In English linguistic communication instruction, the direct and audio-lingual methods viewed composing as a tool to reenforce, and as an extension of, talking accomplishments. However, the outgrowth of communicative linguistic communication instruction ( CLT ) in the 1970s and the emphasis on development of communicative accomplishments saw importance given to composing accomplishments and to the composition procedure itself. Zamel ( 1982:196 ) stresses out that “ before we know how to learn authorship, we must foremost understand how we write ” . In other words, we need to understand what mental procedures are involved in the act of composing and how they interact with each other. Although it has been questioned whether think-aloud protocols can supply a elaborate and true representation of authors ‘ composing procedure ( see Cooper and Holzman, 1983 ) protocol analysis has enabled us to derive a deeper apprehension of the composition schemes which writes employ. Since a protocol is “ a description of the activities, ordered in clip, which a topic engages in while executing a undertaking ” ( Flower and Hayes, 1980a: 4 ) it can supply a great penetration into the psychological procedures involved in composing. To exemplify the mental processes authors engage in while composition, a figure of representation theoretical accounts have been proposed. The focal point of this paper is to emphasize on how these theoretical accounts of procedure composing translate to see in the schoolroom and highlight some cardinal pros and cons of the practical applications of a procedure attack to authorship.
This paper is divided into three chief parts. I begin by presenting some cardinal procedure theoretical accounts of composing with the purpose to set up some common evidences of these theoretical accounts. I besides give a brief history on some of the features of a procedure attack to the instruction and acquisition of composing. In portion two and three I attempt to place some cardinal strengths and failings of such an attack and suggest some redresss to cover with these restrictions.
Part 1. Procedure theoretical accounts of composing
Flower and Hayes ‘ ( 1981 ) procedure theoretical account of authorship ( see Figure 1, p2 ) comprises of three chief units: ( I ) the undertaking environment, ( two ) the composing procedure ; and ( three ) the author ‘s long-run memory. A brief description of these units is given below:
Figure 1. Process theoretical account of authorship ( Flower and Hayes, 1981:370 )
The elements of the undertaking environment are the rhetorical job and the text produced so far.A The rhetorical job is concerned with the rhetorical state of affairs ( exigency or assignment and audience ) , which is given, and the author ‘s ain ends, which are personally created ( Flower and Hayes, 1980b:24 ) . The text produced in the procedure of composition is influenced by the rhetorical job and the written text, on the other manus, can act upon the composition procedure.
The long-run memory is identified as a “ depot of cognition about the subject and audience, every bit good as cognition of composing programs and job representations ” ( Hayes and Flower, 1981:371 ) . In add-on, the long-run memory has “ limitless capacity ” and consists of a huge sum of information which is “ potentially retrievable ” ( Gross, 2001 ) . As a consequence, happening utile information in the long-run memory and accommodating it harmonizing to the rhetorical job can be a job for the author.
The authorship processes involve the Acts of the Apostless of planning, interpreting and reexamining. Planning is concerned with authors representation of cognition intended to be used in the authorship procedure and involves a figure of sub-processes and in peculiar: bring forthing relevant thoughts from the long-run memory ; meaningful and consistent organisation of these thoughts and ; personal goal-setting. Translating refers to seting thoughts into a written linguistic communication and reviewing is concerned with evaluating and revising the text. The proctor is introduced “ as a authorship strategian which determines when the author moves from one procedure to the following [ aˆ¦ ] ( and ) this pick is determined both by the author ‘s ends and by single composing wonts or manners ” ( Flower and Hayes, 1981:374 ) .
HayesA revised the theoretical account in 1996 ( see Figure 2, p3 ) and a figure of cardinal alterations can be observed. For illustration, working memory is given a cardinal importance and its function is to give entree to all other authorship procedures, shop information ( semantic, phonological and visuospatial ) and carry out cognitive procedures. In add-on, the importance of motive and collaborative work in the procedure of authorship was highlighted. Recognition was besides given to task scheme, which Hayes ( 1996:24 ) describes as “ bundles of information stored in long-run memory that specify how to transport out a peculiar undertaking ” . The composing medium, i.e. whether the author uses a pen and paper to compose or word processes the text, was besides given a particular attending. Haas ( 1989 ) , for illustration, carried out a survey with experient and student authors analyzing the effects of word processing on planning. She observed that the participants used significantly less be aftering when utilizing word processing entirely, reasoning that composing engineerings can be extremely influential on the authorship procedure. In add-on, Hayes ( 1996:7 ) points out that fluctuations in the composing medium non merely act upon cognitive procedures but besides provide us with broader observations of the authorship procedure which enable us to better understand it.
