Contents
Contents
Preface………………………………………………………………………vii
Significance of this Book……………………………………………viii
Audiences for this Book………………………………………………..ix
Acknowledgments………………………………………………………x
Introduction…………………………………………………………………1
Organization of this Book………………………………………………3
Notes…………………………………………………………………….6
1. Developments in English L1 Composition…………………………..7
Trends in L1 Writing Instruction and Research…………………………9
Product-Oriented Pedagogies in L1 Composition………………………10
The Process Movement……………………………………………..…12
Problems Confronting L1 and L2 Writing after the Process
Movement……………………………………………………….13
Genre as a Response to Process Methods……………………………….16
Writing Research in L1 Contexts………………………………………..18
Summary……………………………………………………………….20
Notes……………………………………………………………………22
2. Approaches to ESL/EFL Writing Instruction………………………25
Trends in ESL/EFL Writing Instruction and Research………………..27
Product-Oriented Writing Instruction………………………………….28
Research on Grammar Instruction………………………………29
Research on Error Correction……………………………………32
Process-Oriented Writing Instruction………………………………….33
Writing Process Research………………………………………..35
Genre-Oriented Writing Instruction……………………………………39
i
AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO TEACHING EFL WRITING
Genres in the Sydney School…………………………………….40
Genres in English for Specific Purposes………………………..44
Genres in the New Rhetoric……………………………………..45
Genres in Contrastive Rhetoric………………………………….48
Summary………………………………………………………………..49
Notes…………………………………………………………………….51
3. Teaching EFL Writing in Taiwan……………………………………53
Applying ESL Pedagogies in EFL Writing Classes…………………..55
English Language Instruction Policies in Taiwan…………………….56
English Writing Instruction in EFL Contexts…………………………57
A Classroom Study…………………………………………………….59
Research Questions……………………………………………..60
Setting and Students…………………………………………….61
Summary……………………………………………………………….66
Notes……………………………………………………………………68
4. Teacher-Initiated Research…………………………………………..71
Classroom-Based Research……………………………………………73
The Course Genres…………………………………………………….74
Integrating Product, Process, and Genre………………………………80
Research Design…………………………………………………………89
Data Collection Plan…………………………………………………….90
Writing Tasks……………………………………………………..90
Written Reports…………………………………………………..93
Questionnaire A…………………………………………………..94
Questionnaire B…………………………………………………..95
Questionnaire C…………………………………………………..96
Error Logs………………………………………………………...99
Text-Structure Logs……………………………………………100
Interviews………………………………………………………101
Procedure……………………………………………………………..102
ii
Contents
Analysis of the Data………………………………………………….103
Summary………………………………………………………………105
Notes……………………………………………………………………107
5. Processes and Strategies in EFL Writing…………………………..109
Reporting Writing Processes and Strategies………………………….111
Strategy Use in Idea Exploration………………………………112
Strategy Use in Idea Planning………………………………….114
Strategy Use in Drafting………………………………………..116
Strategy Use in Revising………………………………………..118
Topic Change, Genre Effect, and Strategy Use………………………123
Problems Confronting in the Writing Process………………………..125
Summary……………………………………………………………….129
Notes……………………………………………………………………131
6. Text Structures and Grammatical Errors…………………………..133
Focus on Text and Language Structures………………………………135
Problems with Structural Entities……………………………………..137
Writing the Introduction…………………………………………137
Drafting the Body………………………………………………143
Writing the Conclusion…………………………………………..146
Treatment of Errors in EFL Writing…………………………………150
Errors of Nouns…………………………………………………..151
Errors of Verbs…………………………………………………152
Lexical Errors………………………………………………….153
Syntactic Errors………………………………………………..155
Mechanical Errors………………………………………………157
Grammar Points to Be Emphasized……………………………157
Summary………………………………………………………………159
Notes…………………………………………………………………..161
iii
AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO TEACHING EFL WRITING
7. Learning to Use the School-Based Genres………………………..163
Defining Genre……………………………………………………….165
Familiarity with the Genres………………………………………….169
Effectiveness of Analyzing the Genres………………………………173
Modeling and Deconstructing the Genres…………………….173
Independent Construction of the Genres………………………175
Usefulness of Learning to Use the Genres…………………………..177
Suggestions for Teaching the Genres………………………….178
Feelings about Using the Genres………………………………179
Summary………………………………………………………………180
Notes………………………………………………………………….182
8. Evaluating the Integrated Approach to Writing Instruction……..183
Product-Process-Genre Connections…………………………………185
Tracking Progress in Composing in English…………………………186
Stages in the Writing Process…………………………………..187
Perceived Difficulties in Writing……………………………….192
Perceived Benefits of the Writing Course………………………194
Attitudes toward the Integrated Approach…………………………….196
Reflections on the Integrated Approach………………………202
Reasons for Taking the Elective Course on
Academic Research Writing……………………………………202
Advantages to Students of Having Taken
Advanced English Writing…………………..…………………204
Improvements in English Writing………………………………206
Summary………………………………………………………………207
Conclusion……………………………………………………………..208
Appendices………………………………………………………………..213
Appendix 3.1: Chinese Version of the Consent Form………………..213
Appendix 3.2: English Version of the Consent Form………………..214
Appendix 3.3: Chinese Version of the Background Survey…………215
iv
Contents
Appendix 3.4: English Version of the Background Survey………….216
Appendix 4.1: Course Syllabus I……………………………………..217
Appendix 4.2: Course Syllabus II……………………………………218
Appendix 4.3: Composition Textbooks Surveyed……..….…………219
Appendix 4.4: Handout for Writing Assignment 4 (Narrative)……220
Appendix 4.5: Handout for Information Reports…….…..…………221
Appendix 4.6: Handout for Explanations……………………………222
Appendix 4.7: Handout for Expositions…..…………………………223
Appendix 4.8: Handout for Procedures………………………………224
Appendix 4.9: Written Report Form…………………………………225
Appendix 4.10: A List of Writing Strategies…………………………226
Appendix 4.11: Questionnaire A………………………………………228
Appendix 4.12: Questionnaire B………………………………………229
Appendix 4.13: Questionnaire C………………………………………230
Appendix 4.14: Error-Analysis Form…………………………………232
Appendix 4.15: Text-Structure Analysis Form……………………….233
References…………………………………………………………………235
Author Index………………………………………………………………263
Subject Index……………………………………………………………269
v
Preface
Teaching a college-level English composition class is a challenging task for the
majority of instructors. Required in all English departments in Taiwan, there
are many factors that contribute to making it a difficult course for both
instructors and learners. For some instructors, the difficulty lies in focusing the
course and choosing an appropriate text, as well as in dealing with students at
different levels of writing proficiency. One of the greatest obstacles, for both
instructors and learners, is the difficulty that most students have when trying to
write coherent and concise compositions in English. Despite its problematic
nature, the composition class offers learners a valuable opportunity to develop
their linguistic and written competencies, while challenging the instructor to
create pedagogical situations and activities that enhance the students’
development.
