-
8/19/2019 Barnett Writing
1/8
Writing as
a
Process
Tradit ional
Approaches to Writ ing
Research n lrst and
second
anguage
writing is
documentingwhatwe
alreadyknow
as eachers:
tudents
are
frustrated
by seeingcompositionsmarked
up, and
they
rarely
ncorporate
all
our suggestions
r corrcctions
even
when
we
ask hem
o
rewrite (or
is t recopy?)
heir
papers
Dvorak;
Osterholm;7-amel1985;
aimes
1983).
No matterhowwe
correct
studentwork,
succeeding
om-
positions
do not
seem ppreciablybetter.
Meager
esults
after so
much
time
spent correcting
frustrates
us, too.
Recent
work
on teacher
approaches
o both
first
and
second
language
writing
indicates
that
much
of our
shared
disappointment
and
sense of futility may well
result from
our view
of writing. This paper
examines
traditional eacher
expectations
f and
reactions
o writ-
ing, considerswriting as the mental proccsst involves,
and explores
ne
method
of
getting
out
students
nvolved
n
editingtheir
own
work,
even as
early
as elemen-
t a ry and
in t e rm ed ia t e
F rench
courses.
As
used here,
the terms
"composition"
and
"writingn
refer
to
written
discoursentended
or
com-
munication
and
o the diverse
activi-
ties involved in putting
thoughts
on
paper.
Writ ing as
Product
As we
know,
most
teachers
faced with
studentwriting
reach or
the red
(or
green
or purple) penand
begin correcting
errors
in
form:
spelling, agreement,
word
order,
verb endings,
and
so
forth.
Second
anguage
eachers
seem o
be even
more
prone
to suchcorrectionshan irst
language
eachers,
perhaps
because, asZamel
(1985:85)
notes, we view
ourselves
as
nlanguage"
rather
than as
nwriting"
teachers
although
one
may question
why
we
cannot aspire
o
the
latter).
Even
those
eacherswho
have earned
o allow
students
omespoken
errors
so as
not
to
miss
the intended
meaning
often
cannot do
the
same with
a
written
message
Chastain
1980:70).
Per-
haps, n
correcting rammar,
we
are taking he
easy
way
out. Consider
he easewith
which
a fluent
teacher
can
circle, underline,
or correct
surface-level
rrors
n
form
compared o theexpertise nd discernmenthat a reader
needs
to
counsel
a
writer
about
a confused
presentation
of ideas
of a
convoluted
organization.
But we ook
at what
the student writer
has produced
and
treat
it
as a hnal
draft; it is,
of course,
only
at this last
stage
hat the
mechanics
of form
and anguage
usagemust
be
polished.
In writing
this paper,
or
example,
did
not
worry
about
spelling
or exact ocabulary
until well into
the rewriting
phase.
Yet
do
our
studentsnot hand n
a
"final'version
of a composition,
ven
hough
t is
usually
heir irst
draft?
Indeed,
here
we
are
beginning o
turn in
a
vicious
ircle:
Marva A.
Barnett,
Universityof Virginia
studcntssubmit
rankly
unpolishedpaperswhich
teach-
ers trcat as
final products,
encouraging hem to
offer
similar
rvork
the
next
time and to focus most
of their
atten(ion
on surface-level
ine
tuning
rather
hanon com-
municatinga message
oherently. t is possibly
ronic
that
in emphasizing
rammar
we have perpel.uated
system
in which orm
seems
o be all
that
matters. eachers ave
written themselves
ut
of the writing process
y accepting
these
first-and-final
drafts;
students hink
of
a
paper
turned
in
as a
paper
done,
a
paper needing no more
attention rom
them.
This
mental
attitude arely
changes
even hen
we
require
nrewrites.n
If
all our efforts n fix ing
students'
rrors
ed
to more
nearly
accuratecompositions,
urrent correction
prac-
tices
might make
sense, venwith frustration
evident on
the students'part. Research n both first and second
language
writing, however,gener-
allyshow
he contrary
Scmke
200-
201;
Osterholm
137-38;Dvorak
151-52).
Although Lalande's
tudy
in 1982 ound
that
students'
me-
chanical
precision
n writing
Ger-
man
mprovedwhen
heir teachers
coded
errors
for
student correc-
tion and he
students
ept
an ongo'
ing ist
of their own errors, he
fact
that all composition writing
and
correcting ook
place
n
class ime
makes
his model unattractive or
manyof us; t alsocolorshis esults.
