于琦

【Abstract】It is， apparently， of paramount importance to have enough practice of English writing for a college student. Writing is so important that a number of linguists argue that no one can really master a second language if he or she ignores writing. Hence， many a principle of instructing English writing has been springing like mushrooms. This paper will discuss two of these knacks and methods of teaching writing to language learners which are the relation between product and process and the role of reading in teaching writing.

【Key words】instructing English writing； product and process； the role of reading

Introduction

To master a second language， it is important to acquire proficiency in listening， speaking， reading and writing. In these “four proficiencies”， writing is the last but not the least important. We mention listening and speaking first only because at the initial stage of language acquisition， we have to use our ears and mouths more. Actually， it is very important to have enough practice of writing. Writing is so indispensable that some linguists believe that no one can really master a second language if he or she ignores writing. Since an increasing number of linguists emphasize on writing， there have emerged many principles of teaching writing， such as those based on the relation between product and process， the relationship between reading and writing， accounting for cultural backgrounds and providing as much authentic writing as possible.

This paper will discuss two principles. Allying with some scholars theories， the first section is about balancing product and process. Receiving high approval among TESOL specialists， connecting reading and writing features the second portion. The third part will conduct a comparison between the two principles.

Shifting from Product to Process

In the past， students final essays were seen as finished products. Murray （1972） maintains that “most of us are trained as English teachers by studying a product： writing” （p. 3）. Writing teachers merely taught and evaluated learners compositions by means of grades at that time. Up until the 1970s， the paradigm shifted from considering writing as a product to a process. Lindemann （2001） argues that “in the 1970s， researchers moved us from a preoccupation with the written product toward a responsible understanding of the process writers engage” （p. 32）. Accordingly， there exists a transition on regarding writing as a product to a process. Based on the process theory， Zamel （1985） put forward a novel evaluation method of teaching students writing which was called process approach. She believes that “writing instructors should shift their traditional way of responding to students essays to meaning-oriented process approach” （p. 79） and to prove her position， Zamel conducted research in which she compared and analyzed some teachers actual behaviors of teaching writing in a public university. The survey operated smoothly and swimmingly and the outcome testified to Zamels perspective. Brown （2007） agrees with Zamels opinion， and he claims that “writing is a composing process and usually requires multiple drafts before an effective product is created” （p. 403）. Consequently， regarding writing as a process and adopting process approach to teach writing receive dazzling endorsement among instructors.

After years of adapting writing as a process approach to language instruction， researchers were eager to witness evident benefits of implementing process approach into pedagogical practices. However， in some studies， the results seemed that students writing skills were not largely improved as expected. Leki （1992） states that “regardless of teachers comments， students writing did not improve in subsequent writing tasks” （p. 110）. Therefore， researchers have been trying new ways to teach writing， and connecting reading and writing has come with the tide of fashion which will be demonstrated in detail in the next section.

The Marriage between Reading and Writing

Originally， many scholars mainly focused on the difference between reading and writing， and they think students employ their eyes to read an article yet write a paper with their hands. Nevertheless， as time glides on， an increasing number of linguists begin to emphasize on the positive affect of reading in the process of writing. Brown （2007） argues that “by reading and studying a variety of relevant types of text， students can gain important insights both about how they should write and about subject matter that become the topic of their writing” （p. 403）. Tierney and Pearson seems to agree with Browns perspective， and hold that “reading is an act of composing parallel to writing” （p. 570）. They believe that both the reading and the writing have five parallel stages： planning， drafting， aligning， revising and monitoring. In this case， both reading and writing are viewed as constructive process. Similarly， Frank （1978） also sees reading as an unavoidable ingredient in language writing and maintains that “reading provides a natural transition from speech to print” （p. 41）. Agreeing with this proportion， Connor and Taylor （1982） studied oral and silent reading respectively， and declare that “written language is based upon oral language” （p. 441）. Accordingly， reading does play an important role in writing， and language instructors should connect reading and writing in the process of teaching students writing.

A Bridge between the Two Principles

There are several common points between the two principles. The first aspect to note is that both of them are principles of teaching writing and can improve students writing skills. Furthermore， although the process approach is important to teach learners writing， the final writing product is more important. Brown （2007） argues that as in most language-teaching approaches， it is quite possible for you to go to an extreme in emphasizing process to the extent that the final product diminishes in importance. Try not to let this happen！ The product is， after all， the ultimate goal； it is the reason that we go through the process of prewriting， drafting， revising， and editing. Without that final product firmly in view， we could quite simply drown ourselves in a sea of revisions. Process in not the end； it is the means to the end. （p. 393）

Similarly， in order to improve students writing， teachers should encourage students read many articles. However， although reading is important in improving students writing skills， writing is the ultimate goal. In other words， pushing learners writing skills up a notch is the main aim of encouraging them to read articles. Lastly， when it comes to process， Brown （2007） thinks process approach does many things， such as “giving students time to write and rewrite” （p. 392）. Time is also an important factor according to Murray （1972） for the sake of giving students time to collect and contemplate their thoughts. He argues that “there must be time for the writing process to take place and time for it to end” （p. 6）. Similarly， leaving students sufficient time to read before they write is also in need of consideration for language instructors. To put it differently， although learners can gain important insights through reading， they should be given enough time to read.

Conclusion

From the point of regarding writing as a product to writing as a process， instructors are more and more willing to accept process approach when they teach writing. Connecting reading and writing is another universally-acknowledged method to assist and support student writing development.

This paper discusses the two principles respectively， and conducts a comparison by listing their common points. Sure， there are many other principles to teach writing， and a collection of new approaches will also emerge in the future. The ultimate goal is to help students improve writing skills.

References：

[1]Brown，H.D.（2007）.Teaching by Principles：An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy.New York：Pearson Education.

[2]Connor，U.，& Taylor，N.E.（1982）.Silent vs.Oral reading：The rational instructional use of both processes.The Reading Teacher，35（4），440-443.

[3]Frank，J.G.（1978）.Diagnostic Reading Instruction in the Elementary School.New York：Harper And Row.

[4]Leki，I.（1992）.Understanding ESL Writers：A Guide for Teachers.Portsmouth，New Hampshire：Boynton/Cook Publishers.

[5]Lindemann，E.（2001）.A Rhetoric for Writing Teachers.Oxford University Press：New York.

[6]Murray，D.M.（1972）.Teaching writing as a process not product.The Leaflet，11（14），3-6.

[7]Tierney，R.J.，& Pearson，P.D.（1983）.Toward a composing model of reading.Language Arts，60（3），568-580.

[8]Zamel，V.（1985）.Responding to Student Writing.TESOL Quarterly，19（1），79-101.