Running head: INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS

Implementing Integrated Reading and Writing Methods into East Asian English Curriculums

Sarah Beck Martin

BLE 597 Capstone

Spring 2019

Dr. Katherine Anderson

 INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 2

Abstract

In this Capstone project, the author posed four questions regarding the effectiveness of

implementing integrated reading and writing methods into English as a Second Language (ESL)

curricula in East Asian classrooms. These questions looked at the history of second language

acquisition theories and curricula, which curricula are currently being used in East Asia,

outcomes of integrated reading and writing programs, and what issues arose by blending Western

pedagogy into East Asian educational culture. In the review section, current use of

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) was discussed in relation to English education,

language theories, and educational history in East Asia. The author found that integrated reading

and writing methods, while still sparsely researched, showed promising results and positively

affected student language and vocabulary growth. While the author found that integrated reading

and writing can be beneficial, they also found that there was a negative reaction from some

educators about Western pedagogy, culture and their influence in the classrooms and cultures in

which they were being implemented. In the end, a call for a slow implementation of integrated

reading and writing, while still be conscious of the cultures in which implementation occurs, is

recommended.

Keywords: English as a Foreign Language (EFL), integrated reading and writing, East

Asia, pedagogy
 INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 3

Literacy skills are invaluable in both education and in the workplace. Think of how often

we are asked to respond to a text, to an opinion article, or to write a paper. In schools, students

are often asked to read a passage, a book, or an essay and then write their opinions, reflections,

or responses to said passage, book, or essay. As a language learner, these skills are invaluable.

However, students are not always exposed to reading and writing skills in conjunction. When

this happens, students find that their ability to use more than one language skill at a time to be

lacking.

In Asian countries, for the purposes of this paper- China, Hong Kong, Japan, South

Korea, and Taiwan, the teaching methods for English language education were and still are based

around the grammar-translation or audio-lingual methods (Choi, 2008, p. 5). With grammar-

translation, students are expected to memorize vocabulary and phrases and translate reading

passages from English to their primary language, or vice versa. In audio-lingual classrooms,

students listen to set phrases or words, and repeat after a recording or the teacher (Lightbrown &

Spada, 2006, p. 34). More recently, in the past twenty years, countries like China, South Korea,

and Japan have begun to move away from the grammar translation approaches towards more

communicative models of language instruction (Chan, 2015; Choi & Chung, 2016; Kikuchi,

2009). A common model used in South Korea is the Communicative Language Teaching model,

or CLT. The reasons for this are based on the need for more globalized English and better

communication skills. Also, more research is being done about implementing mixed skills in the

classrooms as opposed to focusing on one skill at a time in each class (speaking, listening,

reading and writing).

Part of this shift in changes to language learning and acquisition rest on the theories of

people like Krashen (Lightbrown & Spada, 2006). Krashen’s theory of second language
 INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 4

acquisition rested on the idea that language learning is a subconscious effort, and he made a very

specific distinction between learning and acquisition wherein “learning is a conscious process

that involves studying rules and vocabulary” and acquisition is “occurs as students use language

for a variety of purposes”, that is, subconscious effort is used (Freeman & Freeman, 2014, p. 62).

Research into student growth for reading and writing is conclusively evident for English L1

users, but there is currently a lack of research into English L2 users and improving reading and

writing skills (Lipka & Siegel, 2012; Yang & Plakans, 2012).

Teachers and researchers are studying the effects of integrated skills in classrooms and

are finding that overall there is a positive correlation between teaching students to use these

skills sets together and student growth in second language proficiency. In the past ten years,

there has been new research coming out discussing integrated reading and writing that

specifically talks about English language learners as opposed to English native speakers as well

as learners in countries other than the United States. Researchers like Cheong, Zhu, and Liao

(2017) and Kim (2009) are exploring the way integrated reading and writing can be used in

classrooms and universities outside the Western sphere of teaching to encourage more

communicative and comprehensive English in education.

However, there is still some pushback regarding changes to current language education

pedagogy. While some herald the new ideas, other argue that Western pedagogical practices

ignore the educational history and underpinnings of other countries and argue that the push for

more Western pedagogical ideas smack of colonialism (Chan, 2015, p. 76). Others worry that

little consideration is taken when looking at class sizes recommended in theories as opposed to

class sizes in reality (Li & Baldauf, 2011).

The goal for this paper is to discuss the changes to pedagogy towards a more
 INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 5

communicative and skills-based curriculum abroad, the issues surrounding those changes, and

the effects of integrated reading and writing curriculums over time. Research into integrated

reading and writing programs has been building up over the past twenty years to show that

overall integrated skills curriculums show positive results. The drive behind this paper is to

further study integrated reading and writing as it pertains and works within Asian education

curriculums.

How does implementing skills integration methods (integrated reading and writing)

benefit EFL/ESL students in building language fluencies? In this paper, I will look at four

questions related to skills integration methods:

1. How are skills integrated models influenced by language acquisition theories like

Krashen’s input or Swain’s output models?

2. What are the current practices for international EFL/ESL programs- i.e. grammar-

translation, communicative language teaching (CLT), audio-lingual, or combinations-

specifically in the northeastern Asian regions (i.e., China, South Korea, Japan., Taiwan,

and Hong Kong)?

3. In what ways have integrated reading and writing models been helpful in improving

students’ reading and writing fluencies in the classroom?

4. What, if any, pushback has integrated reading and writing, or modern EFL policies, had

in northeastern Asia?

Literature Review

Integrating reading and writing skills in the classroom can be a huge benefit for students

(Huang, 2011; Kim, 2009; Lipka & Siegel, 2012; Plakans, 2009; Yang & Plakans, 2012). It

enables them to learn to think critically about the texts they are reading and how to respond to
 INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 6

those texts in a way that is different from a multiple choice test. For language learners, there are

also benefits to integrated reading and writing being part of the curriculum. Much of this goes

back to best practices for teaching English language learners and the theories behind language

acquisition.

To get a better understanding of why integrated reading and writing can be beneficial for

students it helps to take a closer look at language acquisition theories and how language is taught

in the classroom. It also benefits the reader to take into consideration the differing goals of

English as a Foreign Language in different countries as opposed to English as a Second

Language, for example, in the United States. In the United States, the goals for teachers is to help

English Language Learners (ELLs) become proficient in their new language, English, as it will

be used daily and outside the school. In Asia, most students do not need to use English except for

in the classroom because English is not one of the dominant languages in use. This difference of

goals can, and does, present issues in CLT classrooms abroad.

