Upload
fayrouz-gameel
View
19
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Delta2 LSA 4 Background
Citation preview
[Type the company name]
Process Writing Approach for Lower-Level Learners
LSA 4: Language Skills: Writing
[Pick the date]
Table of Contents1. Introduction:.................................................................................................................................3
2. Analysis:........................................................................................................................................4
2.1. Pre-writing/ Planning :..........................................................................................................7
2.1.1. Issues with pre-writing:.................................................................................................9
2.1.2. Suggestions for teaching:............................................................................................10
2.2. Drafting:..............................................................................................................................12
2.2.1. Issues with drafting :...................................................................................................13
2.2.2. Suggestions for teaching:............................................................................................13
2.3. Editing:................................................................................................................................14
2.3.1. Issues with editing :.....................................................................................................15
2.3.2. Suggestions for teaching:............................................................................................16
Bibliography:.......................................................................................................................................18
Appendix 1:.........................................................................................................................................19
Appendix 2..........................................................................................................................................20
Appendix 3:.........................................................................................................................................21
Appendix 4:.........................................................................................................................................22
2
1. Introduction:
“[S]ometimes, over the years, it has seemed that writing has been seen as only
a support system for learning grammar and vocabulary” (Harmer 2004, v). In
my experience in KSA, on the one hand writing is used as a tool to learn
grammar and vocabulary. On the other hand, they study writing with a lot of
focus on writing exams. Sometimes, students are given five or six written
paragraphs to memorize and write one of them in the final exam. Their ability
to plan and draft before writing is not addressed or even encouraged. This
attitude towards writing “product-focus approach” made the final piece the
main target and not the process itself (the process which leads to the final
product) (Harmer 2004).
In the last few years, writing has become an essential skill in EFL classes.
Methodologists presented different methods of teaching writing, and this
highlights teaching writing as a skill in its own right (Harmer 2004). (Thornbury
2006) presented several approaches of teaching writing like:
a) Language based approach which focuses more on stricter standards of
accuracy.
3
b) text-based approach which finds support in discourse analysis like a top-
down view.
c) Product approach which exclusively focuses on producing a text as a final
product.
d) Process approach which focuses more on the creative process which ends
by text creation.
For this essay, I decided to focus on the process writing approach which
ensures a more organic sequence for classroom activities.
A research conducted by the Students Support Unit in Taibah University, KSA
(2010), revealed that students with weak writing abilities in their L1 has weak
writing in L2 because they didn’t practice writing skills in their L1. Therefore, it
is necessary to train lower level learners on different stages involved in
process writing.
2. Analysis:To highlight the relationship between the process writing and the
communicative approach, Thornbury noted that “each has drawn support
from the other” (Thornbury 2006, 249). From a communicative point of view,
process writing is not just conveying a message in its written form. Process
4
writing is an interactive communication between the writer and the reader for
a particular purpose, as noted by (Thornbury 2006) that writing purpose could
be to relay personal news or to complain about being overcharged in a hotel.
Hedge provided a deeper definition of process writing saying "The process
view of writing sees it as thinking, as discovery. Writing is the result of
employing strategies to manage the composing process, which is one of
gradually developing the text" (Hedge 2000, 301). The relationship between
thinking and writing is very obvious here and strengthens the role of strategies
in developing the text (final product). Choosing this approach for lower level
learners is very helpful, as it builds the skills to produce a text more than just
imitating other pedagogical texts (modified to suite learners). We might
choose this sequence to present the process writing stages (sub-skills)
(Harmer 2004):
Planning Drafting editing final draft
Since the writing process is not linear, as shown above, it is “rather recursive.
This means writers plan, draft, and edit but then often re-plan, re-draft and re-
edit" (Harmer 2004, 5). Although the linear process seems more suitable for
lower-level learners, it does not always work the same way with different
5
levels. The Recursive nature of process writing is closer to reality than the
linear one, as writing in reality involves a cyclical mechanism. In other words,
while editing, students might need to get back to planning stage to delete
some unnecessary (or irrelevant) ideas, and this will lead to re-drafting and re-
editing. The progress wheel below (Harmer 2004) illustrated the ideas of
process writing as a recursive process. The arrows refer to the possibilities of
moving between stages:
Adopted from Harmer, 2004.
6
2.1. Pre-writing/ Planning :This is the first stage in process writing and the most important stage for lower
level learners. This stage involves task presentation, ideas collection
(brainstorming), deciding on topic and organizing ideas.
