The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Teaching the Genres of Comparison and Contrast in
English Writing: From the Perspectives of Cooperative
Principles
Greg Chung-Hsien Wu
	
  

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Abstract
This pilot study aims at integrating a socio-pragmatic concept, Cooperative Principles, into an
experimental writing project on the genres of comparison and contrast. It reports on a six-week studyof five undergraduates voluntarily recruited in a university located in central Taiwan. In surveying
their writing momentum before and after the instilments of relevant knowledge needed for thesegenres of English writing, the researchers conformed to the qualitative paradigm, collecting the Pretest and Post-test writing products, distributing B2- and C1-leveled CEFR self-assessment
questionnaires over the first and last class sessions, conducting a self-reflection questionnaire survey
at the last session, and keeping a reflexive journal to trace the learning momentum of each of the five
participant. The instructional process was not entirely lecture-oriented; the participants wereencouraged and guided to construct knowledge in each of the class-based activities.
With content analysis and constant comparative method, the results indicated two primary facets ofissues essential for teaching the genres of comparison and contrast in a L2 writing setting. In
addition, constructs for teaching such writing genres were pointed out, and learners’ momentum wastransparently manifested by means of the established CEFR can-do statements. Other pedagogicalsuggestions were also included in this study and they were anticipated to inform future practitionersof diversified aspects in teaching the comparison and contrast genres linguistically, semantically, andpragmatically.
Keywords: Comparison and contrast; English writing; Cooperative principles.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Introduction
As globalization progresses, English education at the tertiary level has been highly addressed in
Taiwan. Most EFL learners acknowledge the value of learning second language (henceforth, L2)
writing, but they may have difficulties transferring L2 reading to L2 writing, using appropriate
strategies or mastering the process of writing (Chen, 2001; Liu & Tseng, 2013; You, 1999; You &Joe, 2001; Wang, 2008). For L2 writing instructors, some may regrettably dawdle their time away
and intuitively find their learners’ writing capacity far behind their expectations. In response to L2
learners’ difficulties, some scholars suggest leading learners to critically think, read, and write(McCarter & Jakes, 2009; Vermillion, 1997), whereas others focus on university L2 writing in viewof the genre-based approach that advocates the targeted readership or discourse community in L2
writing (see, for example, Johns, 2003; Swales, 1990). Still others conduct empirical studies thatexamine the Chinese use in English composition process (Mu & Carrington, 2007; Wang & Wen,
2002). To be more specific, Mu and Carrington’s (2007) study concluded that, except for therhetorically organizing and cohesive strategies, “most of the metacognitive, cognitive, andsocial/affective strategies can be transferred across languages positively, at least from Chinesewriting to English writing” (p.15).
Despite all these aforementioned contentions, the process of writing entails a variety of cognitively
demanding activities that occur as a result of rhetorical situations, where various rhetorical appeals
have to be perceived, utilized or assessed. As learners initiate the processes of “planning (prewritingor prereading), drafting (initial writing or reading), revising (modifying and extending), and editing(correcting or rereading)” (Johns, 1997, p.12), they may simply draw on spoken forms of the target
language into writing. Eventually their instructors may be daunted by the inconsistency of stylisticfeatures, not to mention other problems such as loose organization or the lack of cohesion.
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Shifting from the sole emphasis on linguistic competence in the early 1980s, the teaching of L2
