Summary article “Using translating exercises in the communicative EFL writing classroom” by EunYoung Kim.
From: ELT Journal Volume 65/2 april 2011.
This article introduces an ‘innovative technique’, which combines the two approaches-process*
and product*-through the use of grammar-translation in a reflective and collaborative environment.
It discusses how using their previous learning approach –based on the grammar translation method –
helped students to recognize the importance of accuracy for successful written communication and
to raise awareness. It also discusses how the students’ first language in a second language writing
classroom can be a positive tool for improving their writing proficiency and helping them realize the
importance of seeing their own writing more objectively.
ESL/ EFL writing pedagogies have seen changes through the decades. Writing instruction in the
1960s focused basically on grammar rules and linguistic forms with such exercises as controlled
composition. Gradually this was replaced by a focus on the actual process of writing. Process,
making meaning, invention and multiple drafts came in place of accuracy and patterns. The process
approach had reached the mainstream of ESL writing classrooms by the late 1980s. The process
approach became a dominant theory in the field of composition. Some practitioners entirely omitted
grammar, contending that grammar instruction should be delayed until writers have grappled with
ideas and organization. Process-based pedagogies have been popular techniques in both L1 and L2
writing classrooms for the last two decades, but a lot of practitioners have begun to doubt that
process writing pedagogies have made much headway in either L1 or L2 classrooms.
The author of the article , the Korean Eun-Young Kim, discovered that implementing process
pedagogy in an L2 classroom had its own limits for students with low English proficiency. Initially he
involved his students in revisions , requiring them to turn in at least two or three drafts before they
turned in their final version. For low level students, however, he discovered that their final drafts, in
many cases, had no significant improvement. At the formal level, grammatical errors such as wrong
tenses, numbers and awkward sentences largely reocurred in their revision. The majority of students
did not seem to benefit from the revision exercises. Eun-Young Kim concluded that the reason for the
absence of significant improvement in the revision was their insufficient self-monitoring skills and
lack of audience awareness. Low level students were unable to detect mistakes in their writing either
in form or in content. In order to improve their skills Eun-Young Kim created two translation
exercises.
The first one is a so-called self-translation exercise. Students were asked to read the final version of
their composition and then to translate their own writing into their native language, Korean. By
doing so he wanted to give his students an opportunity to detach themselves from their writing and
have a second look through the process of translating their writing in their mother tongue. Asked for
their reactions, the students reacted rather positively. They said that by translating they discovered
a lot of mistakes, they found out that their expression was inadequate and the content was
insufficient, as some of their sentences were not exactly what they meant. Other students said they
found out that their work didn’t have enough detail. They wondered if foreigners would be able to
understand their meaning.
Exercise no.2 is a collaborative grammar translation. Each student worked with a partner who read
his/her peer’s paper and translated it into Korean. Special instructions were given that each sentence
had to be translated word for word without adding or substracting anything from the text. And then
the translated text was given back to the original writer to be read. After reading the translation
done by their partners, students were asked to respond to the translated version and give feedback
on several aspects of the partner’s work. Also this exercise proved to be fruitful seeing the reactions
given by the students. Some discovered miscommunication and found the reasons for that.
According to Eun-Young Kim, the two exercises using student’s first language and peers for
translation-helped them look at their own writing more objectively, which they failed to do without
the aid of their first language. He states that these exercises enabled several students to perceive the
idea that grammatical accuracy is vital for successful written communication. By sharing their writing
with others , students came to understand the importance of re-viewing their writing with the eyes
of another because peers serve as a real and immediate audience.
Eun-Young Kim realises that his argument can be vulnerable to the claims of those who believe that
student’s first language shouldn’t be allowed in a second language classroom due to L1 interference.
However, a lot of positive reactions have been given by researchers who stated that student’first
language becomes a useful resource for low-level EFL learners. E.g. Kobayashi and Rinnert ,who
analysed writing of Japanese students provided evidence for the positive role of students’ first
language use in a second language writing classroom. By examining differences between
compositions directly written in English and those first written in Japanese and then translated into
English, Kobayashi and Rinnert found out that low-proficiency students produced higher quality
compositions through translation. They conclude that ‘the use of the first language enables many
students to explore ideas fully on their own intellectual and cognitive level’. Similar findings has been
yielded by a Turkish research. Akyel(1994) found out the ‘the language used for the plan has an
effect on the plans written by lower-proficiency students’. She further asserts that ‘students should
be encouraged to generate and organize ideas’ both in their first and second languages. And
Raimes(1991): “I believe that seeking a universal principle should not become researchers’ chief goal.
Rather they should give credit to practitioners’ insights because ‘wisdom of practice is as important
as theory’.
Although Eun-Young Kim found the use of students’ first language effective, he doesn’t want to
make a generalization of his findings as there are also findings on the negative influence of students’
first language. In this respect he points out that allowing first language in second language writing
may foster dependency on L1 on the part of students and thus negatively affect students’ writing
fluency. The purpose of introducing his own technique is to add something useful to the many
exercises that can benefit novice English language learners.
Finally, Eun-Young Kim hopes that the findings of his experiential study will contribute to narrowing
the gap between the product and process approaches, as well as the wide gap between the
grammar-translation and communicative theories. He believes that an approach based on grammar –
translation can be a useful means to achieve a communicative goal. Accuracy is vital to succesful
communication, and therefore , an effective process approach should aim at helping English
language learners to produce writing that can be correctly and effectively communicated. As
Zamel(1982) states: when students learn that writing is a process through which they can explore
and discover their thoughts and ideas, then product is likely to improve as well.
*process approach : The most important principle of process pedagogy is that writing is the result of
a very complex, highly individualized process. When you were given a book to write about, when
you were instructed in how to brainstorm until you found a topic that interested you. When you
were required to work with a group of your peers, to converse and to collaborate until you could
together draft a paper that represented the views of all present. When you were instructed in how to
organize your ideas. When you meet with the teacher or with your peers to talk about how you
expressed yourself, as well as what you were saying, then there is a big chance that you were taught
to write according to the principles of process pedagogy.
*product approach: attention is mainly paid to the form of the written product.