The product-, process-, and genre-oriented approaches have dominated
much of the teaching of English L1 and L2 writing. The product-oriented
approach focuses on the products of writing by examining texts either through
their formal surface elements or their discourse structure. The process-oriented
approach focuses on the writer and describes writing in terms of the processes
used to create texts. The genre-oriented approach emphasizes the role that
readers play in writing, adding a social dimension to writing research by
elaborating how writers engage with an audience in creating coherent texts.
The integrated approach to EFL writing instruction proposed in this book is
unique in that it aims to combine the relative merits of these three pedagogical
approaches and use them to more fully understand writing and learning to
write. This synthesis of product, process, and genre orientations allows writing
teachers to broaden formal and functional orientations to include the social
purposes behind forms, to highlight the significance of writing as a process
leading to a product, and to contextualize writing for audience and purpose.
vii
AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO TEACHING EFL WRITING
The notion of the integrated approach developed here echoes the belief held by
such researchers as Silva (1990), Raimes (1991), Hyland (2002, 2003a), Johns
(2003), and Kroll (2003) that a truly effective approach to the teaching of
ESL/EFL composition should be based on a broader, more comprehensive
conception of what L2 writing involves, and this bigger picture must account
for the contributions of the writer, reader, text, and context, as well as their
interaction.
Significance of this Book
There are two objectives that underlie the writing of this book. One objective
is to explore the viability of integrating the relative merits of the product-,
process-, and genre-oriented approaches in the teaching of writing in an EFL
classroom. It is worth noting that “ESL/EFL writing classrooms are typically a
mixture of more than one approach and that teachers frequently combine these
orientations in imaginative and effective ways” (Hyland, 2003b, p. 23).
However, in reality, what teachers or materials writers have done for students
may be simply based on their intuitions rather than findings from actual
classroom research. Very few empirical studies of writing in EFL contexts have
been conducted to identify principled reasons for choosing which grammatical
features to teach and in what ways grammar might be best introduced, what
genres should be included and how these will be structured and modeled, and
what factors make a genre easy or difficult for students to learn to apply.
Moreover, teachers need to know what problems students will encounter as
they try to develop an effective essay through the creation of a thesis statement,
topic sentences, supporting sentences, and a conclusion. This book is intended
to address the questions posed above, thereby contributing to the development
of more viable, realistic theories of ESL/EFL writing and writing instruction.
The other objective of the book is to examine the effects of exposure to
the integrated approach on students’ writing skills. The product-, process-, and
genre-oriented approaches to ESL/EFL writing instruction have been the most
influential approaches since about 1945. However, published research on the
viii
Preface
relative merits of different approaches when applied in the classroom is hard to
find. The lack of empirical evidence from valid and reliable classroom research
may weaken the place of such approaches within a coherent model of the
interrelationship of ESL/EFL writing theory, research, and practice. This book
is one of the few attempts to conduct classroom research on the effectiveness
of the integrated approach, yet the attempt to determine the effectiveness of an
innovative teaching method should proceed with caution. It may not be
reasonable to expect that students’ writing abilities can be affected by an
experiment of short duration. This book includes a longitudinal qualitative
study conducted for two semesters, nearly nine months, in one EFL writing
class at a small-size technological university in Taiwan. This small-scale study
can be seen as a testing ground for the efficacy of the integrated approach. To
achieve this goal, the study elicited information from the students about their
attitudes toward the integrated approach, their perceptions of the progress they
made in their writing skills, and their performance in an English writing test.
Audience for this Book
The product-oriented approach to writing is commonly found in Taiwan’s EFL
teaching materials and classroom practices for students at initial levels of each
stage of schooling (senior high school/vocational high school/junior college,
college/college of technology, or university/university of technology). The
process-oriented approach has been adopted by some college or university
teachers when they teach writing to students majoring in English. The
genre-oriented approach, which treats writing as attempts to communicate with
readers, has rarely been used by teachers in Taiwan. This book provides a
synthesis of theory, research, and practice to help Taiwan’s teachers make
informed choices about the methods, materials, and procedures to use in the
classroom based on a clear understanding of the current attitudes and practices
in ESL/EFL writing. In this way I hope to offer those teachers the resources to
plan, implement, and evaluate a program of writing instruction for any
teaching situation in which they may find themselves.
ix
AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO TEACHING EFL WRITING
Because this book presents pedagogical approaches for the teaching of
EFL composition in a framework of current theoretical perspectives on
ESL/EFL writing processes, practices, and writers, it should appeal to teachers
who are or will be teaching students who speak English as a foreign language
in colleges, universities, workplaces, language institutes, and senior secondary
schools. Those who have little or no experience teaching writing to students
from non-English-speaking backgrounds will also find much of value in these
pages. Graduate students in TESOL and Applied Linguistics programs can
consider this book a guide to ESL/EFL writing instruction grounded in
composition theory and research. Researchers involved in describing ESL/EFL
writing and investigating ESL/EFL composition pedagogy will also find this
book particularly valuable in that it relates EFL classroom activities to relevant
issues and methods in English L1 and L2 writing.
Acknowledgments
This book would not have been written without the support of the National
Science Council (NSC) of the Executive Yuan (行政院國家科學委員會). I
thank the NSC for supporting my research projects by Grant No.
NSC93-2411-H-327-001 and Grant No. NSC95-2420-H-327-001. I thank the
Center for Humanities Research ( 人 文 學 研 究 中 心 ) for funding the
publication of this book in 2008.
