The first chapter of my paper puts forth three chief issues: an probe of composing in relation to the other linguistic communication accomplishments, a comparing between writing-for-writing versus writing-for-learning every bit good as an analysis of the instructors ‘ functions and the pupils ‘ engagement in the procedure of learning composing. By exposing these facets, I demonstrate that composing should non be taught as an stray linguistic communication accomplishment but instead as a portion of an incorporate attack. Additionally, I show how writing-for-writing is every bit important as writing-for-learning and how pupils play a important portion in learning authorship and take duty for their ain acquisition.
An Integrated Approach to Writing and the Other Language Skills
Contemporary methodological inclinations split the four linguistic communication accomplishments into two wide classs: receptive accomplishments and productive 1s. The latter includes speech production and composing with their much-debated differences. The procedure of composing presupposes the usage of in writing symbols or letters chained together in higher sentence sequences that respect a peculiar order and organize a coherent text.
Writing is chiefly linked to two other linguistic communication accomplishments: speech production and reading. On the one manus, the association writing-speaking gives rise to tough arguments about whether instructors should concentrate more on learning authorship or learning speech production. It may be argued that authorship is non simply an ordinary extension of address ; the former pattern differs from the latter in multiple ways as Donn Byrne cogently shows in the undermentioned tabular array:
Address
Writing
Returns topographic point in a context.
Creates its ain context.
Speaker and hearer ( s ) in contact.
Reader non present and no interaction possible
Person addressed is specific.
Reader non needfully known to writer
Immediate feedback given and expected.
No immediate feedback possible.
Address is ephemeral.
Writing is lasting.
Sentences frequently uncomplete and sometimes ill-formed. Hesitations and intermissions common.
Sentences expected to be carefully constructed and linked and organised to organize a text.
Scope of devices ( emphasis, modulation, pitch, velocity ) to assist convey intending. Facial looks, organic structure motions, and gestures besides used.
Devicess to assist convey intending are punctuation, capitals, and underlining ( for accent ) .
Fig. 1. Differences between address and authorship ( Byrne 3 ) .
Beginning: Byrne, Donn. Teaching Writing Skills. London: Longman, 1993.
Therefore, the written linguistic communication asks for a greater standardisation of grammar and vocabulary whereas address is varied harmonizing to differentiations in regional idioms. Talking normally occurs as a self-generated act while authorship is carefully planned. Then, talkers make usage of their organic structure linguistic communication and voice to set across intending but authors have to number on their words for the same intent. Finally, address has a more informal and insistent character where the written discourse develops logically in a more formal and compact manner.
On the other manus, authorship is related to reading as these two accomplishments represent the footing of literacy. Nowadays, theorists such as S.B. Kucer and E. Delgado-Larocco consider literacy as a many-sided and active pattern that encompasses sociocultural, cognitive, developmental, and cognitive factors ( see Fig. 2 below ) . Consequently, for a individual to go literate, he or she has to get the hang all the abovementioned dimensions of literacy at the same clip ( Kucer 4 ) . First, the cognitive influence dictates the author ‘s wish to happen, construct, and portion significance. Afterwards, the sociocultural constituent contains markers of societal individuality ( ethnicity or gender ) . Third of all, the lingual component puts forth the linguistic communication used by the author as the conveyer of significance. Last but non least, the developmental facet includes the other three factors: since literacy is a dynamic procedure, the author ‘s / reader ‘s development ne’er ceases ( Kucer 5-6 ) .
Fig. 2. Dimensions of literacy ( Kucer 59 ) .
Beginning: Kucer, Stephen B. Dimensions of Literacy. A Conceptual Base for Teaching Reading and Writing in School Settings. New Jersey: LEA Publishers, 2005.
Furthermore, the inquiry of why and how authorship should be taught arises. Since “ authorship is a accomplishment which is ( aˆ¦ ) hard to get ” ( Byrne 6 ) , it is obvious by now that teachers should put really clear learning ends as concerns composing. In this sense, authorship may be taught as a response to pupils ‘ demands and diverse acquisition manners: introvert scholars do non experience at easiness showing themselves orally, so writing allows them to experience more assurance. But composing may every bit be taught for grounds of memorisation or keeping and therefore it offers pupils the verification for portion of their acquisition advancement. The most apparent intent for learning composing seems to be the demand for its presence in informal and formal scrutinies likewise.
