-i-
A PROCESS APPROACH:
THE FORMULATION OF A SIMPLIFIED CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
SHOWING THE STAGES OF THE WRITING PROCESS,
AND AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE EFFECTS ON WRITING BEHAVIOUR
OF COMMUNICATING THIS FRAMEWORK DIRECTLY TO THE LEARNER.
by
DEIRDRE DENISE PRATT
1987
thesis
submitted in partial fulfilment of
the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
in the department of
General Linguistics and Communication
University of Natal
- ii -
ABSTRACT
This research investigates the writing process with the purpose of
discovering effective teacher interventions. The research falls into two
parts: the formulation of a simplified conceptual framework showing
the stages of the writing process, and an investigation into the effects
on writing behaviour of communicating this framework directly to
learner writers, in this case secondary school pupils.
In the first part of the research, the differences between the so-called
“product” and “process” approaches to the teaching of written
composition are examined to put the present research into context.
Next, the concept of a “user’s model” is considered as a means of
informing the teaching of written composition. In order to construct a
user’s model of the process of writing, writing is examined from two
aspects: discourse theory, and observed behaviour of writers. From
these sources, key features of the writing process are identified. These
features are used to construct a “user’s model” of the writing process
as a recursive series of five stages: data gathering, idea generation,
structuring, editing and evaluation. The model offers the teacher a
structured approach to the teaching of writing, and the learner both
insight into the writing process and effective writing strategies.
In the second part of the research, six experimental case studies were
set up to observe the effects of communicating the model directly to
the learner. Five out of six subjects showed evidence of change in their
concept of writing and in their writing behaviour, two markedly so. All
five to some degree changed to behaviour which the literature had
identified as “good” writing behaviour. The two whose behaviour
changed most markedly showed evidence of accepting the “user’s
model” in its entirety, and both acknowledged its influence on their
- iii -
concept of writing. This seems to suggest that learner writers who have
not already formed effective strategies for writing could benefit from
having a concept such as the “user’s model” of the writing process
explained to them. A teaching approach based on the use of a
structured approach to writing as described in the “user’s model” is
therefore advocated.
- iv -
PREFACE
The experimental work described in this thesis was carried out in the
Department of General Linguistics and Communication, University of
Natal, from January 1986 to December 1986, under the supervision of
Professor J. K. Chick. Professor J. Lindfors of the University of Texas at
Austin acted as co-supervisor during her stay here.
This research represents original work by the author and has not been
submitted in any form to another University. Where use was made of
the work of others it has been duly acknowledged in the text.
-v-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Professor Chick for his guidance in all stages of the
process, and for expertly and patiently assuming all of the “reader
roles” this extended piece of writing required. I would also like to thank
Professor Lindfors for assisting with my supervision while on an
extremely busy tour: her interventions were invaluable.
I would like to thank my English Subject-Advisor, Dr Schroenn, for
pointing me towards the field of Applied Linguistics eight years ago, and
for the interest and support he has offered in this present research; my
Principal, Mrs Margaret Young, for her assistance with the case studies;
my English staff, for their help in selecting pupil volunteers; the
Principal of Northlands Boys’ High, Mr Ian Corbishley, for use of
Northlands’ video facilities; and Mr Dallas Hutton, H.O.D. at Northlands,
who gave me expert advice and assistance on the procedure of videorecording.
For Debbie, Mandy, Janeen, Marina, Nadene and Tracy - the true
heroines of this account - I can only hope that the insights they gained
from the experience of the case studies will in some way compensate
them for their assistance in my research.
Finally, the financial assistance of the H S R C is gratefully
acknowledged.
- vi -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract......................................................................................................
Preface........................................................................................................
Acknowledgements....................................................................................
List of figures and tables.............................................................................
ii
iv
v
x
INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................
xi
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
WRITING AS PRODUCT AND PROCESS - A TEACHING APPROACH…..
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................
GENERAL AREA AND GOAL OF RESEARCH..........................................
CURRENT APPROACHES TO THE TEACHING OF WRITING...................
WRITING - PRODUCT OR PROCESS?....................................................
THE PRODUCT APPROACH...................................................................
THE PROCESS APPROACH....................................................................
THE APPROACH FOCUSED ON IN THIS RESEARCH...............................
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
10
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
THE CONCEPT OF A USER’S MODEL.....................................................
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................
THE NEED FOR THEORY IN TEACHING PRACTICE.................................
THE KIND OF THEORY NEEDED..................................………………………..
DEFINITION AND FEATURES OF WIDDOWSON’S “USER’S MODEL” …
PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE “USER’S MODEL”………………...
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE RESEARCH REPORTED ON IN THIS THESIS.....
12
12
12
12
13
14
14
2.7 INFLUENCE OF TEACHING APPROACH ON PEDAGOGICAL
APPLICATION OF THE MODEL...............................................................
2.8 SPECIFIC RESEARCH OBJECTIVES..........................................................
2.9 SOURCE OF THE USER’S MODEL OF THE WRITING PROCESS……………
15
15
16
3.0 THE NATURE OF THE WRITING PROCESS.............................................
3.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................
3.2 WRITING AS A SOCIAL ACT...................................................................
17
17
17
- vii -
3.3 WRITING AS A COGNITIVE ACT................................................................
3.4 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF DISCOURSE THEORY IN UNDERSTANDING
THE WRITING PROCESS............................................................................
3.5 TEACHER OBSERVATIONS AND RESEARCH FINDINGS ON THE
BEHAVIOUR OF WRITERS…………………………………………………………………….
3.6 SUMMARY OF KEY FEATURES OF THE WRITING PROCESS.......................
3.7 FORMULATING A MODEL BASED ON THE ABOVE FEATURES .................
18
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
30
30
30
32
39
39
THE FORMULATION OF A USER’S MODEL OF THE WRITING PROCESS
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................
CONTEXT FOR THE FORMULATION OF THE USER’S MODEL ...................
FORMULATION OF THE MODEL IN STAGES.............................................
AN “ALL-PURPOSE” MODEL.....................................................................
THE MODEL DESCRIBES TARGET BEHAVIOUR..........................................
THE MODEL EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF WIDDOWSON’S
REQUIREMENTS………………………………………………………………………………..
4.7 KEY FEATURES OF THE WRITING PROCESSINCORPORATED IN THE
MODEL……………………………………………………………………………………………..
4.8 THE MODEL AND REALITY........................................................................
5.0 THE RESEARCH QUESTION AND THE CASE STUDIES WHICH WERE
DESIGNED TO TEST IT OUT.......................................................................
5.1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................
5.2 WHAT TEACHING WITH THE MODEL SUGGESTED ABOUT ITS
USEFULNESS ............................................................................................
5.3 THE NEED FOR THE EXPERIMENTAL CASE STUDIES.................................
5.4 RESEARCH QUESTION....,.........................................................................
5.5 THE USER’S MODEL SIMPLIFIED...............................................................
5.6 CHANGES TO THE MODEL EXPLAINED.....................................................
5.7 HOW THE SUBJECTS FOR THE CASE STUDIES WERE SELECTED……………..
5.8 A DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE STUDIES.....................................................
5.9 THE DATA WHICH WAS GATHERED..........................................................
5.10 ANALYSIS OF DATA GATHERED TO ANSWER RESEARCH QUESTION......
19
22
28
29
40
41
45
46
46
46
47
47
48
48
50
50
54
55
- viii -
5.11 ANALYSIS OF PERIPHERAL DATA.............................................................
59
6.0 A DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE CASE STUDIES.........................................
6.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................
6.2 PRELIMINARY INTERVIEW WITH SUBJECTS..............................................
6.3 FIRST WRITING TASK................................................................................
6.4 SECOND WRITING TASK...........................................................................
6.5 VIDEO RECONSTRUCTION SESSIONS........................................................
6.6 EVALUATION OF SAMPLES BY SUBJECTS..................................................
6.7 EXPLANATION OF THE WRITING PROCESS...............................................
6.8 THIRD WRITING TASK...............................................................................
6.9 FOURTH WRITING TASK...........................................................................
6.10 SECOND INTERVIEW WITH SUBJECTS.....................................................
6.11 FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW.........................................................................
61
61
61
62
64
67
69
70
71
71
72
72
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
THE CASE STUDIES - FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS................................
73
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................
73
PRESENTATION OF THE CASE STUDIES..................................................... 73
CASE STUDY 1: DEBBIE.............................................................................
73
CASE STUDY 2: MANDY............................................................................
78
CASE STUDY 3: JANEEN............................................................................
81
THE PHENOMENON OF “CONTAMINATION” IDENTIFIED........................
89
CASE STUDY 4: MARINA...........................................................................
90
CASE STUDY 5: NADENE...........................................................................
97
CASE STUDY 6: TRACY.............................................................................. 104
8.0 INTERPRETATION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE CASE STUDIES AND
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE TEACHING OF WRITTEN COMPOSITION............
8.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................
8.2 OVERALL FINDINGS OF THE CASE STUDIES..............................................
8.3 INTERPRETATION OF OVERALL FINDINGS................................................
8.4 OTHER FINDINGS......................................................................................
109
109
109
110
116
- ix -
8.5 PEDAGOGICAL APPLICATION OF THE USER’S MODEL..............................
8.6 IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH.................................................
8.7 CONCLUSION............................................................................................
121
123
124
APPENDICES....................................................................................................
A CONFERENCING.........................................................................................
B USING THE USER’S MODEL IN CONFERENCING SESSIONS........................
C CONTAMINATION......................................................................................
127
128
134
139
BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................
143
-x-
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Diagram of the user’s model.....................................................................
2. Simplified version of the user’s model......................................................
3. Example of graph showing writing profiles...............................................
4. Graphs showing writing profiles before and after the model was
explained to Debbie..................................................................................
5. Graphs showing writing profiles before and after the model was
explained to Mandy……….………………………………………………………..............
6. Graphs showing writing profiles before and after the model was
explained to Janeen..................................................................................
7. Graphs showing writing profiles before and after the model was
explained to Marina..................................................................................
8. Graphs showing writing profiles before and after the model was
explained to Nadene……………………………………………………..........................
9. Graphs showing writing profiles before and after the model was
explained to Tracy.....................................................................................
LIST OF TABLES
1. Summary of changes after intervention....................................................
35
49
59
76
81
88
96
102
108
110
- xi -
INTRODUCTION
Until comparatively recently the mystique surrounding the process of
writing has given both teacher and learner the impression that writing
cannot be taught or learnt; good student writers have been represented
as “gifted” or “inspired”, and poor writers, as part of the general human
condition. However, research into the writing process has shown that
the strategies of competent writers can not only be described in some
detail, but can also be taught to inexperienced writers.
This thesis attempts to show that focusing on the writing process, rather
than the written product, offers both teacher and learner insights into
the nature of the writing process, and gives the teacher clear guidance
and a structured approach to the teaching of written composition. A
teaching approach based on the perception of writing as a process is
termed a “process” approach, although as Liebman-Kleine (1986) points
out, the so-called “process approach” is more accurately a series of
approaches based on a different perspective of writing, rather than a
single comprehensive approach.
If writing is perceived as a process which can be described and taught,
two key questions remain to be answered for teachers of written
composition:
1. What is the nature of the writing process?
2. What are the implications of this new description of writing for
a the teacher, and
b the learner?
In an attempt to answer these questions, this research started with an
investigation into the writing process, using insights from research into
the writing process, teacher observations of writers, and discourse
- xii -
theory. From this investigation key features of the writing process were
identified. To communicate the research findings to both the teacher
and the learner, they were summarised in a simplified conceptual
framework describing the writing process as a series of five stages with a
recursive factor (after the second stage the writer can go back to any
stage any number of times). The conceptual framework (or “user’s
model”) is couched in terms that make it easily understood by both
teacher and pupil.
The conceptual framework makes it possible for the teacher not only to
describe the writing process to the learner, but also to make helpful
interventions at the various stages of the process, especially in terms of
appropriate reader responses.
The description of the writing process as it appears in the conceptual
framework was designed to give the learner writer both an overview of
the process itself, and guidelines on how to engage in the process at
each stage.
The effects of communicating the conceptual framework of the writing
process directly to the learner writer were tested out in six experimental
case studies with volunteer high school pupils of different age and
academic ability. The results suggested that the description of the
writing process as shown by the conceptual framework can give certain
learners both insight into the process and instructions for engaging in it
effectively. It also showed a potential for diagnosing, explaining and
remediating certain writing problems. In view of these findings, the
abstract framework of the writing process is recommended as a basis for
teaching instruction in written composition in high school.
-1CHAPTER ONE
WRITING AS PRODUCT AND PROCESS - A TEACHING APPROACH
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Chapter One starts by identifying the general area and goal of the
research, shows how the traditional product approach to the teaching of
writing is being challenged by the product approach, and identifies the
approach focused on in this research.
1.2 GENERAL AREA AND GOAL OF RESEARCH
The research involves an investigation into the process of writing, with
the goal of establishing what this can contribute to effective teacher
interventions. Although much of the literature surveyed and the actual
case studies deal with student academic writing, for the purposes of this
thesis, the term “writing” is used in its widest sense, and refers to any
form of original written composition.
1.3 CURRENT APPROACHES TO THE TEACHING OF WRITING
In order to put the teaching approach focused on in this thesis into
context, a brief outline to the current approaches to the teaching of
writing is given.
1.4 WRITING - PRODUCT OR PROCESS?
According to Spack (1984:650), as a consequence of research into the
actual composing process, the traditional product approach to the
teaching of written composition is being challenged by a new teaching
paradigm, the so-called process approach. A fundamental difference
between the two approaches is that of orientation: the traditional
product approach focuses on the product of the writing process, the
-2finished text, whereas the process approach focuses on the series of
processes in which the writer engages to produce the finished text. A
more detailed description of both approaches and the differences
between them follows.
1.5 THE PRODUCT APPROACH
According to Spack (1984:649) the traditional product approach
predominated from the beginning of the century until experimental
investigations into the process of writing began in the 1960s. The most
outstanding feature of this approach, according to Candlin (1981:179), is
its emphasis on the finished product: “it starts from a traditional view of
the properties of the finished piece of writing, and makes that the basis
of a pedagogy which specifies stages that are supposed to effect the
creation of such a product”.
1.5.1 The perception of writing as product
Because the product of writing, text, is linear and logical, the writing
process itself is seen as linear and logical. There is also an assumption
that the writer knows exactly what he is going to say before he starts
writing (Taylor, in Chick ms), thus planning and structuring are seen as
elements which precede and control the production of the finished text.
1.5.2 Teaching practice according to the product approach
The product approach bases its teaching practice on the assumption
that creative processes cannot be consciously controlled; hence the
further assumption that the creative processes which go towards the
making of the finished product cannot be taught. Because the process
itself is portrayed as a straightforward linear progression, the advice
-3given in text books not only provides students with an inadequate view
of writing (Spack 1984:649), but according to Bereiter and Scardamalia
(1981:28), in many cases advocates ineffectual writing strategies.
