A Comparison of The Product and Process Approaches To Teaching Writing and How Best To Combine The Two at Different Levels.
A Comparison of The Product and Process Approaches To Teaching Writing and How Best To Combine The Two at Different Levels.
DATE: 24/05/2011
NAME: VAFIDOU AVGI
CENTRE NUMBER: GR 102
STUDY SPACE
Title
A comparison of the Product and Process Approaches to
teaching writing and how best to combine the two at
different levels.
References
Byrne, D. (1988). Teaching Writing Skills (London Group UK Limited).
Bruton, A. (2005). Task-based language teaching: For the state
secondary FL classroom? (Language Learning Journal, 3, 55-68)
Dyer, B. (1996). L1 and L2 composition theories: Hillocks
environmental mode and task-based language teaching (ELT
Journal, Vol.50 No. 4).
Johns, A. M. (1990). Coherence and academic writing: some
definitions and suggestions for teaching (TESOL Quarterly 29: 24765).
Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language: Taskbased language training. In K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienemann (eds),
Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77-99)
(Clevedon: Multilingual Matters).
Pincas, A. (1982). Teaching English Writing (The Macmillan Press
Limited).
Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in Teaching Writing (New York: OUP).
Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled writers do as they write: a
classroom study of composing (TESOL Quarterly 19/2: 229-58).
Raimes, A. (1993). Out of the woods: emerging traditions in the
teaching of writing (TESOL Quarterly 25: 407-430).
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction:
Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.) Second
language writing (pp. 11-23) (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press).
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in Academic and Research
Settings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Tribble, C. (1996). Writing (OUP).
White, R. and V. Arndt. (1991). Process Writing (Harlow: Longman).
Bibliography
Byrne, D. (1988). Teaching Writing Skills (London Group UK
Limited).
Brumfit, C. J. and Johnson, K. (1979). The Communicative Approach
to Language Teaching (Oxford University Press).
Bruton, A. (2005). Task-based language teaching: For the state
secondary FL classroom? (Language Learning Journal, 3, 55-68).
Coe, N. , Rycroft, R. and Ernest, P. (1983). Writing Skills: A problem
solving approach (Cambridge University Press).
Coffey, M. P. (1987). Communication through writing (Prentice Hall
Regents).
Dyer, B. (1996). L1 and L2 composition theories: Hillocks
environmental mode and task-based language teaching (ELT
Journal, Vol.50 No. 4).
Johns, A. M. (1990). Coherence and academic writing: some
definitions and suggestions for teaching (TESOL Quarterly 29: 24765).
Hyltenstam, K. and M. Pienemann (eds), Modelling and assessing
second language acquisition (pp. 77-99) (Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters).
Pincas, A. (1982). Teaching English Writing (The Macmillan Press
Limited).
Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in Teaching Writing (New York: OUP).
Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled writers do as they write: a
classroom study of composing (TESOL Quarterly 19/2: 229-58).
Raimes, A. (1993). Out of the woods: emerging traditions in the
teaching of writing (TESOL Quarterly 25: 407-430).
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction:
Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.) Second
language writing (pp. 11-23) (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press).
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in Academic and Research
Settings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Tribble, C. (1996). Writing (OUP).
their piece of writing, they can exchange papers many times or may
put them on OHT (overhead transparencies), evaluate their errors
and may finally choose which one to put in the school magazine.
In all levels integrating the four skills can provide realistic tasks
instead of writing for the sake of writing (Byrne, 1988:25). Roleplay, pantomime as well as simulation can give a sense of purpose
and stimulus. Pictures and photographs motivate students to
participate and visual activities such as tables, diagrams and mind
maps are valuable for developing organisation skills as they provide
a visual guideline to students (Byrne, 1988:25).
4.2. Writing at the intermediate level
As the learners progress teachers can provide for written work on a
more extensive scale and use pair or group work to integrate skills.
Writing here and at the post-intermediate level should have a
practical value and individual needs have to be met.
The students can be given approximately the same tasks as some of
the ones described in writing in the early stages and make a
preparation for free writing. Gapped texts to be filled in with
cohesive devices or time linkers, jumbled sentences to be reordered,
matching titles with paragraphs and suchlike. At this level students
have to advance their fluency and accuracy in order to write good
stories, reviews, reports, proposals, formal letters and articles.
Model text and guided writing are very useful at this level.
In order to increase the amount of fluency work teachers can assign
students to do a project which I personally use a lot with my
students. Dewey and Kilpatrick were the ones who first spoke about
the experiential knowledge students get through learning by
doing. The process carrying out the project- gives students
opportunities for language use and development and the final
product, which is equally important, gives students satisfaction.
Similarly, simulations enable teachers to take role-plays a stage
further by providing a framework for integrated language work in
which the learners themselves provide a larger input of the data
from which the written activities are derived (Byrne, 1988:103).
4.3. Writing at the post-intermediate level
At this level the learners have acquired a proficiency in writing and
are usually given exam- type tasks such as compositions, essays,
reviews, proposals or transactional letters which offer
opportunities for free expression (Byrne, 1988:112). The majority
of the Greek students at this level take exams and from my personal
experience I can say they all enjoy discussions, expressing and
organising their ideas, brainstorming, writing and exchanging drafts,
comparing model texts and generally the whole process of
attempting to communicate something to somebody. Letter (e.g. of
protest) and report writing are- to a certain extent- realistic and
meet the learners need to develop this skill. Activities such as the
simulation and projects have the advantage of fully integrating all
the language skills and give learners plenty of opportunity for free
expression which should always be teachers top priority.
5. Conclusion
My experience and my reading lead me to the conclusion that
teachers should be flexible and depending on the characteristics
and the problems of each and every learning situation they have to
select the approach or make a combination of approaches that will
meet their students writing needs. No approach should be regarded
as a panacea for all the writing problems students face.