How does teaching of process approach (PA) help students in their writing?

      Abstract

This small scale research is carried out to explore teaching writing skills incorporated by the teachers and the learners in the lower secondary schools in Mongar district. The study delineates the benefits of process approach to teaching writing. It is an educational research carried out essentially to tap the lived experiences of classes seven and eight students of the three lower secondary schools in Mongar. Throughout the study, the researcher is guided by the research topic, “How does teaching of process approach (PA) help students in their writing?”

The research anchors on social constructivist’s paradigm. Using the quota and purposive sampling a writing phenomenon of nine participants namely three teachers and six students is studied. The data are gathered using semi-structured interviews and observation tools which in turn are analyzed by using Creswell’s (2007) six generic steps of data analysis. The study also organizes the patterns and themes emerged from the data to make meaning.

The study finds that teaching students how to write aptly using process approach helps them gain proficiency in their writing. The process approach model sufficiently addresses the writing deficits and writer’s blocks the students encounter during their writing tasks.

The study recommends the English language teachers to administer the process approach strategy to teach writing to their students. The issue of nurturing strong writing competence in students draws attention not only of the English teachers but also the national English curriculum developers in Bhutan.

Introduction

As seen in the students of other parts of the world, writing task remains to be the major problem with many Bhutanese students. For this very reason, the educational researchers in Bhutan have been studying on the challenges of learning writing approaches to help the students write well in their writing assignments. 

As reflections and recounts of one’s personal, educational and professional experiences of the past unfold, the learning revives and the experiences help to pose researchable questions to confirm the redundancy and ambiguity of some expressions and knowledge claims.

By the same token, the researcher recounts the teachings of his language teachers, regrettably many of them have never taught the writing as a second language or third language exercises to their students but rather used it as native language speaker’s task without using any writing strategies. The writing has been the hallmark of language learning. Failing to teach students effective writing skills defeats the very purpose of language acquisitions. The literature discusses that the main thrust of second language learning strategy theory and research has been toward the identification and training of so-called good language learning strategies (Porte, 2002).

Besides, as English language teacher in three secondary schools for the last eleven years, the researcher has observed that majority of the students perform poorly in their writing tasks, be it in home or board exams. Every time the teacher gave some writing activities to students, there would be always some students not able to express their ideas. Some could hardly write a paragraph. Many a times, the teacher would find their ideas disorganized, unfocussed and irrelevant to the topic.

Therefore, this paper is essentially written to address the weakness of the Bhutanese student’s writing calibre. The main research question (How does the process approach to writing help students in their writing?) has been formulated to investigate the effectiveness of process approach to writing.

Literature Review

The relevant literature abounds in some approaches that seem to have been most influential in writing. These are the product approach and the process approach.

The product approach is concerned with the finished text. Particularly, it is concerned with manipulation of lexical and grammatical structures in the written text. All writing forms characteristic of the oral and audio-lingual methods (technically known as controlled composition) are subsumed under this approach since they were concerned with the correct use of language structures. These forms of writing could not be expected to develop learners’ composing abilities beyond the sentence level (Silva, 1990).

However, the product approach became a subject of criticism in 1980s. For example, Freedman et al (1983) conceive of it as ‘pedagogically weak’ for the insufficient attention it paid to the writing stages. On the other hand, Zamel (1983) argues that the product approach was ‘prescriptive, formulaic, and overtly concerned with correctness’ (p. 165). A most comprehensive criticism comes from Krashen (1984, in Ezza, 2010) who states, “if the student-writer is ‘able to master all the rules of punctuation, spelling, grammar, and style that linguists have discovered and described’, then their reward would be a Ph.D in Linguistics but they would never be competent in writing” ( p.25).

Nonetheless, grammar jeopardizes writing pedagogy as it is an open-ended phenomenon. The learners could not be expected to study and practise writing properly if writing is tied up with acquisition of grammar. The grammar is a vast subject. Nine months of school teaching might not be enough to cover the particulars of grammar.