Because of the focus on the finished product rather than on the
processes whereby the finished product is achieved, the teaching of
writing is seen as the teaching of editing, and great emphasis is put on
style and usage. Flaws in the finished text tend to be attributed to lack
of knowledge of the linguistic code rather than lack of expertise in
composing, thus remediation focuses on language drills rather than on
encouraging effective composing strategies. As the focus of the product
approach in on the finished text, emphasis is placed on various forms of
textual analysis, such as sentence and paragraph analysis, and the
analysis of writing into different genres. In teaching practice the
traditional product approach involves one or a combination of the
following elements: the teaching of grammar, the analysis of literary
prose models, and “the step by step breakdown of the writing process
derived entirely from an analysis of the topic” (Candlin 1981:181).
These preoccupations can be seen to be consistent with a focus on the
finished product.
1.5.3 Criticisms of the product approach
A major weakness of the product approach, according to Candlin, is that
it does not take into account the stages by which the finished product is
achieved: “the earlier, creative stages of the writing process”
(1981:181). Taylor (in Chick ms) comments that because it is not based
on any research into what actual writers do, it is not able to offer any
insights to learner writers. In order to be able to do so, the teacher has
to understand the actual process of writing itself and to be able to make
interventions which will assist the learner.
-41.6 THE PROCESS APPROACH
It is important to bear in mind that what for convenience’ sake is termed
the “process approach” is not in fact one consolidated approach, but
rather a whole series of approaches based on the perception of writing
as a process (Liebman-Kleine 1986:785). Liebman-Kleine calls the
process approach “a perspective, a way of looking at writing”, rather
than a narrow dogma: “Process is not dogma, but a concept that
enables people to see writing in a new way and thereby ask questions
that were not asked as long as people saw writing simply as finished
products” (ibidem).
1.6.1 The origins of the process approach
According to Spack (1984), the need for a new paradigm for the teaching
of written composition arose because the traditional product approach
had not been tested out in terms of the actual composing strategies of
writers. Thus there was a demand for a major paradigm revision. Both
Spack (ibidem) and Candlin (1981) mention three main areas of
research: research into thinking processes (and hence the search for
strategies which might enable the writer to gain access to his own ideas
as a pre-writing activity); research into the development of special
linguistic skills (particularly mastery of syntactical structures which
would generate ideas); and research into the actual writing process
itself. Allied to the last two areas of research is the concept of a
different kind of teacher/pupil relationship in which the teacher
intervenes to show the learner how to assume the necessary reader
roles adopted by the writer during the process; and the recognition that
the act of writing itself is capable of generating ideas (see Spack
1984:650-651).
-5Raimes (1985:229) says that the research into English first language
composition writing showed “that the processes used by skilled writers
can be described and taught in the classroom”. The composing
behaviours of inexperienced writers were also investigated “to
determine common features and to make recommendations for
classroom teaching” (ibidem).
1.6.2 The perception of writing as process
Writing is seen as “a series of overlapping and interacting processes”
(Spack 1984:650); “messy and convoluted” rather than “linear and
orderly”; “not systematic but recursive” (Taylor, in Chick ms). It is also
seen as a form of discourse, involving a process of “interaction and
negotiation” with the projected reader (ibidem).
1.6.3 Features of the process approach
According to Spack (1984), arising from research into the composing
process, a new paradigm for the teaching of composition to mothertongue speakers is evolving. The focus is on the process of writing, and
“the emphasis ... is not so much on the medium (accuracy) but on the
communication mode (fluency)” (Widdowson, in Chick ms). This does
not mean to say that editing is seen as unimportant, but as needing to
occur at a later stage in the process. As Raimes explains: “To focus on
prescription first and then ask them (students) to fill in content later is
to order incorrectly” (ibidem). Widdowson (ibidem) explains further
that while fluency may initially be a desirable teaching aim, ultimately
the learner has to be able to achieve a socially acceptable (i.e. accurate)
product, as writing is “a social activity”. It is in helping the writer to
achieve this final social goal that editing has a key role to play.
-6Some significant features of the process approach (or approaches) are:
“1) a view of writing as a recursive process which can be taught,
2) an emphasis on writing as a way of learning as well as
communicating,
3) a willingness to draw on other disciplines, notably cognitive
psychology and linguistics,
4) the incorporation of a rhetorical context, a view that writing
assignments include a sense of audience, purpose and occasion,
5) a procedure for feedback which encourages the instructor to
intervene during the process,
6) a method of evaluation which determines how well a written
product adapts the goals of the writer to the needs of the
reader, and
7) the principle that writing teachers should be people who write”
(see Spack 1984:651).
1.6.4 Teaching practice according to the process approach
Raimes (1985:230-231) mentions that the process approach to writing
stresses: “generating ideas, writing drafts, producing feedback, and
revising - in an attempt to make” the learners’ “behaviour, and
ultimately their products, more like those of skilled writers”. This need
to accommodate the process of redrafting places the accent on quality
rather than quantity, and Raimes (in Chick ms) suggests that we may
need to reconsider the amount of polished written work we expect from
our students, “perhaps have 7 papers per term replaced by 3 reworked”.
-7According to Brookes (in Chick ms), the following are features of a
process approach to the teaching of written composition:
“a) students write in class (a “Suzuki” writing method), in this way being
motivated to do better than they would on their own in the same
way as a singer in a choir might be;
b) there is a focus on long-term composing/developmental skills rather
than short-term mastery of sub-skills;
c) the tutor/teacher writes and reads his/her writing to the class;
d) there is considerable spoken interaction;
e) products of the writing process are treated with respect: read aloud;
published; displayed on O.H.P.s and walls; argued with; praised;
enjoyed.”
There is also, according to Candlin, an emphasis in the process approach
on the rhetorical form or genre which Britton terms “expressive
writing”: “in the middle, and as the matrix of both (poetic and
transactional), stands ‘expressive writing’, which is writing for the self exploratory, tentative, sometimes fragmented, as close as possible to
the writer’s thinking processes and experiences. It is by the use of
expressive language especially that we explore and discover and learn
what we mean” (Candlin 1981:184). However, although spontaneous
forms of writing are seen as important, the need for teaching editing
skills, as distinct from developing writing abilities, is also acknowledged.
The process approach goes hand-in-hand with a new, more
collaborative teacher role. According to Zamel, “The teacher/ tutor
needs to respond not to the writing but to the writer and should
facilitate rather than test” (Chick ms). Gaskill adds: “There are multiple
-8kinds of possible responses and the teacher needs to establish
priorities” (ibidem). A key feature of the new teaching role is for the
teacher to offer an authentic range of reader responses going beyond
the unhelpful prescriptive responses (Zamel 1985) thus modelling the
reader roles which the learner writer has to learn to assume as part of
the writing process. Typical of this new supportive teacher role are
teaching practices such as “conferencing”, where the teacher responds
appropriately at all stages of the writing process (Graves 1978 and
Zamel 1985; see also Appendix A for a detailed account), and journal
writing, where the teacher dialogues with the pupils in writing,
responding to the meaning, not the form (see Martin 1981:212-213).
1.6.5 Criticisms of the process approach
Raimes (Chick ms), herself a proponent of the process approach, points
out that the process approach is not necessarily appropriate for
teaching all kinds of writing. She explains that writing is not a
“monolithic phenomenon”, and that it is possible to distinguish writing
for different purposes, for example, “for life; for examinations”.
Liebman-Kleine (1986:786) makes a similar point when she says that
process teachers believe that “different writers, different tasks and
different situations demand different strategies”. The process approach
has come under attack from academics for failing to prepare students
for academic writing (Horowitz 1986). Yet Liebman-Kleine (1986:784)
contends that the supposed academic/process dichotomy is false, and
that academic writing can be taught within a process framework. This is
borne out by the present research: the writing strategies described in
this research (as contained in the user’s model described in Chapter
Four) were evolved and tested out in the context of academic writing.
-9However, the same strategies are not recommended for writing under
strict time pressure (i.e. in examination situations), for which totally
different strategies may need to be evolved and tested.
According to Liebman-Kleine (ibidem), the poor performance of student
writers in academic genres has been attributed to the failure of the
process approach to address the problem of teaching the requirements
of specific academic genres. Horowitz (1986:789) therefore advocates
that instructors ensure that their students’ writing falls within “a
specified range of acceptable writing behaviours dictated ... by the
academic community”. Yet this is what proponents of the process
approach themselves (Widdowson and Reid in Chick ms) see as
necessary: the need for the student to achieve social acceptability in
mastering the requirements of specific genres. The issue here appears
not to be whether this mastery of form is important or not, but whose
responsibility the task of teaching it is: that of the writing instructor or
the academic subject specialist. The answer to this depends on one’s
teaching orientation: are specific academic writing tasks to be mastered
by the student’s being given a list of requirements (product), or by his
experiencing a communicative writing task in a specific academic
context (process)? In this case Horowitz’s criticism is justified in part: a
process-orientated writing instructor would be inclined to give the
learner writer general, and not specific, strategies for mastering
different academic genres. But, as Hamp-Lyons points out (1986:793),
the process approach is not unsuitable for the teaching of academic
writing, and there is no reason why a process approach should not by
used by the academic specialist himself in assisting his students to
master academic writing.
- 10 Horowitz, though accepting “much of what the process approach has to
offer”, goes on to criticize the approach on the grounds that it is only
“half an approach”, in that it fails to “take into account the many forces
outside of an individual writer’s control which define, shape, and
ultimately judge a piece of writing” (1986:796). He says that it fails to
provide “any clear perspectives of the social nature of writing: the
conventions, genres, requirements, typical task types, and so on”
(Horowitz 1986:788). Hamp-Lyons (1986:792) admits that the process
approach might be running out of impetus, and reinforces Horowitz’s
criticism by saying that a “true process approach” would have to take
account of the differences between various writing tasks and writers. As
the process approach is at present a general orientation rather than a
single body of theory about writing, and is focused on the act of writing
itself rather than an overall perspective of writing in its social context, it
is unlikely that it should at present offer the perspectives suggested by
Horovitz and Hamp-Lyons. However, should the findings of the various
researchers into the process of writing in due course be synthesized into
a comprehensive field theory, there is no reason why such a perspective
of writing in its social context should not be provided.
1.7 THE APPROACH FOCUSED ON IN THIS RESEARCH
The approach focused on in this research is termed “a process
approach”, because its orientation is towards investigating the process
of writing itself in an attempt to offer the learner writer insights into the
writing process, and hence, the basis for effective writing strategies. A
more collaborative teaching style, a feature of the process approach, is
also implied in the way in which these insights are to be communicated
to the learner. However, the theoretical approach used in this research
- 11 is different from previous studies in that theory is used not only to
inform a teaching strategy, but to influence directly the concepts and
behaviour of learner writers. Instead of using theory about the nature
of the writing process to inform teacher interventions, a special kind of
theory, tailored to the learner’s perceptions, has been used to
communicate a conceptual model of the writing process directly to the
learner, so that his perception of the writing process more closely
matches that presumed to be held by experienced writers. This was
done with the intention of changing the learner’s composing behaviour
to approximate more closely that of experienced writers. The rationale
for this application of theory will be discussed in more detail in the next
chapter.
- 12 CHAPTER TWO
THE CONCEPT OF A USER’S MODEL
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The role of theory in teaching practice is discussed, and the key concept
of a “user’s model of language description” is explored. The chapter
concludes with the formulation of the two specific objectives of the
research.
2.2 THE NEED FOR THEORY IN TEACHING PRACTICE
Winterowd (1981:237), discussing the designing of a composition
programme for a high school, states that there is a need for theory to
inform teaching practice: “Teachers need a conceptual-theoretical
background in which to work or else all of their pedagogy is ad hoc.” He
makes it clear that he is not talking of a syllabus or course design, but a
“conceptual framework that gives coherence to what goes on within
and among individual classrooms”. He adds that the “framework”
should “square with what we know about how language actually works,
i.e. should take account of linguistic, psycholinguistic and rhetorical
theory” (ibidem).
2.3 THE KIND OF THEORY NEEDED
The need for a conceptual framework to inform language teaching
practice is developed in some detail by Widdowson (1984), who
suggests that pure linguistics is not necessarily the most appropriate
source from which a pedagogical theoretical framework may be derived.
According to Widdowson (1984:7), it is applied linguistics which should
inform teaching practice: “the main business of applied linguistics
should be the establishing of appropriate concepts or models of
- 13 language in the pedagogic domain without prejudging the issue by
supposing that a relevant model of language must inevitably derive from
a formal model of linguistic description in a technical sense.” As the
“concepts” or “models” Widdowson has in mind “relate to the
experience of the learner as user” (1984:6) rather than being derived
from formal linguistic analysis, he terms such a conceptual framework a
“user’s model” (1984:9).
2.4 DEFINITION AND FEATURES OF WIDDOWSON’S “USER’S MODEL”
A “user’s model”, as described by Widdowson, can be defined as an
idealized conceptual framework of some aspect of language use,
relating to the language user’s perspective and experience. According
to Widdowson (1984:4), “It would attempt to record the language user’s
intuitive, imaginative as well as rational awareness of the nature of
language and would accord as much respect to the operation of the
right as to those of the left cerebral hemisphere.” A “user’s model”,
then, would be formulated to take into account the creative (right
hemisphere) as well as the logical (left hemisphere) perceptions and
behaviour of the language user. Such a model would have some of the
features of a description, yet it would also serves as a basis for teaching
practice: “The formulation of such a model has to be expressed in terms
which allow it to be assessed as a description, but it also has to be
shown to be relevant to pedagogy” (ibidem). Both the description and
its relevance, he argues, must be accessible to the teacher. Also,
although a model formulated along these lines would have some of the
features of a description, it would not be an explanation of reality, but a
partial representation of reality which would facilitate our
understanding of it. Then too, a “user’s model” would be formulated
with a specific target group in mind, and would have as its starting point
- 14 “the need and purpose that the model of language must provide for”
(1984:27). For example, the user’s age may be a factor in the
formulation of a user’s model: Widdowson points out that the “child
user’s model of language may be very different from that of the adult
user” (1984:17). He comments that the models may also differ interand intra-culturally, according to context, and according to personality
type. Therefore a “user’s model” should be formulated in such a way as
to be “congruent with the knowledge and attitudes of language
learners” (1984:26), or as Widdowson terms it, “consumer based”.
2.5 PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE “USER’S MODEL”
Widdowson sees the kind of conceptual framework described above as
lending itself to a learner-based approach to teaching: “An applied
linguistics model which took the user into account would, of course, be
participant-oriented and would therefore provide the basis for a
learner-centred methodology” (1984:20).
2.6 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE RESEARCH REPORTED ON IN THIS THESIS
After describing the features and relevance of an abstract conceptual
framework of language use from a participant perspective, Widdowson
says that it is up to future researchers to formulate and test out such
models. The general area of my research, as stated above, is an
investigation into the process of writing with the purpose of discovering
effective teacher interventions. The concept of a “user’s model”, as
described by Widdowson, suggests an effective way of concentrating
research findings on the writing process and communicating these
insights to the teacher. A “user’s model of the process of writing”,
framed in terms of underlying process and user behaviour, would
provide the teacher with the conceptual framework to inform effective
- 15 interventions. Thus my first research objective became the formulation
of a “user’s model” of the process of writing which would inform
effective teacher interventions.