Also, in countries like China and South Korea, the goals are defined as communicative

with students performing more output (speaking and writing) as well as practicing input

(listening and reading), but the reality is that often the curricula’s goals do not line up with

school goals or with the goals of future college tests or employers (Choi & Chung, 2016; Li &

Baldauf, 2011). These often rely on scores from tests like the IELTS (International English

Language Testing System), the TOEIC (Test of English for International Communication), or

TEP (a Korean-developed Test of English Proficiency). As scores are more important for many,

oral and written proficiencies tend to be the least practiced even when they end up being the

most needed.
 INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 7

Language Acquisition Theories

In this paper the focus generally resides on Krashen’s theories of language acquisition.

While I, as the author, do not agree with all of Krashen’s theories, there are a few that I do find

helpful in addressing my students. In particular, the theories that discuss scaffolding (i +1) and

input hypothesis are useful in planning and maintaining an awareness of incidental language.

Krashen focused on three different models of language learning: the acquisition learning

hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, and more famously, the input hypothesis. Acquisition

learning hypothesis is when second language learners pick up or acquire language and meaning

as they are exposed to them (Lightbrown & Spada, 2006, p. 36). The monitor hypothesis relates

to how a speaker or language learner makes decisions about how they will be speaking. They

need to know their audience and tend to take time crafting their responses to make sure they are

grammatically correct (Lightbrown & Spada, 2006, p. 37).

The input hypothesis introduced the i +1 model, wherein the classroom is designed to be

just slightly more challenging for the language learner. It introduces scaffolding to help that

language learner grow in their language acquisition. “If students receive input that is below or at

their current level (i + 0) there is nothing new to acquire. However, if the input is too much

beyond their current level (i + 10) …it no longer is comprehensible” (Freeman & Freeman, 2014,

p. 64). Adding to that, Swain followed with the theory of comprehensible output, that is, when a

student is able to not only communicate in the target language but also adjust their own speech to

be understood by other interlocutors (Freeman & Freeman, 2014; Lightbrown & Spada, 2006).

The affective filter theory also ties into input and output models. The affective filter

theory, also put forth by Krashen, revolves around the idea that anxiety plays a part in a language

learner’s use of the second language. The more anxious a student is, the higher their affective
 INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 8

filter and the less they may speak or participate in class or with native speakers. The lower the

anxiety levels, the more they will speak or interact in their second language (Herrera, Perez, &

Escamilla, 2015; Lightbrown & Spada, 2006).

The affective filter is one very important facet to understand in teaching EFL in Asia

(Chin, 2006; Kikuchi, 2009). The fear of misspeaking or getting an answer wrong is very strong

in many students, even adults. In Japan, students responded to a questionnaire about what

demotivated them in English classrooms and language learning. One of the answers was

“reduced self-confidence due to their experience of failure or success” (Kikuchi, 2009, p. 455).

In a study in South Korea, native English professors at a university were focused on trying to

encourage their students to make mistakes, but found that “students’ avoidance of mistakes was a

barrier to students’ being active and trying things out” (Kim, 2011, p. 138).

When it comes to reading and writing, it is suggested is that neither skill should be left to

be taught at a later date after students begin learning their second language (Herrera, Perez, &

Escamilla, 2015; Wright, 2015). “Writing instruction for CLD students needs to start from the

beginning…it is not in their best interest of students to delay instruction in writing until they

have received oral proficiency…” (Herrera et al, 2014, p. 217). Implementing integrated skills

based curriculum would allow for students to practice both skills. Students should also be given

scaffolded and relevant material for them to use when practicing reading and writing skills

(Echevarría, Vogt, & Short, 2017, p. 131).

The way in which writing is taught to language learners is equally important. In the

United States, for example, the goal of English language education is to help English language

learners (ELL) acquire the same level of competence and fluency of native English speakers. In

EFL classes (English as a Foreign Language), the goals may be different. As mentioned above,
 INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 9

delaying writing instruction and practice until students have reached a certain level of

proficiency is not recommended. Instead, teachers should build on their students understanding

of language, and can use level appropriate materials. Most importantly, teachers should “always

focus on creating meaning, rather than on stringing together isolated elements such as

phonemes” (Herrera et al., 2014, pp. 218-219) and work on integrating the four skills sets of

language: reading, writing, speaking and listening. This building of skills, along with the i + 1, is

scaffolding, or working within the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Echevarría et al (2017)

discussed that using the ZPD or scaffolding means you are slowly teaching the student how to

take control over their learning, repeating the cycle when new information comes along

(Echevarría et al., 2017, pp. 129-130).

As the focus for many of the English curricula in China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan

today look at communication as the primary focus, instructing students on how to better

communicate their opinions and responses to important documents or texts is paramount and

encourages the implementation of integrated reading and writing skills.

Reading is also very important for language learners and using reading plays into the

input theory introduced by Krashen. “Reading is a great source for comprehensible input that

promotes second language development…it provides a strong foundation for writing

development” (Wright, 2015, p. 196). Adding writing to reading as a post-activity assignment

can help students look for new vocabulary they learned, structures of a story, and encourages the

students to pay close attention to what they are reading (Wright, 2015, p. 209).

Integrated reading places emphasis on a metacognitive understanding of the texts

language learners are using. Learners are expected to glean information from the works, and

reference them as they write. The comprehension of that reading is dependent on the learners’
INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 10

schema. Schema in this case is the knowledge a student has on events, situations, or memories.

“Schemas aid reading comprehension by enabling the reader to connect existing knowledge with

new information” (Herrera et al., 2014, p. 145). In integrated reading and writing classes,

students are asked to use their background knowledge and understanding to not only comprehend

the reading material but to also apply that to their written replies.

