on acid-free paper e-ISBN-10: 0-387-26915-0 e-ISBN-13: 9780387269153

© 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher (Springer Science+Business Media, Inc., 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden. The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks and similar terms, even if they are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subject to proprietary rights.

Printed in the United States of America.

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 SPIN 11495598

springeronline.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE VII Gert Rijlaarsdam

INTRODUCTION: 1 TEACHING WRITING IN CHINESE SPEAKING AREAS Mark Shiu Kee Shum & De Lu Zhang

TEACHING CHINESE REPORT WRITING: 7 MELBOURNE AND HONG KONG

Mark Shiu Kee Shum

TEACHING WRITING IN ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE: 29 MAINLAND CHINA De Lu Zhang

TEACHING WRITING IN CHINESE AS MOTHER TONGUE: 47 MAINLAND CHINA Yu Ping Han

TEACHING WRITING IN CHINESE AS A SECOND LANGUAGE: 65 MAINLAND CHINA Li Zhao, Yong Ji Xu & Xia Zhu

TEACHING WRITING IN CHINESE AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE: 87 MAINLAND CHINA Chun Li Zhao & Cai Ying Yang

THE STUDY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL AND TEACHING 109 APPROACHES Ke Kang He & Mark Shiu Kee Shum

INNOVATIONS OF TEACHING CHINESE COMPOSITION IN 131 SCHOOLS IN MAINLAND CHINA Bai Man Li

EMERGENCE, DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH IN MODERN 149 CHINESE PRACTICAL WRITING Cheng Kun Yu

A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION ON THE TEACHING REFORM IN 157 UNIVERSITY WRITING Guo Rui Yu

VI

THE HONG KONG WRITING PROJECT: WRITING REFORM IN 171 PRIMARY SCHOOLS Shek Kam Tse, Elizabeth Ka Yee Loh, Wai Ming Cheung & Che Ying Kwan

EFFECTS OF FOUR METHODS OF EVALUATION OF CHINESE 199 COMPOSITION IN HONG KONG SECONDARY SCHOOLS Mark Shiu Kee Shum

ACADEMIC ESL WRITING IN HONG KONG 215 Albert Tai Yuen Wong

INNOVATIONS FOR TEACHING FRESHMAN 23 3 CHINESE COMPOSITION IN TAIWAN Chen Li Yao

TEACHING CHINESE COMPOSITION IN SINGAPORE SECONDARY 245 SCHOOL Seok Hwa Sim

REFERENCES 259

AUTHOR INDEX 267

SUBJECT INDEX 271

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS 273

PREFACE

GERT RIJLAARSDAM

University of Amsterdam & Utrecht University, the Netherlands

It is only recently that to some extent I became involved in Asian research on Writ­ing. In 2001, when I edited volume 11 in this book series, New Directions for Re­search in L2 Writing, I was struck by one chapter, a beautiful study on writing proc­esses, set up in Japan by Miyuki Sasaki (Ransdell & Barbier, 2002). Until that chap­ter, not one chapter in the foregoing 10 volumes came from Asian countries. What a shame... In the same year, at the conference of the International Association for the Improvement of Mother Tongue Education (lAIMTE), I met delegates from Hong Kong reporting interesting research on teaching writing in the very complex bilin­gual situation in Hong Kong. From conversations with Shek Kam Tse and Mark Shiu Kee Shum and their colleagues, I got a global picture of other research devel­opments in China and Chinese-speaking regions. We discussed the possibilities to publish a volume in the Studies in Writing book series, for two reasons. Insight in research and education in writing could help us, the Western world, to review cur­rent developments on our continents, and at the same time, such a volume would help us to enrich the writing research community - the Special Interest Group on Writing^ - founder of this book series.

The result of the hard work of the volume editors amply fulfils these goals. However, I think it also adds something I had not anticipated. This volume arouses a curiosity as to what happens in China and related regions. Superficially, we seem to share educational problems and challenges. In China writing education faces the same challenges as it does in the West, - availability of Internet ' , falling stan­dards' ' , teachers' workload, lack of interest^, time consuming but non-effective cor-

' http://www.sig-writing.org/ ^ "Due to the influence of the Internet, young people in Taiwan have become accustomed to using short phrases, or even just icons, to express their feelings. " (Yao, this volume) ^ "This resource (Internet) has not been adequately used, as most teachers are afraid that students might spend much time doing other things on the Internet. " (Han, this volume) ^ "A good friend of mine who is teaching at middle school once told me, 'in the near future we have worse students to send to the university you work in.' Every year, we hear the same complaint - the stu­dents 'proficiency of Chinese is going down. "(Yao, this volume) ^ "The chapter stated the lack of motivation, lack of composition writing skills and lack of knowledge as the greatest hurdles faced by Singaporean secondary school students. " (Sim, this volume).

VIII

rection^, shortage of teachers^, quality of teacher^, resistance to innovations^^, cen­tralized educational planning^ V However, the historical cultural differences are evi­dent in how the needs to innovate are answered in a way different to that of the West. Fundamentally, two differences seem to play a role when we compare the Western situation with the Chinese. First, there is the Chinese conception of writing, which is definitely different from the Western conception: throughout the book, the Confucian roots in the conception of writing are present. Second, there is the way in which China copes with tradition and the demands of modernization: the Chinese world is now more open, and new genres develop in the wake of the rapid social and economical changes that have taken place in recent years. After reading this volume, for me the difference is that authors in this volume really try to bridge tradition and recent societal demands, while we often forget or neglect our Aristotelian tradition. In the West, we seem to use technology for improving current practice, that is, we play one bank of the River of Old and New, and forget about the other bank. In con­trast, the Chinese authors obviously try to incorporate the essence of the tradition in the new content and methodology of education, while being very aware that to re­new teaching practice, some relicts of the education practice tradition must be over­come.

To me, it seems that the Chinese authors construct the bridge between old and new from home-made materials, embedded in the traditional concept of writing. Most chapters rely on Chinese references and studies only, with some exceptions. Only the systemic functional theory of Michael Halliday, almost absent in non-Australian publications, has adherent among the authors in chapters. In cases where volume authors use studies from other linguistic, mostly Anglophone regions, they adapt them critically and carefially to the Chinese cultural environment. Even - in the Western world - well-accepted writing process models, for example Bereiter and Scardamalia's knowledge telling and knowledge transforming model are criticized because of their unidimensional nature. Indeed, the He & Shum model represents

^ ''The whole purpose of writing, many pupils hold, is to get high marks; and achieving high marks is only possible through producing work that contains no errors. For many pupils, writing is difficult and unin­teresting; for many teachers, it is monotonous, painstaking and dull " (Tse et al, this volume) ^ "Essay marking is a headache to many Chinese teachers as marking composition essays is a time-consuming task and takes a great deal of effort while students are just concerned about the marks and they may repeat the same mistakes in future. "(Sim, this volume) * "Now Korean middle schools are running short of teachers who can give instructions in Chinese writ­ing. This is the main reason that some schools have Chinese writing classes separately. "(Zhao, Xu & Zhu, this volume) ^ "Many Chinese teachers themselves are not good at writing. They are poor at finding problems in com­positions and correcting them. Each teacher must give writing lessons once every five to six classes. There are too many students for them to correct their compositions in a detailed way. Little by little, the habit of not correcting some errors in students' compositions is formed and becomes very common. So the language errors in the compositions become fossilized which are difficult to get rid of. If this situation continues, the improvement of teaching quality will become empty talk. " (Zhao, Xu & Zhu, this volume) ^^ "Despite the seminars and workshops held prior to the project, a number of teachers who participated did not fully understand the rationale of the approach or master the new teaching methods. "(Tse et al, this volume) '^ Only when the students feel it no longer hard to write would they be eager to express themselves (Min­istry of Education of the People's Republic of China, 2001) (Li, this volume)

IX

three dimensions, with for us, the affective and value dimension as a dimension that is often neglected in writing process models (Alamargot & Chanquoy, 2001).

