WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
-
Upload
abdul-halim-abdul-aziz -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of 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
k
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected] -
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
2/37
APPROACHESTOTEACHINGEFL/ESL
WRITING
2
The Product
Approach
The Process
Approach
The Genre/ Social
Approach
^ Todays lecture ^
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
9/37
ARGUMENTSAGAINSTUSINGTHE
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
10/37
ARGUMENTSAGAINSTUSINGTHE
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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 -
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
18/37
THECOMPONENTSOFTHE PROCESS
APPROACH
Susser (1994) argues that process writing
pedagogy has 2 components:
awareness intervention
18
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
27/37
ARGUMENTSAGAINSTTHE PROCESS
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
28/37
ARGUMENTSAGAINSTTHE PROCESS
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
29/37
ARGUMENTSAGAINSTTHE PROCESS
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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
-
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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 -
7/29/2019 WRITING 1 Approaches to the Teaching of Writing 12.JR - Copy (2)
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