2.7
INFLUENCE OF TEACHING
APPLICATION OF THE MODEL
APPROACH
ON
PEDAGOGICAL
Although Widdowson speaks of the idealized conceptual framework of
language use, or “user’s model”, as being learner-based, he is clearly
speaking in the context of teachers using this learner-based description
of language to facilitate teaching: “it will serve as a source of reference
for a principled approach to language teaching” (1984:1). However, the
emphasis of the process approach on a collaborative teacher role
suggests a further application: the “user’s model” could become truly
“participant-oriented” by being designed for the learner rather than for
the teacher. The teacher’s function would then be to communicate the
model directly to the learner, and to react with the learner in ways
which, according to the model, would be helpful to the learner’s
development. Communicating the model directly to the learner would
give him the option of “exercising conscious control over (his) mental
processes” (Daiute, 1983:138), an important factor in a process where
competent writing behaviour is so idiosyncratic (as described by Bereiter
and Scardamalia, 1981, and Raimes 1985). This application of the user’s
model suggested a second specific research objective: to test out the
results of communicating an appropriate user’s model of the writing
process directly to the learner.
2.8 SPECIFIC RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
Thus the application of a process approach to Widdowson’s concept of a
“user’s model” of language use, led to the formulation of the following
- 16 specific research objectives:
1. To discover a description/model of the writing process from a
participant perspective, which:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
identifies underlying processes;
gives clear direction to the learner writer as to effective
composing strategies;
is accessible to the learner writer i.e. is framed briefly and
simply in easily understood terms (target group: adolescents
and young adults); and
provides the teacher with a basis for effective writing
instruction.
2. To test out the results on writing behaviour of communicating this
description directly to learners in the context of academic writing.
2.9 SOURCE OF THE USER’S MODEL OF THE WRITING PROCESS
As no model with the above specifications was available at the time of
research, it became necessary to formulate one. As is explained in the
next chapter, an investigation into the nature of the writing process
provided a description of the writing process which could be
incorporated into a suitable model.
- 17 CHAPTER THREE
THE NATURE OF THE WRITING PROCESS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
As a means of establishing what needs to be included in a user’s model
of the writing process, both the social and cognitive aspects of writing
are examined briefly. Thereafter the theory of writing as a form of
discourse, and teacher observations of the behaviour of both
experienced and inexperienced writers are examined to see what they
can contribute to the user’s model. Finally a summary is given of some
key features of the writing process which we would expect to be
accounted for in the proposed user’s model.
3.2 WRITING AS A SOCIAL ACT
As Szwed (1981) points out, writing does not take place in abstract, but
in the context of a social situation; it is a social act. Widdowson
(1984:64) stresses the communicative aspect of writing, which must
have a clear context, audience and purpose: “Writing is a provoked
activity, it is located in ongoing social life.” He goes on to say that, by
contrast, the production of text as “an exercise in linguistic
composition” is not a “communicative activity” and has “no derivation
from discourse” (ibidem). Scribner and Cole (1981:75) warn against
limiting our conceptions of writing to “school-based” writing, and seeing
the development of writing skills merely “as a course of progression
towards the production of expository text”. It follows that if the process
of writing as a socially meaningful activity is to be accounted for in the
user’s model, it will be necessary to look not merely at the behaviour of
student writers, but also that of adult writers, both professional and
non-professional. Although its aim is to inform the teaching of writing in
- 18 educational institutions, the scope of the model formulated in this
research is therefore not limited to the process of writing only as it
occurs in educational institutions, and takes cognizance of the behaviour
of adult writers in a social context.
3.3 WRITING AS A COGNITIVE ACT
However, although all writing takes place in some social context, not all
forms of writing have communicative intent. Britton (1970:248)
identifies certain forms of writing as attempts on the part of the writer
to come to terms with his own experiences. An example of this would
be writing used as a means of clarifying one’s own thoughts on a certain
topic, or as a problem-solving activity: the resulting drafts are not
intended for other readers. Britton (1981) stresses this cognitive aspect
of writing, and shows that by articulating our thoughts in written form
we are actually often engaged in thinking in print. The writer’s ideas,
according to Britton (1981:16), are already “stamped with the image of
our own ways of perceiving” when he is about to set them down in
writing, but negotiation occurs between the writer and his text when
the writer attempts to make what he has written match his original
intention. The interaction between the writer and his text leads to
further writing, which “becomes itself a contemplative act revealing
further coherence and fresh pattern” (Britton 1981:18). Thus expressive
writing - writing down spontaneously, much in the manner of
spontaneous speech - is seen by Britton as a means for the writer to get
in touch with his ideas, and in so doing, to set off further chains of ideas.
Britton sees expressive writing as the “matrix” out of which other
transactional forms of writing develop in the longitudinal development
of writing skills; it could also be seen as a “matrix” of the writing process
itself, in the sense of being an “idea-generating” mechanism which
- 19 provides the raw material out of which the finished product is crafted.
Thus expressive writing, by its nature sporadic, unpolished and rambling,
is not to be confused with the finished, polished product, although it
may very well form a stage in accomplishing the finished product. This
capacity of writing to generate ideas and therefore to enhance cognitive
development is acknowledged by societies which prize literacy, though
it is perhaps relevant to note that, as Cook-Gumperz points out (ms b),
literacy in itself is not a guarantee of advanced cognition, merely the
vehicle for the schooling which will achieve this.
3.4 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF DISCOURSE THEORY IN UNDERSTANDING THE
WRITING PROCESS
Although, as noted above, some writing does not have communicative
intent, this does not detract from its status as discourse. This is because
dialoguing occurs between the writer and his text through all stages of
the writing process. In the case of writing with communicative intent
this becomes discourse in the sense of interaction not only between the
writer and his text, but between the text and the reader. A theory of
discourse has, accordingly, potentially much to contribute to the
understanding of the process which the learner needs to master in order
to become a competent writer.
3.4.1 The nature of written discourse
Widdowson (1984) explains the nature of the interaction which takes
place in written discourse as follows: it is a delayed interaction, in that
the reader at a later stage converts the product of writing, text, into
discourse (1984:51). In order for his prospective reader to be able to
reconstruct the text into discourse, the writer has to anticipate the
- 20 reader’s reactions in advance, and make provision for them in the text.
Thus there are two acts performed in writing: “focal” (expression of
ideas) and “enabling” (facilitating reader comprehension). There is a
third aspect to writing which makes it significantly different from spoken
forms of discourse: because the writer’s utterance is recorded in
permanent form as text, it achieves the status of artifact. This obliges
the writer to ensure that the text is “correct”, not only in a narrow
sense, but in a socially acceptable way.
Widdowson (1984:62-63) thus sees three elements to writing:
expression of ideas (cognitive act), accommodating the reader (social
act), and conforming to linguistic norms (social act).
3.4.2 The role of internal dialogue
Widdowson identifies two functions of internal writer dialogue in
writing, which can be seen to be linked to the “focal” and “enabling”
acts mentioned above. To perform the “enabling” acts necessary to
accommodate the reader, the writer shifts to a reader role and engages
in an imaginary dialogue with his text. According to Widdowson
(1984:71-74), in shifting perspective the writer also engages in a
dialogue with himself in which new ideas are generated. Thus the act of
writing not only expresses ideas, but also has the potential to generate
further ideas. Widdowson then identifies two kinds of internal writer
dialogue: “idea generating” dialogue and “reader accommodating”
dialogue. Daiute (1983) identifies a further dialogue which is part of the
writing process, namely the “editing dialogue”. In Appendix A I suggest
that two further dialogues, namely “prewriting” and “evaluating”
dialogues, can be identified. The significance and purpose of these
additional dialogues are discussed in Appendix A.
- 21 3.4.3 Summary of writing as discourse
To sum up, Widdowson suggests that writing is a kind of interactive
discourse, which has peculiar properties arising from the time lapse
between the encoding and decoding of the message, which means that
the originator of the message is not present to clarify the meaning of his
utterance to the receiver. Because of the need to anticipate any
difficulties the reader may have, and to pre-empt any misunderstanding
by leaving “enabling” cues in his text, the writer switches to a reader
role and engages in a discourse by proxy to facilitate the decoding of his
message. The act of dialoguing with his text not only enables the writer
to anticipate the reader’s needs, but also has the potential to generate
new ideas. The text, as a permanent record, assumes the status of an
artifact, and requires a degree of correctness and polish considered
unnecessary in spoken discourse (obvious exceptions are ritual formulae
or formal speeches).
3.4.4 Implications of a discourse view of writing for the learner
The implications for the learner are as follows: “the student has to learn
how to conduct a non-reciprocal interaction by adopting a dual
participant role, anticipating the reactions of a presumed interlocutor”
(Widdowson, 1984:64): “He must be aware of the function of language
as a device for negotiating the transfer of information by reference to
shared knowledge.” It follows that he must have an awareness of the
person he is interacting with, of the “shared knowledge he can assume”,
including conventions of types of writing. He also needs some idea of
the purpose of the interaction, i.e. the communication occurs in some
continuing context, as writing “is located in ongoing social life” (ibidem).
If not, writing is a “language exercise”, or production of text for its own
sake.
- 22 3.5
TEACHER OBSERVATIONS AND RESEARCH FINDINGS ON THE
BEHAVIOUR OF WRITERS
The above theory is helpful in clarifying the nature of the writing process
in explaining the difficulties the learner will encounter when he makes
the transition from spoken to written discourse. However, for a
description of the writing process to be useful to the learner, it should
also be able to explain what actually happens in terms of specific
behaviour when competent student writers engage in written discourse,
and also to provide advice for the inexperienced writer as to how to go
about engaging in the writing process in a competent manner. The
observations of teachers and researchers have proved useful in
informing such a description.
3.5.1 The learner’s need to know how writers behave
Shaughnessy (1977) in explaining the difficulties experienced by
disadvantaged college students, shows that the surface errors that weak
writers make do not necessarily indicate linguistic inadequacies. She
diagnoses one of the underlying problems as being a lack of knowledge
as to how to go about the process of writing: “the beginning writer does
not know how writers behave” (1977:79). As a solution to the learner
writer’s unfamiliarity with the writing process, Shaughnessy suggests
that “the composition course should be the place where the writer not
only writes, but experiences in a conscious, orderly way the stages of
the composing process itself” (1977:81). The “beginning writer...is
ignorant of process”, with the result that he sees writing as a “single
act” rather than “a deliberate process whereby meaning is crafted, stage
by stage” (ibidem). The beginner tends to see pauses, hesitations and
revisions as defects rather than as part of the writing process itself. The
learner writer needs to know “how writers work” (ibidem).
- 23 3.5.2 Processes underlying the behaviour of writers
According to Shaughnessy, information about how writers work reveals
not only surface behaviour, but underlying processes, which she calls “a
sequence of concentrations that seem implicit in the act of writing:
1. Getting the thought - recognizing it, first, and then exploring it
enough to estimate one’s resources (motivational and
informational) for writing about it.
2. Getting the thought down - proceeding, that is, into the thick of
the idea, holding on to it even as the act of articulation refines
and changes it.
3. Readying the statement for other eyes, a matter of catching
whatever in the content or written form is likely to deflect the
reader’s attention from the writer’s meaning” (1977:85).
Shaughnessy says that the disadvantaged student writer has difficulty
with all of these stages. He needs “strategies for generating real
thought”, and a meaningful audience (1977:82). She suggests a
“classroom model that grants teachers the responsibility for content and
procedure, but at the same time grants students the kind of social
independence they need in order to think for themselves” (1977:83).
The student, grappling with the task of expressing himself in the
unfamiliar mode of written discourse, needs an expert response as to
how his ideas are coming across while his work is in progress, so that he
can further refine it for the reader. Most teachers correct papers rather
than read them, and then after the work is finished rather than while it
is still in progress. Finally, the student has to learn the skill of
proofreading, which he seldom learns at school (1977:85). Not only
does this allow him to correct himself, but it also “frees him while he is
- 24 writing from the inhibiting worry about being wrong” (ibidem).
Shaughnessy points out that many of the errors found in students’
writing are not made in their speech, yet the students cannot see them
in their own texts because they have not learned to objectify their own
writing. Students will never learn this skill, she concludes, if the teacher
keeps marking errors rather than training the students to proofread
effectively.
3.5.3 The importance of stages in the writing process
Shaughnessy stresses the importance of “stages” in the writing process,
and says that the learner of composition should experience these stages
in a “conscious, orderly way”. This suggests that it might be helpful to
the learner if the user’s model described the writing process as a series
of stages.
Shaughnessy herself provides three potential stages, inferred from the
“concentrations implicit in the act of writing”:
1. Getting the thought
2. Getting the thought down
3. Readying the statement for other eyes
The concept of stages is mentioned elsewhere in the readings: three
stages similar to the above are mentioned by Squire (1981):
“The prewriting phase;
The composing phase;
The post-writing or editing stage”
- 25 and by Britton (1981:15), quoting Mandel:
“ (1) I have an idea about something I want to write;
(2) I write whatever I write;
(3) I notice what I’ve written, judge it, and edit it, either a lot or a
little”.
However, these stages form only the framework for a possible “user’s
model of the process of writing”: there are still other elements to be
accommodated, such as the interplay between creativity and ordering,
and the various strategies whereby the stages of writing are achieved.
3.5.4 The differences between the behaviour of “good” and “poor”
writers and what it suggests about the writing process
Another potentially fruitful source of insights into the process of writing
which can inform a user’s model is research which investigates the
actual behaviour of competent writers at young adult and adult level,
and how it differs from the behaviour of inexperienced or poor writers:
a A basic difference: the flexibility of good writers
According to Bereiter and Scardamalia (1981), and Raimes (1985), a
basic difference is that the behaviour of good writers is more flexible
than that of poor writers. One of the difficulties in formulating an
adequate model of the writing process is in providing for this flexibility.
There seems to be no “one right way” to write. However, there is
evidence to suggest that there is “one wrong way”: Bereiter and
Scardamalia find that the strategies of poor writers tend to be similar,
and that these strategies are often recommended by text books.
