Process Approach
Process approach is one of the fundamental portion in writing which concern the process of how ideas are developed and formulated in writing process. There are numerous definition for process approach which were given by famous researchers and scholars.
Among them Kroll (2001) defines process approach as follows: The “process approach” serves today as an umbrella term for many types of writing courses …. What the term captures is the fact that student writers engage in their writing tasks through a cyclical approach rather than a single-shot approach. They are not expected to produce and submit complete and polished responses to their writing assignments without going through stages of drafting and receiving feedback on their drafts, be it from peers and/or from the teacher, followed by revision of their evolving texts. (pp. 220-221).
Moreover, according to Zamel’s study (1983), The process approach views composing as a process in which the writer explores, generates ideas, and continuously moves back and forth to uncover and reconstruct his ideas in an attempt to define meaning. Whereas, Raimes (1986), in his study he states that composing is thinking. In comparision In the context of a writing class, the process approach is regarded as a method of thinking (Applebee, 1986).
In this approach the focus is on the steps involved in drafting and redrafting a piece of work (Nunan, 1999). The notion of writing as process was introduced to L2 studies by Vivian Zamel (1976), who argued that advanced L2 writers are similar to L1 writers and can benefit from instruction emphasizing the process of writing. Rather than the view of writing as a reproduction of previously learned syntactic or discourse structures, the process-based approach emphasized the view of writing as a process of developing organization as well as meaning. (p. 21).
As cited in Tangpermpoon (2008), O’Brian (2004) defines the concept of process approach as an activity in which writing is regarded as the discovery of meaning and ideas. Schmitt (2002) indicates that the process approach considers the composing act as a recursive, explanatory and generative process. Myles (2002) also believes that, the process approach to writing is only appropriate when learners have the opportunity to receive feedback on their written text.
Therefore, process-based approach to writing, by giving an opportunity to learners to receive feedback, allows students time to reflect and seek input as they reshape their plans, ideas and language (Myles, 2002).
Product Approach
A product approach is “a traditional approach in which students are encouraged to mimic a model text, usually is presented and analyzed at an early stage” (Gabrielatos, 2002, p.5).
There are different approaches to teaching writing in product approach. One of the earliest approaches is product-based approach in which as stated by Tangpermpoon (2008), students will start from pre-writing to composing and to correcting. In this approach what is emphasized is raising students’ awareness, especially in grammatical structures.
According to Nunan (1999), in this approach the focus is on the final product which should be a coherent, error-free text and students will initiate, copy and transform models provided by textbooks or by teachers.
Pursuing this further, the large numbers of recent studies concerned with the measurement of strategy training for L2/FL learners have been product-oriented (Chen, 2007).
Product Approach to Writing As cited in Tangpermpoon (2008), Brookes and Grundy (1990), believe that if we teach the writing approaches separately this will result in unbalanced L2 writing performance. Therefore, by integrating these approaches to writing, EFL learners can transfer the skills they have gained from each approach from one mode to another and have a much better writing performance. Accordingly, writing teachers can start teaching EFL learners the rhetorical patterns in the product-based approach and familiarize them with different text organizations through working on models, and combine it with feedback parts and interaction in the process-based approach.
Writing
Among the four language skills, students find writing as the most difficult (Chitravelu, Sithamparam, and Teh,2005).
According to Spenser (1979), analyzing the aspects of the language a person is learning is vital and required in the process of learning to write. Research has shown that students have indistinct ideas of what they are supposed to have and do in writing and to make matters worse, their inability to express
themselves in the language makes it quite impossible for them to write (Spenser, 1979). In other words, equipping learners with knowledge and understanding of the rhetoric and conventions of the target language must be a requisite of writing instruction.
More recently, however, many teachers are beginning to realize that endowing learners with the rhetoric and conventions of the target language is insufficient in helping learners become good writers.
Grammar is important as a tool or a means, but not as an end in itself. Many studies have provided evidence which suggests that the focus on language errors in writing improves neither grammatical accuracy nor writing fluency (White and Arndt, 1991).
