教材是教學理念的具體體現，是教師教和學生學的必備材料，在高中英語學習中發揮著重要作用。高中英語課程標準 (HSECS，2017) 強調，寫作作為一種重要的表達技能，在課程內容中發揮著重要作用。學生通過教科書上的寫作活動學習如何寫作和完成寫作任務。因此，需要對英語教科書中寫作內容和活動結構以及其中採用的教學方法進行細緻的研究和評估。本研究的目的是調查外研社版本高中英語教科書中的寫 作活動是如何使用體裁教學法和讀寫聯繫教學法。本研究採用內容分析法，對高中三年使用的七本教材的寫作活動進行了分析。研究資料包括42個單元和399個寫作活動。本研究的研究框架包括三種寫作主題，六種寫作體裁，六種寫作觀眾和六種讀寫結合活動。研究者與兩位元共同分析者按照編碼方案對寫作活動進行了編碼分析。本研究的結果顯示七個 外研社版本的教科書的 42 個單元都涵蓋了三個寫作主題。這三個寫作主題在七個 外研社版本教科書的 42 個單元中的分佈並不均勻。“人與社會 "主題的數量明顯較多，其中兩個子主題："文學、藝術和體育"以及 "歷史、社會和文化"尤為突出。七本教科書涵蓋了大多數寫作體裁。然而，在42個寫作單元中，大多數單元的寫作活動都沒有涉及明確的寫作受眾。外研社版教材確實有將閱讀和寫作兩種語言技能放在一起教學。其中外研社版教材的讀寫結合活動更注重輸入方向。六種讀寫結合活動在寫作活動中分佈不均。在輸入方向上，外研社版教材更傾向於挖掘 (Mining)和建模 (Modelling)活動。在輸出方向上，FLTRP版教科書更傾向於綜合寫作-連接 (Writing Syntheses-Connecting)活動。

關鍵字：內容分析、英語教科書、英文寫作、高中英文、寫作教學法

The textbook represents a tangible manifestation of the pedagogical concept, a fundamental resource for educators to impart knowledge and students to comprehend it, and a pivotal element in the study of English at the high school level. The High School English Curriculum Standards (HSECS, 2017) emphasize the importance of writing as an expressive skill within the curriculum content. Students learn how to write and complete writing tasks through writing activities in textbooks. Consequently, it is imperative to conduct a meticulous examination of the content and activity structure of writing in English textbooks, as well as the pedagogical methods employed therein. The objective of this study is to examine the manner in which the genre approach and read-writing connection approach are integrated into the writing activities in the FLTRP version textbooks. The present study employed the content analysis method to analyze the writing activities in seven textbooks utilized in three years of high school education. The study comprised 42 units and 399 writing activities. The research framework for this study included three writing themes, six writing genres, six writing audiences, and six reading-writing connection activities. The researcher and two co-coders undertook the coding and analysis of the writing activities in accordance with the established coding scheme. The findings of this study indicate that all 42 units of the seven FLTRP editions of the textbook encompass the three identified writing themes. The distribution of the three writing themes across the 42 units of the seven FLTRP versions of the textbook was not uniform. The "Human and Society" theme was significantly more prevalent, with two sub-themes: The themes of "Literature, Arts, and Physical Education" and "History, Society, and Culture" were particularly prominent. The seven textbooks cover the majority of writing genres. However, in the majority of the 42 writing units, the writing activities do not explicitly address an audience for the written work. The FLTRP edition of the textbooks does, however, teach the two language skills of reading and writing in connection with each other. One of the reading and writing connection activities in the FLTRP version of the textbook focuses more on the input orientation. The six reading and writing connection activities are not evenly distributed among the writing activities. In the input orientation, the FLTRP version of the textbook favored the activities of mining (CI-MI) and modelling (CI-MO). In contrast, in the output orientation, the FLTRP version of the textbook favored the Writing Synthesis-Connection (CO-WSY-C) activities.
