Admin
Admin
Posts : 358
Join date : 2009-09-23
Age : 49
Location : Changwon, Korea / Ottawa, Canada
 |  Subject: Process Writing  Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:14 pm | |
| 1. Overview
The following study looked at 11 compositions produced by Korean young learners of English in an EFL private institute context, aged between 11-13 (Korean elementary school grades 4-6) and enrolled at the elementary level of a process-oriented and reading-linked writing program. It specifically examines areas of difficulty encountered by the learner and looks at ways in which a process approach to writing might be beneficial.
2. Rationale for the study
The growth of English language learning programs for children in EFL contexts has been explosive over the past 10-15 years (Cameron, 2001:xi), and in East and Southeast Asia in particular . This expansion has occurred in the secondary level of the public school system, in the primary level, which up until recently had avoided the instruction of English, and in constantly growing market of private institutions, which are more than willing to supplement the public school system shortcomings.
One area in which public the school system has been falling short for young EFL learners is writing. As Brewster points out, whereas young Taiwanese might start writing at the kindergarten level, in some cases, (Brewster, 2002:119), other countries may avoid approaching writing all together. In Japan, teaching English writing at the primary level is circumvented in order to permit the young Japanese EFL learner to master his or her first language. Although instruction of English writing at the elementary school level in Korea is also circumvented, it is for entirely different reasons .
Due to the unwillingness of the Korean Ministry of Education in attacking writing, private institutes, such as the one that is used for this study, are very enthusiastic about filling the void. Private language schools in Korea thrive in this particular field because of parental concerns regarding their children’s education. Many worry that their children will not be well equipped to tackle international and national writing tests like TOEFL, which in turn may hinder their chances of gaining entry to prestigious local high schools and universities, and/or to study in universities overseas. Coupled with speaking skills, the ability to write in a second language is becoming increasingly important for educational, economical, and personal reasons. Consequently, the idea that sooner is better than later, and younger is better than older is rapidly gaining credence in the Korean education market.
There has been literature published on writing for EFL young learners. However, this is mostly from a theoretical perspective and rarely does it include actual research done at the classroom level. As Krapels points out (1990:48) the majority of the studies conducted on writing involve EFL learners whom are categorized as advanced learners and/or undergraduate students. Krapels’ observations combined with countries like Japan and Korea prohibiting the instruction of English writing at primary levels, might lead researchers to believe that young Asian EFL writers may be incapable of writing well in English. Nevertheless, given the huge amount of young Asians learning English as a second or foreign language at an early age, at least a percentage of them will attempt writing in a foreign language before entering the state school system.
3. Process Approach
The study that is being undertaken is to show how a written process approach to writing can help young Korean EFL learners with the difficulties they appear to have in their English compositions. According to Connor & Farmer (1990:126), the process-centered approach is recursive. This is supported by Silva (1990:15) who also defines the writing process approach as being interactive. Teamwork is emphasized and time is not. The students cooperate with each other and the teacher is a facilitator, offering advice in the brainstorming and planning stages. Students produce multiple drafts, rewriting the work after peer and/or teacher feedback regarding editing, to vocabulary, sentence structure, grammar, and mechanics. The simplest model for understanding process writing is introduced by White and Arndt (1991) (cited in Nunan 1999:173-174). The only apparent difference between Silva’s idea to the approach and White and Arndt’s is the latter perceiving their method as being able to address process and product whereas Silva believes the product to be secondary.
3.1 Brainstorming and Planning
White and Arndt present 6 steps that should be completed before the first draft is produced. Those steps can be grouped into brainstorming and planning. When brainstorming, the learner defines the question put forward. With the help of his or her peers, as well as some aid from the instructor, the learner should think about all possible ways of answering the question, no matter how absurd the ideas may look or sound. In this section, there are no wrong answers. The learner will also write down questions that will be used for some quick research at home, at the library, or at a PC room.