The He & Shum writing process model reflects interesting Chinese cultural enti­ties aspects about teaching writing. To me, these differences in theory reflect a broader cultural difference. Whereas in current western research there is a strong focus on learning shared cultural practices (on becoming reader-based rather than writer-based), the emphasis in the research presented in this volume is much more on the individual: on how to make writing more writer-based (c.f Nisbett - "The Geography of Thought"). Perhaps each culture focuses on that which is not taken for granted. The more individualistic Western cultures take the individual imagination for granted and focus on the need to take the reader and social context into account, whereas the more collective Asian cultures take the social features of writing for granted and focus on the need to present an individual point of view. Observational and imaginative activities get far more attention in this book than in the recent Handbook on Effective Teaching and Learning of Writing in this book series (Ri-jlaarsdam. Van den Bergh & Couzijn, 2005), imagination almost being absent. Ob­servation of daily life, writing 'truthfully', is one of the prerequisites for good writ­ing in this book, as is imagination, "the cultivation of the students' imagination as a baton of teaching" (Han, this volume). The challenge in teaching writing in Chinese is to combine the traditional focus on deducing similarities in the daily life (the 'col­lective') with the modern and innovative focus on differences (the 'individual'). To break conventions, call for questions, seek differences and encourage innovations: that is what teaching writing should be (Han, this volume), while still related to value construction:

There is no doubt that the missions of a writing course are to enable students to have a mastery of the knowledge of writing and to enhance their writing skills. Yet, these are not the underlying objectives of the writing course. Instead, the fundamental aim is to integrate writing knowledge and skills with human development in all other aspects so that the knowledge can be internalized as a basic character of human existence and de­velopment. This is what we call quality. (Yu, this volume: 160).

The volume editors start their introduction with:

One of the most civilized nations in history, China has a long-standing writing tradition and many Chinese texts have become world treasures, such as the 'Four Books' and the 'Five Classics', the 'Classic of the Virtue of Taoism', the 'Red Mansion', the 'Pilgrim­age to the West', the 'Water Margin', the 'Three Kingdoms' and the 'Art of War'. Con­fucius' teaching has been acknowledged worldwide both for ideas and methodology. However, the way the Chinese teach writing in various countries in contemporary times is little known to the outside world, especially Western countries. (Shum & Zhang, this volume: 1)

Indeed, until the publication of this volume, we knew little. We now can understand the educational challenges in Chinese-speaking regions a bit better. These chapters urge us to reconceptualize what writing is, should be, and can be. The implicit plea throughout the book for a multidimensional view on writing is now well understood. Writing functions in various meanings: instrumental to the society, to personal life and to the well-being of the writer. I hope we will have more opportunities in this book series to meet this rich part of the globe.

INTRODUCTION: TEACHING WRITING IN CHINESE SPEAKING AREAS

MARK SHIU KEE SHUM & DE LU ZHANG

The University of Hong Kong & Ocean University of China, China

One of the most civilized nations in history, China has a long-standing writing tradi­tion and many Chinese texts have become world treasures, such as the 'Four Books' and the 'Five Classics', the 'Classic of the Virtue of Taoism', the 'Red Mansion', the 'Pilgrimage to the West', the 'Water Margin', the 'Three Kingdoms' and the 'Art of War'. Confucius' teaching has been acknowledged worldwide both for ideas and methodology. However, the way the Chinese teach writing in various countries in contemporary times is little known to the outside world, especially Western coun­tries.

The Chinese had an established traditional method of writing instruction. Aca­demics followed particular patterns or formulae, such as the 'Eight-Legged Essay', performance in which determined whether a person could be promoted to a higher rank within the government. The most talented could become governors of prov­inces or climb even higher in the hierarchy. The main method of acquiring the skill of writing was imitation of the style of great authors.

However, recent social and political developments have created the perception amongst both practitioners and researchers of a need for change. These develop­ments have come both from inside China and as a result of contact with the West. Many of the authors in the present volume have noted these, which affect both the mainland and the other Chinese-speaking territories. Mark Shiu Kee Shum's hy­pothesis, that the 'context of culture' and the 'context of situation' determine the shape of the curriculum and implementation, regardless of the rhetoric of curriculum guidelines, (Chapter Two) is a theme carried throughout the book. As Chun Li Zhao (Chapter Six) has indicated, the drive for reform has affected the teaching of Chi­nese as a Foreign Language, which, in any case, had been under the influence of Western theories for some time. It has also influenced the teaching of English as a Foreign Language (De Lu Zhang, Chapter Three). Cheng Kun Yu (Chapter Nine) has pointed to the need for reform of practical writing as a result of a change in the

2 SHUM & ZHANG

nature of administrative documents, originating from both political reform and the development of a market economy. Guo Rui Yu (Chapter Ten), on the other hand, has commented on reform occurring since the opening up of Mainland China to the outside world. The theme appears again in Seok Hwa Sim's Chapter Fifteen. In her discussion of the situation in Singapore, she has attributed the need for reform in the teaching of Chinese to the rise in status and popularity of English. Consequently, teachers of Chinese language have had to find ways of enthusing their students and improving their performance. Thus, in many different ways, social, political and cultural factors have fuelled various reforms in the teaching of Chinese as a Mother Tongue, Chinese as a Second or Foreign Language and English as a Foreign Lan­guage in the various Chinese-speaking regions.

