The first chapter of my paper places forth three main issues: a study of writing with regards to the other vocabulary skills, a comparison between writing-for-writing versus writing-for-learning as well as an analysis of the instructors’ assignments and the students’ engagement in the process of educating writing. By exposing these aspects, I show that writing should not be taught as an isolated language skill but rather as part of an integrated approach. Also, I show how writing-for-writing is as significant as writing-for-learning and exactly how students play a crucial part in teaching writing and take responsibility for his or her own learning.
Contemporary methodological tendencies separated the four dialect skills into two broad categories: receptive skills and effective ones. The second option includes speaking and writing with their much-debated differences. The process of writing presupposes the utilization of graphic symbols or letters chained alongside one another in higher phrase sequences that admiration a specific order and form a coherent wording.
Writing is generally linked to two other dialect skills: speaking and reading. On the main one hand, the relationship writing-speaking gives surge to rough debates about whether teachers should target more on coaching writing or educating speaking. It may be argued that writing is not merely an ordinary expansion of speech; the ex – practice differs from the last mentioned in multiple ways as Donn Byrne cogently shows in the following table:
Takes place in a context.
Creates its context.
Speaker and listener(s) in contact.
Reader not present no interaction possible
Person addressed is specific.
Reader definitely not known to writer
Immediate feedback given and expected.
No immediate opinions possible.
Speech is transitory.
Writing is long term.
Sentences often imperfect and sometimes ungrammatical. Hesitations and pauses common.
Sentences likely to be carefully constructed and associated and organised to form a text.
Range of devices (stress, intonation, pitch, speed) to help present meaning. Facial expressions, body moves, and gestures also used.
Devices to help present interpretation are punctuation, capitals, and underlining (for emphasis).
Fig. 1. Variations between conversation and writing (Byrne 3).
Source: Byrne, Donn. Teaching Writing Skills. London: Longman, 1993.
Thus, the written vocabulary asks for a greater standardization of sentence structure and vocabulary whereas speech is varied corresponding to distinctions in regional dialects. Speaking usually occurs as a spontaneous action while writing is carefully organized. Then, speakers employ their body gestures and voice to put across so this means but authors have to count on their words for the same purpose. Finally, conversation has a far more informal and recurring character where in fact the written discourse produces logically in a more formal and compact style.
On the other hand, writing is related to reading as both of these skills represent the basis of literacy. Nowadays, theoreticians such as S. B. Kucer and E. Delgado-Larocco consider literacy as a multifaceted and lively practice that includes sociocultural, cognitive, developmental, and cognitive factors (see Fig. 2 below). Consequently, for a person to become literate, he or she has to get good at all the abovementioned measurements of literacy at the same time (Kucer 4). First, the cognitive effect dictates the writer’s wish to find, build, and show meaning. Soon after, the sociocultural component is made up of markers of social personality (ethnicity or gender). Third of most, the linguistic factor places forth the terminology utilized by the writer as the conveyor of so this means. Last but not least, the developmental aspect includes the other three factors: since literacy is a energetic process, the writer’s / reader’s development never ceases (Kucer 5-6).
Fig. 2. Measurements of literacy (Kucer 59).
Source: Kucer, Stephen B. Measurements of Literacy. A Conceptual Bottom part for Teaching Reading and Writing in School Settings. New Jersey: LEA Publishers, 2005.
Moreover, the question of why and how writing should be educated arises. Since “writing is an art which is () difficult to get” (Byrne 6), it is apparent right now that instructors should set clear coaching goals as concerns writing. On this sense, writing may be taught as a response to students’ needs and diverse learning styles: introvert learners do not feel at ease expressing themselves orally, so writing allows them to feel more self-confidence. But writing may evenly be trained for reasons of memorization or retention and therefore it offers students the verification for part of these learning progress. Probably the most evident goal for teaching writing appears to be the need for its presence in informal and formal examinations equally.