In Hong Kong, one researcher, Zhu, created developed the Four Traits of Integrated

Writing Competence (Cheong, Zhu & Liao, 2017). These traits were developed to be part of the

English testing system in Hong Kong, and tie neatly into the idea of integrated reading and

writing. The four traits were contextual awareness, citation and synthesis, original opinion and

argument, and written expression and organization. The focus on these traits coincides with the

stipulations put forth by Herrera et al. (2014), and Wright (2014). The first trait, contextual

awareness, focuses on students having an understanding of their audience and writing using

practical grammatical mechanics. The second trait, citation and synthesis, focuses on students

using and taking relevant information from texts and applying them into their own writing. The

third, original opinion and argument encouraged and focused students to look to the future in

their writing based on the texts they had read. The fourth, written expression and organization, is

similar to the first. It focused on register and applying an understanding of the audience in

student writing. The four traits were created to be used by secondary students (Cheong et al.,

2017, pp. 782-783).

Zhu’s Four Traits follow the line of the thinking that students who understand the texts

they read and know how to respond to them are able to better communicate in today’s globalized

world, ideas that are echoed in other national curriculums. South Korea’s 7th National

Curriculum focuses on speaking comprehension and reading comprehension come secondary

INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 11

school (Choi & Chung, 2016). Japan’s new curriculum will focus on conversational

communication and the ability to analyze charts and numerical information to make sense of

current events.

Current English Curricula and Standards

In the national curricula for South Korea, China, and Japan, there has slowly been a push

towards communicative language teaching (CLT) and instruction. This means a shift away from

grammar-translation and audio-lingual models of classroom instruction. South Korea’s 7th

National English Curriculum was implemented in 2000 (Choi & Chung, 2016). China

implemented their new National English Curriculum tentatively in 2001, with it becoming the

primary curriculum by 2005 (Fang, 2009; Li & Baldauf, 2011). Japan’s English curriculum is- as

of writing this paper- undergoing revision with the goal of implementing a new national

curriculum in 2020 (“English education reform plan corresponding to globalization”, 2019).

These three curriculums focus on CLT and, with regards to Japan’s especially, are focusing on

reading and writing comprehension as part of communication.

Hong Kong, however is not included in the discussion of these curriculum models, as

based on its history, it currently offers Chinese medium instruction (core and content classes

offered in Chinese) or English medium instruction (core and content classes taught in English)

(Morris & Adamson, 2010, pp. 151-153). Hong Kong finds itself in an interesting place in terms

of English as a second or foreign language education as its neighbors. It does offer EFL classes,

but sociopolitical factors do not warrant it being discussed in the case of curriculums.

At the moment, there is still little literature or research that studies integrated reading and

writing in second language classrooms, and especially more so when studying the effects

integrated reading and writing have with East Asian schools. Thankfully, the few studies that
INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 12

have come out in recent years are pointing towards positive results. For example, researchers

from South Korea and Taiwan are beginning to implement integrated reading and writing into

secondary (middle and high) schools and university curriculums.

Positive Aspects of Integrated Reading and Writing

Researchers who are looking at integrated reading and writing for second language

learners tend to look at strategies and focus on academic writing. The writing assignments can

range from reflective essays to argumentative essays or short answer questions (Kim, 2009;

Yang & Plakans, 2012; Zhang, 2017). Reading texts ranged from authentic materials to textbook

or curriculum designed reading passages. In all of them, researchers looked to see how students’

proficiencies, grades, or performances improved or if they did not. By focusing the data to look

at those effects, researchers found that improvements in reading and writing in integrated skills

classrooms depended partly on the students’ own proficiency levels- reading tended to skew

higher for improvement among higher-proficiency students, while writing tended to improve all

around (Kim, 2009; Plakans, 2009).

Researchers also took into account the current levels of their students and aimed to

introduced texts and writing assignments within those levels, following the i + 1 of Krashen’s

theories of language acquisition. When Kim (2009) set up their experimental study, they

organized the writing assignments to be in summary form to make the writing more comfortable

for the students, and to give them a style they were more familiar with (Kim, 2009, p. 48).

In 2009 and 2012, Plakans looked at the roles of reading strategies and writing strategies

of language learners. Both studies took place at universities in the United States. In their first

study, they looked at reading strategies in integrated reading and writing assignments. What

Plakans found was when and how reading strategies were implemented were both important
INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 13

(Plakans, 2009, p, 258). Similarly, when studying writing strategies in integrated reading and

writing assignments, Plakans found that students who were able to use test-wise strategies- i.e.

patchwriting or copying strategies- and self-monitoring strategies showed the most improvement

(Yang & Plakans, 2012, p. 93). In both studies, the conclusions showed that when students used

mining, or looking through the reading to get ideas, and returning to source material when

writing had higher chances of producing writing that showed a better understanding of the

material read (Plakans, 2009, p. 261). Plakans recommended that teachers use authentic materials

and implement integrated skills in the classroom to bolster students’ reading and writing skills

(Yang & Plakans, 2012).

In 2009, a study conducted at a South Korean university looked at the effects of

implementing integrated reading and writing into an EFL class. While the final results showed

that students who already had a higher proficiency in the language benefited the most from

integrated reading, all students showed improvement when writing assignments, in this case

responsive papers (Kim, 2009, pp. 57-58). Data such as Kim’s shows that while integrated

reading and writing effects are being explored in second language acquisition, using integrated

skills in the classroom shows some benefits.

Educators do have to be mindful of what data they are searching for. Huang (2011), at the

National University of Taiwan, made the case that what research there is on improving students’

literacies was not focused on students’ true grasps of the material and how it related to their

language development. Huang instead focused their study on looking at students’ understanding

of the power literature and the writers have on the readers (Huang, 2011, pp. 146-147). Plakans

was also careful in their analysis of the data, making sure that students from language and

academic backgrounds were included, and used multiple writing instructors to analyze student
INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 14

work (Plakans, 2012).

Most focused research on integrated reading and writing for EFL is done on university

students and their literacy comprehension. However, this paper is focusing more on primary and

secondary curriculums. Some researchers are beginning to investigate integrated reading and

writing in secondary schools. However, just as there is little literature available for integrated

reading and writing for language learners, so too is there scant information available for

secondary schools and integrated skills.

Overall, focusing on reading comprehension in relation to writing skills has generally

been studied with regards to secondary education. With younger students, age and level

appropriate materials can be given to students to have them synthesize the information and then

have the students plan out a written response. Integrated reading and writing does tend to skew

towards academic reading and writing. However, it is possible to use both authentic materials

and age-appropriate materials in a primary or secondary setting. Adapted reading passages from

books or newspaper articles (for example: www.newsinlevels.com or

www.breakingnewsenglish.com ) can be used to facilitate critical thinking and responses from

students.