Keywords: content analysis, EFL writing, English textbooks, senior high school English, writing approach

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT i
中文摘要 iii
ACKNOWLEDGE iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES ix
CHAPTER ONE 1
Introduction 1
1.1 Research Background 1
1.1.1 High School English Curriculum Standards (HSECS) in China 2
1.1.2 Senior high school textbooks in China 4
1.1.3 Modifications to the university entrance examination in China 5
1.2 Purpose of The Research 6
1.3 Research Questions 8
CHAPTER TWO 9
Literature Review 9
2.1 High School English Curriculum Standards (HSECS) in China 9
2.1.1 Instructional content in curriculum standards 10
2.1.2 Writing requirements for high school English curriculum 12
2.1.3 Combining instruction of language skills 17
2.1.4 Summary of English Curriculum Standards 18
2.2 The Foreign Language Education and Research Press (FLTRP) English Textbook 19
2.2.1 Seven sections in the FLTRP version textbooks 19
2.2.2 The writing section in FLTRP version textbook 21
2.2.3 Summary of the FLTRP version textbook 22
2.3 Second Language Writing 22
2.3.1 What is second language writing? 23
2.3.2 What should be learned in Second Language Writing? 23
2.3.3 The development of second language writing instruction 24
2.3.4 Connections Between Five Writing Knowledges and The Curriculum Standards Requirement 27
2.4 Approaches to Teach EFL Writing 28
2.4.1 Product approach 30
2.4.2 Genre approach 33
2.4.3 Process approach 40
2.4.4 Empirical studies about writing activities in EFL textbooks in China 45
2.4.5 Summary of EFL writing approaches 47
2.5 Reading-Writing Connection 48
2.5.1 The development of reading-writing connection approach 49
2.5.2 Source-based writing and instructional methods 53
2.5.3 Empirical studies about reading-writing connection in EFL textbooks 57
2.5.4 Summary of reading-writing connection 59
2.6 Content Analysis 59
2.6.1 Definition of content analysis 59
2.6.2 Distinguishing features of content analysis 61
2.6.3 Types of content analysis 63
2.6.4 Summary of content analysis 65
2.7 Framework of The Study 66
CHAPTER THREE 69
Methodology 69
3.1 Research Approach 69
3.2 Research Process 69
3.2.1 Theory and rational 70
3.2.2 Conceptualization 71
3.2.3 Operationalizations 71
3.2.4 Coding schemes 72
3.2.5 Sampling 84
3.2.6 Training and pilot reliability 85
3.2.7 Coding 88
3.2.8 Final reliability 89
3.2.9 Tabulation and reporting 90
CHAPTER FOUR 91
Finding 91
4.1 Writing Themes in Seven Textbooks 91
4.2 Writing Genres in Seven Textbooks 92
4.3 Writing Audiences in Seven Textbooks 94
4.4 Reading-Writing Connection Activities in Seven Textbooks 95
CHAPTER FIVE 98
Discussion 98
5.1 The Writing Themes 98
5.2 The Writing Genres 100
5.3 The Writing Audiences 102
5.4 The Reading-Writing Connection Activities 104
5.4.1 Comparison of the two orientations 105
5.4.2 The input orientation 106
5.4.3 The output orientation 108
5.4.4 Other activities in the Developing Idea section 109
CHAPTER SIX 111
Conclusion 111
6.1 The Answers of The Research Questions 111
6.2 The Implications of The Present Study 116
6.3 Limitation 118
REFERENCES 119
APPENDIX A 119
APPENDIX B 131
APPENDIX C 134
APPENDIX D 136
APPENDIX E 138
APPENDIX F 141
APPENDIX G 144
APPENDIX H 146
APPENDIX I 150
APPENDIX J 155
APPENDIX K 161
APPENDIX L 174
APPENDIX M 182
APPENDIX N 184

REFERENCES
Ahuvia, A. (2001). Traditional, interpretive, and reception-based content analyses: Improving the ability of content analysis to address issues of pragmatic and theoretical concern. Social Indicators Research, 54, 139-172.
Babbie, E. (2013). The practice of social research (13th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage.
Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54(2), 153-160.
Bayat, N. (2014). The effect of the process writing approach on writing success and anxiety. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(3), 1133-1141.
Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (Eds.). (2001). Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections. University of Michigan Press.
Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. Hafner.
Berger, A. A. (1998). Media research techniques (2nd ed.). Sage.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles. Englewood.
Byram, M. (2004). Cultural studies and foreign language teaching. Routledge.
Byrd, P., & Schuemane (2014). English as a second/foreign language textbook: How to choose them-how to use them. In Celce-Murcia, M., & McIntosh, L. (Eds.). Teaching English as A Second or Foreign Language. National Geographic Learning.
Carney, T. F. (1971). Content analysis: A review essay. Historical Methods Newsletter, 4(2), 52-61.
Carson, J. G., & Leki, I. (Eds.). (1993). Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives. Heinle & Heinle.
Caudery, T. (1998). Increasing students' awareness of genre through text transformation exercises: An old classroom activity revisited. TESL-EJ, 3(3), 1-14.
Chen, X. Z. (2019). A preliminary study of high school English reading and writing combination teaching based on the textbook text. Exam Weekly, 47, 112-113.
