[Type the company name]

Process Writing
Approach for LowerLevel Learners
LSA 4: Language Skills: Writing

[Pick the date]

Table of Contents
1.

Introduction:................................................................................................... 3

2.

Analysis:......................................................................................................... 4

2.1.

Pre-writing/ Planning :.............................................................................. 7

2.1.1.

Issues with pre-writing:......................................................................9

2.1.2.

Suggestions for teaching:................................................................10

2.2.

Drafting:................................................................................................. 12

2.2.1.

Issues with drafting :........................................................................13

2.2.2.

Suggestions for teaching:................................................................13

2.3.

Editing:................................................................................................... 14

2.3.1.

Issues with editing :.........................................................................15

2.3.2.

Suggestions for teaching:................................................................16

Bibliography:....................................................................................................... 18
Appendix 1:......................................................................................................... 19
Appendix 2.......................................................................................................... 20
Appendix 3:......................................................................................................... 21
Appendix 4:......................................................................................................... 22

1.

Introduction:

[S]ometimes, over the years, it has seemed that writing has

been seen as only a support system for learning grammar and
vocabulary (Harmer 2004, v). In my experience in KSA, on the
one hand writing is used as a tool to learn grammar and
vocabulary. On the other hand, they study writing with a lot of
focus on writing exams. Sometimes, students are given five or
six written paragraphs to memorize and write one of them in
the final exam. Their ability to plan and draft before writing is
not addressed or even encouraged. This attitude towards
writing product-focus approach made the final piece the
main target and not the process itself (the process which leads
to the final product) (Harmer 2004).
In the last few years, writing has become an essential skill in
EFL classes. Methodologists presented different methods of
teaching writing, and this highlights teaching writing as a skill
in its own right (Harmer 2004). (Thornbury 2006) presented
several approaches of teaching writing like:

a) Language based approach which focuses more on stricter

standards of accuracy.
b) text-based approach which finds support in discourse
analysis like a top-down view.
c) Product approach which exclusively focuses on producing a
text as a final product.
d) Process approach which focuses more on the creative
process which ends by text creation.
For this essay, I decided to focus on the process writing
approach which ensures a more organic sequence for
classroom activities.
A research conducted by the Students Support Unit in Taibah
University, KSA (2010), revealed that students with weak
writing abilities in their L1 has weak writing in L2 because they
didnt practice writing skills in their L1. Therefore, it is
necessary to train lower level learners on different stages
involved in process writing.

2. Analysis:
To highlight the relationship between the process writing and
the communicative approach, Thornbury noted that each has
drawn support from the other (Thornbury 2006, 249). From a
communicative point of view, process writing is not just
conveying a message in its written form. Process writing is an
interactive communication between the writer and the reader
for a particular purpose, as noted by (Thornbury 2006) that
writing purpose could be to relay personal news or to complain
about being overcharged in a hotel.
Hedge provided a deeper definition of process writing saying
"The process view of writing sees it as thinking, as discovery.
Writing is the result of employing strategies to manage the
composing process, which is one of gradually developing the
text" (Hedge 2000, 301). The relationship between thinking
and writing is very obvious here and strengthens the role of
strategies in developing the text (final product). Choosing this
approach for lower level learners is very helpful, as it builds the
skills to produce a text more than just imitating other
pedagogical texts (modified to suite learners). We might
5

choose this sequence to present the process writing stages

(sub-skills) (Harmer 2004):
Planning

Drafting

editing

final

draft
Since the writing process is not linear, as shown above, it is
rather recursive. This means writers plan, draft, and edit but
then often re-plan, re-draft and re-edit" (Harmer 2004, 5).
Although the linear process seems more suitable for lower-level
learners, it does not always work the same way with different
levels. The Recursive nature of process writing is closer to
reality than the linear one, as writing in reality involves a
cyclical mechanism. In other words, while editing, students
might need to get back to planning stage to delete some
unnecessary (or irrelevant) ideas, and this will lead to redrafting and re-editing. The progress wheel below (Harmer
2004) illustrated the ideas of process writing as a recursive
process. The arrows refer to the possibilities of moving
between stages:

Adopted from Harmer, 2004.