- 26 Raimes attributes the variety found in the behaviour of good writers to
the complexity of the process itself: “The process is not the linear one of
prewriting, writing and revision. These three activities are, rather,
inseparable and intertwined, all going on all the time throughout the
process” (1981:263). She adds in a later paper (1985:230) that
“Contrary to what many textbooks advise, writers do not follow a neat
sequence of planning, organizing, writing, and then revising.” Although
the product of writing, text, is linear, the process is cyclical and
repetitive, as the writer produces, analyses and restructures ideas.
b Further differences between good and poor writers
Raimes (1985), has summarised research findings on “the composing
processes of native speakers of English” to present “a composite picture
of a process that is far from idiosyncratic” (1985:229). According to her
summary, good writers consider their purpose and audience, consult
their own background knowledge, let ideas incubate, and plan; “as they
write, they read back over what they have written to keep in touch with
their ‘conceptual blueprint’” (1985:229-230). Poor writers take less time
to plan, scan large sections less often (and then concentrate on surface
errors rather than ideas), and focus on accuracy at an early stage in the
process (1985:230). Once the ideas are on the page, they are seldom
reworked - the first draft is often very similar to the final draft. When
they do revise, they “focus on form rather than content”. They “spend
little time considering the reader” (ibidem).
Daiute (1983:137), in a paper on computer-aided writing notices the
following differences between inexperienced and experienced writers:
inexperienced writers have trouble supplying the “internal ‘dialogue’
between the writer as composer and the writer as editor”, and thus find
- 27 it hard to switch to a reader role in editing their own work. Besides
having learned to dialogue with themselves, experienced writers have
developed strategies to relieve pressure on short term memory, so that
they can focus more on content. Because of the limits of short term
memory, “writers have trouble when they try to carry on all steps of the
writing process at once” (1983:139). Daiute adds that if writers do not
have strategies, they battle to decide what to say, transform ideas to
sentences and form coherent sequences all at once. The strategies of
experienced writers include having a framework of knowledge about
sentence types and structures of arguments; they also include structural
frameworks or “formulae” for certain genres of writing. Experienced
writers, according to Daiute, focus on the different stages of writing one
by one: they write first, and revise later. They are also capable of
evaluating their own progress. The value of Daiute’s study is that her
observations include the behaviour of adult writers (professional and
non-professional), as well as that of students. There is no point in
restricting our user’s model to academic writing, as, to be useful to
learner writers, the description of writing and the advice on how to go
about it must be relevant to the broader context of writing tasks in a
social context outside of the institutions in which they are learnt.
3.5.5 The link between writing strategies and stages in the writing
process
The above observations indicate that good writers not only have distinct
strategies, but that they also know when to apply them. This suggests
that certain strategies are linked to certain stages: a user’s model would
help by showing not only the stages of the writing process, but the
strategies appropriate to each stage.
- 28 3.6 SUMMARY OF KEY FEATURES OF THE WRITING PROCESS
A familiarity with the theory of writing as discourse and observations of
the behaviour of writers enables us, then, to identify certain key
features of the writing process (as performed by competent writers),
features which need to be accounted for in a user’s model:
- It is an atypical form of discourse, in that both encoder and decoder
dialogue by proxy. This makes it frustratingly “one-sided” for the
writer, who, to ensure communication takes place, has to act out the
role of imaginary reader, and dialogue with his own text to supply
discourse “cues” for the reader.
- The role of internal dialogue is important, not only as a means of
accommodating the reader, but also in terms of its potential to
generate ideas; it also plays a role in identifying the writer’s errors.
- Writing has the potential to generate, as well as express and
communicate ideas: it is a kind of thinking.
- Both the writer’s creative and logical faculties are engaged in the
process and his perception of it.
- It is a “messy” process, requiring redrafting and restructuring, not a
“single act”.
- The process is carried out in stages, but not in a logical, linear
progression: there is a recursive factor which permits considerable
flexibility and variety.
- Stages already identified are: prewriting, composing, judging and
editing. Widdowson also mentions “composing” or “expression of
- 29 - ideas”, but sees “accommodating the reader” and “conforming to
linguistic norms” as two separate issues - these elements may fit into
the above stages, or be used to form separate stages.
- The issue of focus is important: it is important for the writer to focus
on one stage at a time. Many strategies, including that of selective
focusing, are geared towards freeing short term memory for ideas. It
is possible that generation of ideas is an issue of optimum conditions
of receptivity (i.e. uncluttered short term memory), and not so much
a question of stimulus or chance.
3.7 FORMULATING A MODEL BASED ON THE ABOVE FEATURES
As no model was available that satisfactorily explained these features, I
formulated the model described in Chapter Four, with reference to my
target group, university students engaged in academic essay writing.
The model was later simplified and adapted for high school pupils, and
tested out in individual case studies.
- 30 CHAPTER FOUR
THE FORMULATION OF A USER’S MODEL OF THE WRITING PROCESS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Chapter Four deals with the formulation of a “user’s model” of the
process of writing. The target group for which the model was designed
and the purpose of the model are discussed, and the effects these had
on the form of the model. Next, the actual form of the model is
explained in some detail: it was constructed so as to provide an “allpurpose” model of the writing process, in spite of its specific academic
purpose. Finally the model is examined in the light of Widdowson’s
requirements, and is shown to reflect many of the key features of the
writing process which were listed at the end of Chapter Three.
4.2 CONTEXT FOR THE FORMULATION OF THE USER’S MODEL
Widdowson (1984:27) emphasizes the fact that the kind of “user’s
model” he has in mind is context-specific: “You do not start with a
model as given and then cast about for ways in which it might come in
handy.” Although the concept of a model which would inform teaching
and the idea of communicating it directly to the learner arose from the
research readings discussed in Chapter Two, the actual user’s model
which I formulated was context-specific, in direct response to the needs
of a teaching situation. The model described in this chapter was
formulated with the specific purpose of assisting academic writing, and
a specific target group of university students in mind. This influenced
the model as regards the level of abstraction and terminology used
within the model. However, the model was formulated to take all kinds
of writing into account, not just academic writing, as I felt that the wider
its relevance, the more it would be seen as useful by the learner,
- 31 and thus more readily assimilated. Later the model was adapted to
make it accessible to a younger target group of school pupils, as I
considered that it was framed in terms which are too abstract to be
understood by younger learners.
4.2.1 Nature of the target group
The target group comprised nineteen university students enrolled for a
course which included as a topic academic writing. These students were
engaged in composing their “minor academic essay”. The minor essay
was in the nature of a trial run to assist students to cope with academic
essay-writing tasks, in particular, their “major academic essay”, which
was their next writing assignment. The students were in their first year
at University and therefore unfamiliar with the requirements of
academic expository essay writing.
4.2.2 Purpose of the model
The purpose of the model in its original form was twofold:
1. To enable me as tutor to respond appropriately to students’ drafts in
two individual conferencing sessions, in terms of both reader
response and advice. (See Appendix A.)
2. To give students insight into the process of writing and an organized
but flexible way of engaging in the process of writing, in this case, the
writing of academic essays.
4.2.3 How the purpose of the model affected its form as a model of the
stages of the writing process
To achieve the first purpose, namely to respond appropriately to
student essay drafts, I felt that I needed a structured way of looking at
the process in which the students were engaged. This led me to search
- 32 for a “user’s model” of the process of writing along the lines suggested
by Widdowson in Chapter Two. As I could find no appropriate model in
the readings which were available to me at the time, and as the first
student interview was imminent, I hastily formulated a tentative “user’s
model” myself, drawing on the insights into the process of writing
gleaned from the sources described in Chapter Three.
The form the model took was influenced by the fact that the response to
the essay drafts was to take place in conferencing sessions. Zamel
points out the importance of responding appropriately at each stage of
the student’s progress: “we need to play a whole range of roles as
readers of student writing and adopt those that are appropriate for the
various stages of a developing text” (1985:96). As appropriate feedback
to students would depend very much on the stage of writing they had
reached, I thought it might prove helpful to identify various stages in the
writing process in order to work out appropriate teacher-responses for
each stage. Thus the model depicted writing as occurring in a series of
stages, a feature of writing already identified in Chapter Three.
A means of achieving the second purpose, namely to give students
insight into the process and strategies for achieving it, would be to
communicate directly to the students the “user’s model” of the writing
process in stages, with strategies for accomplishing each stage. In
response to these two purposes, then, I formulated the model as a
series of stages, and suggested appropriate writing strategies for each
stage.
4.3 FORMULATION OF THE MODEL IN STAGES
A description in stages provides a schematic framework for the learner,
an instant summary of the process, which shows him, very simply, what
- 33 to do, when to do it, and how to go about doing it. For young adult
learners (university students), three elements were included in each
stage:
1. Identification of the stage, either by naming the activity, for
example, “draft writing”, or by giving it a recognizable place in the
sequence of stages, for example, “prewriting”.
2. Advice to the writer, framed in concrete behavioural terms, but
general enough to cover a wide range of individual performances,
for example: “consider purpose and reader”, “check for
correctness”. The advice has a descriptive component, in that the
behaviours advocated are based on the strategies of good writers, as
described in Chapter Three above.
3. Suggestions as to the underlying processes which seem to be
occurring during writing, for example: “data gathering”, “idea
generation”. These serve as description, focus and goal for the
learner. They also offer him greater flexibility in choosing his own
strategies to achieve the purpose of each stage if the “advice” given
above should not prove helpful.
The third element was omitted from the simplified model used for high
school pupils (Standards 6 - 9), as I considered the underlying processes
as being too abstract for adolescent learners. This assumption was not
tested out in any way, and in fact in the verbal explanation to younger
learners the underlying processes were mentioned, as I found it
impossible to describe the process adequately without mentioning
them.
- 34 4.3.1 Difficulties in delineating stages
It was extremely difficult to decide where to show the process in the
model as starting, where to show it as ending, and where to draw the
line between stages. At one stage I included “motivation” as a stage,
but later decided that this element belongs to the social context in
which the writing occurs, and I saw my brief as requiring me to focus on
the process itself, rather than on its social context. Initially my model
had four stages, and stopped at the “minor editing” or proofreading
stage, but during student conferences I added a further stage,
evaluation. The reason for this was that all students evinced the need
for an evaluative response from me, and I realized that they would not
become independent adult authors until they learned to internalize and
perform the evaluative function for themselves. In retrospect, I could
also find evidence for this stage in the readings, namely, “I...judge it”
(see 3.5.3 above).
Deciding on the divisions between the various stages was the most
difficult part of formulating the model. Whereas Cooper and Odell
(1977) specify “composing” and “editing” as two stages, I separated
them further into three stages: draft writing (composing), major editing
(structuring) and minor editing (proofreading), as I saw Widdowson’s
element of “accommodating the reader” as distinct from both the
expression of ideas and proofreading: a different focus is involved,
structuring, as opposed to creating or correcting. I seriously considered
splitting draft writing into two further stages: planning and writing,
influenced no doubt by my “product” schooling which insisted that
planning comes before writing. However, good writers do not always
plan consciously: an accepted strategy is to write impulsively, and then
read back to see what structures emerge. To cater for this variation in
- 35 conscious and unconscious planning, I decided to include everything
which the writer produces as a creative act (i.e. plans, drawings,
fragments, etc.) in the stage called “draft writing”.
4.3.2 A Five stage model
In view of the above considerations, the completed model depicts the
process of writing as an occurrence and recurrence of five distinct
stages: Prewriting, Draft writing, Major editing, Minor editing and
Evaluation. Each stage can be seen to perform a necessary function in
the actual process of writing, and each stage has a distinct focus,
different from that of other stages. The model was explained to the
students with the help of the diagram shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Diagram of the user’s model
STAGES OF THE WRITING PROCESS
1
2
Prewriting
-
Draft writing -
--->
|
|
|
|
<---
3
4
5
Major editing -
Minor editing and polishing
Evaluation
-
Consider purpose and reader
gather data, let it mull round.
- DATA GATHERING
Suggest structures or outlines,
jot down ideas or fragments,
write larger pieces.
- IDEA GENERATION
Reread and structure for reader,
order, add, delete (go back to 2
if necessary).
- IDEA ORGANIZATION/ STRUCTURING
Check for correctness, check
format and minor editing
conventions.
- EDITING
Assessment (by writer and
others) in terms of purpose.
- EVALUATING
R
E
C
U
R
S
I
V
E
V
- 36 The model as it appears in the diagram is based on what the literature in
the survey suggests about the behaviour of good writers, working under
reasonable time constraints.
4.3.3 Components of the stages explained
As stated above, each stage has three components: identification of the
stage, advice to the writer, and identification of the underlying
processes thought to be occurring. These components will be explained
as they occur in each stage:
a Prewriting
This stage is named for its temporal place in the sequence rather than
for its activities, as the activities involved are so diverse as to defy neat
classification. The advice to the writer is vague enough to encompass all
kinds of data collection: from five seconds’ thought to get in touch with
a personal memory, to five years of research in a scientific field. Yet it is
specific enough to focus the writer on how to go about “gathering data”,
the underlying process, goal and focus of stage 1. The recursive factor is
explained thus: if sufficient data has not been gathered, or if it has not
been understood, or if the purpose or audience has been
misinterpreted, the writer will have to return to this stage.
b Draft writing
Draft writing is so named for the tendency of a good writer in the early
stages of writing to produce copious rough drafts, the “expressive
writing” or “raw materials” from which the finished piece is to be
crafted. However the drafts differ significantly from any notes the
writer may have produced in stage 1, in that they are completely new
- 37 creations, arising from a synthesis of the data collected above: “ideas
generally seem to be spawned in data” (Shaughnessy 1977:245). Earlier
drafts tend to be heavily ideational, whereas later drafts include
“enabling” features, prompted by considering the reader’s needs. I
include plans and diagrams in this stage as being hypothetical imaginary
constructs, “creations” of the writer. The advice - “suggest structures”,
“jot down ideas” - is geared towards engaging the writer immediately in
the creative act, to focus him on getting ideas down without worrying
about how it comes across. The underlying process is identified as “Idea
generation”, to focus the writer on the production of ideas. How the
writer achieves this focus is too highly individual to be included in the
model, yet the purpose of this stage is easily recognized by the learner:
to produce ideas, realized in text. The recursive factor is easily
explained by the writer’s need to return to this stage again and again
until the content of his piece (both ideational and enabling) is complete.
The arrows are meant to show the learner that the recursive factor is
heightened between stages 2 and 3.
c Major editing
Students are familiar with the concept of “editing”, from their
knowledge of the film and video industry, if not from journalism. The
term “major editing” is used to alert the students to the possibility of a
large-scale restructuring and re-ordering to make the content of their
first drafts more accessible to the reader. The instructions focus the
writer on editing activities: rereading, structuring for the reader;
ordering, adding, deleting text. The instructions also point the writer
back in the direction of stage 2 to supply further reader-accommodating
text. The underlying process is identified as Idea Organization or
Structuring, to focus the writer on the communication of ideas by
- 38 effective structuring. The recursive factor is prompted by the writer’s
dissatisfaction with the mismatch between what he means to say and
what the reader perceives him to say, and will draw him back to this
stage time and time again until the piece is reworked to his (and/or his
reader’s) satisfaction.
d Minor editing and polishing
The term “Minor editing” suggests the minor details which have to be
checked before the finished piece can be submitted. “Polishing”
suggests that it is a matter of pride in his finished artifact which prompts
the student to pay close attention to detail, not an obsession with
correctness as an end in itself. The advice focuses on “checking” rather
than correcting, as correcting is seen as a teacher function. The
underlying process here is seen as readying the text for submission or
publication, or “editing” (“proofreading” is too limited in scope), and the
focus is on the text itself rather than ideas or audience. The recursive
factor is caused by the writer’s dissatisfaction with surface details of his
finished product, which often crystallizes only after he has read the
edited and polished version. Every time the writer reworks his piece,
new errors are generated in his text, and the writer must return to this
stage as often as he redrafts to check the final effect.
e Evaluation
The inclusion of “Evaluation” in the stages makes it clear that it is an
important writer function, and not just the prerogative of the teacher.
