论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】Nowadays, English writing is very important in ESL teaching, but it is also a headache and the weakest part for most of the non-English major students. What is the best and efficient way to motivate the students’ interests in English writing and improve their writing skill? According to the survey among the second-year non-English major students in YAU, I find that most of the writing teachers commonly adopt the product approach, which focuses on the product of writing, emphasize on the error of forms (grammar, sentence structure, vocabulary and spelling) and disregard the students’ initiative in discovering and exploring the content. As a result, the students still make the same errors that have been corrected by the teacher again and again, but the contents are vague and general. How can the writing teacher help the students to develop their capability of discovering content? They may apply the process approach in the writing teaching which stresses the content and can help the students to discover what they want to say in their composition.
【Key words】writing teaching method; product approach; process approach
【中图分类号】H31【文献标识码】A【文章编号】1001-4128(2011)03-0072-05
作者简介：明珠（1978.1-），女，回族，云南腾冲人，硕士研究生，云南农业大学外语学院讲师，研究方向：英语教学法。李东徽（1978.3-），男，汉族，安徽人，硕士研究生，云南农业大学园林园艺学院讲师，研究方向：园林景观设计。
Introduction
English writing as valuable communicative still should be treated as a focus of language teaching and research. However, writing teaching in China, especially for the non-English majors in YAU (Yunnan Agricultural University), is considered unsatisfactory and problematic. From my investigations with non-English major undergraduates of second year in YAU as well as my own learning and writing experience, I found that most students look on English writing as a headache and their writings are devoid of content, lack details and read very vaguely though only a few errors of form may occur. Methodologically, most writing teachers tend to adopt the product approach, which focuses on the form of the written product, but disregards the students’ ability to explore the content through the writing process. The present teaching can hardly help the students overcome their major difficulty. Under such circumstances, the research is necessary and constructive guidance is essential to the teaching of English writing.
Nowadays, Grabe and Kaplan (1996) identify that the development of the process approach in writing teaching is recognized as the important impetus for the emerging field of composition research. It considers content information more important than final form (product). To accomplish their goals, writing teachers should make a methodology shift from the product approach to the process approach. An awareness of the fact that writing is a very long process whereby students learn to use grammar and facts as tools in presenting a particular idea or content information means a great deal to teachers and researchers who probe the complex problems of writing performance.
An Investigation on English Writing Teaching to non-English Majors of Second Year in YAU
I used to use the product approach in my own traditional way of English writing teaching for many years. I focused on the errors of grammar, words spelling and sentence structure in the students’ composition and corrected every error with lots of time and energy by myself. Usually I provided the composition with a final score and a brief comment about what they should pay more attention to in the composition, such as the grammatical structure or vocabulary usage but not the content. At first, when the corrected composition handed out to the students, they would pay attention to the correction and ask me why I corrected them in this or that way. But for a long time, I was surprise to find that the same errors they had made in their previous composition were appeared again and again in their later composition writing and the content was still vague and general. What’s wrong in my English writing teaching? The problem lies in my teaching method or the students’ themselves? So I decided to take an investigation among 60 second-year non-English major students in my class to find the answer of the above questions.
1. Methodology
I carried out the survey including a questionnaire, interview and English mid-term examination to find out the current state of the English writing teaching and the main problem for non-English majors of second year in YAU. The study can provide evidence to make a mere tentative statement about the methodology shift from the product approach to the process approach in English writing instruction.
2. Findings
(1)Current English writing teaching method in YAU
Traditional English writing teaching in YAU regards writing as a means of language study more than as a means for communicating ideas. A great deal of attention is placed on “model” composition that students would emulate and how well a student’s final product is measured up against a list of criteria that include grammatical use, organization, vocabulary and mechanical considerations. My questionnaire (See appendix 1) shows that teachers and students stick to these guidelines:
. Teachers’ response focus on forms of the composition (grammar, vocabulary, organization, sentence structure) rather than on content. In the questionnaire research (see Fig. 1 below ), 25 out of 60 students think the writing teacher is most likely to comment on grammar, 7 on vocabulary, 19 on sentence structure, 4 on words spelling and only 5 on content;
. Each student should be working alone, or only with the instructor who just gives summative feedback on the essay, mostly pointing out problems rather than praising strengths. No teacher-student or student-student communication occurs during the writing;
. The majority of students (90%) see their teacher as a judge of the finished work, rather than an interested reader (See Fig. 2 below).
Fig. 1 Student questionnaire response on writing teacher feedback patterns
Aspects of feedbackGrammarVocabularySentence structureSpelling Content
Number of students (N=60)2571945
Percentage42%12%32%0.7%0.8%
Fig. 2 Students’ perceptions of writing teacher’s role
Writing teacher’s roleNumber of students (N=60)Percentage
Judge5490%
Interested reader610%
(2)Main problem caused by the current English teaching
After reading some second year non-English major students’ compositions, I was impressed deeply by the biggest problem of the content though not many errors of grammar or vocabulary. I am confused by their intentions of writing. What on earth is their main idea? For the rest, the supporting details are insufficient to illustrate their main idea or arguments. As a result, the contents of the composition are vague and general.
In short, most of the English writing teachers in YAU use the product approach to teach the non-English major students in their teaching, thinking of writing as mainly concerned with knowledge about the structure of language, and writing development as mainly the product of the imitation of input.
