International Journal of Applied Linguistics

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Teaching Writing in the Chinese Primary and Secondary School Contexts: An Analysis of the Discourses of Writing in L2 Curriculum Documents

Shulin Yu Simin Liu

Faculty of Education, University of Macau, Taipa, Macao

Correspondence: Shulin Yu (shulinyu@um.edu.mo)

Received: 21 July 2024 Revised: 9 December 2024 Accepted: 22 December 2024

Introduction

are crucial for effective and successful teaching practices (e.g., adoption of pedagogy, teaching strategy, and activities) and are closely related to L2 teachers’ beliefs and students’ learning performances (Hinkel 2015; Mizusawa 2021; Wang and Lam 2009). However, in the realm of L2 writing, the majority of studies have targeted L2 students or teachers for their practices and perceptions of L2 writing instruction and assessment approaches

ABSTRACT

Despite the significance of second language (L2) writing curricula in guiding effective and successful teaching practices, limited studies have explored the underlying pedagogical philosophies and values in writing curricula in L2 school contexts. Utilizing the writing discourse framework, the current study assessed and analyzed L2 writing curriculum documents in primary and secondary schools in the Chinese Mainland, Hong Kong, and Macau. The findings revealed prevalent skills and social practices discourses, insufficient process and genre discourses, and minimum creativity and sociopolitical discourses in L2 writing curricula. Such findings, together with the observed curricular consistency and distinct curricular features across different regions, provide insights into curricular teaching philosophies and the development of L2 writing curricula and teaching approaches in L2 school contexts.

, , , , , , , ,
,

With foundational constituents involving learning objectives, teaching plans, and teaching materials, second language (L2) curricula provide systematic guidance on the development of the range and sequence of language skills, thinking abilities, and cultural awareness (Hinkel 2015; Wei et al. 2022). L2 curricula

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2025; 0:1–13 1 of 13 https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12699

and strategies (e.g., Graves and Garton 2017; Reichelt 2009), with scarce research focusing on L2 writing documents and curricular discourses. In fact, written discourses have been analyzed in L2 writing research primarily for insights into the nature of L2 writing, text features of L2 writers, or the effectiveness of instructional interventions (Ferris 2011). Given that written discourses are commonly accepted as instantiations of behaviors, interactions, beliefs, values, and identities of particular groups (Gee 2008), there is a need to examine the value of discourse analysis in revealing underlying teaching philosophies and values in L2 writing curricula.

Apart from the limited attention paid to L2 writing curricula and the discourses on teaching and assessing L2 writing, even fewer studies have delved into L2 writing discourses in cur- ricula for Chinese schools, which are typical settings featuring examination-oriented culture. To set a general direction for L2 writing instructors’ student-centered teaching practices at schools and to meet the growing demands of global socio- economic development (Hu and Adamson 2012; Wang and Lam 2009), L2 curricula in China have been updated and recon- structed across different school stages and regions, including the Chinese Mainland, Hong Kong, and Macau. Despite the shared tradition of Chinese culture, these three regions possess uniqueness in L2 curricular design as a result of different social and historical backgrounds (Adamson and Titus 2004; Chan 2021). The exploration of how their L2 writing curricula diversely respond to the prevalent influence of Western edu- cational values is informative in the dynamic orientations of social needs, curricular optimizations, and cultural communi- cation (Pan 2015). Meanwhile, although challenges exist for L2 learning transitions from primary to secondary school (Hunt et al. 2008), the research attention to L2 curricular consisten- cies and teaching focuses across different educational levels remains insufficient. Given the different degrees of knowledge expansion and cognitive growth among different-aged students (Michel et al. 2019; Swanson, Orosco, and Lussier 2015), in what ways L2 writing curricula have been designed targetedly and coherently for three education phases (i.e., primary, junior, and senior secondary schools) in different regions need further investigation.

Therefore, the present study intends to adopt Ivanič’s (2004) framework of the writing discourse to examine L2 writing curricula in China, with a focus on curricular teaching emphases and consistency at three education stages and curricular fea- tures in three Chinese regions: the Chinese Mainland, Hong Kong, and Macau. Built on a multilayered view concerning the linguistic substance, cognitive process, and social context of writing, Ivanič’s (2004) framework of the discourses of writing and learning to write functions as an effective tool to distinguish and analyze different writing discourses for underlying beliefs in written texts or pedagogical practices (Peterson 2012; Yu, Zhou, and Zhang 2022). Since writing discourses in curricula could reveal underlying conceptualizations and beliefs of teaching writing (Ivanič 2004), the exploration of L2 writing curricula is informative on L2 writing instructional philosophies and the inner mechanism of curricular constructions, consequently con- ducive to the development of L2 writing curricula and teaching approaches.

2 Literature Review

2.1 Theoretical Framework: Discourses of

Writing and Learning to Write

Defined as “constellations of beliefs about writing, beliefs about learning to write, ways of talking about writing, and the sorts of approaches to teaching and assessment which are likely to be associated with these beliefs,” discourses of writing reflect the homogeneity or heterogeneity of beliefs, theories, and instruc- tional practices underlying spoken or written communications concerning writing (Ivanič 2004, 224). In academic literacy edu- cation, the conceptualization of writing as well as the connection between writing beliefs and practices is underpinned by Lea and Street (1998), who demonstrated that apart from generic literacy, writing literacy and its characteristics are specific in different contexts, shaped by interests, values, and power relations and available to change. This maps onto Ivanič’s (2004) framework of the discourses of writing and learning to write, encompassing six types of writing discourses (skills, creativity, process, genre, social practices, and socio-political discourses) featuring distinct writing-related beliefs, pedagogy, and assessments.

∙ Skills discourses emphasize the accuracy of linguistic con- ventions such as spelling, language patterns, and grammar, consistent with traditional theory aimed at applying sound– symbol knowledge to text (Ivanič 2004).

∙ Derived from expressivism, which highlights individuals’ free expressions of their thoughts and feelings through writing (Elbow 1998), creativity discourses focus on content and style in conjunction with writing out of personal interests and passions.

∙ Given that cognitive theory understands writing as a dynamic mental activity reflecting hierarchical organization and goal- directed thinking during writing (Flower and Hayes 1981), process discourses correspondingly concern recursive stages of planning, editing, revising, and finalizing in writing.

∙ Genre discourses foreground particular linguistic and struc- tural features and grammatical patterns of different writing genres, theoretically underpinned by systemic functional lin- guistics that emphasizes the functional aspects of linguistics for meaning-making (Halliday 1994).

∙ Based on sociocultural theory and multimodality in new literacy studies (Cope and Kalantzis 2000; Dyson 1993), social practices discourses view writing as social practices that serve authentic social purposes and rely on multiple semiotic modes to convey communicative meanings.

∙ With the belief that writing is shaped by social forces and power relations, sociopolitical discourses foreground the crit- ical orientation of writing, echoing the idea of critical literacy theorists (Fairclough 1989).

Thus, aligned with “the multi-layered view of language,” writing discourses with different theoretical orientations systematically present writing and its conceptualization from the perspectives of text, cognitive processes, events, and sociocultural and political context (Ivanič 2004, 222).

