Teaching Foreign Language Skills - Essay Example

Literature Review Introduction A good number of research studies suggest that most foreign language instructions or programs tend to emphasise on the application and production of writing that mainly reflects on student’s knowledge of accurate grammar usage. Schultz (1991) observes that lower-division programs tend to accentuate on the acquisition of the basic language. In the course of such programs, students focus on grammar, writing short stories, reading different kinds of texts, narrating, giving summaries of reading materials, discussing subjects and practice speaking (Schultz 1991, 978). Similarly, White & Caminero (1995) echo the sentiments of Schultz (1991) by noting that in lower-level classes, writing tends to be limited to particular activities that are designed to teach students how to understand and manipulate different language conventions (White & Caminero 1995, 325). During the early stages of language acquisition, students are not expected to convey fluent writing since they still do not understand the grammatical characteristics of language. It is thus evident that writing is not emphasised as it should be. This is mainly because foreign language instructors do not expect that students in foreign language classes will employ a great degree of writing in foreign language during their careers (Valdes et al 1992, 334). According to Edelsky (1982) and Edelsky & Smith (1989), instruction in English as a Second Language (ESL), mainly focuses on enhancing the abilities and skills of students in reading, listening and speaking English while overlooking the development of writing skills in ESL students. Harris (1985) estimates that only 2% of ESL instruction touches on writing activities. Despite the fact that writing is a vital language reinforcing, 72% of this 2% mainly relates to the mechanical aspects of writing like spelling, punctuation and syntax (Hughey et al 1983). Graves (1984) alleges that the lack of attention to writing instruction can be attributed to a neglect of research studies that focus on writing. Nevertheless, the significance of writing should not be overlooked since current thinking accentuates that writing is an integral aspect of the learning process and that there is a close link between writing and cognitive development (Scott 1996, xi). It is only recently, that writing in ESL has received much research attention (Hillocks 1986). Over time, researchers have directed a considerable amount of attention towards writing and have emphasised the importance of writing in the learning process of ESL learners. Consequently, a good number of ESL programs have incorporated writing classes as an essential component of the overall ESL program. As ESL teachers embrace the significance of writing in language development and as they seek to impart effective writing skills to ESL learners, they must choose effective instructional methods or strategies. In order for ESL teachers to enhance the writing skills of ESL students they must employ effective writing instructional methods or strategies. Therefore, a sound research base on the effectiveness of different approaches or strategies of teaching ESL writing classes is required (Hinkel 2004). This section seeks to provide a critical review of literature on the different methods or strategies that can be used to teach ESL writing classes. A wide range of relevant literature will be reviewed to examine in-depth what these methods entail and the effectiveness and limitations associated with different approaches. The findings of this section will be established through a critical review of relevant literature from books, journals and academic articles. Moreover, empirical evidence and research studies will be used to support the findings in this section. Approaches/ Strategies of teaching ESL writing Silva (1990) recommends that in order for teachers to be effective in teaching writing to ESL learners, they need to understand what second language (L2) writing entails. Teachers require coherent perspectives, model tools and principles for teaching, evaluating and analysing competing views. In the article, “Second language composition instruction; developments, issues and directions in ESL” Silva attempts to provide some of the approaches that teachers can use in ESL writing classes. In this article, he identifies what these approaches are, what they are not and how they are used. According to Silva (1990), there are four historical approaches to that can be used to teach writing in ESL classes. They include controlled composition, the process approach, current-traditional rhetoric and English for academic purposes (Silva 1990). Controlled Composition Controlled composition also referred to as the guided composition can be traced back to Charles Fries’ oral model which heralded the audiolingual method of second language teaching. This approach is based on the premise that language is speech and that learning involves habit formation. These two premises are driven from perspectives in structural linguistics and behaviorist psychology. Based on these basic premises, it is apparent that writing was considered as a secondary concern used in the reinforcement of oral habits. In his book, “Teaching and learning English as a second language” Fries considers writing as an after thought by noting that “even written exercises could be part of the second language leaner’s work” (Fries 1945, 8). Briere (1966) and Erazmus (1960) recommended that such writing exercises should be in the form of free composition or writer-originated discourse where the writer is the originator of the discourse and the writing exercises extend the language control of the learners so as to promote fluency in their writing. Nevertheless, such free composition was subject to much criticism from researchers in the likes of Pincas (1962, 185) who considered the approach to be “a naïve traditional view” that directly contrasts with scientific ideals on habit forming teaching approach. Pincas further observes that considerations of original creativeness are difficult to dispel. People find it hard to acknowledge that the use of language involves the manipulation of patterns