It is of no practical use for the students’ writing needs, for example, generating surface structures from deep structures (Ezza, 2010). He propounds the notion of segregating grammar and writing as below:

Even when the argument that mastery of grammar determines success in writing is taken for granted, there still remains the question about the nature of grammar needed in the writing programme; for grammar comes in different schools (formal/functional), theories (structural/ transformational), types (theoretical/pedagogical), etc. which are for the most part mutually exclusive, and cannot, therefore, be compromised into a coherent writing programme (Ezza, p. 36).

The proponent also emphasizes that grammar in a writing course overshadows the nature of writing as a communication skill where grammar is one of many resources that writers resort to in order to enrich their communicative intent. In fact, “grammar operates at a linguistic level

below that of the basic unit of writing; the paragraph where emphasis will primarily be on textuality; the relationship between sentences, rather than grammaticality; and the well-formedness of the sentence” (Xu, 1991, p.36).

So, owing to what was considered drawbacks in the product approach, the late 1970s witnessed a shift to the process approach (writing process). Zamel (1983) supports that from the point of view of the advocates of the new approach, writing should be “an explanatory and generative process whereby writers discover and reformulate their ideas as they attempt to approximate meaning” (p.165). Thus, writing is a process. It is a recursive, not a linear product. It’s like a reconnaissance analysis of a topic – moving forward and backward till a writing piece is refined, shaped and published. Writing process can be compared with an analogy of searching for gold:

First you wander around, looking at maps and squinting into the horizon for a likely source. You might start to dig in three or four places before you actually strike gold. Perhaps some of it is fool’s gold, but you gather up everything that looks like gold, even letting some sand and pebbles get into the bag, because it is getting dark and you don’t want to leave anything valuable behind. You’ll sort it out later. Once you’ve isolated the gold, it must be refined, carefully crafted into beautiful and/or useful objects (rings, coins, chains), and polished (Ziegler, 1981, pp. 35-36).

In this approach, the steps or stages are illustrated and practiced from the creation of ideas and compilation of information through a series of activities namely, planning, gathering information, drafting, revising, and editing (p. 11). This sequence of activities typically occurs in four stages: “prewriting, composing/ drafting, revising, and editing” (Badger & White, 2000, p. 154).

Prewriting is the phase of idea gathering. Drafting is the process of writing a rough outline of what will be addressed. Once students produce a rough draft, they read it again and share it with peers or receive comments from teachers. Then they make modifications to their writings based on the feedback from their peers or a teacher; revising, or elaborating on the first draft, takes place at this point. Editing or correcting mechanical errors such as grammatical structures, spelling or punctuation, is the last stage. Walsh (1998) argues that the procedures of process writing help learners to develop more effective ways of conveying meaning and to better comprehend the content that they want to express. They strongly believe that students can discover what they want to say and write more successfully through the process model, as the process approach is viewed as writer centered.

Previous studies (Walker, Shippen, Alberto, Houchins, and Chalk, 2005) have shown that teaching students writing strategies has been successful; however, using direct instruction perhaps on writing model like PA approach has been most effective in improving and increasing written expression skills particularly for struggling students. By the same token, Krashan (1984, in Ezza, 2010) raises arguments supporting the fact that “it is mostly through writing instruction, writing practice and teacher’s feedback that students’ writing can be improved”. (p.34). This process approach to teaching writing is all about proving practices and feedbacks as it moves back and forth in the continuum  of writing workshop.

Writer’s Workshop Modality using PA

The each stage of process approach to teaching writing through writer’s workshop is delineated below: 

Prewriting : Here students select topic from their writing territories and generate ideas for the topic by using strategies like brainstorming, listing, webbing, fast writers, writing leads, writing title, looping, journalist questions, researching by reading, interviewing an expert, thinking about how to approach the topic, discussing the topic with a friend or peer, among others. 84% of writing time (WT) is needed as recommended by Murray, 1985 (as cited in Teachers Guide Book (TGB) for classes seven and eight, 2008). 

