Process Writing and the One-standard Method Myth

Introduction

Writing has been a neglected area of English language teaching for years. As a result, the development of writing skills has been a great concern for applied linguistics (AL) for the past 50 years. If one is to “take seriously the [...] definition of applied linguistics as the attempt to resolve real-world language-based problems” (Grabe and Kaplan, 1996:1), then AL’s interest is not surprising as developing writing abilities falls within this field’s sphere.

Writing assignments, which are generally used to develop writing abilities as part of the language programme in first and second language teaching, have often been relegated to homework (White and Arndt, 1991) and have been treated as sources of language errors, as the focus of attention has mainly been on form. Research has shown that “focusing on language errors in writing improves neither grammatical accuracy nor writing fluency” (White and Arndt, 1991:2). Consequently, it should be remembered that grammar is important as a tool, but not necessarily as an end in itself. In order to improve both language and writing, attention should be paid not only to form, but also to meaning. When an educator has meaning in mind, he/she can approach the teaching of writing as a process, as a form of problem-solving, which is far from being merely learning and applying linguistic or rhetorical rules. Writing involves the interconnection of a variety of processes. These processes interact, and some of them may occur simultaneously influencing one another. According to White and Arndt (1991), the writer generates ideas, then focuses on some of them to give his/her writing a coherent and cohesive structure through planning, drafting, reviewing and evaluating.

Literature Review

“Words- so innocent and powerless as they are, as standing in a dictionary, how potent for good and evil they become in the hands of one who knows how to combine them.” Nathaniel Hawthorne. Retrieved September 6th, 2006, from http://www.quotegarden.com/writing.html. Hedge (1988) very clearly pointed out that writing requires a high degree of organization and accuracy as well as the use of complex grammatical devices for emphasis and focus which, together with careful choices with regard to vocabulary, grammatical patterns and sentence structures, create a style which is appropriate to the subject matter and the eventual audience. Knowing how to combine words —in order to convince, to develop ideas or arguments or even to change a person’s mind— is a powerful tool which can help a person gain control, not only of information but also of people (Tribble, 1996). Nathaniel Hawthorne was not mistaken when drawing people’s attention to the power of words. However, knowing how to combine them may not be an easy task. One source of conflict may be the difficulty that teachers experience when they have to choose the best way to teach people how to use words. Tribble (1996) mentioned three principal ways of addressing the task: a text-based approach where the focus is on form, a process approach with its focus on the writer and a genre approach with the reader as its main focus. Throughout the following sections, these three different approaches will be explored, together with the possible causes for writing difficulties that ESL and EFL students experience and the different roles held by teachers when they approach the task of teaching how to write.

3.1. The beginning: Product Writing

In the 1950’s and 1960’s, the methodology used for writing instruction centered around what now is termed a ‘current traditional’ approach (Grabe and Kaplan, 1996). Advocates of this approach emphasized the correct use of grammar and spelling. It was believed that the creative aspects of the composing process were unteachable. Thus, as Grabe and Kaplan (1996) remarked, writing instruction was associated with the three- or five-paragraph model which centered around style, organization and usage. Writing assignments were typically one-draft ones that had to be written by each student alone. As a result, teaching practices meant teaching editing and imitation, but not teaching composing (Raimes, 1983a). Consequently, in the mid-1960’s there was a turning point in writing instruction, and new theories were developed.