2 of 13

International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2025

14734192, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijal.12699 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [03/02/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

2.2 Discourses of Writing in Curricula and Teaching Practices

The framework of writing discourses has been utilized to analyze writing curricula in L1 and L2 contexts (McCarthey, Woodard, and Kang 2014; Peterson 2012; Yu, Zhou, and Zhang 2022), given its usefulness in providing an overall picture of hybrid beliefs and philosophies in writing policy. For L1 school curriculum documents, Jeffery and Parr (2021) reported that cognitive discourses (skills, process, and genre discourses) have been more influential than affective or sociocultural discourses (creativity, social practices, and sociopolitical discourses) across the globe, and that very few jurisdictions except New Zealand and Norway could strike a balance between cognitive and sociocultural discourses in their L1 writing curricular design (see Elf and Troelsen 2021; Peterson 2012; Skar and Aasen 2021). Regarding L2 contexts, Peltzer et al. (2022) identified the predominance of skills and genre discourses in conjunction with the insufficiency of the rest types of writing discourses in 11 English as foreign language (EFL) curricula for German secondary schools. This is similar to Yu, Zhou, and Zhang’s (2022) finding that genre discourses were present dominantly in English writing curriculum documents of 68 Chinese universities, followed by relatively influential skills, social practices, and process discourses, as well as absent creativity and sociopolitical discourses.

Furthermore, discourses in writing class act as a significant source to uncover the features of real classroom practices of teaching writing, along with the congruence or potential con- flicts between pedagogic practices and curricular materials. The identification of diverse types of writing discourses revealed teachers’ flexible adoption of multiple teaching methods serv- ing different teaching writing purposes in different writing contexts (McCarthey, Woodard, and Kang 2014; Spence and Cardenas-Cortez 2011; Sturk and Lindgren 2019), concurring with Ivanič’s (2004) statement that teaching approaches are oftentimes eclectic. Particularly noteworthy is that writing discourses in teaching practices, beliefs, and instructional documents imply potential incongruity and contradiction (McCarthey, Woodard, and Kang 2014; Spence and Kite 2018), possibly influenced by cultural distinctiveness, professional development, and student needs (Spence and Kite 2018; Yu et al. 2022). In this sense, teachers should be aware of and negotiate these tensions with the assistance of profound knowledge of writing discourses as well as opportunities for professional development (McCarthey, Woodard, and Kang 2014).

To sum up, Ivanič’s (2004) framework of the discourses of writing and learning to write functions as an effective tool to system- atically reveal the homogeneity or heterogeneity of pedagogical beliefs and philosophies in curriculum documents or the prac- tices of teaching L2 writing. However, knowledge of curricular writing discourses together with the underlying conceptualiza- tions and teaching values on writing in L2 school contexts is still insufficient, not to mention the consistency and distinct features in L2 writing curricula across primary and secondary education phases. In this sense, the present study on L2 writing curricula for L2 schools from the perspective of writing discourse is informative.

2.3 L2 Writing Curricula and Instructions in L2 School Contexts

Under the influence of political trends and social changes, L2 curricula reform to provide instructional guidance at national, local, and classroom levels (Hu and Adamson 2012; Wang and Lam 2009). For example, in Singapore, multiliteracies as a key focus in the English Language syllabus signaled the pedagogical tendency to adopt multimodal perspectives in English writing classes at schools, including the presentation of abundant visual texts and multiple modes of meaning construction (Mizusawa 2021; McCarthey and Zhang 2023). Other context- specific orientations are likewise reflected in the design of L2 writing curricula, exemplified by writing decolonization in postcolonial regions and the elimination of writing educational disparities between mainstream and minority in US schools (Ortmeier-Hooper and Enright 2011; Rabbi 2023).

However, it is not always the case that L2 writing curricula respond to the needs of social development. In some L2 contexts like Iran, the underdevelopment of truncated English curricula failed to cultivate adolescent students’ L2 writing competence, as the result of conflicts between post-revolutionary ideology and pragmatism (Naghdipour 2016). With regard to the design of L2 writing curricula, school students’ linguistic skills and writing strategies are the common concerns, along with L2 writ- ing instructional guidance focusing on writing quality, writing process, and genre (Hinkel 2015; Hyland 2019; Zhang 2016). Meanwhile, the educational ideas of accountability, fairness, and standardization also exert long-lasting and considerable influ- ences on curricular construction (Luke, Woods, and Weir 2013).

Knowledge of L2 writing instructions in L2 school contexts is insufficient, given that extensive research attention has been paid to tertiary education settings. In Geng et al.’s (2022) thematic review on EFL writing in school contexts, the genre-oriented approach has been identified as one particularly favorite English writing pedagogy in Hong Kong and Australia (Graves and Garton 2017), owing to its effectiveness in the explicit teaching of lexicogrammatical features in different text types (Hyland 2007; Lee 2012). Knowledge of genre equips students with academic lit- eracy to interpret themes and purpose-driven contents in various texts (Graves and Garton 2017), which to some extent meets the dual purposes of cultivating young learners’ L2 writing skills and their fundamental academic literacy for content construction. Moreover, L2 writing is oftentimes conceptualized as a written product (Reichelt 2009; Zhang 2016), based on which product- oriented pedagogical practices with focuses on linguistic accuracy and syntactic complexity are prevalent, especially in Asian school contexts under the influence of exam-driven cultures such as Sin- gapore, Japan, and China (Mizusawa 2021; Lee 2012; Zhang 2016). In Western school contexts, multilingual resources and multi- modal approaches are usually implemented to teach L2 writing to students with multilingual backgrounds (Matsumoto 2019).

2.4 English Language Curricula in Chinese School Contexts

Given that curricular studies on L2 writing have predominantly targeted EAP courses at the tertiary level (Yu, Zhou, and Zhang

3 of 13

2022), the exploration of writing curricula for L2 primary and secondary education is insufficient. In Chinese EFL school contexts where English curriculum standards are designed for pedagogical guidance on listening, speaking, reading, and writ- ing, scholars examined the overall features, embedded theories, or development trajectory of English language curricula (see Chan 2021; Pan, 2015; Wang and Lam 2009), without independent focuses on curricular guidance on English writing.

Specifically, English curricula for Chinese EFL schools feature a student-centered philosophy together with diverse teaching targets and guidance on the cultivation of students’ English literacy and skills (Hu and Adamson 2012; Li 2009; Pan 2015). In the Chinese Mainland, English curricula at non-tertiary edu- cational stages highlight humanistic values in English teaching (Wang and Lam 2009) and academically adopt student-centered, communicative, and task-based pedagogical approaches (Hu and Adamson 2012; Wang 2007). For example, so that EFL teachers can effectively integrate student-centered principles in their teaching practices, curricular guidance foregrounds the inquiry-based approaches and the cultivation of students’ learn- ing strategies (Wang and Lam 2009), with clear descriptions of pedagogical aims of “cognitive strategy, regulatory strategy, communicative strategy, and resource strategy” across different proficiency gradings (CME 2003, 18). Similarly, Hong Kong curricula also value task-based language teaching, linguistic forms, and communicative functions of English, and are par- ticularly concerned with the application of innovative English teaching approaches like genre-oriented pedagogy and formative assessment (Chan 2021).

Additionally, the idea of whole-person development is deeply rooted in English curricula in all three regions, with key compe- tencies to be cultivated including ways of thinking (e.g., creative and critical thinking), ways of working (e.g., cooperation and communication), tools for working (e.g., information and ICT literacy), and living in the world (Cheung and Wong 2012; Li 2009; Wei et al. 2022). Specifically, curricular documents require students to enjoy and appreciate a variety of literary, imaginative, or creative texts and culture-relevant written forms, thereby fostering their “critical thinking, creativity, self-expression, per- sonal growth, empathy, and cultural understanding” (Pan 2015, 634). As regards distinctiveness, curricula in the Mainland create coherent sets of learning targets for transitions between dif- ferent educational phases (Gu 2012) and equate cross-cultural awareness with core literacy. In comparison to the Mainland curricula, HK English curricula are more flexible in teaching targets, more targeted to individual differences, more diverse in assessment methods, and more applicable to enhancing lan- guage use (Pan 2015). As former colonies of Western countries (Britain and Portugal) and currently international metropolises of China, the education systems of HK and Macau are sensi- tive to Western theories and global research, which has also been reflected in English curricula (Adamson and Titus 2004; Chan 2021).