Whilst the acknowledgement of a need for reform seemed to be widespread, the actual definition of what was wrong with the current system varied. Yu Ping Han (Chapter Four), has complained that:

The teaching process is simplified and formatted, so an active training of writing ability is turned into that of pure skills. The teaching activities are also rigid, old-fashioned, stereotyped, monotonous and spoon-feeding in nature, so no emphasis is attached to the development of the students' intelligence and affection. Therefore, the writings do not really go deep into the reality of human life and lack the cultivation of creativity. How­ever, literary education itself is not given prominence and language training is not ade­quately implemented so the sole purpose of the teaching of composition is for taking examinations and the principle that 'composition teaching is a stimulating art' is not implemented. (Han, this volume: 59)

Ke Kang He and Mark Shiu Kee Shum (Chapter Seven) have outlined problems with the current approach as: valuing knowledge above ability; external above inter­nal stimulation; writing above speaking; rationality above sentiment and language above setting. Seok Hwa Sim (Chapter Fifteen), discussing the situation in Singa­pore, attributes the problems to: lack of knowledge, writing skills, and interest in essay writing. Li Zhao, Yong Ji Xu and Xia Zhu (Chapter Five), discussing the situation relating to the teaching of Chinese as a Second Language to Korean stu­dents, have criticised current methods for being:

confined to a closed teaching model, which emphasizes imitation and writing on given subjects...limited by test-oriented education and methods of training in writing. It is easy for them to narrate a thing in Chinese according to the requirements, but it is diffi­cult to release their opinions...More attention should be paid to encouraging students' creative thinking and writing abilities. (Zhao, Xu, & Zhu, this volume: 75)

Thus, whilst the actual formulation varies, common complaints are that the system has been rigid, teacher-dominated and test-oriented, and reforms are suggested to address these complaints. These reforms come both from Western and indigenous Chinese theories and research. Yu Ping Han (Chapter Four), after outlining the evo­lution of teaching methodologies, has put forward suggestions for reform which, while following a similar line, do not seem to have emerged from a particular West­ern theory. The authors of Chapters Six, Seven and Eleven base their reforms on American psychological approaches, such as Bereiter & Scardamalia's framework of cognitive development, Goodman and others' 'Whole Language' and Graves' 'Process Writing' approach. This approach inspired the writing reform in Hong

TEACHING WRITING IN CHINESE SPEAKING AREAS 3

Kong primary schools, the 'Hong Kong Project', discussed in Chapter Eleven. One aspect of 'process oriented' methods, peer review, is taken up again in Chapter Twelve (Mark Shiu Kee Shum).

Another Western theory that has been taken up with some enthusiasm in China is 'genre' theory, which was mainly based in Australia and was a development of the systemic-functional framework of grammar developed by Michael Halliday. Halli-day is himself a scholar of Chinese language, and many of his concepts were devel­oped through insights gained from Chinese (see Chapter Nine). Whilst Westerners initially had some difficulty integrating psychological and sociological approaches, practitioners and researchers in the East seemed to have less of a problem with it. Shum's report (Chapter Two) on his research into report writing in two different settings, Australia and Hong Kong, is based on this approach, but also incorporates aspects of the Process Approach, such as peer review and revision (Chapters Ten, Eleven and Twelve).

Guo Rui Yu (Chapter Ten) has taken the elements of both Western and indige­nous Chinese approaches. Cheng Kun Yu (Chapter Nine) has proposed a system for teaching practical writing which combines a systemic-functional framework with an approach taken from research in communication and a Chinese-based text analysis. The teaching of Chinese as a Foreign Language has always been more open to influ­ences from abroad and again, suggested methods show influences from the different Western approaches, as well as the linguistic theory of contrastive analysis. The suggestions for reform - integrating the four skills and paying more attention to speaking before writing - outlined in Chapter Five, relating to Chinese as a Second Language for Korean students, on the other hand, seem to owe more to internal than to external influences.

In summary, whilst certain socio-political changes, both in Mainland China and in the territories, acted as catalyst for reform of the teaching of composition, the shape these reforms are taking has been due to many different influences, coming both from inside the countries themselves and from foreign sources. The impetus for change has come both from practitioners and researchers. Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore have each developed their own approach to the teach­ing of composition.

This volume aims to give an accurate picture of the diverse composition teaching contexts and approaches in these four regions and countries. It reflects the choices faced by Chinese educators between traditional, highly structured methods of teach­ing composition and more process-oriented, student centered approaches. The recur­ring motif: the influence of social, political and cultural factors, brought to bear through pressures exerted not only by those directly involved, but by parents, admin­istrators and the government, is of relevance not only to the East, but throughout the world.

The Fourteen chapters following this introduction each focus on a particular as­pect or area of teaching writing in Chinese-speaking areas.

Chapter Two reports on a cross-cultural case study investigating how similar cur­riculum goals have been implemented in Melbourne and in Hong Kong. The study followed the teaching of the report genre in one classroom in each of these two cit­ies, considering teaching cycles, classroom interaction patterns, teachers' views,

4 SHUM & ZHANG

goals and strategies, students' expectations and student performance. Despite simi­larities in rhetoric, implementation was very different, leading to the conclusion that the context of situation and the context of culture will shape the implementation of curriculum reform.

Chapters Three to Six provide an overview of various aspects of teaching writ­ing in Mainland China: teaching English composition as a Foreign Language, teach­ing Chinese composition as a Mother Tongue, Second Language and Foreign Lan­guage. Chapter Three outlines the development of the teaching of writing in English and its relationship with both external diplomacy and internal politics. Teachers have been dissatisfied with traditional, formal and structural methods and have been exploring new approaches. These can be divided into two types: those that extend from the static to the dynamic and those that extend from the teaching of writing to include other areas that can improve the students' skills. It is concluded that the best way forward is to integrate the various methods. The chapter offers valuable infor­mation for understanding the connections between fluctuations in the teaching of English as a foreign language and historical events. It gives Western readers insight into the education received by the Chinese students who come to US or Canada for graduate study. Chapter Four reviews the evolution and current situation regarding composition teaching in Mainland China. The fact that this teaching has long been examination-oriented has led to a utilitarian focus and rigidity in both teaching and learning practice. Suggestions for reform include attaching importance to the culti­vation of students' cognitive abilities and stimulating motivation and imagination. Chapter Five investigates the teaching of composition to Korean second language learners in China. As Chinese and Korean belong to different language families, teaching practice cannot follow the traditional way of learning Chinese. An inte­grated approach is required, with speaking rated ahead of writing. A three-step pro­cedure: to enlarge vocabulary intensively; to read extensively and to write fre­quently, both 'closed writing' - on certain topics - and 'open' or free writing, is proposed as an effective way to improve skills. Multi-media have also been intro­duced. The ultimate aim is to enable students to write simple compositions, with the minority Chinese proficiency test system as benchmark. Chapter Six traces the his­tory of Teaching Foreigners Chinese (TFC) and differences between teaching Euro­pean and Asian students. Various approaches, originating from diverse sources, are suggested. Teaching writing through other disciplines is also recommended. Next, the question of the order of teaching the four skills is discussed. It is suggested that for students from the East the four skills may be introduced simultaneously, whereas for students from the West, listening and speaking skills should be introduced before reading and writing.

