Writing as a Process - Portland State University | Home

Writing as a Process

Traditional Approaches to WritingResearch on lrst and second language writing is

documenting what we already know as teachers: studentsare frustrated by seeing compositions marked up, andthey rarely incorporate all our suggestions or corrcctionseven when we ask them to rewrite (or is it recopy?) theirpapers (Dvorak; Osterholm; 7-amel1985; Raimes 1983).No matter how we correct student work, succeeding com-positions do not seem appreciablybetter. Meager resultsafter so much time spent correcting frustrates us, too.Recent work on teacher approaches to both first andsecond language writing indicates that much of ourshared disappointment and sense of futility may wellresult from our view of writing. This paper examinestraditional teacher expectations of and reactions to writ-ing, considers writing as the mental proccss it involves,and explores one method of gettingout students involved in editingtheirown work, even as early as elemen-ta ry and i n te rmed ia te F renchcourses. As used here, the terms"composition" and "writingn refer towritten discourse intended for com-munication and to the diverse activi-ties involved in putting thoughts onpaper.

Writing as ProductAs we know, most teachers

faced with student writing reach forthe red (or green or purple) pen andbegin correcting errors in form:spelling, agreement, word order,verb endings, and so forth. Second language teachersseem to be even more prone to such corrections than firstlanguage teachers, perhaps because, asZamel (1985:85)notes, we view ourselves as nlanguage" rather than asnwriting" teachers (although one may question why wecannot aspire to the latter). Even those teachers whohave learned to allow students some spoken errors so asnot to miss the intended meaning often cannot do thesame with a written message (Chastain 1980:70). Per-haps, in correcting grammar, we are taking the easy wayout. Consider the ease with which a fluent teacher cancircle, underline, or correct surface-level errors in formcompared to the expertise and discernment that a readerneeds to counsel a writer about a confused presentationof ideas of a convoluted organization. But we look at whatthe student writer has produced and treat it as a hnaldraft; it is, of course, only at this last stage that themechanics of form and language usage must be polished.In writing this paper, for example, I did not worry aboutspelling or exact vocabulary until well into the rewritingphase. Yet do our students not hand in a "final'version

of a composition, even though it is usually their first draft?Indeed, here we are beginning to turn in a vicious circle:

Marva A. Barnett, University of Virginia

studcnts submit frankly unpolished papers which teach-ers trcat as final products, encouraging them to offersimilar rvork the next time and to focus most of theiratten(ion on surface-level fine tuning rather than on com-municating a message coherently. It is possibly ironic thatin emphasizing grammar we have perpel.uated a systemin which form seems to be all that matters. Teachers havewritten themselves out of the writing process by acceptingthese first-and-final drafts; students think of a paperturned in as a paper done, a paper needing no moreattention from them. This mental attitude rarely changeseven then we require nrewrites.n

If all our efforts in fixing students' errors led to morenearly accurate compositions, current correction prac-tices might make sense, even with frustration evident onthe students' part. Research in both first and second

language writing, however, gener-ally show the contrary (Scmke 200-201; Osterholm 137-38; Dvorak151-52). Although Lalande's studyin 1982 found that students' me-chanical precision in writing Ger-man improved when their teacherscoded errors for student correc-tion and the students kept an ongo'ing list of their own errors, the factthat all composition writing andcorrecting took place in class timemakes his model unattractive formany of us; it also colors his results.Neither did his experiment ques-tion affective factors: how students

feel about writing or about the effect of considering con-tent.

In a later study, Semke (1984) worked with studentsof German at the same level but used a different experi-mental design to examine four different approaches tocorrection: commenting on content rather than correct-ing; correcting all errors; combining comments and cor-rections; and coding errors for student correction. Shefound that only commenting without correction increasedwriting fluency and language proficiency. None of themethods had a significant impact on writing accuracy; theleast effective method in terms of both achievement andattitude toward writing was student correction of crrors.Moreover, in the results of a survey of student attitudes,most negative comments came from students who re-ceived some kind of correction; the students who receivedcomments on the content and no corrections commentedmost positively. Other studies on both first and secondlanguage writing indicate, too, that many writers have antask overload," that is, interference between what theyare trying to say, how to say it, and the accuracy of theform (Dvorak 155). Zamel's (1983) study of six ESLstudents found that this interference especiallv inhibited

Each year the:Northeast Con-ference awards the Stephen A.Freeman Awaid for the best pub-lished articte oh teaching tech-niques to hCVe appeared in theprevious calendar year. We arepleased to rCprint, with permis-sion, the 1991 awaid-Winhing ar-ticle by Marva A. Barnett of theUnlversi ly of 'Vlrglnia, lhat ap-peared ln The French Review,1989, Vol. 63, No. 1, 31-44.