Accordingly, English writing curricula in China conform to the student-centered philosophy of English teaching, with aims at developing Chinese students’ L2 writing competencies, learning capacities for L2 writing, and ways of thinking on L2 writing as well as guiding L2 writing teachers’ implementation of differ-

ent pedagogies, teaching strategies, and assessment methods in classrooms. However, since we still lack specific information on curricular emphases and congruity through writing discourses presented in L2 writing curricula for Chinese primary and sec- ondary education, further investigation is warranted. Therefore, the present study aims to address the following two research questions:

RQ1: How are writing curricular discourses distributed in the Chinese mainland, Hong Kong, and Macau? To what extent are the L2 writing discourses consistent across different education levels?

RQ2: What are the distinct features of L2 writing curricular discourses in the Chinese Mainland, Hong Kong, and Macau?

3 Methodology

Drawing upon Ivanič’s (2004) framework of the discourses of writing and learning to write, the study adopted a deductive content analysis method (see Azungah 2018; Elo and Kyngäs 2008) to reveal the mixture of writing philosophies and values within the selected L2 curricular documents.

3.1 Study Contexts and Data Sources

There are the Chinese Ministry of Education (CME), the Curricu- lum Development Council (CDC), and the Education and Youth Affairs Bureau (EYAB) separately responsible for the preparation and development of Chinese Mainland, Hong Kong, and Macau curricula. In the Chinese Mainland, English curricula are divided into nine levels based on students’ competence levels, covering compulsory education (grades 3–9) and senior secondary (grades 10–12) stages. For the compulsory education stage, the English Curriculum Standards for Compulsory Education (CME 2011) comprises a humanistic and instrumental component, and its revised version, the English Curriculum Standards for Compul- sory Education (CME 2011), streamlines the content structure, establishes academic quality standards, and fortifies standardized instructional components. For the senior secondary stage, five components of affective attitude, language proficiency, language knowledge, learning methodologies, and cultural awareness constitute the English Curriculum Standards for General High Schools (CME 2003), and its 2017 edition, the English Curricu- lum Standards for General High Schools (CME 2017), contains thematic contexts, discourse types, language knowledge, cultural knowledge, language skills, and learning strategies. Moreover, its 2020 version, the English Curriculum Standards for Gen- eral High Schools (CME 2020), prioritizes quality education together with placing great emphasis on students’ all-around development.

In Hong Kong, the English Language Education Key Learning Area Curriculum Guide (Primary 1–Secondary 6) (CDC 2017) aims to improve students’ English language competency, intellectual growth, cultural awareness, social skills, and competitiveness, with three interrelated components of knowledge of major learn- ing areas, generic skills, and values and attitudes. The curricula

4 of 13

International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2025

TABLE 1 Curriculum documents analyzed in the present study. Region

Document

Pages

Chinese ∙ Mainland ∙

English Curriculum Standards for Compulsory Education (CME 2011); 180 English Curriculum Standards for Compulsory Education (CME 2022); 194

Hong Kong ∙ Macau ∙

English Language Education Key Learning Area Curriculum Guide (Primary 1– 317 Secondary 6) (CDC 2017).

Primary English Curriculum Guide for Schools Not Using English as the Primary 224 Language of Instruction (EYAB 2016); 178

∙ English Curriculum Standards for General High Schools (CME 2003);

∙ English Curriculum Standards for General High Schools (CME 2017);

∙ English Curriculum Standards for General High Schools (CME 2020).

141 212 212

∙ Junior Secondary English Curriculum Guide for Schools Using English as the Primary Language of Instruction (EYAB 2017a);

∙ Requirements of Basic Academic Attainments for Junior Secondary English (EYAB 2017b);

∙ Senior Secondary English Curriculum Guide for Schools Using English as the Primary Language of Instruction (EYAB 2018);

∙ Requirements of Basic Academic Attainments for Senior Secondary English (EYAB 2017c).

5 193 6

also provide syllabi regarding teaching designs in the appendices to guide English writing instructional practices. As for English curricula in Macau, the Primary English Curriculum Guide for Schools Not Using English as the Primary Language of Instruction (EYAB 2016), the Junior Secondary English Curriculum Guide for Schools Using English as the Primary Language of Instruction (EYAB 2017a), and the Senior Secondary English Curriculum Guide for Schools Using English as the Primary Language of Instruction (EYAB 2018) underscore students’ mastery of vocabu- lary, grammar, and structure as well as their understanding of the English language system, encourage lifelong learning and critical and creative thinking, and emphasize the humanistic benefits of language acquisition. Plus, The Requirements of Basic Academic Attainments for Junior Secondary English (EYAB 2017b) and The Requirements of Basic Academic Attainments for Senior Secondary English (EYAB 2017c) provide explicit stipulations in terms of students’ mastery of writing literacy skills.

Overall, a total of 11 curriculum documents for primary and secondary education have been analyzed to reveal L2 writ- ing instructional philosophies and orientations in the Chinese Mainland, HK, and Macau (see Table 1).

3.2 Coding Scheme and Data Analysis

Regarding the data analysis, the present study applied a deductive content analysis method to writing discourses in L2 curricula, a research method adopting pre-existent theories, concepts, or categories for data coding (see Azungah 2018; Elo and Kyngäs 2008). Built upon the multi-layered view of language (i.e., text, cognitive processes, events, and socio-cultural and political context), writing discourses with each category corresponding to one or two layers reflect distinctive writing theories and

philosophies, thereby deconstructing the complexity of teaching values and beliefs in selected curricular documents. Practically, researchers and two research assistants read Ivanič’s (2004) framework, referenced prior empirical studies to see how the framework was used for content analyses (see Peterson 2012; Sturk and Lindgren 2019; Yu, Zhou, and Zhang 2022), and jointly drafted a tentative coding scheme. Subsequently, 10 writing-related sentences or paragraphs (also called items) were randomly selected from curricular documents for each of the three regions’ primary, junior secondary, and senior secondary grade bands, with 90 items in total. After identifying keywords in the curricular documents and associating them with major concepts in Ivanič’s (2004) framework, two assistants coded the 90 items and discussed the differences in their coding results, ultimately reaching a consensus on the final coding scheme (see Supporting information for the coding scheme). According to the coding scheme, curricular contents were correlated with different types of writing discourse, with the occurrence of one type of consecutive writing discourse recorded as one valid message. Thus, a single sentence may be identified as several different types of discourse, or several sentences may count as one code. As the first research assistant coded the text of the curricular guidance, the second one reviewed her identified contents and coded it twice for issues that arose (see Supporting information for coding procedures). After that, they listed coded information in three tables in terms of different regions, counted the occurrences of each discourse across regions and grade levels, and analyzed the results. The researchers reviewed coding results and had rounds of discussions with research assistants to confirm them. With the confirmed results of the coverage of different writing discourses in writing curricula, teaching values and philosophies of L2 writing embedded in curricular learning targets and instructional outcomes were holistically revealed at the level of documents.

5 of 13

4 Findings

4.1 Distribution and Consistency of L2 Writing Curricular Discourses in the Mainland, HK, and Macau

The subsection informs the distribution and consistency of L2 writing curricular discourses in three regions, respectively. It is noteworthy that the analysis of consistency involves distribution consistency and content consistency, given that a certain dis- course type identified less frequently in quantitative terms might not necessarily suggest a lesser emphasis. In this sense, the focus on curricular content is also essential.

4.1.1 Chinese Mainland

Regarding the overall distribution of writing discourses (see Table 2), skills discourses (38.1%) and social practices discourses (35.7%) play the most influential role in Mainland school curric- ula, followed by the less frequent occurrence of process discourses (15.9%) and genre discourses (7.9%) and the absence of creativity discourses (2.4%) and sociopolitical discourses (0%).