Neither
did his
experiment
ques-
tion affective factors: how
students
feel
about
writing
or about
he effect of considering on-
tent.
In
a
ater
study,
Semke
1984)
workedwith
students
of German at
the same evel
but used
a different experi-
mental
design o examine our
different
approaches
o
correction:
commenting
n
content
rather
han correct-
ing;
correctingall errors;
combining
comments nd cor-
rections;
and coding
errors for
student correction.
She
found
that onlycommenting
ithout
correction
ncreased
writing
fluency
and
language
proficiency. None
of
the
methods
had
a significantmpact
on
writing
accuracy;
he
least
effective
method
n
terms of bot h achievement
nd
attitude toward writing wasstudent correctionof crrors.
Moreover, n
the
results
of a survey
of studentattitudes,
most negative
comments
came
from
students
who re-
ceivedsome
ind
of
correction;
he
students
ho received
commentson the content
and no corrections
ommented
most positively.
Other studies
on both
first
and second
languagewriting
indicate,
oo, that many writers have a
ntask
overload,"
hat is, nterference
between
what
they
are trying to say,
how
to
say
t,
and the accuracyof the
form
(Dvorak
155). Zamel's
(1983)
study of six
ESL
students
ound
that this nterference
especiallv
nhibited
Each
year
the:NortheastCon-
ference
awards the Stephen
A.
Freeman
waid for the best
pub-
lished articte
oh teaching tech-
niques
to hCVeappeared
in the
previous
calendar
year.
We are
pleased
o rCprint,with
permis-
sion, he
1991 awaid-Winhing
r-
ticle
by Marva
A. Barnett of the
Unlversi ly
of
Vlrglnia,
lhat
ap-
peared
ln
The French
Review,
1989, ol.63,
No. 1, 31-44.
16 NORTHEASTConlerence
Winter 99 2
-
8/19/2019 Barnett Writing
2/8
-
8/19/2019 Barnett Writing
3/8
reader
(Osterholm
119).
The reader/teacher
hus be-
comesa facilitator
rather than a
udge,
and the writer
who
cares o
write
better hasas assistant
n
the
demanding
ob
of
transferring deas
o
paper
o be
nterpreted
by some-
one else.
I-ooking
at
writing
as a
process
also implies
understanding
riting
asa seriesof drafts and
consider-
ing
the endeavorof writing
in its
entire$: prewriting,
writing,andrewriting Rohman).
At
the
prewriting
stage,
writers find ideas
and begin
to
organize hem.
As we
all
know from
our
own
writing,
ideas
generally
do
not go
onto
paper
in
a coherent or
elegant ashion
he
first
time
we
try to express
hem.
As
Flower and Hayes
explain and model it, writing is a
complex, ecursive
cognitive
process.
Three
components
interact
with
and
influence
each
other constantly and
intricately
as one composes:
the
writer's long-term
memorywhere
nowledge
f
topig
audience,
ndwriting
plans
are
stored; the task environment,
including the
rhetorical
problem
and the text
produced
so
far; and
writing processes
uchas
goal
setting,
organizing,
eview-
ing,
evaluating,and revising.
A hierarchical network
of
goalscreatedwhile people composedirects the writer
through
the
process. Evidently,
the
writing process is
quite
cognitively
complex
as writers move
their thoughts
back and forth
betweencomponents,
always
eturning
to
and
redefining
heir
higher
goals.
Using more mmediate
terms,
Cooper
(113)
notes
hese
steps
n
the composing
process: L)
prewriting
gestation (from
a few minutes
to
months
or
years);
2)
planning
the
particular piece
(with
or without notes
or
outline);
(3)
getting
he composition
started;
(4)
making
ongoingdecisions
about word
choice,
synta4 rhetorical
style, and
organization;
(5)
reviewing
what
has
been
written
and anticipating
and rehearsing
what
comes next;
(6)
tinkering
and
reformulating, (7)
stopping;
(8)
contemplating
he finished
piece; (9)
revis-
ing.
Undoubtedly,
his complex
process
must vary
from
one individual to anotherbut, nevertheless,
xists.