Researchers have already made in-roads into studying ESL and EFL students’ reading

proficiencies but tended to focus on reading comprehension of ESL students in the United States

compared to monolingual peers rather than on EFL students abroad. One study cited in Lipka

and Siegel’s (2012) study of reading comprehension skills for Els found that some students were

behind monolingual peers in terms of academic reading. “Many ELs are fluent in the

conversational English [author’s emphasis] …but have considerable difficulty in navigating the

dense, de-contextualized language of academic English [author’s emphasis]” (Shin, 2013, p.

INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 15

143). What Lipka and Siegel found was that EL students’ abilities to read words did not translate

to reading comprehension and they advocated for direct teaching (Lipka & Siegel, 2012, p.

1889). Direct teaching can have a role in introducing integrated reading and writing to students,

stating with teachers modeling what to look for and how to analyze a text, to modeling and

working on different writing assignments.

In 2017, a study of 152 secondary students in Hong Kong looked at integrated reading

and writing skills. The author found that the better reading comprehension skills a student had,

the better they were able to focus on and produce related written work (Cheong et al, 2017). The

author focused their study on the use of the four-traits analysis mentioned earlier. Cheong also

added in an extra skill to the integrated reading and writing program, listening. What they found

was that listening could either assist students in their writing assignments or could benefit them

if their reading proficiency was not as strong (Cheong et al., 2017, pp. 800-801). When a

language learner can rely on one skill set to balance their lack of another, they are able to use that

higher proficiency to bolster their lower one and complete a writing assignment. The two skills

work together. However, if a language learner lacks proficiency in both skills, their integrated

writing tasks and assignment suffer, and learners tend to rely on direct copying or quotation from

the assigned text.

Time was also shown to influence how well students used metacognition and reading

strategies in integrated reading and writing studies. Two studies in South Korea recently focused

on secondary students and integrated reading and writing. The first, conducted in 2015, looked at

an integrated reading and writing program conducted over a three-week period. Cho and Brutt-

Griffler found that there was little impact or growth from students in such a short period of time

(Cho & Brutt-Griffler, 2015). Conversely, in 2016, another study in South Korea looked at the
INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 16

effects of a (school) yearlong integrated reading and writing program. The researchers, Lee and

Schallert (2016), found that when students had ample time learn how to think more critically of

what they read and were instructed in integrated reading and writing, their literacy and

vocabulary scores went up.

Interestingly, while South Korea’s 7th National Curriculum endorses communication, it

tends to focus on communication only as speaking and not writing. However, teachers are

starting to try and introduce more writing and activities that support it in classrooms. The

Ministry of Education (2019) partially revised the curriculum in 2015 and the goal now is for

secondary students to be more focused on critical thinking. This allows teachers to introduce

integrated reading and writing.

Problems within English Curriculums and Policies

While the goal of the current curriculums and policies in northeastern Asia is to increase

the communicative nature of English, including comprehension, the overwhelming response

from Asian educator is, this is how they have always done it. According to Native English

teachers, there is the treatment of English by the community at large as a test subject not a

language.

It has to be acknowledged that a major issue for reforming and implementing integrated

reading and writing skills falls to the rapid implementation of new education policies. In both

South Korea and China, for example, English education and curricula policies change rapidly

(Chung & Choi, 2016; Li & Baldauf, 2011). When teachers constantly have to reassess their

classes, lessons, and pedagogies they can feel overwhelmed. Often, they revert to their own

personal teaching philosophies or focus on what is easier and more beneficial for long term

goals. This can mean a return to grammar-translation or a focus on testing skills. “Teachers felt
INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 17

the adoption of new textbooks series was occurring too frequently for them to become familiar

with the contents” and spend too much time trying to catch up with the material to actually help

students communicate (Li & Baldauf, 2011, p. 796).  

This tendency to revert to older practices in class also causes disruptions in creating

lesson content and cohesion. In South Korea, for example, Native English teachers are brought

into help teach English classes at public schools. I have found that many of these Native English

teachers (NETs) are often well aware of language acquisition theories and are eager to teach in a

communicative curriculum. However, researchers have found that there are disagreements

between Korean English teachers and Native English teachers in regards to approaches to the

curriculum (Chin, 2006; Choi, 2008). “Teachers do not seem to pay attention to the curriculum

guidelines, and are not teaching communicative English stating that CLT is not realistic in

Korean secondary schools” (Choi, 2008, p. 4).

In China and Japan, rapid changes in policy affect not only the teachers but the students

as well. In a study conducted with college students in Japan, researcher Keita Kikuchi (2009)

asked about students’ motivations and demotivations in the English language classrooms.

Students often cited that they felt their teachers had no time for them or overly corrected them in

front of their peers (Kikuchi, 2009, pp. 261-263).

In China, teachers feel they are unable to reach their students due to class size. Others

feel they lack the language proficiency to accurately and effectively instruct their students (Li &

Baldauf, p. 798). In South Korea, teachers are asked to use English as the language of

instruction in English language classrooms, but many revert to teaching in Korean instead. This

can stem from teachers’ perceived lack of proficiency. In 2004, English was reported to only be

used 32% of the time in classes taught by Korean teachers (Choi, 2008, p. 5).
INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 18

This leads to calls for communicative pedagogies to be abandoned or minimized. Politics

is often cited at a reason Western pedagogies were brought into the classroom, as a way to show

that societies are modernizing (Chan, 2015; Choi & Chung, 2016). Some feel that English as a

Foreign Language and its use as a lingua franca in today’s world is erasing the cultures it is

aiming to teach. Particularly vehement in their criticisms of Western pedagogy are researchers

like Chan.

Chan is on the more conservative end when it comes to looking at issues with Western

pedagogy in Asia, however he does bring up more sociopolitical issues that some teachers may

not take into consideration. He is not alone in his opinions, and discusses some valid points on

culture and sociopolitical traditions that teachers may overlook. One issue Chan has with

communicative and task-based approaches is the use of only the second language in the

classroom and not the use of L1. “The approach is the belief that the learner should be released

completely from the old habits of language use associated with the mother tongue...mostly in the

classroom” (Chan, 2015, p. 76). He insists that of all the communicative and immersive

methods, L1 in the classroom is expressly forbidden. However, I find that this is reflective on the

teacher in the classroom and their personal beliefs rather than what current pedagogy dictates.