On the basis of discourse consistency across different educational levels, skills discourses and creativity discourses are consistent in frequency occurrence, while the rest of the discourses more or less fluctuate. Specifically, skills discourses are always predominant (41.2%, 36.4%, and 38.2%) in L2 school curricula, with teaching targets increasingly advanced. This indispensability of teaching conventionalized linguistic forms to students can be recognized from the beginning of their journey in English writing (e.g., “write uppercase and lowercase letters and punctuation correctly,” CME 2011, 14) to a more advanced level (e.g., “the selection of language structure and vocabulary is appropriate and rich,” CME 2003, 56). In contrast, creativity discourses are always minimally influential at the document level. Accounting for 5.9% of primary writing guides, creativity discourses merely state the requirement to “use charts, posters, homemade picture books, etc. to creatively express meaning” (CME 2003, 56). The percentage is even lower in curricula for secondary education (0% and 2.6%), a tendency to congruent neglect of creativity cultivation.

The changing proportions are separately reflected in process dis- courses, genre discourses, and social practices discourses, within which curricular content features various teaching focuses. For process discourses, although process-oriented approaches are highly valued at the junior secondary level (36.4%), the accounts of producing articles in a sequence of planning, drafting, and revising consistently emerge across the three education stages. It is also from the secondary level that self and peer assessment as new pedagogical strategies have been frequently mentioned, exemplified by “after completing the first draft, teachers organize students to conduct meaningful feedback and revisions in the form of self and peer evaluation” (CME 2022, 27). At the meantime, the fluctuating proportion of genre discourses (5.9%, 3.0%, and 10.5%) shows the increasingly influential role in the secondary school curricula, aligned with students’ functional needs of writing e-mail, resume and application form and argumentative and practical essay as they grow up.

6 of 13

International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2025

TABLE 2

Type % (n)

Primary

Junior high

Senior high

Total

Distribution of six types of discourses in different education levels in the Mainland.

Skills

discourse

41.2 (7)

36.4 (12)

38.2 (29)

38.1 (48)

Creativity

discourse

5.9 (1)

2.6 (2)

2.4 (3)

Process

discourse

11.8 (2)

36.4 (12)

7.9 (6)

15.9 (20)

Genre discourse

5.9 (1)

3.0 (1)

10.5 (8)

7.9 (10)

Social practices discourse

Socio-political discourse

0 0 0 0

Multimodality

29.4 (5)

12.1 (4)

27.6 (21)

23.8 (30)

Writing context

35.3 (6) 0 24.2 (8) 0 40.8 (31) 1.3 (1) 35.7 (45) 0.8 (1)

Learning through writing

5.9 (1) 12.1 (4) 11.8 (9) 11.1 (14)

Sum

100 (17)

100 (33)

100 (76)

100 (126)

TABLE 3

Distribution of six types of discourses in different education levels in HK.

Type % (n)

Primary

Junior high

Senior high

Total

Skills Creativity Process Genre discourse discourse discourse discourse

Social practices discourse

Socio- political

discourse Sum

0 100 (71)

0 100 (16)

0 100 (55)

0 100 (142)

31.0 (22) 18.8 (3) 10.9 (6) 21.8 (31)

14.1 (10) 6.3 (1) 1.8 (1) 8.5 (12)

15.5 (11) 12.5 (2) 36.4 (20) 23.2 (33)

8.5 (6) 18.8 (3) 12.7 (7) 11.3 (16)

9.9 (7)

25.0 (4)

9.1 (5)

11.3 (16)

31.0 (22) 8.5 (6) 43.8 (7) 0 38.2 (21) 0 35.2 (50) 4.2 (6)

In general, social practices discourses are present commonly in compulsory education curricula (35.3% and 24.2%) and become the most influential discourses (40.8%) for senior secondary students. Specifically, discourses on multimodality are frequent at the primary stage (29.4%) and the senior secondary stage (27.6%). Apart from encouraging teachers to use modern educational technology, this subdiscourse also consistently engages students in different types of resources for writing tasks, ranging from easier ones “write short sentences when prompted by pictures and sentences” (CME 2011, 141) to more difficult ones “use charts and other non-verbal information to understand or express” (CME 2003, 19). Meanwhile, discourses on learning through writing emerge more (12.1% and 11.8%) in secondary education, regarding writing as an effective tool to promote students’ whole- person development, like the fostering of different literacy skills, correct values, and positive emotional attitudes. This example demonstrates how the discourse encourages students to learn through writing (CME 2003, 23):

In the HK writing curricula, skills discourses (31.0%) and creativ- ity discourses (14.1%) occur frequently at the primary level (see CDC 2017, A45, 19), which indicates the urgency of cultivating students’ capability of writing correctly and creatively at this stage, such as “use the basic conventions of written English” and “creative works freely and imaginatively”. Although both proportions continuously decline in secondary curricula, it is obvious to identify the content transition from simple to complex linguistic knowledge in skills discourses and content consistency of developing the creativity of self-expression through prose, poetry, and drama in creativity discourses.

As regards process discourses in CDC (2017, A9, 20, A46, 41), the pedagogical idea of recursive processes of L2 writing gets greater attention in primary schooling (15.5%) and senior secondary schooling (36.4%). However, process discourses in the curricula of junior secondary education are less congruous than the others, given the insufficient and fractional statements of writing processes, like “develop ideas by making revisions”. Meanwhile, despite the dynamic proportions of genre discourses in curricula, the teaching targets of the purpose-driven genre are consistent across education stages, where primary students are guided that “the intended purpose and audience of each text type determine its structural, stylistic and linguistic features” and secondary students are instructed to “use appropriate tone, style and register for various purposes.”

Furthermore, writing for social purposes always lies in the centrality of HK teaching practices (31.0%, 43.8%, and 38.2%). The content consistency of subdiscourses can be observed throughout primary and secondary education, where discourses on multi- modality (25.0%) highlight the integration of students’ writing and digital literacy through specific writing tasks (e.g. “write their own poems about Mother’s Day to be included in e-cards designed by themselves”,) and discourses on learning through writing focus on the enhancement of literacy and (meta-)cognitive- related capabilities during the writing practices.

4.1.3 Macau

As regards writing curricular discourses at Macau schools (see Table 4), skills discourses (38.2%) and process discourses

4.1.2

Students are encouraged to develop comprehensive language skills in listening, speaking, reading, and writing through experience, practice, discussion, coop- eration, and inquiry. Space and time should be left for independent learning, so that students have opportuni- ties to analyze and solve problems in English through thinking activities such as association, reasoning, and induction.

Hong Kong

Hong Kong features a unique distribution of writing curricular discourses (see Table 3), with predominant social practices dis- courses (35.2%), commonly frequent process discourses (23.2%) and skills discourses (21.8%), inadequate genre discourses (11.3%) and creativity discourses (8.5), and absent sociopolitical dis- courses (0%). It is noteworthy that except for social practices discourses, other discourses are distributed unevenly across education levels, reflecting the diversity of teaching concerns and targets in curricula.

Writing Multimodalitycontext

Learning through writing

12.7 (9)

18.8 (3)

29.1 (16)

19.7 (28)

7 of 13

TABLE 4

Distribution of six types of discourses in different education levels in Macau.

Type % (n)

Primary

Junior high

Senior high

Total

Skills Creativity Process Genre discourse discourse discourse discourse

Social practices discourse

Socio- political

discourse Sum

0 100 (24)

0 100 (60)

0 100 (52)

0 100 (136)

37.5 (9) 46.7 (28) 28.8 (15) 38.2 (52)

4.2 (1) 1.7 (1) 7.7 (4) 4.4 (6)

29.2 (7) 30.0 (18) 36.5 (19) 32.4 (44)

4.2 (1) 11.7 (7) 9.6 (5) 9.6 (13)

20.8 (5) 3.3 (2) 9.6 (5) 8.8 (12)

25.0 (6) 0 10.0 (6) 3.3 (2) 17.3 (9) 0 15.4 (21) 1.5 (2)

(32.4%) are heavily influential, followed by lacked-implemented social practices discourses (15.4%) and genre discourses (9.6%), and infrequent creativity discourse (4.4%) and sociopolitical discourses (0%).