16 NORTHEASTConlerence Winter 1992

the least skilled writers. Logically, consideri.g form andaccuracytoo soon obstructs the mental activitynecessaryto generate and communicate ideas. Writi"g follows anatural order: ideas demand a structure which must fi-nally be polished. When teachers correct everything stu-dents maybe faced with too many changes to absorb andincorporate.

Given the lack of progress in student vniting, wemust look at how we respond to compositions. In herstriking study of the responding styles of fifteen ESLteachers, 7-anel (1985) surveyed teacher comments (re-ferring to content) and corrections (noting errors in form)on L05 student compositions. She describes a distressingstate of affairs:

ESL writing tcachcrs misrcad student tcxts, arc incon-sistent in thcir r,cactions, makc arbitrary corrcctions, writcmntradictory comments, pronidc wague prescriptions, imposcabstract rulcs and standatds, rcspond to texts as fixed and finalprcductq and rarel;l makc contcnt-spccific commcnts or offerspecific stratcgics for rcvising the text. (86)

If her summary seems too harsh, reflect on typicalcomments on French students' compositions:pas clair! jene comprends pas, rtvisez, phrase incomplite, Oi estvotreconclusion? Such comments may hang in the marginwithout a clear referent. In addition, recommendationsabout sentence fragments or conclusions will not be un-derstood u less students know what these terms mean(which often is manifestly not the case). Teachers canalso be bound too tightly by their sense of havingncoveredn material the students nshouldn control; yet workon natural order in language acquisition (Krashen 1982)and the concepts of the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelinesargue that erylaining grammar points does not alwayslead to student ability to use them or to comprehension.

Not onlyvague suggestions but also the interplay ofcomments relating to grammar or vocabulary and thoseadvisingmajor structural or ideological changes too oftenconfuse students. As 7-amel (1985:93) points out, teach-ers frequently suggest both correction oflocal errors andsignificant revisions that would eliminate the need for thelocal correcion. Here is an example from French:

If this student were to make the structural revisionssuggested here (e.g., a rewrite of the second sentence),many of the stylistic and grammatical errors now presentwould disappear, giving opportunity, no doubt, for differ-ent ones. What then is the point of repairing what maywell not appear in the final composition? How is thestudent to know which type of commentVcorrections ismore important? According to Cohen, who scrutinizedstudent reactions to teacher correction of compositions,students are more interested in comments on content andorganization, yet teachers are more concerned with ac-curacy and form (67). In fact, even those teachers whodemandrewritten compositions seem content to see onlythe surface-level errors corrected. Zamel cites oneteacher's reaction to a rewrite in which the student incor-porated the teacher's grammatical corrections but ig-nored clear suggestions for development of one para-graph: "Good! Almost error-free! Verygood in organiza-tion and development!" (1985: 93). How much of what wesee in compositions is colored bywhat we want or expectto see?

Clearly, many teachers present students with a con-fusing response to their work. On one hand we treat theirwriting as though it were in its final form; on the other, wemake suggestions more appropriate to a rough draft. Asevidenced by our corrections and comments, we are muchmore interested in grammar and spelling than in themessage or in how communication is attempted eventhough we assign topics designed to elicit analysis, inter-pretation, or self-expression. The irony is obvious: cor-rection is pointless if not directed toward improvement,but the written product is usually seen as afait accompli,with no direct sequel in which suggestions could be im-plemented and improvements measured.

Wrltlng as ProcessWhat happens if we-look at each piece of writingas

one version in a progression toward the expression of thestudent's ideas? To do so is to regard writing as anexpression of the mental process it entails and as a meansof communication. This view sees successful compositionas an interaction between the writer, the text, and the

Par exe rop le , t I y 8 t ou jou rs La menace des co l l l s l ons des ev i ons .

voc '

, _ H a i s c ' e s t d i t f i c i l e d e c r o l r e q u e c ' e s t p o s s l b l e _ q u ' l l p o u r r e l t t e(an{t ; - g.^-

Xt nc tonf('n^' l'.^pr ? - L".^--...,.."..-

7>: t , is _t9-5. s l J 'eppr lndra ls qur l l '11 y evel t une col l ls lon de deux

l . r . r . r j^u, f .A ic^ ' ev lons i 500 ht loar i t res de chez ool qul venel t de tuer 185 personn.r \ i ' - - f

-

, !'I

I':11:)"*::*o::i': )'"'";1[,i"'

Cette col l i t ion 4" , r f f ; { t "gpeur-parce que c '6te i t n ' .? ia" " r , " "l i^lLd. .toC-

nol , aals pr lnclpeleoent ptrce quej : D€ &Ir_t t douteuse de la

sdcu r i t € des ev i ons e t Je pou r re l s vo l r l e s r €su l t a t s , l e s cadav res ,?

