CAMBRIDGE ESOL DELTA: MODULE TWO

DATE: 24/05/2011
NAME: VAFIDOU AVGI
CENTRE NUMBER: GR 102
STUDY SPACE

MODULE TWO: LANGUAGE SKILLS ASSIGNMENT

PART 2
PRODUCTIVE SKILLS: FOCUS ON WRITING

Title
A comparison of the Product and Process Approaches to
teaching writing and how best to combine the two at
different levels.

Word count: 2495

1. Using the Product or Process Approach to teaching

writing at different levels and trying to combine the
two
When we write we produce a sequence of sentences arranged in a
particular order and linked together in certain ways, forming texts
(and)writing has a meaning for us and an encoded message for
the reader (Byrne, 1988:1). Early in my teaching career I realised
that the learners of different levels should have a sense of purpose,
a sense of audience, and a sense of direction as well as be able to
discover and articulate ideas in writing. Therefore, my personal
opinion is that the more opportunities for expression learners are
given the better writers they may become.
Throughout my career I employed various approaches to teaching
writing so as to improve the learners ability to produce clear and
correct sentences. The Product approach proved useful with early
beginners and elementary levels; it enabled them to write whole
pieces of communication and made them feel confident. The
Process approach made learners of higher levels enjoy the writing
voyage of adventure and discovery of what constitutes good writing.
Trying to find the best way to approach my learners and wanting to
expose them to models of different text types, I sometimes used
only the product approach at intermediate and above levels but the
outcome was often unsatisfactory. All the students blindly copied
the model and mechanically produced similar pieces of writing. My
attempts to use the process approach with young learners came to
an abrupt end sooner than I had expected.
I wish I could develop the writing skills of each student individually
and make them able to produce whole texts (holistic process).
Therefore I feel the need to compare the Product and Process
approach to writing at different levels and explore how best to
combine the two.
2. A comparison of the Product and Process Approaches
to writing
2.1. The Product Approach
After thorough research and reading I became aware of the fact that
there are three major movements in the teaching of writing: focus
on form, focus on the writer, and focus on the reader (Raimes,
1993:237).

The Product approach is a text-based form approach which focuses

on form, gives texts to students to imitate and usually use textbooks
which give a range of models. The teachers have the obligation to
correct and, if possible, to eliminate the students errors. It is a
traditional approach, in which students are encouraged to mimic a
model text, which is usually presented and analysed at an early
stage. Exercises and language use are provided to students and a
bottom up approach is followed from sentence to paragraph and
text level (Tribble, 1997:84).
The Product Approach appeared in the mid-1960s and was supposed
to develop academic writing. Teachers assigned papers and
basically attended to the clarity, originality and correctness of the
final product without attending to the writing process or to the
writers themselves. This approach consists of four stages: a) model
texts are given and read and the features of the genre are
highlighted, b) students do controlled practice of the highlighted
features, c) students organise their ideas which is very important
and finally d) they produce the end product mostly individually (or
rarely collaboratively) by choosing from a choice of comparable
tasks.
Reflecting on my experience as a teacher, I can say that this
approach seems to help only very young learners who know neither
many grammatical structures nor much vocabulary so as to
individually produce a good piece of writing. These learners are
taught how to write correctly the emphasis is mainly on accuracybut do not know how to develop their thinking process and how to
get involved. The sameness of their end products is amazingly
shocking because the writing product is preconceived and therefore
the teacher does not have much to correct. This approach is easy to
use in large classes but has many issues. It is a mindless,
repetitive and anti-intellectual approach (Pincas, 1962:185). The
learners are not allowed to create, they are not taught how to write
independently or how to think, they have no motivation whatsoever,
they do not use language and the only use of language is the
manipulation of fixed patterns, these patterns are learnt by
imitation (Pincas, 1962: 186). Based on my teaching experience I
can say that new learners may focus on the product approach which
is spoonfeeding but pre-intermediate learners can occasionally be
given the chance to freely write their first awkward and maybe
unsuccessful pieces of writing. I personally do not favour a writing
activity which is seen as an exercise in habit formation (Silva,
1990:13) because it limits intermediate and post intermediate

