WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)

7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)

1/37

APPROACHES TO THE

TEACHING OF WRITING INEFL & ESL

LG488

Lecture 1 / Week 2

Joy Robbins

[email protected]

k
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/37

APPROACHESTOTEACHINGEFL/ESL

WRITING

2

The Product

Approach

The Process

Approach

The Genre/ Social

Approach

^ Todays lecture ^


3/37

THE PRODUCT APPROACH The Product Approach dominated the teaching of writing in ELT until

the 1980s

It involves using model sentences or texts which the students copy

Normally each model text contains lots of examples of a specific

type of language the teacher wants the students to focus on, e.g.cohesive devices (e.g. however, therefore, nevertheless, etc.), thepast simple

The students read the model sentence or text, and do exerciseswhich focus on the language in the model text (e.g. the past simple)

Finally, the students might be asked to transform a text which is inthe present simple into the past simple. The model text will helpthem do this

3


4/37

THE PRODUCT APPROACH (2)

The focus is obviously on grammatical accuracy.This reflects the preoccupation of ELT methodology

at the timethe Audiolingual Method was in fashion

Lets look at an example of the Product

Approach

4


5/37

THE PRODUCT APPROACH:

ANEXAMPLE

Look at the handout of a Product Approach lessonand answer the following:

What kinds of things does a Product Approach

emphasize? (e.g. grammatical accuracy)

As a teacher, would you be comfortable with using thislesson plan? Why (not)?

If you were asked to teach this lesson, how would you

adapt the plan I gave you? Why?

Would your learners be comfortable? Why (not)? Whatdo you think they would particularly like/dislike about this

lesson?

5


6/37

ARGUMENTSFORANDAGAINSTTHE

PRODUCT APPROACH

What, in your view, are the strengths and

weaknesses of the Product Approach?

Do you/Would you consider using the ProductApproach to teach writing?

If youre a practising teacher, do you think students

in your context would like learning how to write viathe Product Approach? Why (not)?

6


7/37

ARGUMENTSINFAVOUROFTHE PRODUCT

APPROACH

Model texts give students confidence and security,something they can use as the basis for their own

writing

The approach (appears) to get results: using model

texts for students to copy should guarantee studentsproduce work with fewer grammatical mistakes very

quickly

Highly specific & focused writing practice: a good way of

getting the students to focus on using a specific piece of

grammar in their own writing

(Contrast the Write about what you did last weekend

approach, where theres no guarantee that students will

focus on the piece of grammar you want them to) 7


8/37

ARGUMENTSAGAINSTUSINGTHE

PRODUCT APPROACH

Lack of creativity and personalization? (The student haslittle say in what they write and how they write it)

Repetitive?

Unrealistic? (students are obviously not writing for apurpose, but writing to practice a grammar point)

Boring & demotivating?

Too prescriptive? (The model-based approach can beseen as transmitting the message to the student thatthere is only 1 wayto write correctly. In reality, ofcourse, there are many different ways of writing well)

8


9/37


PRODUCT APPROACH (2)

Particularly with writing exercises that focus on sentencesrather than on texts, which involve, say, getting learners touse cohesive devices to join up 2 sentences, there is thedanger, as Ivani (2004: 227) says, that students will believethat writing is a unitary, context-free activity, in which thesame patterns and rules apply to all writing, independent oftext type. In other words, there is a danger that students willbelieve that words like thereforeand neverthelessareappropriate in even the most informal types of writing, whenthe fact is that different types of writing use different typesof language

So Ivani (2004) criticizes the product approach for beingconcerned only with correctness of spelling, grammar, etc,and ignoring context

9


10/37


PRODUCT APPROACH (3)

One of the main criticisms of the approach is that it

doesnt give students practice writing because it

does not reflect what real writers do in realsituations

10


11/37

THE PROCESS APPROACH

The Process Approach aimed to reflect what real

writers did in real situations (unlike the Product

Approach we have just discussed)

11


12/37

THE PROCESS APPROACH

The Process Approach overtook the ProductApproach as the dominant writing methodology inthe 1980s in Britain & North America

Books like Tricia Hedges Writing(1988) and Ron

White & Valerie Arndts Process Writing(1991)helped ensure the Process methodology becamewell known amongst language teachers