I e san l e t t r lDes - Qn ' v t e (< t - vou t d ; " I- ^ -

Winter'1992 NOFIHEAST Conference 17

reader (Osterholm 119). The reader/teacher thus be-comes a facilitator rather than a judge, and the writer whocares to write better has as assistant in the demanding jobof transferring ideas to paper to be interpreted by some-one else. I-ooking at writing as a process also impliesunderstanding writing as a series of drafts and consider-ing the endeavor of writing in its entire$: prewriting,writing, and rewriting (Rohman).

At the prewriting stage, writers find ideas and beginto organize them. As we all know from our own writing,ideas generally do not go onto paper in a coherent orelegant fashion the first time we try to express them. AsFlower and Hayes explain and model it, writing is acomplex, recursive cognitive process. Three componentsinteract with and influence each other constantly andintricately as one composes: the writer's long-termmemorywhere knowledge of topig audience, andwritingplans are stored; the task environment, including therhetorical problem and the text produced so far; andwriting processes such as goal setting, organizing, review-ing, evaluating, and revising. A hierarchical network ofgoals created while people compose directs the writerthrough the process. Evidently, the writing process isquite cognitively complex as writers move their thoughtsback and forth between components, always returning toand redefining their higher goals. Using more immediateterms, Cooper (113) notes these steps in the composingprocess: (L) prewriting gestation (from a few minutes tomonths or years); (2) planning the particular piece (withor without notes or outline); (3) getting the compositionstarted; (4) making ongoing decisions about word choice,synta4 rhetorical style, and organization; (5) reviewingwhat has been written and anticipating and rehearsingwhat comes next; (6) tinkering and reformulating, (7)stopping; (8) contemplating the finished piece; (9) revis-ing. Undoubtedly, this complex process must vary fromone individual to another but, nevertheless, exists.

Most language teachers have not been trained tothink of classroom composition in this light. Yetwhat dowe really want to teach students: to get all the grammarand vocabulary right or to develop intellectually and re-fine their capabilities at the cognitive level? How we treattheir written work defines in great measure what theywillgive us. Zamel (1985) urges setting priorities in our com-ments and suggestions for revision and encouraging ourstudents to address meaning-level concerns before others(%). In fact, commenting on what a student is saying isinteresting, challenging, and fi nally satisfying:

Student Paragraph Teacher CommentsJe crois que les jour- L'exemple de la par-naux forment nos opin- tialite est bon. Mais pou-ions. Ils voient les arti- vez-vous prdciser le rapportcles travers ses yeux. entre la partialitd et nosPour exemple, si le opinions?papier est Ie New YorkTimes il amie beaucouples Mets. Beaucoup dejournaux sont partials.

The writing process approach sug-gested here does fit into a busyschedule.

We should strengthen students'compositions skills, asEnglish departments attempt to do, as Gaudiani (1979:232) suggested nearly a decade ago, and as Magnan(118-19) reiterates. Some researchers have begun to ex-plore the differences between the writing processes ofskilled and unskilled writers. Krashen (1984) cites stu-dies showing that good first and second language writersdo more planning, rescanning, and revising than do poorwriters. In Zamel's (1983) study, better second languagewriters treated writing as a process, investigating andexplaining their ideas before worrying about grammaticalaccuracy; the less skilled writers were overly concernedabout following an outline and about having correctgrammar and vocabulary from the beginning. How canwe encourage our students to act like skilled writers?

We need to begin teaching writing early; learninghow to write takes time, whether in a first or secondlanguage. Yet how can we include writing as a process ina four-skills course at the elementary or intermediatelevel where we are more or less equally committed toteaching speaking, listening, reading writing, and cultureand when many of us had no training in teaching writing(Magnan 132-33)2 The writing-process approach sug-gested here does fit into such a busy schedule: it assignsthe responsibility for a coherent composition to the stu-dents, does not demand class time as does peer editing,and requires no more grading time than a traditionalgrammar-correction method, even as it stressed themeaning expressed in their writing.' With this technique,students are more likely to follow an effective composingsequence such as that offered by Cooper, learning toanalyze, organize, and focus their thoughts.