Chapters Seven to Ten continue to explore innovations in the teaching of writing in primary, secondary and university levels in Mainland China. Chapter Seven ap­proaches the composition process from a psychological perspective in a study of primary school students. A thinking-processing model is proposed, based on three factors: knowledge, ability and attitude. In-class activities are proposed with empha­sis on cooperative learning and the use of multi-media. Chapter Eight describes two innovations based on advanced theories both at home and abroad: 'Method of Live Demonstration ...' and 'Teaching Writing on Topics'. The first aims to provide see-

TEACHING WRITING IN CHINESE SPEAKING AREAS 5

narios based on students' lived experience. The second is a systematic training to write on more abstract ideas, for secondary and university students who have grasped the basics. As the two methods can be used in either secondary or higher education, they may help to bridge the gap between the two sectors. In Chapter Nine, the theme is highlighted once again, as the author outlines the emergence of new genres in the area of practical writing due to changes in the socio-political con­text and the development of a market economy. As well as new genres having emerged, the functions of some genres have changed. New forms of analysis influ­enced by Systemic-Functional Linguistics, the Theory of Communication and a functional theory of text structure are being applied to study these genres, but more research is required. Chapter Ten reports on two research studies into college writ­ing over the last ten years. Using Systemic Theory, the research combines text study with process study and establishes a framework that integrates theories of context, text function and text structure. Suggestions for reform include a focus on student and activity based learning, integrative process assessment and making full use of technology.

Chapters Eleven to Thirteen relate to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Re­gion and describe innovations in teaching practice which are currently being trialled there. Chapter Eleven reports on a study of over 7,000 primary students evaluating the effectiveness of the reforms implemented in the 'Hong Kong Writing Project'. Results indicate that the cultivation of pupil-centred teaching methods is beneficial to all and challenge the notion that Hong Kong primary students detest writing. The authors recognize, however, that curriculum innovation cannot occur without the support of teachers and parents. They are also careful, while advocating new ap­proaches, not to denigrate traditional ways. Chapter Twelve reports on a comparison of four methods of evaluating compositions in Hong Kong secondary schools: evaluation by teacher; evaluation by teacher using a symbolic code; peers using a checklist and self-evaluation using a checklist. After a six-month trial, students in the 'peer evaluation (checklist)' group performed better in terms of taking the initia­tive in rewriting, their writing habits and recall rate of revisions. A post-study survey of the students found they had a positive attitude towards peer evaluation by check­list. Nevertheless, students may feel insecure if they are asked to assume responsibil­ity for the evaluation of their own or others' writing and they need to be prepared for such a task. The chapter also clarifies the importance of revision as a process of re­fining both thinking and expression. Chapter Thirteen examines in detail the cogni­tive processes and behaviours, using a think-aloud protocol, of two advanced ESL writers in two different settings: in class and at home. The subjects adjusted their composing strategies to cope with the changing setting, recycling previously used strategies as well as utilising new ones.

Chapters Fourteen and Fifteen record innovations in teaching Chinese composi­tion in Taiwan and Singapore, serving as useful supplementary descriptions of the development of writing pedagogy. Chapter Fourteen describes the current situation regarding freshman Chinese composition in Taiwan, using students' own comments about their composition classes. The author suggests teaching techniques based on both ancient methods and those gathered from years spent overseas and from practi­cal experience and, using a tone that contrasts with the factual tone of the other

6 SHUM & ZHANG

chapters, shares the joy of helping students find their voice in writing. Chapter Fif­teen outlines the history of policies relating to the teaching of composition in Singa­pore from a policy planner's perspective. The author concludes that there is a need both for creativity and imagination and for the training in specific skills if students are to be both capable and enthusiastic about essay writing. One important resource will be web-based teaching.

This is the first book that systematically introduces recent developments in teaching composition in Chinese-speaking areas. It outlines current theories and paradigms originating both in the West and in China and Chinese-speaking territo­ries and the way in which these have been adapted to suit the various cultural con­texts and learning environments. This is an exciting time in language teaching meth­odology. With the rapid changes taking place in composition teaching in Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore, we can expect that the field will con­tinue to develop.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project is partly funded by the Faculty Research Fund (FRF) of the Faculty of Education of the University of Hong Kong to which we owe our gratitude. We would like to express sincere thanks to all the contributors who wrote fascinating chapters to enrich the book. We are very grateful to the two reviewers, who spent enormous time to read and comment on all chapters and offered enlightening and insightful suggestions about improving the manuscript. We are very much indebted to Dr. Marietta Elliot for her very helpful feedback and assistance during the process of editing. We are especially thankful to our colleagues in the University of Hong Kong, Natalie Yu, Vivian Chau and Stephanie Shi, who provided us with high qual­ity research and administrative support. Thanks, too, are due to Carrie Lau, Jin Chi, Jacky Lo and Catherine Lee who were very helpful student research assistants of the project.

TEACHING CHINESE REPORT WRITING: MELBOURNE AND HONG KONG

Implications for Global Curriculum Sharing

MARK SHIU KEE SHUM

The University of Hong Kong, China

Abstract. Globalisation has resulted in curriculum reform, particularly at matriculation level, in many educational jurisdictions. When Victoria (Australia) and Hong Kong reformed their curricula, both claimed that their reforms were intended to develop students' critical, independent and high-order think­ing skills, and to foster their ability to learn independently. The question of whether the almost identical reform rhetoric has been translated into identical classroom practice was investigated in a comparative case study of the implementation of the reforms of Chinese writing curricula, specifically relating to report writing, in one classroom in Melbourne (Victoria) and one in Hong Kong. The study considered the following aspects: teaching cycles; classroom interaction patterns; teachers' views, goals and strate­gies; students' expectations and, through an analysis of students' writing, the relationship between teach­ing and learning. It is shown that despite similar educational objectives and rhetoric, major differences arose when it came to implementation in classrooms with diverse cultural, social and linguistic contexts. In conclusion, factors are presented, which curriculum designers must take into consideration if the goal of global curriculum sharing is to be achieved.

Keywords: cultural context, teaching Chinese writing, LI learning, global curriculum, report genre

1. GLOBALISATION AND EDUCATIONAL REFORM

Globalisation has resulted in the division of labour on a world scale, with most de­veloped countries now having economies based on tertiary industries revolving around knowledge and services, while many secondary industries have moved to less developed countries (Jarvis, 1999:249). In response to this globalising trend, many educational jurisdictions, especially in the 'knowledge societies' have, since the late 1980s, increased the pace of reforming their curricula to equip younger gen­erations with skills required in increasingly knowledge-and-technology-based socie­ties (FuUan, 1993; Davies & Guppy, 1997; Levin, 1998). Because of the similarities

8 SHUM

in needs, education reformers around the world often refer to each others' plans and policies. Advanced cognitive skills such as critical, analytical, exploratory, problem solving, independent thinking skills, creative and holistic thinking skills, have been highly valued as a reaction to the remarkable pace of development in technology and current knowledge.

2. REFORMED SIXTH FORM CHINESE WRITING CURRICULA IN MELBOURNE AND HONG KONG

The state of Victoria (Australia) and the territory of Hong Kong were among those educational jurisdictions which reformed their curricula at the matriculation level in the early 1990s. Their reforms were part of a global movement to broaden the Sixth Form curriculum to prepare students for the needs of a complex, interconnected world.

