寫作課程：國際視角
 

介紹
 

根據(jù)塞繆爾約翰遜博士所說，修辭是現(xiàn)代交流通信的基本，然而，寫作的重要性卻被忽略了。這部分寫作可以解釋的原因為寫作不是一項新發(fā)明，因此普遍寫作是被當做理所當然的（寫作系統(tǒng)）。而且，由于對修辭研究和系統(tǒng)的改進把握很熟悉也幾乎完全被忽略了（寫作系統(tǒng)）。在美國，在大學的課程中沒有對于寫作水平的國家標準。然而，每年花更多時間在學校系統(tǒng)寫作程序上的人比全世界其他國家更多。不幸的是，這些對社會慷慨的貢獻卻繼續(xù)導致糟糕的寫作，模仿成分，和一貫的高文盲率。在這里，在雪城大學，寫作105和205幾乎是所有專業(yè)的要求。然而，并不是所有的學校，大學以及其他的大學都遵循同樣的要求。然而，這一要求是獨特的因為它并不是在每個地方都存在成立。因此，雪城大學試圖解釋這一寫作課程要求，它可能有助于大學寫作水平超過全世界其他的國家。
 

Writing Curriculums: An International Perspective 

 

Introduction: 

 

According to Dr Samuel Johnson, rhetoric is essential to modern-day communication. Yet, the importance of writing is being overlooked. In part this can be explained for the reason that writing is not a new invention, thus universally writing is being taken for granted (“Writing System Alternativs”). Further, due to the familiarity of rhetoric research and improvement to the system is also almost completely being ignored (“Writing System Alternativs”). In the United States there are no national standard writing curriculums required at university levels, however more capita per year is spent on writing programs in school systems here than other countries throughout the world. Unfortunately, these generous contributions to society continue to result in poor writing, unoriginal composition, and a consistently high illiteracy rates (“Writing System Alternativs”). Here, at Syracuse University, writing 105 and 205 are required for almost all majors. However, not all schools throughout the university, and other universities abide by the same requirements. Subsequently, this requirement is to some extent peculiar because it does not exist everywhere. Thus, in attempting to explain the writing curriculum requirements at Syracuse University it may be beneficial to consider writing requirements at university levels throughout other countries around the world 

 

International (Writing) Curriculum Summaries: 

 

In an article written by Alistair Ross, a Professor of Education at the University of North London, Ross notes that it was not until 1988 that a national curriculum was taken upon by the United Kingdom. Prior to 1988 branches of learning, including writing classes, were strongly suggested but not mandatory (Ross). Today, English writing programs in the UK are required from ages 5 to 16, but thereafter are no longer mandatory (Ross). However, it is important to recognize that this national curriculum does not include writing course requirements for students attending universities in the United Kingdom. #p#分頁標題#e#

 

Similar to the UK, Japan also has a national writing curriculum that extends until college. In an article about Japanese educational systems, taken from the Department of Education, education in Japan is described as “very rapid” (Mackey). National curriculums from elementary to high school cover an array of material that ranges from Japanese writing to Humanities (Mackey). After the completion of high school many students attend universities throughout the country, however at this point curriculum https://sv1.123helpme.com/servlet/p1.PaperAdminControllerrequirements (including writing) are no longer applied (Mackey). Thus there is no national writing curriculum or any other required courses for college students in Japan. 

 

Contrary to the absence of university requirements in the United States, UK, and Japan, universities throughout South Korea universities encompass course curriculums that require an assortment of programs, including several writing courses (“Education in Korea”). South Korean university requirements are unique to others in the world, because although students enter college with a major and a field of study, all students take the same courses (“Education in Korea”). These college courses that the South Korean curriculum require include general courses, such as writing, because they are preparing students for the working world after they graduate (“Education in Korea”). In other words, all students take the same courses because it is assumed they will all be entering the same job place afterwards. In which case, unlike other countries South Korean curriculums include writing programs, although their system is not necessarily better by any means. 