The allocation of the evaluative function to the writer means that he is
made aware that he is in control of the process: he is under no
obligation to submit a substandard piece of writing. Obviously the more
inexperienced the writer is the more he may rely on reader feedback in
- 39 his assessment. The advice given in the model offers him a criterion for
assessment: whether his writing has achieved its purpose. The
underlying process has become explicit in the last stage: evaluation is
the most conscious of all the stages. The recursive factor occurs if the
writer finds his piece wanting: he is then drawn back to the previous
stages, even back to stage 1, time and time again until he is satisfied
that the piece has achieved its purpose and is ready for presentation.
4.4 AN “ALL-PURPOSE” MODEL
As the model was formulated with the teaching of academic expository
prose in mind, it is quite possible that there is a mismatch between the
description of writing offered by the model, and the process as it is seen
to operate in other genres of writing. This remains to be tested in
further studies. However, the model was formulated to accommodate
all kinds of original composition, so that the students could see that it
had a general use above and beyond its application to academic writing.
Thus the model was constructed to allow for flexibility not only of writer
behaviour, but also of genre. Although quite different profiles of writing
behaviour might emerge according to genre, they could still be
contained within the model’s basic framework.
4.5 THE MODEL DESCRIBES TARGET BEHAVIOUR
As the function of the model is pedagogical, it describes target
behaviour for the user, and not his present behaviour, unless his
behaviour already matches that of good writers. The target behaviour
offered in the model is that of competent young adult/adult writers, as
shown by the behaviour described in the observations of teachers and
researchers above. However, no attempt has been made to include the
- 40 formulae or short cuts which may be used by professional adult writers
as described by Daiute (1983:139). The model is not intended to include
strategies which are highly idiosyncratic, but to give the learner writer a
tentative basis for forming his own personal strategies or formulae.
As young learners may have a different view of the writing process (see
2.4), the “adult” model may have less and less relevance as the target
group becomes younger. With this in mind, the model was simplified
later for younger learners, but my research findings suggest that
younger learners have a partial view of the process, rather than a
simplified one (see 8.4.1). This means that the model still has relevance
for the teacher, in showing learner target behaviour to work towards,
but the model probably becomes inaccessible to the very young learner.
This assumption needs to be tested out in further studies.
4.6 THE MODEL EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF WIDDOWSON’S
REQUIREMENTS
The model formulated conforms to Widdowson’s description of a
“user’s model in the following respects:
- It is an idealized conceptual framework of some aspect of language
use, relating to the language user’s perspective and experience. It is
not intended to be a description of reality, but a “partial”
representation “of reality which can facilitate our understanding of
it” (Widdowson 1984:5).
- It is formulated to take into account the creative as well as the
logical perceptions and behaviour of the language user.
- It has some of the features of a description, yet it also serves as a
basis for teaching practice.
- 41 - Both the description and its relevance are accessible to the teacher
(Widdowson 1984:2).
- The “user’s model” was formulated with a specific target group in
mind, and had as its starting point a specific teaching need. (cf
Widdowson: “the starting point is the need and purpose that the
model of language must provide for.” 1984:27)
- It is learner based, by virtue of the following features:
(1) The user’s age is taken into consideration.
(2) The model allows for a variety of intra-cultural behaviour,
including:
(i)
variety of genre, and
(ii)
variety of personality type (in that it is infinitely adaptable
to individual behaviour)
(3) It is formulated in terms which make it directly accessible to the
learner, although obviously some teacher explanation is needed.
However, no attempt has been made to take inter-cultural differences
into consideration, as the model was used within the context of a
Western academic tradition of education. It would be interesting to test
out the model on learners of different culture groups in their mother
tongue, also on ESL learners.
4.7 KEY FEATURES OF THE WRITING PROCESS INCORPORATED IN THE
MODEL
The “key features” of the writing process enumerated above (3.6) were
incorporated in the model as far as possible, as shown below:
- 42 4.7.1 Writing as an atypical form of discourse
While the model focuses the writer towards an intended audience, and
shows the need to accommodate the reader at certain stages, it is
framed in terms of the writer’s perception of writing as something he
does on his own, i.e. an atypical form of discourse. This highlights the
need for the writer to face the problems caused by the reader being at
one remove, and thus focuses the writer on anticipating the reader’s
needs, and directs him towards taking part in the “interaction by proxy”
as described by Widdowson.
4.7.2 The role of internal dialogue
There was no way of reflecting the process of internal dialogue in the
actual model without making it unwieldy, therefore a separate model of
“writer dialogues” and their function was formulated to complement
the model of the writing process (see Appendix A). The simplified form
of the model, however, does have some of its advice phrased as
questions, with the idea of setting up internal dialogues as the learner
goes about answering these questions. (See the simplified version of
the model in 5.5.) A major consideration in not including an internal
dialogue component in the model was the fact that the model was to be
used in the process-conference approach (described in Appendix A), in
which the teacher supplies the missing dialogue between writer and
reader, and thus herself “models” the internal dialogues the writer must
learn.
4.7.3 Writing as a form of thinking
This is emphasized in that the underlying process in draft writing is
identified as “idea generation”; i.e. the primary function of articulation
of ideas in text is shown as producing ideas, rather than as merely
converting them into linguistic signs. This is a deliberate over-
- 43 simplification of the issue, as at least some of the text produced will
contain ideas already familiar to the writer. However, the emphasis at
this stage is on the emergence of data from conceptual long term
memory, verbatim, or synthesized into new forms, and it is on “ideacreating” that the emphasis lies. Whether the ideas are entirely new or
already thought through is irrelevant, as both are important to the
writing process.
4.7.4 Creative and logical aspects of writing
In the draft writing stage the focus is shown as being primarily creative
(idea generation), whereas in the major editing and minor editing, the
focus is show to be primarily logical (idea structuring, correcting). The
shuttling backwards and forwards between stages 2 and 3, which
further generates both ideational and “enabling” text (3.4.1),
demonstrates to the learner that the composing act is a subtle interplay
between the creative and logical faculties of his mind, what Britton
speculatively calls “right brain and left brain in intimate collaboration”
(1981:16). Thus the description which informs the suggested target
behaviours takes account of both creative and logical functions. The
advice offered to the learner also takes account of both creative and
logical functions: “suggest” and “jot down” describe unconscious,
expressive acts, whereas “structure” and “order” describe conscious,
logical, reflective acts.
4.7.5 Acceptability of “messiness” of writing
The fact that the learner is instructed in the model to focus on one stage
at a time, i.e. draft first, revise later, means that the writer is
encouraged to redraft time and time again, and thus to see the
“messiness” as a perfectly acceptable feature of writing. However, an
- 44 appropriately enthusiastic teacher response to the “messy” first drafts is
crucial in reinforcing this habit. (See “conferencing” in Appendix A.)
4.7.6 The recursive factor in the stages of the process
The model consists of stages, but a recursive factor is built in, so that at
any stage of writing (after stage 2) the writer can return to any other
stage any number of times. However, as structuring for the reader
almost inevitably necessitates the generation of further text, one would
expect heightened recursiveness between stages 2 and 3, and this is
highlighted in the model so that the learner sees this oscillation as
purposeful and productive, rather than indecisive.
4.7.7 Stages previously identified
The stages already identified in the readings (see 3.5.3), Prewriting,
Composing, Editing and Judging, and the two elements mentioned by
Widdowson, “accommodating the reader” and “conforming to linguistic
norms”, have all been incorporated into the model.
4.7.8 The focusing on one stage at a time
The model facilitates focusing on one stage at a time by separating the
areas of focus explicitly for the learner. The learner is not only told what
to focus on at each stage of the process, but also how to achieve this
focus in terms of specific behaviour. Again, this is an idealization: in
reality the divisions between the stages are obviously not always so
clear cut in real writing situations.
- 45 4.8 THE MODEL AND REALITY
It must be emphasized that neither the model nor the diagram in which
it is set forth is meant as an actual literal description of the writing
process as it occurs in reality. Although the model does contain many
descriptive features, it is an abstraction and idealization of selected
features of the writing process. This abstraction was formulated to help
learners to understand the nature of the actual process and to give
them concrete advice as to how to go about the process, step by step.
In a sense, it is an attempt to provide them with a mental “schema” of
the process of writing; the readings suggest that good writers already
possess these “schemata”, but that poor writers do not. It would be
interesting to test out to what extent the “schema” described by the
model resembles the schemata of competent writers, but that lies
outside of the scope of this study.
Although it is an abstraction, the model is highly practical in its
application. As it focuses on certain key aspects of the process it
provides a useful perspective for analysing behavioural data, as will be
seen from its application in the case studies below (Chapter Seven). It
also provides the teacher with a useful tool for diagnosing and rectifying
specific writing problems.
- 46 CHAPTER FIVE
THE RESEARCH QUESTION AND THE CASE STUDIES WHICH WERE
DESIGNED TO TEST IT OUT
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The use of the model in university and matriculation level teaching
situations suggested the need for further research into the effects of
communicating the user’s model directly to the learner. This was
formulated as a research question, and case studies involving school
pupils were set up to investigate the question. Also the model was
simplified to make it accessible to younger learners. In this chapter a
brief account is given of the case studies, and how data was collected
and analysed.
5.2
WHAT TEACHING WITH THE MODEL SUGGESTED ABOUT ITS
USEFULNESS
The use of the model described in Chapter Four in the teaching situation
for which it was originally designed, i.e. conferencing with university
students to assist academic essay writing, indicated that the model was
accessible and useful to students, and facilitated the teacher’s task of
responding appropriately to student writing. I subsequently used same
model in conferencing sessions with matriculation students who wished
to improve their subject essays (including English composition).
Coaching matriculation pupils using a conferencing approach showed
that the model could be useful in diagnosing and tackling specific writing
problems in the area of academic subject writing at high school.
Although data was collected in both instances, there were too many
variables in the teaching situation to come to any specific conclusions
about the effect the model had on the learner.
- 47 5.3 THE NEED FOR THE EXPERIMENTAL CASE STUDIES
The sessions described above were not controlled, nor were they
backed up by any specific data to show the effects of communicating the
model to the students directly. As the model had been used in a
conferencing situation, it was not possible to gauge to what extent the
collaborative atmosphere of the conference approach in working with
learners, rather than communicating the model, had contributed to
improvements in the learners’ performance and attitude. In order to
focus more specifically on the effect the model had on the learner, six
experimental case studies were set up. The specific purpose of the case
studies was to test out the effects (if any) of communicating the model
directly to the learner, with respect to the learner’s concept of writing,
her writing behaviour, and the actual texts themselves.
5.4 RESEARCH QUESTION
The research question was formulated as follows:
If the stages of the writing process are explained, using a simplified
version of the user’s model, to secondary school learners in a laboratory
situation, what changes (if any) will occur in:
1. the learner’s awareness of the process of writing;
2. the actual texts produced by the learner;
3. the learner’s behaviour when going about writing?
The question was made as general as possible, as the case studies were
meant to be exploratory rather than conclusive. However, the key issue
was to test out whether, after the process was explained by means of
the model,
- 48 1. the learner showed evidence of being more aware of the process of
writing, specifically, of the process as described by the model;
2. the texts showed more features of the texts of good writers than
those produced before;
3. the learner’s behaviour corresponded more closely to that of good
writers, as described in the readings.
Even if no changes were found, this could also be significant, as the
subjects chosen might already show evidence of having “good” writing
habits, or the model might prove to be unhelpful below a certain
conceptual level, i.e. to very young learners. However, if no changes
were seen to occur, it could mean that the model was not helpful at all.
5.5 THE USER’S MODEL SIMPLIFIED
The user’s model was simplified so as to be readily accessible to
secondary school pupils. Although Std 10 pupils had responded well to
the original model in coaching sessions (see Appendix B), I felt that
pupils from Stds 6 - 9 might not be able to cope with the language or the
level of abstraction. The simplified user’s model is shown below in
Figure 2.
5.6 CHANGES TO THE MODEL EXPLAINED
The new model is more concrete, is couched in more accessible
language, and, although it still acts as a “description” of the stages of the
writing process, the “advice” component is predominant. For example,
the underlying processes, as far as possible, have been absorbed into
the names for each stage, and are now expressed as helpful injunctions:
“COLLECT YOUR THOUGHTS”, “CREATE”, etc. Although the simplified
model loses some of the depth of the original, it provides a clear focus
- 49 for the learner at each stage of writing. The recursive factor was
explained verbally: “You start with step 1, go on to step 2, and from then
on you can go back to any stage any number of times until you are
finished.” The arrows were left in between stages 2 and 3 to encourage
drafting and redrafting. The mnemonic device of starting the names for
each stage with “C” was used to help the learner remember the stages
more easily, and to introduce an element of fun, so that the model
would appeal to a younger learner. The “Stages of the Writing Process”
was changed to “Steps to Good Writing”, to suggest to the learner that
he would achieve good writing habits if he followed the procedures
suggested.
Figure 2: Simplified version of the user’s model
STEPS TO GOOD WRITING
1
COLLECT YOUR
THOUGHTS
-
WHY are you writing?
WHO is it for?
WHAT do you need to know?
2
CREATE
-
Make a plan, jot down ideas,
write larger pieces,
get it all down.
3
CHOP ’N CHANGE -
Re-read it - does it come across
to the reader ? Explain, add
bits, cross out (go back to
stage 2 if necessary.
4
CHECK
Check for correctness (spelling,
grammar, style), check layout,
neatness. Rewrite if necessary.
5
CRITICIZE
--->
|
|
|
|
<---
-
-
Is it okay ? Does it do what it
was supposed to do? (see WHY? &
WHO? in 1.)
- 50 5.7 HOW THE SUBJECTS FOR THE CASE STUDIES WERE SELECTED
I asked for pupil volunteers from the girls’ high school at which I taught
(I was on study leave at the time). There was such an overwhelming
response from the first class I asked, that to save time I asked members
of the English Dept to recommend girls (two from each standard, from
the “upper” and “lower” classes, on the basis of reliability (not writing or
academic talent). I settled on six potential subjects, none personally
known to me: two pupils from Std 8 and 9, and one pupil each from Std
6 and 7, after discussing their likely availability (in terms of work
pressure) with the English staff. The English staff also helped me rule
out any pupils who might be suffering from severe psychological stress
on the basis that they would make unsuitable subjects for predictions of
behaviour, and also because the video sessions might subject them to
undue strain.