writing nowadays foregrounds the composing process and has developed itself into someinterdisciplinary field of inquiry in accordance with functionalism or discourse analysis (Leki, 1996;
Matsuda & Silva, 2010). Such a concern was brought to attention by McNamara (2003), who
asserted that “the context of use is increasingly understood theoretically as a social arena, as in
virtually all current work in discourse analysis (p.468)”. It is of higher significance that L2 writers
should be nurtured to deepen their awareness to balancing the elements of audience, purposes,
processes, and context in their own writing. That is to say, L2 writing concerns not only the
structural accuracy but also contextual appropriateness. Hence, the researcher cannot help but
wonder in what way L2 writing instructor can assist learners in composing a text that reflects
learners’ awareness in both linguistic well-formedness and contextual appropriateness.
In order to discover the aforementioned phenomenon, the researcher initiated a small-scale
experimental project, whose duration was a total of six weeks, and each session lasted for 1.5 hours.
This research took place in a private university located in central Taiwan. The researcher served as
the instructor of this series of courses, an there were five undergraduate students participating in thisstudy, three of whom were one-semester-long exchange students from Mainland China, and they
voluntarily signed up for this experimental series. Since this series aimed to incorporate the conceptof functionalism and discourse into this L2 writing instruction, the researcher relied heavily on
pragmatic functionalism as the heuristic subject matter knowledge in his writing instructions. He
focused on the genres of comparison and contrast initially in light of these two genres’ close liaisonsin everyone’s daily lives and, furthermore, because of the possibility of which L2 writers might begiven an opportunity to justify their ground by means of ample and well-chosen supporting details
for the issues of writers’ interests (Reinking, Hart, & Osten, 2002).
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Considering the discoursal aspects of L2 writing and the divergences the comparison and contrast
genres might bring about, the researcher employed Grice’s (1975) Cooperative Principles, originally
postulated to analyze the verbal language in the field of pragmatic functionalism, as the underlying
framework for delineations of this study. Through this pedagogical undertaking, the researcher posed
two research questions:(1) How do Cooperative Principles assist L2 learners in their own writing?
(2) What is the essential construct needed for these two genres of writing, comparison andcontrast?
Review of Literature
Writing is a representation of a language user’s thought, belief, competence, and linguisticknowledge, and it involves the construction and end-product of a written text. Differentiated fromspoken language, writing entails different aspects such as purposes to fulfill, contexts to use, ordiscourse communities to address to (Hinkel, 2006; Matsuda & Silva, 2010). Silva’s early study(1993) clearly indicates that, despite certain similarities between L1 writing and L2 writing, salient
discrepancies exist ranging from composing processes to the features of written texts, and that L2
writing process is strategically, rhetorically, linguistically different from L1 writing process.
To cope with demanding challenges in L2 writing, strategy use seems inevitable for some learners,
for strategies may serve as effective ways of organizing or developing writing. Comparison andcontrast, among all the strategies, assist learners in choosing among possible alternatives. They also
allow learners to acquaint themselves with something less familiar or connected to prove a particularpoint (Donald, Morrow, Wargetz & Werner, 1996; Reinking, Hart & Osten, 2002). In order for L2
writers to strategically identify and associate the lexis that enable them to maintain their objectives
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