In general, coaching writing is not meant to be an isolated practice. Instead, an efficient student contact with the foreign language is attained through several medium as Eli Henkel points out: “in important communication, people use incremental terms skills not in isolation, but in tandem” (quoted in Harmer 265). In the school room, the teaching-learning environment tries to imitate real-life situations and this is why lessons often integrate multi-layered vocabulary skills. In this context, “writing invites us to gather and organize our thoughts to be able to clearly connect them” (Johnson 8).
Language is the vehicle of thought. The essential hypothesis is that-being a vocabulary skill-writing “means writing a linked text and not simply single sentences, that writers write for an objective and a reader, and that the process of writing is a very important learning tool for everyone our students” (Raimes 11).
Contemporary methodological trends determine that writing should be trained interdependently with reading, speaking, and tuning in. There is no single approach to coaching writing but many. Writing may reinforce recently acquired words structures, it could enhance the students’ mental and linguistic development, and it may also emphasize individual learning styles.
Additionally, the kind of writing educators promote is dependent greatly on the learners’ age group, level, and personal interests. INSIDE THE Practice of English Language Coaching, Jeremy Harmer divides the coaching of writing in two extensive categories: writing-for-learning and writing-for-writing. The previous type is defined as “the type of writing we do to help students learn language or even to test them on that words” (Harmer 330). Thus, writing-for-learning can ask students to construct sentences using the Past Tense Simple or the Likely to Future for instance; here, the “aim is never to train students to create, but instead to help them keep in mind” (Harmer 330) a certain grammar item. Learners build writing behaviors for dialect practice in this case-they come to understand, retain, and acquire new language constructions. Besides this, writing-for-learning promotes learners’ involvement in the lessons’ development and result by nurturing their recognition and by making them in charge of their own learning.
By contrast, writing-for-writing addresses specific writing styles such as narratives, advertisings, characters, postcards, job applications, reports, or articles whose construction we wish our students to understand. Therefore, “if we are to build the students’ writing skills, ” it is highly recommended “to utilize such writing-for-writing duties normally as is suitable” (Harmer 330). This category concentrates more on familiar, daily styles that the learners find useful and they are likely to come across more frequently. Writing for fun or for pleasure is also included here since it allows students to obtain knowledge in their own rhythm; self-experience proves valuable and motivates learners intrinsically, making them accumulate new dialect items quicker and with more ease. You can find many types of writing of activities targeted because of this type of writing, between which: questionnaires, cases, puzzles, instructions, quizzes, diaries, headlines, or programmes. Unlike the controlled practice in class where pupils are asked to comply to certain composition guidelines, writing for fun will not require obeying specific conventions but instead using the terminology that learners have at their removal. As a result, writing for pleasure enhances students’ creativity and underpins their degree of proficiency in the spanish.
Furthermore, Art work Young-in Coaching Writing across the Curriculum-dwells on a single differentiation between writing-for-learning and writing-for-writing, although he labels these categories in another way: writing to learn and writing to speak.
Fig. 3. Writing to learn and writing to speak (Young 9).
Source: Young, Art. Writing across the Curriculum. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1999.
Young exposes the fact that on the one palm, writing to learn encourages students to take the time to discover new terminology items step-by-step through imagination and problem-solving skills. Thus, writing to learn units forth the writer’s linguistic knowledge and principles in his look at “to explain the matter to oneself” (Britton quoted in Young 10). Alternatively, writing to speak enables writers to share newly acquired buildings with others, “to make clear the problem to others” (Britton quoted in Young 10). This time around, the audience or the receiver of the writer’s text message is privileged and further reinforced to revise distributed information or discover new perspectives.
All in every, writing-for-learning and writing-for-writing are just two of the many possible ways of teaching writing. These two categories are not reciprocally exclusive, so instructors should not focus solely on one of these at the expense of the other. Although writing-for-learning centers more on content areas whereas writing-for-writing on compositional varieties, they both signify important tools for the teaching-learning process. Used jointly within pairwork or groupwork, these techniques cause the features of unimpeded communication, ingenuity, self-confidence and peer-reliability.