I then approached these girls with the request that they help me with
my research on writing. I said that they would be writing some samples
for me, having discussions about writing, and that at some stage they
would be filmed on video whilst writing. I emphasized the video aspect
as an inducement, also to discourage any extremely shy candidates.
5.8 A DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE STUDIES
An overview of the case studies is given below.
5.8.1 Conditions under which the case studies took place
In all sessions the subjects were interviewed and tested individually, to
avoid any group norms being set up which might skew individual
performance. Yet the sessions were kept as informal as possible. That
the volunteers were not unduly stressed by being isolated and by the
- 51 experimental nature of the activity is borne out by their (unprompted)
comments: one subject said that she had become so absorbed in her
writing that she had forgotten she was being videod, while another
subject said that she had actually enjoyed writing during the sessions
because they were “more relaxed” than school and “not under time
pressure”. The subjects all entered into the spirit of the experiment and
cooperated readily. The fact that they had been selected appeared to
make them feel “special”, even thought I made it clear to them that they
were a random selection, based on reliability rather than writing skill.
5.8.2 What the subjects were told about the procedure
In the first interview I explained to them that I was investigating writing
in order to find out how to teach it more effectively, and that I would be
discussing writing with them, asking them to write some samples for
me, and videoing them while writing. I stressed the point that there
were no “right answers”, and that they would help me best by behaving
in whatever way they felt they wanted to, and by saying what they really
thought, not trying to anticipate any imagined “right answers” - in fact
there were no “right answers”.
5.8.3 How data was collected from subjects
The experiment was broken down into seven individual sessions with
each subject, with a follow-up session two months later. The procedure
was standardized as far as possible with all subjects. The seven sessions
were designed to take place over a two week period, and the actual
time taken ranged from thirteen days to twenty-one days. During these
sessions the subjects were interviewed, wrote samples, and were videod
while writing. I then explained the user’s model to them, and
- 52 repeated the whole process. The basic aim was: first, to establish the
subjects’ concept of writing, obtain sample texts, and draw up a writing
profile, next, to expose them to the user’s model, and finally to repeat
the initial procedure to see what changes (if any) had occurred in all
three areas. Obviously changes could be attributed to other factors
than the model, for example, the video sessions, and the practice effect
of repeating the tasks. However, the case studies were intended to be
exploratory rather than conclusive.
Each subject followed a timetable similar to the one below:
TIMETABLE
Questions were asked and samples were taken before the user’s model
had been explained:
WED
Aug 27
Session 1: The preliminary interview took place in
which the subject’s concept of writing was elicited by
questioning.
FRI
Aug 29
Session 2: Two samples of writing were produced by
the subject.
MON Sep 1
Session 3: A third sample was produced, during which
the subject’s writing behaviour was recorded on
video, and the subject helped me to reconstruct her
writing procedure with the help of the video playback.
The user’s model was explained to the subject:
WED
Sep 3
Session 4: The user’s model was explained to the
subject, with the help of the “Steps to Good Writing”
diagram.
Questions were asked and samples were taken after the user’s model
had been explained:
- 53 -
FRI
Sep 5
Session 5: Two more samples of writing were
produced by the subject.
TUE
Sep 9
Session 6: A third sample was produced, the
subject’s writing behaviour was recorded on video,
and the subject helped me to reconstruct her writing
procedure with the help of the video playback. The
subject was asked if she was aware of any changes in
her writing behaviour.
TUE
Sep 16
Session 7: The final interview took place, in which
the subject’s concept of writing was elicited by
questioning.
MON
Nov 24
Follow-up interview: After two months a follow-up
interview was held, in which the subject was asked to
comment on any long-term effects of taking part in
the above procedures.
Thus the sessions provided a “before” and “after” sampling of data, with
the sessions duplicated after the intervention of explaining the model.
The subject’s concept of writing was elicited right at the beginning to
ensure that her initial reaction would not be influenced by any of my
procedures, and, finally, right at the end of the sessions to ensure
optimum assimilation of the user’s model, and with the chance to test it
out in further writing sessions.
The follow-up interview was included to investigate any long-term
effects on the subjects “real” academic (and other) writing behaviour,
which might prove to be different from the results obtained under the
laboratory conditions of the seven sessions. The follow-up interview
also provided both researcher and subject with a chance to discuss in
detail any of the results of the experiment in retrospect. This was
valuable as I had not been able to discuss the purpose of the case
- 54 studies openly with subjects during the actual sessions, as it would have
influenced their responses and behaviour. In the follow-up interview I
was able to question them about the reasons for any changes in much
more detail. As my intervention using the model had been a direct
attempt to influence their concept of how writing occurred, I wished to
record any comments indicating that their conscious perception of
writing had changed.
5.8.4 Other questions included in the sessions
Other questions were included in the sessions, some to set the subjects
at ease, some to provide distractors, and others to gather useful
supplementary information about the subjects as writers. Subjects were
also encouraged to provide comments on the authenticity of their
behaviour, and to explain whether there were any external factors
influencing their performance, so that if they felt they had had a “bad
day”, or their writing was not up to par, this would be known to the
researcher. All interviews were recorded, with the participants’
knowledge: this does not appear to have affected their spontaneity in
any way.
5.9 THE DATA WHICH WAS GATHERED
The subjects provided data in three areas before and after the
intervention: conceptual, textual and procedural. This data was
gathered to provide an answer to the research question, i.e. what
changes (if any) would occur in the learner’s awareness of the process of
writing, the actual texts produced by the learner, and the learner’s
behaviour when going about writing.
Further data was provided by the subjects’ comments, both
spontaneous and elicited, at various stages of the procedure. Some of
- 55 these comments provided indications as to whether the data itself
reflected typical or atypical behaviour, and were useful in indicating
reasons for the changes in the conceptual, textual and procedural areas.
5.10 ANALYSIS OF DATA GATHERED TO ANSWER RESEARCH QUESTION
5.10.1 Analysis of interviews
Transcripts were made of the interviews with the subjects before and
after the intervention. These were compared to see whether the
concept had changed or gained depth. In some cases the subjects had
made comments elsewhere which showed significant changes in their
perception of how writing occurred. This data was taken into
consideration, as well as the answers following on to my question. I felt
that the question had been too vague to elicit any specific information
on how the subjects saw writing occurring, and therefore in the followup interview I asked the subjects specifically if there had been any
change in their perception of the way writing occurred. There was a
close correlation between perception of change and actual change in
texts and behaviour, therefore the data about the subjects’ concept of
writing obtained in the follow-up session was also taken into
consideration in forming conclusions.
5.10.2 Analysis of samples written for researcher
All three samples, including the one written before video camera, were
analysed. As mentioned before, the samples written without the video
not only provided a wider sampling of texts, but also acted as a
“control” on the video texts, in case they should prove to be atypical
samples of the subjects’ writing performance (i.e. different because of
the video situation).
- 56 The following features of the texts were noted and recorded
systematically in a detailed report:
- Completion times for each piece.
- Physical characteristics of the actual text. The texts were first
examined and compared visually to highlight any differences, then a
detailed report was made of the physical characteristics of each text.
This included number of drafts, writing materials, characteristics of
layout (e.g. margins, headings, paragraphing), different styles of
handwriting, and any characters or drawings which accompanied the
text.
- Changes in drafts, including erasures, deletions, insertions, arrows to
connect sections of text, brackets and other evidence of changes to
the texts. Changes from rough drafts to neat were also noted, and
the apparent nature of these changes, i.e. spelling correction,
rephrasal, etc.
- Spelling and other errors, but in the final drafts only. (In one case I
did analyse spelling errors in the rough and final draft as it offered
interesting evidence on the subject’s capacity to edit her own work.)
- A subjective evaluation by me as to whether the piece fulfilled its
purpose as expressed in the instruction. This was not intended to
measure progress in any way, but to provide a perspective on their
own evaluation of their texts.
The texts produced before the intervention were then compared with
the texts produced after the intervention, including the video sample, to
see whether there were any changes in the texts after the intervention
- 57 which signalled the acquisition of “good” writing habits as described by
Shaughnessy, Raimes and Daiute above. These are summarised as
follows:
Good writing habits might be signalled in the texts by:
- More than one draft, and changes in later drafts - this would indicate
redrafting to accommodate the reader and to eliminate errors.
- Messiness in the early drafts - this would suggest a preoccupation
with ideas rather than correctness in the early stages. This
“messiness” could take many forms, including evidence of crossing
out or alteration, a scrawled handwriting, evidence of doodles or
diagrams, or the use of pencil instead of pen or ballpoint.
- Evidence of rephrasals for the reader - this would suggest an
awareness of the need to rework for the reader.
- Evidence of correction of errors (but with the emphasis on producing
a correct final draft rather than correct rough drafts).
Poor writing habits might be signalled in the texts by:
- No evidence of attempts to rework or redraft.
- Emphasis on neatness in the first draft.
- Much correction of surface errors in the rough drafts, rather than
signs of redrafting for the reader.
The above, and any other significant features in the subjects’ text
samples were examined and compared in the before and after samples,
and any significant changes noted. A detailed written report of all
findings was compiled.
- 58 5.10.3 Construction of writing profiles from data recorded on video
tapes, checklists, audio tapes and samples
At first I attempted to construct profiles by means of checklists, i.e. form
a profile in stages in collaboration with the subjects based on activities
ticked off on a list as we watched the playback of the video recordings.
This was not successful, as I found that a holistic view of all the data
available was necessary to draw up accurate writing profiles. The fact
that a subject was pausing or making marks in the text had little
significance in itself. It took on significance when seen against the
background of what she was actually seen to be doing at the time, or
what she said about her writing process at that point when viewing the
video tape. What the subject could be seen to be doing, what she said
she was doing, coupled with the evidence of what she had done in the
samples of text proved to be much more informative than any lists of
activities.
I reviewed all the data gathered: on the video tapes, on the audio tapes,
and in the texts, and wrote a detailed description, minute by minute,
line by line, of each subject’s writing procedure in the two sessions. I
then constructed graphs relating the subjects’ writing procedure per
minute to the various stages of the writing process as described in the
user’s model, as shown in Figure 3 below. I hoped that this would
provide valuable insight into each subject’s behaviour, and provide a
focus for comparison with the writing procedure recorded after the
intervention.
It must be emphasized that the graphs do not show a numerical count of
activities, but visually represent the stage of the writing process in which
the subject is engaged at each point in time during the writing of the
sample. The profiles are based on an analysis of data provided by the
- 59 subjects writing during the video session. This data comprised the
subject’s behaviour as recorded on video tape, her comments
immediately afterwards about her writing behaviour as recorded on
audio-tape, and features of the actual texts produced under these
conditions. The data indicated that the subject was focusing on certain
stages of writing at certain points of time during the writing of the
sample. This analysis is presented in graph form as it facilitates
comparison of writing behaviour before and after the explanation of the
user’s model.
Figure 3: Example of graph showing writing profile
NAME: JANEEN
SESSION: 1
1
M
I
N
U
T
E
S
S T A G E S
2 3 4 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
KEY TO STAGES:
1 Prewriting, 2 Draft writing, 3 Major editing, 4 Minor editing, 5 Evaluation
5.11 ANALYSIS OF PERIPHERAL DATA
Transcripts were made of the relevant excerpts from the audio tapes,
and this information was collated in note form. As the sessions
- 60 proceeded, other comments were recorded which did not fall into the
specific areas of focus, yet which threw light on the subjects’ writing
behaviour, or on the writing process in general. Transcripts or
summaries were made of relevant excerpts from the audio tapes. This
gathering of peripheral data was deliberate, as I felt that the wider the
base of the data gathered, the more likely it would be that meaningful
patterns of behaviour would emerge.
- 61 CHAPTER SIX
A DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE CASE STUDIES
6.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter an in-depth look at the procedure for each session is
given, followed by the rationale for procedures used.
6.2 PRELIMINARY INTERVIEW WITH SUBJECTS
Interviews were audio-taped. I drew the subjects’ attention to the fact
that I was taping the interviews because it allowed me to discuss things
more easily without stopping to make notes all the time. In order to
encourage spontaneous conversation I spoke as naturally and casually
as possible myself. Before we started, I emphasized the fact that they
would help me most by saying what they really thought, rather than
anticipating some expected “right answer” - I said that there were no
“right answers” in my research, as I was trying to find out as much as
possible about writing. This applied also to anything they did for me. I
told them that there would be seven sessions in all, including a video
session, and that I would like to hold a follow-up session after a few
months. We then discussed suitable times for the sessions: this allowed
the subjects time to relax into the situation without being immediately
faced with a number of questions.
The questions followed this pattern:
I said that there were a number of things I wanted to ask them about
writing. Firstly, I wanted to know both how they themselves and how
the school rated them as writers. I asked them to note any strong or
weak points they were aware of. I let the discussion develop if they
showed a tendency to elaborate. I then asked them about their attitude
- 62 to writing: whether in fact they liked to write. The final question was
meant to elicit their concept of writing. The question was phrased in as
open-ended a manner as possible so as to avoid prompting a particular
response:
“Writing means different things to different people. I want to get
some idea of how YOU see writing: What IS writing? (If she
hesitated:) What do you think of when you think of writing?”
I made every effort to extend their response by asking general questions
such as: “Could you tell me more about that?” If what they said was not
clear, I asked them to explain further.
6.3 FIRST WRITING TASK
In the next session, two samples were written one after the other by
subjects in individual sessions under my supervision. The purpose of
this was two-fold: to provide a selection of written texts for comparison
before and after the user’s model was explained, and to act as a check
on the writing behaviour and texts subsequently produced in front of
the video camera, in case the presence of the video camera caused
atypical composing behaviour. The subjects wrote on their own to
prevent them from being influenced by each other’s behaviour,
especially by differences in completion times. The atmosphere was kept
as informal as possible, and questions were allowed, although I did not
encourage them to break their concentration, or engage in discussions
about their texts. I made a point of not watching them closely, and
went about my own notes in a relaxed way. The samples comprised a
book review and a letter to the press: I felt it unwise to depart too far
from the type of “school exercises” they were used to, but made the
topics more open than the usual school exercises, and made a point of
specifying an audience. The topics were made open so that the
- 63 subjects’ writing behaviour would not be influenced by lack of
information about or lack of response to a specific topic, and an
audience was specified to give the subjects some motivation for
reworking their pieces, and thus the opportunity to show what they
already might know about the various stages of the writing process. The
instructions were typed out as follows:
Book review
I find that pupils are more interested in reading books which other
pupils have read and enjoyed, so I collect book reviews written by
pupils and keep them in a folder for my classes to browse through
when they are choosing books. I would like you to choose a book
which you have read and enjoyed, and write a short review (not
longer than one page) to be included in my folder.
Letter to the press
When I read the newspaper I am amazed at what sensible ideas some
people have in their letters, and how crazy and short-sighted other
people appear to be. I want you to think about something you feel
strongly about, and write a letter to the Daily News. The best letter,
no matter what standard it comes from, will be sent to the Daily News
for publication. Length should not be over a page - editors often cut
long letters short.