and communicate with their intended readers while still conforming to writing conventions, theconcepts of discourse community may come into play (Johns, 1997; Swales, 1990). On top of that,
Leech (1983) contends that the language use transcends the linguistic forms per se; the appropriate
use of these linguistic forms in a wide variety of contexts and situations should also be in focus.
Phrased by Grice (1975), the Cooperative Principles depicts the dynamics of interacting amongindividuals and enables effective communication in conversation that can be achieved in social
undertakings. Inspired by the socio-pragmatic use of natural language, Grice proposed four
principles, the first two of which are mainly relevant to the amount of information needed andprocessed by the hearer and the speaker (Grice, 1975, p.308; Cited by Leech, 1983):(1) Maxim of Quantity:
1.

Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of theexchange).

2.

Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

(2) Maxim of Quality:
1.

Do not say what you believe to be false.

2.

Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

(3) Maxim of Relation: Be relevant.
(4) Maxim of Manner:
1.

Avoid obscurity of expression.

2.

Avoid ambiguity.

3.

Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity/verbosity)

4.

Be orderly.
	
  

	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Resembling the scheme for the Cooperative Principles, Leech (1983) proposes a scheme for the
Textual Rhetoric that consists of the Processibility Principle, the Clarity Principle, the Economy
Principle, and the Expressivity Principle to embrace the stylistic preference in language use. These
proposed pragmatic principles cover a wide range, from those which are highly social in nature suchas Leech's Politeness Principle, to those which specifically cope with the form of sentences such as
Leech's End-weight and End-focus maxims.
Echoing with the socio-pragmatic facets of the aforementioned principles, the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages (henceforth, CEFR) has successfully proven itself topromote the concept of ‘plurilingualism’ (Council of Europe, 2001) in conjunction with the culturaland linguistic diversities across Europe. Through six distinct scales composed of a compendium of
ascending level descriptors, the CEFR has made a great impact in learning to learn, teacher education,
course and curriculum design, and assessment across borders (Morrow, 2004; O’Sullivan & Weir,2011).
Taking on an supporting role in this study, the CEFR provides a set of guidelines within whichlearning/teaching objectives and achievement standards are identified and through which bothteachers and learners can thus make informed choices (Mariani, 2004; Newby, 2011). It also
provides learners with practical skills or strategies that demand cognitive and metacognitive
operations. The former ones entail making inferences, noticing, formulating grammatical rules, orclassifying items into meaningful categories, whereas the latter counterparts include the skills ofreflecting, evaluating, or even self-assessing (Mariani, 2004). Acknowledging abundant advice for
language practitioners, however, criticism arises on the issue of comparability and false assumptionof equivalence between descriptor scales (North, 2002; North, 2004; Weir, 2005). Despite the
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

deficiency to develop comparable tests from the CEFR, however, the CEFR is still believed to be “aheuristic device rather than a prescriptive one, which can be refined and developed by language
testers to better meet their needs (Weir, 2005, p.298; Cited by Shaw & Weir, 2007, p.1).” These
underlying features of the CEFR are deemed consonant to the research and pedagogical design ofthis study.
Research Design and Implementation
Qualitative researchers, according to Denzin and Lincoln (2000), “study things in their natural
settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bringto them (p.2)”. Aiming to explore the effect of Cooperative Principles on L2 learners’ writing
through the genres of comparison and contrast, the researcher conformed to the qualitative researchparadigm (Janesick, 1991; Merriam, 1998; O’reilly, 2005), selecting five “information-rich cases forstudy in depth (Patton, 1990, p.169)”. Each participant’s demographic information is provided in thefollowing table.
Table 1. Demographic Information of the ParticipantsParticipant

Gender

Grade

Major

Nationality

Lynn

FemaleJuniorEnglishTaiwanese

Vanessa

FemaleSeniorInternational Trade

Taiwanese

EleanorFemaleJuniorSociology

Mainlander

Lily

FemaleJuniorEnglishMainlander

Tracy

FemaleJuniorInformation Science

Mainlander

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

In addition to the selection of participants, the researcher utilized ethnographic techniques (Merriam,
1998; Nunan, 1992; O’reilly, 2005; Patton, 1990) to penetrate this study. The raw data collected forthis study included:(A) Pre-test and Post-test writings, whose question remained identical:“Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Face-to-face communication
is better than other types of communication, such as letters, email, or telephone calls.
Use specific reasons and details to support your answer.”(B) Participants’ self-evaluation of the differences emerged on both writings from the Pre-test
and the Post-test(C) CEFR Self-Assessment Checklists (Level: B2 and C1), focusing on three categories only:
strategies, language quality, and writing. [see Appendix I](D) Self-reflection Questionnaire(E) Instructor’s Reflexive Journals
Over the first week, the researcher borrowed the CEFR Self-assessment Checklists for both Level B2and Level C1 for the purpose of pinpointing the existing strengths and deficiencies of these five
participants. Immediately following that, each participant was required to complete the Pre-test
writing within the maximum length of 40 minutes. Four participants used up the full duration of 40
minutes, while it took less than 30 minutes for the only participant, Lily, to complete the Pre-test.
Over the following week, the researcher introduced the concepts of the block pattern as well as thealternating pattern, one pivotal set of writing constructs relevant to the genres of comparison and
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