The Process Approach Suggested in English Writing Teaching
The product approach employed by writing teachers creates the impression that form takes precedence over content, and good writing is correct writing, rather than an effective way to present certain content to communicate with readers. However, most non-English majors in YAU firmly bear grammatical knowledge in mind and do well in grammar exercises. Their great difficulty lies in the presentation of content or ideas. The product approach can never meet the needs of students having great trouble in exploring the content. The process approach which revolves around content information instead of form (the final product) frees instruction from a linear composition model based on outlining writing, editing. It encourages the following points (Brown, 1994, pp 23-24 ):
1. consider content information more important than final product grammar and usage;
2. focus on the process of writing that leads to the final written product;
3. help student writes to understand their own composing process;
4. help them to build repertories of strategies for prewriting, drafting, and rewriting;
5. give students time to write and rewrite;
6. place central importance on the process of revision;
7. let students discover what they want to say as they write;
8. give students feedback throughout the composing process (not just on the final product) to consider as they attempt to bring their expression closer and closer to intention;
9. encourage feedback both from the instructor and peers;
10. include individual conferences between teacher and student during the process of composition.
The Innovation in My English Writing Teaching
1. The process approach I have applied in my writing teaching
Generally, process writing approach tends to be framed in four stages——prewriting, writing, rewriting, editing. Through this long process, students can learn how to explore and present their content or thoughts. The main character of process approach is rewriting. It is the most typical procedure in which the writer revises the draft produced in the writing stage. If a writer intends to present a piece of good writing, he must “rewrite” the paper——deleting what is not wanted, leaving alone what is satisfactory, seeking for more content information, making what remains stronger or sorting everything out until both the teacher and writer are satisfied with the finished product. The following is my own experience about process writing approach:
In this semester, I change my teaching way of writing in my class for the second year non-English major students in YAU. Firstly, I invite fifteen non-English major undergraduates with the different English writing level from the second year to join my research program. They are in involved in it voluntary and divided into five small groups with three of them in each by myself. Secondly, I arrange then to write a short English composition (about 120-150 words) with appointed title and requirement every week. Before they hand in their composition to me, they should exchange to read their own composition with their partner’s in their small group and then correct the errors, especially the errors of forms including grammar, vocabulary, sentence structure etc., appeared in their exchanging composition, if they have the ability to do that, or underline the errors they have found in their partner’s composition. The also should provide a peer-feedback to their partner’s composition with a short comment at the end of the composition. Thirdly, they present the writing errors they have in common or confusing problems in their composition to me and I present the errors or the problems in the whole class and ask the students to discuss them. Then I will help them to solve all the errors they have in common or their confusing problems in their writing individually. In the whole writing process, the most important thing I do is to focus on the content of their composition. Whether the main idea is clear or not? Whether the supporting details are sufficient enough to support the key idea or not? And whether the organization of the whole composition is rigor or not? I am not concentrate on the errors correcting of forms. At the end of all, I provide a feedback with written comments and advice to every composition. The comments are covered with the errors they have made and the content of their composition. The advice about how to improve the next element of work can be particularly to students receiving feedback, especially when this advice is received during the progress of ongoing work. With the instructions, the students should rewrite their composition and represent to me and I compare it to their previous one and find whether they have made a progress in their rewritten composition in every aspect.
During the whole process of my innovation, I have played the role of a leading teacher and I have invited Selina who is one of English teachers in YAU and she is also teaching English writing for the second year non-English major students to join my research. To get to the objective research findings, she is responsible for the evidence collecting and classifying. After analyzing the data, I share and discuss the results with her, find the problems and improve the ways of my innovation.
2 Theoretical Foundation
(1)Group work
For these fifteen second year non-English major students who are involved in my process approach research program, they call for a positive and encouraging atmosphere for process writing. They are encouraged in the group work to exchange their composition with the partners, it should be discussed as an important component of writing instruction. As Raimes (1983, p12) says,
Group work in the classroom has been shown to be valuable for native speakers who are learning to write. In experienced writers are less fearful when a few of their peers read and comment on what they write; they like to see what their peers produce, and they welcome the unthreatening exchanges of ideas that happen in a group. For second language learners, who need more time and opportunity to practice using the language with others group work is especially beneficial.
From Raimes words and my own experience in group work, I think group work can be as beneficial to the teacher as it is to the students. There is a famous saying, “Two heads are better than one.” Students will obtain much information after conducting group work. A team of student writers can cooperate at all points in the process of writing after they exchange their own composition with their partners in their small group. By reading their partner’s composition and underlining or correcting the errors in it, they learn how to explore and reconstruct their content and thoughts in their own writing task. It makes them to change the way of writing from accepting the errors correction by the teachers passively to underlining or correcting them based on their previous knowledge positively. Exley and Dennick (2004, p25) mention that “group members engage in deep-level discussions or carry out challenging tasks and activities that push them to the edge of their knowledge and experience”.
