Delta2 LSA 4 Background

[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