Drafting: During the drafting stage, only 1 % of writing time (RT) is used here in one sitting (Murray, 1985 in TGB, 2008). Students do not think of correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar during the drafting stage. Probably, some students will have difficulty getting started while others will plunge right in. A free flow of ideas is encouraged. Ebbit and Ebbit (1982) say that if words come out spontaneously, it gives one’s style energy that cannot be achieved by deliberation and one can enjoy the pleasure of polishing later.

Revising: Revision involves adding, substituting, deleting, and moving ideas and words around as writers rework and polish their pieces. Conferencing is a significant part of this stage in the writing process. Aeron and Bander (2005) conclude, “Good writing emerges from successive revisions” (p.12).

Editing: Editing is the process of getting the piece ready for the audience. Editing can appear in different layers – editing for clarity of ideas and language, editing for grammar conventions, and editing for correctness (punctuation, mechanics, and spelling). In other words editing is proof reading by the author before the write-up is ready for publication Brief mini lessons in capitalization, punctuation, spelling, paragraph structure, grammar, vocabulary, and the structure of complete sentences should be offered repeatedly. (Gyeltshen, 2010).

Publishing: Finally, 1% of RT is used in editing and publishing (Murray, 1985, as cited in Teacher’s Guide Book, 2008). This final stage of the writing process – publishing – occurs when a completed text is reworked and edited to the satisfaction of the author. Although many young authors will want to publish everything they write, not all pieces will reach the publishing stage.

Therefore, Peha (2010) suggests some common writing problems being solved by the process approach thus: Writing Pro

Students don’t know how to get started: No problem, just introduce them to Pre-Writing activities like brainstorming, webbing, mapping, free writing and listing.

Students don’t write because they are afraid of making errors: Tell students they will have a chance to make corrections during the Editing stage.

Low productivity; students don’t write very much: Pre-Writing activities like free writing increase fluidity of expression; the knowledge that things can be changed during Revising frees students up to experiment.

No effort in Revision; no ability to rethink earlier drafts: By teaching focused lessons in specific writing skills, and showing students how to use the Six Traits criteria, young writers become interested in and committed to serious revision.

Sloppy work; no attention to detail in final drafts: By reserving a special stage for Publishing, and creating authentic publishing opportunities for your students to publish their work, you can show them how important this aspect of writing really is, and you can give them specific lessons in how to go about it (p. 3)

 

Research Methodology

There has been a great feeling that the researcher has learned some aspects of qualitative research methodology particularly the phenomenological approach. Given the nature of the problem of the research topic, the researcher has used phenomenological approach for this study. Knowing the importance of sampling in research, the researcher has collected the sample for his research using the purposive and quota sampling. The interviews and observation were used as the research instruments to collect data for his research. However, more emphasis had been placed on semi structured interviews as it is one of the most important tools in the phenomenological studies. The interview had helped the researcher in triangulating the data that had been collected using the above two tools.  The researcher was also mindful of the ethical issues to be considered before, while and after transcribing the data.

Data Presentation, Analysis and Discussion

Participating teachers and students find writing skill very important. According to them, the over-riding definition of writing is that it is a process, not an end product but a recursive activity. It is not a linear activity in the continuum of writing scale. The writing gets shaped, refined, and oriented as the writers move forward and backward in the process of writing (TP-02, TP-03, SP-01, SP-03, SP-04, and SP-06).

Having analysed the data, the researcher has conceived the ideas of process approach being used by the teachers and classes seven and eight students of the participant schools. When asked what approaches had been followed while teaching writing to students, a teacher participant namely TP-02 said:

We have some writing skills. I follow the writing process. We let them do brainstorming, discussion. Some of them they can’t come up with opinion and we let them discuss and once their opinions are shared and I let (…) make them to write. We have some writing procedures. First we have drafting, then redrafting, editing. These all we do it while writing. Before writing I give them transitional words. So I make sure like they include some transitional words, I let them (….) I give them high frequency words and they use high frequency word and transitional words in their writing. There is a lot of improvement and the progress is seen there.