(2)Peer-feedback
When a student is writing, he or she makes some mistakes that he may not find out easily by himself. However, he exchanges the composition with one of his small group members, his partner can find out most of his mistakes. Of course, he, too, is able to notice the mistakes his partner has made. In the process of providing feedback to their partner and getting feedback from their peers, the students gain a better idea of exactly what will be expected of them in their efforts to demonstrate their achievement of the intended learning out comes. When the students are involved in the peer-feedback, they can not fail to take notice of instances where the work they are assessing exceeds their own efforts. When this learning -from- each- other is legitimized and encouraged, students can benefit a great deal from the work of the most able in the group and they become much less likely to fall into traps that might otherwise have caused them problems in their future work (Race, 2007).
(3)Formative assessment
As far as the writing teacher is concerned, in the research of process approach writing, the tasks for me are to collect the confusing problems from each group, present them to the whole class to discuss and provide my feedback with written comments not grades or marks to the individual. The written comments are always to see how they are given links to what they are doing, and to turn this into improvements in competence and knowledge. Traditionally, the writing teachers provide the feedback to the students’ composition with grades or marks as a summative feedback which are assess what have already been done not what will be do in their future work. As a result, the errors in the students’ composition appear in their writing again and again, they are not able to avoid making the same errors in their future writing. The content of their composition is still vague and general because they have no the idea about what they should do and how to do. The students are will be frustrated by the finial mark A, B, C etc. in the writing process. So in my research of process writing teaching, I provide the written comments as a formative feedback to the students individually who are involved in it. They are instructed by my advice about how they should do in the next work and how to make a progress in their writing task. It is very important to help the students themselves to distinguish between feedback and feed-forward, and to look carefully for the latter, and regard it as the most useful part, and consciously build upon it as their work progress (Race, 2007).
The impact of the formative assessment that I provide to the students can be illustrated in the result of my investigation. There are 8 (53%) students among these 15 students who are involved in my process writing approach program think that the formative assessment with the written comments which covered with the excellent aspects they have done in their composition and what they should do in the future is better than the summative assessment with grades or marks at the ending of the composition. As Sadler, who has written extensively about the powerful influence that formative assessment can have on achievement suggests:
Summative contrasts with formative assessment in that it is concerned with summing up or summarizing the achievement status of a student, and is geared toward reporting at the end of a course of study especially for purposes of certification. It is essentially passive and does not normally have immediate impact on learning, although it often influences decisions which may have profound educational and personal consequences for the student. (Sadler, 1989)
(4)Leadership
I invited Selina to join my research, shared and discussed the results of the investigation with her, found the problems and improved the ways of my innovation. When I reflect on it, I realize that I was a leading teacher in the whole process, the relationship between us was “a shared and communal concept” (Foster 1989, p57) not a controlling one. More exactly to say, the leadership styles I used in the whole process were invitational leadership and distributed leadership. As Stoll and Fink (1996, pp108-109) mentioned:
…this model of leadership advocates a “doing with” people rather than a “doing to”.It is a view that captures both the personal and professional aspects of school leadership and blends emotional understanding with rational management strategies.We called this approach “invitational leadership”…In the invitational leadership model, leaders invite themselves and others both personally and professionally.
For the distributed leadership style, I invited the 15 students and Selina to my research. The students were involved in the composition writing process and Selina collected the evidence and data in order to get more objective results. We were a group and we worked together, but everybody in it had their own definite task and goal. It was what Peter Gronn (2003, p3) calls:
Distributed leadership is not something “done” by an individual “to” others, or a set of individual actions through which people contribute to a group or organization. It is an emergent property of a group or network of individuals, in which group members “pool” their expertise. This “concerted action” of people working together takes place within a pattern of interpersonal relationships, and brings about a situation in which the amount of energy created is greater than the sum of the individual actions.
3. The Results of My Innovation on Writing Teaching
After three months process approach writing teaching in a small scale with 15 second-year non-English major students in YAU, I found that they were very interested in my process writing approach: they joined the group discussion actively, tried their best to find the errors in their partner’s composition and underlined or corrected them on their previous knowledge, provided the feedback to their partner and received the feedback from the partner honestly, rewrote the own composition with the peer-feedback from their peers and the written comments from me. At the same time, they also made a progress in their English writing in a certain extent. It can be proved by the two different composition examples written previously and later, my interview results and the score they got in the writing part in the Mid-term Examination in this semester:
(1)The comparison of two composition examples (See Appendix 2)
In the previous composition with the title “Modern Industry”, there are a lot of error of forms, grammar, vocabulary, structure and even spelling. The content is vague and general. There is no a clear main idea in it and the supporting details are insufficient. After the composition has been exchanged to read and error corrected by the other student in the small group, it is presented to me. I provided my supporting written comments after I have finished my reading of this composition. The comments are as follows:
This essay is explicit in explanation of your opinions about the modern industry. It’s a good beginning off writing argumentation. However, the second paragraph is too brief, there is no a key sentence and sufficient supporting details in it. You should illustrate how the modern has changed our way of life in this paragraph. You may discuss with you partner or have a discussion with me.
In his rewritten composition, we can find he is trying to avoid making most of the error of forms (grammar, vocabulary, word spelling) underlined or corrected by his peer. The paragraphs are well organized and coherent. The key sentence in each paragraph is clear and summative. The supporting details are sufficient and logical to illustrate the key idea. The content of the whole composition is also clear and substantial. We can read easily to find what the purpose of his writing and what the main idea of it. To read this composition is considered as an enjoyable process.