Teachers whose goal is to teach students how to be proficient writers should always consider the learners’ background and emotional cosmetic but also their life activities that they bring to class. An efficient coaching of writing presupposes acknowledging the students’ productive role in this technique. Thus, a culturally sympathetic insight offered by professors embraces and explores category diversity.
Besides the open-mindedness to culturally diverse learners, teachers also play other important tasks in the class such as: source, organiser, prompter, motivator, participant, and opinions provider. As resource, the instructor “should prepare yourself to provide information and vocabulary where necessary () offering advice and suggestions in a constructive and tactful way” (Harmer 330), specifically for longer writing duties. Skilled professors operate with their expertise when it comes to educating writing and make sure that they put across new structures in a substantial and accessible way.
When the tutor becomes organiser, he or she is involved in bodily establishing the class environment so that students reach better assimilate the writing duties. The teacher may necessitate that the students work in pairs or in organizations and that the course setting be corresponding to the duty (horseshoe, circle, groups of four desks or even more, u-shape, or others). In this case, the educator can also become prompter, hinting at certain British structures to ensure a easy flow of the experience; he or she could complete from group to group and provide learners tips and cues.
Assuming the role of motivator, the instructor tries to improve both learners’ intrinsic and extrinsic inspiration since student determination often demonstrates to impede the acquiring of new British structures, long lasting educated skill may be. For teaching writing, motivation usually means providing students the benefit of choice without restricting their perspectives to an individual activity. This is not to state that students may roam openly or disregard issues designated by the educator, but that they can rely on their life experiences, on the options in conditions of English knowledge as well as on the prospect of a genuine audience (their colleagues, instructors, etc. ) in order to effectively conclude an project. In this admiration, “one of our own principal tasks () is to encourage the students, () persuading them of the effectiveness of the activity, and encouraging these to make as much effort as possible for obtain the most” (Harmer 330).
Additionally, acting as participant, the tutor can share with the students his / her own experience as a writer. By doing this, the teacher exposes writing strategies and will be offering information into techniques typically used by proficient, expert authors. Students have to opportunity to witness the teacher struggling with logic and coherence and thus, they become more self-assured in their own writing skills. Humbertson even recounts: “As I continued to create and tell my students, they connected and invested in their own literacy” (11).
Finally, the professor as feedback service provider is a position that I am dealing with in greater detail in my pursuing chapter. However, mention should be produced of the fact that “teachers should reply favorably and encouragingly to this content of the particular students have written” (Harmer 331). A negative reviews discourages students and makes them reticent to writing. It really is generally accepted nowadays that the teacher’s opinions should highlight only 1 aspect that requires improvement each and every time: British register, vocabulary, punctuation, grammar, or phrase order.
Nonetheless, the acclaimed student-centred coaching style of today does not obviously revolve exclusively around instructors’ roles in the classroom. Instead, this process views teachers and students as associates or collaborators in the teaching-learning process. Students are as energetic a part of the writing practice as their instructors. By displaying that they service and understand the learners’ needs and hobbies, instructors allow their students to become accountable for their own learning. Another occasion of students’ participation in teaching writing is the truth of groupwork tasks when more proficient learners can guide or help you less skillful ones. Regardless of the writing framework in the school room, the teacher can follow certain steps to ensure successful learning results: design traditional and significant writing tasks, teach writing as well as other dialect skills within an integrated methodology, alternate teaching methods or techniques, develop a sympathetic school atmosphere, and choose a supportive frame of mind to the learners.
Overall, the first chapter of my newspaper has dwelled on aspects involving to begin with the partnership writing-speaking and writing-reading, then your similarities and dissimilarities between writing-for-learning and writing-for-writing, and finally the teachers’ duties as well as the students’ involvement in coaching writing. In this admiration, I have uncovered the fact an integrated method of teaching the language skills is the most appropriate technique to adopt in course, that writing-for-writing is as significant as and sometimes more constructive than writing-for-learning, and this good teachers learn how to include students in the teaching-learning process by offering them a show of self-reliance, awareness, and drive.