I kept a record of starting and finishing times. The notion of time was
kept vague - if they asked about time limits, I said that they could take
as long as they liked. Obviously there were certain limits, though,
dictated by the amount of time available, a maximum of one hour and
twenty minutes. However, after the first two subjects had provided
samples, I realized that a page took longer to complete than I had
imagined, and there was little time left for the option of revision or
- 64 editing, so the other four subjects were limited to half-a-page for each
sample. The other option would have been to cut down on the number
of samples. This was undesirable, as there were comparatively few
samples already.
6.4 SECOND WRITING TASK
A third sample was written, with the whole procedure being recorded
on video, so that I could reconstruct the subject’s writing procedure by
discussing the playback with her immediately afterwards.
The
discussion afterwards was taped to collect data about the
reconstruction. The object was to construct a “writing profile” i.e. a
description of characteristic writing behaviour, for each subject.
Originally I had considered using “think-aloud protocol” as described by
Raimes (1985) to construct writing profiles. In Raimes’ study, subjects
were asked to “think aloud” into a tape recorder as they composed.
They were instructed “to voice what they were thinking: to plan aloud,
to say the words as they wrote them, to read aloud, and to make
changes aloud” (Raimes, 1985:234). The results were coded and
analysed to offer insight into the subjects’ composing processes. This
system is very suitable for unobtrusive on-going monitoring in the
classroom situation. Furthermore, Raimes refers to Erickson and
Simon’s conclusions “that when information which is already verbal is
reported audibly, the performance of the task itself is not visibly
affected” (in Raimes, 1985:233).
However, there were two main factors which made verbal protocol
analysis unsuitable in this case: firstly, according to Raimes, her subjects
needed some training in this procedure (“the thinking aloud did not
come to them quickly at first” - Raimes, 1985:234), and I did not have
- 65 access to my volunteers so as to coach them in the “think aloud”
procedure. Secondly, research into the writing process had suggested
that there is a strong non-verbal element to the composing process. If,
as Shaughnessy suggests, ideas are generated from long-term
conceptual memory, verbalizing at all times could either interfere with
the idea-generating process or cause considerable frustration to the
subjects as they groped after the “snapshotlike” inchoate concepts - the
raw materials of writing. Another factor which emerged only after the
study, was the risk that involuntary, automatic activities (such as the
automatic correct feature of the composing stage) could become
focused on by being verbalized, and thus upset the balance of focus.
Referring to Erickson and Simon, Raimes says: “only when the subjects
are asked to report information that they would not normally pay
attention to is the performance of the task changed.” Video replays
subsequently demonstrated that the subjects were not always aware of
what they were doing while they were composing, and there was a
strong possibility that they either would have omitted to mention
involuntary activities, or would have focused on them, thus changing
their nature. Finally, Raimes suggests that “the process of writing in an
L2” may be “startlingly different from writing in our L1” Thus verbalizing
may play a much larger part in the L2 learner’s composing processes,
and may not interfere unduly with these processes.
For these reasons, I decided to use the methodology employed by
Pianko (1979) and Matsuhashi (1979) as described by Candlin (1981).
According to Candlin, they “videotaped their subjects while they write,
without any requirement that they compose aloud. After each session,
they review the tapes with the writers, probing for information
concerning what went on in their heads at crucial points” (Candlin
1981:5). This method seems to offer insight into a fuller spectrum of
- 66 composing behaviour than verbal protocol analysis, as it provides the
subjects with both verbal and non-verbal cues - text and behaviour - to
facilitate recall. I wanted to test out whether the non-verbal aspect of
the video would trigger off recall of the non-verbal elements in writing
which I felt were inaccessible to verbal protocol analysis. This was borne
out later during the video reconstructions, when it became evident that
paralinguistic features, for example ritual beginning moves, choice of
pen or pencil, or characteristic hand movements, were often associated
by the subject with certain cognitive behaviours, and threw considerable
light on the subject’s composing behaviour. The video reconstruction
revealed that one subject regularly twirled her pen hand when thinking
about what to write next, and that another subject’s uncomfortable pen
grip hindered her production of text.
I therefore decided on the video reconstruction method, using a
checklist of behaviours which I considered might throw some light onto
the subjects’ composing habits, particularly with reference to what stage
it suggested they were in at various times. While I played back the tape,
I kept the completed text in front of both the subject and me so that
both of us could make cross references to the text which appeared on
the screen. The subjects were able to reconstruct their composing
behaviour in some detail using this process. There were occasionally
mistakes in correlating times, text and activities, which I discovered later
in synthesizing the profiles, but on the whole the subjects were
remarkably aware of what writing processes had been going on in
relation to what was happening on the playback at given moments. The
visual clues offered by eye and mouth movements, hand gestures, and
body orientation - i.e. head down, sitting back - were very effective in
keying the subjects in to what they had been doing and thinking. Even
- 67 blanks in memory recall were significant, as these could be indicative of
the actual creative act, which is “snapshotlike” and fleeting, hardly
conscious when it happens, and not easily verbalized or recalled.
However the visual aspect of the video seemed to trigger recall of many
of these responses.
The recordings and reconstructions were carried out in a school lecture
theatre equipped with camera, video recorder and television set. In the
first recording I focused the camera on the text, thinking that it would
be relatively easy to reconstruct the subject’s writing procedure from
this. However, if the writer happened to be reading or thinking there
were no visual cues to prompt her memory in the reconstruction, so in
subsequent recordings (except the “after” session for the first subject) I
focused on both text and facial movements from the side. This proved
much more successful. However I would recommend that anyone
attempting to duplicate this procedure use two video cameras, one
focused on the text, and one focused on the writer, with split screen
facilities for playback, so that both text and non-verbal cues are clearly
visible for reconstruction.
6.5 VIDEO RECONSTRUCTION SESSIONS
The procedure for the video sessions was as follows:
I asked the subjects to sit down and write anything, on some foolscap
while I positioned the camera to capture as much of their text and facial
movement as possible. Originally I had intended to watch the screen
(turned away from the writers) while the subject wrote, but I decided to
sit and do other work, rather, to help the subjects forget they were
being focused on. I occasionally got up to adjust the camera if I noticed
the subjects move off the screen or mask their texts. My only
stipulation to the subjects as far as freedom of movement was
- 68 concerned, was that they try to keep the foolscap paper between chalk
guide lines on the desk. Before starting I tried to ensure that the
subjects were sitting and writing in their usual, most comfortable,
position. I urged them to try to be as uninhibited as possible and just
write as if the camera were not there. None of the subjects appeared
unduly bothered or distracted by the camera. I also emphasized that
they were not obliged to write continuously just because the video tape
was running - if they needed to sit for a while thinking, or just doing
nothing, that was quite in order.
When preparations were complete, I switched the video camera on and
started the date/time counter, then handed them the instruction below.
This time, I want you to write a very short piece (not more than a
page) for the School Magazine, entitled ‘My Most Embarrassing
Moment’. Try to make your piece as entertaining as possible, as I’m
going to send the best one in to Mrs W. (school magazine editor) for
publication.
When the subjects had finished, I allowed them a short break while I
rewound the video tape, then played back the recording with the text in
front of subject and interviewer. I had a check list prepared so that I
could tick off various behaviours as the subjects identified what they
were doing on the screen. The checklist had three broad divisions of
behaviour: “pause”, “write” and “change”. The “pause” section was
further subdivided into “pausing” (i.e. without knowing why), “thinking”,
“reading for sense”, “reading to correct” and “reading to evaluate”; the
“write” section into “notes”, “plans” and “fragments”; and the “change”
section into “correct”, “change sense”, “add/insert”, “delete”, “reorder”, “rewrite” and “other”. These divisions were arbitrary, and
geared towards eliciting specific descriptions of behaviour
- 69 from the subjects as they watched themselves composing on video.
The discussion during which we reconstructed writing behaviour from
the video recording was taped. I kept referring to tape times on the
screen so that the tapes could be synchronized with the behaviour being
described on the screen.
I tried to phrase the questions generally, but as the reconstructions
proceeded and the subjects gained more practice with the procedure, it
was sufficient to check behaviour rather than to elicit it from scratch. If
behaviour was not remembered at all from the visual and textual cues, I
let this pass, as it is possible that the creative, non-verbal elements in
the writing process are not easily recoverable. I was interested in
recording evidence of all activities which would signal focus on the
stages described by the model. Even though the model is an analytical
construct, it contains descriptive features, and I thought that it would
provide a useful “template” for the writing profile I was drawing up.
When the reconstruction was complete, I asked if the subject was aware
of any differences in her writing behaviour in this situation, to assess
whether this was a representative sample of her usual writing
procedure.
The purpose of this session was to reconstruct as far as possible the
subjects’ composing behaviour so as to draw up “writing profiles” for
each subject, rather than to obtain exact counts or duration of every
kind of activity.
6.6 EVALUATION OF SAMPLES BY SUBJECTS
Before I explained the process of writing user’s model (but in the same
session), I asked the subjects to evaluate all three samples in terms of
- 70 how good they thought they were as pieces of writing, and to gauge
whether they were fairly typical examples of their work. The purpose of
this evaluation was twofold: to guard against making any judgements
about the texts or subsequent changes in the texts which might be
explained by factors outside of the experiment, and also to gather data
on how capable the subjects were in evaluating their own writing (a
feature of a good writer).
6.7 EXPLANATION OF THE WRITING PROCESS
After asking them to evaluate their own pieces, I said that I was going to
tell them about some of my research into writing, and explained the
process of writing using the “Steps to Good Writing” version. I
explained the process verbally before showing them the actual diagram
“Steps to Good Writing”, as not all learners respond well to diagrams. I
then went over the “Steps to Good Writing” diagram, which serves as a
summary of the process and includes advice on how to write well. The
diagram also introduced a degree of standardization into the
explanation. During my explanation of the user’s model I gave some of
the background to how I had arrived at the stages of the writing process,
and explained how both sides of the brain, the creative and the logical,
needed to collaborate in producing a finished piece of writing. I showed
them how the procedure outlined in “Steps to Good Writing” helped the
writer to focus on the appropriate activity at the appropriate time. I
emphasized that writing under strict time pressure is not a natural
writing situation, and that the advice given in the model would probably
not work well under exam conditions. However, I offered to give them
specific advice on examination writing in the final session. If subjects
showed a tendency to discuss the writing process or ask questions about
the “Steps to Good Writing”, I prolonged the discussion accordingly.
- 71 6.8 THIRD WRITING TASK
These sessions were conducted in exactly the same manner as with the
initial sampling. The subjects were asked to write another book review
and another letter to the press. It was necessary to provide similar
samples to provide some basis for comparison. The problem with
duplicating the tasks was that subjects might learn from their
experiences in the initial samples. (One in fact said that she had.)
However, the purpose of the exercise was not to judge whether the
texts had actually improved, but whether they showed evidence of good
writing habits. The instructions for the new samples were as follows:
Book review
I asked them to review another book. The former rubric was
provided to remind them of the context and audience.
Letter to the press
You were so pleased at getting your letter to the newspapers
published that you have decided to write another one. This time I
want you to think about something that really bugs you, and write
another letter to the Daily News. Again, the best letter, even if it
is from the same person, will be sent to the Daily News for
publication. Length should not be over half a page - remember
editors often cut long letters short.
6.9 FOURTH WRITING TASK
This was repeated exactly as in the first session as far as possible. I gave
them a new topic: “An Expensive Mistake”, and handed them the old
instruction as above. After the session the subjects were asked if they
were aware of any differences in their writing behaviour. In some cases,
differences had already been identified in the reconstruction discussion.
- 72 6.10 SECOND INTERVIEW WITH SUBJECTS
In the final interview, the subjects were asked to evaluate the three
“after” samples. Then they were asked to look at the first three samples
again, and evaluate all six in perspective, giving reasons for their
evaluation. In some cases, subjects commented on having “off days”, or
said that they had not been able to “get into” certain topics as easily as
others - this was recorded to provide additional data in interpreting any
changes in the texts or writing behaviour.
After the evaluation, the subjects were asked the same question (i.e.
What IS writing?) as in the first interview to see whether their concept
of writing had changed in any way. After asking the question, I then
referred to a summarised transcript of their previous answer, and read
this out. If the subject saw any change in her response, I asked her what
she thought had caused the change. I then asked whether there were
any other comments they would like to make about what we had been
doing. At the end of the interview I thanked them for participating, and
said that I would like to have a short interview in a few months’ time to
compare findings and impressions.
6.11 FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW
After two months I held a follow-up interview with each of the subjects.
The purpose was two-fold: firstly, I wished to ask them specifically about
changes (or otherwise) which I had noted in their concept of writing;
secondly, I wished to check there were any ways in which their school
writing performance had changed over the period of two months since
the sessions.
- 73 CHAPTER SEVEN
THE CASE STUDIES - FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter the findings of each case study are described in some
detail, and conclusions are drawn.
7.2 PRESENTATION OF THE CASE STUDIES
The account of each case study will follow the same pattern: first an
overview of the subject’s idea of herself as a writer, next a before and
after comparison of her concept of writing, her text samples, and her
writing behaviour, illustrated graphically by writing profiles. Full
transcripts were made of the relevant passages in the detailed report,
but excerpts quoted have been modified to remove repetitions,
hesitations, and “ums” and “ers”.
7.3 CASE STUDY 1: DEBBIE
Debbie was a Std 6 pupil at the time of the study. She was in the top Std
6 class (Std 6 is streamed academically) and she achieved the highest
aggregate in Std 6 at the end of the year, subsequent to the case study.
She rated herself as an average writer, and felt that the school also
rated her as an average writer: “I get thirteen and fourteen out of
twenty.” However, she said that she obtained higher marks for her
History paragraphs than for her English composition: “twenty-two out of
twenty-five”. She was not aware of any specific good points, but felt
that her performance depended on the topic. As her weak points she
gave untidy handwriting, and said that she sometimes had off days. She
said that she liked to write.
- 74 7.3.1 Debbie’s concept of writing before the model was explained
In the first interview Debbie said that she saw writing as the expression
of feelings: “It expresses what you feel about a certain topic and how
you express it in your own words.” When prompted to explain further,
she said that it helped one to use better English, and added that it
helped to express feelings if you were shy (she said that she was shy).
Her last comment is interesting: “I suppose writing is just exactly the
same as talking but it’s just in written form.”
7.3.2 Debbie’s concept of writing after the model was explained
In the last interview she said: “I’ve come to terms with it now - I’ve
enjoyed it much more, because you can do it in front of video, and you
see how you write, and it’s quite fun - so I’ve actually enjoyed it more
than I had before.” When I asked her how seeing it on the video had
made it more fun, she replied: “It’s just funny - I never expected myself
to write like that.” Further prompting revealed that seeing herself on
video, putting her head down and writing rapidly (which she had not
realized that she did before), had given her a very vivid impression of
her own competence as a writer. When prompted to expand further,
she repeated the idea that writing was the expression of feeling, and the
idea of being able to express oneself in spite of shyness. I asked her if
her idea of writing had changed at all - she said that she did not think it
had. I mentioned that her idea of herself as a writer seemed to have
changed, and she agreed. In the follow-up session, when I asked
whether the sessions had changed her view of how one went about
writing, she said that she felt she had become more aware of writing,
but that she had not changed her own behaviour. This is confirmed by
the writing profile, which shows no change. She said that she had
thought about it afterwards, especially when she had had to write
- 75 essays at school, and that she had gone back to my notes, i.e. “Steps to
Good Writing” and “what happens when a person writes.”