(2) My interview results
I interviewed the 15 second year non-English major students who were involved in my research program and the interview covered with the following questions:
——In the process writing approach, which part are you interested in most? Why?
——Do you think the group work and feedback from your peers is helpful to your writing? Why?
——Do you prefer to the writing teacher as a reader in the writing process? Why?
——What’s your opinion about the written comments provided by the writing teacher?
——What have you gained in this process writing approach program research?
The results of the interview are showed as follows:
The vast majority of students, 13 of them (about 90% students) think it is very interesting and helpful to provide the feedback to their partner and get feedback from their peers. They think it can make them read their partner’s composition carefully and motivate them to find the errors in it and correct the errors based on their own previous knowledge. During the process, they are not only know the advantages in their partner’s composition, but find the shortages in their own one and review the knowledge they have learnt again, including the grammar, vocabulary etc.. It arouses their interesting in writing. They never experience this form of feedback before.
For the second question, all of them think peer-feedback and group work are very helpful to them in their writing. They think it is an innovation in writing teaching that the students focus on the correction of error forms (grammar, vocabulary, spelling) and the teacher is concentrate on the content of composition, especially when they do the group work to exchange their composition with their partner. Everybody can join this writing process to discuss and to share the different ideas about the same composition. It is a enjoyable experience, a student-student communication occurs in it.
The results of the third question are 9 students (60%) prefer to the teacher as a reader and 5(40%) of them are still wish the teacher as a judge or an error corrector. For these 9 students, they think they will be happy when the writing teacher as a reader to read their composition, because the reader will read it with an objective opinion not an attitude of pointing out problems. The reader also will praise their strengths as well as criticize the shortages objectively. It can lead them to get the confidence in writing and to find the problems they should overcome. The other 5 students whose choice are judge or error corrector think it is good to get the feedback from their peers, but they are not sure that their peers can provide a correct feedback in grammar and sentence structure. Because they are in the same level of English and they are worried about they will be mislead by the wrong error correction. So they hope the writing teacher should be a judge or error corrector to provide them a correct sample of the mistakes.
For the fourth question, 8 students (53%) think the written comments covered with the content provide by the teacher is very supportive to their writing. It makes them realize it is very important to concern about the content in composition writing and get the idea in their rewriting. Among these students who are interviewed, 7 students (47%) present their opinion that it will be better if the written comments are provided more specifically, for instance, the comments should have been covered with the specific sentence structure or vocabulary spelling.
The last question is an individualized one. It is related to the different individual results in this process writing approach program. But almost every interviewed student is of the same view that they have made a progress in the writing to a certain extent especially for the content of the composition. They have got a clear idea about how to organize a paragraph with the key sentence and supporting details and also how to organize a whole passage with a clear main idea and sufficient supporting content.
(3)The score of writing part in Mid-term examination
The Mid-term examination of this semester was held in the middle ten days of November and in my class, there were 60 second-year non-English major students took this examination. Comparing with the other students in my class, the 15 students who have got the opportunity to join my process writing approach research program have got a higher mark in their writing part of the exanimation. The average score of these students is 7 marks——it is higher than the average score of the whole class 5 marks. Their compositions are clear and well-organized, there are little errors of forms in it. It can be illustrated by the following ( See Fig. 3 below):
Fig. 3
Average score of writing part(Students number=60)5 marks
Average score of writing part(Students number=15)7 marks
Conclusion
Traditionally, writing teaching for the non-English major students in YAU has been product oriented. Such an approach is concerned with the correctness of form rather than the fluency of content. What the approach ignores is how the writer presents their content through the process of writing. According to my previous survey and innovation in my writing teaching experience, I maintain that writing is a process and teaching of writing should focus on process by adopting the process writing approach in order to solve the biggest problem of non-English majors’ writing: the discovery of content. The process approach should be seen as a major improvement over traditional methods of writing instruction.
However, we must pay attention to the point that the new emphasis on process writing must be seen in the perspective of a balance between process and product. The process approach “focuses on content through several drafts of a paper and leaves scrutiny of form to the final draft.” (Fathman & Whalley, 1985). So when we use the process approach in our writing teaching doesn’t mean the total abandoning of traditionally concerns with forms. Product and process are never contradictory.
In a word, an idealized writing teaching would combine emphases on the writing process and the writing product. Process is not the end, product is the final purpose.
References
[1] Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P., Harvey, J. (2003) Distributed Leadership Summary Report Spring 2003. Nottingham: NCSL.
[2] Brown, H. D. (1994) Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language PedagogyNew Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
[3] Fathman, A . & E. Whalley(1985)Teacher Treatment of Error and Student Writing Accuracy. Paper presented at the 19th Annual TESOL Convention, NewYork, March.
[4] Foster, W. (1989) Towards a Critical Practice of Leadership, in J. Smyth, (Ed.) Criticial Perspectives on Educational Leadership. London: Falmer Press.
[5] Grabe, W. & R. B. Kaplan (1996) Theory and Practice of Writing. London and New York: Longman.
[6] Kate Exley. & Reg Dennick. (2004) Small Group Teaching.London: RoutledgeFalmer.
[7] Raimes, A. (1983) Techniques in Teaching WritingOxford University Press.