students creativity, it does not move back and forth and it

underestimates the importance of rewriting.
About twenty years later in the mid 1980s- there was a move from
product approach to process approach which places emphasis on
the ideas and idea development and includes prewriting, writing and
rewriting.
2.2. The Process Approach
This newly emerging approach has developed a reaction against
the previous tradition and focuses on the writer as an independent
producer of texts. It lays particular stress on a cycle of writing
activities which move learners from the generation of ideas and the
collection of data through to the publication of the finished text
(Tribble,1996:37).
Learners begin writing with a plan in their heads. They think about
what they want to say and who they are writing for. They make a
draft of their own (they do not imitate or copy) and as they proceed
they are constantly reviewing, revising and editing their works.
Students have a reader in mind and want to communicate a
message. During the process the teacher a) helps students with
planning and b) gives feedback by responding positively to the
strengths in students writing as Tribble says because in that way
they build up confidence. In this approach there are multiple drafts
instead of one, the whole procedure is recursive not linear
(Raimes, 1985:229) and also there is a shift from teacher correction
to peer evaluation where learners have the chance to exchange
ideas and comment on each others pieces of work.
From my experience I can say that this approach appeals mostly to
post-intermediate levels for it gives learners the freedom to write
what they want to write. It develops their thinking skills and
expands their creativity through eight stages: a) generating ideas by
brainstorming and discussion, b) extending ideas into note form, c)
organizing ideas into a mind map or spidergram, d) writing the first
draft, e) exchanging drafts in pairs or groups, f) returning and
improving drafts based on peer feedback, g) writing a final draft and
once again h) exchanging and reading each others work.
Depending on my students, their abilities and their needs I
frequently use the process approach with B1 and B2 levels. They
truly enjoy the process of generating ideas and exchanging drafts.
Moreover certain genres such as discursive essays and narratives
are better approached through the process of brainstorming and

discussing ideas in groups. The collaborative writing and the

exchanging of texts help the students become originators of
successful texts (Johns, 1990:25). However, formal letters would be
more suited to a product approach in which focus on the layout,
style, organisation and grammar could make students able to deal
with this kind of writing task.
The process approach has many issues. It takes more time to teach
and for me it is difficult to decide what is important for my students
development and how far to take the generation of ideas. Accepting
all students ideas and allowing complete freedom of speech is hard
to handle at advanced levels. Teenagers sometimes have
revolutionary or aggressive ideas whereas adults have fixed
personal beliefs that to put it mildly- lead to heated debates (e.g.
racist or sexist ideas). But I always try to keep in mind that Piaget
said we should use the alternative ideas and the schematic
knowledge of the students and through a cognitive conflict
construct our students new knowledge. Additionally large classes
impede the application of the process approach.

3. An Eclectic Approach : a synthesis of the two

The product and the process approach can best be combined so as
to emphasize more the relationship between the writer, the writing
environment, and the intended readership(Swales,1986:8-9). In
Dyers book on L1 and L2 composition theories I read that Hillocks
suggestions (1984, 1986) for the L1 composition instruction which
he calls the environmental mode overlap with the task-based
instruction promoted by Horowitz (1986a, 1986b), Long (1985,
1992) and others involved in L2 instruction and research. In the
environmental mode the teacher plans activities and the students
collaborate with a view to achieving specific aims. They are given
models to compare and analyse, they evaluate each others piece of
writing with explicit criteria and they afterwards discuss with the
teacher what makes good writing. The eclectic approach is a
communicative approach whose aim is to develop learners
communicative ability to do real world target tasks. A task is
defined as hundreds of things people do in everyday life, at work,
at play, and in between (Long, 1985:89). My experience makes me
an avid supporter of the opinion that teachers and learners should
focus on meaning, written communication has to be purposeful and
the learners should be fully engaged in classroom activities.
However, opponents to this approach such as Bruton (1983:21-22)
believe that the writing tasks might be hybrids of controlled,
guided and free parts all in one.
4. Practical combinations at different levels
4.1. Writing at the early level
The product approach is ideal for young learners because of the
small amount of language they have at their disposal. However, as a
teacher and as a mother of four children I am sure young learners
like writing, they feel happy when they produce even the smallest
piece of writing- because they feel they are making progress.
For this purpose, Byrne (1988) suggests teachers should mainly use
dialogue writing in order to reinforce language learnt orally. Writing
parallel dialogues with the help of keywords, completing a dialogue
by choosing from a list of jumbled sentences or putting sentences in
order to form a dialogue are some interesting activities that
somehow allows young learners to be creative. Teachers can ask
stimulus questions to raise awareness e.g. give two model articles
and ask learners which one they like more and why. The students