Once the brainstorming process is over, the notes are categorized and an evaluation of all of the ideas takes place. The ideas are be sectioned into common headings, and all opinions or responses that are irrelevant to the question are eliminated. The remainder will be evaluated for the production of the plan.
When planning, the learner will choose and layout the position that is most suitable for him or her to tackle. Using a diagram is quite useful at this stage to help the learner structuralize and visualize how the essay will progress.
According to a research conducted by Friedlander (1990) on the effects of a first language on writing in English as a second language, the language in which the knowledge was acquired will have a big impact on the learner’s brainstorming, planning, and composition. Friedlander concluded that those who brainstormed and planned for their writing task in the language in which the knowledge had been acquired produced better quality plans and essays or letters. He points out that the plans were longer, contained more developed ideas and, when graded on a quality scale of 6, scored almost a point higher. The essays themselves were longer, had more in depth content, and scored higher than those produced by the other group. A final point of interest regarding the research is that the plans and essays written about the Chinese festival scored higher than those produced on life in an American university.
Another research that supports Friedlander’s finds is Lally’s (2000) (cited in O’Brien 2004) research of 12 French second language learners. However, there is a research, which argues against the use of a first language in the brainstorming and planning stages: that of Akyel (1994). Akyel (1994) (cited in O’Brien 2004) reveals that the Turkish students who had participated in his research preferred brainstorming and planning in the second language instead of the first language because they wanted to maximize the use of the second language.
As demonstrated, the use of the learner’s first language has a positive impact on the brainstorming, planning, and writing stages of an essay. Even though Akyel argues against the use of the first language in the process approach, his position is not attacking those who support it. It should also be mentioned that the topic chosen by the instructor does have an influence on how the learner will fair in the brainstorming, planning and writing.
3.2 Peer Feedback
Once the first draft has been produced, the learner can then seek peer feedback. Some researchers and teachers, a fact illustrated by the limited research done on the subject, do not favor this form of feedback, but it does have its supporters.
Those who oppose the peer feedback process argue learners do not understand the reason for feedback, nor do they feel comfortable doing it (Leki, 1990b; Nelson & Carson, 1998; Zhang, 1995) (cited in Ferris, 2003:130). The learners come from “collectivist” cultures, where the group comes before the individual; therefore, it is an uncomfortable process (Allaei & Connor, 1990; Carson, 1992; Carson & Nelson, 1994, 1996) (cited in Ferris, 2003:130). Lastly, the learners do no have sufficient knowledge and experience with writing or the second language to give meaningful feedback. Consequently, the process becomes a waste of time and energy (Connor & Asenavage, 1994; Leki, 1990b; Nelson & Carson, 1998) (cited in Ferris, 2003:130).
Proponents of the peer feedback process also present plausible arguments. Ferris (2003:129-133) alludes to the facts that peer feedback encourages interaction, helps learners understand their audience, helps the learner rectify his or her essay by seeing how others have attacked the task, exposes the learner to a variety of opinions and ideas, helps them become more critical and observant and can increase self confidence.
The major difficulty faced when looking at the limited research conducted on peer feedback is that each researcher conducted his or her research using different variables, hence the difficulty in examining the peer feedback process with a strong positive or negative conviction from a teacher or researcher’s viewpoint.
3.3 Feedback
Once the rewrite is completed, the teacher or senior (someone viewed as an authoritative figure) provides feedback. This stage of the process has received a fair amount of research over the years. The research surrounding this writing process encompasses four different ideologies, which can be categorized as no teacher feedback, grammar focused feedback, content focused feedback, and a combination of grammar and content feedback.
Truscott (1996, 1999) and Ferris (1999) have had a debate in which Truscott asserts that, from an EFL perspective, grammar correction in writing is useless and possibly even disadvantageous. Whereas Ferris (citing differences between EFL and ESL contexts) considers this view premature inasmuch that Truscott did not take into account the different variables between the researches he used for his study, and makes a strong case for differentiation between correction and effective error correction techniques.