[8] Stoll, L., Fink, D., Earl, L. (2003) It’s About Learning (and It’s About Time) What’s in it for Schools. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
[9] Phil Race (2007)The Lecturer’s Toolkit——A Practical Guide to Assessment, Learning and Teaching (The third edition) London: Routledge.
[10] Sadler, D. R. (1989) Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional Systems, Instructional Science.
【Key words】writing teaching method; product approach; process approach
【中图分类号】H31【文献标识码】A【文章编号】1001-4128(2011)03-0072-05
作者简介：明珠（1978.1-），女，回族，云南腾冲人，硕士研究生，云南农业大学外语学院讲师，研究方向：英语教学法。李东徽（1978.3-），男，汉族，安徽人，硕士研究生，云南农业大学园林园艺学院讲师，研究方向：园林景观设计。
Introduction
English writing as valuable communicative still should be treated as a focus of language teaching and research. However, writing teaching in China, especially for the non-English majors in YAU (Yunnan Agricultural University), is considered unsatisfactory and problematic. From my investigations with non-English major undergraduates of second year in YAU as well as my own learning and writing experience, I found that most students look on English writing as a headache and their writings are devoid of content, lack details and read very vaguely though only a few errors of form may occur. Methodologically, most writing teachers tend to adopt the product approach, which focuses on the form of the written product, but disregards the students’ ability to explore the content through the writing process. The present teaching can hardly help the students overcome their major difficulty. Under such circumstances, the research is necessary and constructive guidance is essential to the teaching of English writing.
Nowadays, Grabe and Kaplan (1996) identify that the development of the process approach in writing teaching is recognized as the important impetus for the emerging field of composition research. It considers content information more important than final form (product). To accomplish their goals, writing teachers should make a methodology shift from the product approach to the process approach. An awareness of the fact that writing is a very long process whereby students learn to use grammar and facts as tools in presenting a particular idea or content information means a great deal to teachers and researchers who probe the complex problems of writing performance.
An Investigation on English Writing Teaching to non-English Majors of Second Year in YAU
I used to use the product approach in my own traditional way of English writing teaching for many years. I focused on the errors of grammar, words spelling and sentence structure in the students’ composition and corrected every error with lots of time and energy by myself. Usually I provided the composition with a final score and a brief comment about what they should pay more attention to in the composition, such as the grammatical structure or vocabulary usage but not the content. At first, when the corrected composition handed out to the students, they would pay attention to the correction and ask me why I corrected them in this or that way. But for a long time, I was surprise to find that the same errors they had made in their previous composition were appeared again and again in their later composition writing and the content was still vague and general. What’s wrong in my English writing teaching? The problem lies in my teaching method or the students’ themselves? So I decided to take an investigation among 60 second-year non-English major students in my class to find the answer of the above questions.
1. Methodology
I carried out the survey including a questionnaire, interview and English mid-term examination to find out the current state of the English writing teaching and the main problem for non-English majors of second year in YAU. The study can provide evidence to make a mere tentative statement about the methodology shift from the product approach to the process approach in English writing instruction.
2. Findings
(1)Current English writing teaching method in YAU
Traditional English writing teaching in YAU regards writing as a means of language study more than as a means for communicating ideas. A great deal of attention is placed on “model” composition that students would emulate and how well a student’s final product is measured up against a list of criteria that include grammatical use, organization, vocabulary and mechanical considerations. My questionnaire (See appendix 1) shows that teachers and students stick to these guidelines:
. Teachers’ response focus on forms of the composition (grammar, vocabulary, organization, sentence structure) rather than on content. In the questionnaire research (see Fig. 1 below ), 25 out of 60 students think the writing teacher is most likely to comment on grammar, 7 on vocabulary, 19 on sentence structure, 4 on words spelling and only 5 on content;
. Each student should be working alone, or only with the instructor who just gives summative feedback on the essay, mostly pointing out problems rather than praising strengths. No teacher-student or student-student communication occurs during the writing;
. The majority of students (90%) see their teacher as a judge of the finished work, rather than an interested reader (See Fig. 2 below).
Fig. 1 Student questionnaire response on writing teacher feedback patterns
Aspects of feedbackGrammarVocabularySentence structureSpelling Content
Number of students (N=60)2571945
Percentage42%12%32%0.7%0.8%
Fig. 2 Students’ perceptions of writing teacher’s role
Writing teacher’s roleNumber of students (N=60)Percentage
Judge5490%
Interested reader610%
(2)Main problem caused by the current English teaching
After reading some second year non-English major students’ compositions, I was impressed deeply by the biggest problem of the content though not many errors of grammar or vocabulary. I am confused by their intentions of writing. What on earth is their main idea? For the rest, the supporting details are insufficient to illustrate their main idea or arguments. As a result, the contents of the composition are vague and general.
In short, most of the English writing teachers in YAU use the product approach to teach the non-English major students in their teaching, thinking of writing as mainly concerned with knowledge about the structure of language, and writing development as mainly the product of the imitation of input.
