Process Writing

DOES PROCESS WRITING IMPROVE STUDENTS' WRITING SKILLS? It is through written language that man is able to communicate across time and space. This makes the skill of writing very important. Yet learning this skill remains one of the most challenging tasks for students of English as a Second language, and probably one of the most neglected part of the language syllabus. These challenges have over time led to the development of different theories proclaiming effective approaches to teaching and learning writing. Today there are about four influential approaches of past half century (Tony Silva 1990, 12). These are the Controlled Composition; Current-traditional rhetoric; the process approach; and English for Academic purposes. The process writing approach was developed due to dissatisfaction with the two earlier approaches, and the last approach was developed due to the subsequent dissatisfaction with the process approach. But the approach seems to be still resilient even with competition from English for Academic Purposes. According to research cited by Alexandra Krapels (1994, 37 5), and Tony Silva (1994, 11 20) there is no consensus on any one approach in terms its ability to improve the learning of writing skills by students

Not withstanding the lack of consensus, the use of process-focused approach has gained popularity with teachers and English language researchers within both first language and second language environments (see Barbara Kroll 1990, 1-9). Its proponents proffer a number of reasons to proclaim its effectiveness in assisting students to improve their writing skills. It is acclaimed as motivating through in-build feedback, bringing flexibility within the learning environment, encouraging individual creativity in writing, and allowing students to face the challenges of writing incrementally.

Process Writing The Process Writing Approach

The Process Writing approach also known as Process-focused approach or process pedagogy, is defined by Tribble (as paraphrased by Holmes, 1996) as an an approach to the teaching of writing which stresses the creativity of the individual writer, and which pays attention to the development of good writing practices rather than the imitation of models``. According to White and Arndt (1996) the process comprises of the following steps: Generating of ideas; Focusing; Structuring; Drafting; Evaluating; and Reviewing. It recognises, as implied in its name, that writing is not a straight forward and linear process as it is made to be. (see Tony Silva 1990; White & Arndt 1996; and Jack Rawlins 1987). It is, thus, noted that since writing is not recursive, this sequence is not to be followed rigidly. Other underlying assumptions to this approach are that writing is a complex and individualistic process; it is a problem solving process and it requires cognitive ability.

How it helps to Improve Student Writing Skills Firstly, process writing uses feedback, and some research claim feedback encourages students to work harder at writing. If we accept that writing is complex and highly individualised then by implication students especially those to whom English is a second or foreign language will welcome coaching, guidance, tutoring during the process of writing in order to simplify the processes. These are some of the methods through which feedback is effected in process writing.

According to research, feedback is more useful as a student produces the various drafts and on the way to his/her final draft than if it is offered on the final draft (Graham, 2003). This assertion

Process Writing

coincides with the criticism against the product-focused writing where the concern was on the product than on the writer and his/her process. Such students must have been terrified by writing. According to Graham the positive effect of feedback emanates from the confidence built by positive comments which give students a gratifying feeling and therefore a positive disposition towards the next writing class in the process. This is buttressed by Holmes (2002) in his argument that the lack of intervention in the intervening stages of writing as was the case prior to this approach could be a source of stress and a de-motivator to students who are trying to learn the skill. He further argues that feedback used to be unconstructive and sometimes negative and mainly focused on the grammar of the completed project which overlooked the individualistic nature of writing. All the above can contribute to lack of motivation and pronounced reluctance to complete writing assignments by students. The process writing, therefore, through feedback has addressed this deficiency in the other approaches and improved the chances for confidence building among students as they journey through this complex process of writing.

The process-focused approach by emphasising and allowing for numerous opportunities for feedback by both the teacher and peers ensures that the students' motivation is carried along the process to the end. A motivated student is more likely to put more effort in using the available tools for improving his/her written product. This has also forced teachers to explore different ways and forms of feedback resulting in a wide variety of feedback techniques like peer feedback, conferencing, minimal marking, taped commentary and self-monitoring (Keh 1990, Hyland 1990, and Charles 1990, as summarised by Holmes (2003)). To the extent that feedback as practiced in process writing, helps build student confidence and encourage them to continue

Process Writing

working on their writing projects, it can then be seen as assisting students to improve their skills.