contrast (Reinking, Hart & Osten, 2002). After the researcher’s lecturing, the participants perceived
better how to classify or categorize their ideas with better clarity. One week later, the Maxim ofRelation and the Maxim of Manner were firstly instructed and exemplified by means of the following
agenda: “Will you hire a new talent mainly depending upon his/her leadership skills or execution
skills?”The participants were gradually led altogether to incorporate the patterns instilled over the previous
week into these two newly-gained maxims, and they afterwards worked together to meaningfully
create, delete and allocate their responses to this given agenda. In the end, all of the six participants
agreed upon employing the block pattern to illustrate two of the major theses: leadership andexecution, under the former of which they expounded on the significance of delegating andamplifying employees’ strengths. For the second thesis, they originated two themes for further
elucidation: problem-solving and efficiency.
The next week, the Maxim of Quantity and the Maxim of Quality were introduced, and the researcher
gave a systematic outline of the advantages and fallacies of using each of the four maxims. All ofthese preliminary instructions were conducive to the last instruction on the concept of analogy overthe fifth week. After learning the essences behind analogy, the participants were instantaneously
given a task where they all needed to apply analogy in a mind-mapping application.
After five consecutive gatherings, the participants had thus acquired skills to write more relevantly,
consistently and concisely. Over the last session, they were firstly required to fill in both levels of the
CEFR checklists so as to trace and verify their learning progress. Then they were immediately asked
to complete the Post-test within the maximum length of 40 minutes, which was exactly the time
constraint on the Pre-test. In comparison, a stark contrast emerged was that each of the five
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

participants finished the task within 35 minutes and held a firmer attitude towards their processes ofwriting, including planning, drafting, revising and editing.
With the underlying pragmatic framework of Cooperative Principles in mind, the participants foundit fairly accessible to offer substantive critiques on their own writing products. More details
pertaining to course proceedings and instructions within these six weeks could be found in thefollowing table.
Table 2. Course Proceedings and instructions of the Entire Series

Week
1

Orientation

Remark

CEFR Self-Assessment / Pre-test.

Participants took turns narrating theirwriting problems and experiences ofattending composition classes.

2

Written feedback to each participant / The researcher assigned an article, Let
Instruction and illustration on the Kids Have Fun1, as an extended drill
block and alternating pattern.

3

and the first required reading.

Analysis of the first reading / The researcher assigned another article,
Instruction on the Maxim of Relation Becoming Helpless1, as the second
and the Maxim of Manner.

4

required reading.

Analysis of the second reading / The researcher assigned the third article,
Instruction on the Maxim of Quality Coming Home2,
and the Maxim of Quantity.

5

thetake-homeassignment.

Analysis of the third reading / The researcher reminded participants of

	
  
	
  

as

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Instruction and illustration on the anconcept of analogy.
6

in-class

writingtask

oncomparison/contrast.

CEFR Self-Assessment / Post-test / Finale.
Verbalfeedbackonstudents’writings.
NOTE 1: Both articles, whose major rhetorical modes were centered upon illustration andComparison/Contrast, were derived from a reader entitled Pattern and Themes.
NOTE 2: This article, whose major rhetorical modes were centered upon illustration andComparison/Contrast, was selected from a textbook entitled Strategies for Successful
Writing: A Rhetoric, Research Guide, Reader and Handbook.
On top of the aforementioned information, another research instrument was a qualitative selfreflection questionnaire oriented towards the participants’ self-reflection. The questions and essences
behind the questions could be observed in Table 3.
Table 3. Questionnaire questions for the participantsNo.
1

Question
What do you think an ideal English Writing Class should teach?

Essence
Structural

What do you think the most essential elements should be as a writer begins
2

to draft a comparison/contrast essay? Please list some underlying ones in an

Structuralorder of significance.
3

In what way is this English Writing Class different from the previous one(s)

	
  
	
  

ContrastiveThe IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

that you took, regardless of the length?
Have you gone through any alternations in concepts regarding English
4

writing? What have you gained the most from this short series of English

Descriptive

Writing Class?