may be given a model text and asked to write collaboratively a

similar text with the help of cues. Letter-writing gives learners the
opportunity to use the language they learnt orally but also
familiarises them with linking and sequencing sentences. They also
learn something new: the layout of a letter and certain opening and
closing patterns.
The students may be given a short gapped text and a list with
suitable linking words to fill in the gaps. Reordering a jumbled text
either a letter or a descriptive narrative and matching titles with
paragraphs are all controlled language practice. Putting words in
categories and creating reference lists in the form of lexical sets is a
good way of activating vocabulary. For guided writing we may give
students an introduction or the first sentence of a text and they
should continue writing in pairs or groups; additionally they may be
asked to expand a text through sentence completion.
Elementary students can be assigned a task such as to write an
article for a magazine, a letter or describe a person or a house. The
teacher with questions can help them to understand who they are
writing to, what they want to achieve and how they are going to
achieve it. I feel that learners should be aware of the purpose of
writing and the intended readership even at this level. In that way
the product approach is integrated with the process approach. The
learners will brainstorm, afterwards collaboratively plan and write
their piece of writing, they can exchange papers many times or may
put them on OHT (overhead transparencies), evaluate their errors
and may finally choose which one to put in the school magazine.
In all levels integrating the four skills can provide realistic tasks
instead of writing for the sake of writing (Byrne, 1988:25). Roleplay, pantomime as well as simulation can give a sense of purpose
and stimulus. Pictures and photographs motivate students to
participate and visual activities such as tables, diagrams and mind
maps are valuable for developing organisation skills as they provide
a visual guideline to students (Byrne, 1988:25).
4.2. Writing at the intermediate level
As the learners progress teachers can provide for written work on a
more extensive scale and use pair or group work to integrate skills.
Writing here and at the post-intermediate level should have a
practical value and individual needs have to be met.

The students can be given approximately the same tasks as some of

the ones described in writing in the early stages and make a
preparation for free writing. Gapped texts to be filled in with
cohesive devices or time linkers, jumbled sentences to be reordered,
matching titles with paragraphs and suchlike. At this level students
have to advance their fluency and accuracy in order to write good
stories, reviews, reports, proposals, formal letters and articles.
Model text and guided writing are very useful at this level.
In order to increase the amount of fluency work teachers can assign
students to do a project which I personally use a lot with my
students. Dewey and Kilpatrick were the ones who first spoke about
the experiential knowledge students get through learning by
doing. The process carrying out the project- gives students
opportunities for language use and development and the final
product, which is equally important, gives students satisfaction.
Similarly, simulations enable teachers to take role-plays a stage
further by providing a framework for integrated language work in
which the learners themselves provide a larger input of the data
from which the written activities are derived (Byrne, 1988:103).
4.3. Writing at the post-intermediate level
At this level the learners have acquired a proficiency in writing and
are usually given exam- type tasks such as compositions, essays,
reviews, proposals or transactional letters which offer
opportunities for free expression (Byrne, 1988:112). The majority
of the Greek students at this level take exams and from my personal
experience I can say they all enjoy discussions, expressing and
organising their ideas, brainstorming, writing and exchanging drafts,
comparing model texts and generally the whole process of
attempting to communicate something to somebody. Letter (e.g. of
protest) and report writing are- to a certain extent- realistic and
meet the learners need to develop this skill. Activities such as the
simulation and projects have the advantage of fully integrating all
the language skills and give learners plenty of opportunity for free
expression which should always be teachers top priority.
5. Conclusion
My experience and my reading lead me to the conclusion that
teachers should be flexible and depending on the characteristics
and the problems of each and every learning situation they have to
select the approach or make a combination of approaches that will

