This essay deals with exploration on the pedagogical approaches to the teaching of writing in English as Second / Foreign Language (hereafter ESL / EFL) based on time settings. It reviews historically some main approaches appearing in journals or books in the field of linguistics and language teaching. Four prominent approaches are discussed; namely: form-dominated approach, writer-focused approach, content-based approach and reader-oriented approach. State of the art of this essay explores the most widely-used among current approaches and the last part predicts what trend might emerge as direction to the future after the state of the art.
Since the dawn of the teaching of ESL/EFL writing, experts have established and developed pedagogical approaches by means of meeting the needs of students. Each approach tries to eliminate factors which may hinder students in their writing process. Commonly, two core circumstances will hinder students when they are dealing with writing. First, students tend to think in two different languages at the same time, so it is understandable when students use inappropriate translations from the first language. Second, they are aware of their weaknesses in the mechanics of writing, so they do the writing more slowly to avoid making mistakes.
Historically, there are four prominent approaches that have existed and have been used simultanously by teachers and researchers. Each has its own advantages and weaknesses. Today, attempts to improve and extend those approaches have vastly taken place.
Form-Dominated Approach
This approach has its roots in Charles Fries’ oral approach, the herald of audio-lingual method of second language teaching (Silva, 1990). It is believed that language is speech and that learning is habit formation, so that writing is viewed as a subordinate interest and merely functions as reinforcement for oral habit. Pincas developed this view by explaining that “the reverence for original dies hard. People find it difficult to accept the fact that the use of language is manipulation of fixed patterns; that these patterns are learned by imitation; and that not until they have been learned can originality occur in the manipulation or patterns or in the choice of variables within patterns” (p.12). Pincas seemed to reject what Erazmus (1960) believed that written exercises should take the form of free composition.
In the context of teaching, writing then takes the form of sentence drills; such as fill-ins, substitutions, transformations and completions. Teachers should provide the content of writing and the purpose of the exercises themselves are to strengthen the accurate application or grammatical rules.
Beside grammatical rules, form-dominated approach also emphasizes on rhetorical form as in Kaplan’s concept of contrastive rhetoric (1966). He presented exercises in recognizing and using topic sentences, examples, and illustrations. These exercises emphasize imitation of essay form, using writing from outline, paragraph completion, identification of topic sentence and supporting ideas, and reordering scrambled paragraphs. Kaplan’s contrastive rhetoric assumed that “each culture has a manner of presenting ideas particular to itself, so that writing teachers should determine paragraph patterns typical of English and teach those patterns to their ESL / EFL students” (p.4). Students, subsequently, imitate the patterns and would be able to transfer these skills to the acceptable academic writing.
Writer-Focused Approach
In the mid-70s, teachers and researchers began to react against form-dominated approach. They tried to see the students on what actually they do when they are writing. This attention led to a “process approach” (Zamel, 1976), the popular name of writer-focused approach. Various methods which characterize this approach were found. In place of “accuracy” and “pattern” occurred “process”, “making meaning”, and “invention”. It is recommended that teachers should not present instruction in the use of thesis sentences and outline before students have begun to explore their own ideas (Zamel, 1983) at this concern, linguistics accuracy seems to be downplayed. Teachers begin to provide students with time and opportunity to draft and revise their ideas. In line with this argument, McDonough (1985) suggested that writing teachers should allow students to set their own writing tasks as to encourage their confidence in order that they can use their English sufficiently to adjust what they know about their chosen subject.
In the classroom environment, process approach is expected to provide a positive and collaborative workshop environment within which students, with sufficient time and minimal intervention, can work through their writing processes. The role of the teachers, then, is to help students develop viable strategies for starting, drafting, revising, and editing their writing (Spack, 1984, Mangelsdorf, 1992).
Spack characterized “starting” as finding or exploring ideas, focusing and planning the structure of writing. In “drafting”, students are allowed to employ multiple drafts instead of single one. “Revising” is anything to do with adding, deleting, or modifying certain parts of the writing, whereas “editing” is mainly concerned with word choice, sentence structure and grammatical accuracy.
Horowitz (1986a) criticized this approach; that the emphasis on writing about personal experience creates particular problems for some ESL / EFL students who are not accustomed to focusing on themselves in their writing. Due to cultural influence, they sometimes feel restless using personal experience or examples to support general statements. When they are forced to do that, they would rather fabricate the experience than talk about themselves. In addition, with its emphasis on multiple drafts, process approach can not help students prepare themselves for the demands of academic essay exam with its restrictive draft.