My heartfelt thanks go to Prof. Wu-Chang Chang (張武昌教授) of the
Department of English at National Taiwan Normal University who directed the
work of the editorial board and evaluated the written comments by three
reviewers. I would also like to express my appreciation to the editorial board
members: Prof. Chen-Ching Li (李振清教授) of the Department of English at
Shih Hsin University, Prof. One-Soon Her (何萬順教授) of the Graduate
Institute of Linguistics at National Chengchi University, Prof. Shih-Guey Joe
(周碩貴教授) of the Department of Applied English at Southern Taiwan
University, Prof. Chuan-Hsiu Hung (洪 詮 修 教 授 ) of the Department of
Applied Foreign Languages at National Yunlin University of Science and
x
Preface
Technology, Prof. Chiou-Lan Chern (陳秋蘭教授) of the Department of
English at National Taiwan Normal University, Prof. Liang-Tsu Hsieh (謝良足
教授) of the Department of Applied Foreign Languages at National Pingtung
Institute of Commerce, Prof. Fu-Hsing Su (蘇復興教授) of the Department of
Foreign Languages at National Chiayi University, Prof. Mei-Mei Chang (張美
美 教 授 ) of the Department of Modern Languages at National Pingtung
University of Science and Technology, Prof. Yueh-Miao Chen (陳月妙教授)
of the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature at National Chung
Cheng University. I am very grateful to the three reviewers who read and
commented on each chapter of the book during the summer vacation. Their
comments have been helpful in improving the final product.
I would like to thank all my colleagues in the Department of English at
NKFUST who have contributed to the creation of a warm and supportive
working environment which has made the writing of this book possible. In
particular, I owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Robert Good, who read every page
and provided insightful feedback. I am truly grateful for his constant support
and encouragement. I also thank my research assistants, You-Lian Huang (黃
有廉) and Hui-Tzu Hsu (許惠慈),for their help with various kinds of work
involved in the research projects.
I would especially like to acknowledge the contribution of my writing
class students during the two semesters of the 2003-2004 academic year listed
in alphabetical order: Charlene Chao, Erin Chen, Ginny Chen, Amanda Cheng,
Sophia Cheng, Natalie Fang, Grace Huang, Janice Huang, Eric Kao, Molina
Lai, Elyse Lee, Zoe Lee, Sara Pai, Kelly Sheng, Amy Wang, and Sarah Yu.
Their learning effort and determination to improve their English writing ability
have provided not only the motivation for writing this book, but also the
examples and valuable experiences that they used to accomplish the tasks
involved.
Finally, I would like to thank Paul Yang (楊乾隆),the vice president of
Crane Publishing Co., Ltd., for accepting my manuscript, inviting well-known
scholars to review the manuscript, filing an application to the Humanities
xi
AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO TEACHING EFL WRITING
Research Center for funding the publication, and seeing the project through to
completion. I also want to thank Hui-Ling Chen (陳慧玲) of the Publishing
Department at Crane for expertly putting my manuscript into final form, and I
am very grateful for her assistance and careful attention to detail.
xii
Introduction
Writing is among the most important skills that students learning English as a
second language (ESL) or a foreign language (EFL) should develop, and the
ability to teach writing is central to the expertise of a well-trained language
teacher. Interest in ESL/EFL writing and approaches to teaching it began in the
late 1960s and early 1970s in the USA and the UK as there was a growing
concern about the increasing numbers of international students coming to
tertiary-level academic institutions and an increasing awareness of domestic
ESL students who performed poorly in the public educational systems.1 For
much of the 1970s and 1980s, theorizing on the nature of writing in ESL/EFL
contexts followed closely on English L1 views of writing (Flower & Hayes,
1980, 1981; Graves, 1984; North, 1987) and theories of the L1 writing process
(Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987). In the 1990s, research in ESL/EFL writing
evolved mainly from the fields of English for Specific Purposes (ESP),
contrastive rhetoric, written discourse analysis, functional language use, and
English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in USA settings. Major independent
contributions from ESL/EFL settings included the attention to language in
writing production, the nature of organizational structuring in writing, and the
influence of cross-cultural variation on writing (Connor, 1996, 1997; Leki,
1991, 1995, 1997; Leki & Carson, 1994, 1997; Johns, 1997; Matsuda, 1998;
Sasaki & Hirose, 1996; Silva, 1990, 1993, 1997; Silva, Leki, & Carson, 1997).
In terms of how writing was viewed within the ESL/EFL curriculum from
the 1940s until the 1990s, the history of ESL/EFL writing instruction can be
seen as a succession of the product-, process-, and genre-oriented approaches.
The product-oriented approach began from the early 20th century into the
1960s with its emphasis on paragraph models, grammar and usage rules,
vocabulary development, and then focused largely on the logical construction
and arrangement of discourse forms. Since the early 1980s, a shift from a focus
1
AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO TEACHING EFL WRITING
on finished product to process in writing instruction has provided insight into
the behaviors, strategies, and difficulties of writers, and has made the writing
process become the central focus in both English L1 and L2 writing. This
process-oriented approach, especially its cognitive views of writing as a
multi-step process, has had considerable influence on modern ESL/EFL
classrooms. Nevertheless, this approach began to receive criticism in the 1990s
for treating writing as an abstract, internal, and largely asocial process. As a
reaction to this writer-centered composition pedagogy, proponents of the
genre-oriented approach, however, began in the late 1980s to promote writing
to be purposeful, socially situated responses to particular contexts and
communities. They argued that the process-oriented approach overemphasizes
the individual’s psychological functioning and downplays the academic
discourse genres that are important for learners to successfully deal with the
writing tasks in school.2
The
pedagogical
approaches
discussed
above
represent
different
conceptions of the nature of writing and tend to emphasize specific elements of
writing, but they are by no means mutually exclusive, and teachers rarely focus
exclusively on one approach. As Hyland (2003b) points out, “few teachers
adopt and strictly follow just one of these approaches in their classrooms;
instead, they tend to adopt an eclectic range of methods that represent several
perspectives…” (p. 2). These diverse perspectives can actually provide
teachers with curriculum options, or complementary alternatives for designing
courses that have implications for teaching and learning. By integrating and
extending the insights of the major pedagogical approaches, teachers will have
an effective methodology for helping students understand that “writing is a
sociocognitive activity which involves skills in planning and drafting as well
as knowledge of language, contexts, and audiences” (Hyland, 2003b, p. 23).
Students will benefit from having clear guidelines for how to construct the
different kinds of texts they have to write. In addition, since the existing body
of empirical research on the nature of ESL/EFL writing is fairly substantial and
growing rapidly, there is a need to investigate the relative efficacy of different
approaches when applied in the classroom (Grabe, 2001; Kroll, 2003).3
2
Introduction
The purpose of this book is to propose an approach to EFL writing
instruction that incorporates the relative merits of the product-, process-, and
genre-oriented approaches, and to investigate the effects of exposure to this
integrated approach on Taiwanese university students’ writing skills.
