Approaches to Teaching Writing

Approaches to Teaching Writing

 Product Vs Process approaches

Nunan (1999) clearly states how very different this 'process' approach is from the traditional product-oriented approach(8). Whereas the product approach focuses on writing tasks in which the learner imitates, copies and transforms teacher supplied models, the process approach focuses on the steps involved in creating a piece of work(9). The primary goal of product writing is an error-free coherent text. Process writing allows for the fact that no text can be perfect, but that a writer will get closer to perfection by producing, reflecting on, discussing and reworking successive drafts of a text(10).

Jordan (1997) acknowledges that process writing evolved as a reaction to the product approach, in that it met the need to match the writing processes inherent in writing in one's mother tongue(11) , and consequently allow learners to express themselves better as individuals. This is not to say, however, that the product approach no longer exists, nor that it has no practical applications. Indeed, the process approach can still contain elements of product-based writing. Nunan (1999) reaffirms this by stating that there is no reason why a writing program should not contain elements of both approaches(12) . With this in mind, each of the aforementioned stages will now be considered.

The product-oriented approach to the teaching of writing emphasizes mechanical

aspects of writing, such as focusing on grammatical and syntactical structures and imitating models. This approach is primarily concerned with "correctness" and form of the final product. Moreover, this approach fails to recognize that people write for an audience and for a purpose and that ideas are created and formulated during the process of writing. However, the process-oriented approach emphasizes that writing itself is a developmental process that creates self-discovery and meaning. While the mechanical aspects of writing are important they should not interfere with the composing process. This composing process requires much revision and rewriting. The teacher intervenes and guides students during the composing process but initially does not emphasize "correctness" and the final product; the emphasizes on "correctness" and the final product comes only toward the very end of the

writing process (and, often, a major concern with "correctness" is put off until towards the middle or even end of the writing course). Instead of worrying about form, students concentrate on conveying a written message. Hence the product of writing will improve with the discovery involved in composing.

2.2 Prewriting

In process writing, the first thing that a writer needs to do is to find something to write about. In language classrooms this issue is often solved by the teacher, who provides the subject matter. When a subject is chosen, the audience, purpose and tone of the writing need to be considered(1) . The next stage is to employ strategies that will help the learner to explore the topic. Strategies such as brainstorming, clustering and freewriting enable the writer to expand a narrow topic or narrow a broad one, (2) . This differs from product writing, in which the audience is rarely considered,

2.3 Writing Production

Process writing production is merely a 'prototype' stage, which will involve aspects such as free-writing and peer feedback. At this stage the emphasis is on content and organisation. In contrast, the product approach employs genre based writing tasks based on previously modeled structures, and the focus is again on accuracy.

2.4 Revising

Revision is not something that clearly exists in product writing, as the assumption is that the provided model has been followed. Process writing, in contrast, requires that a degree of analysis be undertaken. Revision would usually be based on the feedback given by peers.

2.5 Teacher Evaluation

feedback is an essential part of any language course that involves a writing element(3) . Feedback falls into two categories: feedback on form and feedback on content. Content feedback relates to product writing, and generally consists of the indication of grammatical errors. Feedback on form, however, focuses on the communicative effectiveness of the piece.

3. Implications for Teaching

Some of the difficulties that are associated with writing in language classes stem from the nature of writing itself. According to Hadfield (1990), Writing can be considered to be an 'artificial' activity when compared to speaking, in that everyone learns to speak and to listen, whereas far fewer people develop literacy, i.e. are able to read and write(1) . Consequently, writing should be something that is nurtured and developed in the language classroom, resulting in the difficulties experienced by learners being comprehended and dealt with. I have tried to achieve this by understanding the problems that learners experience and employing techniques to overcome them badly.

Teaching writing must involve both process and product. Teachers should first focus

on the organization of the writing. As the next step, they should deal with grammatical problems seen in writing. When students are not good at organizing their ideas, the teacher should deal with this before moving on to grammatical mistakes (presumably, later in the term). This is for several reasons, among them that better organization often leads to the reduction of other errors and, of course, the clear expression of ideas is the major point of writing.

