Teaching Language Skills - Writing PDF

Teaching Language Skills Writing  Introduction In terms of skills, producing a coherent, fluent, extended piece of writing is probably the most difficult thing there is to do in language. It is something most native speakers never master. For second language learners...

Teaching Language Skills Writing  Introduction In terms of skills, producing a coherent, fluent, extended piece of writing is probably the most difficult thing there is to do in language. It is something most native speakers never master. For second language learners the challenges are enormous, particularly for those who go on to a university and study in a language that is not their own.  Introduction There are four approaches to second language writing instruction. 1. Until the mid-1970s, writing was a subservient skill whose function was to support the development of oral language. Pedagogy was therefore dominated by form-focused techniques that were in line with the audiolingual ideology of drill and practice. 2. In the mid-1970s, second language teachers discovered “process” approaches that were becoming popular in the first language classroom. The process approach concentrates on the creation of the text, rather than only the end product.  Introduction In the mid-1980s, two trends developed simultaneously. 3. The first of these was a focus on academic content, looking at the demands made on readers by the nature of the academic subjects they were required to master. 4. Along with content-based approaches came a focus on the requirements of the reader, and the implications of these requirements on the writer.  The Nature of the Writing Process Product versus process approaches Product-oriented approaches focus on the final product, the coherent, error-free text. Process approaches, on the other hand, focus on the steps involved in drafting and redrafting a piece of work. Proponents of process writing recognized and accept the reality that there will never be the perfect text, but that one can get closer to perfection through producing, reflecting on, discussing, and reworking suggestive drafts of a text.  The Nature of the Writing Process Product versus process approaches Product-oriented approaches to writing focus on tasks in which the learner imitates, copies, and transforms models provided by the teacher and/or textbook. The focus was also very much on the sentence level grammar, the belief being that sentences were the building blocks of discourse, and that discourse was created by fitting one building block on the text. Such an approach was consistent with sentence-level structuralist linguistics and bottom-up processing.  The Nature of the Writing Process Product versus process approaches However, product-oriented approach was not consistent with emerging ideas in discourse analysis. Researchers working in this tradition were able to see that very often higher order choices determine lower order ones. In other words, decisions about how to package information within a sentence, and what grammatical forms to use, can often only be made with reference to the discourse context within which the sentence is to be placed. In addition, an experiential philosophy, stressing learning by doing, argued more for a process approach.  The Nature of the Writing Process Product versus process approaches In such an approach, teachers focus less on a perfect final product than on the development of successive drafts of a text. Here the focus, in the first instance, is on quantity rather than quality, and writers are encouraged to get their ideas onto paper without worrying too much about formal correctness in the initial stages. They then share their work with others, getting feedback on their ideas and how they are expressed, before revising.  The Nature of the Writing Process Process writing Without doubt, a major impetus to writing pedagogy has come in recent years with the rapid growth of word processors, as well as the use of the Internet as a means of communication. Process writing really became feasible with the development of word processing. Prior to that, the physical act of writing by hand was so laborious that it was unrealistic to expect writers to produce more than one or two drafts of their work.  The Nature of the Writing Process Process writing Despite their attractiveness, process writing has been controversial. One criticism is that, left to themselves, young writers will produce recounts succeed in school. Factual writing fosters development of critical thinking skills, which in turn encourage the individual to explore and challenge social reality. Another criticism is that the unfettered writing process approach has been just as artificial as the traditional high school research structure. Students need structure, they need models to practice, think through their ideas, to revise them, and to write for real purposes and real audiences. In relation to writing, the issue of authenticity is not only what kinds of text learners are exposed to as models of writing, but also the types of text that learners are required to produce.  The Nature of the Writing Process White and Arndt (1991) suggest that producing a text involves six recursive procedures: 1. Generating ideas 2. Structuring 3. Focusing 4. Drafting 5. Evaluation 6. Reviewing It is worth mentioning that the learner completes six steps before actually producing a first draft, note, also, the social, collaborative nature of the composing process.  The Nature of the Writing Process The following typical sequence of activities is suggested by White and Arndt. 