A problem that arises with teacher or senior feedback is that it might be inconsistent, incomprehensible or not up too the learner’s expectations. Cohen and Cavalcanti (1990) researched these problems in Brazil. Three groups were chosen, one EFL institute class, one EFL university class, and one L1 university class. Teachers were directed to give written feedback as usual, but to also record themselves while commenting on the learner’s essay. The findings suggest that there were discrepancies between what the teacher’s thought the students needed and what the students were hoping to receive as feedback. Differences also existed between what the teacher deemed problematic and what the researcher identified as problem areas for the learner, and who should receive what kind of feedback. The lack of focus during the feedback session by the instructor, coupled with the ignorance in which the students find themselves when receiving feedback, may account for some of the problems related to teacher feedback in this experiment.
A final area of concern is what type of feedback should be emphasized: no feedback; grammar feedback; content feedback; or grammar and content feedback? Fathman and Whalley (1990) investigated the effects of teacher feedback on ESL college level students’ compositions following the different types of feedback. They formed four groups and applied one of the different feedback measures to each group. Following a timed written task that focused on a narrative piece, they then evaluated each of the students’ rewrites, according to the feedback they had received, to see if any improvement occurred. The research indicates that grammar improved greatly in most groups (except those receiving only content feedback) after the rewrites, with those having received explicit grammar focus making the biggest improvements, while every group improved minimally on their content rewrites regardless of feedback emphasis. As Fathman and Whalley point out:
“This might well be due to the fact that the content feedback was not text specific and was more general than the grammar feedback that identified specific grammar errors.” (Fathman and Whalley, 1990:186)
To sum up, the act of getting the learner to rewrite his or her work will at a minimum bring some improvements in the grammar or content of the composition, regardless of receiving or not feedback.
What impact can we infer a process approach to writing might have on young EFL Korean learners? Will this approach to writing aid the young learners with their English writing difficulties?
4. The Learners
Before the essay gathering process began, a short questionnaire was given to the students in order to help define the learner (Appendix I). More detailed findings from the questionnaire can be found in Appendix II.
The learners attend an EFL private institute in Changwon, South Korea. It is a big city in the southern part of the country, numbering roughly 500 000 people. The private institute is on the 4th floor of a business building. There are 11 simply decorated classrooms in the institute with between 10 to 12 students in each classroom.
Eleven students took part in the study, comprising 4 girls, and 7 boys with ages varying from 11 to 13 Korean (it is important to differentiate Korean age from western age because in Korea age is calculated using the lunar calendar, with one year being added, equaling roughly to the time spent in the womb). They were all elementary school students (from grades four to six) and have been studying English as a foreign language from anywhere between 3 and 7years. The gap in the number of years each student has been studying English can be attributed to a number of reasons, such as the parents enrolling their child into private language institutes (which are widespread in South Korea), or hiring a private instructor for their child in order to help him or her acquire the second language more rapidly. Furthermore, the learners have been studying in private language institutes from four months to four years and more precisely in this EFL private institute from four months to one year. In addition, five of the learners have traveled overseas (one to Canada, one to New Zealand and three to the Philippines) in order to better their English.
The last area of interest regarding the EFL young learners participating in this study focuses on their exposure to written English. The young learners’ answers to the following questions are very revealing: “Have you been taught how to write in English in your public elementary school? “ All students answered, “No”. This should not be shocking information to anyone knowing the Korean government’s stance on this issue. This was followed by the question, “Where have you learned to write in English?” This question was asked because the EFL private institute the students were taken from does offer a writing program, which is process-oriented and reading-linked. However, it is important to know if the learner was introduced to writing in English before entering their present institute. All the participating learners replied that they had started to learn about writing in English when they entered the EFL private institute they are currently studying in.
4. The Research
How might a process approach to writing help young Korean EFL learners? Most researches, as mentioned earlier, have focused on older learners, and more advanced English learners? There is some great information to be taken form those researches, however seeing that none of the studies focused on young EFL learners, I needed to see how the process approach to writing worked and also try to understand why so little research has been produced on young EFL learners?