The Process Approach Suggested in English Writing Teaching
The product approach employed by writing teachers creates the impression that form takes precedence over content, and good writing is correct writing, rather than an effective way to present certain content to communicate with readers. However, most non-English majors in YAU firmly bear grammatical knowledge in mind and do well in grammar exercises. Their great difficulty lies in the presentation of content or ideas. The product approach can never meet the needs of students having great trouble in exploring the content. The process approach which revolves around content information instead of form (the final product) frees instruction from a linear composition model based on outlining writing, editing. It encourages the following points (Brown, 1994, pp 23-24 ):
1. consider content information more important than final product grammar and usage;
2. focus on the process of writing that leads to the final written product;
3. help student writes to understand their own composing process;
4. help them to build repertories of strategies for prewriting, drafting, and rewriting;
5. give students time to write and rewrite;
6. place central importance on the process of revision;
7. let students discover what they want to say as they write;
8. give students feedback throughout the composing process (not just on the final product) to consider as they attempt to bring their expression closer and closer to intention;
9. encourage feedback both from the instructor and peers;
10. include individual conferences between teacher and student during the process of composition.
The Innovation in My English Writing Teaching
1. The process approach I have applied in my writing teaching
Generally, process writing approach tends to be framed in four stages——prewriting, writing, rewriting, editing. Through this long process, students can learn how to explore and present their content or thoughts. The main character of process approach is rewriting. It is the most typical procedure in which the writer revises the draft produced in the writing stage. If a writer intends to present a piece of good writing, he must “rewrite” the paper——deleting what is not wanted, leaving alone what is satisfactory, seeking for more content information, making what remains stronger or sorting everything out until both the teacher and writer are satisfied with the finished product. The following is my own experience about process writing approach:
In this semester, I change my teaching way of writing in my class for the second year non-English major students in YAU. Firstly, I invite fifteen non-English major undergraduates with the different English writing level from the second year to join my research program. They are in involved in it voluntary and divided into five small groups with three of them in each by myself. Secondly, I arrange then to write a short English composition (about 120-150 words) with appointed title and requirement every week. Before they hand in their composition to me, they should exchange to read their own composition with their partner’s in their small group and then correct the errors, especially the errors of forms including grammar, vocabulary, sentence structure etc., appeared in their exchanging composition, if they have the ability to do that, or underline the errors they have found in their partner’s composition. The also should provide a peer-feedback to their partner’s composition with a short comment at the end of the composition. Thirdly, they present the writing errors they have in common or confusing problems in their composition to me and I present the errors or the problems in the whole class and ask the students to discuss them. Then I will help them to solve all the errors they have in common or their confusing problems in their writing individually. In the whole writing process, the most important thing I do is to focus on the content of their composition. Whether the main idea is clear or not? Whether the supporting details are sufficient enough to support the key idea or not? And whether the organization of the whole composition is rigor or not? I am not concentrate on the errors correcting of forms. At the end of all, I provide a feedback with written comments and advice to every composition. The comments are covered with the errors they have made and the content of their composition. The advice about how to improve the next element of work can be particularly to students receiving feedback, especially when this advice is received during the progress of ongoing work. With the instructions, the students should rewrite their composition and represent to me and I compare it to their previous one and find whether they have made a progress in their rewritten composition in every aspect.
During the whole process of my innovation, I have played the role of a leading teacher and I have invited Selina who is one of English teachers in YAU and she is also teaching English writing for the second year non-English major students to join my research. To get to the objective research findings, she is responsible for the evidence collecting and classifying. After analyzing the data, I share and discuss the results with her, find the problems and improve the ways of my innovation.
2 Theoretical Foundation
(1)Group work
For these fifteen second year non-English major students who are involved in my process approach research program, they call for a positive and encouraging atmosphere for process writing. They are encouraged in the group work to exchange their composition with the partners, it should be discussed as an important component of writing instruction. As Raimes (1983, p12) says,
Group work in the classroom has been shown to be valuable for native speakers who are learning to write. In experienced writers are less fearful when a few of their peers read and comment on what they write; they like to see what their peers produce, and they welcome the unthreatening exchanges of ideas that happen in a group. For second language learners, who need more time and opportunity to practice using the language with others group work is especially beneficial.
From Raimes words and my own experience in group work, I think group work can be as beneficial to the teacher as it is to the students. There is a famous saying, “Two heads are better than one.” Students will obtain much information after conducting group work. A team of student writers can cooperate at all points in the process of writing after they exchange their own composition with their partners in their small group. By reading their partner’s composition and underlining or correcting the errors in it, they learn how to explore and reconstruct their content and thoughts in their own writing task. It makes them to change the way of writing from accepting the errors correction by the teachers passively to underlining or correcting them based on their previous knowledge positively. Exley and Dennick (2004, p25) mention that “group members engage in deep-level discussions or carry out challenging tasks and activities that push them to the edge of their knowledge and experience”.
(2)Peer-feedback
When a student is writing, he or she makes some mistakes that he may not find out easily by himself. However, he exchanges the composition with one of his small group members, his partner can find out most of his mistakes. Of course, he, too, is able to notice the mistakes his partner has made. In the process of providing feedback to their partner and getting feedback from their peers, the students gain a better idea of exactly what will be expected of them in their efforts to demonstrate their achievement of the intended learning out comes. When the students are involved in the peer-feedback, they can not fail to take notice of instances where the work they are assessing exceeds their own efforts. When this learning -from- each- other is legitimized and encouraged, students can benefit a great deal from the work of the most able in the group and they become much less likely to fall into traps that might otherwise have caused them problems in their future work (Race, 2007).
