Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ann Raimes
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0039-8322%28199123%2925%3A3%3C407%3AOOTWET%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A
TESOL Quarterly is currently published by Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL).
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/tesol.html.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
http://www.jstor.org
Tue Jul 24 20:04:45 2007
TESOL QUARTERLY, Vol. 25. No. 3, Autumn 1991
Most good fairy tales, at least the ones that delight us and make us
or our children beg for more, begin with looking back to "once
upon a time." Since the TESOL organization has now reached its
25th anniversary, this seems a good way to begin looking at the
story of how the teaching of writing to adult (secondary and higher
education) nonnative speakers of English has developed since 1966;
we can follow it up with an account of the thickets and thorny
problems we face as we journey into the woods. Despite false trails,
we might still, true to the best endings of fairy tales, be able to find
a way out of the woods and live happily ever after. But that last is
only speculation. Let's begin by looking back at the trails we've
followed up to now, keeping in mind that we might not all have met
the same witches, wizards, wolves, or good fairies along the way.
Readers should be aware that the author of this article has been
teaching ESL for more than 25 years, and so her telling of the story
is inevitably influenced by the paths she chose to follow.
ONCE UPON A TIME: WRITING INSTRUCTION
AND RESEARCH 1966- 1991
This brief historical survey delineates four approaches to L2
writing instruction that have been evident in the last 25 years. Each
approach, at least as it emerges in the literature, has a distinctive
focus, highlighting in one case the rhetorical and linguistic form of
the text itself; in another, the writer and the cognitive processes used
in the act of writing; in another, the content for writing; and in the
last, the demands made by the reader. The dates given mark the
approximate time when each focus first appeared consistently in
our literature; no final dates are given, since all the approaches are
still, in varying degrees, subscribed to in theory and certainly in
practice.
"Real" Writing
A great deal of the recent controversy about the teaching of
writing has centered not only around the topics students write about
but also around the dichotomy of process and product. Horowitz
initiated lengthy debate (see Braine, 1988; Hamp-Lyons, 1986;
Horowitz, 1986a, 1986b, 1986c; Liebman-Kleine, 1986; Lyons, 1986;
Reid, 1984; Spack, 1988; Zamel, 1983) by questioning the effective-
ness of the process approach with its focus on the writer. In
particular, Horowitz (1986) criticized what he termed the "cavalier
view" (p. 141) of a process proponent (this author) who said at the
1985 TESOL Convention that examination writing was not "'real"'
(p. 141) writing. Horowitz is not alone in his complaint. Cited as a
major flaw in a process approach is the fact that "the Process
Approach fails to give students an accurate picture of university
writing" (Johns, 1990b). The issue of what university writing is and
Contrastive Rhetoric
Although it has been 25 years since contrastive rhetoric research
was introduced (Kaplan, 1966, Leki, 1991) and the concept is fre-
quently mentioned in discussions of theory and research, its applica-
tions to classroom instruction have not developed correspondingly.
Published research informs teachers about the different ways in
which the written products of other languages are structured (e.g.,
Eggington, 1987; Hinds, 1987; Tsao, 1983), but the nature of trans-
fer in L2 writing remains under debate (see Mohan & Lo, 1985) and
transfer has been found not to b e significant in certain types of task,
such as paraphrase (Connor & McCagg, 1983). The declared inten-
tion of contrastive rhetoric research is, however, "not to provide
pedagogic method" but rather to provide teachers and students
with knowledge about how the links between culture and writing
are reflected in written products (Grabe & Kaplan, 1989, p. 271).
Rather than abstracting a principle of the "linear" development of
English prose (Kaplan, 1966) as a pedagogic principle, contrastive
rhetoric is more useful as a consciousness-raising device for
students; teachers can discuss what they have observed about texts
in different cultures and have students discover whether research
findings hold true in their experience of their L1 texts.