Specifically, the present study records a longitudinal study of technological
university juniors learning to write in English, with the goal of finding out
their processes of writing, their strategies for composing various types of
academic essays, their problems with lexical and syntactic features of a text,
their construction and arrangement of discourse-level text structures, their
developing control of academic or school-based genres, their attitudes toward
this integrated approach to EFL writing instruction, and the effects of exposure
to this approach on their writing skills.
Organization of this Book
This book contains an up-to-date overview of the theoretical issues and
research findings related to ESL/EFL composition instruction (Chapters 1-2).
The majority of the book, however, is devoted to providing specific, concrete,
and practical information about a qualitative longitudinal study in one junior
EFL writing class at a small-size technological university in southern Taiwan.
In addition to this introductory chapter, each of the eight main chapters is
divided into several sections.
■ Chapter 1, “Developments in English L1 Composition,” gives an overview
of how English L1 writing instruction and research have evolved.
Historical accounts of L1 writing theory and practice clearly indicate that
approaches to ESL/EFL composition reflect parallel (although by no means
simultaneous) developments in L1 composition and rhetoric. Research in
L1 composition and rhetoric has provided sound theoretical underpinnings
for ESL/EFL composing pedagogy. It was not until the 1980s that ESL
writing instruction began to emerge as a separate discipline (Ferris &
Hedgcock, 2005, p. 3).
3
AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO TEACHING EFL WRITING
■ Chapter 2, “Approaches to ESL/EFL Writing Instruction,” examines the
influential roles the three main approaches have played in shaping theory
development and praxis in ESL/EFL writing. It explores how different
conceptions of writing and learning influence teaching practices in
ESL/EFL classrooms; investigates empirical studies of major issues related
to the effectiveness of product-, process-, and genre-based frameworks for
ESL/EFL writing instruction.
■ Chapter 3, “Teaching EFL Writing in Taiwan,” follows the recent changes
in Taiwan’s English language instruction policies and describes English
writing instruction at secondary and postsecondary levels. To investigate
the effectiveness of integrating the product-, process-, and genre-oriented
approaches in the teaching of writing in an EFL classroom, this chapter sets
up a classroom study by formulating research questions and introducing the
setting where the study took place and the students who participated in the
study.
■ Chapter 4, “Teacher-Initiated Research,” portrays the teacher as a
researcher who wished to make informed classroom choices based on an
awareness of current perspectives on ESL/EFL composition. The focus of
this classroom-based research was on the integration of the product-,
process-, and genre-oriented approaches in EFL writing instruction, and
then on the effects of exposure to this integrated approach on students’
writing skills. Multiple data types were obtained to address the research
questions and qualitative research methods were proposed for data analysis.
■ Chapter 5, “Processes and Strategies in EFL Writing,” focuses exclusively
on the research question regarding what processes and strategies the novice
student writers used when they composed various types of academic essays.
Written reports were analyzed to explore how the students obtained ideas,
planned, drafted, revised and edited; how they made use of peer responses
and teacher-student conferences to revise; and what problems they
encountered while writing. The relationship between the topics the students
wrote about, the genres they learned to use, and the strategies they adopted
was also examined.
4
Introduction
■ Chapter 6, “Text Structures and Grammatical Errors,” addresses the
research questions concerning the structural features of academic writing
and the inclusion of grammar instruction in the writing class. Text-structure
logs were used to identify the problems the students had when they tried to
develop an effective essay through the creation of a thesis statement, topic
sentences, supporting sentences, and a conclusion. Error logs were used to
analyze the types of errors and the number of each error type. The analysis
of these error logs was used to address the issue regarding what
grammatical features should be chosen to include in the integrated
approach to EFL writing instruction.
■ Chapter 7, “Learning to Use the School-Based Genres,” identifies the
factors that influence the teaching and learning of a range of academic or
school-based genres such as the information report, narrative, explanation,
exposition, and procedure. Five versions of Questionnaire A were used to
elicit responses from the students about their views on the genre instruction
they received. The main focus of data analysis was their familiarity with
the genres, their thoughts on the effectiveness of teacher modeling and
analysis of the genres, their difficulties in using the genres, their opinions
about the benefits of learning to write the genres, their suggestions for
teaching the genres, and their confidence in being able to use the genres
again in the future.
■ Chapter 8, “Evaluating the Integrated Approach to Writing Instruction,”
aims to assess what attitudes the students had toward the integrated
approach and to explore how the students evaluated the effects of the
integrated approach on their writing skills. The data were gathered through
two types of questionnaires and interviews. Results confirmed the success
of integrating the product-, process-, and genre-oriented approaches in the
teaching of EFL composition. The final section of this chapter concludes by
summarizing the major findings of the study.
5
AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO TEACHING EFL WRITING
NOTES
1
In terms of the contexts of English use and the purposes for learning
English, learners of English are commonly divided into English as a Second
Language (ESL) learners and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners.
This book will use ESL/EFL in the background discussion and EFL in the
application of the integrated approach to teaching writing in Taiwan.
2
Although researchers often use the singular form of each pedagogical
approach, it should be noted that there is no single set of practices that can be
called the product-oriented approach, the process-oriented approach, or the
genre-oriented approach. When teaching composition in English L1/L2
classrooms, teachers tend to interpret and adapt aspects of each pedagogical
approach to suit their beliefs, teaching styles, classroom contexts, and students.
Accordingly, each “approach” might be more accurately called “approaches.”
3
Empirical research on ESL/EFL writing has grown considerably over the
past 15 years; however, research on the comparison of the effectiveness of
different pedagogical approaches has been hard to find.
6
CHAPTER
1
Developments in
English L1 Composition
This chapter will…
„
review trends in L1 composition instruction and research;
„
trace the product-oriented instructional traditions in L1 rhetoric and
composition;
„
discuss the effects the process movement has had on L1 and L2
composition pedagogy and research;
„
explain why genre pedagogies have emerged in L2 writing classes since
the late 1980s;
„
explore how research on writing in L1 contexts has changed writing
instruction from elementary to post-university professional contexts.