The construction and corresponding essences of interview questions were based upon by Janesick’s(1991) suggestion as the theoretical underpinning. The researcher, in addition to up-close
observations of each participant, also kept a reflexive journal noting the undertakings of each session.
All these sets of data were carefully cross-referenced and interpreted by means of content analysis(Patton, 1990), which marked the procedures of coding, categorization, description, andinterpretation. Apart from the content analysis, the constant comparative method (Butler-Kisber,
2010; Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Lincoln & Guba, 1985) were additionally used to compare elements
and sub-categories emerging during the process.
Findings
In the following section, the results are presented in response to the research questions: “How do
Cooperative Principles assist L2 learners in their own writing?” and “What is the essential constructneeded for these two genres of writing, comparison and contrast?”
Through a closer look at the triangulated sources of data, two primary facets are generated: brandnew pedagogical underpinnings and transparent learner momentums. Details pertaining to each facet
are depicted as follows:
Facet One: Brand-new pedagogical underpinnings
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

From the outset, the participants had indicated that this experimental series of courses seemed to be
an entirely different approach to learning English writing. Given congruently correlated andinstructions, all of the five participants reported they had learned more diversified ways ofdeveloping and expressing their arguments and that they all could immediately come in handy.
Among all of their new gains, in addition, they appreciated the concept of analogy the most. One
participant from Mainland China expressed clearly her perceptions towards English writing:{Quote 1} We were normally educated to simply mimic a [template] of English writing. You
demonstrated to us the important constructs on writing, and these constructs were frequently
repeated in your writing class, which did help me to remember how to write English
compositions in a brand-new way.
(Eleanor; derived from her questionnaire){Quote 2} At first, I thought English writing is to write whatever you think is true and [that]what we need to do is follow an existing pattern. Now, I realize that different skills can makewriting better. The concept of analogy and the Maxim of Relation are what I gained most fromthis series of classes.
(Lynn; derived from her questionnaire)
Moreover, thanks to the in-class analysis of all the required readings, the participants appreciated theresearcher’s elicitation in either exploring the embedded stylistic features or mapping out thepotential development of ideas. They accordingly learned how to heed their own writing locally andglobally. Two participants, for example, clearly specified the alternations they experienced in writing
English compositions in the following remarks:

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

{Quote 4-3} The teacher started with an overview of the assigned article and allowed us toinduce or generalize the specific features of that article. Following that, he made the hidden
styles of the article manifest to us, had us cross-check our findings, and pinpointed the pros andcons of our own writing products. Most of his reminders were new to me!
(Tracy; translated by the researcher from her questionnaire){Quote 4-4} Analogy is a new concept for me, and totally different ways of expanding andmodifying ideas in my own writing are what I truly gained in this short series.
(Lily; derived from her questionnaire)
Overall, the Cooperative Principles provided the participants with brand-new perspectives on
English writing. It has been evidenced in this study that these pedagogical underpinnings benefited
the participants most in globally planning and drafting as well as locally revising and editing theirown manuscripts.
Facet Two: Transparent Learner Momentums
From the learners’ perspectives, this course planning proved to be innovative and helpful. For the
researcher and the participants themselves, the CEFR checklists and Post-test writing served astransparent channels to reflect on their own momentums. As shown on the B2-leveled CEFR
checklists, one participant, Lynn, noted her progress in one of the Writing can-do statements: “I candevelop an argument systematically in a composition or report, emphasizing decisive points andincluding supporting details.” This descriptor has indeed been evidenced in her Post-test writing. She
could meaningfully churn out her content and she could even comment on her own progress
expressively.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