meet their students writing needs. No approach should be regarded

as a panacea for all the writing problems students face.

References
Byrne, D. (1988). Teaching Writing Skills (London Group UK Limited).
Bruton, A. (2005). Task-based language teaching: For the state
secondary FL classroom? (Language Learning Journal, 3, 55-68)
Dyer, B. (1996). L1 and L2 composition theories: Hillocks
environmental mode and task-based language teaching (ELT
Journal, Vol.50 No. 4).
Johns, A. M. (1990). Coherence and academic writing: some
definitions and suggestions for teaching (TESOL Quarterly 29: 24765).
Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language: Taskbased language training. In K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienemann (eds),
Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77-99)
(Clevedon: Multilingual Matters).
Pincas, A. (1982). Teaching English Writing (The Macmillan Press
Limited).
Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in Teaching Writing (New York: OUP).
Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled writers do as they write: a
classroom study of composing (TESOL Quarterly 19/2: 229-58).
Raimes, A. (1993). Out of the woods: emerging traditions in the
teaching of writing (TESOL Quarterly 25: 407-430).
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction:
Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.) Second
language writing (pp. 11-23) (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press).
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in Academic and Research
Settings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Tribble, C. (1996). Writing (OUP).
White, R. and V. Arndt. (1991). Process Writing (Harlow: Longman).

Bibliography
Byrne, D. (1988). Teaching Writing Skills (London Group UK
Limited).
Brumfit, C. J. and Johnson, K. (1979). The Communicative Approach
to Language Teaching (Oxford University Press).
Bruton, A. (2005). Task-based language teaching: For the state
secondary FL classroom? (Language Learning Journal, 3, 55-68).
Coe, N. , Rycroft, R. and Ernest, P. (1983). Writing Skills: A problem
solving approach (Cambridge University Press).
Coffey, M. P. (1987). Communication through writing (Prentice Hall
Regents).
Dyer, B. (1996). L1 and L2 composition theories: Hillocks
environmental mode and task-based language teaching (ELT
Journal, Vol.50 No. 4).
Johns, A. M. (1990). Coherence and academic writing: some
definitions and suggestions for teaching (TESOL Quarterly 29: 24765).
Hyltenstam, K. and M. Pienemann (eds), Modelling and assessing
second language acquisition (pp. 77-99) (Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters).
Pincas, A. (1982). Teaching English Writing (The Macmillan Press
Limited).
Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in Teaching Writing (New York: OUP).
Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled writers do as they write: a
classroom study of composing (TESOL Quarterly 19/2: 229-58).
Raimes, A. (1993). Out of the woods: emerging traditions in the
teaching of writing (TESOL Quarterly 25: 407-430).
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction:
Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.) Second
language writing (pp. 11-23) (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press).
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in Academic and Research
Settings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Tribble, C. (1996). Writing (OUP).

White, R. (1980). Teaching Written English (George Allen & Unwin

Ltd).
White, R. and V. Arndt. (1991). Process Writing (Harlow: Longman).