Most language
eachers have not
been
trained to
think
of classroom
omposition n
this
light. Yetwhat
do
we really
want
to teach
students:
o
get
all the
grammar
and vocabulary ight
or to develop intellectually
and
re-
fine
their capabilities
at the cognitive evel? How
we
treat
their
written
work
defines n great
measurewhat
theywill
give
us. Zamel
(1985)
urges
setting
priorities
in
our com-
ments
and
suggestions or revision
and encouraging
our
students
o addressmeaning-level
oncernsbefore
others
(%).
In fact,
commenting
on
what
a student
is
saying
s
interesting,
challenging,
and fi nally
satisfying:
Student Paragraph
Teacher
Comments
Je crois que
les
jour- L'exemple
de
la par-
naux
forment
nos
opin-
tialite
est bon. Mais pou-
ions.
Ils voient
les
arti-
vez-vousprdciser
e
rapport
cles
travers
ses
yeux. entre la partialitd
et
no s
Pour
exemple,
si le
opinions?
papier
est Ie New York
Times
il
amie
beaucoup
les
Mets.
Beaucoup
de
journaux
sont
partials.
The writing
process
approach sug-
gested
here does fit
into
a busy
schedule.
We shouldstrengthen tudents'compositionskills,as
English
departmentsattempt o do,
as Gaudiani
(1979:
232)
suggested
nearly
a decade
ago, and
as
Magnan
(118-19)
eiterates.
Some esearchers ave
begun
o ex-
plore
the differences between
the writing
processes
of
skilled and unskilledwriters.
Krashen
(1984)
cites stu-
dies showing hat
good
first
and second anguagewriters
do
more planning,
rescanning,
nd
revising
than do
poor
writers. In Zamel's (1983)
study,
better second
anguage
writers
treated
writing
as
a
process,
nvestigating and
explaining heir
deas
efore
worrying
about
grammatical
accuracy;
he
less
skilled writers were
overly concerned
about
following
an outline and
about
having
correct
grammar
and
vocabulary
rom
the beginning. How can
we encourage
ur students
o act
ike
skilled writers?
We need to
begin eachingwriting
early;
learning
how
to
write
takes ime, whether
in
a
first
or
second
language.
Yet how
can
we
nclude
writing
as
a
process n
a
four-skills
courseat the
elementary
or
intermediate
level
where we
are
more
or
less
equally committed to
teaching speaking,
istening,
eading
writing,
and culture
and when many
of us
had
no
training
n
teaching
writing
(Magnan
132-33)2 The
writing-process
approach
sug-
gested
here does it into
such a busy
schedule:
t assigns
the
responsibility
for
a coherent composition to the stu-
dents,does
not
demand
class ime as does
peer
editing,
and
requires
no more
grading
time
than a
traditional
grammar-correction
method,
even as it stressed
the
meaning
expressed
n
theirwriting.'
With
this
technique,
studentsare more likely to follow an effective composing
sequence
such as that
offered
by Cooper,
learning to
analyze,
organize,and focus
heir thoughts.
Prewriting
activitieshelp
students
start their
papers:
they
involve
studentswith
a composition
topic,
let
them
realize
what might
be
included
n
their
papers,
help them
work
out rhetorical problems,
or
review
or
provide
useful
vocabulary.
Rohman
views prewriting
as an
invention
device
and argues hat
studentsmust earn
the
nstructures
of thinking
that
lead
to writing"
(107).
Chastain
(1988:
254)
emphasizes
he
importance
of
prewriting
activities
in motivating
students o
write.
The
popular first lan-
guage
prewriting
techniques
noted
by Osterholm
(132)
are equally
viable for
second
anguage writers:
journal
writing, meditating analogy making, and freewriting
(brainstorming
on
paper).
Statonexplains a
more precise
use ofjournals for
meaningful
dialogue between students
and teachers.
Magnan
125-27)
elates her recommenda-
tions to the
ACTFL Proficiency
Guidelines and
proposes
using tasks
associatedwith
lower
proficiency
levels as
excellent
prewriting
steps for
task at the
next higher
level; for
example,students
ist
objects
in
their
rooms
(novice-level)
o
prepare
o describe
heir
rooms
(inter-
mediate
evel). Herman
suggests sing French
literary
texts accessible
o advanced
tudentsas a skeletal
model
18 NOBTHEAST
Conference
Winter 1992
-
8/19/2019 Barnett Writing
4/8
for
their
own compositions,
hc passage
etold
from
a
different
narrator's
point
o[vicw.