3.2. Process writing: An overview

Process writing frees instructors from imposed, artificial topics for writing. White and Arndt (1991) believed that ... the goal of this approach is to nurture the skills with which writers work out their own solutions to the problems they set themselves, with which they shape their raw material into a coherent message, and with which they work towards an acceptable and appropriate form for expressing it. (p.5)

As a result, the writer, who is urged to discover his/her ‘voice’ as an author, is responsible for the text that evolves from the raw material. This approach fosters more meaningful interaction between teachers and students and allows more purposeful writing. Consequently, writing is not viewed as a linear sequence of stages that have to be followed to write a successful piece. Rather and

contrary to what many textbooks advise, writers do not follow a neat sequence of planning, organizing, writing and then revising. For while a writer’s product- the finished essay, story or novel- is presented in lines, the process that produces it is not linear at all. Instead, it is recursive. (Raimes 1985:229 as quoted in Tribble 1996:39)

The fact that writing is recursive means that a writer can choose to go backwards and forwards to cover the different activities involved in text composition which he/she considers useful to achieve the best product possible. While a product-centered approach preconceives the outcome of writing, i.e. the product, a process-focused approach can have “as many different outcomes as there are writers” (White and Ardnt, 1991:5).

3.2.1. Process writing: some criticisms

Teachers may find it difficult to find a balance between what they feel their students need to develop as writers and the teaching materials they frequently have to work with. One area of conflict is the availability of textbooks that both match writing tasks with the needs of the students and encourage creativity in very practical ways. As Grabe and Kaplan (1996) commented, much writing instruction still resorts to textbooks which, in spite of being advertised as process oriented, stress paragraph models and rules of grammar and usage which are far from emphasizing purposeful writing activities.

There are two further areas of conflict. On the one hand, “how to assess whether a process approach is applicable in all settings where writing is taught” (Tribble, 1996:41). Process writing focuses mainly on the writer who guides his/her own creative process in a context in which the topics for writing should be of importance (or at least of interest) to him/her. However, research has shown that most uses of writing are attached to situations which extend beyond the educational context (Grabe and Kaplan, 1996), for example many professional and technical contexts, as well as the workplace. Thus, process writing cannot be seen as fully addressing the needs of all types of students. On the other hand, the assumption that the writer has all the intellectual resources necessary to initiate the process of writing and that he/she is merely searching for a suitable outlet for expression.

3.3. A caveat from academia: Contemplating genre

Although a writing-as-process approach has many positive aspects, not everybody agrees with the idea that writing should be viewed only as 'process'. Researchers (Applebee, 1986; Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1985; Christie, 1985; Martin, 1989) argued that process writing seriously limited students’ writing abilities by disregarding the formal aspects of writing and the problem-solving required by different genres of writing. They felt that it was necessary to recognize the wide variety of tasks which would extend the students’ cognitive abilities. They proposed that the incorporation of form together with a focus on the reader should lead to a balance between form and process. In Grabe and Kaplan’s interpretation of Halliday’s functional theory of language, “language is not separable from content or context, but varies systematically with content and context, [....] [as] language form and meaning-

making are seen as an integrated system” (Grabe and Kaplan, 1996:133) in which language serves the needs of the writer to make meaning. Thus, the goal of focalizing on the meaningful use of language is to account for the cognitive and social influences on writing as realized through the genre form. Genre would not be an end for instruction, but a means to understanding meaningful content.

3.4. Writing Difficulties: a Writing Problem and a Language Problem?

To begin with, the negative associations that the traditional uses of writing have in schools may also influence negatively the learning process. Most students believe that writing, which is done through artificial meaningless assignments which the teacher corrects looking for mistakes, is used as a disciplinary measure, or for testing. Thus, teachers should engage and enthuse students in order to create an environment in which they do not feel intimidated or baffled by the complexity of writing.

As Grabe and Kaplan (1996) remarked, a further source of trouble which may influence learning and which needs to be considered is the level and type of first language interference which a student may experience when he/she is learning a foreign language. However, as argued by Raimes (1985), it is important to bear in mind that the difficulties exhibited by L2 students are generally the result of difficulties with composing skills than with linguistic skills.

Moreover, the development of writing generally requires some form of instruction as it is not naturally acquired. “Writing is a technology, a set of skills which must be practised and learned through experience” (Grabe and Kaplan, 1996:6). Writing as a thinking process demands conscious intellectual effort, which has to be sustained over a considerable period of time, and which involves training, instruction, practice, experience, and purpose.