Several arguments take place either the writing is a thinking process or not. Respectively, White and Arndt (1991) argue that writing is a thinking process in its own right. For that, writing requires a conscious intellectual undertaking which involves cognitive skills.
Similarly, Santangelo, Harris, and Graham (2007) point out that the reason why many students find writing extremely difficult and frustrating is because they are not able to learn and apply the strategies used by skilled writers. They find that Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) has led to significant and meaningful improvements in writing knowledge and skills as students learn strategies that can help them manage the writing process.
Likewise, Weisendanger, Perry, and Braun (2011) come up with a strategy called SuggestChoose-Plan-Compose (SCPC). They conclude that SCPC is a strategy that supports students’ development of creative writing and construction of text in a sequential manner.
Conclusion
In the final analysis, the process-based approach is seen to be more effective than the product based approach, since it allows the student to explore and develop personal approach to writing (Sutikno, 2008). But in spite of all its advantages, lack of a good model can be seen as a drawback in this approach. According to Torghabeh, Hashemi and Ahmadi (2010), the model can partly eliminate the burden of devising content from the learners.
In addition, the product approach to teaching writing is a form-dominated approach which has been a very popular mode of instruction in second language writing since the 1960s (Raimes, 1991). This approach considers writing as a manifestation of “linguistic knowledge” (Pincas, 1982, cited in Badger and White, 2000, p. 153).
Referances
- Schmitt, N. (2002). An Introduction to Applied Linguistics. (Ed.). London: Arnold & Oxford University Press.
- Sutikno, M.K. (2008). Responding to students’ writing. (Teaching writing or assessing it?). Journal Pendidikan Penabur, 10(7), 51-59.
- Tangpermpoon, T. (2008). Integrated approaches to improve students’ writing skills for English major students. ABAC Journal, 28 (2), 1-9.
- Torghabeh, R.A., Hashemi, M.R., & Ahmadi, H, Sh. (2010). Writing through literature: a novel approach to EFL writing instruction. Iranian EFL Journal, 6(4), 723.
- Matsuda P. K. (2003). Second language writing in the twentieth century: A situated historical perspective. In Kroll (Ed.) Exploring the dynamics of second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Montague, N. (1995). The process oriented approach to teaching writing to second language learners. New York State Association for Bilingual Education Journal. 10(2), 13-24.
- Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: the writing process and error analysis in student texts. TESLEJ, 6(2).
- Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching and Learning. U.S.: Heinle & Heinle
- White, R. & Arndt, V. (1991). Process writing. London: Longman.
- Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing.TESOL Quarterly, 19 (1), 79-101
- Chen, Y.(2007). Learning to learn: the impact ofstrategy training. ELT Journal, 61 (1), 20-29.
- Gabrielatos, C. (2002). EFL writing: product and process. Retrieved on 25 August. 2010 from <http:// www.gabrielatos.com/Writing.pdf> Originally published in three parts in ELT News 133, 134 & 135 (March, April & May 2000).
- Arndt, V. (1987). Six writers in search of texts: a protocol-based study of LI and L2 writing. EL Journal, 41 (4), 257-67.
- Kim, Y. & Kim, J. (2005). Teaching Korean university writing class: balancing the process and the genre approach. Asian EFL Journal Online, 7 (2), 69- 90. Retrieved on 25th Jan. 2010 from http://www.asian-efl journal.com/June_05_ yk&jk.php.
- Paltridge,B.(2004).Approaches to teaching second language writing.17th education conference adelaide 2004 retrived on 20th September 2010 from http://www.Englishaustralia.com.au/ea_conference04/proceedings/pdf/Paltridge.pdf.
- Stanley, G. (2007). Approaches to process writing. Barcelona, Spain: British Council. Retrieved on 17th August 2010 from <http://www. teachingenglish.org.uk/think/write/process_write.shtml>
No comments:
Post a Comment