Tomlinson (1983) suggested an approach that is aimed at increasing learners’ exposure to the authentic writing, dealing with problems which learner s may have with the written discourse they required to participate in outside the English lesson, and getting learners to write effectively. It combines, as he termed it, the concept of “writing to learn” and “learning to write”. This approach tried to reduce the limitations of form-dominated approach and process approach. Tomlinson saw that the combination of exposure to real language and opportunity to use it facilitate essential process of generalization. The teaching procedures provided seem to combine the teaching procedures of the two approaches with some modifications. This enables the learners to communicate in writing from the very beginning of the course despite waiting until they have learned to write.
Although it is disputable, the nature of process approach itself is that the students are the center of attention. They are engaged in the discovery and expression of meaning. There is no particular context for writing implicit in this approach. It is the students’ responsibility to identify and address particular task, situation, and sociocultural setting in which they are involved.
Content-Based Approach
The process approach was then included as “traditional” when Shih (1986) established a content-based approach. Shih claimed that this approach has more effects on the form of curriculum than the two approaches previously described, because the independent ESL / EFL class is often substituted by team-teaching, linked courses, topic-centered modules, sheltered instruction, and composition of English for academic purposes.
Johnston (1985) in her focus of research paper writing skills argued that by giving students an area of knowledge, they will get involved and motivated. They are experts in that area. They then focus on content rather than practicing language structures. They learn necessary vocabulary and structures as they go along. Since they have an instant context for their use of English, language learning takes place at a faster rate. In addition, Johnston offered a proposition that teachers should encourage students to narrow their subject progressively to smaller and smaller aspect of the topic. Teachers should also remind students of what she termed the “mushroom effect”, that is the tendency of subjects to get bigger and bigger while we are studying them.
Reader-Oriented Approach
Not long after content-based approach came English for Academic Purposes (EAP), English for Science and Technology or English for Special Purposes (ESP). The interest of this approach is that it focuses on the expectation of academic readers (Horowitz, 1986b). It reflects certain realities for ESL /EFL learners where Horowitz gave two reasons at this stage. First, unlike native learners who will need to write for various purposes, many ESL / EFL learners will find very little need to write in English, hence little need to write self-reflective, or self-exploratory essay typical of process approach. Second, the self reflection taught in the process approach functions to socialize the native learners into their own society which nothing to do with ESL /EFL students.
To some cases, EAP or ESP is a result of reactions and criticisms toward the process approach. One of the criticisms is that the process approach does not adequately address some prominent issues in ESL / EFL writing. For example, Reid (1984) claimed that the process approach does not consider variations in writing process due to differences in individuals, writing tasks, and situations. Critics also inquest whether the process approach prepares students for academic works.
According to Horowitz (1986a), the process approach overemphasizes the individual’s existence and fails to consider the sociocultural context. Then, EAP or ESP is proposed to involve a primary focus on academic discourse genres and the range of academic writing tasks, and is aimed at helping students socialize themselves into academic context.
Simply, from the orientation of EAP or ESP, writing is the production of prose that will be acceptable to academic situation. Learning to write is a part of socializing to the academic community. Referring to Silva, “the writer is pragmatic and oriented toward academic success and the reader is a seasoned member of the hosting academic community who has well-developed schemata for academic discourse and has stable views of what is appropriate” (1990:22).
New Modes of Teaching Writing
Nowadays, the four approaches above are still widely used by ESL / EFL teachers, yet it does not mean that they are distinct and reciprocal. Each has its own characteristics. In form-dominated approach, the topic is allocated by teachers. Process approach lets students determine their own topic of writing. In content-based approach topic will be expanded from the subject matter of either particular discipline or particular course, whereas in EAP or ESP, the topic will refer to what other disciplines assign for students.
In recent years, teachers and researchers began to rethink the strengths and weaknesses of those approaches. The central issue of the study is not only around the topics students write about but also around the dichotomy of process and product of writing.
Wong-Kam at al (1995), for example, questioned the process approach to writing. They stated that we need to look back at where we have been to consider why we teach writing, then reflect on the effectiveness of our practices in accomplishing our goals. They attempt to extend the process approach by leading us to writing on more personal level. They want to put the power of the pen back into the hands of the students by “seeing how ‘real’ writers write and try to live ‘writerly’ lives” (p.226). They argued that beside focusing on what the students write about, we have also to consider whether the piece of writing the students produce is worthy for readers.
Similarly, Fennick et al (1993) stated that teachers should teach writing for the real world, or in other words to meet the needs of the workplace writer. The aspects emphasized here are that the writers need to be able to adapt both text products and text-production processes for specific audiences and purposes, and understand their roles in shaping communication and social relationship.
Attempt to extend process approach also came from Koda (1993), in his study on American college students composing in Japanese, suggesting that vocabulary exercises should be incorporated in composition instruction to provide a “linguistic scaffolding for a given task” (p.343).