In Macau schools, skills discourses working as fundamental elements in writing curricula are particularly influential in primary (37.5%) and junior secondary (46.7%) levels. At the senior secondary stage, the pedagogical focus shifts to process writing. Process discourses are heavily influential (29.2%, 30.0%, and 36.5%) in guiding teachers’ instructional practices in all phases of schooling. Apart from the descriptions of each step of process writing, discourses on self- and peer feedback and revision as well as assessment ability are largely present, consistent with the general education aims to nurture Macau students as self-directed learners. Following is one typical example of assessment practices in process discourses (EYAB 2018, 68):

Develop self-assessment and peer assessment skills. . . . Teachers can show students how to edit and proof- read their writing, and provide them with self/peer assessment forms, questionnaires or checklists.

Plus, the content-oriented approach also received a little bit more attention in senior secondary schools, as the proportion of creativity discourses increased from the lowest 1.7% to relatively higher 7.7%. This time, except for mentioning the production of creative texts such as diaries, blog entries, stories, poems, jokes, and riddles, the discourses also noted confidence and motivation accompanied by creative writing. Another type of discourse with increasing focus in secondary education is genre discourses, which oftentimes cover elements of writing purpose, text structure, language feature, tone, style, and register. It is also noteworthy that social practices discourses that highlight the co-development between writing skills and other language literacies (e.g., reading, listening, and speaking) are present commonly in Macau writing curricula across educational levels, evident in statements like “Teachers engage learners in the use and practice of authentic language through teacher-student and student-student interactions and integration of speaking, listening, reading, and writing activities” (EYAB 2018, 4).

To sum up, with the occurrence of five types of writing discourses, the three regions’ writing standards that are characterized by different teaching emphases for educational stages reflect the consistency of writing discourses in varying degrees. Meanwhile, despite the distinct discourse distributions in the curricula, there are shared themes across three contexts, including the constant emphasis on linguistic conventions, the insufficient concern for writing enjoyment and pleasure, the focus on assessment and revision in writing processes, the coverage of typical text types, and the integration of writing into social practices.

4.2 Distinct Features of L2 Writing Curricular Discourses in the Mainland, HK, and Macau

Distinct features of the underlying pedagogical belief and philos- ophy in the Mainland, HK, and Macau are informed through the comparison of distributions and content of each type of writing discourse in three regions.

Skills discourse: Regardless of the education phases, skills- oriented approaches and relevant cultivation have always been the greatest concern in the Mainland L2 writing curricula, while HK mainly places emphasis on linguistic conventions at the primary level. Additionally, in the Mainland writing curricula, skills discourses related to writing evaluation criteria on linguistic forms and grammar are mainly for summative purposes (e.g., “There are many grammatical structure and vocabulary errors,” CME 2003, 56). This is different from the Macau curricula that inform teachers of the justification for why errors exist and the necessity of viewing and treating errors appropriately, evident in the following curricular content (EYAB 2018, 55).

However, once students pay more attention to express- ing meaning than the production of the correct lan- guage form, errors will inevitably occur. In fact, the more risks that students take in expressing themselves, the more language errors they may produce. This is a natural part of language learning, and teachers should put such errors in proper perspective.

8 of 13

International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2025

Writing Multimodalitycontext

Learning through writing

4.2 (1) 3.3 (2) 7.7 (4) 5.1 (7)

Creativity discourse: Creativity discourses are the least com- mon discourses in L2 writing guides across all education stages and regions except at the HK primary level (14.1%). Compared to the curricula in the other two regions, the creativity discourses in the HK L2 writing curricula highlight the teachers’ guiding role in the development of students’ creative capacity, sometimes with the combination of other disciplines such as STEM. For example, “design tasks, activities, and projects to encourage students to . . . create new ideas or things to enhance their creative capacity (e.g. writing a short story about a zany invention)” (CDC 2017, 51). In addition, both HK and Macau curricula state the pleasure, interest, and enjoyment of writing.
Process discourse: The distributions of process discourses remarkably vary. For the Mainland and HK writing curricula, process discourses predominate in one certain educational stage ( junior secondary for the Mainland and senior secondary for HK), which is contrary to Macau, where process-oriented approaches have been pedagogical emphases throughout the whole primary and secondary education. Furthermore, although assessment for learning is a consensus in all three regions, the HK curricula implement such an idea at primary schools (presented in the example below, CDC 2017, 87), earlier than the other two, starting at the secondary level.

Teachers should assess the process as well as the prod- uct when assessing students’ performance in project work. They can use a variety of means such as observation, conferencing, and monitoring the process of students’ writing. Continuous feedback should be given with the aim of stimulating students’ critical reflection and helping them improve their learning.

Genre discourse: In comparison to more influential discourses like skills and process discourses, genre discourses are less common in L2 writing curricula. Surprisingly, genre discourses in conjunction with writing portfolios were found in the HK curricula. For example, in the theme-based portfolio, HK students are encouraged to write different genres step by step for the holiday (CDC 2017, A109).

Theme-based Portfolio

Design a poster about the holiday.

Write a recipe for a dish or beverage commonly enjoyed on the holiday.

Write instructions for a game or an activity that is done on this holiday.

Write a greeting card for this holiday.

The implementation of the portfolio is effective for students to familiarize themselves with distinct features in genre through producing written products in various genres, and thus it is valued in the HK writing curricula.

Social practices discourse: Social practices discourses occur more frequently in the Mainland and HK writing curricula than

in the Macau writing curricula. To be specific, discourses on mul- timodality reveal that e-resources received great attention in HK across all levels of schooling (see CDC 2017, 8, 70), where students need to “be equipped with new literacy skills to process and create multimodal texts” and teachers are suggested to make full use of e-platforms to present “video clips with an illustration of the text structure, the related language items and their communicative functions.” In the Mainland and Macau, it is not until the senior secondary stage that e-resources start to be mentioned in the L2 writing curricula. Discourses on writing contexts reflect that writing for social purposes in real-life contexts is stated in the curricula of all three places, with simulated situations appearing once only in HK writing guides. With regard to discourses on learning through writing, the Mainland curricula particularly attached great importance to cultural awareness and intercultural communication competence, evident in the following L2 writing task (CME 2022, 69).

Describing the cultural phenomenon of New Year’s Eve dinner and its cultural connotations, inheriting and promoting Chinese culture through writing, and demonstrating the awareness and ability of intercul- tural communication.

Briefly, writing discourses in Mainland curricula feature cul- tural sharing and intercultural communication. HK curricular discourses advocate interdisciplinary creative writing, and the use of e-resources and portfolios, and discourses in Macau curricula highlight proper treatment of students’ produced errors and writing for enjoyment.

5 Discussion

In general, distributions of L2 writing curricular discourses reveal a pronounced teaching priority to cultivate English writing liter- acy and associated competencies of students, particularly among younger learners. The conceptualization of English writing as a social practice also exerts a substantial influence, thereby transcending the perception of L2 writing as an isolated literacy to an intricate skill linked with the development and manifestation of diverse capacities within social contexts. Although not as pervasive as skills or social practices discourses, process and genre discourses reflect a relatively inferior yet still important position in terms of teaching multi-staged writing processes and various text types in L2 writing classes. Conversely, scant atten- tion is afforded to creative content and sociopolitical discourses in L2 writing curricula, similar to the curricular philosophies observed in Chinese university writing courses (Yu, Zhou, and Zhang 2022). As regards the consistency of L2 writing curricular discourses, the contents across different education phases achieve congruity in ways of conforming to the cognitive growth and knowledge expansion of students. Concurrently, the configura- tions of L2 writing discourses within writing curricula exhibit a degree of dynamic changes, implying flexibility in the focal points of instruction across different contexts and educational stages.