This notion
of
writing
as influenced
by
quality
reading
parallels
Krashent
(198a)
belief,
based mostly
on first language
ata,
har
com.petent
writing
can
be attained
through
extensive
reading
accompanied
by
writing.
Once the composition
opic
and/or
organization
as
been introduced, the studentsbegin writing their first
drafts.
In
both my
intensive
and regular
niermediate-
level
university
courses,
his
draft-writing
process
ollows
a
procedure
explaincd
on the dircction
shest
nComment
6crire
une
composition" (reproduced
n
Appendix
A) .
This
sheet
summarizes
he
necessarythinking
ndwriting
process
and
suggestshow
to org"nirc
idcaiand
pr"r"ni
a
paper
in
final
form.'
Thc
dircctionsgiven
hcre
arc
specifically
for
students writing
in
rcsponse
to
reading
they have
done;
thcy
can easily
bc
modificd
o
lead nto
other
types
of compositions.
They
might
also
be offcrcd
in
English
to elementary
French
studLnts.
The
teacher
needs
relatively
little
class
ime
to
discuss
hese nstruc-
tions
and
explain, for
instance,
the importance
of
ac-
cepting
a less-than-perfect
ormulation
of an idea
or
phrase in order to get on with the composing process
(section
I.,
part
5), what
Flower
calls
'iatisfiiing."
As
Chastain
(198S)
and Butler
carefullypoint
out,
mpioving
students'
attitudes
toward
writing
is
vitally
important.
Although
studelts
may
show
some
nitial
surpiise and
hesitation
at
this new
approach
to
the
old
irorror
of
writing
the teacher's
supportive
comments
on their
papers
can
eventually
change
heir perceptions.
Research
shows
hat
better writers
bclieve
hat
wrif
ing
draft_ss important
(Dvorak
151-52).
This
self-ediring
approach
requires
all
students
owrite
a hrst
draft,which
should
be
revised
into
a better,
but not perfect,
composi-
tion
before
tle
teacher
sees t.
Experience
witli
this
systemhas
shown, not
surprisingly,
hat
many
students
at
first submit as their second versions little more than
recopied
rolgh
drafts, whether
because
fprevious
train-
ing,_laziness
or misunderstanding.
Still,
the vigilant
tea_cher
an
prevent
some
of this
mere
duplication
by
delining
just
what
is involved
in
the
revisin&
re-editin&
and rewritingexplained
insqction
I, part
7;
or bydistribui-
ing
a
good
example
of
studeqt writing
h
thl
first
and
s9c9nd
4laft
form;
or by
emphasizing
hat recopied firsr
drafts
will not
be
accepted
as
seconddrafts.
How you
use
nComment
dcrire une
composition"
depends
both
on
teacher
objectives
and
on itudents'
needs
and
motivations.
In Intensiye
Intermediate
French,
where
the students
are relativelv
advanced
and
motivated
the sheet
as
t
appears in
Figuie 2
is
effective.
Students make notes and vnite both drafts before submit-
ting
their
work
to
the
teacher. The
teacher
hen has
he
option
of
grading
the second
draft
(noting
mprovements
from
the first
version)
or of
offering
suggestions
and
requiring
another
draft.
In
either
case,
teacher
com-
ments
are te:(-specifig
taking into
account
the
writer,s
intent
and
audience (7-anel1985:
9$.
Normally,
what
these
students
submit
is
better for
their
having gone
through
the
first
draft
stage.
In
a standard
elementary
or intermediate
course
(college
irst
and secondyears
or
highschool
irst
through
Many
composit ions
re
actual ly
un
to
read,
especiatly
when
we
learn o
ignore
for
a while
some
detai ls
of
form.
third
years),
t is
useful o
collcct
students'notes
nd irst
drafts for
comments
and
rccommendations
before stu-
dents write
second
drafts.
In
this way,
the teacher
can
hclp
each
student with
the
revising
process
and can ndi-
catemore
clearly how
a second
draft
should
differ
from
the first.