Downing (1995) proposed a so-called demand writing. Generally, demand writing is any required writing on an assigned topic completed in a fixed time period. Downing exemplifies that students engage in demand writing when answering essay test questions, writing persuasive letters, reporting on field trips, presenting finding from inquiry-based studies, and composing on personal narratives. In a demand writing situation, the writing topic is provided, yet students are required to develop the “piece” themselves. By teaching demand writing, Downing has found that this method “fosters active learning, forces students to take direct responsibility for their academic performance and growth, and allow them to demonstrate what they know” (p.200).
Meanwhile, other researchers like Hillebrand (1994), and Battersby (1995) have experimented collaborative writing as an alternative in teaching writing. Both see collaborative method helps students creatively produce informative, thoughtful and analytical essay. The students work together as a team to produce writing within an organized framework that encourages them to use a wider range of time linkers, attitude words, contrast clauses, set phrases and discourse markers. Types of writing which can be practiced with this method are storytelling or narratives, letter writing, and discursive composition.
Greaney (1997) used summary writing as an in-class activity involves the students in a collaborative exercise in which the teacher plays along with the students. The element of competition, if introduced as a game rather than as a test, stimulates the students to attempt to use their linguistic and analytical abilities to communicate their thoughts and to aim at a clear and precise goal: the one-sentence summary. If a student fails to achieve the goal, it is only a game. Moreover, the process of rewriting can take place many times because each draft is only one sentence long, and two or three revisions can be done in one class period. In this process the study of the paragraph as a discourse unit is approached by focusing on the sentence, the building block of the paragraph, and it is easier to see what is wrong with one sentence than to see what is wrong with a group of sentences. Students must focus on the idea of completeness in the small unit, and this thought process can then be applied to the development and shaping of a good paragraph. Moreover, the sentence is the form which is best suited to writing an outline of an essay. Exercises in outlining can follow this exercise in summarization, and students can move back and forth between these units, as they write a paragraph, then summarize it, and vice versa.
Meanwhile, Jarvis (2002) was still entrapped in process writing. Process writing, as he argued, will assist ESL students, whatever their ability level, improve their writing. Once an ESL student understands the process and trust that the teacher will accept and approve of their invented symbols and spelling, the ability to write improves dramatically. The key to learning to write is feeling confident in our abilities. Many students do not enjoy writing because they feel that if they cannot do it correctly the first time then they will never get it. Learning to write like learning to do many things requires practice and time. All students are capable to becoming excellent writers given enough practice and time. The Process writing method values the talents and growth of individual writers and makes them want to continue writing because they feel good about their abilities.
Internet-Based Writing: The State of the Art
Current advances in computer technology and the rapid pace of change in the communications revolution are affecting the way English Language (EL) teachers treat their students. A new insight is the use of information technology (IT) to develop students' language skills, including writing skill.
In support to the insight, Fox (1998) argued that the internet and its use in ESL classes shows great potential. If we consider carefully the students' needs and tailor an interactive and supportive environment that integrates internet activities such as e-mail and web browsing into the curriculum, students will as a result find English a more important part of their lives and will be more likely to use it in a self motivating life long way.
Belisle (1998) attempted to utilize E-mail to help students in their writing class. She argued that Writing teachers have a lot of work to do to help students improve their writing. Sometimes other time-consuming things like organizing, filing, retrieving and replying to a student's writing can take away important time from teaching. If we are using e-mail in our writing class, the use of a so-called Filtering and Stationary can be a big help and save a lot of time for more important things, like the actual teaching of writing.
In Filtering, messages can be automatically sorted, organized, and replied to depending on certain teacher-defined criteria. For example, suppose a teacher wants to track which students have e-mailed the first draft of the first assignment and which have not. By setting up certain filtering criteria, the software will automatically organize and sort all the incoming (and outgoing) mail related to that assignment into a teacher-defined mailbox. The criteria can be anything. For example, by telling students the e-mail subject of the first assignment should be "Assignment 1, Draft 1", the software will automatically filter all the messages which contain (or is) this subject into the mailbox that the teacher sets up beforehand. The teacher can then scroll up and down this mailbox which lists the names of all the students who have completed that assignment. The list will include no other subject or topic, only that assignment. In addition, a filter will not only put the assignment into an assignment mailbox, but also it can put a copy into a student mailbox. By doing so, a teacher has a mailbox of both the assignment (which is useful for knowing who has finished and who has not) and a mailbox for each student (which is useful for knowing which assignments a particular student has completed).
In Stationary, the teacher is allowed to create predesigned, teacher- authored messages which can be used again and again without having to recreate them. These messages can work with a filter and be automatically sent back to the student as automated replies. A message can be automatically sent, for example, when a particular assignment is received from a student. This response lets the student know that the teacher has successfully received the assignment and will get back to him or her later.