In Victoria, the new curriculum featured an increasing emphasis on Languages Other Than English (LOTE), especially a number of Asian languages, including Chinese, for reasons such as fostering social harmony, trade and tourism. Due to the large number of immigrants and overseas students from Chinese-speaking regions, the Chinese curriculum is divided into the Victorian Certificate of Education - Lan­guages Other Than English: First Language Chinese - VCE LI Chinese and Second Language Chinese - VCE L2 Chinese, targeting LI and L2 learners respectively. In Hong Kong, to prepare for its change of status to a Special Administrative Region of The Republic of China, the new curriculum featured the introduction of the subject Chinese Language and Culture at the Hong Kong Advanced Supplementary Level (HKASL). Chinese has become a second compulsory language subject, apart from English, for all sixth formers.

The two reformed curricula concerned, VCE LI Chinese and HKASL Chinese, share many similarities in respect of the way they originated (Curriculum Develop­ment Council (CDC), 1993:6, 1995:10; Board of Studies, 1995:6.) First, both are products of thorough reviews of the matriculation curriculum by the education au­thorities concerned. Secondly, both broaden the matriculation curriculum to cater for a wider range of abilities to allow students to fully develop their potential. Thirdly, each was initiated in the late 1980s and implemented in full in 1992. Finally, their shared objectives. These include: a focus on improved learning opportunities; devel­opment of critical, analytical and high-order thinking; learner-centred approaches; encouragement of exploration, imagination, independence and respect for other peo­ple's views.

3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

At a macro level, the aim of the study is to explore how the objectives of the two reformed Chinese composition curricula, which appear to have similar objectives and make a similar commitment to the current global education reform movement, have been implemented in two very different contexts. How are these objectives implemented in actual writing classes? At a micro level, the aim of the study is to focus on the teaching of the genre of report writing which is a common component

TEACHING CHINESE REPORT WRITING IN MELBOURNE AND HONG KONG 9

of the two curricula. How is the report genre taught in senior secondary classes in the two different contexts? What are the classroom interaction patterns in the two contexts when report writing is taught? What are the teachers' views, goals and strategies in teaching the report genre in each place? What are the students' expecta­tions about teaching and learning of the genre? How do the students perform in their written texts? The answers to these questions are of interest to curriculum planners, since one of the goals of curriculum reform prompted by the globalisation move­ment is to share curricula, on the assumption that globally shared goals imply glob­ally shared means.

4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research methodology chosen to investigate the research questions is that of a comparative case study. Two sites were chosen for observation, namely two secon­dary schools, one in Melbourne and one in Hong Kong. Both schools are well-established, with a long and valued history in their respective cities, and both offer Chinese courses from junior to senior forms, and are thus comparable. One class was selected from each school for observation, with the participating students in both Melbourne and Hong Kong taking Chinese as one of their matriculation sub­jects. All students spoke Chinese as their first language, although the Melbourne students' mother tongue was either Putonghua or one of the Chinese dialects, while the mother tongue of most of the Hong Kong students was Cantonese. The level of proficiency in Chinese writing did not vary greatly between the two groups. The two class teachers were panel head teachers of their subject and had a thorough under­standing of the curriculum. The Melbourne teacher was Caucasian and spoke Putonghua during class, while the Hong Kong teacher was Chinese and spoke Can­tonese, the local language of Hong Kong.

The focus of observation was report writing, because both Melbourne and Hong Kong had included this text type in their reformed matriculation curriculum in the early 1990s. This genre is the most scientific, problem-based, critical and analytical form of writing taught to students, closely reflecting the objectives of the curriculum reform in Victoria (Jenkins, 2000). Furthermore, mastery of this genre is important to all students' future studies and careers. From a variety of report types the 'evalua­tive report' in Melbourne and the 'investigative report' in Hong Kong were chosen as the two most closely related. The Melbourne teacher spent eight periods teaching the evaluative report, while the Hong Kong teacher spent three periods teaching the investigative report.

The main research questions stated above may be restated in greater detail, each research question prompting a particular method of analysis to investigate it. These are summarised in Table 1.

10 SHUM

Table I. Research Questions and Method of Analysis

Research Questions Method of Analysis

How is report writing taught in the two classrooms?

What are the classroom interaction patterns when report writing is taught?

What are the teachers' goals, views and strategies in teaching the report genre?

What are students' expectations of their teachers' teaching?

How do the whole class perform in their written work?

To what extent do students rewrite their texts?

One class selected in each city. LI background learners of Chinese study­ing at matriculation level only. Experienced teachers of Chinese chosen for observation. Christie's (1997) 'curriculum macro genre' approach adapted for analysis of teaching cycles.

Sinclair and Coulthard's (1975) model of 'conversation' used for analysis of class­room discourse.

Interviews with teachers after classroom observation.

Interviews with students following class­room observation.

Systemic-Functional Linguistics (SFL) (Halliday, 1994) model for text analysis. Identify any common structures or features.

Compare first draft with final draft of stu­dents' written reports.

As part of the case study approach the researcher entered the classroom, conducted observations over a long period of time, interviev^ed participants and collected a large number of classroom conversations and students' written reports for fiarther analysis.

5. SIGNIFICANCE

As very fevy case studies have researched the teaching of Chinese vy riting, especially in a cross-cultural comparison, the present study is expected to make a significant contribution to our understanding of both the teaching of Chinese w riting and the degree to which globally shared curricula are educationally desirable and culturally feasible. The strength of this study lies in its detailed comparison of the implementa­tion of two similar curricula in two educational jurisdictions whose context of situa­tion and culture differ markedly. A comparison of the way in which the curricula are implemented at these two sites and an examination of the way the students perform

TEACHING CHINESE REPORT WRITING IN MELBOURNE AND HONG KONG 11

allow us to identify factors that affect the implementation of curricula, factors which must be taken into account by curriculum designers.

6. RESEARCH FINDINGS

In this section we describe the way in which the Victorian and Hong Kong curricu­lum recommendations for the teaching of report writing have been implemented in the two classrooms in Melbourne and Hong Kong. First, the teaching/learning stages are analysed as 'curriculum macrogenres' to show how report writing is taught. Sec­ondly, teacher and student talk is analysed as classroom interaction to show the pre­vailing interactional patterns when report writing is taught.

6.1 Curriculum Macrogenres in Teaching Report Writing

In this section we provide a detailed account of how the teachers in Melbourne and Hong Kong conducted the teaching of report writing. The stages of the teaching cy­cles in both classrooms are explored through a model of 'curriculum macrogenres' (Christie, 1997). Christie argues that a curriculum macrogenre constitutes a sus­tained sequence of curriculum genres occurring over several days or weeks in which new understandings and new forms of consciousness are taught and learned (Christie, 1997:147). In Christie's model a structural hierarchy is proposed with sev­eral levels of abstraction, from a 'macro genre' at the top, to 'genre', to 'elements of schematic structure' (also referred to as 'generic stages') and to 'phases' (within elements of schematic structure). Adopting the work of Gregory and Malcolm (1981), Christie defines phases as steps within an element of schematic structure which help achieve the goals of the element of structure and are often signalled by shifts in linguistic choices associated with at least one of the three metafunctions posited in a SFL model of grammar, i.e., the ideational, interpersonal or textual metafunction (Christie, 1994: 14-15). The present study adopted Christie's model for the purpose of identifying steps in the teaching cycles to show how the two teachers structured their lessons.