(3)Formative assessment
As far as the writing teacher is concerned, in the research of process approach writing, the tasks for me are to collect the confusing problems from each group, present them to the whole class to discuss and provide my feedback with written comments not grades or marks to the individual. The written comments are always to see how they are given links to what they are doing, and to turn this into improvements in competence and knowledge. Traditionally, the writing teachers provide the feedback to the students’ composition with grades or marks as a summative feedback which are assess what have already been done not what will be do in their future work. As a result, the errors in the students’ composition appear in their writing again and again, they are not able to avoid making the same errors in their future writing. The content of their composition is still vague and general because they have no the idea about what they should do and how to do. The students are will be frustrated by the finial mark A, B, C etc. in the writing process. So in my research of process writing teaching, I provide the written comments as a formative feedback to the students individually who are involved in it. They are instructed by my advice about how they should do in the next work and how to make a progress in their writing task. It is very important to help the students themselves to distinguish between feedback and feed-forward, and to look carefully for the latter, and regard it as the most useful part, and consciously build upon it as their work progress (Race, 2007).
The impact of the formative assessment that I provide to the students can be illustrated in the result of my investigation. There are 8 (53%) students among these 15 students who are involved in my process writing approach program think that the formative assessment with the written comments which covered with the excellent aspects they have done in their composition and what they should do in the future is better than the summative assessment with grades or marks at the ending of the composition. As Sadler, who has written extensively about the powerful influence that formative assessment can have on achievement suggests:
Summative contrasts with formative assessment in that it is concerned with summing up or summarizing the achievement status of a student, and is geared toward reporting at the end of a course of study especially for purposes of certification. It is essentially passive and does not normally have immediate impact on learning, although it often influences decisions which may have profound educational and personal consequences for the student. (Sadler, 1989)
(4)Leadership
I invited Selina to join my research, shared and discussed the results of the investigation with her, found the problems and improved the ways of my innovation. When I reflect on it, I realize that I was a leading teacher in the whole process, the relationship between us was “a shared and communal concept” (Foster 1989, p57) not a controlling one. More exactly to say, the leadership styles I used in the whole process were invitational leadership and distributed leadership. As Stoll and Fink (1996, pp108-109) mentioned:
…this model of leadership advocates a “doing with” people rather than a “doing to”.It is a view that captures both the personal and professional aspects of school leadership and blends emotional understanding with rational management strategies.We called this approach “invitational leadership”…In the invitational leadership model, leaders invite themselves and others both personally and professionally.
For the distributed leadership style, I invited the 15 students and Selina to my research. The students were involved in the composition writing process and Selina collected the evidence and data in order to get more objective results. We were a group and we worked together, but everybody in it had their own definite task and goal. It was what Peter Gronn (2003, p3) calls:
Distributed leadership is not something “done” by an individual “to” others, or a set of individual actions through which people contribute to a group or organization. It is an emergent property of a group or network of individuals, in which group members “pool” their expertise. This “concerted action” of people working together takes place within a pattern of interpersonal relationships, and brings about a situation in which the amount of energy created is greater than the sum of the individual actions.
3. The Results of My Innovation on Writing Teaching
After three months process approach writing teaching in a small scale with 15 second-year non-English major students in YAU, I found that they were very interested in my process writing approach: they joined the group discussion actively, tried their best to find the errors in their partner’s composition and underlined or corrected them on their previous knowledge, provided the feedback to their partner and received the feedback from the partner honestly, rewrote the own composition with the peer-feedback from their peers and the written comments from me. At the same time, they also made a progress in their English writing in a certain extent. It can be proved by the two different composition examples written previously and later, my interview results and the score they got in the writing part in the Mid-term Examination in this semester:
(1)The comparison of two composition examples (See Appendix 2)
In the previous composition with the title “Modern Industry”, there are a lot of error of forms, grammar, vocabulary, structure and even spelling. The content is vague and general. There is no a clear main idea in it and the supporting details are insufficient. After the composition has been exchanged to read and error corrected by the other student in the small group, it is presented to me. I provided my supporting written comments after I have finished my reading of this composition. The comments are as follows:
This essay is explicit in explanation of your opinions about the modern industry. It’s a good beginning off writing argumentation. However, the second paragraph is too brief, there is no a key sentence and sufficient supporting details in it. You should illustrate how the modern has changed our way of life in this paragraph. You may discuss with you partner or have a discussion with me.
In his rewritten composition, we can find he is trying to avoid making most of the error of forms (grammar, vocabulary, word spelling) underlined or corrected by his peer. The paragraphs are well organized and coherent. The key sentence in each paragraph is clear and summative. The supporting details are sufficient and logical to illustrate the key idea. The content of the whole composition is also clear and substantial. We can read easily to find what the purpose of his writing and what the main idea of it. To read this composition is considered as an enjoyable process.
(2) My interview results
I interviewed the 15 second year non-English major students who were involved in my research program and the interview covered with the following questions:
——In the process writing approach, which part are you interested in most? Why?
——Do you think the group work and feedback from your peers is helpful to your writing? Why?
——Do you prefer to the writing teacher as a reader in the writing process? Why?
