dc.contributor.author | Reichelt, Melinda | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2015-12-02T14:15:23Z | |
dc.date.available | 2015-12-02T14:15:23Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2013 | |
dc.identifier.citation | M. Reichelt, English-language writing instruction in Poland: Adapting to the local EFL context, [w:] PLEJ_2 czyli PsychoLingwistyczne Eksploracje Językowe”, red. O. Majchrzak, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łódź 2013, s. 23-42. | pl_PL |
dc.identifier.isbn | 978-83-7969-036-7 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11089/14768 | |
dc.description.abstract | This paper is intended to foster reflection about the development of a locally-suitable approach to English-language writing instruction in Poland. In order to provide background information to contextualize a subsequent discussion of English-language writing, the paper starts with a brief overview of the history of L2 writing instruction, including an overview of the four most influential approaches to teaching ESL composition in the U.S. from 1945–1990: Controlled Composition, Current-Traditional Rhetoric, the Process Approach, and English for Academic Purposes. This is followed by a discussion of the concept of a „needs analysis,” where it is noted that needs analysis is complex in foreign language contexts such as Poland, where students may not have obvious, immediate needs for writing in English after graduation. The notion of needs analysis is illustrated with an example drawn from the English Institute at the University of Łódź. The needs analysis indicated that some students of English had negative attitudes and/or anxiety towards writing in English, but some had positive attitudes based on previous experiences with creative and expressive writing. Additionally, it was determined that students needed to learn many skills for writing academic papers that they had not learned in secondary school and that require extensive instruction and practice. Based on the needs analysis, it was determined that the purposes of a new writing course for first-year English majors should be to foster and develop positive attitudes toward writing and to support students’ academic work. The assignments and activities for the course are described. Additionally, a description is provided of the possible purposes that Polish students in general might have for writing in English, the goals that instructors might pursue in assigning writing, and the types of writing teachers might assign. Recommendations are provided for responding to student writing. | pl_PL |
dc.language.iso | en | pl_PL |
dc.publisher | Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego | pl_PL |
dc.relation.ispartof | „PLEJ_2 czyli PsychoLingwistyczne Eksploracje Językowe”, red. O. Majchrzak, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łódź 2013; | |
dc.subject | L2 writing instruction | pl_PL |
dc.subject | curriculum design | pl_PL |
dc.subject | needs analysis | pl_PL |
dc.subject | Poland | pl_PL |
dc.title | English-language writing instruction in Poland: Adapting to the local EFL context | pl_PL |
dc.type | Book chapter | pl_PL |
dc.rights.holder | © Copyright by Uniwersytet Łódzki, Łódź 2013 | pl_PL |
dc.page.number | [23]-42 | pl_PL |
dc.contributor.authorAffiliation | University of Toledo, USA | pl_PL |
dc.contributor.authorBiographicalnote | Melinda Reichelt is Professor of English at the University of Toledo, where she directs the ESL writing program and teaches courses in TESOL and linguistics. She has published multiple articles on second language writing and is co-editor, with Tony Cimasko, of Foreign Language Writing Instruction: Principles and Practices (Parlor Press, 2011). | pl_PL |
dc.references | Belcher, D. 2006. English for Specific Purposes: Teaching to perceived needs and imagined futures in worlds of work, study, and everyday life. TESOL Quarterly. 40: 133–156. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Benesch, S. 1996. Needs analysis and curriculum development in EAP: An example of a critical approach. TESOL Quarterly. 30: 723–738. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Brown, J. D. 1995. The elements of language curriculum. Boston, Massachusetts: Heinle. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. 2005. Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Lax, J., and Reichelt, M. 2001. Writing about writing: An innovative first-year composition program. Issues in Writing. 11: 64–82. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Leki, I. 2001.Material, educational, and ideological challenges of teaching EFL writing at the turn of the century. International Journal of English Studies. 1: 197–209. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Leki, I., and Carson, J. 1994. Students’ perceptions of EAP writing instruction and writing needs across the disciplines. TESOL Quarterly. 28: 81–101. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Long, M. 2005. Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Seedhouse, P. 1995. Needs analysis and the general English classroom. ELT Journal. 49: 59–65. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Silva, T. 1990. Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press, 11–23. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Truscott, J. 1996. Review article: The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning. 46: 327–369. | pl_PL |