Chinese Ministry of Education (MOE) (2017). High School English Curriculum Standards (Pu Tong Gao Zhong Ying Yu Ke Cheng Biao Zhun). People’s Educational Press.
Connor, U. (1987). Research frontiers in writing analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 677-696.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge University Press.
Connor, U. (2001). Contrastive rhetoric redefined. Contrastive Rhetoric Revisited and Redefined.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Steps in conducting a scholarly mixed methods study. DBER Speaker Series.
Davis, M. (2013). The development of source use by international postgraduate students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 125-135.
Derakhshan, K. (1996). Effects of first language on second language writing-A preliminary contrastive rhetoric study of Farsi & English. Allameh Tabatabai University.
Derewianka, B. (2003). Trends and issues in genre-based approaches. RELC Journal, 34(2), 133-154.
Feez, S., & Zhang, Z. (2014). Learning genres. The Cambridge guide to learning English as a second language.
Feng, X., & Wang, L. Y. (2023). English subject knowledge and teaching ability. Jilin Publishing House.
Ferris, D. R. (2009). Teaching college writing to diverse student populations. University of Michigan Press.
Flower, L. (1990). The role of task representation in reading-to-write. In L. Flower et al. (Eds.), Reading-to-write: Exploring a cognitive & social process (pp. 35-75). Oxford University Press.
Gabrielatos, C. (2002). EFL writing: Product and process. ELT News, 3, 133-135.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (2014). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. Routledge.
Grabe, W., & Zhang, C. (2013). Second language reading-writing relations. In A. S. Horning & E. W. Kraemer (Eds.), Reconnecting reading and writing (pp. 108–133). Parlor Press and WAC Clearinghouse.
Graham, S., & Herbert, M. A. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. A Carnegie Corporation Time to Act Report. Alliance for Excellent Education.
Graham, S., & Sandmel, K. (2011). The process writing approach: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(6), 396-407.
Harl, A. (2013). A historical and theoretical review of the literature: Reading and writing connections. In A. S. Horning & E. W. Kraemer (Eds.), Reconnecting reading & writing (pp. 26–54). Parlor Press and WAC Clearinghouse.
Harmer, J. (2015). The practice of English language teaching. Pearson.
Hasan, M. K., & Akhand, M. M. (2010). Approaches to writing in EFL/ESL context: Balancing product and process in writing class at tertiary level. Journal of NELTA, 15(1-2), 77-88.
Hashemnezhad, H., & Hashemnezhad, N. (2012). A Comparative Study of Product, Process, and Post-process Approaches in Iranian EFL Students' Writing Skill. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 3(4).
Hedgcock, J. S., & Ferris, D. R. (2018). Teaching readers of English: Students, texts, and contexts. Routledge.
Hedge, T. (2005) Writing. Oxford University Press.
Hedgecock, J. S. (2005). Taking stock of research and pedagogy in L2 writing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Lawrence Erlbaum Publisher.
Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers' text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Routledge.
Hirvela, A. (2016). Connecting reading & writing in second language writing instruction. University of Michigan Press.
Horowitz, D. (1986). Process, not product: Less than meets the eye. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 141-144.
Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of second language writing, 12(1), 17-29.
Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2013). Writing in the university: Education, knowledge and reputation. Language Teaching, 46(1), 53-70.
Hyland, K. (2016). Methods and methodologies in second language writing research. System, 59, 116-125.
Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing. Cambridge university press.
Hyland, K. (2022). Teaching and researching writing. Routledge.
Imsa-ard, P. (2020). Being an effective writing teacher: Understanding writing theories behind the product, process, and genre approaches. International Journal of Linguistics and Translation Studies, 1(2), 35-47.
Jackson, J. M. (2009). Reading/writing connections. In R. F. Flippo & D. C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (2nd ed.) (pp. 145-173). Routledge.
Jakobs, E-M. (2003). Reproductive writing from sources. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 893-906.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20.
Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Sage.
Leki, I. (1992). Building Expertise through Sequenced Writing Assignments. TESOL Journal, 1(2), 19-23.
Li, L. & Sun, X. M. (2022).Textbook Analysis of The New Standard English from Perspective of Thematic Contexts. Basic Foreign Language Education, 06, 25-33.
Li, X. F. (2020). A study on teaching strategies for combining English reading and writing in senior high schools. English Teacher, 03, 37-43.
Li, Y. (2013). Three ESL students writing a policy paper assignment: An activity-analytic perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 73-86.
Liu, Z. Y. (2022). Teaching strategies of reading and writing boards in the high school English teaching materials of the PEP edition from a synergistic perspective: Taking reading for writing boards in the first unit of compulsory Book II as an example. Fujian Education, 41, 45-48.