Figure 2. Process theoretical account of authorship ( Hayes, 1996:4 )
A instead different theoretical account was proposed by Bereiter and Scardamalia ( 1987 ) who focused on the authorship processes in which novitiate and expert authors are involved. Harmonizing to them novice authors engage in knowledge- relation procedures which are simpler as opposed to expert authors which engage in knowledge-transforming procedures which involve more complex cognitive schemes.
It is apparent that there are a figure of proposed procedure theoretical accounts of composing which have been exhaustively discussed and remodelled by research workers. One would inquire whether a individual theoretical account can be proposed which would to the full stand for and account for the cognitive procedures involved in composing. Possibly a individual theoretical account would be unrealistic as, it has been established, different theoretical accounts address different facets of the authorship procedure. The Flower and Hayes theoretical account for illustration represents how writing happens as opposed to Bereiter and Scardamalia ‘s theoretical account which focuses on how people learn to compose ( Edwarders, 2011 ) . Undoubtedly, what the procedure theoretical accounts have in common is that they do non concentrate on the composing merchandise but are concerned with the cognitive procedures involved in composing as a problem-solving activity. The composing procedure in itself is “ non-linear, explorative, and productive procedure whereby authors discover and redevelop their thoughts as they attempt to come close significance ” ( Zamel, 1983:165 ) .
Today we can separate a figure of different attacks to composing. The merchandise attack focuses on the text and the genre attack on the reader. The procedure attack to authorship is concerned with the authors and what they do when they write. The features which differentiate the procedure from the merchandise attack, for illustration, are that composing does non “ converge towards a pre-defined end, with a theoretical account text being presented to organize the focal point of comprehension and text use activities ” but is instead defined by “ upset, impreciseness, recursiveness, complexness, ( and ) single fluctuation ” ( White and Arndt, 1991:5-6 ) .
To understand better how process theoretical accounts relate to see in the schoolroom we must hold a closer expression at the procedure attack to composing and in peculiar what activities authors might be involved in, anterior to and during composing. In a procedure attack scholars are encouraged to acquire involved in planning, organizing, outlining, revising and redacting their work through task-based collaborative communicating. White & A ; Arndt, for illustration, suggest a figure of phases ( see Figure 3, p5 ) which are seen non as additive but recursive and “ the whole procedure non as a fixed sequence but as a dynamic and unpredictable procedure ” ( Tribble, 1996:39 ) . A concise overview White and Arndt ‘s phase theoretical account and remarks on the activities involved is given below:
Figure 3. A procedure theoretical account of authorship ( White & A ; Arndt, 1991 )
In Generating thoughts the end is to bring forth pupils ‘ involvement and infusion as many thoughts for composing as possible through brainstorming, usage of inquiries or visuals, note-taking or function drama or simulation activities. In Concentrating authors discover chief thoughts every bit good as manage them in a consistent manner. In this phase writers consider the grounds and place the intent of their authorship which are a driving force in make up one’s minding on the content of authorship and how it should be directed. An of import portion of this phase is that authors consider the audience and the signifier of their authorship. Structuring is “ grouping thoughts together and make up one’s minding upon how to construction them ” ( White & A ; Arndt, 1991:78 ) . In add-on, White & A ; Arndt point out that, because of the nature of procedure authorship, there is frequently a changeless flow of thoughts and this procedure would necessitate regular readjustments and restructuring and should non be seen as fixed and complete. If the phases so far are considered as pre-writing activities, the authorship of the first bill of exchange takes topographic point in Drafting. The authors think about their concluding merchandise and how to organize their text in order for it to outdo entreaty to the audience. It is of import to advert that alteration and revising of the text are indispensable and effectual constituents of this phase. Measuring involves unfavorable judgment and appraisal of one ‘s composing with accent on merchandise rating and is likely to be carried out through self- or peer-evaluation instead than by the instructor. In Re-viewing authors see their work near to its concluding merchandise. Writers “ re-view the text, as if with a new brace of eyes [ aˆ¦ ] ( with ) a sense of opinion [ aˆ¦ ] ( where ) the existent amending procedure requires equal lingual tools to work with ” ( White & A ; Arndt, 1991:136-7 ) . Nevertheless, in the context of English linguistic communication instruction and acquisition, the procedure attack to authorship has its practical strengths and failings, some of which are discussed in the following subdivision.