In making
thesc irst
draft comments,
concen-
trate
on what
the student is
trying
to
say, espondposi-
tivcly wherever
possiblc,
note
confusing
segments,
and
suggestmprovements;
ecurrent
grammar
or
vocabulary
problems
are
simply noted
as
general
(see
sample in
Appendix
B).
Correcting
or marking
all
form
errors at
this
point
takes
oo
long,
discourages
tudentswho
were
trying
to say
something,
and encourages
others
o depcnd
on cachercorrectionrathcrthan aking esponsibilityor
accuracy.
Indicating
the
existence
of
major
errors rc-
minds
students
hat
form
matters
n
the frnal
draft.
On
the
other hand,
some teachers
may prefer
to
ignore
hc
errors in
form
at this
stage, eading
students
to confine
work
on this
aspect
of
writing
to their final
draft. This
mcthod
of checking
the
first
draft
takes
rom
five
to eight
minutes
per
paper;
for 25
one-page
compositrons,
bc-
tween
two
and three hours,
less
han
the time needed
o
mark
all
grammar
errors. Moreover,
the teacher learns
more
about
the students' ideas
and helps
thcm
develop
organizational
and
analytical
skills.
As
can
be seen
on the college-level
ntermediatc
French
sample in Appendix
B,
the
majority
of the
teacher's
comments pertain
to content
and
organization.
Positivecommentsare indispensable; ommentson prob-
lem
areas must
point
toward
possible
solutions.
Students
who
have questions
or dilficulties
responding
to com-
ments
should
be able
to discuss
hese with
the teacher.
Of
course, many
students have
little
experience writing
and revising
and will not
manage
o
incorporate
effec-
tively
all
the
teacher's suggestions.
The
teacher
grades
according
to the
quality
of the changes
made
and
the
new
draft
in
general.
The
second
draft
submitted
by our
s,amp-le
tudent
appears in
Appendix
C.
Clearly, this
stu-
dent has
attempted
to apply
teacher
suggestions,
nd she
has
produced
an improved
draft,
both in
content
and
form.
Yet
she has not
restructured
her paper,
again
pre-
senting
two
paragraphs
with
two
separate, although
re-
lated ideas. As we know from our own writing, second
drafts
are
often
not final
drafts.
In
a writing
course,
having
this
student
submit a
third
draft might
be useful;
in
a four-skills
course,
evaluating
his
second
draft,
noting
improvements
and
remaining
problems,
allows class
ime
for
work
on speaking, listening
and, reading.
The
need
to
grade
the last
draft
presents
some
difficulties.
For
details
about different
types
of composi-
tion grading
see
Chastain
(1978,
1988),
Gaudiani
(1981),
Continued
on
page
51
:
Winter
1992
NORTHEAST
Ct:ifcren;r
I
'1
-
8/19/2019 Barnett Writing
5/8
Barnett,
continued
from
P-
19
Hendrickson,
Lalande'
O
maggio
(2X-69, 298-304),
Per-
kinr,
und
Semke.
Since
the
process approach
presented
here
stresses
writing
as communication,
wc
must
at
least
rate
our
students
on
how
clearly
and coherently
hey
communicated;
ence,as
noted on
the
direction sheet,
the srade s basedon both fond and
forme,
with
the
grades
finally
being
averaged.
Or
a
holistic
grade,
ntegrating
both
Lontent
nd
orm,
s possible.
n either
case, believe
one
of
the
most useful
and
intelligent
responses
o
form
is that
proposed
by
Chastain
(1980:
7L-74).
He suggests
that
thi
instructor
underline
all errors
(thus pointing
them
out
to
the
students
who
want complete
feedback)
and
select
two
or
three to
be eliminated
in future com-
positions
(see
sample
in AppgndS-C).
-For
those,
the
instructor,
on a separate
sheet,
1)
labels he
grammatical
structure
nvolved,
2)
copies the
student's
ncorrect
ver-
sion,
(3) provides
he correct
version, and
(4)
underlines
both
the
Lrror
and correction.
Students
are
encouraged
to
ask
f they
still
fail to comprehend.
Students
urn
in the
error
sheets
with succeedingcompositions;
repeated
er-
rors aredoublypenalized. Finally, I believe t fair to offer
students
structural
and stylistic
corrections
when
they
have ried
to
go
beyond their
current
level
of
grammar
control
(e.g.,
qui
paraissentnn Appendix
C).
