View Content #18243

by Julie Sykes, InterCom Director

Writing is a complex, multifaceted skill requiring explicit attention in the language classroom. As such, both researchers and practitioners dedicate significant attention to developing writing abilities. Drawing on Hayes and Flower's (1980) model of the L1 writing process, researchers have proposed a variety of L2 writing process models, the majority of which include planning and reflection stages, in addition to the transcribing, or formulating, stage (see, for example, Scott, 1996). Matsuda (1997) further expands the dynamic nature of the writing process to include the interaction of the reader and the writer through the text.

Image Adapted from Scott (1996)

This observation is especially relevant today as an increasing number of interactions occur via written text in digital spaces such as discussion forums, online newspapers, social networking sites, email, and text messaging.

Despite the importance of writing, engaging learners in all stages of the writing process can be challenging. Common practice is the use of pre-writing and planning as a peripheral tool to the actual product being created. Learners are evaluated based on what they write, not the process they use to get there. This inadvertently places importance on the transcribing and revising stage, suggesting the planning stages are useful, yet less important than other phases. In order to engage learners in the writing process as a whole, it can be extremely useful to evaluate all stages of the process and connect each stage to the final product. Below are two examples of how this might apply in the second or heritage language classroom.

1. Evaluating Pre-writing and Planning: Ask learners to complete a pre-writing activity in which they identify audience, genre, key words and structures, and content areas. Then, evaluate the prewriting stage using a scale related to its purpose. For example, ranging from 10 points if the pre-writing sets up the writer extremely well, 7 points if the information is adequate, but minimal, and 4-0 points if it is incomplete or missing. While points and grades are certainly not the only way to motivate learners, they can be used as a tool to emphasize the importance of a task.
2. Connect Pre-writing to the Final Product: After transcribing, ask learners to go back to their prewriting activity and compare the content with their final product by highlighting common elements. For example, shared structures would be highlighted in green, organizational elements in yellow, audience cues in pink, and key words and structures in orange. Then, ask learners to make decisions about their product based on what is missing from the prewriting content. For example, did you actually follow the organization you had outlined? Were all of the key words included? If not, should they be? Is the audience you identified clear in the product? This practice is not meant to indicate everything needs to be included, but rather to draw the learners' attention back to what they originally set out to do.

References

Hayes, J. R. & Flower, L.S. (1980). Identifying the Organization of Writing Processes. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in Writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Matsuda, P.K. (1997). Contrastive Rhetoric in Context: A Dynamic Model of L2 Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6,1, 45-60.

Scott, V. M. (1996). Rethinking Foreign Language Writing. Boston, MA: Newbury House Teacher Development.