that are fixed and that these patterns are learnt through imitations. Therefore, until these fixed patterns have been learnt, originality cannot occur during the manipulations of these fixed patterns or the selection of different variables in these patterns (Pincas (1962, 186). A critical look at Pincas sentiments depict that her views epitomise majority of opinions in this field which mainly accentuate on formal correctness and accuracy of using inflexible and controlled programs of habit formation developed to prevent errors that are presumably brought about by the interference of first language. These programs also positively reinforce suitable second language behaviour. In this case the approach preferred involves the careful manipulation and imitation of fixed patterns (Pincas 1962). Using the controlled composition approach, writing functions “the handmaid of skills such as reading, speaking and listening which should not take primacy of as the main skills that should be developed. Instead, they should be regarded as services activity and not the end itself (Rivers 1968, 258). Moreover, using the controlled composition approach, the process of learning to write using a second language is considered as a process in habit formation. The writer is considered as a manipulator of language structures that were previously developed. The reader is the ESL teacher who plays the role of a proof-reader or editor who is not particularly interested in the quality of expressions or ideas presented but is mainly concerned with the formal linguistic features employed by the writer. Using this approach texts are considered to be a collection of sentence, vocabulary items and patterns. These features are considered to be linguistic artifacts, a means for language practice. Silva notes that despite the fact that, a good number of people feel that controlled composition is not used any in ESL writing classes, the use of this approach is evident in ESL writing classrooms , textbooks and is infrequently addressed in professional literature (Silva 1990). Basically, using the controlled composition approach, writing is viewed as a skill that is secondary to other skills during language acquisition. Writing is conditioned and largely involves habit formation characterised by the manipulation of accurate grammatical usage (Silva, 1990, 13). This approach is not concerned with the development of writing processes in second language rather is focuses on how to make ESL language students to effectively develop writing pieces that convey a mastery of accurate rhetorical and grammatical usage of the second language. Pech & Buckingham (1976) observe that one key weakness associated with the use of the controlled composition approach is that it leaves ESL students unprepared to address problems associated with free writing. They note that whereas the appropriateness and usefulness of a controlled composition approach in specific instances cannot be doubted, there are two major weaknesses associated with the use of this approach. The first weakness is that a controlled composition approach lacks the means of determining gradations of control or decontrol which allow a smooth transition from highly guided or manipulated writing to free writing. The second weakness is that a controlled composition approach, forces ESL students to write for the purposes of complying with the requirements of teachers or textbook writers rather than writing so as to express themselves. As a result of these two weaknesses, Pech and Buckingham recommend the need for approaches that utilise the knowledge and interests of students and also prepares ESL students for different writing tasks. They also recommend the need for approaches that will enable students to smoothly transition from spoken to written English and encourage them to realise their personal objectives in written communication (Pech & Buckingham, 1976). Al-Hazmi (2006) observes that teaching writing in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and in the Arab world in general typifies a controlled composition approach at lower levels. At higher level a free composition approach is used whereas in the intermediate levels a mixture of both controlled composition and free composition approach are used. According to Halimah (1991), the teaching of writing skills in Saudi Arabia mainly focuses on the end product and the used linguistic features. Kharma (1985) notes that the greatest weakness in teaching ESL writing classes in the Arab world, is that the approaches used are limited to the use of language at the sentence level. Karma further observes that the approach used often sacrifice naturalness for the sake of practicality and convenience. Moreover, the focus on linguistic features and sentence level in teaching ESL writing in Saudi Arabia and the Arab world in general, is teacher-centered this in turn brings about negative effects on the development of learners’ writing skills (Liggett 1983). As a result, ESL learners develop problems in adequate self-expression and formulating analytical and critical thought (Al Hazmi 2007). A survey conducted by Al-Sharah (1996), surveyed the perceptions of 210 students in ESL writing classes in Jordan. The findings of this study showed that most of these students portrayed a lack of awareness on essential strategies in outlining their ideas on paper (Al-Sharah 1996). Current-traditional rhetoric Silva (1990) observes that the mid-sixties brought about an increased awareness of the needs of ESL students particularly with regards to their production of extended written discourse. This awareness suggested that controlled composition was not sufficient enough since there was more to writing than creating grammatical sentences. The need to bridge the gap between free writing and controlled composition was identified. As a result, a current-traditional rhetoric approach was formulated to fill this vacuum. A current-traditional rhetoric approach combines the key principles of current-traditional paradigm from native-speaker composition instruction and Kaplan’s theory of contrastive rhetoric. In Kaplan’s theory of contrastive theory, Kaplan defines rhetoric as a method that is used in organizing