The Melbourne teacher spent eight lessons (of 50 minutes each) teaching the evaluative report whereas the Hong Kong teacher spent only three lessons (of 35 minutes each) teaching the investigative report. This difference is clearly reflected in the two teachers' allocation of time and the organisation of their lessons. Table 2 shows the different learning/teaching stages in the two classrooms, with each stage identified according to separate class activities and specific linguistic markers. These stages can also be integrated into the curriculum macro-genres (Christie, 1997) as shown in Figures 1 and 2. Figures 1 and 2 show that teacher-student col­laboration and interaction among students constitute the major parts of the teaching of report writing in Melbourne, whereas teacher direction is crucial in the Hong Kong classroom. The Hong Kong teacher plays a much more significant role in di­recting students compared with the Melbourne teacher.

12 SHUM

Table 2. Teaching/learning stages in Melbourne and Hong Kong

Melbourne Hong Kong

Introduction: Teacher sets tasks for students to discuss aims, functions and structures of report, and to collect and analyse sample reports at home.

Model analysis of texts: In turn, each student is requested to pre­sent main structures and comments on the report collected by them. Teacher then asks students to write topics and intro­ductions for some given reports.

Joint negotiation: Teacher conducts debate on the topic 'Missile Test in Taiwan Strait'. Students are divided into three groups or teams: China, Taiwan and US. After the debate each student is asked to submit a conclu­sion based on the debate.

Individual Composition: Teacher sums up the task requirements and revises the report writing skills. The stu­dents start writing while the teacher moves around to provide individual consultation.

Independent Writing Outside Classroom: Independent Writing in Students' own time.

Stage 1

Introduction: Teacher introduces nature and function of re­port genre, telling students its formats and structures, and provides an overview of the steps to be taken in writing an investigative report.

Stage 2

Report structure through model analysis: Teacher teaches structures and format of target genre in detail by using model texts to support explanation. Teacher puts special emphasis on what constitutes a good introduction in a report.

Stage 3

Group discussion of methodology: Teacher summarises what he had covered pre­viously. He divides the class into five groups and assigns each group a specific topic. Each group is asked to conduct group discussions on how to collect data for their report. The lesson ends with group presentations.

Stage 4

Individual data collection and report writing: Subsequent data collection in groups and indi­vidual writing of reports in students' own time.

Stage 5

TEACHING CHINESE REPORT WRITING IN MELBOURNE AND HONG KONG 13

Teaching / Learning \

Stage 1 I

Teaching / LearnEng Slagc Z

Teaching / Lettrning \ Teaching / Learning Stage 3 i Stage 4

TcAching / Learning S(age 5

i s T R r ) n u c r i O N MODlJL ANAI,Y.S1S 0[- II-Xl'S JOINT NL'ODTIAI ION INUIVIDUA1. COSI I'OSl TION INDKPhNDhNT W R i n N G

[ Cumcii lum Initiation ;

Individual prcuniaiion <>rtc[ioib rpllcct»j by :itU(lcuts

Curricuhnn Ncpxiti i ioi i

Training lo Mile hiu(liiii;.s & intctittuotiuiu

C;irTH'it!uiti(.,1<

inlcrvcn-^ tion '"

Twin- *" Trjtii- j Group ' ingtu nigtn \ pn;$cii-wHu* write I taiion hcadinptin- ! of

ttodu- i iliflcrciit 01 ion* i point-: of

i v-iew

KcbuHftl ' [lulividuiil subnu.li ion Of conclusion

ihc debate

Nomination Qumion' \ I ot'studdtti aruwcr i~ \

rcacher-student IctiltaboraliuD — 1Student IStudent j 'leachcr-Jtudrnt [Sn

cutloboniUon MiflOtrpuu ># colluboraiioti—Mint jdnrt I Uci laclivity I |aci

<rUtiIka- "• Suni-tion of nury of wt>tlL A-riUrii; re<|uitc- skills ment

v'iiliul wriliiiii

jStudcni inttcpcii- —^

Sliuleiilk iiidL'pi:tiilciiI w-ritins ill ihcir own tinic uuisiJi' the cla^ti

Stiidiuu indi.'pcndi nctivity

Nafionul ci)nvcT)tion.i (after Eggitw. I9'M:40) •'•' dctCTJbc; i fixed sequence of elcinenU of schcnaaiic structua-, i,c, X * Y ~ s-ugi X prcccdtr« stflge Y. •()• nwans the stage insid* the parenthnus is opitotutl. '!) J ' lite aiTOw iwliwids (lai any stases Ktsitl*? the cudy bfackeiA ar« rccuisive.

' 1 period - ?() n^inutei

figiitv I. Cwriculum macroge.nre of teaching the 'evaluative ivpori' in VCE-LOTE LJ Chinese Class (after C/irisrie, J 997.f 49)

Period* ] Teaching / Learning Teaching/Learning

Slage 2 Teaching/Learning

Stage 3 Teaching / Learning

Stage 4 PRFSF-NTATIOV OF REPORT STBUfTI-RF. ntftOtV.II MODEt.

ASAr.Yfi'S

Gitnijp nisci sioN OF MinHOttOUkiV

i I stce-ORTwurnsG

Curriculum Initiation

liitKxluciion " Steps to oflopic report

%(-niiiig

Cuiriuuium Negolialioii CutTiculum Closure

I ] cfl d i ng '' Salutation ' I it Uixtut: ii oi i

pefininj! • IJetlning '- Collwtinjji - An- j wbjcclixe iotf,rt.i data «ly. |

! smeil j data

Iditection—

Ovrroll sumniarv*

Auili-< Ut^cuisio

Tnn-liing '• Evumpli Of inttodiiciion

Oroup work

Group picsoiia-

tioo J

ISiitdenl —Hcollaborai

Outside the class, students collected data in gtrtups luxl u»ed itiein lo write their own mdividunl tvpt>ns

Slud«ul indeiMfiidetii ••• ociivity after siudeni

Niitioiul Lunventioiis (aflei Eggins, 1994:40) "" describes a fixed sequence of clenKnis of whcniiilic stnictwrc, i.r, X ' Y " stage X precede* si«ge Y, • { } . J' the arrow indicates that any stages iiwtdi' tbc ctirly brjiekets nre Rtiiriivv,

' i period - iS minuies

Figutv. 2. Cumculiim macrogeniv. of teaching the ' invest igaiivc repon' in the HKASL Chinese Class (offer Christie, J 997: J 49)