In general, learning authorship is non meant to be an stray pattern. Alternatively, an effectual pupil exposure to the foreign linguistic communication is acquired through more than one medium as Eli Henkel points out: “ in meaningful communicating, people employ incremental linguistic communication accomplishments non in isolation, but in tandem ” ( quoted in Harmer 265 ) . In the schoolroom, the teaching-learning environment attempts to mime real-life state of affairss and this is the ground why lessons frequently integrate multi-layered linguistic communication accomplishments. In this context, “ composing invites us to garner and form our ideas in order to clearly pass on them ” ( Johnson 8 ) .
Teaching Writing-for-writing versus Writing-for-learning
Language is the vehicle of idea. The indispensable hypothesis is that-being a linguistic communication skill-writing “ means composing a connected text and non merely individual sentences, that authors write for a intent and a reader, and that the procedure of authorship is a valuable acquisition tool for all our pupils ” ( Raimes 11 ) .
Contemporary methodological tendencies dictate that authorship should be taught interdependently with reading, speech production, and listening. There is no individual attack to learning composing but many. Writing may reenforce late acquired linguistic communication constructions, it may better the pupils ‘ mental and lingual development, and it may besides stress single acquisition manners.
Additionally, the type of composing instructors promote depends greatly on the scholars ‘ age, degree, and personal involvements. In The Practice of English Language Teaching, Jeremy Harmer divides the instruction of composing in two wide classs: writing-for-learning and writing-for-writing. The former type is defined as “ the sort of authorship we do to assist pupils learn linguistic communication or to prove them on that linguistic communication ” ( Harmer 330 ) . Therefore, writing-for-learning can inquire pupils to construct sentences utilizing the Past Tense Simple or the Traveling to Future for case ; here, the “ purpose is non to develop pupils to compose, but instead to assist them retrieve ” ( Harmer 330 ) a certain grammar point. Learners build composing wonts for linguistic communication pattern in this case-they semen to hold on, retain, and get new linguistic communication constructions. Besides this, writing-for-learning promotes scholars ‘ engagement in the lessons ‘ development and result by raising their consciousness and by doing them responsible for their ain acquisition.
By contrast, writing-for-writing references specific composing genres such as narrations, ads, letters, post cards, occupation applications, studies, or articles whose building we want our pupils to get the hang. Therefore, “ if we are to construct the pupils ‘ composing accomplishments, ” it is advisable “ to utilize such writing-for-writing undertakings every bit frequently as is appropriate ” ( Harmer 330 ) . This class focuses more on familiar, day-to-day manners that the scholars find utile and that they are likely to come across more often. Writing for merriment or for pleasance is besides included here since it allows pupils to get cognition in their ain beat ; self-experience proves valuable and motivates scholars per se, doing them roll up new linguistic communication points more quickly and with more easiness. There are infinite types of authorship of activities targeted for this type of authorship, amongst which: questionnaires, scenarios, mystifiers, instructions, quizzes, journals, headlines, or programmes. Unlike the controlled pattern in category where students are asked to follow to certain composing regulations, composing for merriment does non necessitate obeying specific conventions but instead utilizing the linguistic communication that scholars have at their disposal. As a consequence, composing for pleasance enhances pupils ‘ creativeness and underpins their degree of proficiency in the foreign linguistic communication.
Furthermore, Art Young-in Teaching Writing across the Curriculum-dwells on the same differentiation between writing-for-learning and writing-for-writing, although he labels these classs otherwise: authorship to larn and composing to pass on.
Fig. 3. Writing to larn and composing to pass on ( Young 9 ) .
Beginning: Young, Art. Writing across the Curriculum. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1999.
Young exposes the fact that on the one manus, composing to larn encourages pupils to take the clip to detect new linguistic communication points bit-by-bit through creativeness and problem-solving accomplishments. Therefore, composing to larn sets forth the author ‘s lingual cognition and rules in his effort “ to explicate the affair to oneself ” ( Britton quoted in Young 10 ) . On the other manus, composing to pass on enables authors to portion freshly acquired constructions with others, “ to explicate the affair to others ” ( Britton quoted in Young 10 ) . This clip, the reader or the receiving system of the author ‘s text is privileged and further supported to revise shared information or detect new positions.
All in all, writing-for-learning and writing-for-writing are merely two of the many possible ways of learning composing. These two classs are non in return sole, so instructors should non concentrate entirely on one of them at the disbursal of the other. Although writing-for-learning focal points more on content countries whereas writing-for-writing on compositional signifiers, they both represent priceless tools for the teaching-learning procedure. Used jointly within pairwork or groupwork, these techniques bring about the advantages of unimpeded communicating, creativeness, assurance and peer-reliability.