syntactic units into larger patterns (Kaplan 1967, 15). He suggests that in this case, writers use rhetoric and a sequence of thought which contravene the expectations of the native reader. Therefore, because of first language interference this approach extends beyond the syntax and sentence level (Silva 1990). The key concern of this approach revolves around the logical arrangement and construction of discourse. The paragraph is one of key areas of interest. In this case attention is not only given to the elements of the paragraph such as support , topic , transition and concluding sentences but also attention is directed towards different options of its development such as exemplifications, illustrations , contrasts , comparison classifications , definition and casual analysis. The other crucial focus is directed towards essay development, this process is considered as an extrapolation of paragraph principles to larger discourse stretches. Classroom procedures linked to this approach of writing tend to focus on the student. Students are often asked to choose between different alternative sentences that are within the context of a longer discourse or a given paragraph. Another variety entails reading and analysing a model thereafter applying the structural knowledge obtained to a corresponding piece of original writing. The complex aspects of this approach may sometimes require students to list and categories relevant facts and subsequently derive subject matters and supporting sentences from some of these facts. Furthermore, using this approach, students may be required to assemble, outline and write their composition from the outline (Silva 1990). Basically, using the current-traditional rhetoric approach, writing is viewed as a matter of arrangement, fitting of paragraphs and sentence into prescribed patterns. Therefore, learning to write entails obtaining skills in identifying, internalising and implementing these patterns. Using this approach writers or students are expected to fill into a pre-existing form that is provided or from a self-generated content. Nevertheless, the use of this approach can cause readers to easily get confused due to the unfamiliar expression patterns. In this case, texts are presented as a collection of complex discourse structures such as sentences, paragraphs and sections (Silva 1990). According to Silva (1990, 14), the current –traditional rhetoric approach broadens the conditioning of language employed in the controlled composition approach by shifting focus towards the leaner’s attention to not only the use of correct grammar but also the appropriate style. Classroom procedures direct the student’s attention to form. Using this approach, students analyse the model and form of the structural knowledge that they have acquired and incorporate it into their own writing. Silva notes that, one similarity between current traditional rhetoric and controlled composition approaches is that these approaches do not focus on the process of developing writing skills in second language rather, these approaches accentuate on the end product and how to enable students to effectively create writing pieces that portray a mastery of correct use of rhetorical and grammar in second language (Silva 1990, 14). Connor (1996, 59) notes that the current –traditional rhetoric approach differs from its predecessor, the controlled composition approach in that it advocates for writing at the discourse level. It particularly accentuates on the paragraph and its components. Connor also observes that this approach has benefited writing in three ways. First, it has made written products to become respectable aspects in academic enquiry. Secondly, this approach has caused writing to become an independent and significant discipline that is no longer taught by teaching assistants or part-time instructors. Lastly, this approach has encouraged researchers to focus their studies on writing. Generally, current traditional rhetoric approach has contributed to the development of free writing and as a result writing has become an independent skill (Connor 1996, 59). The process approach Silva (1990) suggests that the introduction of the process approach to ESL writing was mainly brought about by dissatisfaction leveled against the current-traditional and controlled composition approaches. Many educators felt that neither of these approaches adequately addresses the needs of ESL students particularly with regards to equipping them to express their creativity in writing. For instance, Taylor (1981) felt that there is more to writing than following a set plan or outline. Instead, the process of writing is a non-linear, generative and exploratory process through which writers discover and form their own idea as they try to communicate meaning. The process approach calls for providing a positive and collaborative environment where students are given ample time and experience minimal interferences as they work through their writing process. Using this approach, the role of the teacher is to help students to formulate viable strategies for generating ideas, planning their structures or procedures and editing. From a process approach perspective, writing is an intricate, recursive and creative process. Learning to write involves developing effective and efficient composing process. Basically, using this approach, focus is not directed towards the product. The teacher plays the role of a facilitator and the student takes up the role of identifying and addressing tasks or situations in the socio-cultural setting revolving around them. This approach is to some extents aligned to trends within English composition courses which mainly focus on recursive writing processes (Silva, 1990, 16). Based on the process approach, the writer is the main focus of attention and engages in the expression and discovery of meaning. In this case the reader is not preoccupied with the form of the written piece but rather focuses on the quality of ideas and expressions and also the way in which the writer conveys meaning. Moreover, Silva (1990) notes that based on the process approach, a text is a secondary derivative product or concern whose form is considered as a function of its