In the context of Chinese schooling, the predominant skills discourses in English writing curricula resonate with the lin- guistic learning demands of students at low levels of English

9 of 13

proficiency, since the deficiency in fundamental knowledge of English conventions serves as a substantial impediment to suc- cessful English writing (Hyland 2019). Meanwhile, the pervasive examination-oriented culture in China underscores the imper- atives of accountability and standardization within educational systems (Chen, Warden, and Chang 2005; Kirkpatrick and Zang 2011), instantiated as explicit and extensive accounts of teaching targets and assessment criteria on students’ mastery of English writing skills in writing curricula. Regarding social practices discourses, multimodality sub-discourses with the idea of lever- aging multimodal resources follow current technology-supported trends and the idea of multiliteracies in language teaching, which prepares students for meaning interpretation and construction in a variety of modes in social contexts (Loncar, Schams, and Liang 2023; McCarthey and Zhang 2023). Another sub-discourse regard- ing learning through writing, although numerically limited, responds to the contemporary call for whole-person development, including the cultivation of capacities for communication, coop- eration, critical thinking, and other essential attributes (Cheung and Wong 2012; Li 2009; Wei et al. 2022). Moreover, the rare presence of sub-discourses on the writing environment in the curricula neglects the creation of simulated or authentic writing contexts for Chinese EFL students, possibly leading to students’ insensitivity to the interconnections among writing purpose, context, and audience.

In addition, product-oriented instructions and summative assess- ments are persistent and enduring in Chinese EFL writing classes (Chen and Yu 2019; Lee 2008; Reichelt 2009), and a pedagogical imperative on process-focused approaches consequently emerges to extend the instructional emphasis from final written outcomes to the entirety of the writing process. In the curricula, although process discourses span pre-, during-, and post-writing stages, the primary teaching targets are directed toward evaluation and revision, owing in part to their immediate impacts on writing performance. This is reasonable in Chinese school contexts where the examination-driven culture engenders tremendous attention to English writing qualities like linguistic accuracy and complexity (Hong 2021; Lee 2016). Notably, the identified genre discourses are relatively sparse, compared to the prevalent genre content evident in Chinese university English writing curricula (Yu, Zhou, and Zhang 2022). This discrepancy might stem from a smaller number and less complex structure of text types stipulated for supposed mastery by Chinese school students. Nonetheless, recognizing the efficacy of explicit instructions on writing structures and specific linguistic features (Hyland 2007; Lee 2012), heightened attention to genre-related pedagogy is warranted in the English writing curricula. As for creativity discourses, the rare implementation constrains Chinese students’ access to writing English for self-expression and enjoyment, which echoes utilitarian perspectives ingrained in Chinese school instructions that English writing is mainly for high scores or ratings. Furthermore, the complete absence of sociopolitical discourses reflects widespread neglect of critical reflection on English writing conventions in the Chinese educational system, which might hamper the cultivation of students’ critical aware- ness regarding sociopolitical values and factors embedded in English writing.

Meanwhile, the congruity observed in curricular contents high- lights the designers’ deliberate consideration for the cognitive

and literacy development of students. Throughout the stages of intellectual and cognitive growth, students witness the expansion of their English linguistic knowledge, concomitant with the gradual development of competencies in reading and writing literacy, logical and abstract thinking, information processing and construction, as well as long-term working memory (Michel et al. 2019; Swanson, Orosco, and Lussier 2015). In tandem with this developmental trajectory, the curricular discourses pertaining to writing skills, process, genre, and learning through writing are formulated with teaching objectives progressing from rudimen- tary and concrete to complicated and abstract. Moreover, the for- mulation of cohesive sets of learning objectives facilitates smooth transitions across distinct educational phases, thereby mitigating intellectual or cognitive challenges for students upon progression to the next educational level and concurrently contributing to the effective implementation of teachers’ scaffolding strategies.

With the consistency in content, writing discourses also present different teaching emphases in varied contexts and education stages. Specifically, in comparison to HK and Macau, the pre- dominance of skills discourses and the scarcity of creativity discourses in English writing curricula throughout the entirety of the Mainland schooling period suggest more profound and enduring impacts of the examination-oriented culture in the Mainland. This trend is aligned with the current landscape of Mainland education, where high-stakes examinations consti- tute the mainstream channel for talent selection. Meanwhile, the tremendous discrepancies in English teaching resources and qualities between urban and rural areas in the Mainland (Hu 2005; Rao and Yu 2019) imply rural students’ insufficient knowledge of English writing and thus warrant the imperative of long-term instructions on linguistic knowledge and writing skills. Another distinctive feature in Mainland curricula is the emphasis on cultural awareness and intercultural communica- tion in English writing, like the capability of introducing Chinese culture, in response to the advocacy of students’ establishment of Chinese cultural confidence and national pride in Mainland education.

The HK English writing curricula allocate a relatively higher degree of attention to writing content, writing genre, and learning through writing, with a primary emphasis on linguistic writing skills during the primary schooling phase. Based on historical experiences of frequent interactions with Western social cultures (Adamson and Titus 2004), HK is susceptible to Western educational theories, displaying a tendency to embrace and incorporate innovative ideas and concepts from Western writing pedagogy into its curricula, such as creative interdisciplinary writing and portfolio with different genres. Given this orientation, the impact of advanced theories from global education research is likely to be more profound in HK, particularly considering that the English writing curricula commence the cultivation of multiliteracies and awareness of assessment for learning as early as the primary education level. Besides, the utilization of e-resources and e-platforms has been underscored in HK English writing curricula throughout the whole schooling period. This proactive approach toward technology is practically achievable in HK, an economically developed metropolis boasting abundant teaching resources, facilitating early exposure of students to multimodal English writing (Loncar, Schams, and Liang 2023; Zhang and Yu 2023).

10 of 13

International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2025

As for the Macau English writing curricula, the persistent con- cerns about students’ foundational linguistic skills and vast refer- ences to Western pedagogical ideas reflect eclectic characteristics in education, echoing its status quo as a multicultural society akin to the sociocultural context of Hong Kong. Meanwhile, not in the pursuit of error-free writing, the Macau curricula focus more on the process of thinking and decision-making in English writing, which to a great extent caters to students’ cognitive attributes and allows for slowing down thinking in the writing process (Peterson 2012).

6 Conclusions and Implications

Utilizing the writing discourse framework, the current investi- gation analyzed L2 writing curricula in Chinese primary and secondary schools, uncovering heterogeneous teaching philoso- phies underpinning the curricular content. Through the lens of writing discourses in L2 writing curricula, L2 writing research on instruction and pedagogy could be advanced as the result of a deepened understanding of writing curricular characteristics, underlying writing conceptualizations, and potential influencing factors.