To authenticate the above statements of the participant TP-02, the researcher interviewed a student (SP-04) and found that students have been taught the process approach to teaching writing.

A student participant from a lower secondary school said that she does webbing first to collect points whatever she thinks about a particular topic and then she just writes it down in drafts. Having drafted the points into paragraphs she then arranges the points in sequence. After that she not only let nearby friends to read but also let other friends and teacher to check her first draft. The corrected draft is then redrafted and made further corrections before she puts her write-up in her writing portfolio (SP-03).

Further, to validate the effectiveness of process approach to teaching writing, the researcher also observed the lesson of TP-02 on 09/05/2011 at 1: 20 pm in 6^th period in class eight and the lesson of TP -03 in class seven from 10/05/2011 till 14/05/2011 for five consecutive periods. It was found that students did follow process approach to teaching writing and benefited from PA model of writing.

In one of the class observations, after the first draft, the teacher TP-02 asked students to share their first draft to the class (as a response to the writing activity) for comments and correction. One girl had written a very good first draft on the given topic, ‘My Favorite Season’. The teacher, researcher and students applauded her. Encouragingly, many students were raising their hands to read out their first drafts for pointing, questioning, summarizing and questions from the author, essentially for feedbacks and improvement in the next draft.

Similarly, the researcher perceived the idea of writer’s workshop being conducted by the teacher participant TP-03 in his writing class. The researcher observed the writing class for one week. During the lessons the teacher taught the ideas of writing process using the writer’s workshop approach, essentially a student-centred method.

Many were able to write a coherent essay with spelt out thesis statement in the opening paragraph with grabbing supporting points and clearer topic sentence in each paragraph with clinching supporting details. Students were also able to write concise conclusion in different idiom. This is evident from the observation diary maintained by the researcher on dated 09/05/2011 till 14/05/2011. The classes were very lively and enriching.

A more pragmatic application of stages of process approach to writing has been demonstrated in almost all the three schools the researcher visited. Murray’s (1985) contemporaries and school teachers found useful and taught writing to their students using writing process strategies.

On the contrary, some participants argue that process approach is too time consuming and does not necessarily help during exam time because of the time limit (TP -02 and SP-04). However, the participant TP-03 proclaimed:

Writing is a process not an end product. We revisit during redrafting and editing. It takes time but it helps. Writing is like an art or like subject. If a student they complete writing one essay, that will be his product but that doesn’t mean that he has mastered in writing in that essay (TP-03).

On the flip side of process approach, Badger and White (2000) downgrade the very purpose of PA model to teaching writing when they say, “the process approach has a very restricted view of writing, in that the approach presumes that writing proficiency takes place only with the support of the repeated exercise of the same writing procedures. Although it is obvious that the amounts of pre-writing necessary for writing a personal letter and for creating an academic research paper are different, in the process model, the practice of writing is identical regardless of what the topic is and who the writer or the reader is” (pp. 154-155).

Nevertheless, a teacher participant (TP-02) indirectly suggests that time required for writing easier topics is less and difficult topics more depending on the capabilities of the writers. She proposed and supported the writing as below:

Writing process would be useful because we don’t seem to know our mistakes. After two to three months if we go back we find a lot of mistakes, even application writing also. Letting others to read it itself is a great learning for me, if others edit for me then there would be lots of mistakes and then when I revisit again there will be always mistakes, we should do this prewriting, drafting, redrafting and then editing by others and it is very useful (TP-02).