1 Developments in English L1 Composition
TRENDS IN L1 WRITING INSTRUCTION AND RESEARCH
Developments in English L1 composition have had a profound impact on
developments in ESL composition ever since about 1945—the beginning of the
modern era of L2 teaching in the USA. Interest in ESL/EFL writing and
approaches to teaching it heightened in the late 1960s and early 1970s in the
USA and the UK as more and more international students came to tertiary-level
academic institutions. At the same time it was seen that domestic ESL students
were not performing well in the public educational systems. The emphasis on
the teaching of composition in English L1 and L2 classrooms during this
period of time can be pinpointed as “most professional articles appearing prior
to 1980 centered on techniques for teaching writing rather than on the nature of
writing in various contexts” (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996, p. 27). More recently,
researchers studying ESL/EFL writing have re-examined and adapted many of
the early research projects and instructional practices first investigated with
English L1 students.
Three major approaches have been developed for the teaching of writing
to native speakers of English in the USA since the early 20th century. The
product-oriented approach that featured the reading and analysis of literature
was widely adopted for composition instruction in US secondary and
postsecondary schools from the early 20th century into the 1960s. This
instructional tradition in L1 rhetoric and composition emphasized the
understanding and interpretation of literary texts and the use of rhetorical
forms. Little attention was given to the strategies and other cognitive
operations involved in writing a coherent, meaningful piece of connected
discourse. A major paradigm shift in pedagogical focus took place from the
1960s into the 1980s. The focus of discourse form shifted to the focus on the
individual writer and the cognitive processes used in the act of writing. This
new process-oriented approach focused particular attention on procedures for
solving problems, discovering ideas, expressing them in writing, and revising
emergent texts. These procedures, however, were actually done without
9
AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO TEACHING EFL WRITING
reference to any cultural, educational, or sociopolitical contexts in which the
writing might take place. Some researchers commented that process-oriented
pedagogies represented text construction as a solitary, asocial, and
decontextualized activity (Atkinson, 2003b; Canagarajah, 2002; Casanave,
2003; Hyland, 2003a). Since the late 1980s, much of the theoretical interest
has shifted to a contextual approach, to analyses of the situations in which
writing takes place. In these theories, the writer is viewed as a social being,
and texts are viewed as genre exemplars: purposeful, situated, and repeated
social responses. This genre-oriented approach allows teachers to treat writing
as an attempt to communicate with readers, and to understand the ways that
language patterns are used to write coherent, purposeful prose.
In order to better understand the place of English L1 writing research in
ESL/EFL writing research, there is a need to trace the product-oriented
instructional traditions in L1 rhetoric and composition, review the influence of
the process movement on L1 composition pedagogy and research, discuss the
criticisms
process-oriented
pedagogies
have
received,
understand
the
background of the emergence of genre pedagogies in ESL/EFL writing
classrooms, and consider the strands of L1 writing research in the 20th century.
PRODUCT-ORIENTED PEDAGOGIES IN L1 COMPOSITION
In terms of US composition instruction from the early 20th century into the
1960s, the principles that secondary and postsecondary schools followed were
rooted largely in an educational philosophy that featured the reading and
analysis of literature. In this tradition, students read novels, short stories, plays,
essays, and poetry, and then analyzed these works in written compositions.
Their understanding and interpretation of canonical literary texts were the
central concern of pedagogical practice. Consequently, little instructional time
remained for teachers to guide students to plan, draft, share, or revise written
products (Babin & Harrison, 1999; Berlin, 1984, 1987; Ferris & Hedgcock,
2005; Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Graves, 1999; Kroll, 2001; Matsuda, 2003).
Besides learning to read and critique literary works, students had to master a
10
1 Developments in English L1 Composition
range of school-based written genres (e.g., narration, exposition, explanation)
that embedded functions such as description, illustration, process analysis, and
comparison and contrast.
To enable students to achieve this mastery, many 20th century textbooks
followed what was then a conventional model of instruction. Initially, the
teacher introduced and defined a rhetorical pattern or mode (e.g., comparison
and contrast) in terms of rigidly established rules or formulas. Students then
read a work of literature, which they discussed and analyzed in class. Next, the
teacher assigned a composing task based on the literary text, referring back to
the rhetorical description introduced earlier. This sequence often was
accompanied by a linear outline or template for students to follow in
constructing their essays. In the final phase of the instructional sequence, the
teacher evaluated the students’ assignments before initiating a similar cycle
based on a new literary text.
Some researchers referred to the above model of composition instruction
as the “traditional paradigm” (Berlin, 1987; Bloom, Daiker, & White, 1997;
Clark, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c), while others labeled it the “product approach” as
it focused on the production of a written text without reference to the process
engaged in to produce it (Kroll, 2001). In an extension of this model, known as
“current-traditional rhetoric,” popular in US composition studies in the 1950s
and 1960s, students were also instructed to generate connected discourse by
combining and arranging sentences into paragraphs based on prescribed
formulas (Berlin & Inkster, 1980; Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Silva, 1990; Young,
1978).1 Representative composing tasks involved the imitation of specific
rhetorical
patterns
(e.g.,
exposition,
exemplification,
comparison,
classification, argumentation, and so forth) based on authentic samples and
sometimes student-generated models (Barnett, 2002). It is important to note
that neither the traditional nor so-called current-traditional model of
composition instruction was grounded in a theory of education or cognitive
development. These instructional models simply “reflected a perspective in
which school-based essays were viewed as static representations of students’
learning and content knowledge” (Ferris & Hedgcock, 2005, p. 5). Accordingly,
11
AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO TEACHING EFL WRITING
in product-oriented writing classrooms, the writing processes and strategies
used as students wrote never became a matter of great concern.
THE PROCESS MOVEMENT
The writing process approach is a way of looking at writing instruction in
which the emphasis is shifted from students’ finished products to what students
think and do as they write. The incorporation of the process-oriented approach
into writing instruction, beginning from the late 1960s, seemed to have been
motivated by dissatisfaction with the traditional and current-traditional
paradigms. Proponents like James Britton (1975 et al.) and Janet Emig (1971)
considered the product-oriented approach to be discouraging in terms of
creative thinking and writing. They were two of the first researchers to
examine
students’
writing
processes.
The
process-oriented
approach
emphasized the individual writer as a creator of original ideas. By encoding
these ideas, one used written discourse as a vehicle for exploring oneself,
conveyed one’s thoughts, and claimed one’s individual voice, or authorial
persona, as a writer.