The findings advocate for a comprehensive integration of all types of writing discourses in L2 writing curricula at non-tertiary levels, based on which L2 educators could implement more diverse and engaging pedagogical practices in L2 writing classes. Owing to the lack of creativity discourses, it is suggested to incorporate instructional ideas of creative writing into the curricula, at least for primary education, thereby activating young students’ inter- ests in L2 writing and their capacities for creative self-expression at an early age. Meanwhile, the paucity of sociopolitical dis- courses warrants historical or political elucidations on writing conventions in L2 writing curricula for secondary education, so that students’ critical awareness could be fostered based on their gradually maturing cognitive and mental situations. The insufficient genre discourses likewise urge heightened attention to explicitly teaching specific linguistic features and patterns for particular purposes and contexts. For example, L2 writing curricula for senior secondary schools could be augmented by adding different types of academic writing required in univer- sities, which might operate as an effective transition between secondary and tertiary education. Regionally, considering the prevalent exam-oriented culture in the Mainland, the L2 writ- ing curricula are suggested to strike a balance between the instructional idea of linguistic accuracy and content expression in ways of treating students’ produced errors appropriately in their writing. Influenced by Western culture for centuries, HK and Macau need to put more focus on the development of students’ awareness of Chinese culture and intercultural communication competence in L2 writing curricula. In addition, stakeholders need to reflectively reassess the efficacy of current curricula, and relevant document makers are encouraged to undertake judicious adjustments or reconstructions of curricular contents after a holistic consideration of cognitive and social factors in conjunction with student needs. Teachers and other practitioners should be provided with professional training to equip them with strategies for better navigating potential conflicts that might arise between different types of writing discourses and between pedagogical theories and classroom practices.

However, without classroom observations or interviews with teachers, the analyses of L2 writing curricula from the writing discourse perspective could present the underlying L2 writing values and philosophies simply at the document level, leaving teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices and especially how they negotiate potential conflicts in writing discourses unrevealed. Another limitation suggests cautious treatment with the research findings, as L2 writing curriculum documents for data analyses are numerically limited, and the specific L2 context of Chinese primary and secondary education might hamper the generaliza- tion of the outcomes into other teaching contexts. Based on the present study outcomes, future studies might focus on classroom instruction to delve into L2 writing teachers’ beliefs, teaching practices, and contextual factors as well as their relationships through the lens of writing discourses. Textual materials or other teaching resources and students’ perceptions regarding different types of L2 writing pedagogies implemented by teachers could also be examined to present a holistic picture of L2 writing pedagogical values and efficacy in class. Furthermore, considering the role of contextual factors in L2 writing research, it is also informative to use the writing discourse framework to investigate instructional practices or curriculum documents in underrepresented L2 contexts.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

Adamson, B., and L. S. P. Titus. 2004. “Primary and Secondary School- ing.” In Education and Society in Hong Kong and Macao: Comparative Perspectives on Continuity and Change, edited by M. Bray and R. Koo, 35–59. Springer.

Azungah, T. 2018. “Qualitative Research: Deductive and Inductive Approaches to Data Analysis.” Qualitative Research Journal 18, no. 4: 383–400.

Chan, J. Y. H. 2021. “Four Decades of ELT Development in Hong Kong: Impact of Global Theories on the Changing Curricula and Textbooks.” Language Teaching Research 25, no. 5: 729–753.

Chen, J. F., C. A. Warden, and H. T. Chang. 2005. “Motivators That Do Not Motivate: The Case of Chinese EFL Learners and the Influence of Culture on Motivation.” TESOL Quarterly 39, no. 4: 609–633.

Chen, W., and S. Yu. 2019. “Implementing Collaborative Writing in Teacher-Centered Classroom Contexts: Student Beliefs and Perceptions.” Language Awareness 28, no. 4: 247–267.

Cheung, A. C., and P. M. Wong. 2012. “Factors Affecting the Implemen- tation of Curriculum Reform in Hong Kong: Key Findings From a Large- Scale Survey Study.” International Journal of Educational Management 26, no. 1: 39–54.

Chinese Ministry of Education. 2003. ( ) [English Curriculum Standards for Senior High Schools (trial version)]. Beijing, China: People’s Education Press.

Chinese Ministry of Education. 2011. (2011 ) [English Curriculum Standards for Compulsory Education (2011 version)]. Beijing, China: Beijing Normal University Press.

Chinese Ministry of Education. 2017. (2017 ) [English Curriculum Standards for Senior High Schools (2017 version)]. People’s Education Press.

11 of 13

Chinese Ministry of Education. 2020. (2017 2020

) [English Curriculum Standards for Senior High Schools (Revised 2020, 2017 edition)]. People’s Education Press.

Chinese Ministry of Education. 2022. (2022 ) [English Curriculum Standards for Compulsory Education (2022 version)]. Beijing Normal University Press.

Cope, B. and M. Kalantzis, eds. 2000. Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. Psychology Press.

Curriculum Development Council. 2017. English Language Education Key Learning Area: English Language Curriculum and Assessment Guide (Primary 1-Secondary 6). Hong Kong Government Printer.

Dyson, A. H. 1993. Social Worlds of Children Learning to Write in an Urban Primary School. Teachers College Press.

Education and Youth Affairs Bureau. 2016. “Primary English Cur- riculum Guide for Schools Not Using English as the Primary Lan- guage of Instruction.” https://m.dsedj.gov.mo/webdsejspace/internet/ Inter_main_page.jsp?id=9024&.

Education and Youth Affairs Bureau. 2017a. Junior Secondary English Curriculum Guide for Schools Using English as the Primary Language of Instruction. https://m.dsedj.gov.mo/webdsejspace/internet/Inter_main_ page.jsp?id=9024&.

Education and Youth Affairs Bureau. 2017b. Requirements of Basic Aca- demic Attainments for Junior Secondary English. https://m.dsedj.gov.mo/ webdsejspace/internet/Inter_main_page.jsp?id=9024&.

Education and Youth Affairs Bureau. 2017c. Requirements of Basic Aca- demic Attainments for Senior Secondary English. https://m.dsedj.gov.mo/ webdsejspace/internet/Inter_main_page.jsp?id=9024&.

Education and Youth Affairs Bureau. 2018. Senior Secondary English Curriculum Guide for Schools Using English as the Primary Language of Instruction. https://m.dsedj.gov.mo/webdsejspace/internet/Inter_main_ page.jsp?id=9024&.

Elbow, P. 1998. Writing Without Teachers. Oxford University Press.

Elf, N., and S. Troelsen. 2021. “Between Joyride and High-Stakes Exami- nation: Writing Development in Denmark.” In International Perspectives on Writing Curricula and Development, edited by J. V. Jeffery and J. M. Parr, 169–191. Routledge.

Elo, S., and H. Kyngäs. 2008. “The Qualitative Content Analysis Process.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 62, no. 1: 107–115.

Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and Power. Longman.

Ferris, D. 2011. “Written Discourse Analysis and Second Language Teaching.” In Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, edited by E. Hinkel, 645–662. Routledge.

Flower, L., and J. R. Hayes. 1981. “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.” College Composition and Communication 32, no. 4: 365–387.

Gee, J. 2008. Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses, 3rd ed. Routledge.

Geng, F., S. Yu, C. Liu, and Z. Liu. 2022. “Teaching and Learning Writing in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) School Education Contexts: A Thematic Review.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 66, no. 3: 491–504.

Graves, K., and S. Garton. 2017. “An Analysis of Three Curriculum Approaches to Teaching English in Public-Sector Schools.” Language Teaching 50, no. 4: 441–482.

Gu, Y. 2012. “Social Ideologies and the English Curriculum in China: A Historical Overview.” In Perspectives on Teaching and Learning English Literacy in China, edited by J. Ruan and C. B. Leung, 35–50. Springer.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd ed. Edward Arnold.

Hinkel, E. 2015. Effective Curriculum for Teaching L2 Writing: Principles and Techniques. Routledge.

Hong, W. C. H. 2021. “Macao Secondary School EFL Teachers’ Per- spectives on Written Corrective Feedback: Rationales and Constraints.” Journal of Educational Technology and Innovation 1, no. 1: 1–21.

Hu, G. 2005. “English Language Education in China: Policies, Progress, and Problems.” Language Policy 4: 5–24.

Hu, R., and B. Adamson. 2012. “Social Ideologies and the English Curriculum in China: A Historical Overview.” In Perspectives on Teaching and Learning English Literacy in China, edited by J. Ruan and C. B. Leung, 1–17. Springer.