5. Using the Product or Process Approach to teaching

writing at different levels and trying to combine the
two
When we write we produce a sequence of sentences arranged in a
particular order and linked together in certain ways, forming texts
(and)writing has a meaning for us and an encoded message for
the reader (Byrne, 1988:1). Early in my teaching career I realised
that the learners of different levels should have a sense of purpose,
a sense of audience, and a sense of direction as well as be able to
discover and articulate ideas in writing. Therefore, my personal
opinion is that the more opportunities for expression learners are
given the better writers they may become.
Throughout my career I employed various approaches to teaching
writing so as to improve the learners ability to produce clear and
correct sentences. The Product approach proved useful with early
beginners and elementary levels; it enabled them to write whole
pieces of communication and made them feel confident. The
Process approach made learners of higher levels enjoy the writing
voyage of adventure and discovery of what constitutes good writing.
Trying to find the best way to approach my learners and wanting to
expose them to models of different text types, I sometimes used
only the product approach at intermediate and above levels but the
outcome was often unsatisfactory. All the students blindly copied
the model and mechanically produced similar pieces of writing. My
attempts to use the process approach with young learners came to
an abrupt end sooner than I had expected.
I wish I could develop the writing skills of each student individually
and make them able to produce whole texts (holistic process).
Therefore I feel the need to compare the Product and Process
approach to writing at different levels and explore how best to
combine the two.
6. A comparison of the Product and Process Approaches
to writing
6.1. The Product Approach
After thorough research and reading I became aware of the fact that
there are three major movements in the teaching of writing: focus
on form, focus on the writer, and focus on the reader (Raimes,
1993:237).

The Product approach is a text-based form approach which focuses

on form, gives texts to students to imitate and usually use textbooks
which give a range of models. The teachers have the obligation to
correct and, if possible, to eliminate the students errors. It is a
traditional approach, in which students are encouraged to mimic a
model text, which is usually presented and analysed at an early
stage. Exercises and language use are provided to students and a
bottom up approach is followed from sentence to paragraph and
text level (Tribble, 1997:84).
The Product Approach appeared in the mid-1960s and was supposed
to develop academic writing. Teachers assigned papers and
basically attended to the clarity, originality and correctness of the
final product without attending to the writing process or to the
writers themselves. This approach consists of four stages: a) model
texts are given and read and the features of the genre are
highlighted, b) students do controlled practice of the highlighted
features, c) students organise their ideas which is very important
and finally d) they produce the end product mostly individually (or
rarely collaboratively) by choosing from a choice of comparable
tasks.
Reflecting on my experience as a teacher, I can say that this
approach seems to help only very young learners who know neither
many grammatical structures nor much vocabulary so as to
individually produce a good piece of writing. These learners are
taught how to write correctly the emphasis is mainly on accuracybut do not know how to develop their thinking process and how to
get involved. The sameness of their end products is amazingly
shocking because the writing product is preconceived and therefore
the teacher does not have much to correct. This approach is easy to
use in large classes but has many issues. It is a mindless,
repetitive and anti-intellectual approach (Pincas, 1962:185). The
learners are not allowed to create, they are not taught how to write
independently or how to think, they have no motivation whatsoever,
they do not use language and the only use of language is the
manipulation of fixed patterns, these patterns are learnt by
imitation (Pincas, 1962: 186). Based on my teaching experience I
can say that new learners may focus on the product approach which
is spoonfeeding but pre-intermediate learners can occasionally be
given the chance to freely write their first awkward and maybe
unsuccessful pieces of writing. I personally do not favour a writing
activity which is seen as an exercise in habit formation (Silva,
1990:13) because it limits intermediate and post intermediate