1. Discussion (class, small group, pair) 2. Brainstorming / making notes / asking question 3. Fast-writing / selecting ideas / establishing a viewpoint 4. Rough drafting 5. Preliminary self-evaluation 6. Arranging information / structuring the text 7. First draft 8. Group / peer evaluation and responding 9. Conference 10. Second draft 11. Self-evaluation 12. Finished draft 13. Final responding to draft  The Nature of the Writing Process As White and Arndt point out, the process approach is aimed at helping the learner to develop a set of skills. As such, there is no reason why it need necessarily be inconsistent with approaches that focus more on the development of an acceptable final product. What we need in the writing classroom are both models and appropriate procedures. In other words, we need both process and product.  The Nature of the Writing Process Spoken versus written language When developing courses for teaching writing, it is important to be aware of the differences between the spoken and written models. Too often in the past, teachers attempted to teach spoken language by presenting learners with written language models, and vice versa, as though writing were “Talk written down”.  The Nature of the Writing Process This raises the question of just what the differences are between the two different models. Again, while written language emerged from spoken language, it is more than “talk written down”. Writing emerged in societies as a result of cultural changes that created new communicative needs. These could not be readily met by the spoken language. In particular, with the emergence of cultures based on agriculture rather than hunting and gathering, people needed permanent records that could be referred to over and over again. This led to the emergence of a new form of language: writing.  The Nature of the Writing Process Halliday (1985) suggests that written language is used for the following purposes:  for action (e.g. public signs, product labels, television and radio guides, bills, menus, telephone directories, ballot papers, computer manuals);  for information (e.g. newspapers, current affairs magazines, advertisements, political pamphlets);  for entertainment (e.g. comic strips, fiction books, poetry and drama, newspaper features, film subtitles).  The Nature of the Writing Process These different purposes for language will be reflected in the characteristics of the texts themselves. Letters have different characteristics from newspaper editorials, which have different characteristics from poems and so on. When we considered the concept of genre, these differences can be observed within the sentence at the level of grammar, and beyond the sentence at the level of text structure.  The Nature of the Writing Process Written language does, in fact, serve a similar range of broad functions as does spoken language; that is, it is used to get things done, to provide information and to entertain. However, the contexts for using written language are very different from those in which spoken language is used. For example, written language is used to communicate with others who are removed in time and space, or for those occasions on which a permanent or semi-permanent record is required. While most people in other cities or countries could communicated with by telephone, there are certain types of message that would be more appropriate in written form, for example, postcard greetings to family and friends.  The Nature of the Writing Process The main differences between spoken and written language: Spoken language Written language Context dependent Context independent - Generally used to communicate with - Used to communicate across time and people in the same time and place distance - Relies on shared knowledge between - Must recreate for readers the context it the interaction and often makes is describing reference to the shared context. Dialogic in nature Monologic in nature Usually involves two or more speakers - Usually written by one person creating spoken texts together - Removed from an audience Unrehearsed and spontaneous but Edited and redrafted not unpredictable Written language can be edited and Interactants build spoken, unrehearsed redrafted any number of times texts spontaneously within social and linguistic parameters  The Nature of the Writing Process The main differences between spoken and written language: Spoken language Written language Records the world as happenings Records the world as things Relies more on verbs to carry meanings Relies more on nouns and noun groups to carry meaning Grammatically intricate Lexically dense - Tends to contain more grammatical - Tends to contain more lexical or words such as pronouns, conjunctions, content words as meaning is carries by etc. nouns and noun groups - Develop through intricate networks of - Relies on the process of clauses rather than complete sentences nominalization whereby things that are as it is jointly constructed and relies not nouns can be turned into nouns more heavily on verbs  Functional Grammar and Writing Functional models of linguistic analysis are developed to account for relationships between the forms of the language, and the various uses to which the language is put.  Functional Grammar and Writing Genre theory and writing In written, as in spoken language, genres are typified by a particular structure and by grammatical forms that reflect the communicative purpose of the genre in question. Genre theorists argue that language exists to fulfill certain functions, and that these functions will determine not only the grammatical items that appear in a text, but also the overall shape or structure od the discourse that emerges as people communicate with one another. In other words, it will have certain predictable stages.  