Hunt, M., A. Barnes, B. Powell, and C. Martin. 2008. “Moving on: The Challenges for Foreign Language Learning on Transition From Primary to Secondary School.” Teaching and Teacher Education 24, no. 4: 915–926.

Hyland, K. 2007. “Genre Pedagogy: Language, Literacy and L2 Writing Instruction.” Journal of Second Language Writing 16, no. 3: 148–164.

Hyland, K. 2019. Second Language Writing, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press.

Ivanič, R. 2004. “Discourses of Writing and Learning to Write.” Language and Education 18, no. 3: 220–245.

Jeffery, J. and J. M. Parr, eds., 2021. International Perspectives on Writing Curricula and Development: A Cross-Case Comparison. Routledge.

Kirkpatrick, R., and Y. Zang. 2011. “The Negative Influences of Exam- Oriented Education on Chinese High School Students: Backwash From Classroom to Child.” Language Testing in Asia 1, no. 3: 36.

Lea, M., and B. Street. 1998. “Student Writing in Higher Education: An Academic Literacies Approach.” Studies in Higher Education 23, no. 2: 157–172.

Lee, I. 2008. “Understanding Teachers’ Written Feedback Practices in Hong Kong Secondary Classrooms.” Journal of Second Language Writing 17, no. 2: 69–85.

Lee, I. 2012. “Genre-Based Teaching and Assessment in Secondary English Classrooms.” English Teaching: Practice and Critique 11, no. 4: 120–136.

Lee, I. 2016. “Teacher Education on Feedback in EFL Writing: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions.” TESOL Quarterly 50, no. 2: 518–527.

Li, B. 2009. “Proposed Changes in the Senior Secondary Curriculum in English Language in Hong Kong: Perceptions of School Principals and Teachers.” Journal of Asia TEFL 6, no. 3: 73–108.

Loncar, M., W. Schams, and J. S. Liang. 2023. “Multiple Technologies, Multiple Sources: Trends and Analyses of the Literature on Technology- Mediated Feedback for L2 English Writing Published From 2015-2019.” Computer Assisted Language Learning 36, no. 4: 722–784.

Luke, A., A. Woods, and K. Weir. 2013. “Curriculum Design, Equity and the Technical Form of the Curriculum.” In Curriculum, Syllabus Design and Equity: A Primer and Model, edited by A. Luke, A. Woods, and K. Weir, 6–39. Routledge.

Matsumoto, Y. 2019. “Material Moments: Teacher and Student Use of Materials in Multilingual Writing Classroom Interactions.” The Modern Language Journal 103, no. 1: 179–204.

McCarthey, S. J., R. Woodard, and G. Kang. 2014. “Elementary Teachers Negotiating Discourses in Writing Instruction.” Written Communication 31, no. 1: 58–90.

McCarthey, S. J., and J. Zhang. 2023. “Revisiting Teaching Preparation and Practices for Writing in Singapore.” Teaching and Teacher Education 135: 104337.

Michel, M., J. Kormos, T. Brunfaut, and M. Ratajczak. 2019. “The Role of Working Memory in Young Second Language Learners’ Written Performances.” Journal of Second Language Writing 45: 31–45.

Mizusawa, K. 2021. “From Functional Literacy to Multiliteracies: Under- standing the Challenges of Integrating Rich and Visual Texts in Singapore Writing Classrooms.” Asia Pacific Journal of Education 41, no. 4: 727–739.

12 of 13

International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2025

Naghdipour, B. 2016. “English Writing Instruction in Iran: Implications for Second Language Writing Curriculum and Pedagogy.” Journal of Second Language Writing 32: 81–87.

Ortmeier-Hooper, C., and K. A. Enright. 2011. “Mapping New Territory: Toward an Understanding of Adolescent L2 Writers and Writing in US Contexts.” Journal of Second Language Writing 20, no. 3: 167–181.

Pan, B. 2015. “A Comparative Study of English Language Planning and Policy for Senior Secondary Education Between Mainland China and Hong Kong.” In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Arts, Design and Contemporary Education, edited by P. Perry, et al. 631–367. Atlantis Press.

Peltzer, K., L. Siekmann, J. M. Parr, and V. Busse. 2022. “What Beliefs About Writing Guide EFL Curricula? An Analysis of Relevant Policy Doc- uments for Teaching English at German Secondary Schools.” Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft 25, no. 6: 1363–1387.

Peterson, S. S. 2012. “An Analysis of Discourses of Writing and Writing Instruction in Curricula Across Canada.” Curriculum Inquiry 42, no. 2: 260–284.

Rabbi, S. 2023. “Towards Decolonizing L2 Writing Pedagogy: Translingual and Transmodal Resources.” ELT Journal 77, no. 3: 338–347.

Rao, Z., and P. Yu. 2019. “Teaching English as a Foreign Language to Primary School Students in East Asia: Challenges and Future Prospects.” English Today 35, no. 3: 16–21.

Reichelt, M. 2009. “A Critical Evaluation of Writing Teaching Pro- grammes in Different Foreign Language Settings.” In Writing in Foreign Language Contexts: Learning, Teaching, and Research, edited by R. M. Manchón, 183–206. Multilingual Matters.

Skar, G. B., and A. J. Aasen. 2021. “School Writing in Norway: Fifteen Years With Writing as Key Competence.” In International Perspectives on Writing Curricula and Development, edited by J. V. Jeffery and J. M. Parr, 192–216. Routledge.

Spence, L. K., and K. Cardenas-Cortez. 2011. “Writing Gave Me a Voice: A Spanish-Dominant Teacher’s Writing Workshop.” TESOL Journal 2, no. 1: 1–23.

Spence, L. K., and Y. Kite. 2018. “Beliefs and Practices of Writing Instruction in Japanese Elementary Schools.” Language, Culture and Curriculum 31, no. 1: 56–69.

Sturk, E., and E. Lindgren. 2019. “Discourses in Teachers’ Talk About Writing.” Written Communication 36, no. 4: 503–537.

Swanson, H. L., M. J. Orosco, and C. M. Lussier. 2015. “Growth in Literacy, Cognition, and Working Memory in English Language Learners.” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 132: 155–188.

Wang, Q. 2007. “The National Curriculum Changes and Their Effects on English Language Teaching in the People’s Republic of China.” In International Handbook of English Language Teaching, edited by J. Cummins and C. Davison, 87–105. Springer.

Wang, W., and A. S. Lam. 2009. “The English Language Curriculum for Senior Secondary School in China: Its Evolution From 1949.” RELC Journal 40, no. 1: 65–82.

Wei, B., J. Lin, S. Chen, and Y. Chen. 2022. “Integrating 21st Century Competencies Into a K-12 Curriculum Reform in Macau.” Asia Pacific Journal of Education 42, no. 2: 290–304.

Yu, S., Y. Zhang, C. Liu, and I. Lee. 2022. “From Theory to Practice: Understanding the Long-Term Impact of an L2 Writing Education Course on Writing Teachers.” Language Teaching Research ahead of print, November 3.

Yu, S., Y. Zhou, and E. D. Zhang. 2022. “Discourses of Writing and Learning to Write in L2 Writing Curriculum in Chinese Universities.” Language Teaching Research ahead of print, August 4.

Zhang, E. D., and S. Yu. 2023. “Implementing Digital Multimodal Composing in L2 Writing Instruction: A Focus on Developing L2 Student Writers.” Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 17, no. 4: 769–777.

Zhang, L. J. 2016. “Reflections on the Pedagogical Imports of Western Practices for Professionalizing ESL/EFL Writing and Writing-Teacher Education.” Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 39, no. 3: 203–232.

Supporting Information

Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section.

13 of 13