Prewriting activities help students start their papers:they involve students with a composition topic, let themrealize what might be included in their papers, help themwork out rhetorical problems, or review or provide usefulvocabulary. Rohman views prewriting as an inventiondevice and argues that students must learn the nstructures

of thinking that lead to writing" (107). Chastain (1988:254) emphasizes the importance of prewriting activitiesin motivating students to write. The popular first lan-guage prewriting techniques noted by Osterholm (132)are equally viable for second language writers: journalwriting, meditating analogy making, and freewriting(brainstorming on paper). Staton explains a more preciseuse ofjournals for meaningful dialogue between studentsand teachers. Magnan (125-27) relates her recommenda-tions to the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and proposesusing tasks associated with lower proficiency levels asexcellent prewriting steps for task at the next higherlevel; for example, students list objects in their rooms(novice-level) to prepare to describe their rooms (inter-mediate level). Herman suggests using French literarytexts accessible to advanced students as a skeletal model

18 NOBTHEAST Conference Winter 1992

for their own compositions, thc passage retold from adifferent narrator's point o[vicw. This notion of writingas influenced by quality reading parallels Krashent(198a) belief, based mostly on first language data, tharcom.petent writing can be attained through extensivereading accompanied by writing.

Once the composition topic and/or organization hasbeen introduced, the students begin writing their firstdrafts. In both my intensive and regular iniermediate-level university courses, this draft-writing process followsa procedure explaincd on the dircction shest nComment6crire une composition" (reproduced in Appendix A).This sheet summarizes the necessarythinking and writingprocess and suggests how to org"nirc idcaiand pr"r"nia paper in final form.' Thc dircctions given hcre arcspecifically for students writing in rcsponse to readingthey have done; thcy can easily bc modificd to lead intoother types of compositions. They might also be offcrcdin English to elementary French studLnts. The teacherneeds relatively little class time to discuss these instruc-tions and explain, for instance, the importance of ac-cepting a less-than-perfect formulation of an idea orphrase in order to get on with the composing process(section I., part 5), what Flower calls 'iatisfiiing." AsChastain (198S) and Butler carefullypoint out, impiovingstudents' attitudes toward writing is vitally important.Although studelts may show some initial surpiise andhesitation at this new approach to the old irorror ofwriting the teacher's supportive comments on theirpapers can eventually change their perceptions.

Research shows that better writers bclieve that wrifing draft_s is important (Dvorak 151-52). This self-ediringapproach requires all students towrite a hrst draft,whichshould be revised into a better, but not perfect, composi-tion before tle teacher sees it. Experience witli thissystem has shown, not surprisingly, that many students atfirst submit as their second versions little more thanrecopied rolgh drafts, whether because ofprevious train-ing,_laziness or misunderstanding. Still, the vigilanttea_cher can prevent some of this mere duplication bydelining just what is involved in the revisin& re-editin&and rewritingexplained insqction I, part 7; or bydistribui-ing a good example of studeqt writing h thl first ands9c9nd 4laft form; or by emphasizing that recopied firsrdrafts will not be accepted as seconddrafts.

How you use nComment dcrire une composition"depends both on teacher objectives and on itudents'needs and motivations. In Intensiye IntermediateFrench, where the students are relativelv advanced andmotivated the sheet as it appears in Figuie 2 is effective.Students make notes and vnite both drafts before submit-ting their work to the teacher. The teacher then has theoption of grading the second draft (noting improvementsfrom the first version) or of offering suggestions andrequiring another draft. In either case, teacher com-ments are te:(-specifig taking into account the writer,sintent and audience (7-anel1985: 9$. Normally, whatthese students submit is better for their having gonethrough the first draft stage.

In a standard elementary or intermediate course(college first and second years or highschool first through

Many composit ions are actually funto read, especiatly when we learn toignore for a while some details ofform.

third years), it is useful to collcct students'notes and firstdrafts for comments and rccommendations before stu-dents write second drafts. In this way, the teacher canhclp each student with the revising process and can indi-cate more clearly how a second draft should differ fromthe first. In making thesc first draft comments, I concen-trate on what the student is trying to say, respond posi-tivcly wherever possiblc, note confusing segments, andsuggest improvements; recurrent grammar or vocabularyproblems are simply noted as general (see sample inAppendix B). Correcting or marking all form errors atthis point takes too long, discourages students who weretrying to say something, and encourages others to depcndon tcacher correction rathcr than taking responsibility foraccuracy. Indicating the existence of major errors rc-minds students that form matters in the frnal draft. Onthe other hand, some teachers may prefer to ignore thcerrors in form at this stage, leading students to confinework on this aspect of writing to their final draft. Thismcthod of checking the first draft takes from five to eightminutes per paper; for 25 one-page compositrons, bc-tween two and three hours, less than the time needed tomark all grammar errors. Moreover, the teacher learnsmore about the students' ideas and helps thcm developorganizational and analytical skills.