students creativity, it does not move back and forth and it

underestimates the importance of rewriting.
About twenty years later in the mid 1980s- there was a move from
product approach to process approach which places emphasis on
the ideas and idea development and includes prewriting, writing and
rewriting.
6.2. The Process Approach
This newly emerging approach has developed a reaction against
the previous tradition and focuses on the writer as an independent
producer of texts. It lays particular stress on a cycle of writing
activities which move learners from the generation of ideas and the
collection of data through to the publication of the finished text
(Tribble,1996:37).
Learners begin writing with a plan in their heads. They think about
what they want to say and who they are writing for. They make a
draft of their own (they do not imitate or copy) and as they proceed
they are constantly reviewing, revising and editing their works.
Students have a reader in mind and want to communicate a
message. During the process the teacher a) helps students with
planning and b) gives feedback by responding positively to the
strengths in students writing as Tribble says because in that way
they build up confidence. In this approach there are multiple drafts
instead of one, the whole procedure is recursive not linear
(Raimes, 1985:229) and also there is a shift from teacher correction
to peer evaluation where learners have the chance to exchange
ideas and comment on each others pieces of work.
From my experience I can say that this approach appeals mostly to
post-intermediate levels for it gives learners the freedom to write
what they want to write. It develops their thinking skills and
expands their creativity through eight stages: a) generating ideas by
brainstorming and discussion, b) extending ideas into note form, c)
organizing ideas into a mind map or spidergram, d) writing the first
draft, e) exchanging drafts in pairs or groups, f) returning and
improving drafts based on peer feedback, g) writing a final draft and
once again h) exchanging and reading each others work.
Depending on my students, their abilities and their needs I
frequently use the process approach with B1 and B2 levels. They
truly enjoy the process of generating ideas and exchanging drafts.
Moreover certain genres such as discursive essays and narratives
are better approached through the process of brainstorming and

discussing ideas in groups. The collaborative writing and the

exchanging of texts help the students become originators of
successful texts (Johns, 1990:25). However, formal letters would be
more suited to a product approach in which focus on the layout,
style, organisation and grammar could make students able to deal
with this kind of writing task.
The process approach has many issues. It takes more time to teach
and for me it is difficult to decide what is important for my students
development and how far to take the generation of ideas. Accepting
all students ideas and allowing complete freedom of speech is hard
to handle at advanced levels. Teenagers sometimes have
revolutionary or aggressive ideas whereas adults have fixed
personal beliefs that to put it mildly- lead to heated debates (e.g.
racist or sexist ideas). But I always try to keep in mind that Piaget
said we should use the alternative ideas and the schematic
knowledge of the students and through a cognitive conflict
construct our students new knowledge. Additionally large classes
impede the application of the process approach.
7. An Eclectic Approach : a synthesis of the two
The product and the process approach can best be combined so as
to emphasize more the relationship between the writer, the writing
environment, and the intended readership(Swales,1986:8-9). In
Dyers book on L1 and L2 composition theories I read that Hillocks
suggestions (1984, 1986) for the L1 composition instruction which
he calls the environmental mode overlap with the task-based
instruction promoted by Horowitz (1986a, 1986b), Long (1985,
1992) and others involved in L2 instruction and research. In the
environmental mode the teacher plans activities and the students
collaborate with a view to achieving specific aims. They are given
models to compare and analyse, they evaluate each others piece of
writing with explicit criteria and they afterwards discuss with the
teacher what makes good writing. The eclectic approach is a
communicative approach whose aim is to develop learners
communicative ability to do real world target tasks. A task is
defined as hundreds of things people do in everyday life, at work,
at play, and in between (Long, 1985:89). My experience makes me
an avid supporter of the opinion that teachers and learners should
focus on meaning, written communication has to be purposeful and
the learners should be fully engaged in classroom activities.
However, opponents to this approach such as Bruton (1983:21-22)