2.1. Pre-writing/ Planning :

This is the first stage in process writing and the most important
stage for lower level learners. This stage involves task
presentation, ideas collection (brainstorming), deciding on
topic and organizing ideas.
Brainstorming is a way to get ideas creation engine running
(Scrivener 1994, 197). Brainstorming is the most important
part at the pre-writing stage in which ideas are called out; it
gives learners the chance to collect as much ideas as possible
about the topic. Students are only opening their mind and let
ideas pour out. At this stage learners think about what they are
going to write before actual writing (Hedge, 2000). For lower
7

level learners, brainstorming is a very essential pre-writing

stage, as thinking about the topic before writing raises
questions in their heads, and calls out related vocabulary
(activating schemata). Also, brainstorming in groups helps
lower level learners if their experience or ideas are limited. My
Saudi students used to write without brainstorming. They were
not able to extend their ideas to write a complete paragraph.
Brainstorming raised their abilities to call out more and more
relevant ideas. I have noticed that using mind maps is a very
effective brainstorming activity (see appendix 1).
Harmer (2004) emphasizes that while planning, learners should
consider three elements: the purpose, the audience and
content structure.
For lower level learners it very essential to understand that any
written work is usually done for a purpose and for a particular
audience. For example, writing about his/her hometown could
be to inform his/her friends about where he/she comes from,
and this will not be like writing a report to his/her manager, as
purpose and audience are different here. The students need to

keep the goal in mind as well as information suitability which

means the way it is expressed to the person who will receive it.
Also, deciding on the purpose of writing, who is going to read it
and what to include in and exclude from the content, helps
students shape up their piece in a rhetorical structure (genre)
and makes further decisions on the choice of vocabulary within
this genre (Register) (Thornbury 2006). For lower level learners,
it is helpful to practice deciding on genre and register (Tribble
1996). I have noticed that if they dont have enough knowledge
about the genres, students wont be able to create a good text.
For example, for descriptive texts, lower-level students need to
use more adjectives and be aware of adjective-noun and nounnoun collocations.
2.1.1.

Issues with pre-writing:

2.1.1.1. Issue One. Lower level learners linguistic

abilities:

Tribble (1996) referred to four types of knowledge that students

needs to be able to write: content, context, writing process and
language system. In case of lower level learners, the

knowledge about language systems poses a hurdle while

generating ideas. In my experience in Saudi Arabia, lower level
learners are usually able to generate some ideas (in groups),
but their limited lexis and grammatical structure does not allow
them to communicate these ideas in written English.

2.1.1.2.

Issue Two. Genre:

This is a feature of process writing that limits lower level

learners if they are unfamiliar with genre and its norms, and is
not addressed in this approach. Knowledge of genre is crucial
to this pre-writing stage and if knowledge is limited then this
can hinder the writer (Tribble.1996). Simply producing a text
and looking at its conventions may not be enough for lower
level learners to deduce or become fully aware of different
genres. Harmer (2004) suggests that it can be integrated into
the pre-writing, planning stage of the process approach.
2.1.2.

Suggestions for teaching:

2.1.2.1. For Issue One: Lower level learners linguistic

abilities:

10

For this issue, I would suggest that the techniques that teacher
uses for generating-ideas should encourage collaborative work
(e.g. mind maps (see appendix 1). Techniques for this stage
described by (Harmer.2004, 87) are very practical, too. He
suggests using "the buzz group" and "Individuals, pairs and
groups". I personally used "the buzz group" and it has helped
my recent lower level learners. In this technique, learners work
in groups and quickly come up with ideas. At this stage
teachers role is to assist students and answer their questions.
The teacher has to try to reformulate what learners want to say
in order to facilitate communicating ideas.

Evaluation:
Working collaboratively at this stage reduces students anxiety
and raises their confidence; especially with writing which most
of students find difficult. Therefore students can use their skills,
experience and strengths as the basis for further instructions
(Richards J. 1990, 111). This enhances their autonomy and
creativity through collaborative work.

11

2.1.2.2.

For Issue Two: Genre:

(Harmer 2004, 29) suggests that learners should be exposed to

different genres. Examples should be given to them so they
become familiar with different genres (e.g. formal letters,
emails, newspapers and post cards). In my teaching
experience, I tried exposing my lower-level learners to different
genres, and students were very curious to know more about
their conventions. They were able to write post cards, short
letters and e-mails. In this situation, Learners can work in
groups. Teacher encourages group discussion and s/he has to
monitor the groups to ensure participation and provides clues.
I would also suggest that for lower level learners a teacher
should select the genres that learners are familiar with. Then,
at the beginning of the course, teacher might include some
questions about genres to the needs analysis questionnaire to
find out what genres learners already know. And then there
might be a discussion on the familiar genres to discover how
similar these genres to genres in learners' L1.

12

Evaluation:
Though genre is not addressed in process writing approach, it
is very helpful for students to be aware of different genres and
their conversions. It helps them to decide on some text
features (e.g. vocabulary).
2.2. Drafting:

Drafting involves getting ideas onto paper in rough form

(Richards J., 1990). This stage comes after brainstorming and
planning when students start to put their thoughts on paper.
Students can move back to their planning and change some of
their thoughts and ideas. At this stage students are asked not
to worry about the text organization or language accuracy, as
they will tackle these issues later on. This stage is very crucial
in process writing as it resembles the first encounter between
students and writing itself. Also, at this stage, students work
individually to put their thoughts on paper. Group writing could
be a good idea as noted by (Harmer 2004), but Id go for
individual writing with lower level learners. So, this increases
their independence; especially after planning in groups.
13

14

2.2.1.