As can be seen on the college-level intermediatcFrench sample in Appendix B, the majority of theteacher's comments pertain to content and organization.Positive comments are indispensable; comments on prob-lem areas must point toward possible solutions. Studentswho have questions or dilficulties responding to com-ments should be able to discuss these with the teacher.Of course, many students have little experience writingand revising and will not manage to incorporate effec-tively all the teacher's suggestions. The teacher gradesaccording to the quality of the changes made and the newdraft in general. The second draft submitted by ours,amp-le student appears in Appendix C. Clearly, this stu-dent has attempted to apply teacher suggestions, and shehas produced an improved draft, both in content andform. Yet she has not restructured her paper, again pre-senting two paragraphs with two separate, although re-lated ideas. As we know from our own writing, seconddrafts are often not final drafts. In a writing course,having this student submit a third draft might be useful;in a four-skills course, evaluating this second draft, notingimprovements and remaining problems, allows class timefor work on speaking, listening and, reading.

The need to grade the last draft presents somedifficulties. For details about different types of composi-tion grading see Chastain (1978, 1988), Gaudiani (1981),

Continued on page 51 :

Winter 1992 NORTHEAST Ct:ifcren;r I '1

Barnett, continued from P- 19

Hendrickson, Lalande' O maggio (2X-69, 298-304), Per-

kinr, und Semke. Since the process approach presented

here stresses writing as communication, wc must at least

rate our students on how clearly and coherently they

communicated; hence, as noted on the direction sheet,

the srade is based on both fond and forme, with the grades

finally being averaged. Or a holistic grade, integrating

both Lontent and form, is possible. In either case, I believe

one of the most useful and intelligent responses to form

is that proposed by Chastain (1980: 7L-74). He suggests

that thi instructor underline all errors (thus pointing

them out to the students who want complete feedback)

and select two or three to be eliminated in future com-positions (see sample in AppgndS-C). -For those, theinstructor, on a separate sheet, (1) labels the grammaticalstructure involved, (2) copies the student's incorrect ver-

sion, (3) provides the correct version, and (4) underlinesboth the Lrror and correction. Students are encouragedto ask if they still fail to comprehend. Students turn in theerror sheets with succeeding compositions; repeated er-rors are doubly penalized. Finally, I believe it fair to offerstudents structural and stylistic corrections when theyhave tried to go beyond their current level of grammarcontrol (e.g., "qui paraissentn in Appendix C).

AdvantagesBoth teacher and students profit from treating writ-

ing as a mental process and a means of communication.When students realizc that teachers read their writing tounderstand what.they are trying to say rather than tojudgetheir grammar and usage, they write more interestingcompositions. They are also willing to write more, which

is perhaps the best way to refine one's writing; and theyeventually take more care with what they write because itmeans more to them. "Positive comments bring aboutmore positive attitudes toward writing" (Osterholm 137).Student effort does repay teacher cffort. Many com-positions are actually fun to read, especially when welearn to ignore for a while somc details o[ form. My ownexpe.rience indicates that less correction of grammaticalerrors, together with honest attention to content, cansometimes reduce-and seldom promotes-grammati-cal mistakes in futurc compositions. Teacher gradingtimecan be reduced in length and enhanced in quality.

On the affective level, teachers find reacting towriting as a process remarkably gratifying because mostof their suggestions are directed toward students' intel-lectual development. Of coursc, students benefit im-mensely working on their writing ability in a second aswell as a first language can only improve their generalcognitive skills of reasoning and logical thinking. Magnan(118-19) has already noted the importance of teachinganalytical and composition skills in the return-to-basicsmovement in education. Finally, if we think selfishly fora moment, we see that teacher will be rewarded in havingstudents who can think more clearly and express thosethoughts more intelligibly. In the long run, we shouldproduce better language majors; furthermore, we caninfluence most sigrrificantly all thosc citizens and voterswho leave foreigr language study, and who, though theymay never writc again in French after leaving our class-rooms, must use the critical thinking skills our work withwriting has given them.

Continued on next page

FRENCH IN ACTIONchanging the way French is taught

Meet the series creator and on-screen host, Pierre CapretzVisit the Yale University Press booth to see the videosand accompanying books & audio

and premiering in 1992, the series you have been waiting for

DESTINOS: An lntroduction to SpanishVisit the McGraw Hill booth to see the videos and learnmore about the accompanying books, audio and software

|l

jll The Annenberg/CPB Proiect Call 1-80o-LEARNER for free preview cassettes.