6. Approaches and Methods

Massi (2001) states that writing is by nature an interactive process because it evolves out of the symbolic interplay between writer, text and reader(1) . Consequently, by making conditions more authentic than the ones in traditional classroom tasks, an awareness of audience, purpose and intentionality is reinforced. Tribble (1996) develops this idea by stating that assigning tasks that pose real problems to the learner will keep their motivation high and create a sense of achievement (2). I have found this to be true in my own experiences, and that by engaging learners in something that i) they are interested in, and ii) they can give positive input to, can create a truly active and interactive writing environment. In the following sections I will discuss some of the activities I use in class.

6.1 Prewriting                                                                              

• Group brainstorming on a given topic (students work cooperatively and write down all the ideas that come to mind in connection with a topic).

I often employ brainstorming, as I find that the class as a whole generates more ideas than an individual could manage alone (also, their collective schemata is greater than the individual's).

• Specification of an audience and purpose of a text by making the situation 'real'.

Appendix 1 shows an example of an assignment that I gave to a group of learners. The task was to write a film review and submit it to the website www.imdb.com. The learners responded to this real audience with enthusiasm, and embraced the task as it had a genuine purpose.

• Group research on a writing topic.

Appendix 2 shows an extract from Compton's Encylopedia. I have found that introducing students to multimedia has been an effective way to engage them in the research process. The appendix shows the background research relating to an art essay.

6.2 Writing Production

• Collaborative writing (i.e. Students work together to write a previously agreed text).

I find that asking students to produce a text in collaboration can be quite motivating. It enables the stronger students to help the weaker ones. I usually ask groups to prepare and OHP, so that their text can be seen by other groups.

• Whole class text construction, composing on the blackboard and parallel writing.

These techniques have their foundation in product writing but are effective in providing a framework for lower level students to work from. These techniques can develop a sense of collective achievement, while eliminating the fear of being left to 'go it alone', completely unguided.

• Students consult each other and co-construct texts.

During such an activity I move around listening to their comments, providing feedback or answering questions on structure, lexical items, the validity of an argument, the order of presentation of the information, etc. Therefore, I can keep track of their progress and work out a record of most frequent questions, doubts and inaccuracies for a future 'error analysis' session.

6.3 Revision

• Peer-editing. Students exchange their first drafts of a text and point out changes which are needed to help the reader (e.g. better organization, paragraph divisions, sentence variety, vocabulary choice). They can also act as each other's editors spotting vocabulary repetitions, grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, etc).

Peer editing is a useful tool for any level of learner, although its specific application can vary from level to level. For example, at lower levels I would generally use this to highlight the grammatical problems, whereas for higher levels this would be used to assess how effectively an essay question has been answered.

• Whole class discussion of how a particular text might need adjustment according to the audience it is addressed to.

One technique I regularly employ is to ask my students to imagine that I am a small child, and to explain what they consider to be a straightforward topic in words that a child would understand. I then ask them to explain the same topic to me, only this time they imagine I am a university professor, and ask them to adjust their language appropriately.

6.4 Evaluation

·         Negotiated feedback in which the learner decides the focus of the given evaluation.

Through experience I've found that evaluation is most useful if it is given on the basis of what the learner has asked for. In my experience, learners still favor comments on the grammatical and lexical correctness of their work(3) . In order to make this n interactive activity, I use an error correction code, which serves to highlight the error but still requires the learner to reflect on what the error actually is.

7. Conclusion

Writing can escape from its image as a labourious activity if process writing techniques are adopted in the language classroom. Process writing not only alleviates most of the problems associated with this skill, it also turns the writing class into a stimulating and communicative experience. Furthermore, using this approach at lower levels is not only feasible, but will also provide a launch pad for the language learner to become an accomplished writer in English.