Theory and Writing: Programmatic issues

sorry this is such a mess . . .
 
RINNERT and KOBAYASHI

Some quotes I marked:

• “The following excerpt from an elaborated introduction from an English essay by a long-term overseas resident illustrates clarification of the topic” (p. 36)
• “One major finding was that in both L1 and L2 settings, writing instruction tends to be varied and locally situated. ” (p. 38)
• “knowledge becomes proceduralized through ‘engaging in the target behavior’ (DeKeyser, 1998: 49). ” (p. 39)
• “novice writers tend to transfer L1 textual features to L2 writing, whereas more advanced writers are more likely to depend upon L2 textual features in the development of L2 writing skills” (p. 41)

Does L1 writing (i.e. in Japanese language) even get taught explicitly in Japanese?  It seems that the “learning” as defined in change in product only goes one direction: toward Western rhetorical patterns. [or did I miss something?].

REICHELT

The description of the gymnasium focuses on products, then instructional techniques: where’s process? [How is close reading part of writing?]

•  “While an emphasis on close reading of texts has held sway for several decades in German-language and EFL writing instruction at the Gymnasium level, newer ideas have brought the communicative function of EFL writing to the forefront” (p. 186).

So German L1 writing instruction has an extant curriculum for writing that seems to focus on “skills building”

In Poland:

• “At the primary and secondary levels, English teachers are typically native Poles trained to teach reading, listening and speaking skills, but not writing.” (p. 189).

More what I expected for a CLT based EFL curriculum—how about you guys?

There is a big difference in how she writes about the USA -- more generalizations.  In which she basically disses the US system—not that America does not deserve it J L. Process gets mentioned!

In Japan: “Many native English speakers employed in Japan have an MA degree in TESOL and probably teach according to what they learned in these programs; however, application of such principles may be constrained by the teaching environment” (p. 199). Not sure what the point of that is—very hedged comment, perhaps because there is one piece of hearsay evidence to support it.

Why was Spain included? To keep the symmetry? [3 (germany, poland, usa) + 3 (china, japan, spain)].

Conclusions speak for themselves.

CASANAVE

This goes across the board . . .

• “As Van Lier (2002: 144) reminds us, the primary requirement of an ecological view of learning is ‘that the context is central, it cannot be reduced, and it cannot be pushed aside or into the background’.” (p. 257).

[although I don’t know that “cannot” is fair since we actually DO such reduction and exclusion all the time]

 [I will try to add more, but gotta get yoojin and me ready for the day]

Overall conclusions:

• I wanna talk about the methodologies in the studies