Faigley (1986) identified those researchers who advocated the process
movement as expressivists or cognitivists. Expressivists like Donald Murray,
Ken Macrorie, William Coles, Peter Elbow, and others viewed composing as “a
creative act in which the process—the discovery of the true self—is as
important as the product” (Berlin, 1988, p. 484). They believed that writing
instruction should be nondirective and personalized, so classroom activities
were designed to encourage self-discovery, the emergence of personal voice,
and empowerment of the individual’s inner writer. Elbow (1981), for example,
considered journal writing and personal essays to be tasks in which students
could “write freely and uncritically” to “get down as many words as possible”
(p. 7). For expressivists, writing fluency and power over the writing act, as
enthusiastically promoted by Elbow (1981, 1999), were the chief tools for
achieving writing proficiency (Hillocks, 1995; Hirvela & Belcher, 2001; Ivanic,
1998; Sharples, 1999; Soven, 1999; Zamel, 1976, 1982, 1983).
12
1 Developments in English L1 Composition
In contrast to expressivism, cognitivism, sometimes described as a
“writing as problem solving” approach, has had more significant impact on
theory construction in L2 writing pedagogy. At the same time, some cognitivist
approaches share with expressivism an explicit appreciation of novice writers’
composing processes as recursive, personal, and “inner directed” (Bizzell,
1992). Nevertheless, cognitivists placed considerably greater value than did
expressivists on high-order thinking and problem-solving operations. These
operations included planning, defining rhetorical problems, positioning
problems in a larger context, elaborating definitions, proposing solutions, and
generating grounded conclusions (Emig, 1983; Flower, 1985, 1989; Hayes &
Flower, 1983).
Typical features of cognitivist approaches to teaching writing as process
include invention and prewriting tasks, drafting of multiple versions of writing
assignments, text-level revision, collaborative writing, feedback sessions, and
the postponement of editing until the final stages of the composing cycle
(Atkinson, 2003b; Clark, 2003a; Murray, 1992). Cognitivists thus were
interested in producing good writers who “not only have a large repertoire of
powerful strategies, but they have sufficient self-awareness of their own
process to draw on these alternative techniques as they need them” (Flower,
1985, p. 370). In other words, good writers should develop cognitive and
metacognitive strategies2 for creating, revising, and correcting their texts
independently (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Berlin, 1988; de Larios, Murphy,
& Marin, 2002; Flower, 1989; Ransdell & Barbier, 2002a, 2002b). From a
cognitivist, process-based perspective, writing is “essentially learnt, not taught,
and the teacher’s role is to be nondirective and facilitating, assisting writers to
express their own meanings through an encouraging and cooperative
environment with minimal interference” (Hyland, 2003a, p. 18).
Problems Confronting L1 and L2 Writing after the Process
Movement
Although the singular form “the process approach” is frequently adopted
13
AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO TEACHING EFL WRITING
throughout the book to represent one of the approaches to the teaching of
composition in English L1 and L2 classrooms, it should be emphasized that the
process movement does not merely entail a singular, homogeneous method of
instruction. Adherents of the process movement may interpret and adapt
aspects of process models, hybridizing principles and practices that suit their
beliefs, teaching styles, classroom contexts, and students (Blanton, et al.,
2002). Nevertheless, most implementations of process-based pedagogies share
a number of fundamental, recursive practices such as prewriting, peer and
teacher feedback, and revision (Cumming, 2003). Like many popular and
influential educational trends, process-oriented approaches (expressivists and
cognitivists alike) have been challenged on ideological, social, cultural, ethical,
theoretical, empirical, and pedagogical grounds. Writing researchers and
practitioners have singled out the problems discussed below as shortcomings
of current process-oriented conceptualizations.
One serious shortcoming is the role of the writer in process paradigms.
The writer is viewed as originator of written text, and the process through
which the writer goes to create and produce discourse is the most important
component in process pedagogies. The role of the writer as creator is open to
the criticism that process paradigms represent text construction as a solitary,
asocial, and decontextualized activity. Because process models assume that
written production emanates from within the individual, they tend to
“disempower teachers and cast them in the role of well-meaning bystanders”
(Hyland, 2003a, p. 19). In addition to minimizing teacher authority in
composition instruction (Bizzell, 1992; Cope & Kalantzis, 1993), the
deductive, discovery-based nature of process-oriented practice typically avoids
revealing learning aims in advance (Feez, 2002; Hasan, 1996).
Process
pedagogies
place
strong
emphasis
on
idea
generation,
self-discovery, and problem-solving. This shift in composition orientation from
product to process may be seen as implying that written products are not
important. This implication may pose a serious problem to minority and
non-native-speaker (NNS) writers who have not been socialized into adopting,
let alone embracing, the nondirective, discovery-based precepts and practices
14
1 Developments in English L1 Composition
of process writing. In fact, many process approaches “draw heavily on
inaccessible
cultural
knowledge”
(Hyland,
2003a,
p.
21),
which
well-intentioned teachers may falsely assume all students have available to
them. Indeed, prototypical components of process-based instruction (e.g.,
personal writing, multiple drafting, extensive revision, minimal form-focused
feedback) can be very hard for NNS writers to understand, particularly those in
EFL and multilingual contexts in which prevailing educational traditions do
not support such practices (Halliday, 1994).
Process methods often postpone feedback on form and expression to the
end of the drafting and revising process so that student writers can learn to
freely express themselves unencumbered by thoughts of “correctness.” This is
particularly true in the expressivist orientation, which urges teachers to provide
considerable opportunities for writing, encourage creativity, and respond to the
ideas that learners produce, rather than dwell on formal errors (e.g., Murray,
1985). Unfortunately, many teachers felt that such a hands-off facilitative
approach cast them in the role of well-meaning bystanders with little to say
about the ways texts are conventionally structured and used. They found it was
unreasonable to expect that their students were familiar with key genres, as in
fact, L2 writers often had an incomplete control of English and relied heavily
on teachers to help them develop the linguistic resources they needed to
express themselves effectively (Cope & Kalantzis, 1993; Hasan, 1996).
Just as the promotion of voice in L1 composition pedagogy has come into
question
(Bowden,
1999,
2003),
L2
experts
have
challenged
the
appropriateness of this abstract metaphor in ESL/EFL writing instruction
(Atkinson, 2000; Belcher & Hirvela, 2001; Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999;
Ramanathan & Kaplan, 1996). Development of one’s voice is undeniably a
vital component of writing proficiency. Stapleton (2003), for example,
acknowledged that voice “should be brought into the mainstream of L2 writing
pedagogy either via consciousness raising or through the specific teaching of
certain features” (p. 187). However, he offered a strong caution regarding
voicist pedagogies, warning that overplaying the voice metaphor “sends the
message to teachers that voice is critically important, and this message, if
15
AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO TEACHING EFL WRITING
passed down to students, may result in learners who are more concerned with
identity than ideas” (p. 187).