To take another participant, Vanessa, for example, she appeared to be even more indicative of her
progress. Majoring in international trade, she bore sufficient English proficiency for conversational
purposes. In this regard, her Pre-test writing displayed a great number of informal uses of English,
and she apparently organized her argument incoherently. As the entire series approached the end, sheevaluated her own improvement on 8 out of 15 can-do statements in total. The most revealingstatement, for the researcher, was that “I can put together information from different sources andrelate it in a coherent summary.” In her Post-test writing, she linked the sentences more coherently,
showed a greater degree of grammatical accuracy, and paid closer attention to the appropriateness ofher language use.
With transparent momentums being observed on the rest of the participants, the researcher also
noticed their improvements by examining the benchmarks suggested by the Written Assessment
Criteria (Language Policy Division, 2009): range, coherence, accuracy, description, and argument. In
addition to the benefits arising from the instructions on the Cooperative Principles, it was evidenced
that those CEFR descriptors served as substantial self-referenced checklists. Learners could
accordingly reflect upon their own language learning and ensure themselves to move towards a better
command of language use.
In terms of planning, drafting, revising and editing their own writing, the participants have gained abetter control in sorting out their arguments with the aids of either the block pattern or the alternating
pattern. As they drafted their own Post-test task, they took heed of the quantity and the quality of
their manuscripts. When they attained the final phase of revising or editing their end-product, themaxims of the Cooperative Principles facilitated the participants’ examination in the relevance of
their argument and the manners of their writing style.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Despite the orientation of the Cooperative Principles being mainly applicable to speeches andconversations, this study proved how they have been successfully implemented in L2 writing
instructions and how they have effectively sharpen learners’ awareness in rhetorical and discoursal
aspects of L2 writing. With both research question being answered, more thoughts arising from thequalitative analysis will be explicated in the next section.
Discussion and Conclusions
In the previous section, the effects of the Cooperative Principles on helping L2 writers to regulate
planning/drafting and facilitate revising/editing have been manifested, and the construct of analogy is
the most essential one among other forms of input to help L2 writers to fulfill the writing ofcomparison and contrast genres. Nevertheless, some potential pitfalls were also worth noting.
In contrast with the gains out of these brand-new pedagogical underpinnings, the participants did
flesh the content out to a linguistically and pragmatically well-written essay. Admittedly,
nevertheless, the teacher written feedback, deemed as a means of advice to facilitate students’improvements by Hyland and Hyland (2006), was not sufficiently provided. Being greatly valued
and highly rated by L2 learners (Tardy, 2006), the written feedback was given only in the second
week of this series mainly because of the limited instruction time. As essential as the teacher written
feedback seemed, it would certainly be better for L2 writing instructors to give written feedback
either randomly or regularly, depending upon the changing dynamics of their own course.
In addition, looking back at the instructions on the third week, the researcher led all the participants
to work together on a given question: “Will you hire a new talent mainly depending upon his/herleadership skills or execution skills?” Despite their obvious lack of working experiences, theycollectively brainstormed before they drew up the conclusion by constructing two major theses and
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

four corresponding themes, as earlier mentioned in the section of Research Design and
Implementation. The participants themselves attributed this pleasing result to the collaborative
dialogues during the classroom, and they enjoyed the interactive prompts given and triggered by the
researcher. The multiple roles the researcher played in this teaching scenario were in conformity withthe multi-layered dimensions of a teacher’s role in Webb’s (2009) study, ranging from preparing
students for collaborative work, structuring group interaction to “influencing student interaction
through teachers’ discourse (p.1)”. In this regard, teacher written feedback and collaborative
dialogue are advised to be the two pedagogical necessities of such a writing instructional setting.
Lastly, some limitations of this study are noted as follows. For a more comprehensive look at theessences of the comparison/contrast genres, the researcher suggests that an extended in-depth oneon-one interview could have been held in the middle of the series. If the researcher had heard themvoice their challenges or perspectives in the process, he might have instantaneously adjusted thecourse content. In spite of some limitations, this study may serve as a point of departure for
integrating the whole set of Cooperative Principles, oriented towards pragmatic functionalism, into a
process-oriented English writing course. It also provides a range of indications that can be ofreference to more instructors or practitioners, particularly those who consider adopting diverse
methodologies to sharpen or fortify L2 writers’ developing or monitoring mechanisms in their own
writing processes.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