Winter 1992 NORTHEASTCon{erence 51

Continued from previous page

AppendixAComment 6crlre une compositlonL Fagon de travailler

1) Lisez et dtudiez les textes n6cessaires.2) Etudiezles principes pr6sent6s ci-dessous (dans les secrions II, IIL IV).3) Prenez des notes sur vos id6es.4) Organisez vos notes d'une faqon claire et logique.5) Ecrivez la premiBre 6bauche au moins 4 jours avant la date finale.- Suivez vos notes,

- Ne vous an€tez ni pour chercher un mot que vous ne savez pas ni pour corriger la grammaire. Vous ferez cetravail au moment de la r6vision

-Indiqlez par ? vos questions au sujet de la grammaire ou du vocabulaire.- Ensuite, rdvisez ce que vous avez 6crit.Rendez vos id6es les plus claires possible.Y €rlfiezque I'organiiation est logique.Cherchez les,mots que vous ne sivie, pas.Corrigez les fautes de grammaire que vous trouvez.

- Pour utiliser un dictionnairJ:Pour chaque mot que vous cherchez dans un dictionnaire, consultez le dictionnaire des deux c6t6s,c'est-i-dire, cherchez le mot dans la section anglais/frangais et vdrifiez-le dans la section fru"S"iv-'anglais. I-a signification des mots d6pend trds sduvent du contexte of vous les employez

6) Laissez cette dbauche pendant un ou deuxjburs.7) R€visez, ftdrgez, et r€iivezladeuxidme 6bauche. Faites attention i:-fa lgelue des iddes et de I'organisation;

-la clart6 de la pr6sentation; -

-la prdcision de la grammaire et du vocabulaire.8) Tapez i la machine la forme finale; attention i la pr€sentation (voyez ci-dessous section IV).

lI. Idies: henez des notesdes id€es principales;des id6es subordonn€es;

-__ j"r exemples, de la pcnsde de I'auteur ou de votre propre logique.fiI.-Olganization: N'oubliezpas d'organiservote ou"ri

^

1) Une introduction-Identifiez le te)Ce (et l'auteur) au zujet duquel vous €cnvez-Donnez un r€sum€ de vos arguments n€cessaires.

2) Un d6veloppement de vos id6es-Mettez les id€es diffdrentes da"s des paragraphes diff6rents.-Identifiez chaque idde d'une fagon claire.'-Donnez tous les exemples et les arguments ndcessaires.

3) Une conclusion- Donnez la conclusion que vous avez trotJvee apres avoir raisonnd i travers le developpement.-I-a conclusioan'est pa, une r€p6tition des id6ls de l'introduction.

4) Un titre-Choisessez un titre clair.-choisessez un titre que indique un peu la direction de la composition.

lY. Pr4sentation: Considdrez ces d6tails:1) Si vous citez les mots de I'auteur, il faut les mettre ente guillemets ( < ... > ) et noter la page of on les trouve(p.000).2) Marges d'au moins 1'dc tous les c6t6s.

?l !.-p"tidon tap€e i la machine ou i I'orrlina1eur, toutes les deux tigrres.4) Rendez la copie originale.

_ 5)_Attention i I'orthographg aux accents, i la ponctuation.Y.ARendre:

1) les notes que nous avez prises2) la premi0re dbauche3) la deuxi0me dbauche

Yl.Lanote d€penfua:1) des id€es et de I'organisation: flVo2) de la pr6cision de la gr"m-aire, du vocabulaire, de l'orthographe, de la ponctuation" de la present atton: frVo

52 NORTHEASTConference Winter 1992

Appendix BSimple Student Flrst Draft with Teacher Commenls

&t1u'i fo'^tlailk

?

. ,iA

an , : ,

AuJourd ' l ru l ' l r p rc r rc l lb rc ' t t t 'EPo i t rn t rq t t ' t l - l ' n lE c t

7 / ca l t tncc Pr rcG que cc domc l :s gens sc occ 's lon pour o rpr le r

l "u r r oP ln lon i r . rD- t - " d {mcr l t t : . l l f ru t donner qc vo l r I

A f l N y t r c e j a n r . . t f I ' , o . t b c r o l n d c l c r f r t t . . t t . r o p t n l o n r d ' r u t r l r . .

l , r u r ' L' t : r n d " t S l h p r c r s c n r a t . l t P r s l l b r ? , l c s j c n s d " v r r l c n t c r o l r c l c r 0 * ' '