Advantages
Both teacher and students
profit from treating
writ-
ing as a
mental
process
and
a
means of communication.
When students
ealizc that teachers
read their
writing
to
understand
what.theyare trying to say
ather than tojudge
their
grammar
and
usage, they
write
more
interesting
compositions.
They
are also
willing to
write more,
which
is
perhaps he best
way
to
refine one's
writing;
and
they
eventually
ake
more
care
with what they
write because
t
means
more
to them.
"Positive
comments
bring
about
more
positive
attitudes toward
writing"
(Osterholm 137).
Student
effort does
repay teacher
cffort.
Many com-
positions are actually
fun to
read, especially
when we
learn to
ignore for
a
while
somc
details
o[
form.
My own
expe.rience
ndicates hat
less correction
of
grammatical
errors,
together
with honest attention
to content,
can
sometimes
educe-and seldom
promotes-grammati-
cal
mistakes
n futurc
compositions.
Teacher
gradingtime
can
be
reduced
n length
and enhanced
n
quality.
On
the affective
level,
teachers
find reacting
to
writing as
a
process
emarkably
gratifying because
most
of
their suggestions
re directed
toward
students'
intel-
lectual development. Of
coursc,
students
benefit
im-
mensely
working
on their
writing ability
in a second
as
well as a
first language
can only
improve their
general
cognitive
skills of
reasoningand
ogical thinking.
Magnan
(118-19) has
already
noted
the
importance
of teaching
analyticaland composition skills in the return-to-basics
movement
n
education.
Finally, if
we
think
selfishly
for
a
moment,
we
see hat teacher
will be
rewarded
in
having
students
who
can think
more clearly
and
express
those
thoughts
more
intelligibly. In the
long
run,
we
should
produce better
language
majors;
furthermore,
we can
influence
most sigrrificantly
all
thosc
citizens and
voters
who
leave oreigr
languagestudy,
and
who,
though
they
may
never
writc
again
n French after
leaving our class-
rooms,
must use he
critical thinking
skills our
work
with
writing
has given
hem.
Continued
on next
page
FRENCH
N
ACTION
changing
he
way
Frenchs aught
Meet
he
series
reator
ndon-screen
ost,
PierreCapretz
Visit
he
Yale
University
ress
ooth
o see
he
videos
andaccompanying
ooks
& audio
andpremiering n 1992, he seriesou have beenwaiting or
DESTINOS:
An
ntroduction
o
Spanish
Visit
he
McGraw
Hill
booth
o
see
he
videos nd
learn
moreabout he
accompanying
ooks,
udio
and
software
|l
jll
The nnenberg/CPB
roiect
Call
1-80o-LEARNER
or
free
preview
assettes.
Winter
1992
NORTHEASTCon{erence
51
-
8/19/2019 Barnett Writing
6/8
Continued
rom
previous
page
AppendixA
Comment
6crlre
une
compositlon
L
Fagon
de
ravailler
1)
Lisez
et
dtudiez
es
extes 6cessaires.
2)
Etudiezles
rincipes
r6sent6s
i-dessousdans
es
secrionsI,
IIL IV).
3)
Prenez
es
notes
ur vos
d6es.
4) Organisezosnotesd'une aqon
laire
et ogique.
5) Ecrivez
a premiBre
6bauche
u
moins
ours
avant a
date inale.
-
Suivez
osnotes,
-
Ne vous
an€tez
ni
pour
chercher
n mot que
vousne
savez as
ni pour
corriger
a grammaire.
ous
erez
ce
travail
au moment
de a r6vision
-Indiqlez
par
? vosquestions
u
sujet
e
a grammaire
u du vocabulaire.
-
Ensuite,
dvisez
e
que
vous
vez
crit.
Rendez
vos
d6es
es
plus
claires
ossible.
Y
€rlfiezque
'organiiation
st ogique.
Cherchez
es,mots
ue
vous
e
sivie,
pas.
Corrigez
es
autes
e
grammaire
ue
vous
rouvez.