4.1 Research question
Collect a small number of samples of your students’ writing. Discuss the difficulties they appear to have writing in English, and discuss how a process approach to writing might help them.
4.2 Approval
The first step taken was informing the school management of what I was proposing to do. This was important because it meant that the EFL young learners would deviate from the appointed curriculum for a while. After permission was given, the students were then informed of what they were taking part in. As previously mentioned, the students were used to a process-approach to writing. However, the approach being proposed was one they weren’t particularly familiar with. The approach used with them was a much more simplified version of the writing process approach put forward by White and Arndt (1991) because of the amount of class time it would take in order to produce research that followed in the steps of the proposed writing process.
4.3 The Writing Topics
The learners were given three topics, which were attacked in different fashions. The first task was a more real-life oriented task, with the students having to write a letter such as that required by the Cambridge Key English Test (KET) or Preliminary English Test (PET). However, the second task put to the students was more development writing oriented with a clear introduction, two body paragraphs and a conclusion, mirroring the writing portion of the TOEFL test. The final task was writing another TOEFL style essay.
In the first task given to the students (task A1) (Appendix 3), the learners’ were to respond to a letter. They were not told how to reply to the letter, nor did the instructor or classmates help in any way. However, they were given some guidelines on what kind of information should be found in the response, as well as the amount of words that should be written. They had 20 minutes to fulfill the task.
The second attempt at the task (task A2) (Appendix 4) was conducted in a more process-oriented fashion. The class brainstormed the task. The instructor ensured that all the young learners understood all elements of the task. It was then explained to the learners how to present a letter and they were told all the elements that should be visible in a letter. The young learners were then given twenty minutes to produce their first draft. Once the first draft was completed, the students were given oral and written feedback on their letter (feedback focused on the content and the grammar). The entire process was concluded when the students handed in their final written production. The entire process was done in a 40-minute class period.
The second task (task B1) (Appendix 5) the students were asked to do was an essay. The students had 40 minutes to respond to a question. No directions were given for the task. It is noteworthy to mention that the young learners were used to answering such essay questions, but had never done so without guidance, nor in a timed situation. In addition, to maintain some kind of normalcy for the young learners, the essay topic was linked to a reading they had recently completed. At the end of the 40-minute period, the students handed in their essays.
The final part of the study was the longest. The same essay question was repeated for this section (task B2) (Appendix 6). In this section, the process writing approach was put into practice. The first 40 minutes were dedicated to group brainstorming and planning. This was followed by a 40-minute period in which the students were able to write their first draft. During the following 40-minute period, the students were given some instructions on how to give peer feedback. Each student was able to give and receive peer feedback. Again, the learners were allocated 40 minutes, but this time it was to produce their second draft. The instructor picked up their second drafts and gave written feedback on the context and grammar. This was followed by one-on-one oral feedback (which lasted from 3 to 5 minutes for each student). Finally, the students were given one last 40-minute period in which to produce their final draft.
For the final task (task C1), the young learners were given an essay to write. They had five days to compose their essay. No instructions were given. The young learners could use any tool at their disposal except for seeking the assistance of the instructor giving the task. All the tasks were submitted by the deadline.
4.4 The Reasoning
To avoid outside interference in the study, everything was conducted within a 40-minute period and collected by the instructor at the end of class. The time allocated to get every step done could not be changed because all the classes in the EFL private institute from which the young learners were taken are forty minutes in duration.
Secondly, to be in a stronger position to discuss difficulties young Korean EFL learners have in writing in English, and to be able to see just how a process approach to writing can benefit a young learner, the same task question was repeated. In this way, the instructor could look at what the young learners wrote without any support and compare it to all the drafts produce during the writing process approach.
