Stephen van Vlack
Sookmyung Women`s University
Graduate School of TESOL
Teaching Writing - Spring 2007
Questions for Scott (1996), Chapter 2: The Foreign Language Writing Process (Week 3)
1. What is the crux of Scott`s argument about strategies in L1 and FL writing processes?
One of the things that must be remembered in relation to the foreign language writing process is its relative infancy. In this chapter of her book Scott (1996) reminds us that the foreign language writing process is new and as a result of this newness has not been as carefully studied as some other areas of language development. Thankfully this condition is being rectified and certain observations can now be made about foreign language and the writing process in foreign languages which were simply ignored years ago.
The L-1 and the FL writing processes, in a traditional sense, are diametrically opposed. This means that they have focused on to extreme ends of what we can call a writing/composition, micro/macro continuum. In short, the L-1 writing process and L1 writing instruction focuses almost exclusively on composition and some very particular lexical and grammatical structures related specifically to writing. The FL writing process and instruction in FL writing, on the other hand, has traditionally focused on forms in writing and almost exclusively on very mechanical aspects of writing, that is, until quite recently.
For most of the history of foreign language instruction writing has been predominantly seen as a way of dealing with the acquisition of grammatical competence. The main focus for foreign language teachers was to be able to get the students to write grammatical sentences which may or may not have made very much sense. Very often there was no audience and there was no context or real purpose behind the writing except simply to get people to produce writing which was acceptable on the grammatical level alone. This is not only poor practice for writing but poor practice for grammar as well. It is only recently that teachers of foreign languages have come to teach composition to their students.
As language teachers concerned with writing one of the first decisions that we need to make regards how we will deal with this composition/writing continuum. The big question is what you're going to focus on and how much we going to focus on it and in what ways will we try to focus on different aspects of each? It should be clear at this point that we need to do both for our students, no matter what their level or age might be. We need to develop their writing in tandem with their composing. One requires language and the other requires thinking skills and these two do go together very well. Often teachers first deal with writing exclusively as a way of developing linguistic skill (as if their students were not able to think), and then at some magical threshold point they make a complete about face with a radical shift to suddenly dealing with composition. For the vast majority of language classrooms we need to combine these two into some sort of workable method where we can develop both together and without taxing the students and ourselves.
2. What are some of the main theoretical points in the writing process?
Maybe the simplest way of dealing with this is to simply express some of these main theoretical points related to the writing process and the teaching of composition as simple questions to which we as teachers must find the answers both in our own learning and our teaching. Here are what I think to be four essential questions in no particular order.
-Is there any specific ordering to the steps in the writing process?
-Are all the steps in the process required?
-Is the writing part of the writing process itself a linear or recursive process?
-How prescriptive should a writing teacher be?
By addressing the final question I think that we can most efficiently address all these different issues. In deciding on the level of prescriptiveness in our teaching we need to consider both the nature of humans and the nature of language. In both there is no such thing as totally right or totally wrong. No rule regarding language is, in fact, a rule. It may only be a strong tendency which often applies but certainly never does. Now, while it is sometimes easier on the surface to deal with things in the classroom in a right/wrong manner, teachers who do so are ultimately doing their students a disservice. This means, as a general practice, a teacher should really avoid being overly prescriptive or prescriptive at all.
Once you have decided to avoid being prescriptive, but we all know you will be at times, the problem is not being too vague. The best approach is to teach students strong tendencies (formerly rules) and let them know that these are important tendencies which need to be learned and may or may not be followed depending on the individual and the experience and other variables which affect the underlying conditions. Limiting the focus of and carefully laying out doable writing assignments for your students also makes this easier.
Looking at things in this way we can go back and say that there are certain steps in the writing process, some of which are more important than others but certainly none which are absolutely essential. Students working in different ways and on different types of writing for different purposes may require different stages of planning and development not to mention different ways of dealing with revision and even writing. It is important to show students all these different stages and even the order, obviously, of such stages but, at some point, it is equally important to let them find her own way with these different stages and ordering. Central to this is of course the third question in our list above which relates to the writing stages and whether they need to be strictly linear or can they be done in a recursive manner. It should seem obvious that this point that the stages of writing should probably be both and in varying degrees. Again in order to get people to write recursively I think it's important that we teach them the linear process first and let them expand from that. My experiences in that it is harder to move from recursive to linear them from linear to recursive. The basic idea being that recursive writing seems to already be the bane of inexperienced writers. Therefore, it is good to deal with things in the linear manner in the classroom and let the students find their own and happy medium in the real world because ultimately that's where they need to perform.