The approach began to be critiqued in the 1990sand this criticism continues today

However, the Process methodology continues to bepopular

12


13/37

PROCESS APPROACH RESEARCHERS:

2 MAINSCHOOLS

2 types of researcher favour the Process Approach:expressivistsand cognitivists(Faigley, 1986)

The expressivists (e.g. Elbow 1973, 1981; Macrorie1984; Murray 1985) argued that writing was creative

and personal. They wanted to get students to writeabout what was important to them. Fluency rather thangrammatical accuracy was the important thing

However, many of the expressivists were more concernedwith teaching writing to L1 rather than L2 speakers (i.e.teaching native speakers of American English how to write

assignments for their courses at American universities)

The cognitivists had more of an influence on processwriting for non-native speakers

13


14/37

THE COGNITIVISTS & THE PROCESS

APPROACH

The cognitivists (e.g. Flower & Hayes 1981a;

Hairston 1982; Zamel 1983) tried to find out how

real writers composed in real situations

The Product Approach had given students the

impression that the composing process was linear.

Students planned first, then wrote like this:

planning writing

However, the cognitivists found out that real writersdidnt write like this at all

14


15/37

WHATDOREALWRITERSDO?

[Writing] is messy, recursive, convoluted, and

uneven. Writers write, plan, revise, anticipate, and

review throughout the writing process, moving back

and forth among the different operations involved in

writing without any apparent plan. (Hairston 1982:85)

15


16/37

WHATDOREALWRITERSDO? (2)

Two of the best-known researchers who were

among the first to research how writers actually

wrote were Flower & Hayes (e.g. 1981a). They got

writers to verbalize their thoughts while they were

writing/thinking (composing) and recorded these.These transcripts shed light on the writing

process

16


17/37

WHATDOREALWRITERSDO? (3)

Good writers organize, plan, and re-writethroughoutthe writing process, changing thingslots of times if necessary, and writing multiple drafts

Good writers may rehearse or discuss what theywant to write before they actually do it

Good writers read their writing carefully, trying toimagine how clear their ideas are to a reader. Ifsomething isnt clear, they change it

The motto of the Process Approach is: Writing isrewriting

You can read more about the Product and ProcessApproaches in The sample approach (Harwood,2000/2002)http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~nharwood/Sample%20Approach.PDF

17
http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~nharwood/Sample%20Approach.PDFhttp://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~nharwood/Sample%20Approach.PDFhttp://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~nharwood/Sample%20Approach.PDFhttp://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~nharwood/Sample%20Approach.PDF


18/37

THECOMPONENTSOFTHE PROCESS

APPROACH

Susser (1994) argues that process writing

pedagogy has 2 components:

awareness intervention

18


19/37

AWARENESS

students should become aware that

writing is by nature a process, so that even

simple messagesare the result of a writingprocess that includes choosing vocabulary,

considering audience, and judging format.

(Susser 1994: 35)

19


20/37

INTERVENTION

Flower & Hayes (1981b) urge teachers to

intervene at points in the writing process that

could do writers the most goodas they areactually engaged in the act of writing. Thus,

teachers could help writers to write, not just learn torepair the damage. (p.55)

So teachers help students before and while writing,not just afterwards(when they mark it)

20


21/37

TEACHINGWITHA PROCESS

APPROACH

Ferris & Hedgcock (1998) summarize a typicalProcess Approach writing lesson:

Hallmarks of the cognitivist approach to processwriting pedagogy include invention and prewriting

tasks, drafting multiple versions of writingassignments, abundant text-level (as opposed tosentence-level) revision, collaborative writing,feedback sessions, and the postponement ofediting until the end of a composing cycle. Thus,

cognitivist rhetoricians focus principally ondeveloping writers mental processes, particularlystrategies used to create and revise text on theirown (p.4)

21


22/37

THE PROCESS APPROACH:

ANEXAMPLE

Look at the handout of a Process Approach lesson(which would stretch over several classes) and

answer the following:

What kinds of things does a Process Approachemphasize which a Product Approach may not? (e.g.a Process Approach emphasizes collaboration)

As a teacher, would you be comfortable with usingthis lesson plan? Why (not)?