References
Butler-Kisber, L. (2010). Qualitative inquiry: Thematic, narrative and arts-informed perspectives.
London: Sage Publications.
Chen, Y. M. (2001). The Writing Development of First Language and the Problems of University
EFL Writing. Proceedings of Eighty-nine annual NSC Linguistics Disciplines <Language
Teaching> Research, 121-144. National Science Council.
Donald, R. B., Morrow, B. R., Wargetz, L. G., & Werner K. (1996). Writing clear essays (3rd Ed.).
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In N.
Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.), Studies in Syntax and
Semantics III: Speech Acts, 183-198. New York: Academic Press.
Hinkel, E. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching the fours skills. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 109131.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Interpersonal aspects of response: Constructing and interpreting
teacher written feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language
writing: Contexts and issues, 206-224. New York: Cambridge University Press.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Janesick, V. J. (1991). Ethnographic inquiry: Understanding culture and experience. In Short, E. C.
(Ed.), Forms of curriculum inquiry, 101-119. New York, USA: State University of New York
Press.
Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Johns, A. M. (2003). Genre and ESL/EFL composition instruction. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the
dynamics of second language writing, 195-217. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Language Policy Division, Strasbourg. (2009). Relating language examinations to the Common
European Framework of References for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment: A manual.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.
Leki, I. (1996). L2 composing: Strategies and perceptions. In B. Leeds (Ed.), Writing in a second
language: Insights from first and second language teaching and research, 27-37. New
York:Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Lincoln Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Liu, H. L., & Tseng, S. D. (2013). A study of college students’ cognitive and metacognitive strategy
uses in reading-to-write tasks. Spectrum: Studies in language, literature, translation, andinterpretation, 9, 103-132.
Mariani, L. (2004). Learning to learn with the CEF. In K. Morrow (Ed.), Insights from the Common
European Framework, 32-42. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Matsuda, P. K., & Silva, T. (2010). Writing. In Schmitt, N. (Ed.) An introduction to applied
linguistics (2nd ed.), 232-246. London, UK: Hodder Education.
McCarter, S., & Jakes, P. (2009). Uncovering EAP: How to teach academic writing and reading.
Oxford: Macmillan Education.
McNamara, T. (2003). Looking back, looking forward: Rethinking Bachman. Language Testing,20(4), 466-473.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised andexpanded from case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Morrow, K. (2004). Background to the CEF. In K. Morrow (Ed.), Insights from the Common
European Framework, 3-11. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mu, C., & Carrington, S. (2007). An investigation of three Chinese students’ English writing
strategies. TESL-EJ, 11(1), 1-23.
Newby, D. (2011). Contextualization of the CEFR and other Council of Europe instruments within aEuropean context. In H. Jimbo, K. Hisamura, Y. Usui, M. Oda, & L. Yoffe (Eds.), A
comprehensive study on the framework of English language teachers’ professional development
in Japan. JACET Sig on English Education.
North, B. (2002). A CEF-based self assessment tool for university entrance. In J. C. Alderson (Ed.),
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, andAssessment, 146-166. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

North, B. (2004). Relating assessments, examinations, and courses to the CEF. In Morrow, K. (Ed.),
Insights from Common European Framework, 77-90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’reilly, K. (2005). Ethnographic methods. Oxon: Routledge.
O’Sullivan, B. & Weir, C. J. (2011). Test development and validation. In B. O’Sullivan (Ed.),
Language testing: theories and practices. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Reinking, J. A., Hart, A. W., & Osten, R. von der (2002). Strategies for successful writing: A
rhetoric, research guide, reader, and handbook (6th ed.). NJ: Pearson Education.
Shaw, S. D., & Weir, C. J. (2007). Examining writing: Research and practice in assessing second
language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Silve, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research andits implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657-677.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tardy, C. (2006). Appropriation, ownership, and agency: Negotiating teacher feedback in academic
settings. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts andissues. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Vermillion, D. M. (1997). Developing critical thinking skills in EAP students. Unpublished masterthesis. Biola University, U.S.A.
Wang, E. Y. (2008). Argumentative Writing Strategies and Writing Process Strategies Used by EFL
College Freshmen and Juniors: A Case Study. Unpublished master’s thesis. National Changhua
University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan, Republic of China.
Wang, W., & Wen, Q. (2002). L1 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory study of 16
Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(3), 225-246.
Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 1-28.
Weir, C. J. (2005). Limitations of the Common European Framework for developing comparable
examinations and tests. Language Testing, 22(3), 281-300
You, Y. L. (1999). The contributing factors to the problem of lack of texture in EFL students’
writing. The Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the
Republic of China, 343-361. Taipei: Crane Publishing.
You, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. (2001). Investigating the metacognitive awareness and strategies of English
majored university student writers. The Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on
English Teaching, 106-119. Taipei: Crane Publishing.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  
APPENDIX I

Levelchecklist at regular intervals to update what you can do and what your priorities are.