Herrera, Perez, and Escamilla (2015), for example highly encourage the use of L1 in the

classroom and to value students’ cultural backgrounds.

In any case, the ideas that English language immersion, and the values that are introduced

into the classroom, are what are more worrying. One example he gives is of South Korea’s

cultural transformations from an expressly collective society to a more individualist society and

he laments that Western EFL teaching strategies will replace Asian pedagogies (Chan, 2015, p.

78). Chan compares two views of EFL and how it reflects changes in the societies that use those
INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 19

methods: Hadzantonis as the supporter of the current status quo and communicative language

and Canagarajah as the supporter of a return to use of L1. Choi and Chung (2016) support this

assumption, comparing the zeal for English education to a religion. They continue, pointing out

that, “English is more than a foreign language in South Korea…it symbolizes modernity personal

competence, success and socioeconomic status” (Choi & Chung, 2016, p. 4).

If on the one end of the spectrum, CLT and integrated reading and writing are advocated

as best practices, Chan does the opposite. Chan advocates for a return to a revised version of the

grammar-translation method. It is more in line with traditional methods of teaching in East Asian

schools. He also advocates that grammar-translation and its use in reading and writing in the

classroom. It is easier, perchance, for a student to learn by having the options to learn the

material in their L1, or to respond to it. Reading can be taught as decoding, writing can be

increased by focusing on grammar, the translation of words, and studying how writing is

performed. “Essentially, it [the new translation method] enhances learning through…the

identification of equivalents…coupled with attuning students to differences (Chan, 2015, pp. 85-

86).

Others agree with Chan, though they approach it with less vehemence. William

Littlewood (2012) contends that there are two forms of CLT, one focused on what is learned

(functions of language) and how (acquiring) (Littlewood, 2012, p. 351). Littlewood focuses on

the problems that arise with CLT. Among these are teacher issues: large class sizes, a

restructuring of the teacher’s role in the classroom, learning to adapt textbooks to fit

communicative classes, classroom management in large classes that use more speaking, and

organizational skills (2012, p. 352). With CLT and rapid policy changes taking a toll on EFL

teachers, Hu (2005) advocates for an “eclectic approach…to meet the demands of their specific
INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 20

teaching situations” (p. 67). Teachers know best their own students and classrooms, what works

and does not work, and how to best bring new techniques and ideas into their classrooms. Instead

of focusing only on Western pedagogy transplanted into a different culture, teachers should be

able to adapt what they can to their classroom rather than wholeheartedly accept it.

Hu (2005), in a rebuttal against complete acceptance of CLT, argues that widespread

adoption of CLT in non-Western English policies does a disservice and highlights a disparity

between policy makers and the realities of the classroom (Hu, 2005, p. 65). In 2003, Hu reported

surveys of 439 schools in China and found that teachers in each regional studied adapted CLT

measures in different ways; CLT as a policy is too vague to have any real impact (2005, p. 66).

Hu focuses on China specifically, but their arguments are echoed in how teachers express

themselves (Kim Ji-Hye, 2013, personal communication, Seok Gyeong-ok, 2018, personal

communication).

Taking into consideration some of the aforementioned issues in Asian classes, Chan’s

stance on EFL pedagogies is not hard to understand. At times, teachers may not understand why

or what the new models of instruction may be because of a lack of training (Choi, 2008; Choi &

Chung, 2016; Kikuchi, 2009; Li & Baldauf, 2011). It is completely understandable then to rely

on what training has been offered or better understood in a classroom.

As someone who is an EFL instructor living in Asia, the need to understand where my

co-teachers and peers are coming from is paramount. Chan’s fears of influence and cultural

change are very real for many. His discussion on the lack of consideration taken by Western or

English predominant researchers over those from non-native English researchers is enlightening,

particularly as it relates to the practice of native English teachers being brought to Asian

countries to teach English without understanding the culture they are in.
INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 21

Western EFL teachers are understandably working to help their students become better

speakers of English, but it can be very easy to see the classroom as a microcosm of one’s own

country and the way that students should behave. It is not uncommon in countries like Japan,

South Korea, of China for students to sit passively and listen to the teacher rather than ask

questions or volunteer answers. The phrase “sage on the stage” is often remarked on by native

English teachers in Asian countries as they are introduced to these kinds of teaching methods (Li

& Baldauf, 2011, p. 800). It is also not uncommon for students (and co-teachers) to focus on

language as a test rather than something to communicate with and that can frustrate a native

English speaker.

Moving towards a communicative model and skill-based approaches can be a middle-

ground for educators and students. Implementing integrated reading and writing programs, with

research showing the positive implications, can be slowly added to classrooms and curriculums.

Using authentic materials with younger students, such as classic stories-both Western and stories

from the students’ own cultures- can be used to introduce critical thinking and writing responses.

If an instructor is a native English teacher, they should be just as aware of their students and

culture as they should be of teaching practices in that country. “Teachers of English learners

need to be aware that what may appear to be poor comprehension and weak memory skills may

in fact be students’ lack of experience or background knowledge …assumed by a message or

text” (Echevarría et al., 2017, p. 73).

The trend towards more communicative approaches to language learning is being studied

with emphasis on integrated skills. Studies conducted over the past ten years have shown that

integrated reading and writing approaches to English language classes have benefited most

students; some students benefit more than others depending on the goal of the classes, but even
INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 22

lower-proficiency students are able to improve their skills when integrated reading and writing.

Studies are also showing that length of time is an important factor in integrated reading and

writing programs. Given that frequent policy changes are very common in Eastern Asia, the

effectiveness of long-term integrated reading and writing programs has yet to be fully examined.

Results

1. How are skills integrated models influenced by language acquisition theories like

Krashen’s input or Swain’s output models?

In studies like Kim’s (2009) and Lee and Schallert’s (2016), comprehensible input and

the i + 1 theory, or Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) were enacted. The studies showed that

long-term and gradual application of new material and concepts with students enabled them to

show growth. As Krashen’s theory of language input discusses, with the inclusion of i +1, the

ideas and topics that students are given carefully scaffolded information in the classroom.

“Classroom research has confirmed that students can make a great deal of progress through

exposure to comprehensible input without direct instruction” (Lightbrown & Spada, 2006, p. 38).