! t : i ; , t ? l . t . t a t l c t oP ln lons du 8ouv 'm@nt ' A lns ! ' u pcu dc 3cns

n ,1 ' ' pouwr l t con t r6 lc r berucoup dc acns , e t ce n€ tc r r l t P" u '

oc-.'.t'.. A t"'!k:f .! l:t::::'. l i L s - r . 2

1U"" , , ! ' ! f t - Drnr uc d 'Docr ' t l c ' las 3enr do lvent rvo l r ( l ' P ro t ' c t lon -

ttai6'""')b tvtl. I l frut evolr ltr lbltrtton3 rvcc le Pt.t-t-1 , #

a 3 ? . u D t c t t c

c"&r fA 8\,a n8,i7, l:i*,

n. If,ut prr rrprlrr lcr frltr feu. rglctrl.*nt lt(i qul p'uv'nt?il:''i;'r"e'' t "5 .1 rndo3cr quc tqu 'u . Cc n 'c r t Pr r sc p rob le rvcc lc r J " " i iH .

> re t I r :

d ̂ ,,t:::t - ..

'o-i .t'a1f!!:r_Y::':::l1j'. l: ::::.: f.',-^, i-,n*.

h Pr .3 t ! L lb rc c t fomtdrb lc -

'rtn'll;''

{i;i'..,n."..or",?,.f.rrlIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�Jr,llx''-.Yi't'i1-o"ol1'1]"ff ;H.'JT,ili,-'ia;y'..,rouvot l c t op ln lonr . r t l cs jmr oub l tcn t quc tou t r r lG! op tn too t '6TcetaLhJ '

na ron t P .3 tou jour r r tPrascnta . l : s 3cns dc lvcn t l l r c l c t

Joumru rvoc ob j .c t l v l t . Gt dac ldcr qu . l l " Po t l t lon qu ' lb vm

prcndrc .

" ' / " a t ^ { 2 r ; ^ u i t t ?//tot, lttt

es'/ frc a,i'

r%drr)ft /.aas 'fuc cacl4in bttL

u/, r;&t 1; ob vos Ztlwatt .

NOW fOU CA'I PEruNE YOUASELF AFOUXO fHE WOAU'

ENFICH ANO IMPROVE YOUR FOR€IGT.I LANGUAGE PROGAAM TOOAY- EXCHAI|GE VTOEOS WITH SC||ooLS OVERSEAS

- SENO O(CHA^GE SIUOENTS HOUE WITH A VIOEO OF

TiIEIR EXPERIENCES WHILE VISITI'{G YOUR C'MMUNITY

.9 - ENRcH youn cuRRcuLUM wtrH INTERMTToNAIY

YX- PRoorJcEo vro€os- PRO\NDE AOOMON^L FOREIGN I..^NGUAGE PMCTICE

.EI{COIJMGE PEI&PALS TO SHAAE VOEO MAIL

FOR YOUR TAPE COilVERSION. JUST SEND US YOUR TAPE TOOAY ATONG WITH

A PURCXASE OFOER IN THE AIIOUNT OF S4O.M. WE WII RETURN

YOUR ORGNAT TAPE ALONG WTTH YOUR COTWERTED TAPE.- WEGUARANrEEYOUB SANSFACT'ON "

. WE ALSO COWEFT 8MM TO STANOARO VHS TAPES ANO VICE VERSA '

516-474-4612 *'&

.4',,tl''lt!-t

\lll

E SETAUKET. NEW YORK 1179I

DRIVE YOUR MICROn8(rucfl THE Julrcr.ts 0FsPAl{$t VERE FoRMS...

SPEEo thrcugh he 40 most importantgrammar points of he Spanish languagewith SPANISH GRAMMAR C0MPUTER-IZED I or ll. 049.95 including backup.Licensing and networking versionsavailable. Pass exams in 4-wheel drive!SPANISH, IREI{CH, GERMAN, ITALIAN,RUSSIAN, and LATIN programs areavailable for APPU ll, MACINT0SH, lBM.FREE CATALOG.Call LING0 FUN. (614) 882-8258, or write

INTERNATIONAL SOFTWARE.P.0. Box 486, WESTERVILLE. 0H 43081.

USAf t t a q tq r r r# rFrd h t @l t r {

Winter 1992 NOFIIHEASTConference 53

Continued from Previous Page

Cohcn, Andrew D. "Student Processing of Feedback

on Thcir Compositions." Leamer Strotegies in Langtage

Leoming. Ed. Anita Wenden and Joan Rubin- Englc-wood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeAlall International, 1987, 57-68.

