APPROACHES TO THE
TEACHING OF WRITING
IN EFL & ESL
LG488
Lecture 1 / Week 2
Joy Robbins
Jabaug@essex.ac.uk
APPROACHES TO TEACHING
EFL/ESL WRITING
The Product
Approach
The Process
Approach
^ Today’s lecture ^
The Genre/ Social
Approach
2
THE PRODUCT APPROACH

The Product Approach dominated the teaching of writing in ELT
until the 1980s

It involves using ‘model’ sentences or texts which the students
copy



Normally each model text contains lots of examples of a specific
type of language the teacher wants the students to focus on, e.g.
cohesive devices (e.g. however, therefore, nevertheless, etc.), the
past simple
The students read the model sentence or text, and do exercises
which focus on the language in the model text (e.g. the past
simple)
Finally, the students might be asked to transform a text which is
in the present simple into the past simple. The model text will
help them do this
3
THE PRODUCT APPROACH (2)

The focus is obviously on grammatical
accuracy. This reflects the preoccupation of ELT
methodology at the time—the Audiolingual
Method was in fashion
Let’s look at an example of the Product
Approach…
4
THE PRODUCT APPROACH:
AN EXAMPLE
Look at the handout of a Product Approach lesson
and answer the following:
 What kinds of things does a Product Approach
emphasize? (e.g. grammatical accuracy…)
 As a teacher, would you be comfortable with using
this lesson plan? Why (not)?
 If you were asked to teach this lesson, how would you
adapt the plan I gave you? Why?
 Would your learners be comfortable? Why (not)? What
do you think they would particularly like/dislike
about this lesson?
5
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE
PRODUCT APPROACH



What, in your view, are the strengths and
weaknesses of the Product Approach?
Do you/Would you consider using the Product
Approach to teach writing?
If you’re a practising teacher, do you think
students in your context would like learning how
to write via the Product Approach? Why (not)?
6
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE
PRODUCT APPROACH



Model texts give students confidence and security,
something they can use as the basis for their own
writing
The approach (appears) to get results: using model
texts for students to copy should guarantee students’
produce work with fewer grammatical mistakes very
quickly
Highly specific & focused writing practice: a good way
of getting the students to focus on using a specific
piece of grammar in their own writing
(Contrast the ‘Write about what you did last weekend’
approach, where there’s no guarantee that students
will focus on the piece of grammar you want them to)
7
ARGUMENTS AGAINST USING THE
PRODUCT APPROACH

Lack of creativity and personalization? (The student
has little say in what they write and how they write
it)

Repetitive?

Unrealistic? (students are obviously not writing for a
purpose, but writing to practice a grammar point)

Boring & demotivating?

Too prescriptive? (The model-based approach can be
seen as transmitting the message to the student that
there is only 1 way to write ‘correctly’. In reality, of
course, there are many different ways of writing well)
8
ARGUMENTS AGAINST USING THE
PRODUCT APPROACH (2)


Particularly with writing exercises that focus on sentences
rather than on texts, which involve, say, getting learners to
use cohesive devices to join up 2 sentences, there is the
danger, as Ivanič (2004: 227) says, that students will
believe that ‘writing is a unitary, context-free activity, in
which the same patterns and rules apply to all writing,
independent of text type’. In other words, there is a danger
that students will believe that words like therefore and
nevertheless are appropriate in even the most informal
types of writing, when the fact is that different types of
writing use different types of language…
So Ivanič (2004) criticizes the product approach for being
concerned only with ‘correctness’ of spelling, grammar, etc,
and ignoring context…
9
ARGUMENTS AGAINST USING THE
PRODUCT APPROACH (3)

One of the main criticisms of the approach is that
it doesn’t give students practice writing because
it does not reflect what real writers do in
real situations
10
THE PROCESS APPROACH