In the case of Kim’s study, the university students involved were split into different groups, with

some focusing on the standard classes (no change to the curriculum) while others were placed in

integrated reading and writing classes (Kim, 2009, p.47). In the integrated classes, students spent

the semester starting off with easier tasks like summarizing and they gradually moved towards

more difficult reading assignments and writing assignments as they became more comfortable

with the concept of integrated reading and writing (2009, p. 48).

In Lee and Schallert’s (2016) article, comprehensible input was used in the yearlong

study in a Korean middle school and scaffolding for the ZPD was enacted. As opposed to Kim’s

(2009) study, Lee and Schallert (2016) asked if extensive writing contributed to students’ growth
INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 23

or if that growth was reliant on scaffolding, referencing as study of Japanese students who

practiced writing summaries in both languages (Lee & Schallert, 2016, p. 148). They found their

own students, when at a higher proficiency, also benefited when given extensive writing

scaffolded by brainstorming and independent writing (2016, p.151).

Comprehensible output was also part of the research. In Huang’s (2011) study in Taiwan,

which focused on literacy, students were instructed to create journals to write about their

thoughts and experiences. This gave the students agency in the classroom, as it gave them a

voice in what they were learning and enabled them to practice being an interlocutor (Huang,

2011, p. 147). The idea is that comprehensible output can help students improve their proficiency

is helpful in situations where input is more common and students lack practice in creating output

(writing or speaking) (Lightbrown & Spada, 2006, p. 48).

2. What are the current practices for international EFL/ESL programs- i.e. grammar-

translation, communicative language teaching (CLT), audio-lingual, or combinations-

specifically in the northeastern Asian regions (i.e., China, South Korea, Japan., Taiwan,

and Hong Kong)?

As we can see, most northeastern countries in Asian have designed their current

curriculums around the communicative language (CLT) model (Choi, 2008; Choi & Chung,

2016; Kikuchi, 2009; Li & Baldauf, 2011). Oral usage of language and a move away from the

dependency on the grammar translation model have meant that, even if collage acceptance tests

still focus on vocabulary and translation, classrooms and teachers are beginning to look at using

the language more naturally. This has led to countries like China, South Korea, and Japan

bringing native English teachers to their countries to instruct students on how to speak like a

native speaker (see the English Program in Korea-EPIK- or Japanese Exchange and Teaching
INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 24

programme-JET).

Countries like Japan are still restructuring their English curriculums to better fit the needs of

students. As Japan will be hosting the 2020 Summer Olympics, the curriculum is changing to

encourage students to be better oral communicators. South Korea is gearing up for a new future

wherein the future workforce will be more globalized and will need better communication skills

in their day-to-day work.

3. In what ways have integrated reading and writing models been helpful in improving

students’ reading and writing fluencies in the classroom?

Almost all the literature reviewed in this Capstone project points towards integrated

reading and writing improving students’ reading and writing fluencies, especially for the higher

proficiency students. Only the study by Cho and Brutt-Griffler (2015) showed lack of

improvement. This was most likely due to the lack of time scaffolding or building background

with students. However, in studies like Huang’s (2011) article, implementing integrated reading

and writing, primarily reading critically, improved students’ comprehension of the material.

Similarly, studies like Yang and Plakans’ (2012) and Kim’s (2009), showed that

integrated reading and writing tasks are beneficial, primarily for higher proficiency students in

improving their writing. Students who already possessed a higher working vocabulary tended to

build better writing skills when combined with integrated or intensive reading. Lee and Schallert

(2016) posited that improvement was not a combination of “Time X Treatment X Proficiency”,

but was a combination of time and proficiency (Lee & Schallert, 2016, p. 158). Whereas students

with higher proficiency showed obvious growth in writing skills, students, regardless of

proficiency, all showed growth in reading comprehension at the end of the study (2016, p. 158).

This finding points towards integrated reading and writing being beneficial for readers regardless
INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 25

of proficiency, and for writers when their proficiency and vocabulary are high enough to warrant

more intensive writing.

4. What, if any, pushback has integrated reading and writing, or modern EFL policies, had

in northeastern Asia?

While communicative methods and pedagogies (e.g., CLT) have become more

commonplace in EFL contexts in northeastern Asia, there is still pushback for a number of

reasons. Some experts and researchers point to the rapid changes in English education policy as a

deterrent for teachers and educators to make the most use of current practices (Choi & Chung,

2106; Kikuchi, 2009). In South Korea, China, and Japan, policies are often enacted but very little

training is given to help teachers better use the new methodologies so teachers fall back on their

original training or beliefs (Choi & Chung, 2016; Kikuchi, 2009).

Others point to the problems with theories and policies not taking into account reality. Li

and Baldauf (2011) often cite problems in enacting the current English curriculum of China into

the classrooms, like class size, lack of teacher training, and lack of teacher proficiency. Choi and

Chung (2017) point to fast policy changes affecting teachers’ innovation, causing teachers to

burn-out faster or changing policies only to keep up to date with politics. A good example of this

is the reversal of a 2016 decree ending English education for first and second grade elementary

students. Starting from the fall of this year, schools will be allowed to reinstate afterschool

English programs for these students (Jung, 2019).

One of the least talked about issues is the one of cultural change. Chan (2015) argues that

a return to a revised grammar-translation model fits more with not just the current academic

system in Hong Kong (in his case) but it is also a return to a more culturally and historical way

of education that East Asia has followed for centuries. His worry of Western pedagogy
INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 26

overtaking Asian pedagogy and culture is a reality for many educators. Put together, these are

issues that challenge or hinder the effects of new policy changes and moves towards more

interactive and integrated classrooms.

Issue Analyses

As a native English teacher in South Korea, I am always trying to stay current with what

the national curriculum expects me to teach. I also look ahead at the demands my students will

have both in the academic world and the world of work. Over the past twenty years, the

curriculums in China, Japan, South Korea, and Hong Kong have all shifted away from the

grammar-translation model and towards communicative approaches. In this shift, opportunities

to improve students’ oral fluencies have been primarily encouraged, and following that reading

fluency. Writing fluency and proficiency still takes a back seat in many of the classes in which I

have been a part.