Lu, Y. X (2012). The importance of textbooks for high school English writing. English Square (Academic Studies), 05, 132-133.
Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Process and post-process: A discursive history. Journal of second language writing, 12(1), 65-83.
McCulloch, S. (2013). Integrating the reading-to-write processes and source use of L2 postgraduate students in real-life academic tasks: An exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 136-147.
Muncie, J. (2002). Process writing and vocabulary development: Comparing lexical frequency profiles across drafts. System, 30(2), 225-235.
Na, E. S., & Lee, H. W. (2019). The analysis of writing tasks in high school English textbooks: A process-genre based approach. English Teaching, 74(4), 105-129.
Neuendorf, Kimberly A., et al. (2017). Comedy content on YouTube. Research project, Cleveland State University.
Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia‐Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 589-613.
Palpanadan, S. T. A. P., Salam, A. R., & Ismail, F. (2014). Comparative analysis of process versus product approach of teaching writing in Malaysian schools: Review of literature. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 22(6), 789-795.
Panetta, C. G. (2000). Contrastive rhetoric revisited and redefined. Routledge.
Peregoy, S., & Boyle, O. F. (2013). Reading, writing, & learning in ESL. Longman.
Pincas, A. (1982). Teaching English writing. Macmillan
Plakans, L., & Gebril, A, (2013). Using multiple texts in an integrated writing assessment: Source text use as a predictor of score. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 217-230.
Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 407-430.
Reinking, D., & Bridwell-Bowles, L. (1991). Computers in reading and writing. In R Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Hand book of Reading Research (pp. 310-340). Longman Publishing Group.
Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. (2014). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Rusinovci, X. (2015). Teaching writing through process-genre based approach. US-China Education Review, 5(10), 699-705.
Seow, A. (2002). The writing process and process writing. Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice, 315, 320.
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657-677.
Smith, C. P. (2000). Content analysis and narrative analysis. In Harry T. Reis & Charles M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 313-335). Cambridge University Press.
Stone, Philip J., Dunphy, Dexter C., Smith, Marshall S., & Ogilvie, Daniel M. (1966). The general inquirer: A computer approach to content analysis. MIT Press.
Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Multilingual Matters.
Stotsky, S. (1983). Research on reading/writing relationships: A synthesis and suggested directions. Language Arts, 60(5), 627-642.
Stotsky, S. (1995). The uses and limitations of personal or personalized writing in writing theory, research, and instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 607-632.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles for comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In. S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Newbury House.
Tangpermpoon, T. (2008). Integrated approaches to improve students writing skills for English major students. ABAC Journal, 28(2), 1-9.
Tickoo, M. L. (2003). Teaching and learning English: A sourcebook for teachers and teacher-trainers. Orient Longman.
Tierney, R. J., & Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on the reading-writing relationship: Interactions, transactions, and outcomes. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tomlinson, B. (2012). Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language teaching, 45(2), 143-179.
Tribble, C. (1996). Writing. Oxford University Press.
Victoria State Government (2019). Literacy teaching toolkit. https://www. education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/english/litera cy/writing/Pages/default.aspx.
Wang, S. J. (2009). Process writing method and the design of writing activities for new standard high school English textbooks. English Teacher, 06,7-11
Wang, W. H. (2019). Analysis of the characteristics of the writing section of the compulsory high school English textbook of the PEP version. Modern Primary and Secondary Education, 12, 14-16.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Sage.
White, R. & Arndt, V. (1991). Process writing. Longman.
Williams, J., & Cui, G. (2005). Teaching writing in second and foreign language classrooms. McGraw-Hill.
Yu, S., & Reynolds, B. L. (2018). Investigating writing tasks in English textbooks for Chinese secondary students. Journal of Asia TEFL, 15(4), 1114-1121.
Zamel, V. (1992). Writing one’s way into reading. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 463-485.
Zhang, S. Y. (2019). A multidimensional comparative study of textual characteristics of high school English language teaching materials-Taking the PEP and FLTRP editions as examples. Research on Contemporary Educational Practice and Teaching, 11, 212-213.
Zhang, X. C. (2021). Strategies for teaching high school English reading and writing combination based on textbook reading and writing panels. Foreign Language Teaching in Primary and Secondary Schools (Secondary School), 11, 35-40.
Zhang, Y. (2022). Comparative analysis of high school English textbooks between PEP and FLTRP editions. Foreign Language Series, 02, 376-383.
Zhu, W. (2005). Source articles as scaffolds in reading to write: The case of a Chinese student writing in English. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 15, 129-152.