-
Pour
utiliser
un
dictionnairJ:
Pour
chaque
mot que
vous
herchez
ans
un dictionnaire,
onsultez
e
dictionnaire
des
deux
c6t6s,
c'est-i-dire,
cherchez
e
mot
dans
a
sectionanglais/frangais
t vdrifiez-le
dans a
section
ru"S"iv-'
anglais.-a significationesmotsd6pendrdssduvent ucontexte f vous
esemployez
6) Laissez
ette
dbauche
endant
n
ou
deuxjburs.
7)
R€visez,
tdrgez,
et
r€iivezladeuxidme
bauche.
aites
attention
:
-fa
lgelue
des ddes
et
de 'organisation;
-la
clart6
de a pr6sentation;
-la
prdcision
de
la
grammaire
t du vocabulaire.
8)
Tapez
la
machine
a forme
inale;
ttention
la pr€sentation
voyez
i-dessous
ection
V).
lI.
Idies:
henez
des
notes
des d€es
principales;
des
d6es
subordonn€es;
-__
j"r exemples,
e a
pcnsde
e 'auteur
u de
votre propre
ogique.
fiI.-Olganization:
N'oubliezpas
d'organiservote
ou"ri
^
1)
Une ntroduction
-Identifiez
le
te)Ce
et
l'auteur)
au zujet
duquel
vous
€cnvez
-Donnez un r€sum€devosarguments€cessaires.
2)
Un
d6veloppement
de vos d6es
-Mettez
les
d€es
diffdrentes
a"sdesparagraphes
iff6rents.
-Identifiez
chaque
dde
d'une agon
laire.'
-Donnez
tous es
exemples
t es
arguments
dcessaires.
3)
Une
conclusion
-
Donnez
a
conclusionque
vous
avez
rotJvee
pres
avoir raisonnd
travers e
developpement.
-I-a
conclusioan'est
a,
une €p6tition
es d6ls
de l'introduction.
4)
Un titre
-Choisessez
un
titre clair.
-choisessez
un titre
que
ndique
n
peu
a
direction
de a
composition.
lY.
Pr4sentation:
Considdrez
esd6tails:
1)
Si vous
citez es
mots
de I'auteur,
l
faut es
mettre
ente
guillemets
<
...
>
)
et
noter
la
page
of on es
rouve
(p.000).
2)
Marges
d'au moins
1'dc tous esc6t6s.
?l !.-p"tidon
tap€e
la
machine
u
I'orrlina1eur,
outes es
deux igrres.
4)
Rendez
a
copie
originale.
_
5)_Attention
I'orthographg
aux
accents, la
ponctuation.
Y.ARendre:
1)
les
notesque
nous
avez
prises
2)
la
premi0re
dbauche
3)
la
deuxi0me
dbauche
Yl.Lanote
d€penfua:
1)
des d€es
et
de
I'organisation:
lVo
2)
de
a pr6cision
de a
gr"m-aire,
du vocabulaire,
e 'orthographe,
e a ponctuation"
e a present
tton:
rVo
52
NORTHEASTConference
Winter 992
-
8/19/2019 Barnett Writing
7/8
-
8/19/2019 Barnett Writing
8/8
Continued
from
Previous Page
Cohcn,
Andrew
D.
"Student
Processing
of
Feedback
on
Thcir
Compositions."
Leamer
Strotegies
n
Langtage
Leoming.
Ed.
Anita Wenden and Joan
Rubin-
Englc-
wood
Cliffs,
NJ:
PrenticeAlall
nternational, 1987,
7-68.
Coopcr,
Charles
R.
"Measuring
Growth
in Writing."
Enplk h ! ounra 64, 3(197 ): I1-l-2O.
bvorak,
Trisha.
"Writing
in the
Forcign Language."
Listenittg
Reading
ond
ll/iting Analysis ortd
Applicatiott-
Ed.
Barbara
H. Wing. Middlebury,
VT: NortheastCon-
ference,
19%,145-61-
Flower,
Linda.
Problem-Solving
Strategies
or
Witirrg.
2nd
ed.
Ncw
York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
1985.
and John
R. Hayes.
"A
Cognitive
procGTheory
of
Writing.'
Colk[e Contpositi6n
and
Commun
c
ation 32
(
1981):
365-87.
Gaudiani,
Claire.
French
Composition
Tcaching:A
Student
Generated
er
Editing Approach." French
Re'
view 53
(1919):232-5.
.
Teoching
Witing
in tlrc
Foreigt Latr-
ga@
Cunicutum.