Functional Grammar and Writing The communicative purpose will also be reflected in the basic building blocks of the discourse, that is, the words and grammatical structures themselves. In other words, different types of communicative vents result in different types of discourse, and these will have their own distinctive characteristics. Some events result in sermons, others in political speeches, and yet others in casual conversations. While each sermon, political speech, and casual conversation will be different, each discourse type will share certain characteristics that will set it apart from other discourse types.  Functional Grammar and Writing Problems with a functional model The first of these relates to how one might compare assessment procedures based on a functional view of language with more conventional procedures. This dilemma relates to what Beretta (1986) calls “program fair evaluation”. In selecting assessment procedures and instruments, the evaluators need to ensure that one of the assessment procedures or programs being investigated is not discriminates against.  Functional Grammar and Writing The second problem relates to the so-called product-oriented bias of genre-based pedagogy. Certain proponents of “process” approaches to the development of writing have argued that genre-based pedagogy takes a normative approach to the production of texts, and focuses on the end product; the destination, as it were, rather than the route. Some other proponents of genre-based teaching, of course, have argued that process approaches focus on the route, and ignore the destination. The process versus product debate represents a false dichotomy, and that certain individuals on either side of the debate have taken up positions that ideological rather than empirical. These two approaches are really interdependent, and effective writing pedagogy will call upon both approaches.  Functional Grammar and Writing The process/product debate has also suffered from confusion between syllabus design and methodology. The strength of the genre approach rests on the principles it sets out for the selection of the content. This is essentially a syllabus design issue. The process approach, on the other hand, is oriented toward classroom action, and its concerns are therefore essentially methodological.  A Discourse-based Approach to Writing From this perspective, the creation of coherent and cohesive discourse is basically a matter of drawing on the grammatical and discourse features that exist in the language to turn multi-linear and multi-related ideas into linear form.  A Discourse-based Approach to Writing Discourse processes The concept of discourse coherence has fascinated discourse analysts and language educators, particularly those working with foreign language students in tertiary contexts. Discourse analysis inquire into what it is thar constitutes coherent discourse. What is it. In other words, that distinguishes a text, which is perceived by the listener or reader as “hanging together”, from a random collection of sentences. Language educators, on the other hand, are more concerned with the practical question of helping students produce coherent discourse. Ultimately, the two concerns should coincide, with language educators drawing on insights from discourse analysts to provide direction for pedagogy.  A Discourse-based Approach to Writing In the writing classroom, several specialists have suggested that topical structure analysis is a promising technique for improving the coherence of written work. Accordingly, texts can be developed in three different ways, and that these ways are evident in the distribution of topics in succeeding sentences in a text. The first of these through parallel progression, in which succeeding sentences in a text are semantically identical. The second is sequential progression. Here the topic of each succeeding sentence is different. In the extended parallel progression, there is a return to a topic that has already been instantiated in an earlier.  Contrastive Rhetoric The basic argument of researchers in contrastive rhetoric is that certain culturally determined ways of thinking and communicating will transfer themselves to second language texts. For example, it has been noted that many Asian cultures are characterized by a high degree of indirectness. This indirectness manifests itself in a reluctance to state one’s position explicitly. This, presumably, would create difficulties for L2 writers who are required to produce academic texts with an explicitly stated topic sentence followed by supporting evidence.  Contrastive Rhetoric The idea that a second language writer’s problem can be traced back to the contrast between the culturally determined discourse patterns of first and second languages is by no means universally accepted. A great deal of work done in this field is intuitive rather than empirical, and tended to focus on disparate surface features of texts, such as anaphoric reference, that are incapable of explaining contrastive patterns in larger segments of discourse.  Contrastive Rhetoric While it can be enlightening for students to be made aware of differences in the ways in which their own language and English transform ideas into discourse, the enlightenment does not necessarily lead to improvements in students’ writing. The real benefit of making learners consciously aware of distinctions between the discourse patterns of their own language and that of the target language is that it reassures that they do not suffer from individual inadequacies, but that their difficulties stem from the contrasts between both language.