Coopcr, Charles R. "Measuring Growth in Writing."E npl k h ! ounr a I 64, 3(197 5): I1-l-2O.

bvorak, Trisha. "Writing in the Forcign Language."Listenittg Reading ond ll/iting Analysis ortd Applicatiott-Ed. Barbara H. Wing. Middlebury, VT: Northeast Con-ference, 19%,145-61-

Flower, Linda. Problem-Solving Strategies for Witirrg.2nd ed. Ncw York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1985.

and John R. Hayes. "A CognitiveprocGTheory of Writing.' Colk[e Contpositi6n andCommun ic ation 32 ( 1981): 365-87.

Gaudiani, Claire. "French Composition Tcaching: AStudent Generated Ter Editing Approach." French Re'view 53 (1919):232-5.

. Teoching Witing in tlrc Foreigt Latr-ga@ Cunicutum. Vol. 4j in Laiguage in E[ucotiort:Theory ond Practice. Washington, DC: Ccnter for Ap-plicd Linguistics" 1981.

Hendrickson, James M. "The Treatment of Error inWritten Work.' Modem Language foumal 6a(1980):216-2r.

Herman, Gerald. "How to Make (Frcnch) Composi-tion Challenging and Productive," The French Review 60(1986):56-6a.

Krashen, Stephen. Principles and Practice in SecondLanguage Acquisilion. New York: Pergamon Press, 1982.

Witing Research, Theory and Applico-frons. Oford: Pergamon Institute of English, 1984.

Lalande, John F. "Reducing Composition Errors: AnExperiment." Modem Language toumal 66 (1982): 1a0-49.

Magnan, Sally Sieloff. 'Teaching and Testing Profi-ciency in Writing Skills to Transcend the Second-Lan-guage Classroom.' ProJicienqt, Cuniculum, Afticulstiotr:TheTies That Bind. Ed. Alice C. Omaggio. Middlebury,VT: Northeast Conference, 1985, 1rW-%.

Omaggio, Ali cr C. Teachin g Lan gu a ge i n C o nt ext : P ro-liciency-Oiented Instruction Boston: Heinle & Heinle,1986.

Osterholm, Katherine K "Writing in the Native Lan-guage." Listening Reading and Witing Analysis ortdApplication. Ed. Barbara H. Wing. Middlebury, VT:Northeast Conference, ]r9%. Ll7 -43.

Perkins, Kyle. "On the Use of Composition ScoringTechniques, Objective Measures, and Objective Tests toEvaluate ESL Writing Ability." TESOL Quarterly L7(1983):65r-7L.

Raimes, Ann. Techniques in Teaching Witing. NewYork Oxford, 1983.

Rohman, G. "Pre-Writing: The Stage of Discovery inthe Writing Process.n College Composition and Cont-munication 16 (1%5): 1M-12.

Semke, Harriet D. "Effects of the Red Pen.n ForeignLanguoge Annals 17 (198a): 195-202.

Staton, Jana. "Dialogue Journals: A New Tool forTeaching." ERIC CLL News Bulletin 6, 2 (1983).

Zamel, Vivian. "The Composing Processes of Ad-vanced ESL Students: Six Case Studies.' TESOL Quar-terly 17 (1983).

"Responding to Student Writing.' TESOLQuanerly 19 (1985): 79-101.

A Universidadl//*\rl^\ ,/dt/*.BfrN\]N OeA t s E | N t n7{tl-6t;r:lflI

SW"^-/S Costa Rica'Jly'rr

l (D'

san Jose

SUMMER 1992fromsl ,685

INCLUDES. Round trip airfarc. Room and two mcals daily with

family.. 5 Credits.. Ficld trips to muscums, markets,

national parks, volcanos.. 4 Wccks Intcnsive Courscs

For high school, undcrgraduatc orgraduatc studcnts and tcachcrs.

For morc information contact:Students Accommodations

P.O. Box 623'Griffith, IN 46319

Attention aux Professeursde frangais

lXcouvrcz la l.ouisiane francophone!Du matdriel audio, visuel, et 6crit est

disponsible aux enseigpants qui s'int6res-sent i la r6gion "Acadianq" e h culturecadienne ("Cajuo"), et au renouveau dufrangais en l-ouisiane.

Contactez Rhonda Case Scver:n, TheShipley School, t14 Yarrow Street BrynMawr, PA 19010 si vous d6sirez recevoirune description d€taill6e et le prix du ma-t€riel ddvelop& gAce i une bourse de laFondation Rockefeller.

Winter 1992 NORTHEASTConference 55