Ho (2000), initiated the use of E-mail exchange to develop students’ writing in an international information technology-based collaborative project, initiated by the British Council, between primary level pupils from two schools in Singapore and Birmingham (UK). She argued that through the electronic exchange of information, the pupils explored different writing tasks for various purposes and types of audience. The pupils' confidence, awareness and understanding of their own and their correspondents' cultures were enhanced in this intercultural and cross-curricular project. The study offered insights into how information technology can be used as a tool not only to develop pupils' confidence, language skills and creativity, but also to develop their sense of awareness of intercultural concerns, and of their being part of a dynamic, international, global community. The project also yielded discernible shifts in teachers' traditional roles and responsibilities, and the part they played in their students' participation as the project developed.
Both Belisle and Ho free their students to choose the topic or the content of writing. This means that they still employ process approach since, as previously mentioned, this approach lets students determine their own topic of writing. Hence, since they use internet in a particular basis for their writing process, Internet-Based Writing is likely to be the suitable name for their state-of-the-art approach.
Future Trend
It is quite difficult to presume what the future trend in writing might be. Few researchers, like Rubin and Bruce (1993), imply that simultaneously with development in technology, presumably teachers and researchers will seek to exploit the technology in improving students’ writing. Example of this is computer for writing in classroom. This idea has been earlier suggested by McLeod (1986) in her study on the utilization of word processing in facilitating the writing process.
Moreover, Belisle (1998) and Ho (2000) used E-mail in developing students’ writing. Both seem to stand on the idea that E-Mail will be a great help for both teachers and students in dealing with writing class. There is no doubt that the challenge provided by the availability of modern information technology provides not only students but also teachers exciting possibilities for innovative classroom challenges in the teaching and learning of writing.
Despite all the predictions of what approach will occur to be the answer for the future direction, there appears a recognition that the heterogeneity of the writing process and the writing context suggests that when we teach writing, we have to balance the four elements: the form, the writer, the content, and the reader. Preferably, approach to the teaching of writing should cover all these.
References
Battersby, Alan. (1995). Collaborative writing for intermediate and upper-intermediate learners. Modern English Teacher, 4 (2), 29-52.
Belisle, Ron. (1998). Let the E-mail Software Do the Work: Time Saving Features for the Writing Teacher. In The Internet TESL Journal. 4(4).
Downing, S. O’Hearn. (1995). Teaching writing for today’s demands. Language Arts, 72, 200-205.
Erazmus, E. (1960). Second language composition teaching at the intermediate level. Language Learning, 10, 25-31.
Fennick, Ruth., et al (1993). Solving problems in twenty-first century academic and workplace writing. English Journal, 82 (3), 46-53.
Fox, Gerald (1998). The Internet: Making it Work in the ESL Classroom. In The Internet TESL Journal. 6(9).
Greaney, George L. (1997). Less Is More: Summary Writing and Sentence Structure in the Advanced ESL Classroom. In The Internet TESL Journal. 3(9).
Hillebrand, Romana P. (1994). Control and Cohesion: Collaborative learning and writing. English Journal, 83 (1), 71-77.
Ho, Caroline Mei Lin. (2000). Developing Intercultural Awareness and Writing Skills through Email Exchange. In The Internet TESL Journal. 6(12).
Horowitz, D. (1986a). Process not product: Less than meet the eye. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 141-144.
___________. (1986b). What professor actually requires: Academic tasks for the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 445-462.
Jarvis, Daniel J. (2002). The Process Writing Method. In The Internet TESL Journal. 3(7).
Johnston, Sue A. (1985). An approach to the teaching of academic writing. ELT Journal, 39 (4), 248-252.
Koda, Keiko. (1993). Task-Induced variability in Foreign Language Composition: Language-specific perspectives. Foreign Language Annals, 26 (3), 332-344.
Kaplan, R. (1996). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20.
McDonough, Steven. (1985). Academic Writing Practice. ELT Journal, 39 (4), 244-247.
Mangelsdorf, Kate. (1992). Peer reviews in the composition classroom. ELT Journal, 46 (3), 274-283.
McLeod, Margaret. (1986). Word Processing and Writing Skills. Teaching English, 20 (1), 16-21.
Reid, J. (1984). The radical outliner and the radical brainstormer: A perspective of composing processes. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 529-533.
Rubin, Andee & Bruce, B.C. (1993). Electronic Quills: A situated evaluation of using computers for writing in classrooms. New Jersey: LEA, Inc.
Shih, M. (1986). Content-based approaches to the teaching of academic writing. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 617-648.
Silva, Tony. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In Kroll, Barbara (ed). Second Language Writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp.11-23). California: CUP.
Spack, R. (1984). Invention strategies and the ESL college composition student. TESOL Quarterly, 18 (4), 649-670.
Tomlinson, Brian. (1983). An approach to the teaching of continuous writing in ESL classes. ELT Journal, 37 (1), 7-15.
Watson, C. (1982). The use and abuse of models in the ESL writing class. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187.
Wong-Kam, J.A., et al. (1995). Extending and Questioning the Process Approach to Writing. Language Arts, 72, 226-232.
