Instruction and reading samples for opinion writing in L1 junior high school textbooks in China and Japan

Abstract

This study examines language arts textbooks commonly used in junior high schools (grades 7, 8, and 9) in Mainland China and Japan in order to identify (1) what kinds of writing instruction are provided; and (2) how reading materials illustrating opinion writing are structured rhetorically. Findings suggest that these textbooks instruct students to follow a direct and linear pattern in opinion writing, represented by such descriptors as "good organization and paragraphing, " "clarity, " "effective supporting details and counter opinions, " and "main point placed at the beginning. " However, unlike prototypical organization of English writing, the statements of main points that appear in the beginning of model texts do not include a preview statement that forecasts the content and organization of the supporting details. This sheds light on culturally situated interpretations of deduction. In addition, a small number of texts exhibit a structure that might be interpreted as quasi-inductive. This interpretation is partly influenced by the difficulty of assigning a single text type to opinion essays. These findings call for further investigation of what purposes these texts serve, how they are written, and whether a gap exists between writing instruction and the actual texts that L1 English student writers are exposed to.

Rhetoric Construction of Chinese Expository Essays: Implications for EFL Composition Instruction

“…Without relying on adequate empirical research evidence, Kirkpatrick (1997) contends that the modern Chinese textbooks reveal more of the contemporary English rhetoric than traditional Chinese rhetoric, just because the western rhetorical modes (e.g., exposition consisting of thesis statement, evidence, and arguments) are "reiterated in Chinese textbooks of rhetoric and composition" (Kirkpatrick & Xu, 2012, p. 150). This line of argument by Kirkpatrick (1997) and Kirkpatrick and Xu (2012) is echoed by Kubota and Shi (2005) and Liao and Chen (2009). Liao and Chen (2009) report that both English and Chinese composition textbooks share some strategies in writing exposition.…”

“…Li, 2011;Q. Liu, 2014), also suggest that exposition should have a thesis statement (Kubota & Shi, 2005). But the thesis statement is not necessarily written out, which differs from English exposition.…”

“…However, there are inadequacies in their studies. For example, Liao and Chen (2009) and Kubota and Shi (2005) fail to provide supporting evidence from the Chinese students' actual texts. The "gap between the instruction and the actual texts suggests a need for further investigation in the future" (Kubota & Shi, 2005, p. 123).…”

“…Although his idea is supported by many researchers and practitioners (Connor, 1996(Connor, , 2002, it is criticized for its binary classification of rhetoric (English vs. non-English) and its deterministic view of first language transference to second language writing (Kubota & Lehner, 2004). Some of the studies on Chinese essays tend to neglect the differences between English and non-English writings (Kirkpatrick, 1997;Kirkpatrick & Xu, 2012;Kubota & Shi, 2005;Scollon & Scollon, 2000). They think that "the aim of the teacher of writing should not be to gut the English of the Chinese writer of local cultural and rhetorical influences" (Kirkpatrick & Xu, 2012, p. 4).…”

“…Our standpoint is that English rhetoric instruction and research in China is necessary. To provide sufficient arguments to support our standpoint, we focus on the actual Chinese writing, as is suggested by Kubota and Shi (2005), to explore whether it is close to English rhetorical paradigm. The word Chinese in "Chinese writing," "Chinese expository essays," and "Chinese composition" in this article refers to the Chinese language.…”