Part 2. Practical strengths
The function of the scholar in the authorship procedure
The outgrowth of CLT non merely contributed to a huge motion from traditional attacks in learning but it greatly emphasised the function and significance of the scholar through a development of learner-centred course of study and orientation in learner-centred linguistic communication instruction ( see Nunan, 1998 ) . Furthermore, furthering learner liberty was seen as both, a great subscriber to successful acquisition and the ultimate end in instruction ( Benson, 2001 ) . Unarguably, in the procedure attack to composing the scholar is the Centre of attending. In the procedure of composing the learner-writer is encouraged to lend with thoughts reflecting on personal experiences and bing background cognition. Furthermore, the scholar is expected to demo duty in planning, outlining and reexamining the text and to utilize effectual cognitive and self-management acquisition schemes to help the composition procedure. The above are, doubtless, what characterises the good author and the independent linguistic communication scholar. The authorship procedure is a problem-solving activity which is purposive, with the ends created and initiated by the author. In Flower and Hayes ‘ ( 1981:373 ) words “ the act of specifying one ‘s ain rhetorical job and scene ends is an of import portion of ‘being originative ‘ and can account for some of import differences between good and hapless authors. ”
Another facet of author ‘s control over the composing procedure can be exemplified through a self-monitoring technique as portion of self-reflection in the authorship procedure ( see Charles, 1990 ; Cresswell, 2000 ; ) . In brief, the technique involves scholars placing countries for development in their authorship and footnoting those concerns by noticing on their possible failings in composition and demands for betterment. The instructors respond to these remarks in authorship by giving suggestions for betterment after which learners re-draft their texts and do necessary amendments. Cresswell ( 2000:235 ) argues that “ the pupil self-monitoring technique additions autonomy in the acquisition of authorship by giving scholars control over the induction of feedback ” . To this Charles adds that the technique is advantageous because the scholars have the chance to see their ain authorship critically and analytically every bit good as to hold control over the procedure of composing. These as a consequence can increase scholars ‘ motive in reacting to feedback and fix them to be more receptive to this feedback.
Collaborative work is an of import component of the authorship procedure and it has its practical strengths for a twosome of grounds. One facet of the good nature of collaborative work is peer reexamining ( or peer feedback ) which involves noticing on and giving suggestions on equals ‘ bill of exchanges. Mangelsdorf ( 1992 ) conducted a survey with 40 advanced ESL authors and investigated what pupils think about equal reviewing and whether they find it good for their ain authorship. The consequences concluded that most of the scholars found peer reexamining advantageous and that equals ‘ remarks and suggestions helped them better the content and administration of their text. It besides made them reconsider current and set up new thoughts every bit good as make their text clear non merely to them as authors but besides to the audience. In add-on, equal reexamining provided different points of position, which Mangelsdorf ( 1992:281 ) claims are good as “ the more positions ( authors ) receive, the richer the options they have to take from when they revise ” . In add-on, Keh ( 1990:296 ) points out that equal feedback is at the degree of development of the authors every bit good as the fact that writers learn more about the authorship by critically reexamining other ‘s work.
Many of the scholars, nevertheless, pointed out that they do non see themselves as confident critics and questioned their equals ‘ ability to reexamine other authors ‘ work. To this possibly the cultural influences brought into the ESL ( frequently heterogenous ) schoolroom should be mentioned. In many states composing is seen as a structured and less communicative experience. In some Arab and Asiatic states, for illustration, schoolroom acquisition can be really teacher-centered and “ instruction in which thoughts and replies are elicited and discussed possibly rejected as unsound [ aˆ¦ ] and undertakings necessitating original idea or the look of personal sentiments possibly considered unjust ” ( Swan & A ; Smith, 2001:209 ) .
Peer reexamining should non be discarded and although authors ‘ attitudes towards it must be taken into consideration we have to believe of appropriate ways to advance the benefits of collaborative work. Mangelsdorf and Keh suggest that instructors can develop their scholars how to reexamine by patterning the reviewing procedure. For case, instructors can give clip to whole category treatments about a sample bill of exchange in which they have to notice on its possible strengths and failings as an unfinished piece of composing. Keh adds that when reading, referees, as inexperient critics, tend to look for mechanical mistakes such as grammar or lexical errors. To these, Keh ( 1990:296 ) refers to as “ lower order concerns ” and suggests that to be effectual critics referees should look for “ higher order concerns ” such as development and construction of thoughts and administration of the text. To cover with cultural influences civilization consciousness Sessionss should be carried out throughout the course of study to guarantee that scholars know why and how certain activities, although unfamiliar, can be good for the acquisition procedure.
Collaborative work is non merely concerned with pupils ‘ remarks and suggestions on their equals ‘ work. Group activities are valuable for other phases of the authorship procedure. By brainstorming thoughts in groups, for illustration, “ pupils learn that authors can gain from pulling on other people ‘s thoughts every bit good as their ain ( White and Arndt, 1991:20 ) . Furthermore, working in groups can develop the production of thoughts authors would non usually suggest separately because of jitteriness or other grounds ( Boughey, 1997 ) . This, in respond, will increase their assurance as authors every bit good as better their acquisition schemes.