Zamel, Vivian. (1976). Teaching composition in the ESL classroom: What we can learn from research in the teaching of English. TESOL Quarterly, 10 (1), 67-76.
_____________. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187.
Since the dawn of the teaching of ESL/EFL writing, experts have established and developed pedagogical approaches by means of meeting the needs of students. Each approach tries to eliminate factors which may hinder students in their writing process. Commonly, two core circumstances will hinder students when they are dealing with writing. First, students tend to think in two different languages at the same time, so it is understandable when students use inappropriate translations from the first language. Second, they are aware of their weaknesses in the mechanics of writing, so they do the writing more slowly to avoid making mistakes.
Historically, there are four prominent approaches that have existed and have been used simultanously by teachers and researchers. Each has its own advantages and weaknesses. Today, attempts to improve and extend those approaches have vastly taken place.
Form-Dominated Approach
This approach has its roots in Charles Fries’ oral approach, the herald of audio-lingual method of second language teaching (Silva, 1990). It is believed that language is speech and that learning is habit formation, so that writing is viewed as a subordinate interest and merely functions as reinforcement for oral habit. Pincas developed this view by explaining that “the reverence for original dies hard. People find it difficult to accept the fact that the use of language is manipulation of fixed patterns; that these patterns are learned by imitation; and that not until they have been learned can originality occur in the manipulation or patterns or in the choice of variables within patterns” (p.12). Pincas seemed to reject what Erazmus (1960) believed that written exercises should take the form of free composition.
In the context of teaching, writing then takes the form of sentence drills; such as fill-ins, substitutions, transformations and completions. Teachers should provide the content of writing and the purpose of the exercises themselves are to strengthen the accurate application or grammatical rules.
Beside grammatical rules, form-dominated approach also emphasizes on rhetorical form as in Kaplan’s concept of contrastive rhetoric (1966). He presented exercises in recognizing and using topic sentences, examples, and illustrations. These exercises emphasize imitation of essay form, using writing from outline, paragraph completion, identification of topic sentence and supporting ideas, and reordering scrambled paragraphs. Kaplan’s contrastive rhetoric assumed that “each culture has a manner of presenting ideas particular to itself, so that writing teachers should determine paragraph patterns typical of English and teach those patterns to their ESL / EFL students” (p.4). Students, subsequently, imitate the patterns and would be able to transfer these skills to the acceptable academic writing.
Writer-Focused Approach
In the mid-70s, teachers and researchers began to react against form-dominated approach. They tried to see the students on what actually they do when they are writing. This attention led to a “process approach” (Zamel, 1976), the popular name of writer-focused approach. Various methods which characterize this approach were found. In place of “accuracy” and “pattern” occurred “process”, “making meaning”, and “invention”. It is recommended that teachers should not present instruction in the use of thesis sentences and outline before students have begun to explore their own ideas (Zamel, 1983) at this concern, linguistics accuracy seems to be downplayed. Teachers begin to provide students with time and opportunity to draft and revise their ideas. In line with this argument, McDonough (1985) suggested that writing teachers should allow students to set their own writing tasks as to encourage their confidence in order that they can use their English sufficiently to adjust what they know about their chosen subject.
In the classroom environment, process approach is expected to provide a positive and collaborative workshop environment within which students, with sufficient time and minimal intervention, can work through their writing processes. The role of the teachers, then, is to help students develop viable strategies for starting, drafting, revising, and editing their writing (Spack, 1984, Mangelsdorf, 1992).
Spack characterized “starting” as finding or exploring ideas, focusing and planning the structure of writing. In “drafting”, students are allowed to employ multiple drafts instead of single one. “Revising” is anything to do with adding, deleting, or modifying certain parts of the writing, whereas “editing” is mainly concerned with word choice, sentence structure and grammatical accuracy.
Horowitz (1986a) criticized this approach; that the emphasis on writing about personal experience creates particular problems for some ESL / EFL students who are not accustomed to focusing on themselves in their writing. Due to cultural influence, they sometimes feel restless using personal experience or examples to support general statements. When they are forced to do that, they would rather fabricate the experience than talk about themselves. In addition, with its emphasis on multiple drafts, process approach can not help students prepare themselves for the demands of academic essay exam with its restrictive draft.
Tomlinson (1983) suggested an approach that is aimed at increasing learners’ exposure to the authentic writing, dealing with problems which learner s may have with the written discourse they required to participate in outside the English lesson, and getting learners to write effectively. It combines, as he termed it, the concept of “writing to learn” and “learning to write”. This approach tried to reduce the limitations of form-dominated approach and process approach. Tomlinson saw that the combination of exposure to real language and opportunity to use it facilitate essential process of generalization. The teaching procedures provided seem to combine the teaching procedures of the two approaches with some modifications. This enables the learners to communicate in writing from the very beginning of the course despite waiting until they have learned to write.