Secondly, Process Writing is flexible. Flexibility allows students to change what they have already written as they weave their way through the process. When students know that they can change at any time, they will not be intimidated to write their thoughts or drafts as it is noncommittal. One of the misgivings of the product-focused approach is said to be its insistence on dogmatic adherence to grammar and syntax early in the writing process (Holmes, 2003). Raimes is quoted by Holmes echoing the above when he said that students were trapped within a sentence (Raimes, 1983). Trupe (2001) also sees flexibility in the process-focused approach where it allows teachers to intervene in students work at any time in the writing process. He argues that effective intervention results in better papers. He further adds that students who are asked or required to spend more time on a paper will think more about their topic, retain more information, and develop more powerful insights. Flexibility, therefore, allows for the accommodation of individual needs and challenges without the student feeling overwhelmed.

Thirdly, process writing requires the teachers to change roles; changing roles makes the teacher more human, less imposing, less authoritative and, therefore, more approachable. An approachable teacher is more available to students. Graham (2002) emphasizes the importance of this change in teacher student relationship. He wants teachers to be readers, responding more to the content of student writing than the form. The students on the other hand need to think about their audience in terms of who they are and what they would want to know on the subject. But this does not become a students preoccupation because it comes at the third stage of the process when the student has had the opportunity to make a first draft. In the first draft they are

Process Writing

more concerned in meaning than accuracy and organization (Graham, 2002). Taking the hurdles to writing in instalments makes the tasks manageable to the students. This was not the case before process writing. Teachers just assigned topics and waited for students to submit their works for grading. They did not apply themselves to assisting students during the writing process and thus lost an opportunity to have a more positive and possibly long lasting effect on the students writing abilities. Trupe (2001) in emphasizing the usefulness of dialogue, sees the traditional approaches to teaching writing as having been too authoritative with the teacher behaving like a Mr Know-it-all and students as having nothing to contribute to their learning except to listen. He argues that the process pedagogy as he preferred to called it has empowered students by getting them to talk about their writing at every step of the writing process.

Fourthly, the process-focused approach has also managed to overcome the impediment of the distance of the writer from his audience. It has achieved this by allowing the writing process to proceed initially without the concern for the audience, and by requiring that teachers and peers become readers, therefore the audience of the student writer. The audience as recommended by Whyte and Arndt becomes a factor for consideration after the student has managed to put his/her first draft on paper. This was initially a daunting task that confronted the learning writer right at the start, complicating the already difficult task. The task of transferring the writer-based prose into reader-based prose is undertaken in the revision stage, when the student considers what effect his/her prose may have on the audience (Gocsik, 2004). This has allowed the student to overcome the hurdles incrementally and therefore build his/her confidence on the process and his/her abilities throughout the process. This is further echoed by Nuan (1991, 86) where he

Process Writing

observes that the distance from the reader forces students to make inferences about the relevant knowledge possessed by the reader and decide what to include and what to omit. Holmes in agreeing with Nuan sees this possibly adding to the already many other obstacles to the daunted student writer. To this extent the process-focused approach assisted the student to incrementally improve his/her writing skills.

A writer requires a good reader though. And peers may not be the right readers to help take ones writing to the next level, unless they have been trained to be good readers for the purpose required by a student writer. Rawlins (1987) categories three kinds of readers. There is the worst kind who ``lays down rules and gives orders`` like the erstwhile teachers. There is the grader, ``who judges everything``. The problem is that ``being told how good your writing is`` will not help you find your weaknesses. The good reader is the one who shares his/her reaction to the text and points out the cause of that reaction, without telling you how to write (168-169). This is the level of readership the teachers and peers must strive for in order to assist a student writer to develop his/her writing skills.