Psycholinguistic and cognitive theories dominated language teaching in
the 1970s and 1980s, and writing teachers were encouraged to focus on general
principles of thinking and composing. Writing was seen as a skill that was
essentially learned, not taught, and the teacher’s role was to be non-directive,
facilitating writing in a supportive and cooperative environment with minimal
interference. Unlike product approaches to writing, this process-oriented
writing instruction has served to instill greater respect for individual writers
and for the writing process itself. Hyland (2004), however, argues that process
pedagogies actually have “little to say about the ways meanings are socially
negotiated,” and therefore they “failed to consider the forces outside the
individual that help guide purposes, establish relationships, and ultimately
shape writing” (p. 7).
GENRE AS A RESPONSE TO PROCESS METHODS
In opposition to the proponents of process approaches who focused exclusively
on the writer, cognitivists, responsible for laying some of the groundwork for
constructing a post-process framework,3 argued that writing is an inherently
social, transactional process that involves mediation between the writer and his
or her audience (Bazerman, 1988; Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Cope &
Kalantzis, 1993; Flower, 1994; Gee, 1996, 1998). As a transactional activity,
writing represents a process that the writer must take the reader’s background
knowledge,
needs,
interests,
and
ideologies
into
consideration.
By
understanding their readers and by anticipating reader expectations, writers
shape their texts so that they meet these expectations effectively (Hinds, 1987;
Hyland, 2000, 2003a; Johns, 1997, 2003). According to this social
constructionist view, the audience or target discourse community largely
determines knowledge, language, and the nature of both spoken and written
discourse (Bruffee, 1986; Coe, 1987; Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Prior, 2001).
16
1 Developments in English L1 Composition
This pedagogical approach is founded on the social constructionist
premise that NS and NNS writers need to be apprenticed into one or more
academic discourse communities, and that writing instruction consequently
should prepare students to anticipate, satisfy, and even challenge the demands
of academic readers (i.e., their instructors and other authorities) as they
generate their written products (Flower, 1979; Flower, Long, & Higgins, 2000;
Hinds, 1987; Hyland, 2002a; Johns, 1990; Pennycook, 2001). To adopt a
reader-centered pedagogy emphasizing discipline-specific rhetorical forms,
teachers need to collect texts and assignments from the relevant disciplines,
analyze their purposes, assess audience expectations, and acquaint learners
with their findings. According to this view, writing instruction most
appropriately centers on identifying, practicing, and reproducing the implicit
and explicit features of written texts aimed at particular audiences. Genre
approaches to writing instruction seek to address the needs of writers to
compose texts for particular readers and draw the teacher into considering how
texts actually work as communication.
Genre is a term for grouping texts together, representing how writers use
language to respond to recurring situations. The concept of genre enables
teachers to identify the kinds of texts that students will have to write in their
target occupational, academic, or social contexts and to organize their courses
to meet these needs. Genre adherents argue that people do not just write, they
write something to achieve some purpose: writing is a way of getting things
done. They believe that people follow certain social conventions for organizing
messages, and these conventions can be described and taught. Hyland (2004),
for example, supports the application of genre in writing classes because genre
can serve to “pull together language, content, and contexts, offering teachers a
means of presenting students with explicit and systematic explanations of the
ways writing works to communicate” effectively (p. 6). Genre pedagogies have
emerged as a response to process pedagogies since the late 1980s. Classroom
applications of genre represent a “corrective reaction to the individualistic,
discovery-oriented approaches to writing that characterized learner-centered
classrooms until recently” (Hyland, 2004, p. 7).
17
AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO TEACHING EFL WRITING
WRITING RESEARCH IN L1 CONTEXTS
Grabe and Kaplan (1996) have identified four distinct but interacting areas of
research on writing in English L1 contexts. The first of these research strands
is the study of literacy development, particularly at the early stages. The issues
that interest researchers in this area include the socio-educational contexts for
learning to write, the need to express meaning in writing, the need for students
to view writing as a purposeful activity, and the various stages of learning
through which young writers are nurtured. Much of this research has centered
on case studies of individual children, learning experience approaches (LEA),
and whole-language approaches (Calkins, 1986; Dyson, 1989, 1993; Graves,
1983, 1984). Many of the practical approaches are also in line with Vygotskean
perspectives on literacy development (Moll, 1990; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988;
Vygotsky, 1983; Wertsch, 1985, 1991). In addition, current research in
Australia addresses the role of language form and genre knowledge as critical
aspects of learning to write from early grades (Christie, 1992; Cope &
Kalantzis, 1993).
A second strand of research concentrates on the cognitive aspects of
writing. Much of the research is empirical in nature. While earlier cognitive
research on writing principally studied the written products and used
experimental research on text recall (Britton & Black, 1985; van Dijk &
Kintsch, 1983), more recent research on cognitive processes have included
studies of the actual process of writing on-task (that is, as it is occurring in real
time), as well as protocol analyses, and task intervention (e.g., Bereiter &
Scardamalia, 1987; Flower, 1994; Flower, et al., 1990; Hillocks, 1986; Kellogg,
1994; Smagorinsky, 1994). Other approaches like retrospective case studies
and observational research are used to examine qualitatively the nature of the
composing processes and their development. Important results from this strand
of research include the findings that writers constantly shift among pre-writing,
writing, and revising tasks. That is, writing is not a linear process; instead, it
18
1 Developments in English L1 Composition
involves the complex combination of content information, rhetorical demands,
and reader interpretation. Good writers and poor writers also appear to make
use of processing skills in different ways (see Chapter 2, Writing Process
Research, for further discussion).
A third strand of research explores how texts are constructed and
organized in ways which allow appropriate reader interpretation. Central topics
for this research field are the study of contributing lexico-grammatical
structures, cohesion, coherence, inferences-making processes, and text
modeling (Coulthard, 1994; Halliday & Hasan, 1989; Hoey, 1991; Mann &
Thompson, 1992; Singer, 1990; van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). Some studies of
these topics are quantitative involving the counting of surface features,
propositional units, or inference chains together with appropriate statistical
analyses of the resulting data (Beck et al., 1991; Cox et al., 1990, 1991;
Speigel & Fitzgerald, 1991). Others are qualitative analyzing the coherence of
texts, that is, macro-structures (or text themes), logical relations among clauses
and text units, and information structuring in texts (Singer, 1990; vande
Kopple, 1986, 1990). All three subsets of coherence notions have proved
important for research on writing as well as for writing instruction.