The Process Approach aimed to reflect what real
writers did in real situations (unlike the Product
Approach we have just discussed)
11
THE PROCESS APPROACH
The Process Approach overtook the Product
Approach as the dominant writing methodology
in the 1980s in Britain & North America
 Books like Tricia Hedge’s Writing (1988) and Ron
White & Valerie Arndt’s Process Writing (1991)
helped ensure the Process methodology became
well known amongst language teachers
 The approach began to be critiqued in the 1990s
and this criticism continues today
 However, the Process methodology continues to
be popular

12
PROCESS APPROACH RESEARCHERS:
2 MAIN SCHOOLS


2 types of researcher favour the Process Approach:
expressivists and cognitivists (Faigley, 1986)
The expressivists (e.g. Elbow 1973, 1981; Macrorie
1984; Murray 1985) argued that writing was
creative and personal. They wanted to get students
to write about what was important to them. Fluency
rather than grammatical accuracy was the
important thing
However, many of the expressivists were more concerned
with teaching writing to L1 rather than L2 speakers (i.e.
teaching native speakers of American English how to write
assignments for their courses at American universities)

The cognitivists had more of an influence on process
writing for non-native speakers…
13
THE COGNITIVISTS & THE PROCESS
APPROACH
The cognitivists (e.g. Flower & Hayes 1981a;
Hairston 1982; Zamel 1983) tried to find out how
real writers composed in real situations
 The Product Approach had given students the
impression that the composing process was
linear. Students planned first, then wrote like
this:

planning

writing
However, the cognitivists found out that real
writers didn’t write like this at all…
14
WHAT DO REAL WRITERS DO?
‘[Writing] is messy, recursive, convoluted, and
uneven. Writers write, plan, revise, anticipate,
and review throughout the writing process,
moving back and forth among the different
operations involved in writing without any
apparent plan.’ (Hairston 1982: 85)
15
WHAT DO REAL WRITERS DO? (2)

Two of the best-known researchers who were
among the first to research how writers actually
wrote were Flower & Hayes (e.g. 1981a). They got
writers to verbalize their thoughts while they
were writing/thinking (‘composing’) and recorded
these. These transcripts shed light on the writing
process…
16
WHAT DO REAL WRITERS DO? (3)
Good writers organize, plan, and re-write
throughout the writing process, changing things
lots of times if necessary, and writing multiple
drafts
 Good writers may rehearse or discuss what they
want to write before they actually do it
 Good writers read their writing carefully, trying
to imagine how clear their ideas are to a reader.
If something isn’t clear, they change it
 The motto of the Process Approach is: Writing is
rewriting

You can read more about the Product and Process
Approaches in ‘The sample approach’ (Harwood,
2000/2002)
http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~nharwood/Sample%2
0Approach.PDF
17
THE COMPONENTS OF THE
PROCESS APPROACH

Susser (1994) argues that process writing
pedagogy has 2 components:
awareness
• intervention
•
18
AWARENESS
 ‘…students
should become aware that
writing is by nature a process, so that
even simple messages…are the result of a
writing process that includes choosing
vocabulary, considering audience, and
judging format.’ (Susser 1994: 35)
19
INTERVENTION

Flower & Hayes (1981b) urge teachers to
‘…intervene at points in the writing process that
could do writers the most good—as they are
actually engaged in the act of writing. Thus,
teachers could help writers to write, not just
learn to repair the damage.’ (p.55)
So teachers help students before and while writing,
not just afterwards (when they mark it)…
20
TEACHING WITH A PROCESS
APPROACH

Ferris & Hedgcock (1998) summarize a typical
Process Approach writing lesson:
‘Hallmarks of the cognitivist approach to process
writing pedagogy include invention and
prewriting tasks…, drafting multiple versions of
writing assignments, abundant text-level (as
opposed to sentence-level) revision, collaborative
writing, feedback sessions…, and the
postponement of editing until the end of a
composing cycle. Thus, cognitivist rhetoricians
focus principally on developing writers’ mental
processes, particularly strategies used to create
and revise text on their own…’ (p.4)
21
THE PROCESS APPROACH:
AN EXAMPLE
Look at the handout of a Process Approach lesson
(which would stretch over several classes) and
answer the following:

What kinds of things does a Process Approach
emphasize which a Product Approach may not?
(e.g. a Process Approach emphasizes
collaboration…)

As a teacher, would you be comfortable with using
this lesson plan? Why (not)?