Vol. 4j in Laiguage in
E[ucotiort:
Theory
ond Practice.
Washington, DC:
Ccnter
for Ap-
plicd
Linguistics"
981.
Hendrickson, ames
M.
"The
Treatment
of
Error in
Written
Work.' Modem Language
foumal
6a(1980):
216-2r.
Herman,
Gerald.
"How
to
Make
(Frcnch)
Composi-
tion Challengingand
Productive," The French Review60
(1986):56-6a.
Krashen, Stephen. Principles and
Practice
n Second
Language cquisilion. New York: Pergamon Press,1982.
Witing Research, Theory and
Applico-
frons.Oford: Pergamon nstitute of
English, 1984.
Lalande,
John
F.
"Reducing
Composition
Errors:
An
Experiment."
Modem Language
oumal
66
(1982):
1a0-
49 .
Magnan,
Sally Sieloff.
'Teaching
and
Testing Profi-
ciency in Writing
Skills to
Transcend
the
Second-Lan-
guage
Classroom.' ProJicienqt,Cuniculum,
Afticulstiotr:
TheTies
That Bind. Ed. Alice
C.
Omaggio.
Middlebury,
VT:
Northeast
Conference,
1985,
1rW-%.
Omaggio,Ali
cr C.
Teachin Lan
gu
a
ge
n Co ntext
P o-
liciency-Oiented
Instruction
Boston: Heinle
&
Heinle,
1986.
Osterholm,Katherine
K
"Writing
in
the
Native Lan-
guage."
Listening Reading
and
Witing Analysis ortd
Application.
Ed. Barbara H. Wing. Middlebury, VT:
Northeast
Conference,
r9%. Ll7
-43.
Perkins,
Kyle.
"On
the Use of
Composition
Scoring
Techniques,ObjectiveMeasures, and Objective Tests o
Evaluate
ESL
Writing Ability." TESOL
Quarterly
L7
(1983):65r-7L.
Raimes, Ann.
Techniques
n
Teaching Witing.
New
York
Oxford,
1983.
Rohman,
G.
"Pre-Writing:
The
Stage of
Discovery
n
the Writing
Process.n
College Composition
and
Cont-
munication
16
(1%5):
1M-12.
Semke,
Harriet D.
"Effects
of the
Red Pen.n Foreign
Languoge
Annals 17
(198a):
195-202.
Staton, Jana.
"Dialogue
Journals:
A New
Tool for
Teaching." ERIC
CLL NewsBulletin 6,
2
(1983).
Zamel,
Vivian.
"The
Composing
Processes of
Ad-
vanced ESL
Students:Six
Case
Studies.'
TESOL
Quar-
terly
17
(1983).
"Responding
to Student
Writing.' TESOL
Quanerly
19
(1985):
9-101.
A
Universidad
l//*\rl^\ ,
/dt/*.BfrN\]N Oe
t s E | N t n
7{tl-6t;r:lflI
SW"^-/S
Costa
Rica
'Jly'rr
l
(D'
san Jose
SUMMER
1992
from
sl,685
INCLUDES
.
Round
rip
airfarc
.
Roomand
wo mcalsdaily
with
family.
.
5 Credits.
.
Ficld
trips
to muscums,
markets,
national
parks,volcanos.
.
4 Wccks
ntcnsiveCourscs
For high school,
undcrgraduatc
or
graduatc tudcntsand tcachcrs.
For morc
information
contact:
Students
Accommodations
P.O.
Box 623'
Griffith,
IN 46319
Attentionaux
Professeurs
de rangais
lXcouvrcz
la l.ouisiane
francophone!
Du matdriel audio,
visuel,
et 6crit
est
disponsible
aux enseigpants
qui
s'int6res-
sent i la r6gion "Acadianq" e h culture
cadienne
("Cajuo"),
et
au
renouveau
du
frangais
en
l-ouisiane.
Contactez
Rhonda Case
Scver:n,
The
Shipley
School,
t14
Yarrow Street
Bryn
Mawr,
PA
19010 si
vous
d6sirez
recevoir
une description
d€taill6e
et
le
prix du ma-
t€riel
ddvelop&
gAce i
une
bourse
de
la
Fondation
Rockefeller.
Winter 1992
NORTHEASTConference 5