6,2 Classroom interaction patterns in teaching report writing

This section analyses teacher and student talk in the two classes to establish the pat­terns of classroom interaction during the teaching of report writing. The analysis draws on the model of classroom discourse proposed by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), with reference to Tsui (1994) as well as others, for example Ng (1996). The

14 SHUM

Teacher T-IR T-IRF T-IRFRF T-i

Student S-IR S-IRF S-IRFRF S-i

patterns of classroom interaction in Melbourne and Hong Kong comprised eight types of interaction: Pattern, initiated by Initiation-Response Initiation-Response-Follow-up Initiation-Response-Follow-up-Response-Follow-up Inform All Initiation-Response types of interaction (T-IR, T-IRF, T-IRFRF, S-IR, S-IRF, and S-IRFRF) represent different forms of exchange which reflect the depth of classroom interaction initiated by teacher and students respectively, while the inform types of interaction (T-i and S-i) represent forms of discourse which convey infor­mation or knowledge monologically. The informs in this study include not only in­formation and knowledge imparted in a teacher's monologue {Teacher-initiated in­form), but also reports and presentations in students' monologues {Student-initiated inform). All types of interaction, both exchanges and informs, are identified accord­ing to linguistic markers proposed by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975).

Observation of the classes reveals that teachers and students in Melbourne and Hong Kong engaged in very different interaction patterns. In Melbourne, teacher-student exchanges predominated, while one-way presentation was uncommon. In Hong Kong, on the other hand, the teacher was the main initiator in class, presenting information. The types of exchange found in the two classrooms, and their fre­quency of occurrence, are compared in Table 3.

Table 3. Classroom interaction in Melbourne and Hong Kong: Exchange type (absolute numbers, percentage between brackets) for macro and micro focus

Type

Teacher-initiated Ex­change

Teacher-initiated Inform Student-initiated Ex­change

Student-initiated Inform Total

Melbourne Hong Kong

Macro focus

139(49.0)

36(12.7)

52(18.3)

57 (20.0) 284 (100)

14(14.8)

58(61.7)

17(18.2)

5 (5.3) 94 (100)

Type

T-IR

T-IRF

T-IRFRF T-I

S-IR

S-IRF

S-IRFRF S-I Total

Melbourne

Micro focus

39(13.8)

62(21.8)

38 (14.4)

36(12.7)

25 (8.8)

14 (4.9)

13 (4.6)

57 (20.0) 284 (100)

Hong Kong

9(9.5)

3 (3.2)

2(2.1)

58(61.7)

11(11.8)

2(2.1)

4(4.3)

5 (5.3) 94 (100)

TEACHING CHINESE REPORT WRITING IN MELBOURNE AND HONG KONG 15

The relative and absolute frequency of the different patterns of classroom interaction in Hong Kong and Melbourne are shown in Table 3, while Figure 3 shows their rela­tive frequency graphically. The differences in absolute frequency are due to the fact that the report genre was taught in Melbourne for eight periods in four teach­ing/learning stages whereas in Hong Kong it was taught for only three periods in three teaching/learning stages.

Figure 3. Comparison of interaction types in Melbourne and Hong Kong (%).

70

60

50

S) 40

I 30

± T-IR T-IRF T-IRFRF T-i S-IR S-IRF S-IRFRF S-i

Bales IPA Categories

• Melbourne = Hong Kong

The main differences and similarities between the patterns of interaction in the Mel­bourne and Hong Kong classrooms are as follows:

6.2,1 Differences between Melbourne and Hong Kong

Teacher-initiated informs. In the Hong Kong classroom teacher-initiated informs comprise 61.7% of all exchanges or interaction units in the teaching cycle, while in the Melbourne classroom they comprise only 12.7%. This difference reflects the fact that while the teacher in Hong Kong relied mostly on a monologic lecturing mode, the Melbourne teacher used a variety of modes.

Teacher-initiated exchanges. The exchanges initiated by the Hong Kong teacher comprised only 14.8% of all interaction units, while those of the Melbourne teacher comprised 49%. This means that nearly half of the teaching in Melbourne was con­ducted in teacher-initiated exchange mode, with the teacher using elicitation tech­niques, inviting students to respond to his questions. However, in the Hong Kong class teacher exchanges T-IRF and T-IRFRF totalled only 5.3% of all interaction units while in Melbourne teacher exchanges T-IRF and T-IRFRF totalled 36.2% of

16 SHUM

all interaction units. The Melbourne teacher was clearly much more prepared than his Hong Kong counterpart to ask questions to build up his students' knowledge.

Student-initiated informs. The main occasion for student-initiated informs was indi­vidual speaking, such as in debates and presentations. In the Hong Kong class only 5.3% of all exchanges were student-initiated informs while in Melbourne they to­talled 20%. The actual number of student-initiated informs was more than ten times greater in Melbourne than in Hong Kong (57 in Melbourne and 5 in Hong Kong), which suggests that the Melbourne teacher provided more opportunities for students to speak, by inviting them to present to their class the reports they had collected and to participate in debate. In Hong Kong, student-initiated informs primarily took place in group presentations, with a group representative addressing the class. This marked difference in the incidence of student-initiated informs may be due to the fact that (1) there was significantly less teaching time available in Hong Kong (105 min.) than in Melbourne (400 min.); and (2) the Hong Kong class comprised twice as many students (30) as the Melbourne class (15).

6.2.2 Similarities between Melbourne and Hong Kong

Student-initiated exchanges. The occurrence of student-initiated exchanges, ex­pressed as a percentage of the total number of interactions in each classroom, was virtually the same in Hong Kong (18.2%) and Melbourne (18.3%). Most of the stu­dent-initiated exchanges occurred in teaching/learning stage 3 in each class. In Hong Kong student-initiated exchanges occurred in the group discussions on methodol­ogy, while in Melbourne they mostly took place in the open debate. In these contexts it was likely that students would raise questions and give responses to one another.

The virtually identical frequency of student-initiated exchanges in Melbourne and Hong Kong might suggest that the students were of a similar nature and similar learning styles prevailed, despite their different backgrounds (Mainland China, Tai­wan, Hong Kong, Australia). This explanation would leave open the question of why they behaved so differently in terms of student-initiated informs, with this type of interaction comprising 20% of all interactions in Melbourne and a mere 5.3% in Hong Kong. The answer probably lies in the fact that students had been socialised into particular classroom learning activities by their teachers.

6.3 Teaching modes in Melbourne and Hong Kong

The marked difference in interaction patterns between the Melbourne and Hong Kong classes indicates that their teachers employed different teaching strategies, resulting in different modes of instruction in report writing (Table 4).

Modes of instruction in a writing class are identified by Hillocks (1986) as fal­ling into three patterns, namely 'presentational mode', 'natural process mode' and 'environmental mode'. The Melbourne teacher conducted the teaching cycle mainly in 'teacher exchange modes': he seldom employed monologic teacher-initiated in­forms. He used procedural facilitation skills, setting his students many tasks which

TEACHING CHINESE REPORT WRITING IN MELBOURNE AND HONG KONG 17

involved practising the language. He taught by involving students in substantial ac­tivities, acting in a role between that of a presenter and a facilitator. His mode of instruction could be described as 'environmental'. The Hong Kong teacher con­ducted the teaching cycle mainly in 'teacher-initiated informs' while he employed 'teacher-initiated exchanges' less often. He prepared detailed lecture notes, and taught by explaining the genre and providing models for students. Though he tried to promote student interaction by organising a group discussion, in general he spoke for more than two-thirds of the entire teaching time, acting in the role of instructor. His mode of instruction could therefore be described as 'presentational'.