In addition, the respondent maintains the claims of PA teaching modality by saying that students are not all same. Different students come to school with multiple intelligences and for weaker group of students there cannot be a better method than teaching through PA model. She also argues that process approach to teaching writing is not a mechanical, routinely and repeated drills as stated by Badger and White (2000). The participant also said:

They are not able to come up with those details like sensory details. We have to stress more on those children. I let them write again and again. I let them sit with the high achievers and let them to share. I let them focus on usage of Dictionary. My children are writing it. We can’t finish writing in a day. It goes on for one week. First time they write, they don’t write well – a raw thing. Second time they write a little improvement because they look at their spellings, punctuation and third time they write I tell them that their sentence structures should be correct and then forth time they bring it to me, it is the final one without any mistakes (TP-02).

Besides, administering the frequent short mini-lessons during writer’s workshop classes by the teachers, specifically on common mistakes in basic sentence structures and mechanics of writing, was deemed helping the students by overwhelming majority (TP-03).

Grammar-Based Approach to Teaching Writing

Some participants are of the view that writing and grammar should go together because when teachers teach grammar in isolation it seems not working. They shared with the researcher from their classroom practical experiences (TP-02 and TP-03). With the coming of the new curriculum English teachers are asked to teach grammar along with the text.  The teacher participant (TP-02) says, “I taught grammar in isolation, it didn’t work because when I teach grammar in the beginning students do well when they communicate in the class but when it comes to writing, they don’t use it.”According to this respondent the grammar-based approach to teaching is not at all working (TP-02).

On the other hand, the teacher participant (TP-01) seems to be in favour of grammar-based approach teaching writing to students. He states, “In India, there they are focusing more on writing only. First we have to teach Grammar as per our syllabus; there in Kerala also I taught for two years. Before starting the lesson first we have to make basic knowledge in Grammar then only we are asked to teach writing and all.”

Moreover this participant is teaching Grammar in his class because in senior class students are very weak in Grammar. Students do have so many ideas but they cannot express in a manner expected. Their structures are found to be disorganized (TP-01).  A student participant (SP-04) also agrees with TP-01 and claims that before writing students must know basic grammatical rules and vocabulary.

Nevertheless, as per Xu (1991) grammar-based approach to writing was accrued a sheer defective. Grammar is an open-ended phenomenon to the extent that it relegates the writing pedagogy. If the fate of writing is bound up with acquisition of grammar, learners could not be expected to study and practise writing properly and the nine months school teaching might not be enough to cover the particularities of grammar - knowing that the bulk of grammar is of no practical use for the students’ writing needs (Xu, 1991).

The teacher participants’ (TP-02 and TP-03) experiences regarding the ineffectiveness of teaching grammar separately to students from writing are in agreement with Xu’s (1991) criticism on teaching grammar as a separate topic or subject. So, students gain confidence in their writing by infusing grammar with PA model.

At the same time, student-teacher conferencing is the most prerequisite activity in the process approach to writing (TP-03). The respondent (TP-02) narrates her lived experiences regarding amalgamation of grammar, text and writing in her writing classes. She tells:

Last year we had another specialist and I asked her that (…) like we are asked to teach Grammar with the text and then she told me an idea. If you are teaching subject verb agreement and if you are reading a text so you have to compare it so if there is ‘she has’ then you should compare it with the text. Last year I asked her to demonstrate for me she was doing it like Grammar (….) like tenses… she read the story and then she put the words on the board, those words which were in past tense, present tense, then she made students to write and in a way she was incorporating both (TP-02).

In essence, this analogy of proponent TP-02 suggests that studying a given genre along with grammar provides students with an understanding of why a process approach to teaching writing style is the way it is through a reflection of its social context and its purpose.

Findings and Recommendations

The teacher and student participants are of the view that writing is by any means a process (a recursive drill) irrespective of different types of approaches people use while writing. To them writing is not a product but a process. It teaches them how to look for a topic, gather ideas for the topic, refine the content and grammar and finally gain confidence in writing. Five of them vigorously use the writing strategies embodied in the process approach. They use strategies like pre-writing, drafting, re-drafting, editing and publishing while writing which encompass the ways of selecting a topic, generating points, putting it in paragraphs, polishing the drafts, editing the structures and mechanics of writing, and finally publishing the writing piece in different media.