There is more research on the positive effects of integrated reading and writing and

reading strategies in general for second language learners available than there was even ten years

ago. Studies like the ones described in this paper show that careful scaffolding and introduction

of integrative models can benefit students regardless of level, though there will be differences in

growth depending on the goal: students from low-to-high proficiency have been shown to

improve in reading while students with mid-high to high proficiencies are the ones shown to

improve on writing, less so the lower proficiency students.

Activities like summarization can be implemented with students in secondary (middle or

high school) to give them an insight into critical thinking. In Cheong et al’s (2018) study, they

looked at the relationship between listening, reading, and writing. In many ways, looking at these

three skills can essentially assist students who rely on listening as a way to bolster their
INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 27

comprehension. Yang and Plakans (2012) also studied this connection.

Even in light of the results from studies like those above, the push to include more

integrative classes is hard. Testing is such a major part of the academic cultures in many East

Asian countries, with the legacy of testing reaching into the past by hundreds of years. Civil

servant exams, sometimes considered an equalizer in society, offered families the chance to rise

to new and more stable social standings (Choi, 2008, p. 41). The drive for testing is still very

strong in China, South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong. Students begin preparing for collegiate

admissions tests as soon as elementary school; this preparation leaves little time to teach

communicatively.

Issues with teacher preparation and proficiency also hinder communicative and

integrative approaches. One of the biggest complaints from teachers in the countries discussed

was the feeling of lack of training or focus on teacher proficiency. One example, in Choi’s

(2008) article, it was stated that Korean teachers of English had “limited knowledge in principle

theories and teaching techniques of CLT” (Choi, 2008, p. 4). Without guaranteeing instructor

proficiency or training, it is difficult to implement communicative policies. Continuing in the

same vein, taking into considerations that policy does not line up with the reality of teaching in

the classroom (Chan, 2015; Hu, 2005; Littlewood, 2014), a readjustment of expectations and a

better adaptation of CLT, in this case integrated reading and writing, is called for.

Conclusions

Integrating reading and writing skills can have positive benefits for students and can,

when administered well, improve students’ vocabulary scores and usage (e.g., Yang & Plakans,

2012). While the scope of studying integrated skills like reading and writing is still in its early

stages, what research has been conducted is encouraging. The results of studies reviewed here
INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 28

show that educators can tailor their goals for their students. If educators want to see growth in

students’ reading comprehension, they can by focusing on reading skills. If they wish to see

growth in students’ writing skills, then shifting the focus to writing in integrated reading and

writing classes is suggested.

The results found by Huang (2009), Kim (2009), and Yang and Plakans (2012) encourage

educators to take into consideration the language proficiency levels of their students. These

researchers were curious to see how proficiency levels affected student growth and found that the

higher the student’s proficiency or vocabulary comprehension, the more they were able to

improve their writing. Huang (2009) and Yang and Plakans (2012) found that adding listening

comprehension into the mix helped lower proficiency students improve vocabulary

comprehension. Therefore, it could be suggested that if educators want to see their students’

writing proficiency increase they should focus on improving students’ reading comprehension

and implement listening exercises into the classroom.

Giving students examples of texts than are relevant to the curriculum, well scaffolded,

and are authentic can encourage students to stay interested in the material (Echevarría et al.,

2017, pp. 72-74). Educators can also slowly implement activities that ease students into new

forms of writing (Huang, 2011; Kim, 2009). A teacher would not expect a student to write a

fully-formed summary of an article without modeling, but the teacher can work with students on

each step of the assignment and use guided practice to help them grow.

One major issue to understand in implementing an integrated reading and writing

program into any northeastern Asian country would be to take into consideration the issues that

come with implementing a CLT program. Testing is still a major factor in education here and the

farther students progress in their education, from elementary school to high school or university,
INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 29

the more focus is placed on test scores. This usually means a lack of time to focus on skills like

writing. This does not mean that writing or integrative reading of any kind is impossible. Instead,

teachers, especially Western teachers working in Asia, should look at the long-term goals

regarding English education. Reading and writing can benefit students, especially those who plan

to focus on using English frequently. Standardized testing is more important for many students

who may or may not have reasons to use English outside school. In light of this issue, teachers

can instead find more creative ways to slowly integrate reading and writing into the classroom in

a culturally respectful way.

Resolution

A Recommendation for Slow Implementation of Integrated Classrooms

In summary, there are benefits to an integrated-skills program, especially one focused on

integrating reading and writing. Based on the results and implications discussed above, I believe

that it would be possible to more effectively implement integrated reading and writing programs

in East Asian curricula. Looking at the research done by Plakans (2009) and the importance of

reading strategies or Yang and Plakans (2012) on implications of links between reading,

listening, and writing, as strong case can be made emphasizing the benefits students receive by

teaching and learning the two skills together.

In introducing a resolution to the issue of implementing an integrated reading and writing

program, it is important to keep in mind the background of the academic cultures in which it will

be implemented. When implementing an integrated reading and writing program, there are some

concerns any educator or policy maker should take into consideration. These are: goal of the

program, i.e. reading comprehension or writing ability growth, student proficiency before the

program is implemented, and the standards or goals of current educational standards (Huang,
INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 30

2011; Kim, 2009; Lee & Schallert, 2016; Yang & Plakans, 2012). If students have been studying

for at least three years, there should be some baseline of reading and writing proficiency. If, for

example, the students involved in the study have done extensive reading practice it may be

beneficial to focus on writing growth. If they have not practiced reading skills, then increasing

reading comprehension should take precedence over writing growth, though that is not to say

that writing should not be taught in conjunction with reading (Wright, 2015).

Research conducted over the past twenty years has shown that when integrating skills in a

classroom, students are able to benefit from it. In studies like Kim’s (2009), there was evidence

that including a long term program gave students time to not only become used to the methods

but showed marked improvement in their reading and writing scores (Kim, 2009, p. 57).

Research has also shown that high-and-low proficiency students benefit in different ways in

integrated classes, with higher proficiency students getting more benefit out of integrated reading

and lower proficiency students benefiting from more integrated writing (Kim, 2009, p. 57; Lee &

Schallert, 2016, pp. 153-155).

Any program designed in one of the eastern Asian countries such as China, South Korea,

or Japan should be designed not to be a complete integrated reading and writing class that would

be seen in Western countries like the United States, Canada, or the U.K., but instead should be

designed with the culture and pedagogical standards already in place in the country. As Chan

(2015), Hu (2005), and Littlewood (2014) discuss, there are negatives in trying to implement a

wholly Western-centric pedagogy or program into a region where the traditional and modern

goals of language study do not always align with Western standards.