——What’s your opinion about the written comments provided by the writing teacher?
——What have you gained in this process writing approach program research?
The results of the interview are showed as follows:
The vast majority of students, 13 of them (about 90% students) think it is very interesting and helpful to provide the feedback to their partner and get feedback from their peers. They think it can make them read their partner’s composition carefully and motivate them to find the errors in it and correct the errors based on their own previous knowledge. During the process, they are not only know the advantages in their partner’s composition, but find the shortages in their own one and review the knowledge they have learnt again, including the grammar, vocabulary etc.. It arouses their interesting in writing. They never experience this form of feedback before.
For the second question, all of them think peer-feedback and group work are very helpful to them in their writing. They think it is an innovation in writing teaching that the students focus on the correction of error forms (grammar, vocabulary, spelling) and the teacher is concentrate on the content of composition, especially when they do the group work to exchange their composition with their partner. Everybody can join this writing process to discuss and to share the different ideas about the same composition. It is a enjoyable experience, a student-student communication occurs in it.
The results of the third question are 9 students (60%) prefer to the teacher as a reader and 5(40%) of them are still wish the teacher as a judge or an error corrector. For these 9 students, they think they will be happy when the writing teacher as a reader to read their composition, because the reader will read it with an objective opinion not an attitude of pointing out problems. The reader also will praise their strengths as well as criticize the shortages objectively. It can lead them to get the confidence in writing and to find the problems they should overcome. The other 5 students whose choice are judge or error corrector think it is good to get the feedback from their peers, but they are not sure that their peers can provide a correct feedback in grammar and sentence structure. Because they are in the same level of English and they are worried about they will be mislead by the wrong error correction. So they hope the writing teacher should be a judge or error corrector to provide them a correct sample of the mistakes.
For the fourth question, 8 students (53%) think the written comments covered with the content provide by the teacher is very supportive to their writing. It makes them realize it is very important to concern about the content in composition writing and get the idea in their rewriting. Among these students who are interviewed, 7 students (47%) present their opinion that it will be better if the written comments are provided more specifically, for instance, the comments should have been covered with the specific sentence structure or vocabulary spelling.
The last question is an individualized one. It is related to the different individual results in this process writing approach program. But almost every interviewed student is of the same view that they have made a progress in the writing to a certain extent especially for the content of the composition. They have got a clear idea about how to organize a paragraph with the key sentence and supporting details and also how to organize a whole passage with a clear main idea and sufficient supporting content.
(3)The score of writing part in Mid-term examination
The Mid-term examination of this semester was held in the middle ten days of November and in my class, there were 60 second-year non-English major students took this examination. Comparing with the other students in my class, the 15 students who have got the opportunity to join my process writing approach research program have got a higher mark in their writing part of the exanimation. The average score of these students is 7 marks——it is higher than the average score of the whole class 5 marks. Their compositions are clear and well-organized, there are little errors of forms in it. It can be illustrated by the following ( See Fig. 3 below):
Fig. 3
Average score of writing part(Students number=60)5 marks
Average score of writing part(Students number=15)7 marks
Conclusion
Traditionally, writing teaching for the non-English major students in YAU has been product oriented. Such an approach is concerned with the correctness of form rather than the fluency of content. What the approach ignores is how the writer presents their content through the process of writing. According to my previous survey and innovation in my writing teaching experience, I maintain that writing is a process and teaching of writing should focus on process by adopting the process writing approach in order to solve the biggest problem of non-English majors’ writing: the discovery of content. The process approach should be seen as a major improvement over traditional methods of writing instruction.
However, we must pay attention to the point that the new emphasis on process writing must be seen in the perspective of a balance between process and product. The process approach “focuses on content through several drafts of a paper and leaves scrutiny of form to the final draft.” (Fathman & Whalley, 1985). So when we use the process approach in our writing teaching doesn’t mean the total abandoning of traditionally concerns with forms. Product and process are never contradictory.
In a word, an idealized writing teaching would combine emphases on the writing process and the writing product. Process is not the end, product is the final purpose.
References
[1] Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P., Harvey, J. (2003) Distributed Leadership Summary Report Spring 2003. Nottingham: NCSL.
[2] Brown, H. D. (1994) Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language PedagogyNew Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
[3] Fathman, A . & E. Whalley(1985)Teacher Treatment of Error and Student Writing Accuracy. Paper presented at the 19th Annual TESOL Convention, NewYork, March.
[4] Foster, W. (1989) Towards a Critical Practice of Leadership, in J. Smyth, (Ed.) Criticial Perspectives on Educational Leadership. London: Falmer Press.
[5] Grabe, W. & R. B. Kaplan (1996) Theory and Practice of Writing. London and New York: Longman.
[6] Kate Exley. & Reg Dennick. (2004) Small Group Teaching.London: RoutledgeFalmer.
[7] Raimes, A. (1983) Techniques in Teaching WritingOxford University Press.
[8] Stoll, L., Fink, D., Earl, L. (2003) It’s About Learning (and It’s About Time) What’s in it for Schools. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
[9] Phil Race (2007)The Lecturer’s Toolkit——A Practical Guide to Assessment, Learning and Teaching (The third edition) London: Routledge.
[10] Sadler, D. R. (1989) Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional Systems, Instructional Science.