Furthermore, as Tribble (1996) pointed out, a writer requires a range of knowledge in order to write effectively when undertaking a task. He mentioned 4 different kinds of knowledge: ‘content knowledge’, which is connected with the concepts involved in the subject area; ‘context knowledge’, which deals with the context in which the text will be read; ‘language system knowledge’ and ‘writing process knowledge’. A writing task which involves the 4 kinds of knowledge would be helping students to ‘learn to write’ in order to develop the skills needed to develop their competence as apprentice writers. When no particular purpose or audience is specified in a writing task, and an activity just provides the opportunity for practising the target language and assumes the students’ general competence as writers, such an activity is helping students to ‘write to learn.’

3.5. Teachers: Different Approaches, Different Roles

The choice of approach will influence the roles held by teachers with considerable consequences. Historically, the teacher was a linguistic judge who decided whether a text was ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. However, according to Tribble (1996), as writing instruction is such a complex, multi-faceted activity, if a teacher is responding to the students’ writing as a genuine and interested reader, he/she can take on 4 basic roles at different stages in the writing cycle: audience, assistant, evaluator, and examiner.

As audience, the teacher simply responds to the ideas, feelings or perceptions the student has tried to communicate through his/her writing. Whereas, as assistant, the teacher sees the text as work in progress and provides the tools necessary for the students to extend their knowledge of the best way to tackle the text. A practical technique a teacher can use at this stage is conferencing, either individually or in small groups, in order to guide students at the different points in the cycle. The students and the teacher may cover elements such as language appropriacy, genre and/ or subject matter.

The last two roles, evaluator and examiner, are intimately connected. When a teacher takes on the role of evaluator, the piece of writing is considered to be ‘finished’. The teacher may comment on the students’ overall performance, strengths and weaknesses with the aim of helping them to write more effectively in the future. One approach to evaluation which has been used over recent years assesses a text on a variety of dimensions, as the text is seen “as being the result of a complex of different skills and knowledge, each of which makes a significant contribution to the development of the whole” (Tribble, 1996:130) (See Appendix 2 for an example of an assessment scale for written work). Finally, as examiner, on the basis of written tasks done within a formal examination, or a portfolio of work gathered over a period of time, teachers provide an objective assessment of how well a student can write. A teacher who evaluates a text on a variety of different dimensions may find this evaluative framework relevant if he/she has to take on the role of examiner later in the writing process.

References

Bereiter, C. and Scardamalia, M. (1987). The Psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cooper, M. (1989). Why are we talking about discourse communities? Or, foundationalism rears its ugly head once more. In Cooper, M. And Holzman, M. (eds) Writing as social practice. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/ Cook. 202-20.

Faigley, L. (1986). Competing theories of process: A critique and a proposal. College composition and communication 48, 527-42.

Flower, L. and Hayes, J. (1980a). The cognition of discovery: Defining a Rhetorical Problem. College Composition and Communication 31, 21-32.

Frank, M. (1994). Using Writing Portfolios to Enhance Instruction and Assessment. Nashville: Incentive Publications, Inc.

Grabe, W. and Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and Practice of Writing. Essex: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.

Graves, D. H. (1994). A Fresh Look at Writing. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Harste, J.C. and Short, K.G. (1988). Creating Classrooms for Authors. The Reading-Writing Connection. Portsmouth: Heinemann Educational Books, Inc.

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

Raimes, A. (1983a). Anguish as a Second Language? Remedies for composition teachers. In Freedman, A., Pringle, I. and Yalden, J. (eds.) Learning to Write: First Language/ Second Language. London and New York: Longman. 258-72.

Tribble, C. (1996). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

White, R. And Arndt, V. (1991). Process Writing. Essex: Longman Group Uk Limited.

Witte, S. (1992). Context, text, intertext: Toward a constructionist semiotic of writing. Written Communication 9, 237- 308.