The fourth strand of research on writing examines variation in writing
skill or writing interpretation as a function of writing purpose, topic, genre,
audience, intertextuality, and the social construction of writing, as well as the
larger sociopolitical, historical, and educational contexts. This rhetorical study
of writing focuses on both classical and nineteenth-twentieth-century
rhetorical history, rhetorical criticism of (literary) texts, and social and
political contexts of intertextuality (Corbett, 1971; Horner, 1983; North, 1987).
The revival of rhetoric4 in the 1970s and 1980s in US universities has led to a
much greater influence of rhetoric on composition studies and, in general, on
the teaching of composition in educational institutions, particularly at
secondary and tertiary levels. Perhaps the most enduring influence of the
modern rhetorical revival will be the increasing emphasis on discourse
communities and the role of social construction in writing, both of which are
having a significant impact on theories of writing and writing instruction,
particularly in academic and professional contexts. Writing instruction across
19
AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO TEACHING EFL WRITING
the curriculum and content-based writing instruction have also been influenced
by these rhetorical developments.
The four strands of L1 writing research have greatly changed writing
instruction
at
almost
all
levels—from
elementary
to
post-university
professional contexts. The ongoing research on writing in all four research
strands has continued to better the quality of writing instruction. These
research strands have also had a strong impact on writing assessment and
evaluation, though the demands of testing theory and the institutional
requirements for grading impose conservative constraints on changes in
assessment. A new area in writing research which also stands to benefit from
research is computer-assisted writing instruction, with computers being used
both as a research tool and as an instructional resource (Bangert-Drowns, 1993;
Cochran-Smith, 1991; Pennington, 1993; Snyder, 1993). This particular field
will make significant contributions when it learns to use the capacities of the
computer in innovative ways beyond current conceptions of its utility for
writing (Bruce, Peyton, & Bateson, 1993; Bruce & Rubin, 1993; Selfe &
Hilligoss, 1994; Tuman, 1992).
SUMMARY
Three major approaches have been developed for the teaching of writing to
native speakers of English in the USA. The product-oriented approach was
widely used in US secondary and postsecondary schools from the early 20th
century into the 1960s. This approach focuses on the products of writing by
examining texts in various ways, either through their formal surface elements
or their discourse structure. The 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s witnessed the
considerable influence of the process movement on L1 composition pedagogy
and research. This process-oriented approach focuses on the writer and
describes writing in terms of the processes used to create texts. Reader- and
discourse-based frameworks for writing instruction emerged in the late 1980s.
This genre-oriented approach emphasizes the role that readers play in writing,
adding a social dimension to writing research by elaborating how writers
20
1 Developments in English L1 Composition
engage with an audience in creating coherent texts. Shifts in pedagogical
approaches are due to perceived inadequacies in earlier approaches.
Writing research in English L1 contexts has been conducted along four
distinct but interacting dimensions. The four strands of research involve the
study of literacy development, the cognitive study of writing, the study of text
construction, and the rhetorical study of writing. All four research strands have
greatly changed writing instruction from elementary to post-university
professional contexts. The ongoing research on writing in these areas of
research has continued to improve the quality of writing instruction.
Based on presumed and observed similarities between L1 and L2
composing processes5, ESL/EFL writing instruction in the early 1980s largely
replicated L1 classroom practice. The three pedagogical approaches, which
were based on differing conceptions of writing, tend to emphasize different
aspects of writing. They have had a significant impact on the teaching of
composition in ESL/EFL classrooms. The emphasis in ESL/EFL writing
research has also closely followed L1 writing research. Findings gained from
research in L1 composition and rhetoric have provided a solid foundation for
ESL/EFL writing pedagogy.
21
AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO TEACHING EFL WRITING
NOTES
1
In his characterization of the current-traditional paradigm, Richard
Young (1978) included such features as “the emphasis on the composed
product rather than the composing process; the analysis of discourse into
words, sentences, and paragraphs; the classification of discourse into
description, narration, exposition, and argument; the strong concern with the
preoccupation with the informal essay and the research paper; and so on” (p.
31).
2
Strategies are specific actions and procedures learners take to help
themselves learn a language better and use the language more effectively. To
clarify the concept of strategy use, several researchers have proposed a
distinction between cognitive strategies and metacognitive strategies. Oxford
(1990) defines metacognitive strategies as actions going beyond cognitive
devices and providing a way for learners to coordinate their learning process,
namely, strategies learners use to plan, monitor, and evaluate their own
learning process. O’Malley and Chamot (1990) consider metacognitive
strategies as planning, selective attention, monitoring, and evaluation. Wenden
(1998) identifies metacognitive strategies as general skills through which
learners manage, direct, regulate, and guide their learning, i.e., planning,
monitoring, and evaluating. Cohen and Dörnyei (2002) treat metacognitive
strategies as those processes which learners consciously use in order to
supervise or manage their language learning. Such strategies allow learners to
control their own cognition by planning what they will do, checking how it is
going, and then evaluating how it went.
3
As teaching practice and beliefs about process have evolved away from
the process movement’s expressivist and cognitivist core, L1 rhetoricians
(Clark, 2003a; Glenn, Goldthwaite, & Connors, 2003; Gottschalk & Hjortshoj,
22
1 Developments in English L1 Composition
2004; Kent, 1999; Tobin, 1994; Trimbur, 1994) and L2 writing specialists
(Atkinson, 2003a, 2003b) have tried to characterize what they term the
“post-process” era. Post-process scholarship aims, among other things, to
expose the shortcomings of current process-oriented conceptualizations,
“highlight the rich-multifocal nature of the field,” and “go beyond
now-traditional views of L2 writing research and teaching” (Atkinson, 2003b,
p. 12).
4
Rhetorical research traces its origins back to the five canons of Aristotle:
invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery (Corbett, 1971; Horner,
1983). Modern rhetorical research, after a long history of declines and
emergences, comprises three branches of inquiry: historical, philosophical, and
critical/hermeneutic research (North, 1987). Grabe and Kaplan (1996) explain
that “this tripartite scheme provides a useful way to encompass rhetorical
inquiry” (p. 20).
5
My use of “composing processes” here does not imply that the
process-oriented approach was the first to make it into L2 classrooms. They
simply mean a series of steps writers use to compose their academic essay.
23