If you were asked to teach this lesson, how would
you adapt the plan I gave you? Why?

Would your learners be comfortable? Why (not)?
What do you think they would particularly
like/dislike about this lesson?
22
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE
PROCESS APPROACH



What, in your view, are the strengths and
weaknesses of the Process Approach?
Do you/Would you consider using the Process
Approach to teach writing?
If you’re a practising teacher, do you think
students in your context would like learning how
to write via the Process Approach? Why (not)?
23
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE
PROCESS APPROACH
The emphasis on multiple drafting helps even the
weakest students write more confidently,
knowing that their 1st drafts won’t be assessed
 The Process Approach means that writing does
not have to be a solitary, silent activity. Students
can interact and plan their writing together
 The Process Approach is therefore more suitable
than the Product Approach for those students
with extroverted learning styles, those who like
to learn by collaborating with others (see Oxford
2001)

24
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE
PROCESS APPROACH (2)

The fact that teachers can focus on prewriting,
while-writing and post-drafting/editing activities
means that the teaching of writing becomes more
varied. There’s far more scope for far more types
of activities, which should lead to greater
motivation and interest
25
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE PROCESS
APPROACH


Process Approach pedagogy at its most extreme
perhaps pays less attention to grammatical
accuracy than it should
Process Approach pedagogy at its most extreme
perhaps pays less attention to showing students
what good writing looks like than it should—the
emphasis is on writing as a continuing process
rather than as a finished product
26
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE PROCESS
APPROACH (2)
The highly collaborative emphasis of the Process
Approach (e.g. getting students to critique their
colleagues’ work) may not work as well with
students from non-western cultures (cf. Atkinson
2003; Casanave 2003)
 Although the Process Approach may teach
students what good writers do, perhaps the
approach is less suited to exam writing, where
students are working under time constraints, and
only have a limited amount of choice regarding
what they write about

27
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE PROCESS
APPROACH (3)

The Process Approach may not mirror the kind of
teaching that goes on in non-western contexts.
Casanave’s (2003) description of the Japanese
context is a good example:
‘Most of the Japanese teachers of high school
English that I work with are still required to
teach grammar and translation. If students and
teachers have time, they go through multiple
iterations of some kinds of writing, particularly
at the university level…, but often they do not. In
both L1 and L2, many Japanese students do not
revise, do not peer-read, do not get substantive
feedback, and may not see their written work
again…once it has been turned in.’ (p.86)
28
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE PROCESS
APPROACH (4)

In other words, we could argue that however
sound the Process Approach is, if teacher
trainees are not allowed to use Process pedagogy
in their classrooms, it may not be very
practical…:
‘…process-oriented research and instruction in
composition studies may have been talked about
more than practiced…. This has certainly been
the case outside the communities of Western
scholarship in L1 and L2 writing such as
Japan…’. (Casanave 2003: 98)
29
ADAPTING THE PROCESS
APPROACH TO FIT IN WITH LOCAL
TEACHING CONDITIONS (1)
 However,
Tsui’s (1996) account of how a
Hong Kong ESL teacher started to use the
Process Approach in her classroom
suggests the approach can be adapted so
that it works in contexts where the
Product Approach is normally used…
30
ADAPTING THE PROCESS
APPROACH TO FIT IN WITH LOCAL
TEACHING CONDITIONS (2)
 Tsui
(1996) talks about how Julie, the
Hong Kong teacher, faced two problems
when she changed to the Process
Approach:
(1) ‘…it took much longer to complete a
writing task using the process
approach…’; and
(2) ‘…her students were making far more
grammatical mistakes than before’
(pp.110-11)
31
ADAPTING THE PROCESS
APPROACH TO FIT IN WITH LOCAL
TEACHING CONDITIONS (3)
 So
Julie made changes, ‘retain[ing] the
essential elements of process writing but
[reducing] the amount of time needed to
complete one writing task’ (p.112), by
reducing the number of drafts students
were asked to do
 She
also reintroduced some Product
Approach tasks, ensuring students
continued to focus on grammatical accuracy
more some of the time
So in the end, she taught writing by using
BOTH Product and Process
approaches…
32
YOUR OWN WRITING PEDAGOGY