Date

2 record what you cannot do yet but feel are important for you. Look at thisMy objectives
I can do thisUse this checklist to record what you think you can do in column 1, and in column

B2

1

3

Write the date of when you use the checklist in column 3.

If you have over 80% of the points ticked in column 1, you have probably reached
Level B2.

Use the blank spaces to add any other things you can do, or things that are importantfor your language learning at this level.

Strategies
I can use standard phrases like ”That’s a difficult question to answer” to gain timeand keep the turn while formulating what to say.
I can make a note of ”favourite mistakes” and consciously monitor speech for them.

	
  
	
  

2

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

I can generally correct slips and errors if I become conscious of them or if they have
led to misunderstandings.

Language Quality

1

2

3

1

2

3

I can produce stretches of language with a fairly even tempo ; although I can behesitant as I search for patterns and expressions, there are few noticeably longpauses.
I can pass on detailed information reliably.
I have sufficient vocabulary to express myself on matters concerned to my field andon most general topics.
I can communicate with reasonable accuracy and can correct mistakes if they have
led to misunderstandings.

Writing
I can write clear and detailed texts (compositions, reports or texts of presentations)on various topics related to my field of interest.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

I can write summaries of articles on topics of general interest.
I can summarise information from different sources and media.
I can discuss a topic in a composition or “letter to the editor”, giving reasons for oragainst a specific point of view.
I can develop an argument systematically in a composition or report, emphasisingdecisive points and including supporting details.
I can write about events and real or fictional experiences in a detailed and easilyreadable way.
I can write a short review of a film or a book.
I can express in a personal letter different feelings and attitudes and can report thenews of the day making clear what – in my opinion – are the important aspects of anevent.

	  	
  The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  
Level

Date

checklist at regular intervals to update what you can do and what your priorities

My objectives

2 record what you cannot do yet but feel are important for you. Look at thisI can do thisUse this checklist to record what you think you can do in column 1, and in column

C1

1

2

3

are. Write the date of when you use the checklist in column 3.
If you have over 80% of the points ticked in column 1, you have probably reached
Level C1.
Use the blank spaces to add any other things you can do, or things that areimportant for your language learning at this level.
Strategies
I can use fluently a variety of appropriate expressions to preface my remarks inorder to get the floor, or to gain time and keep the floor while thinking.
I can relate own contribution skilfully to those of other speakers.
I can substitute an equivalent term for a word I can’t recall without distracting thelistener.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Language Quality

1

2

3

1

2

3

I can express myself fluently and spontaneously, almost effortlessly. Only aconceptually difficult subject can hinder a natural, smooth flow of language.
I can produce clear, smoothly-flowing, well-structured speech, showing control
over ways of developing what I want to say in order to link both my ideas and myexpression of them into coherent text.
I have a good command of a broad vocabulary allowing gaps to be readily
overcome with circumlocutions ; I rarely have to search obviously for expressions
or compromise on saying exactly what I want to.
I can consistently maintain a high degree of grammatical accuracy; errors are rareand difficult to spot.

Writing
I can express myself in writing on a wide range of general or professional topics ina clear and user-friendly manner.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

I can present a complex topic in a clear and well structured way, highlighting themost important points, for example in a composition or a report.
I can present points of view in a comment on a topic or an event, underlining themain ideas and supporting my reasoning with detailed examples.
I can put together information from different sources and relate it in a coherent
summary.
I can give a detailed description of experiences, feelings and events in a personal
letter.
I can write formally correct letters, for example to complain or to take a stand infavour of or against something.
I can write texts which show a high degree of grammatical correctness and vary
my vocabulary and style according to the addressee, the kind of text and the topic.
I can select a style appropriate to the reader in mind.