Although it is disputable, the nature of process approach itself is that the students are the center of attention. They are engaged in the discovery and expression of meaning. There is no particular context for writing implicit in this approach. It is the students’ responsibility to identify and address particular task, situation, and sociocultural setting in which they are involved.
Content-Based Approach
The process approach was then included as “traditional” when Shih (1986) established a content-based approach. Shih claimed that this approach has more effects on the form of curriculum than the two approaches previously described, because the independent ESL / EFL class is often substituted by team-teaching, linked courses, topic-centered modules, sheltered instruction, and composition of English for academic purposes.
Johnston (1985) in her focus of research paper writing skills argued that by giving students an area of knowledge, they will get involved and motivated. They are experts in that area. They then focus on content rather than practicing language structures. They learn necessary vocabulary and structures as they go along. Since they have an instant context for their use of English, language learning takes place at a faster rate. In addition, Johnston offered a proposition that teachers should encourage students to narrow their subject progressively to smaller and smaller aspect of the topic. Teachers should also remind students of what she termed the “mushroom effect”, that is the tendency of subjects to get bigger and bigger while we are studying them.
Reader-Oriented Approach
Not long after content-based approach came English for Academic Purposes (EAP), English for Science and Technology or English for Special Purposes (ESP). The interest of this approach is that it focuses on the expectation of academic readers (Horowitz, 1986b). It reflects certain realities for ESL /EFL learners where Horowitz gave two reasons at this stage. First, unlike native learners who will need to write for various purposes, many ESL / EFL learners will find very little need to write in English, hence little need to write self-reflective, or self-exploratory essay typical of process approach. Second, the self reflection taught in the process approach functions to socialize the native learners into their own society which nothing to do with ESL /EFL students.
To some cases, EAP or ESP is a result of reactions and criticisms toward the process approach. One of the criticisms is that the process approach does not adequately address some prominent issues in ESL / EFL writing. For example, Reid (1984) claimed that the process approach does not consider variations in writing process due to differences in individuals, writing tasks, and situations. Critics also inquest whether the process approach prepares students for academic works.
According to Horowitz (1986a), the process approach overemphasizes the individual’s existence and fails to consider the sociocultural context. Then, EAP or ESP is proposed to involve a primary focus on academic discourse genres and the range of academic writing tasks, and is aimed at helping students socialize themselves into academic context.
Simply, from the orientation of EAP or ESP, writing is the production of prose that will be acceptable to academic situation. Learning to write is a part of socializing to the academic community. Referring to Silva, “the writer is pragmatic and oriented toward academic success and the reader is a seasoned member of the hosting academic community who has well-developed schemata for academic discourse and has stable views of what is appropriate” (1990:22).
New Modes of Teaching Writing
Nowadays, the four approaches above are still widely used by ESL / EFL teachers, yet it does not mean that they are distinct and reciprocal. Each has its own characteristics. In form-dominated approach, the topic is allocated by teachers. Process approach lets students determine their own topic of writing. In content-based approach topic will be expanded from the subject matter of either particular discipline or particular course, whereas in EAP or ESP, the topic will refer to what other disciplines assign for students.
In recent years, teachers and researchers began to rethink the strengths and weaknesses of those approaches. The central issue of the study is not only around the topics students write about but also around the dichotomy of process and product of writing.
Wong-Kam at al (1995), for example, questioned the process approach to writing. They stated that we need to look back at where we have been to consider why we teach writing, then reflect on the effectiveness of our practices in accomplishing our goals. They attempt to extend the process approach by leading us to writing on more personal level. They want to put the power of the pen back into the hands of the students by “seeing how ‘real’ writers write and try to live ‘writerly’ lives” (p.226). They argued that beside focusing on what the students write about, we have also to consider whether the piece of writing the students produce is worthy for readers.
Similarly, Fennick et al (1993) stated that teachers should teach writing for the real world, or in other words to meet the needs of the workplace writer. The aspects emphasized here are that the writers need to be able to adapt both text products and text-production processes for specific audiences and purposes, and understand their roles in shaping communication and social relationship.
Attempt to extend process approach also came from Koda (1993), in his study on American college students composing in Japanese, suggesting that vocabulary exercises should be incorporated in composition instruction to provide a “linguistic scaffolding for a given task” (p.343).
Downing (1995) proposed a so-called demand writing. Generally, demand writing is any required writing on an assigned topic completed in a fixed time period. Downing exemplifies that students engage in demand writing when answering essay test questions, writing persuasive letters, reporting on field trips, presenting finding from inquiry-based studies, and composing on personal narratives. In a demand writing situation, the writing topic is provided, yet students are required to develop the “piece” themselves. By teaching demand writing, Downing has found that this method “fosters active learning, forces students to take direct responsibility for their academic performance and growth, and allow them to demonstrate what they know” (p.200).