“Brainstorming is a way to get ‘ideas creation engine’ running “(Scrivener
1994, 197). Brainstorming is the most important part at the pre-writing stage
in which ideas are called out; it gives learners the chance to collect as much
ideas as possible about the topic. Students are only opening their mind and let
ideas pour out. At this stage learners think about what they are going to write
before actual writing (Hedge, 2000). For lower level learners, brainstorming is
a very essential pre-writing stage, as thinking about the topic before writing
raises questions in their heads, and calls out related vocabulary (activating
schemata). Also, brainstorming in groups helps lower level learners if their
experience or ideas are limited. My Saudi students used to write without
brainstorming. They were not able to extend their ideas to write a complete
paragraph. Brainstorming raised their abilities to call out more and more
relevant ideas. I have noticed that using mind maps is a very effective
brainstorming activity (see appendix 1).
7
Harmer (2004) emphasizes that while planning, learners should consider three
elements: the purpose, the audience and content structure.
For lower level learners it very essential to understand that any written work is
usually done for a purpose and for a particular audience. For example, writing
about his/her hometown could be to inform his/her friends about where
he/she comes from, and this will not be like writing a report to his/her
manager, as purpose and audience are different here. The students need to
keep the goal in mind as well as information suitability which means the way it
is expressed to the person who will receive it.
Also, deciding on the purpose of writing, who is going to read it and what to
include in and exclude from the content, helps students shape up their piece
in a rhetorical structure (genre) and makes further decisions on the choice of
vocabulary within this genre (Register) (Thornbury 2006). For lower level
learners, it is helpful to practice deciding on genre and register (Tribble 1996).
I have noticed that if they don’t have enough knowledge about the genres,
students won’t be able to create a good text. For example, for descriptive
texts, lower-level students need to use more adjectives and be aware of
adjective-noun and noun-noun collocations.
8
2.1.1. Issues with pre-writing:
2.1.1.1. Issue One. Lower level learners’ linguistic abilities:
Tribble (1996) referred to four types of knowledge that students needs to be
able to write: content, context, writing process and language system. In case
of lower level learners, the knowledge about language systems poses a hurdle
while generating ideas. In my experience in Saudi Arabia, lower level learners
are usually able to generate some ideas (in groups), but their limited lexis and
grammatical structure does not allow them to communicate these ideas in
written English.
2.1.1.2. Issue Two. Genre:
This is a feature of process writing that limits lower level learners if they are
unfamiliar with genre and its norms, and is not addressed in this approach.
Knowledge of genre is crucial to this pre-writing stage and if knowledge is
limited then this can hinder the writer (Tribble.1996). Simply producing a text
and looking at its conventions may not be enough for lower level learners to
deduce or become fully aware of different genres. Harmer (2004) suggests
9
that it can be integrated into the pre-writing, planning stage of the process
approach.
2.1.2. Suggestions for teaching:
2.1.2.1. For Issue One: Lower level learners’ linguistic abilities:
For this issue, I would suggest that the techniques that teacher uses for
generating-ideas should encourage collaborative work (e.g. mind maps (see
appendix 1). Techniques for this stage described by (Harmer.2004, 87) are very
practical, too. He suggests using "the buzz group" and "Individuals, pairs and
groups". I personally used "the buzz group" and it has helped my recent lower
level learners. In this technique, learners work in groups and quickly come up
with ideas. At this stage teacher’s role is to assist students and answer their
questions. The teacher has to try to reformulate what learners want to say in
order to facilitate communicating ideas.
Evaluation:
Working collaboratively at this stage reduces students’ anxiety and raises their
confidence; especially with writing which most of students find difficult.
Therefore students can use their skills, experience and strengths as the basis
10
for further instructions (Richards J. 1990, 111). This enhances their autonomy
and creativity through collaborative work.
2.1.2.2. For Issue Two: Genre:
(Harmer 2004, 29) suggests that learners should be exposed to different
genres. Examples should be given to them so they become familiar with
different genres (e.g. formal letters, emails, newspapers and post cards). In my
teaching experience, I tried exposing my lower-level learners to different
genres, and students were very curious to know more about their
conventions. They were able to write post cards, short letters and e-mails. In
this situation, Learners can work in groups. Teacher encourages group
discussion and s/he has to monitor the groups to ensure participation and
provides clues.
I would also suggest that for lower level learners a teacher should select the
genres that learners are familiar with. Then, at the beginning of the course,
teacher might include some questions about genres to the needs analysis
questionnaire to find out what genres learners already know. And then there
might be a discussion on the familiar genres to discover how similar these
genres to genres in learners' L1.
11
Evaluation:
Though genre is not addressed in process writing approach, it is very helpful
for students to be aware of different genres and their conversions. It helps
them to decide on some text features (e.g. vocabulary).
2.2. Drafting:
Drafting involves getting ideas onto paper in rough form (Richards J., 1990).
This stage comes after brainstorming and planning when students start to put
their thoughts on paper. Students can move back to their planning and change
some of their thoughts and ideas. At this stage students are asked not to
worry about the text organization or language accuracy, as they will tackle
these issues later on. This stage is very crucial in process writing as it
resembles the first encounter between students and writing itself. Also, at this
stage, students work individually to put their thoughts on paper. Group writing
could be a good idea as noted by (Harmer 2004), but I’d go for individual
writing with lower level learners. So, this increases their independence;
especially after planning in groups.