3. Do you think the findings of Zamel and Raimes in relation to writing processes of second language writers apply well to Korean learners of English writing?
The basic claim of Zamel and Raimes, as reported in both Scott (1996) and Krapels (1990), is that both L1 and L2 writers seem to follow similar processes, and that for both the writing process is not a neat linear progression of steps. All three major stages in the writing process make themselves constantly apparent for both L1 and FL writers.
My own experience here in Korea has basically shown me that this similarity between the L-1 and foreign language writing process may not actually work out very well. Part of the problem may be that people here are not necessarily proficient L-1 writers. The other part of the problem is certainly that people perceive English as being different than Korean and as a result may purposely go out of their way to do things differently in English than in Korean. Either way, I think it is important for us as teachers to foster links between the L-1 and the L2 writing process. This is especially true due to the fact that students are often not used actually having to produce very much English and as a result may not have worked out efficient strategies for doing so yet. It is therefore imperative for the teacher to help students develop strategies and, particularly in the case of writing, relying on ones from the first language would seem to be a great way of starting. Based on this it should be clear that I do not disagree with the findings of Zamel and Raimes, certainly they are right about what should happen, but unfortunately I don't see this necessarily happening as a general phenomenon in Korea. This is something that we as teachers should get to happen although it should be acknowledged that without support from Korean language teachers and school administrators, not to mention test makers and others who really affect our teaching goals and modes this might be quite difficult.
4. Of the thirteen points Scott presents on the teaching of writing which one do you agree with the most?
In looking over the 13 points which Scott makes at the end of the chapter it seems that probably the first one is the one that we as foreign language teachers should focus on more. As we are ready discussed it seems that by teaching the writing process and addressing certain issues in the writing process we can best serve our students as developing writers. This is especially true in the Korean situation in lieu of the possible absence of knowledge of the writing process through and in the medium of Korean. It also seems that with the smallest of effort we can affect the largest amount of change in the behavior of our students and that's really what learning is about.
5. Of the thirteen points Scott presents on the teaching of writing which one do you agree with the least?
While all 13 of Scott's points are valid maybe the point about timing and am trying to set particular sets of time or suggesting to students how much time should be spent is less important some of the other things she mentions. Certainly students need to learn how to write more efficiently in a shorter period of time. This is simple survival in the real world and we to help our students to do this, but I don't think it that should be our main classroom focus in trying to teach writing/composition. We can be better served focusing the students attention on other aspects of writing and the writing process. This will follow in turn.
Questions for Krapels (1990)
6. What are some of the major stages in the history of second language or foreign writing research?
The history of research into foreign language writing has been marked by a steady movement from general studies to more specific ones. Initially the studies were more holistic focusing on the entire writing process. Over time, however, and with a growing body of research upon which to call, researchers began to become more interested in some specific areas and generated more research with a deeper and more specific focus. There are now several different issues that teachers of foreign languages need to be aware of in relation to the development of writing skill.
7. What are the two main points of view in the second language writing process?
L1 dependent -vs- independent skill.
The two main points of view in relation to the second language writing process revolve around the position of second language writing as being either dependent on the L-1 writing process or being a wholly independent skill. Any teacher interested in dealing with writing in some way as it is performed in her classroom needs to decide on which side of this issue she stands because her decision will have, or should have, a profound effect on the different ways in which she will deal with writing in the classroom. This is one very clear example of the serious effect of underlying beliefs on teaching practices. If she holds that L2 writing is dependent on the first language then she's going to use certain elements of the first language in the L2 writing process and possibly blend or integrate them at certain levels and points. If the L2 writing process is largely independent then it will have to be taught as such and the teacher will have to build skills in L2 writing really from the bottom up which means focusing on linguistic skills exclusively without dealing with composition at all. Think about this and hopefully you'll be able to see how by breaking the issue down into two very specific points we then can identify how all these different issues presented previously fall into place.