Meanwhile, other researchers like Hillebrand (1994), and Battersby (1995) have experimented collaborative writing as an alternative in teaching writing. Both see collaborative method helps students creatively produce informative, thoughtful and analytical essay. The students work together as a team to produce writing within an organized framework that encourages them to use a wider range of time linkers, attitude words, contrast clauses, set phrases and discourse markers. Types of writing which can be practiced with this method are storytelling or narratives, letter writing, and discursive composition.
Greaney (1997) used summary writing as an in-class activity involves the students in a collaborative exercise in which the teacher plays along with the students. The element of competition, if introduced as a game rather than as a test, stimulates the students to attempt to use their linguistic and analytical abilities to communicate their thoughts and to aim at a clear and precise goal: the one-sentence summary. If a student fails to achieve the goal, it is only a game. Moreover, the process of rewriting can take place many times because each draft is only one sentence long, and two or three revisions can be done in one class period. In this process the study of the paragraph as a discourse unit is approached by focusing on the sentence, the building block of the paragraph, and it is easier to see what is wrong with one sentence than to see what is wrong with a group of sentences. Students must focus on the idea of completeness in the small unit, and this thought process can then be applied to the development and shaping of a good paragraph. Moreover, the sentence is the form which is best suited to writing an outline of an essay. Exercises in outlining can follow this exercise in summarization, and students can move back and forth between these units, as they write a paragraph, then summarize it, and vice versa.
Meanwhile, Jarvis (2002) was still entrapped in process writing. Process writing, as he argued, will assist ESL students, whatever their ability level, improve their writing. Once an ESL student understands the process and trust that the teacher will accept and approve of their invented symbols and spelling, the ability to write improves dramatically. The key to learning to write is feeling confident in our abilities. Many students do not enjoy writing because they feel that if they cannot do it correctly the first time then they will never get it. Learning to write like learning to do many things requires practice and time. All students are capable to becoming excellent writers given enough practice and time. The Process writing method values the talents and growth of individual writers and makes them want to continue writing because they feel good about their abilities.
Internet-Based Writing: The State of the Art
Current advances in computer technology and the rapid pace of change in the communications revolution are affecting the way English Language (EL) teachers treat their students. A new insight is the use of information technology (IT) to develop students' language skills, including writing skill.
In support to the insight, Fox (1998) argued that the internet and its use in ESL classes shows great potential. If we consider carefully the students' needs and tailor an interactive and supportive environment that integrates internet activities such as e-mail and web browsing into the curriculum, students will as a result find English a more important part of their lives and will be more likely to use it in a self motivating life long way.
Belisle (1998) attempted to utilize E-mail to help students in their writing class. She argued that Writing teachers have a lot of work to do to help students improve their writing. Sometimes other time-consuming things like organizing, filing, retrieving and replying to a student's writing can take away important time from teaching. If we are using e-mail in our writing class, the use of a so-called Filtering and Stationary can be a big help and save a lot of time for more important things, like the actual teaching of writing.
In Filtering, messages can be automatically sorted, organized, and replied to depending on certain teacher-defined criteria. For example, suppose a teacher wants to track which students have e-mailed the first draft of the first assignment and which have not. By setting up certain filtering criteria, the software will automatically organize and sort all the incoming (and outgoing) mail related to that assignment into a teacher-defined mailbox. The criteria can be anything. For example, by telling students the e-mail subject of the first assignment should be "Assignment 1, Draft 1", the software will automatically filter all the messages which contain (or is) this subject into the mailbox that the teacher sets up beforehand. The teacher can then scroll up and down this mailbox which lists the names of all the students who have completed that assignment. The list will include no other subject or topic, only that assignment. In addition, a filter will not only put the assignment into an assignment mailbox, but also it can put a copy into a student mailbox. By doing so, a teacher has a mailbox of both the assignment (which is useful for knowing who has finished and who has not) and a mailbox for each student (which is useful for knowing which assignments a particular student has completed).
In Stationary, the teacher is allowed to create predesigned, teacher- authored messages which can be used again and again without having to recreate them. These messages can work with a filter and be automatically sent back to the student as automated replies. A message can be automatically sent, for example, when a particular assignment is received from a student. This response lets the student know that the teacher has successfully received the assignment and will get back to him or her later.
Ho (2000), initiated the use of E-mail exchange to develop students’ writing in an international information technology-based collaborative project, initiated by the British Council, between primary level pupils from two schools in Singapore and Birmingham (UK). She argued that through the electronic exchange of information, the pupils explored different writing tasks for various purposes and types of audience. The pupils' confidence, awareness and understanding of their own and their correspondents' cultures were enhanced in this intercultural and cross-curricular project. The study offered insights into how information technology can be used as a tool not only to develop pupils' confidence, language skills and creativity, but also to develop their sense of awareness of intercultural concerns, and of their being part of a dynamic, international, global community. The project also yielded discernible shifts in teachers' traditional roles and responsibilities, and the part they played in their students' participation as the project developed.