purpose and content. In addition, using this approach there is no specific context of writing, therefore the writer as an individual is charged with the responsibility of identifying and appropriately addressing the task at hand (Silva 1990). Despite the fact that the process approach has over time been well received and widely used in ESL writing classes, criticism have also been levelled against the use of this approach. Some critics have perceived that this approach has some omissions and both practical and theoretical problems. Some suggest that when it comes to ESL writing, more focus should be directed from the writer to the reader. They argue that this is mainly because, in academic settings there are specific academic conventions of writing that must be adhered to (Silva 1990). Over the years, the teaching of language in Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia has been mainly dominated by a traditional, textbook-oriented, top-down teacher-led methodology. Nevertheless, with time, more liberal and student-centered approaches have been embraced (Al-Hazmi 2006). In the Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, the need to give leaner’s “a feeling of control”, “personal fulfilment” and opportunities to think critically and express themselves has become the centre of focus in the course of curriculum development processes (Daoud and Al-Hazmi 2002). Al-Hazmi (2006), observes that since the 1980’s research studies on ESL writing methodology have mainly supported a process approach to writing. He further notes that the current methodologies of teaching writing in ESL classrooms accentuate on co-operative learning between students and teachers. These methodologies also emphasise that students should be provided with more opportunities to exercise critical thinking, initiate learning and express themselves. In Al-Hazmi’s discussion on “Writing and Reflection: Perceptions of Arab EFL Learners”, he suggests that through a process approach students can write about what they know, what they are interested in and what they want to communicate to others. Furthermore, he notes that, writing becomes easy for students and they are likely to produce high quality pieces when they are intellectually committed to convey something meaningful to them in their writing. Therefore, learning should take place when it is initiated by the leaner and not when it is demanded by the teacher (Al-Hazmi 2006). References Al-Hazmi, S., 2006, Writing and Reflection: Perceptions of Arab EFL Learners, South Asian Language Review, VOL.XVI, No. 2, pp. 36-51. Al Hazmi, H., 2007, Current issues in English language education in Saudi Arabia, Journal of Modern Languages. Vol.17, pp. 129-150. Al-Sharah, N., 1996, An investigation into EFL students’ perceptions of L2 writing in academic settings. Second Language Acquisition and Writing: A multidisciplinary approach. Proceedings. University of Southampton, UK, pp.110-124. Briere, E., 1966, Quantity before quality in second language composition. Language Learning, 16, 141—151. Daoud, S. & Al-Hazmi, S., 2002, Teaching writing through reflection and thinking’. In Z. Syed, C. Coombe, and S. Troudi (eds.), TESOL Arabia Conference Proceedings: Critical Thinking and Reflection, Vol. VII, 335-359. 14-16 March 2002. Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Edelsky, C., 1982, Development of writing in a bilingual program, Final Report, Volumes 1 and 2, Arizona State, Tempe, Arizona. Edelsky, C. & Smith, K., 1989, Is that writing - or are those marks just a figment of your curriculum. In G. Manning & M. Manning (Eds.), Whole language: Beliefs and practices, K-8 pp. 183-193. Erazmus, E., 1960, Second language composition teaching at the intermediate level. Language Learning, 10, 25—31. Fries, C., 1945, Teaching and learning English as a second language, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Graves, H., 1984, A researcher learns to write. In M. Rose (Ed.),When a writer can't write (pp. 1-18). Guilford Press, New York. Halimah, A., 1991, EST Writing: Rhetorically processed and produced. A case study of Kuwaiti learners, University of Essex. Harris, M., 1985, Diagnosing writing process problems: A pedagogical application of speaking-aloud protocol analysis. In M. Rose (Ed.) When a writer can `t write (pp. 166-181). Guilford Press, New York. Hillocks, G., 1986, Research on written composition, ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication, Urbana, IL. Hinkel, E., 2004, Teaching academic ESL writing: practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar, Routledge, New York. Hughey, B., Wormuth, R., Hartfiel, F. & Jacobs, L., 1983, Teaching ESL composition: Principles and techniques, Newbury House, Rowley, Massachusetts. Kharma, N., 1985, “Problems of writing composition in EFL: A contrastive rhetoric approach”. Abhath al Yarmouk, Vol. 1: pp. 7-29. Liggett, M., 1983, Teaching English to Arabic speakers: Methodology materials development and classroom management, American University Press, Cairo. Pincas, A., 1962, Structural linguistics and systematic composition teaching to students of English as a second language. Language Learning, 12, 185- 194. Pech, W. & Buckingham, T., 1976, An experience approach to teaching composition. TESOL Quarterly, Vol 10, No. 1, pp. 55-65. Schultz, J., 1991, Mapping and cognitive development in the teaching of foreign language writing. The French Review, 64-, 978-988. Scott, M., 1996, Rethinking foreign language writing. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Silva, T., 1990, Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and directions in ESL, In Barbara Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. (pp.11-23). Cambridge University Press, New York. Rivers, W., 1968, Teaching foreign language skills, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Valdes, G., Haro, P. & Echevarriana, P. (1992). The development of writing abilities in a foreign language: Contributions toward a general theory of L 2 writing. The Modenl Language Review, 76, 333-352. White, S. & Caminero, R. (1995). Using process writing as a learning tool in the foreign language class. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 51, 323-329. Read More