If you were asked to teach this lesson, how would you

adapt the plan I gave you? Why? Would your learners be comfortable? Why (not)?

What do you think they would particularly like/dislikeabout this lesson?

22


23/37

ARGUMENTSFORANDAGAINSTTHE

PROCESS APPROACH

What, in your view, are the strengths and

weaknesses of the Process Approach?

Do you/Would you consider using the ProcessApproach to teach writing?

If youre a practising teacher, do you think students

in your context would like learning how to write viathe Process Approach? Why (not)?

23


24/37

ARGUMENTSINFAVOUROFTHE PROCESS

APPROACH

The emphasis on multiple drafting helps even the

weakest students write more confidently, knowing

that their 1stdrafts wont be assessed

The Process Approach means that writing does not

have to be a solitary, silent activity. Students can

interact and plan their writing together

The Process Approach is therefore more suitable

than the Product Approach for those students with

extroverted learning styles, those who like to learnby collaborating with others (see Oxford 2001)

24


25/37

ARGUMENTSINFAVOUROFTHE PROCESS

APPROACH (2)

The fact that teachers can focus on prewriting,

while-writing and post-drafting/editing activities

means that the teaching of writing becomes more

varied. Theres far more scope for far more types of

activities, which should lead to greater motivationand interest

25


26/37

ARGUMENTSAGAINSTTHE PROCESS

APPROACH

Process Approach pedagogy at its most extremeperhaps pays less attention to grammaticalaccuracy than it should

Process Approach pedagogy at its most extremeperhaps pays less attention to showing studentswhat good writing looks like than it shouldtheemphasis is on writing as a continuing processrather than as a finished product

26


27/37


APPROACH (2)

The highly collaborative emphasis of the Process

Approach (e.g. getting students to critique their

colleagues work) may not work as well with

students from non-western cultures (cf. Atkinson

2003; Casanave 2003)

Although the Process Approach may teach students

what good writers do, perhaps the approach is less

suited to exam writing, where students are working

under time constraints, and only have a limitedamount of choice regarding what they write about

27


28/37


APPROACH (3)

The Process Approach may not mirror the kind ofteaching that goes on in non-western contexts.Casanaves (2003) description of the Japanesecontext is a good example:

Most of the Japanese teachers of high schoolEnglish that I work with are still required to teachgrammar and translation. If students and teachershave time, they go through multiple iterations ofsome kinds of writing, particularly at the university

level, but often they do not. In both L1 and L2,many Japanese students do not revise, do notpeer-read, do not get substantive feedback, andmay not see their written work againonce it hasbeen turned in. (p.86)

28


29/37


APPROACH (4)

In other words, we could argue that however soundthe Process Approach is, if teacher trainees are notallowed to use Process pedagogy in theirclassrooms, it may not be very practical:

process-oriented research and instruction incomposition studies may have been talked aboutmore than practiced. This has certainly been thecase outside the communities of Western

scholarship in L1 and L2 writing such as Japan.(Casanave 2003: 98)

29


30/37

ADAPTINGTHE PROCESS APPROACH

TOFITINWITHLOCALTEACHING

CONDITIONS (1)

However, Tsuis (1996) account of how a

Hong Kong ESL teacher started to use theProcess Approach in her classroom

suggests the approach can be adapted so

that it works in contexts where the Product

Approachis normally used

30

ADAPTING THE PROCESS APPROACH


31/37

ADAPTINGTHE PROCESS APPROACH

TOFITINWITHLOCALTEACHING

CONDITIONS (2)

Tsui (1996) talks about how Julie, the Hong

Kong teacher, faced two problems when she

changed to the Process Approach:

(1) it took much longer to complete a

writing task using the process approach;

and

(2) her students were making far moregrammatical mistakes than before (pp.110-

11)31

ADAPTING THE PROCESS APPROACH


32/37

ADAPTINGTHE PROCESS APPROACHTOFITINWITHLOCALTEACHING

CONDITIONS (3)So Julie made changes, retain[ing] the

essential elements of process writing but[reducing] the amount of time needed tocomplete one writing task (p.112), by reducing

the number of drafts students were asked todo

She also reintroduced some ProductApproach tasks, ensuring students continued

to focus on grammatical accuracy more someof the time

So in the end, she taught writing by usingBOTH Product and Process approaches 32


33/37

YOUROWNWRITINGPEDAGOGY

Which of the 2 writing pedagogies which wevelooked at todayProduct and Processis closestto the way you teach writing? Why?