The Criticism against Process Writing Although some evidence has been demonstrated to the positive effect of process writing approach in skill development, there are, however, apparent criticisms of the approach. The first criticism is that the process fails to prepare students for academic writing. Most students of writing are also in the process of enculturation into writing in the academic environment in general and their varying disciplines in particular, and time is of essence. This approach is

Process Writing

focused on writing in general and therefore misses the opportunity to prepare students for the academic writing, which is what they are expected to be proficient in when they leave the Language Centre. Silva (1994) mirrors this criticism when he argues that the classroom situation under the approach is lacking resemblance to the situations in which the students will ultimately be engaged in (p16). The process is, therefore, time consuming and not directly equipping the students with the tools for academic writing.

The second criticism is that it gives a false impression on how students work is evaluated in a real world. By being allowed teacher intervention and feedback throughout the writing process, the student may find it challenging when he/she is expected to write in the normal academic environment where there is no feedback prior to the final product. The bottom line of the argument is that the process prepares the student psychologically, but fails to also develop the student for the socio-cultural context of their academic and work environment.

Finally, in terms of its applicability to the English as a Second Language students the approach is seen as failing to address the ``variations in writing processes due to differences in individuals, writing tasks, and situations; the development of schemata for academic discourse; language proficiency and level of cognitive development`` (Reid 1984, as cited by Silva 1994). The reality of second language students is that they come to college at various levels of writing proficiency and thus their challenges may not be the same.

These criticisms, by implication, propose an approach in which the genres common to the

Process Writing

student environment and the range and nature of academic writing realities will be emphasized, something similar to what Kate L. Turabian (1995)aimed for in her book ``A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations``. After all this is what the major part of student writing will entail within their respective disciplines.

Although the criticisms are plausible, there is however, no denying the effect of the process on learner skills. To illustrate, my first draft and the current draft of this paper are incomparable, all thanks to this new process. In the past I would have been stuck in the first draft, not able to discern its weaknesses and how to rectify them. Of all the English papers I have written, this is the one draft I feel proud of and confident to submit for grading. On this basis, I believe process writing has a lot to contribute in learner writing skills development. The solution to the criticism may not necessarily lie in finding a better aproach but in finding a hybrid between this approach and the need to prepare students for academic writing. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive in any case.

Conclusion The above demonstrates the goodness of the writing process and justifies the accolades being hipped upon this approach to writing. Nevertheless, writing remains an elusive endeavour to many, especially the second language students. So as we continue the journey of discovery, more effort should continue to go into finding even better methods of teaching English writing without losing the goodness within the process writing approach. Writing is never enough, and so should be the approaches to making it less daunting.

Process Writing References

Gocsik K. (2005). The process approach to teaching writing. Dartmouth College. Retrieved from www.dartmouth.edu/ Graham S. (2003). Approaches to process writing. British Council. Barcelona. Retrieved from http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk Holmes N. (2003). The use of a process-oriented approach to facilitate the planning and production stages of writing for adult students of English as a Foreign Language or Second Language. Krapels A. R. (1994). An overview of second language writing process research. In Kroll B. (Ed), Second language Writing: Research Insights for the classroom (pp 37 - 53). Cambridge University. Cambridge, UK. Kroll B. (1994). Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the classroom. Cambridge University. Cambridge, UK. Leki I. (1995). Academic Writing: Exploring process and strategies (2nd Ed.). St Martinis. New York. McRoberts R. (1981). Writing Workshop: A student's guide to the craft of writing. Macmillan. Melbourne, Australia. Rawlins J. (1987). The Writers Way. Houghton Mifflin. Boston, USA. Silva T. (1994). Second language Composition Instruction: developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In Kroll B. (Ed), Second language Writing: Research Insights for the classroom (pp 11 - 23). Cambridge University. Cambridge, UK. .pp 11-23.

Process Writing

10

Trupe A. L. (2001). The Process Approach to Teaching Writing. Retrieved from htt://www.bridgewater.edu/ Turabian K. L. (1995). A Manual for Writers of Term papers, Thesis, and Dissertations (6th ed). University of Chicago, Chicago. White R. and Arndt V. (1996). Process Writing. Longman