Issues with drafting:

2.2.1.1. Issue One: Shifting from group planning to

individual drafting:

In my experience, lower level students get less confident when

they are asked to draft their thoughts individually. During
planning, they work in groups and this encourages and
motivates them, but working individually requires more
confidence. Students probably get confused at this stage,
either because they didnt plan well, or they were passive
during planning.
2.2.2.

Suggestions for teaching:

2.2.2.1. For Issue One: Shifting from group planning to

individual drafting:

Drafting stage is always supported by an effective pre-writing/

planning stage, but lower level learners may still need
assistance and guidance. In my experience, I didnt worry
much about this need of assistance, as this need and reliance
is reduced over time when the learners are exposed to the
process and their awareness is raised. Then, they become able
to recognize the different stages. This problem appears only
15

when learners are first exposed to this process, as they are not
able to correlate the stages to their L1 writing, and monitoring
and assisting them could help here.
Also, I suggest that during planning stage, it is a good idea to
identify students roles in every group. For example I ask my
students to form groups of four, and I choose those four
students according to their levels (mixed abilities). In each
group there are a writer, a speaker, a secretary and a time
keeper, and I monitor their work to make sure that everyone is
involved.

Evaluation:
When students are involved in planning, this will make drafting
easier on them; especially slow learners in a lower level group.
2.3. Editing:

Editing stage may start when students begin drafting and it

involves evaluation of what have been written and making
necessary deletions or additions (Richards J. 1990). I find this
definition suitable for lower level learners, as they are only
supposed to delete or add sentences to their draft which
means they focus on meaning more than grammar and
16

spelling. (Tribble, 1996) defined this stage as the stage at

which students correct linguistic aspects of their work (e.g.
spelling, punctuation and grammar). I think this definition could
be applicable at an advanced editing stage, as students are
expected to focus on meaning more than linguistic aspects at
this early editing stage. Another definition by Hedge (2000)
identifies this stage where the students look at content,
focuses on ideas and their organization, makes arguments
clear and removes redundant elements but I find this difficult
for lower learners to do independently.
As illustrated in the analysis section that the process writing is
a recursive process, so learners are expected to get back to
their ideas and change them at this stage, too. Therefore,
students are expected to do re-planning and re-re-drafting
again here. Also, students can practice peer editing and group
editing which helps students to learn more from each others
mistakes.
2.3.1.

Issues with editing :

2.3.1.1.

Issue One: Editing duties:

17

In my experience, the low level learners dont know what to do

exactly at the editing stage. They dont know what to start with
(e.g. punctuation, spelling or grammar), and sometimes they
shift from punctuation to spelling as soon as they see a spelling
mistake after the punctuation one. This unplanned editing
causes a lot of confusion for lower level learners and get them
lost at this stage.
2.3.2.

Suggestions for teaching:

2.3.2.1.

For Issue One: Editing duties:

There are some possible activities that get students to practice

editing and develop their abilities to edit. One procedure which
I have tried with Saudi lower level learners is to collect their
work and underline mistakes. Then ask students to figure out
mistakes types (spelling, grammar or punctuation) and correct
them. They can correct their own text or others texts.
Another possibility is to ask students to edit a pedagogical text
(prepared by the teacher) which includes a number of mistakes
and ask them to find them. Teacher tells students about the

18

number of mistakes they need to find (e.g. 5 spelling, 3

punctuation and 2 wrong verb-forms etc) (see appendix 2, 3).
I also tried Editing check list with my lower level Saudi
students. Teacher provides students with a list to edit their
writing according to it (e.g. every sentence starts with a capital
litter and ends with a full stop (yes/no), etc) (see appendix 4)

19

Evaluation:
Providing students with the number of mistakes helps students
focus on know what are they supposed to do. Also, providing
students with a checking list guides their editing and builds up
their ability to track out different types of mistakes.

20

Bibliography:
Harmer J. (2004). How to teach writing. Pearson Education
Limited
Hedge T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language
Classroom. Oxford University Press
Richards J. (1990). The Language Teaching Matrix. Cambridge
University Press.
Student Support Unit, Taiba University (2010). The Influence of
First Language on Second Language Writing for Preparatory
Year Students. Taiba University Press, Makkah, KSA.
Scrivener J (2005). Learning Teaching. Macmillan Publisher
Limited
Thornbury S. (2006). An A-Z of ELT. Macmillan Publisher Limited
Tribble C. (1996). Writing. Oxford University Press

21

Appendix 1:

22

Appendix 2
From : Get Ready to Write
Blanchard K. & Root C.
(1994)

* Appendices 3&4 are prepared by me.

23

Appendix 3:

24

Appendix 4:

25