Both Belisle and Ho free their students to choose the topic or the content of writing. This means that they still employ process approach since, as previously mentioned, this approach lets students determine their own topic of writing. Hence, since they use internet in a particular basis for their writing process, Internet-Based Writing is likely to be the suitable name for their state-of-the-art approach.
Future Trend
It is quite difficult to presume what the future trend in writing might be. Few researchers, like Rubin and Bruce (1993), imply that simultaneously with development in technology, presumably teachers and researchers will seek to exploit the technology in improving students’ writing. Example of this is computer for writing in classroom. This idea has been earlier suggested by McLeod (1986) in her study on the utilization of word processing in facilitating the writing process.
Moreover, Belisle (1998) and Ho (2000) used E-mail in developing students’ writing. Both seem to stand on the idea that E-Mail will be a great help for both teachers and students in dealing with writing class. There is no doubt that the challenge provided by the availability of modern information technology provides not only students but also teachers exciting possibilities for innovative classroom challenges in the teaching and learning of writing.
Despite all the predictions of what approach will occur to be the answer for the future direction, there appears a recognition that the heterogeneity of the writing process and the writing context suggests that when we teach writing, we have to balance the four elements: the form, the writer, the content, and the reader. Preferably, approach to the teaching of writing should cover all these.
References
Battersby, Alan. (1995). Collaborative writing for intermediate and upper-intermediate learners. Modern English Teacher, 4 (2), 29-52.
Belisle, Ron. (1998). Let the E-mail Software Do the Work: Time Saving Features for the Writing Teacher. In The Internet TESL Journal. 4(4).
Downing, S. O’Hearn. (1995). Teaching writing for today’s demands. Language Arts, 72, 200-205.
Erazmus, E. (1960). Second language composition teaching at the intermediate level. Language Learning, 10, 25-31.
Fennick, Ruth., et al (1993). Solving problems in twenty-first century academic and workplace writing. English Journal, 82 (3), 46-53.
Fox, Gerald (1998). The Internet: Making it Work in the ESL Classroom. In The Internet TESL Journal. 6(9).
Greaney, George L. (1997). Less Is More: Summary Writing and Sentence Structure in the Advanced ESL Classroom. In The Internet TESL Journal. 3(9).
Hillebrand, Romana P. (1994). Control and Cohesion: Collaborative learning and writing. English Journal, 83 (1), 71-77.
Ho, Caroline Mei Lin. (2000). Developing Intercultural Awareness and Writing Skills through Email Exchange. In The Internet TESL Journal. 6(12).
Horowitz, D. (1986a). Process not product: Less than meet the eye. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 141-144.
___________. (1986b). What professor actually requires: Academic tasks for the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 445-462.
Jarvis, Daniel J. (2002). The Process Writing Method. In The Internet TESL Journal. 3(7).
Johnston, Sue A. (1985). An approach to the teaching of academic writing. ELT Journal, 39 (4), 248-252.
Koda, Keiko. (1993). Task-Induced variability in Foreign Language Composition: Language-specific perspectives. Foreign Language Annals, 26 (3), 332-344.
Kaplan, R. (1996). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20.
McDonough, Steven. (1985). Academic Writing Practice. ELT Journal, 39 (4), 244-247.
Mangelsdorf, Kate. (1992). Peer reviews in the composition classroom. ELT Journal, 46 (3), 274-283.
McLeod, Margaret. (1986). Word Processing and Writing Skills. Teaching English, 20 (1), 16-21.
Reid, J. (1984). The radical outliner and the radical brainstormer: A perspective of composing processes. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 529-533.
Rubin, Andee & Bruce, B.C. (1993). Electronic Quills: A situated evaluation of using computers for writing in classrooms. New Jersey: LEA, Inc.
Shih, M. (1986). Content-based approaches to the teaching of academic writing. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 617-648.
Silva, Tony. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In Kroll, Barbara (ed). Second Language Writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp.11-23). California: CUP.
Spack, R. (1984). Invention strategies and the ESL college composition student. TESOL Quarterly, 18 (4), 649-670.
Tomlinson, Brian. (1983). An approach to the teaching of continuous writing in ESL classes. ELT Journal, 37 (1), 7-15.
Watson, C. (1982). The use and abuse of models in the ESL writing class. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187.
Wong-Kam, J.A., et al. (1995). Extending and Questioning the Process Approach to Writing. Language Arts, 72, 226-232.
Zamel, Vivian. (1976). Teaching composition in the ESL classroom: What we can learn from research in the teaching of English. TESOL Quarterly, 10 (1), 67-76.
_____________. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187.