The thicket that contrastive rhetoric presents for teachers as they
wander into the woods of theory is the question of the value of
Responding to Writing
With a number of approaches to teaching writing to choose from,
teachers are faced with a similar variety of ways to respond to
students' writing. Since a response on a student's paper is potentially
one of the most influential texts in a writing class (Raimes, 1988),
teachers are always concerned about the best approach. Some of
the options follow, illustrating the variety at our disposal. We can
correct errors; code errors; locate errors; indicate the number of
errors (see Robb, Ross, & Shortreed, 1986, for a discussion of these);
comment on form; make generalized comments about content, e.g.,
"good description" or "add details" (Fathman & Whalley, 1990,
p. 182); make text-specific comments, e.g., "I'm wondering here
FALSE TRAILS
The five thorny issues just discussed are ones that trouble teachers
and concern theorists and researchers. There are many others, too,
rendering our journey into the woods exciting, even hazardous. As
teachers read the theories and research and try to figure out what
approach to adopt in a writing classroom, they will sometimes
confront a false trail that seems to promise a quick way out of the
woods, an easy solution. We have seen evidence of false trails in the
rise and demise of various methods (Clarke, 1982, 1984; Richards,
1984). Similarly, prescriptions of one approach for our whole
profession and all our students can be seen as false trails, too, since
they actually lead back to another "explicitly mandated reality"
(Clarke & Silberstein, 1988) to replace the mandate of form-focused
instruction. Such a prescription in the teaching of writing appears in
proposals for the widespread adoption of content-based language
teaching as "the dominant approach to teaching ESL at all levels"
(Celce-Murcia, 1989, p. 14).
I regard proposals like this as false trails because they perpetuate
one of the errors that has been at the heart of many of our thorny
problems about writing. That problem, alluded to earlier, is that we
tend to discuss ESL/EFL students as if they are one or at the most
two groups. Much of the dissension and controversy that has
surfaced at conferences and in our literature would, I submit,
TEACHING WRITING
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many thanks to Kate Parry, Ruth Spack, and Vivian Zamel, who read earlier drafts
of this paper and offered perceptive and helpful advice. Thanks also go to the
graduate students in my course, Rhetoric and Composition, who steered me away
from the idea of using "Little Red Writing Hood" as a subtitle for this paper.
THE AUTHOR
Ann Raimes is the author of many articles on writing research, theory, and
teaching, and on ESL methodology. Her books include Techniques in Teaching
Writing (Oxford University Press, 1983), Exploring Through Writing (St. Martin's
Press, 1987), and How English Works: A Grammar Handbook with Readings (St.
Martin's Press, 1990). She has taught ESL for more than 25 years.
REFERENCES
Auerbach, E. R. (1986).Competency-based ESL: One step forward or two
steps back? TESOL Quarterly, 20(3),411-429.
Auerbach, E . R. (1990). Review of Alien winds: The reeducation of
America's lndochinese refugees. TESOL Quarterly, 24(1),85-91.
Benesch, S. (Ed.). (1988).Ending remediation: ESL and content in higher
education. Washington, DC: TESOL.
Benesch, S., & Rorschach, B. (1989). Academic writing workshop 11.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Berlin, J. A. (1988). Rhetoric and ideology in the writing class. College
English, 50(5),477-494.
Booth, W. C. (1963). The rhetorical stance. College Composition and
Communication, 14(2),139-145.
Braine, G. (1988). Comments on Ruth Spack's "Initiating ESL students into
the academic discourse community: How far should w e go?" TESOL
Quarterly, 22(4),700-702.
Bridgeman, B., & Carlson, S. B. (1983). Survey of academic writing tasks
required of graduate and undergraduate foreign students (TOEFL
Research Rep. No. 15). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Brinton, D., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. (1989). Content-based second
language instruction. New York: Newbury House.
Bruffee, K. (1984). Collaborative learning and the "conversation of
mankind." College English, 46(7),635-652.
Byrd, D. R. H., & Gallingane, G. (1990). Write away 2 . New York:
Newbury House.
Canseco, G., & Byrd, P. (1989). Writing required in graduate courses in
business administration. TESOL Quarterly, 23(2),305-316.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1989). Models for content-based curricula for ESL.
CATESOL Journal, 2(1),5-16.
Clarke, M . A. (1982). On bandwagons, tyranny, and common sense.
TESOL Quarterly, 16(4),437-448.
TESOL QUARTERLY