12
2.2.1. Issues with drafting:
2.2.1.1. Issue One: Shifting from group planning to individual drafting:
In my experience, lower level students get less confident when they are asked
to draft their thoughts individually. During planning, they work in groups and
this encourages and motivates them, but working individually requires more
confidence. Students probably get confused at this stage, either because they
didn’t plan well, or they were passive during planning.
2.2.2. Suggestions for teaching:
2.2.2.1. For Issue One: Shifting from group planning to individual drafting:
Drafting stage is always supported by an effective pre-writing/ planning stage,
but lower level learners may still need assistance and guidance. In my
experience, I didn’t worry much about this need of assistance, as this need
and reliance is reduced over time when the learners are exposed to the
process and their awareness is raised. Then, they become able to recognize
the different stages. This problem appears only when learners are first
exposed to this process, as they are not able to correlate the stages to their L1
writing, and monitoring and assisting them could help here.
13
Also, I suggest that during planning stage, it is a good idea to identify students’
roles in every group. For example I ask my students to form groups of four,
and I choose those four students according to their levels (mixed abilities). In
each group there are a writer, a speaker, a secretary and a time keeper, and I
monitor their work to make sure that everyone is involved.
Evaluation:
When students are involved in planning, this will make drafting easier on
them; especially slow learners in a lower level group.
2.3. Editing:
Editing stage may start when students begin drafting and it involves evaluation
of what have been written and making necessary deletions or additions
(Richards J. 1990). I find this definition suitable for lower level learners, as they
are only supposed to delete or add sentences to their draft which means they
focus on meaning more than grammar and spelling. (Tribble, 1996) defined
this stage as the stage at which students correct linguistic aspects of their
work (e.g. spelling, punctuation and grammar). I think this definition could be
applicable at an advanced editing stage, as students are expected to focus on
14
meaning more than linguistic aspects at this early editing stage. Another
definition by Hedge (2000) identifies this stage where the students look at
content, focuses on ideas and their organization, makes arguments clear and
removes redundant elements but I find this difficult for lower learners to do
independently.
As illustrated in the analysis section that the process writing is a recursive
process, so learners are expected to get back to their ideas and change them
at this stage, too. Therefore, students are expected to do re-planning and re-
re-drafting again here. Also, students can practice peer editing and group
editing which helps students to learn more from each other’s mistakes.
2.3.1. Issues with editing :
2.3.1.1. Issue One: Editing duties:
In my experience, the low level learners don’t know what to do exactly at the
editing stage. They don’t know what to start with (e.g. punctuation, spelling or
grammar), and sometimes they shift from punctuation to spelling as soon as
they see a spelling mistake after the punctuation one. This unplanned editing
causes a lot of confusion for lower level learners and get them lost at this
stage.
15
2.3.2. Suggestions for teaching:
2.3.2.1. For Issue One: Editing duties:
There are some possible activities that get students to practice editing and
develop their abilities to edit. One procedure which I have tried with Saudi
lower level learners is to collect their work and underline mistakes. Then ask
students to figure out mistakes types (spelling, grammar or punctuation) and
correct them. They can correct their own text or other’s texts.
Another possibility is to ask students to edit a pedagogical text (prepared by
the teacher) which includes a number of mistakes and ask them to find them.
Teacher tells students about the number of mistakes they need to find (e.g. 5
spelling, 3 punctuation and 2 wrong verb-forms …etc) (see appendix 2, 3).
I also tried “Editing check list” with my lower level Saudi students. Teacher
provides students with a list to edit their writing according to it (e.g. every
sentence starts with a capital litter and ends with a full stop (yes/no), etc) (see
appendix 4)
16
Evaluation:
Providing students with the number of mistakes helps students focus on know
what are they supposed to do. Also, providing students with a checking list
guides their editing and builds up their ability to track out different types of
mistakes.
17
Bibliography:
Harmer J. (2004). How to teach writing. Pearson Education Limited
Hedge T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford
University Press
Richards J. (1990). The Language Teaching Matrix. Cambridge University Press.
Student Support Unit, Taiba University (2010). The Influence of First Language
on Second Language Writing for Preparatory Year Students. Taiba University
Press, Makkah, KSA.
Scrivener J (2005). Learning Teaching. Macmillan Publisher Limited
Thornbury S. (2006). An A-Z of ELT. Macmillan Publisher Limited
Tribble C. (1996). Writing. Oxford University Press
18
Appendix 1:
19
Appendix 2
* Appendices 3&4 are prepared by me.
20
From : Get Ready to Write Blanchard K. & Root C. (1994)
Appendix 3:
21
Appendix 4:
22