Part 3. Practical failings
Teaching stuffs and deficiency of cognition or exposure to genre
It would be just to state that nowadays a considerable sum of the class books available on the market provide text theoretical accounts in the subdivisions devoted to composing. For illustration a theoretical account missive of invitation or an e-mail can be presented and to which scholars can automatically mention or copy, simply replacing information. One could reason that this attack to the instruction of authorship is anything but associated with how authors go on about composition. My experience with novice authors can pull on a general observation that the presence of a merchandise theoretical account gives pupils a sense of security as they see the merchandise as a stable belongings which they can utilize as a scaffolding for their ain authorship. Another point is that frequently it is up to the instructors to make up one’s mind how to work the instruction stuffs harmonizing to their pupils ‘ demands and whether to concentrate on procedure authorship, which is originative and unpredictable, or utilize the theoretical accounts provided in class books as the nucleus component in their lessons.
A figure of ways could be taken in order to cover with learning stuffs and authors ‘ deficiency of cognition of genre. For illustration scholars could be presented with different signifiers ( genre ) and encouraged to take the one ( s ) , which would outdo suit their authorship intent ( Brooks & A ; Grundy, 1998:16 ) . The debut of theoretical accounts, as suggested by White and Arndt ( 1991:5-6 ) , should be done non before composing “ but merely after the pupils have written something of their ain, so that the text is now a resource for farther thoughts instead than a theoretical account for apery ” . In add-on, Tribble ( 1996:60 ) suggests that “ activities could be designed to heighten scholars ‘ apprehension of the genre in inquiry ” . To cover with the lack in cognition of genre it appears that the integrating of genre and procedure attacks in authorship is someway desirable ( Watson, 1982 ) . This would intend promoting scholars to “ detect for themselves the believing procedures that lead to successful realization of the moves and forms of administration in a genre ” ( Chandrasegaran, 2009:340 ) . An illustration for this could be anterior or in-process analysis of the signifier every bit good as designation of specific genre characteristics through unfastened schoolroom treatments. A point that should non be ignored is that instructors themselves should be cognizant of the nature of the authorship procedure.
It would be ambitious to claim that the procedure of authorship can be experienced by scholars in a individual authorship session. Composing is a originative procedure which needs clip expeditiously spent on peculiar authorship activities. This would depend on factors such as authors ‘ linguistic communication proficiency, category size or single acquisition schemes. Furthermore, a authorship session will frequently affect treatments, planning, redacting, so possibly treatments once more, which will barely suit in a limited period of clip. What we face here is, what Harmer ( 2004:12-13 ) refers to as the “ procedure trap ” , the issue with clip.
Our chief concern is non to hotfoot aimlessly through the phases of the authorship procedure but to do pupils cognizant of the benefits of those phases, so they can “ derive a greater control over the cognitive schemes involved in composing ” ( Hedge, 2000:308 ) . This suggests that instructors can help scholars in bring forthing thoughts, planning, revising or redacting. The procedure of authorship is a discovery event and to cover with the clip issue procedure composing activities should be spread over the acquisition course of study and independent work outside the schoolroom could be encouraged.
3.3 Some extra considerations
Other restrictions of the procedure attack should be mentioned, although non discussed in item in this paper. Class size could be an issue and with big groups of scholars instructors might happen giving constructive feedback as highly disputing. Boughey suggests that scholars can be divided into little groups, done harmonizing to their academic public presentation to avoid laterality of more competent authors. Making composing groups would intend that it would be more manageable for the instructor to give feedback to groups ‘ composing instead than single scholars. Furthermore, as feedback is directed to the whole group instead than persons, the issue of unfavorable judgment is non every bit sensitive to scholars.
Another point to see is that procedure attack to composing is non ever applicable. For illustration, in state of affairss where scholars have to fix for written scrutinies, a procedure attack possibly will non be suited. Hedge ( 2000:319 ) stresses out that “ a differentiation needs to be made between schoolroom authorship aimed at developing efficiency and test readying which aims at showing that efficiency, and for which other schemes are needed. ”
This paper addressed some of the effects psycholinguistic research has on the instruction and acquisition of English linguistic communication composing and dealt with some of the practical pros and cons of a procedure attack to composing. The function of the author, as an independent scholar, and collaborative work, as an effectual tool in the composition procedure, were identified as possible strengths. Some restrictions were besides mentioned, and in peculiar, the issue with clip and cognition of genre, category size and procedure attack pertinence. Procedure authorship, undisputedly valuable for many grounds, has its critics and has to be taken by instructors and scholars with great consideration. As a non-linear and recursive procedure it requires a deeper apprehension of the cognitive schemes involved and effectual realization could be gained by raising learner consciousness and supplying appropriate preparation. A farther point of probe, which likely deserves an analysis on its ain, is the nucleus accent on developing lingual accomplishments instead than lingual cognition in procedure attack to composing and whether this can impute as a practical strength or a restriction.