CLT is already considered part of the English language curriculum but there is no one

way it is implemented. In some cases, policy and standards are written vaguely and teachers take
INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 31

it upon themselves to decide how to implement the measures (Littlewood, 2012). Other times,

the policies and policy makers are out of touch with the realities of the classroom (Choi &

Chung, 2017; Hu, 2005). Therefore, if any reading and integrated program is to be implemented,

cultural, traditional, and real-world environments need to be taken into consideration. This can

be large class sizes, opposing goals that are written into the curriculums (communicative versus

test-oriented), or teacher training.

To avoid such issues with curricula expectations and transparency, it would be

recommended to write any policy or curriculum based around integrated reading and writing

with as much detail as possible. This would allow teachers to have a better understanding of

what is expected in the classroom, would allow for equal opportunities in classrooms for

students, and would better prepare teachers for what and how they would be expected to teach. It

would also be suggested that the implementation of the integrated programs be slow, with ample

time allowed for test schools to focus on issues that may or may not develop in the classroom.
INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 32

References

Chan, L. T. (2015). Post-communicative pedagogies: Revisiting the translation method of

teaching English in East Asia. Translation & Interpreting, The, 7(2), 75-90.

Cheong, C. M., Zhu, X., & Liao, X. (2018). Differences between the Relationship of L1

Learners' Performance in Integrated Writing with Both Independent Listening and

Independent Reading Cognitive Skills. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary

Journal, 31(4), 779-811.

Chin, C. (2006). Native English speaking teachers' beliefs about Korean EFL learners. Indian

Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32(1-2), 181-198.

Cho, H., & Brutt-Griffler, J. (2015). Integrated reading and writing: a case of Korean English

language learners. Reading in a Foreign Language, 27(2), 242-261.

Choi, I. (2008). The impact of EFL testing on EFL education in Korea. Language Testing, 25(1),

39-62.

Choi, J.Y. (2008). Teacher-learners' Beliefs about Proficiency Goals and Teaching Methods for

Korean Secondary English Education. ENGLISH TEACHING (영어교육), 63(1), 3-27.

Choi, T. & Chung, J. (2016). English education policy in Korea - Planned and enacted.

(unpublished). Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289839858_English_education_policy_in_Kore

a_Planned_and_enacted?

fbclid=IwAR2SkZFiyU2SzQVTyYAbNRu4hlQcmEKpsLD5z2JpNfYhqRu-

iXnwfQw_vRk.

Echevarría, J., Vogt, M. E., Short, D. (2017) Making Content Comprehensible for English

Learners: The SIOP Model (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 33

Fang, X. (2009). Teaching the New English Curriculum in a Chinese School: An Ethnographic

Study, PQDT - Global.

Freeman, D. E., & Freeman, Y.S. (2014) Essential linguistics: what teachers need to know to

teach ESL, reading, spelling, grammar (2nd ed). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Herrera, S. G., Perez, D. R., & Escamilla, K. (2014). Teaching reading to English language

learners: differentiated literacies (2nd ed). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.

Hu, G. (2005). "CLT is best for china"--an untenable absolutist claim. ELT Journal, 59(1), 65-

58.

Huang, S. (2011). Reading "further and beyond the text": Student perspectives of critical literacy

in EFL reading and writing: When language learners are taught within a critical literacy

framework, both their conventional literacy skills and their abilities to critically engage

with texts may deeply improve. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(2), 145-154.

Jung, M. (2019, March 15). Korea lifts English education ban for first, second graders. The

Korea Times. Retrieved from http://www.koreatimes.co.kr .

Kikuchi, K. (2009). Listening to our learners' voices: What demotivates Japanese high school

students? Language Teaching Research, 13(4), 453-471.

Kim. J. E. (2009). The Effect of Integrated Reading and Writing Tasks on the English Literacy of

Korea EFL Learners. 언어과학연구, 51, 41-64.

Kim, S. (2011). Exploring Native Speaker Teachers’ beliefs about learning and teaching English.

ENGLISH TEACHING(영어교육), 66(2), 123-148.

Lee, J., & Schallert, D. L. (2016). Exploring the reading–writing connection: A yearlong

classroom-based experimental study of middle school students developing literacy in a

new language. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(2), 143-164.

INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 34

Li, M., & Baldauf, R. (2011). Beyond the Curriculum: A Chinese Example of Issues

Constraining Effective English Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages and of Standard English as a

Second Dialect, 45(4), 793-803.

Lightbrown, P. & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned. NY: Oxford University Press.

Littlewood, W. (2014). Communication-oriented language teaching: Where are we now? Where

do we go from here? Language Teaching, 47(3), 349-362.

Lipka, O., & Siegel, L. S. (2012). The Development of Reading Comprehension Skills in

Children Learning English as a Second Language. Reading and Writing: An

Interdisciplinary Journal, 25(8), 1873-1898.

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology- Japan (2019) [Graph

illustration of curriculum change March 4, 2019] English education reform plan

corresponding to globalization. Retrieved from

http://www.mext.go.jp/en/news/topics/detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/01/23/1343591_1.

pdf .

Morris, P., & Adamson, B. (2010). Curriculum, schooling and society in Hong Kong. Hong

Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Plakans, L. (2009). The Role of Reading Strategies in Integrated L2 Writing Tasks. Journal of

English for Academic Purposes, 8(4), 252-266.

Policies & Programs (n.d.) Retrieved from http://english.moe.go.kr/sub/info.do?

m=040101&s=english.

Shin, S. (2013). Bilingualism in schools and society: Language, identity, and policy. New York,

New York: Routledge.

INTEGRATED READING AND WRITING METHODS 35

Wright, W. E. (2015). Foundations for teaching English language learners: research, theory,

policy, and practice (2nd ed.) Philadelphia, PA: Carlson Publishing.

Yang, H.C., & Plakans, L. (2012). Second language writers' strategy use and performance on an

integrated reading-listening-writing task. TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for Teachers of

English to Speakers of Other Languages and of Standard English as a Second Dialect,

46(1), 80-103.

Zhang, X. (2017). Reading-Writing Integrated Tasks, Comprehensive Corrective Feedback, and

EFL Writing Development. Language Teaching Research, 21(2), 217-240.