Teachers ‘ Functions and the Students ‘ Engagement in Teaching Writing
Teachers whose end is to teach pupils how to go adept authors must ever take into consideration the scholars ‘ background and emotional make-up but besides their life experiences that they bring to category. An efficient instruction of composing presupposes admiting the pupils ‘ active function in this procedure. Therefore, a culturally sympathetic input offered by instructors embracings and explores category diverseness.
Besides the open-mindedness to culturally diverse scholars, instructors besides play other important functions in the schoolroom such as: resource, organizer, prompter, incentive, participant, and feedback supplier. As resource, the instructor “ should be ready to provide information and linguistic communication where necessary ( aˆ¦ ) offering advice and suggestions in a constructive and tactful manner ” ( Harmer 330 ) , particularly for longer authorship undertakings. Skilled instructors operate with their expertness when it comes to learning authorship and do certain that they put across new constructions in a important and accessible manner.
When the instructor becomes organiser, he or she is involved in physically puting up the schoolroom environment so that pupils get to better absorb the authorship undertakings. The instructor may necessitate that the pupils work in braces or in groups and that the category puting be matching to the undertaking ( horseshoe, circle, groups of four desks or more, u-shape, or others ) . In this instance, the instructor can besides move as prompter, suggesting at certain English constructions to guarantee a smooth flow of the activity ; he or she could go through from group to group and offer scholars tips and cues.
Assuming the function of incentive, the instructor tries to hike both the scholars ‘ intrinsic and extrinsic motive since pupil motive frequently proves to hinder the geting of new English constructions, whatever the taught accomplishment may be. For learning authorship, motive normally means giving pupils the advantage of pick without restricting their positions to a individual activity. This is non to state that pupils may roll freely or ignore subjects assigned by the instructor, but that they can trust on their life experiences, on their options in footings of English cognition every bit good as on the chance of a existent audience ( their co-workers, instructors, etc. ) in order to successfully reason an assignment. In this regard, “ one of our chief functions ( aˆ¦ ) will be to actuate the pupils, ( aˆ¦ ) carrying them of the utility of the activity, and promoting them to do as much attempt as possible for maximal benefit ” ( Harmer 330 ) .
Additionally, moving as participant, the instructor can portion with the pupils his or her ain experience as a author. By making this, the instructor exposes composing schemes and offers insight into techniques typically used by proficient, adept authors. Students have to chance to witness the instructor fighting with logic and coherency and therefore, they become more confident in their ain authorship accomplishments. Humbertson even recounts: “ As I continued to compose and portion with my pupils, they connected and invested in their ain literacy ” ( 11 ) .
Finally, the instructor as feedback supplier is a place that I am covering with in greater item in my undermentioned chapter. However, reference should be made of the fact that “ instructors should react positively and encouragingly to the content of what the pupils have written ” ( Harmer 331 ) . A negative feedback discourages pupils and makes them reticent to composing. It is by and large accepted presents that the instructor ‘s feedback should foreground merely one facet that needs betterment every clip: English registry, vocabulary, punctuation, grammar, or word order.
However, the acclaimed student-centred instruction manner of today does non evidently go around entirely around instructors ‘ functions in the schoolroom. Alternatively, this attack views instructors and pupils as spouses or confederates in the teaching-learning procedure. Students are as active a portion of the authorship pattern as their teachers. By demoing that they care and understand the scholars ‘ demands and involvements, instructors allow their pupils to go responsible for their ain acquisition. Another case of pupils ‘ engagement in learning authorship is the instance of groupwork undertakings when more adept scholars can steer or assist out less adept 1s. Regardless of the composing context in the schoolroom, the instructor can follow certain stairss to vouch successful larning results: design reliable and meaningful authorship undertakings, teach composing together with other linguistic communication accomplishments as portion of an incorporate attack, alternate instruction methods or techniques, create a sympathetic category ambiance, and follow a supportive attitude towards the scholars.
Overall, the first chapter of my paper has dwelled on facets refering foremost of all the relationship writing-speaking and writing-reading, so the similarities and differences between writing-for-learning and writing-for-writing, and finally the instructors ‘ duties every bit good as the pupils ‘ engagement in learning authorship. In this regard, I have revealed the fact that an incorporate attack to learning the linguistic communication skills is the most appropriate technique to follow in category, that writing-for-writing is every bit important as and sometimes more constructive than writing-for-learning, and that good instructors know how to include pupils in the teaching-learning procedure by offering them a portion of autonomy, consciousness, and motive.