believe that the writing tasks might be hybrids of controlled,

guided and free parts all in one.
8. Practical combinations at different levels
8.1. Writing at the early level
The product approach is ideal for young learners because of the
small amount of language they have at their disposal. However, as a
teacher and as a mother of four children I am sure young learners
like writing, they feel happy when they produce even the smallest
piece of writing- because they feel they are making progress.
For this purpose, Byrne (1988) suggests teachers should mainly use
dialogue writing in order to reinforce language learnt orally. Writing
parallel dialogues with the help of keywords, completing a dialogue
by choosing from a list of jumbled sentences or putting sentences in
order to form a dialogue are some interesting activities that
somehow allows young learners to be creative. Teachers can ask
stimulus questions to raise awareness e.g. give two model articles
and ask learners which one they like more and why. The students
may be given a model text and asked to write collaboratively a
similar text with the help of cues. Letter-writing gives learners the
opportunity to use the language they learnt orally but also
familiarises them with linking and sequencing sentences. They also
learn something new: the layout of a letter and certain opening and
closing patterns.
The students may be given a short gapped text and a list with
suitable linking words to fill in the gaps. Reordering a jumbled text
either a letter or a descriptive narrative and matching titles with
paragraphs are all controlled language practice. Putting words in
categories and creating reference lists in the form of lexical sets is a
good way of activating vocabulary. For guided writing we may give
students an introduction or the first sentence of a text and they
should continue writing in pairs or groups; additionally they may be
asked to expand a text through sentence completion.
Elementary students can be assigned a task such as to write an
article for a magazine, a letter or describe a person or a house. The
teacher with questions can help them to understand who they are
writing to, what they want to achieve and how they are going to
achieve it. I feel that learners should be aware of the purpose of
writing and the intended readership even at this level. In that way
the product approach is integrated with the process approach. The
learners will brainstorm, afterwards collaboratively plan and write

their piece of writing, they can exchange papers many times or may
put them on OHT (overhead transparencies), evaluate their errors
and may finally choose which one to put in the school magazine.
In all levels integrating the four skills can provide realistic tasks
instead of writing for the sake of writing (Byrne, 1988:25). Roleplay, pantomime as well as simulation can give a sense of purpose
and stimulus. Pictures and photographs motivate students to
participate and visual activities such as tables, diagrams and mind
maps are valuable for developing organisation skills as they provide
a visual guideline to students (Byrne, 1988:25).
4.2. Writing at the intermediate level
As the learners progress teachers can provide for written work on a
more extensive scale and use pair or group work to integrate skills.
Writing here and at the post-intermediate level should have a
practical value and individual needs have to be met.
The students can be given approximately the same tasks as some of
the ones described in writing in the early stages and make a
preparation for free writing. Gapped texts to be filled in with
cohesive devices or time linkers, jumbled sentences to be reordered,
matching titles with paragraphs and suchlike. At this level students
have to advance their fluency and accuracy in order to write good
stories, reviews, reports, proposals, formal letters and articles.
Model text and guided writing are very useful at this level.
In order to increase the amount of fluency work teachers can assign
students to do a project which I personally use a lot with my
students. Dewey and Kilpatrick were the ones who first spoke about
the experiential knowledge students get through learning by
doing. The process carrying out the project- gives students
opportunities for language use and development and the final
product, which is equally important, gives students satisfaction.
Similarly, simulations enable teachers to take role-plays a stage
further by providing a framework for integrated language work in
which the learners themselves provide a larger input of the data
from which the written activities are derived (Byrne, 1988:103).
4.3. Writing at the post-intermediate level
At this level the learners have acquired a proficiency in writing and
are usually given exam- type tasks such as compositions, essays,
reviews, proposals or transactional letters which offer
opportunities for free expression (Byrne, 1988:112). The majority

of the Greek students at this level take exams and from my personal
experience I can say they all enjoy discussions, expressing and
organising their ideas, brainstorming, writing and exchanging drafts,
comparing model texts and generally the whole process of
attempting to communicate something to somebody. Letter (e.g. of
protest) and report writing are- to a certain extent- realistic and
meet the learners need to develop this skill. Activities such as the
simulation and projects have the advantage of fully integrating all
the language skills and give learners plenty of opportunity for free
expression which should always be teachers top priority.
5. Conclusion
My experience and my reading lead me to the conclusion that
teachers should be flexible and depending on the characteristics
and the problems of each and every learning situation they have to
select the approach or make a combination of approaches that will
meet their students writing needs. No approach should be regarded
as a panacea for all the writing problems students face.