Therefore, the study recommends various stakeholders to reconsider the status quo of teaching writing to students. Firstly, process approach has been found effective while teaching writing to students whose English is their second or third language. Secondly, the present and previous studies have shown that teaching students strategies has been successful however; using direct instruction on PA model to teaching writing has been most effective in improving and increasing written expression skills particularly for struggling students. This will help our students gain confidence in jumping directly on to the topic without having to ponder over from where to begin and end. If the proficiency of process approach to writing is momentously gained by the students, they will naturally be able to tackle the unseen writing tasks assigned during the examinations in a given time.

Lastly, there have been some mixed ideas with regard to teaching grammar separately and then teaching writing later. The existing literature aligns with some participant’s views on not to teach grammar separately but there are also some who feel the importance of teaching some basic grammar separately prior to teaching writing to students. The in-depth study may be required to draw conclusion about teaching and not teaching grammar separately from writing. I recommend the experience researcher to take on this investigation in future for the final knowledge claim.

Conclusion

In the midst of carrying out this investigation the researcher has discovered his strengths in qualitative research protocols and new claims in the field of knowledge production. 

Retrospectively, the study was an attempt to explore the effectiveness of process approach to teaching writing to the lower secondary students. Hence, the researcher was reminded of the overriding research question, “How does teaching of process approach help students in their writing?” for accurate data collection and analysis. Interviewing the participants and listening to their lived experiences on the topic gave the researcher a solid new experience.

In view of what has been said, the study calls on to revisit the current scenario of writing classes in the schools and its impact in the future. More often than not the PA model to teaching writing will go a long way in addressing the employers’ grievances and criticisms owing to the lack of writing skills of some graduates. 

All in all, the study has been able to put forth a proposition of institutionalizing direct teaching of process writing to students in the schools. This issue draws attention not only of the English teachers in general but also the Ministry of Education, the Department of Curriculum and Research Development in particular.

References

Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). Product, process and genre: Approaches to writing    English            Language Training Journal, 54(2), 153-160. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Creswell, J. W. ((2007). Qualitative inquiry and research: Choosing among five            approaches. New Delhi: Sage Publications. 

Ezza. E. (2010). Arab EFL learners’ writing dilemma at tertiary level. Kingdom of Saudi        Arabia: Canadian Center of Science and Education Publication.

Freedman, A. I. Pringle, Y.  & Yalden (1983). Learning to write first language and      second             Slanguage, (pp.179-189). New York: Longman.

Peters, P. (1986). Getting the theme across: A study of dominant function in the          academic         writing of university students. In B. Couture (Ed.), Functional       approaches to writing:            Research perspectives, (pp. 169-185). London: Frances   Printer Publications.

Porte, G.K. (2002). Appraising research in second language learning: A practical

      approach to critical analysis of quantitative research. Amsterdam: John       Benjamins.

Rivers, W. (1981). Teaching foreign language skills. (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of             Chicago Press.

Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues and

      directions. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insight for            classroom, (pp. 11-23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Walker, B., Shippen, M.E., Alberto, P., Houchins, D.E., & Cihak, D.F. (2005). Using the

      Expressive Writing program to improve the writing skills of high school students   with     learning  disabilities. Learning disabilities research & practice, 20 (3),      175-183.

Walsh, D. (1998). Doing ethnography. In Seale, C. (Ed.), Researching society and culture       (pp. 217-232). London:Sage.

Xu, G.Q. (1991). The major concerns of text linguistics and their relevance to the teaching       of         writing. USA: Education Resource Information Center (ERIC) Reproduction.   (Retrieved on 10/07/2011 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/    ERICWebPortal          /resources/html/about/about_eric.html

Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case Studies.        TESOL Quarterly, 17 (2), 165-186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ziegler, A. (1981). The writing workshop: Teachers & writers collaborative. London:   British Library Cataloguing-in-publication Data.