6.4 Teachers' goals, views of education and teaching strategies

Since differences in the teachers' cultural, institutional, social and educational back­grounds are likely to influence their goals in teaching the report genre, their views of education and their teaching strategies, and therefore the implementation of the very similar curriculum objectives in the two cities, the Melbourne and Hong Kong teachers were interviewed to gain a better understanding of the rationale for their teaching methods.

The comparisons reported below reveal clear differences in the two teachers' views of education and in their teaching strategies, although their goals in teaching report writing are alike. These differences may be the result of many factors, such as the different social environments and educational systems in which teachers and students work, the teachers' personal experience of learning, the time constraints under which they work, the teacher-student ratio and methods of assessment. In other words, due to a range of situational and cultural factors, the apparently similar goals of their respective curricula were implemented very differently in the class­room.

Table 4. Teaching modes in Melbourne and Hong Kong

Teaching stages

Teaching strategy

Teaching time& class size Teaching content

Melbourne evaluative report

Introduction ^ Model Analysis of Texts ^ Joint Negotiation ^ Individual Com­position ^ Independent Report Writing

Teacher let students explore, evaluate and share knowledge of report genre, using procedural facilitation skills and setting tasks which let students practise target language. 8 lessons of 50 minutes each 15 students

Teacher asked students to collect sam-ples of report and explain their analysis

Hong Kong investigative report

Introduction ^ Presentation of Report Structure through Model Analysis ^ Group Discussion of Methodology ^ Independent Data Collecting & Report Writing Teacher adopted knowledge transmission mode, demonstrating the genre in detail and providing models for students to follow.

3 lessons of 35 minutes each 30 students

Teacher provided report samples for his dem­onstration of their relevant features.

18 SHUM

Melbourne evaluative report

Hong Kong investigative report

of the text to the rest of the class. Teacher provided some lecture notes in absence of textbook. Teacher used current issues of interest by asking students to present newspaper articles. He then organised a debate on China's missile drills in the Taiwan Strait, a hot topic of concern to stu­dents.

Teaching Environmental mode (Hillocks, 1986) Mode Teacher spent 1/3 of his time lecturing.

Teaching mainly based on interactions and exchanges among students. Partici­pation by questioning, discussion, indi­vidual report and debates encouraged. Independent research and sharing of knowledge encouraged. Teacher had prepared a lesson outline but responded flexibly as needed.

Textbooks with sample reports and notes available to students. Topics from daily life or students' experience employed in both the teacher's illustrations and the topics assigned for further work. Ex­amples include: tuck shop service, students' reading habits, child rearing styles of parents, school bus services, etc.

Presentational mode (Hillocks, 1986) Teacher spent 2/3 of his time lecturing. Teaching mainly involves unidirectional knowledge transmission. Teacher explained details of structure and features of the genre. Group discussion of method of data collection to enhance interaction between students. Teacher had prepared a detailed lesson script.

6.4.1 Goals in teaching the report genre

The Melbourne teacher's ultimate goal was to foster his students' independence pre­ferring to guide them in ways of exploring new knowledge instead of simply telling them the 'facts'. The Hong Kong teacher also stressed the skills of independent re­search, for example by setting an activity which required his students to collect data for their investigative reports. The Melbourne teacher believed that the skills of re­port writing would be useful in his students' future lives and careers, whereas the Hong Kong teacher thought that the specific skills of questionnaire design, data col­lection, organisation and analysis would be useful in other subjects or in their ca­reers. Both teachers thus tried to equip their students with the ability to work inde­pendently and apply their writing and research skills in real life. The two teachers thus shared similar goals, closely related to the stated objectives of the reformed curricula in their respective educational jurisdictions.

6.4.2 Views of education

The Melbourne teacher emphasized education as a process, focusing on the learning of skills and on competence instead of the outcome of a task. He allowed his stu­dents to make mistakes and tried to create an environment in which the students could take risks. He saw his role as one of facilitator, providing just enough informa­tion for students to develop their skills and finish their work themselves instead of giving them all the relevant information. He believed that questions should arouse students' interest, and that students could learn more when exploring their own

TEACHING CHINESE REPORT WRITING IN MELBOURNE AND HONG KONG 19

questions. He focused on the skills of report writing rather than grammar and the language of the report, according to his teaching goal of preparing students for real-world tasks.

The Hong Kong teacher, on the other hand, emphasised the end product in edu­cation, expecting his students' work to be clear, logical and accurate. Given the local system and its limitations, he saw it as inefficient and unwise to let the students ex­plore freely. He conceded that although teachers may sometimes be collaborators or helpers in the classroom, essentially he saw their role as teaching and leading their students. Consequently, he provided all learning materials and information neces­sary, and followed a monologic lecturing mode. At the same time, he organised a group discussion to encourage the students' involvement, since he also wanted the students to learn from activities apart from lectures. He believed that the focus of teaching practical writing was teaching students to apply their language skills.

The two teachers' views of education thus differed markedly, most likely due to the differences in the cultural and social contexts in which they teach and to their own experiences in learning and teaching.

6.4.3 Teaching strategies

The Melbourne teacher required students to prepare for lessons to ensure an efficient use of time. While encouraging students to use their own sample reports, he would not comment much on the texts, instead encouraging students to judge the texts for themselves. He held a debate, dividing the class into three groups, to allow for three viewpoints to be represented. The debate served the purpose of demonstrating the linguistic features of evaluative reports. The students thus first worked in groups, the teacher then asked each of them to write a conclusion for the report based on the arguments presented in the debate. For other reports, the teacher provided the stu­dents with a list of possible topics but did not set the topic. The teacher's aim at all times was to enhance the students' independence and their ability to learn through risk-taking and decision-making.

The Hong Kong teacher, to use his teaching time efficiently, sometimes distrib­uted handouts before the lessons to help the students in their preparation using many examples to demonstrate the structures and features of the report genre. He would at times help students in analysing parts of a report. He also provided opportunities for the students to discuss their investigative methods in groups, thus presenting them with the experience of planning a small-scale research project or investigation. In addition, he asked the students to discuss in a group the method of data collection, and had a representative from each group report to the class. The teacher then asked for data to be collected by students in groups, with each student producing an indi­vidual report as homework. As the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Au­thority (HKEAA) determines the topics for public examinations, the teacher did the same, explaining that this would benefit both teacher and students.

The two teachers' strategies thus differed in terms of time allocated to teaching and learning, guidance and scaffolding provided to students, structuring of class­room activities and the planning of writing tasks.