To add variety to the study, different styles of writing were chosen as well as different ways of approaching each task. Task A was very direct in its requirements. The students were told what information needed to be found in the response as well as how many words were required. The idea behind the task was to see if the young learners were capable of understanding instructions and replying to a letter within a minimum of words. The word limit given was between 25 and 35 words. To give all learners and equal opportunity, a time limit was given. They had 20 minutes to produce the response. The time limit was also set to prepare them for task B (a TOEFL style question that should be answered within 40 minutes).
Task B was put into place in order to get a better idea of how the process approach to writing could be beneficial to young Korean EFL learners. It also took into consideration what Alexander Friedlander’s (1990) research pointed out about brainstorming and planning. According to his research, learners will be able to plan and brainstorm more comfortably if they are focusing on something they know and have already learned in a certain language. For this reason, the topic chosen was related to a reading the young learners had covered in an English environment.
Task C was chosen to see if time had a big impact on the writing process. Giving that the young learners were not used to producing work within time limits, it is possible that the idea of there being a time limit could have impacted on the young EFL learner’s writing. Barbara Kroll (1990) discusses the effects of time on ESL performance compositions. In her research she indicates that time has very minimal impact on a learner’s written production:
“These findings have shown that while the time allowed for the preparation of an essay can contribute to some improvement for the writer both on the syntactic level and the rhetorical level, it does not appear that additional time in and of itself leads to a sufficiently improved essay such that there is a statistical significance to the differences between class and home performance.” (Kroll 1990:150)
However, Kroll (1990:152-153) does mention that other elements may come into play to explain the minimal differences that appear with writings produced at home versus those produced in a classroom.
5. The Difficulties
Can a process approach aid young EFL Korean learners improve upon their difficulties with writing in English? I believe a process approach to writing can have beneficial impacts on a young EFL learners writing.
5.1 Content
The first problem, second language learners have when writing in English, is understanding the question or requirements of a task. Brainstorming and planning can play an important role in solving this difficulty. With the aid of the instructor and through group discussion the question or task can be analyzed, and explained in easier terms for the young EFL learner to comprehend it. In addition, the plan can be used to verify if the learner is on or off topic.
The second difficulty to emerge form the studied group is remaining on topic. The students tend to start writing about an idea related to the topic, but then wander off. This problem can be addressed through peer feedback and teacher feedback. If the students understand how feedback functions they can produce good content feedback. However, even if the students do not know how to give proper feedback, the act of reading compositions produced by classmates can help clear up a few of their own questions. Teacher feedback can also be used to aid a student. Even though studies show that content feedback is not as productive as grammar feedback, it still produces changes in the writer’s composition.
Revision of the students plan can also reveal where the student started to go off topic. If the learners are required to make detailed plans, the instructor should be able to identify the part of the plan that went astray.
The final difficulty related to content is the lack of supporting details or examples. The young learners write their opinions but do not support them with examples or facts. This problem can be rectified with imperative feedback from the teacher. By pointing out the problem, and demanding that the student add an example to support his or her opinion, will produce change.
5.2 Grammar
Grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics are problematic areas for all second language learners. Feedback is the key to help correct this situation. Teacher feedback should be focused on specific elements. The type of mistake versus the number of mistakes will help the student notice the errors without discouraging the learner. In addition, peer feedback can play a role, especially if the learners are assigned a particular grammar error to focus on. This approach to peer feedback can help the student in two ways. Make them aware of a classmate’s mistakes or lack of mistakes, and make them notice how the grammar is used actively.
Another method that can be used for grammar, vocabulary, or mechanic correction is through teacher feedback with the use of codes. By codifying certain types of errors, and informing what the codes signify, the student can then research those elements indicated wrong. This can help the students become aware of errors being made, as well as aid them learn, and remember there mistakes.
6 Conclusion
Using a process approach to writing has many advantages. It can help the learners become aware of their audience, aid them notice their grammar weaknesses, and give them the courage to express themselves. I truly believe that the advantages of a process approach by far out weight its disadvantages. With the research, I have done, having been working in a process-oriented, and reading-linked writing program for nearly three years, I honestly believe that this process approach to writing is beneficial for second language learners of all ages and level. | |
|