Which of the 2 writing pedagogies which we’ve
looked at today—Product and Process—is closest
to the way you teach writing? Why?
Were there any ideas about teaching writing
we’ve looked at today that are new to you? If so,
are there any you’d consider using in class? Were
there any ideas you strongly disagree with? If so,
why do you feel so strongly?
Do you think it’s possible to combine ideas from
the 2 approaches, to produce a product-process
pedagogy? If so, how would you do it?
33
WRITING PEDAGOGY NOW
Although the Process Approach is more recent
than the Product Approach, many
teachers/textbook writers combine elements of
Product and Process to teach writing (e.g. getting
students to brainstorm ideas = Process; giving
students model texts to help them with their
writing = Product)
 Some researchers are currently talking about a
‘post-process’ era (e.g. Atkinson 2003). Many
researchers these days favour a Genre or Social
approach to teaching writing (e.g. Hyland 2003),
which we’ll talk about next week…

34
REFERENCES
Atkinson D (2003) L2 writing in the post-process era: introduction. Journal of
Second Language Writing 12: 3-15.
Casanave CP (2003) Looking ahead to more sociopolitically-oriented case study
research in L2 writing scholarship (But should it be called “post-process”?).
Journal of Second Language Writing 12: 85-102.
Elbow P (1973) Writing Without Teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.
Elbow P (1981) Writing with Power: Techniques for Mastering the Writing
Process. New York: Oxford University Press.
Faigley L (1986) Competing theories of process: a critique and a proposal.
College English 48: 527-42.
Ferris D (2003) Responding to writing. In B Kroll (ed.), Exploring the Dynamics
of Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp.119-140.
Ferris D & Hedgcock JS (1998) Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process,
and Practice. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Flower L & Hayes JR (1981a) A cognitive process theory of writing. College
Composition & Communication 32: 365-387.
Flower L & Hayes JR (1981b) Plans that guide the composing process. In C.H.
Frederiksen & J.F. Dominic (eds.), Writing: The Nature, Development, and
Teaching of Written Communication Vol 2. Writing: Process, Development
and Communication. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.39-58.
Hairston M (1982) The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in
the teaching of writing. College Composition and Communication 33(1): 7688.
35
REFERENCES (2)
Harwood N (2000/2002) The sample approach: teaching writing with Cambridge
examination classes. Available at http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~nharwood
Hedge T (1988) Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland K (2003) Genre-based pedagogies: a social response to process. Journal of
Second Language Writing 12: 17-29.
Ivanič R (2004) Discourses of writing and learning to write. Language & Education
18(3): 220-245.
Macrorie K (1984) Writing to be Read (3rd ed.). Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook
Heinemann.
Murray DM (1985) A Writer Teaches Writing (2nd ed.) Boston: Houghton Miffin.
Oxford RL (2001) Language learning strategies. In R Carter & D Nunan (eds.), The
Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.166-172.
Susser, B. (1994) Process approaches in ESL/EFL writing instruction. Journal of
Second Language Writing 3(1): 31-47.
Tsui, A.B.M. (1996) Learning how to teach ESL writing. In D. Freeman & J.C.
Richards (eds.), Teacher Learning in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp.97-119.
White RV & Arndt V (1991) Process Writing. Harlow: Longman.
Zamel V (1983) The composing processes of advanced ESL students: six case
studies. TESOL Quarterly 17: 165-187.
36
THIS WEEK’S READING
Ivanič, R. (2004) Discourses of writing and
learning to write. Language & Education 18(3):
220-245. [XD Collection: XD8663]
Raimes, A. (1991) Out of the woods: emerging
traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL
Quarterly 25(3): 407-430.
Tsui, A.B.M. (1996) Learning how to teach ESL
writing. In D. Freeman & J.C. Richards (eds.),
Teacher Learning in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.97119. [Short Loan]
37