Were there any ideas about teaching writing wevelooked at today that are new to you? If so, are thereany youd consider using in class? Were there anyideas you strongly disagree with? If so, why do you

feel so strongly? Do you think its possible to combine ideas from the

2 approaches, to produce a product-processpedagogy? If so, how would you do it? 33


34/37

WRITINGPEDAGOGYNOW

Although the Process Approach is more recent thanthe Product Approach, many teachers/textbookwriters combine elements of Product and Processto teach writing (e.g. getting students to brainstorm

ideas = Process; giving students model texts tohelp them with their writing = Product)

Some researchers are currently talking about apost-process era (e.g. Atkinson 2003). Manyresearchers these days favour a Genre orSocial

approach to teaching writing (e.g. Hyland 2003),which well talk about next week

34


35/37

REFERENCESAtkinson D (2003) L2 writing in the post-process era: introduction. Journal of

Second Language Writing12: 3-15.

Casanave CP (2003) Looking ahead to more sociopolitically-oriented case studyresearch in L2 writing scholarship (But should it be called post-process?).Journal of Second Language Writing12: 85-102.

Elbow P (1973) Writing Without Teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.

Elbow P (1981) Writing with Power: Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process.New York: Oxford University Press.

Faigley L (1986) Competing theories of process: a critique and a proposal. CollegeEnglish48: 527-42.

Ferris D (2003) Responding to writing. In B Kroll (ed.), Exploring the Dynamics ofSecond Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.119-140.

Ferris D & Hedgcock JS (1998) Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process,and Practice. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Flower L & Hayes JR (1981a) A cognitive process theory of writing. CollegeComposition & Communication32: 365-387.

Flower L & Hayes JR (1981b) Plans that guide the composing process. In C.H.

Frederiksen & J.F. Dominic (eds.), Writing: The Nature, Development, andTeaching of Written Communication Vol 2. Writing: Process, Development andCommunication. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.39-58.

Hairston M (1982) The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in theteaching of writing. College Composition and Communication33(1): 76-88.

35


36/37

REFERENCES (2)Harwood N (2000/2002) The sample approach: teaching writing with Cambridge

examination classes. Available at http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~nharwood

Hedge T (1988) Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hyland K (2003) Genre-based pedagogies: a social response to process. Journal ofSecond Language Writing12: 17-29.

Ivani R (2004) Discourses of writing and learning to write. Language & Education18(3): 220-245.

Macrorie K (1984) Writing to be Read(3rd ed.). Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook Heinemann.

Murray DM (1985) A Writer Teaches Writing(2nd ed.) Boston: Houghton Miffin.Oxford RL (2001) Language learning strategies. In R Carter & D Nunan (eds.), The

Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, pp.166-172.

Susser, B. (1994) Process approaches in ESL/EFL writing instruction. Journal ofSecond Language Writing3(1): 31-47.

Tsui, A.B.M. (1996) Learning how to teach ESL writing. In D. Freeman & J.C. Richards

(eds.), Teacher Learning in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, pp.97-119.

White RV & Arndt V (1991) Process Writing. Harlow: Longman.

Zamel V (1983) The composing processes of advanced ESL students: six case studies.TESOL Quarterly17: 165-187.

36
http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~nharwoodhttp://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~nharwood


37/37

THISWEEKSREADING

Ivani, R. (2004) Discourses of writing and learningto write. Language & Education18(3): 220-245.[XD Collection: XD8663]

Raimes, A. (1991) Out of the woods: emergingtraditions in the teaching of writing. TESOLQuarterly25(3): 407-430.

Tsui, A.B.M. (1996) Learning how to teach ESLwriting. In D. Freeman & J.C. Richards (eds.),Teacher Learning in Language Teaching.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.97-119. [Short Loan]

37

Documents

WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)