 

It is still further possible to observe more countries, however through extensive research it is apparent that requiring writing courses is not common for foreign countries (or the United States) at a university level. Countries included on the list for not requiring writing courses include Chile, Argentina, France, Australia, etc… More information about the curriculums for each of these countries can be looked at in greater depth, however this information is redundant, tedious, and unnecessary. Subsequently, from the information available, and lack there of, there are definite implications, inferences, and conclusions that can be drawn about the writing curriculums around the globe. 

 

Discussion: 

 

From an international perspective, the lack of writing requirements may have many indications/significances. First off, the absence of required writing courses may be explained by intensive entrance exams. Such exams found throughout Europe and other countries including Japan, require students to have an already extended background in writing. Another explanation, that is not thoroughly discussed, but can be inferred is that countries simply do not have the budget to spend enormous amounts of money on programs that may or may not help their citizens. And although there is no substantial information explaining the reasons for requiring writing courses in South Korea, it is clear that curriculums there are not necessarily better because although they cater to the needs of all jobs they completely overlook the idea of specific fields of study completely. #p#分頁標題#e#

 

In further discussing international perspectives of required writing courses, it is also important to note that there is not extended information covering this topic. In finding any information about this, it is necessary to look at absolutely everything. This includes, encyclopedia information about countries, to newspaper articles about the changes in curriculums, to the specific requirements of universities throughout a country. And even afterwards, there is relatively little information presented. Thus, it can be concluded that countries are possibly overlooking the importance of writing or do not view citizen writing in their country as a problem. 

 

Conclusion: 

 

Taken as a whole, it is difficult to pinpoint why or why not writing programs are not generally required in colleges around the world. Upon researching this subject, many articles were inconclusive, non-credible, or merely did not have information pertaining to the topic of international writing programs at a university level. Reverting back to the relatedness of international writing curriculums in comparison to writing curriculums of the United States, there appears to be no relevance. Further, the United States spends more capita per year on writing programs than any other country (“Writing System Alternativs”). Thus setting the US aside from other countries in one aspect to say the very least. This capita expenditure may signify a greater concern for writing from the United States, however this statement is merely an inference. Further, throughout observing international writing course requirements and comparing them to those of the United States, thus there also appears to be no relatedness to the of Syracuse University requirements of writing 105 and 205 either. To understand the issue of writing requirements at Syracuse University it is clear that other aspects of writing and course curriculums need to be looked at, rather than using information about international university writing curriculums. 

 

Works Cited 

 

“Education in Korea 2002-2003.” Ministry of Education & Human 

Resources Development, Republic of Korea p. 38-46 (2003). 5 February 2003 http://www.studyinkorea.go.kr/Files/Educa.zip. 

 

Mackey, Kim. “More Aspects of the Japanese Educational System.” The Department of Education 11:19:21 –008 (1998). Case Study. 13 February 2003 http://mathforum.org/epigone/math-teach/spixblumbla/[email protected] 

 

Ross, Alistair. “Curriculum Changes and Educational Change in the UK (England).” Child Research Net 2001. 10 February 2003 http://www.childresearch.net/CYBRARY/EVISION/2001/GB07_E.HTM. 

 

“Writing System Alternativs: Writing Systems of the World.” Oz Ideas and Innovations 2002, Australian Center for Social Innovations. 2 February 2002. America Online. 12 February 2003 http://home.vicnet.net.au/~ozideas/writintro.htm. #p#分頁標題#e#

 

Works Consulted 

 

Sorenson, Sharon. “Encouraging Writing Achievement: Writing across the Curriculum.” ERIC Digest: ED327879 (1991). 10 February 2003 http://www.ericfacility.net/ericdigests/ed327879.html. 

 

Tilton, Bob. “Writing and General Education.” Advance Archive on the Web 8 May 2001. 10 February 2003 http://www.advance.uconn.edu/010508ge.htm. 

 

Wall, Martha. “A Return to Style: Style as the Centerpiece of Freshman Composition.” BYU. The World Wide Web. 12 February 2003 http://www.uiowa.edu/~mmla/abstracts/88a.html.