7.3.3 The effect of explaining the model on Debbie’s concept of writing
There is no evidence of any obvious change in Debbie’s concept of
writing, but according to her, the video feedback improved her
confidence in her ability to write.
7.3.4 Characteristics of Debbie’s written texts
Debbie’s samples of writing before and after the intervention comprise
once-off drafts in ballpoint, neatly headed and dated as with
conventional school exercises. There are few alterations in the texts,
and these are made in ballpoint.
7.3.5 The effect of explaining the model on Debbie’s written texts
There are no significant differences in the samples after the
intervention.
7.3.6 Debbie’s writing profile before the model was explained
As shown on the video playback, Debbie thought about her topic for a
while then launched into a once-off draft. There seemed to be very
little consideration for the reader: her main preoccupation seemed to
be “getting it all down” as correctly as possible. She came across as a
confident writer, and wrote clear, correct prose, yet I found her content
rather mundane, which possibly explains her earlier remark about
scoring higher on academic than “creative” essays. She did not rework
her texts after the first draft, which was her final draft. Although she
sometimes altered the meaning of a word to suit what she really
- 76 meant, there were no signs of any attempts to accommodate the
reader. This fits in with her concept of writing as being “transcribed
speech”. She rated as her best piece the “letter to the press” in which
much of the dialoguing with the reader had already been done in an oral
debate - no dialoguing with the reader appeared to occur as she wrote.
7.3.7 Debbie’s writing profile after the model was explained
In the second session there were no noticeable changes. She appeared
to get on with the piece more swiftly, but this is possibly explained by
the fact that the first session was interrupted a number of times. She
also said that she had less difficulty with the topic in the second session.
Figure 4: Graphs showing writing profiles before and after the model
was explained to Debbie
NAME: DEBBIE
SESSON: 1
SESSION: 2
STAGES
1
M
I
N
U
T
E
S
2
3
4
STAGES
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
KEY TO STAGES:
1 Prewriting, 2 Draft writing,
Evaluation
1
M
I
N
U
T
E
S
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
3 Major editing,
4 Minor editing,
5
- 77 7.3.8 What the graphs show about Debbie’s writing profile before and
after the explanation of the model
The graphs do not show any significant change in Debbie’s writing
behaviour. She spends most of her time in stage 2, the “ideagenerating” stage. Corrections actually appear earlier in the second
graph, although she can hardly be said to have a preoccupation with
them.
7.3.9 The effect of explaining the model on Debbie’s writing profile
There was no significant change in Debbie’s writing procedure.
7.3.10 Debbie: overall conclusions on effects of explaining the model
Debbie’s image of herself as a writer seemed to change. In the
beginning she was very self-deprecating about her skill as a writer, even
though she came across as a confident person generally. Watching the
video, according to her, gave her a better image of her own
competence. Actually seeing herself engrossed in the task with her
“head down” and getting on with it made her realize her own
competence. Explaining the user’s model to Debbie did not have any
immediate discernible influence on her concept of writing, her writing
itself as shown by the sample texts, or her procedure when going about
writing. She said in the follow-up interview that she felt her writing had
improved, and that after the sessions with me she had been given 80%
for the first time for a piece of creative writing. This was possibly a
result of her improved self-image, gained from seeing the speed and
fluency of her own “create” stage.
- 78 7.4 CASE STUDY 2: MANDY
Mandy was in Std 7, from an academically weak class. Her self rating as
a writer was low: “I’m not very good.” This seems to have been based
on a very high personal standard of achievement, as she later said that
she did not consider fourteen out of twenty a good mark. She felt that
the school’s rating of her writing was not very good, though she had
never received less than ten out of twenty marks for a composition. She
felt that teachers did not rate her very highly as a writer. When asked
about her good and bad points as a writer, she said: “Sometimes I can
express myself well, other times I just can’t get it out of my head you’ve got it in your mind but you don’t know how to put it down on
paper.” Her attitude to writing depended on the topic: she said that if
the topic did not interest her, she did not do well. She said that she
liked to write “about real-life things” (and read about them, too).
7.4.1 Mandy’s concept of writing before the model was explained
In the first interview Mandy said that writing is a way of expressing
yourself and telling people what you really feel. People who feel
embarrassed about expressing feelings out aloud would be saved
embarrassment because they could just write it down on paper.
7.4.2 Mandy’s concept of writing after the model was explained
After the intervention she said that it is a way of expressing your feelings
and a way to put your point across to people if they cannot understand
what you are trying to say to them, also a way of communication. She
repeated the point about embarrassment. She said that she had been
thinking about it more, and that she was sure that thinking about it had
helped her. In the follow-up interview, she said that the video had
made her more aware of what she was doing, and that the advice had
- 79 been even more helpful in being specific about what she should be
doing when she wrote. She said that she felt that she had expressed
herself better in the examinations, and had got her points across better.
When asked, she could not pin this down to anything specific which we
had done in the sessions.
7.4.3 The effect of explaining the model on Mandy’s concept of writing
Mandy believed that the sessions had helped her, and would help her
friends. Her concept of writing did not appear to have changed, apart
from the fact that she had given it more thought, yet she did appear to
have responded to the specific advice in the model, and said that she
found it helpful to know what she should be doing. She said that she
also found the video playback helpful in showing her what she was
doing.
7.4.4 Characteristics of Mandy’s samples of written texts
Mandy’s texts comprise once-off drafts in ballpoint with no signs of
rough work. She indicates paragraphs by starting a new line. She does
not use letter format before or after the intervention. Her “after”
samples are shorter and took less time because I had shortened the
page length on the instruction after her first samples and had forgotten
to change it back to a page for her.
7.4.5 The effect of explaining the model on Mandy’s written texts
Apart from the length, there are no significant differences between the
“before” and “after” samples.
7.4.6 Mandy’s writing profile before the model was explained
Like Debbie, Mandy wrote one draft, then checked it for correctness and
to see if it would do. There was no redrafting for the reader. I
- 80 commented on the way she gripped her pen - Mandy said that she had
been told that her grasp was “wrong” and had been told how to hold
her pen correctly. She said that she experienced considerable
discomfort in her hand as she wrote.
7.4.7 Mandy’s writing profile after the model was explained
After the intervention Mandy focused less on mistakes: she wrote more
fluidly and more comfortably. There are reasons for this: her different
pen, her liking for the topic. However, she could have brought her
comfortable pen to the first session. In the second session she had not
progressed much beyond stage 2 activities, but her “create” stage production of text - was interrupted far less by correction of surface
errors. The other stages did not feature, apart from rudimentary
corrections. In fact the corrections were probably the automatic type
which feature as part of the “create” stage, as they mostly occurred
spontaneously as she wrote.
7.4.8 What the graphs show about Mandy’s writing profile before and
after the explanation of the model
A focus on stage 4 activities (corrections) appears very early on in the
first graph, yet appears much later on in the second graph, showing that
the focus on correctness has moved from an early stage to a later stage
in the process.
7.4.9 The effect of explaining the model on Mandy’s writing profile
Mandy focused on corrections early in the first session, but after
exposure to the model her focus on corrections moved to a more
appropriate stage of the process.
- 81 Figure 5: Graphs showing writing profiles before and after the model
was explained to Mandy
NAME: MANDY
SESSION: 1
SESSION: 2
STAGES
1
M
I
N
U
T
E
S
2
3
4
STAGES
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
KEY TO STAGES:
1 Prewriting, 2 Draft writing,
Evaluation
1
M
I
N
U
T
E
S
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
3 Major editing,
4 Minor editing,
5
7.4.10 Mandy: overall conclusions about effects of explaining the model
Mandy’s concept of writing did not change, not is there any evidence in
the texts to show any change, yet the graphs showing her writing profile
show that an early focus on correctness moved to a later time in the
second graph. This shows a move towards imitating the behaviour of
good writers, even though the subject herself was apparently not aware
of any change. Whether this change was a result of the advice in the
model, or the video playback, or some other factor, is not clear from the
available evidence.
7.5 CASE STUDY 3: JANEEN
Janeen was in an academically weak Std 8 class. She appeared highly
motivated, was sensible, co-operative and cheerful. She rated herself as
- 82 a weak writer, and her comments about herself suggested some of the
features of weak writers: she said she did not read back over what she
had just written to keep in touch with her ideas, and she seemed very
concerned about her spelling ability rather than focusing on the content
of what she had written (see Raimes 1985:229). She attributed her poor
academic progress to a learning problem in primary school - she felt she
had never recovered from that setback, and that she had never quite
“caught up”.
Her rating as a writer, she said, “would be pretty low because my
spelling’s atrocious”. She said that her school marks for writing
averaged 50%. She gave as a good point that she was neat, and that she
felt she had “quite a lot of ideas”. She felt, however, that she
responded more readily to stimuli such as music than to written topics.
Her “weak points” are interesting: “When I write my mind goes too fast
for my pencil so I’ll leave out words, and I don’t go back to see whether
I’ve made progress or anything like that.” She perceived that her
imagination outstripped her pencil - a natural feature of the writing
process - but attributed it to some fault in herself, rather than an
unavoidable consequence of committing ideas to paper. She also saw
the need to go back at some stage to see whether she had “made
progress” - this is extremely interesting in the light of Daiute’s comment
about good writers being able to evaluate their own progress (Daiute,
1983:140). She thought that she could improve her writing by reading.
She said that writing was “okay” : “Actually, I think if I could write more
essays I’d improve quite a lot, because then I’d find where I’m actually
making more of my mistakes - which I know are spellings...” (my
emphasis).
- 83 7.5.1 Janeen’s concept of writing before the model was explained
Before the intervention she said that it is a way of learning, and you
would not get far in life without it: “It’s quite a difficult question
because you don’t really think about it until you’ve been asked.”
7.5.2 Janeen’s concept of writing after the model was explained
After the intervention she described writing as a series of five stages,
similar to those described in the “Steps to Good Writing” model, and she
explained what one had to do at each stage. She was emphatic about
leaving spellings till the end, and described the blocking effect an
inappropriate focus on spellings could have on creativity. She said that
the “five steps” had made her see writing completely differently. In the
follow-up interview she said that she had improved her comprehension
answers in the December examinations because she had thought about
what she wanted to say before answering, and had thus given more
detail in her answers.
7.5.3 The effect of explaining the model on Janeen’s concept of writing
According to Janeen, the user’s model had made a marked impact on
the way she saw the writing process. The transcript of her response in
the second interview shows that after the intervention she saw the
writing process as something which happens in stages, and that it is
inappropriate to focus on corrections during the idea-generating stage.
7.5.4 Characteristics of Janeen’s written texts before the model was
explained
The first three samples are neat, “once-off” drafts written in ballpoint,
and set out with headings: there are signs of revision and changes in two
of the drafts - pencil is used for these revisions, although she does
- 84 occasionally use ballpoint. Her spelling errors are not excessive - her
highest percentage of errors is 5 % in the before sample, and most
errors tend to be of the “there/their” (common errors) variety. Words
such as “difference”, “article” and “pleasurable” are spelt correctly.
Calculating spelling errors on the basis of occurrence related to total
number of words, and not counting repetitions of the same error
(comparatively few), I found a slightly higher incidence of spelling errors
in the second three samples.
7.5.5 Characteristics of Janeen’s written texts after the model was
explained
The second three samples are much more “messy”: the handwriting is
more upright and there are no margins. Two of the samples comprise
more than one draft. In the book review, a pencil “plot” of the novel
appears under the first draft. The first draft shows signs of being
reworked, and the second draft shows some interesting changes, which
suggest that reworking has led to greater syntactic complexity. The
following two examples illustrate this:
a “The one boys name was Ralph and he was the first to find his way to
the beach and then he later went to find out if there were anymore
survivers left.”
BECOMES:
“A while after the plane had crashed a boy by the name of Ralph
started to look around to see were he was.”
b “He then met Piggy, this chap was fat and he wore glasses.”
BECOMES:
“On serch he met a boy named Piggy, who was fat and ugly.”
- 85 -
In each example there is a move from co-ordination to subordination.
This is not to say that all changes are necessarily improvements: for
example “search” has been incorrectly transcribed as “serch”, and
Piggy’s glasses did not survive the rephrasal. The interesting point is
that from the evidence of the first draft alone, it would have appeared
that Janeen was incapable of the level of syntactic complexity apparent
in the second draft. Her syntactic resources appear to have been
mobilized in response to a need to rephrase for the reader.
In the letter to the press, the first draft has been done in pencil on the
reverse of the foolscap sheet, and there are signs of erasures and
redrafting in the pencil draft. The neat draft has been copied verbatim
from the reworked pencil draft. However, the video sample is one draft
only.
The most significant differences are:
- Evidence of redrafting in two out of three samples - the “messiness”
of the idea-generating stage is much more apparent. Margins are
left out - the handwriting has changed in character to a more upright
style, rather than the forward-slanting script. Particularly interesting
is her change to the use of pencil for the rough draft, whereas before
she had used pencil only when editing mistakes. It is also significant
that there are no signs of attempts to correct spellings in the rough
drafts.
- Evidence of rephrasing for the reader in sample 1, resulting in greater
syntactic complexity.
- Absence of spelling alterations in the rough drafts.
- The improvement in the quality of the message in the letter to the
- 86 - press: by visualizing the situation and purpose more clearly (what
good writers do in step 1) the writer produced a text that
communicates more clearly. I was made aware of her attempts to
make the situation more real for herself, as, before she wrote, she
asked me whether she could assume the persona of a mother. The
writer also made a comment in the final interview that she had
learned from her mistakes in the first letter to the press: it is
significant that her focus was on getting her purpose and meaning
clear rather than on accuracy.
7.5.6 The effect of explaining the model on Janeen’s written texts
After the intervention, there is evidence of the messiness and redrafting
which is a feature of the idea-generating stage, as opposed to the “onceoff” nature of the earlier samples. It is interesting to see textual
evidence of a pencil first draft - a pencil draft is easier to change and
rework than a ballpoint one. In the text of the second samples, there is
evidence of structuring and redrafting for the reader, and even a pencil
plan, which does not occur in the earlier samples.
7.5.7 Janeen’s writing profile before the model was explained
The most striking feature of Janeen’s initial writing behaviour is her
almost obsessive preoccupation with accuracy throughout the draft
writing stage. The video recording clearly shows how Janeen’s idea
flow, as shown by the steady production of text, was not only
interrupted frequently, but was brought to a standstill for almost two
consecutive minutes out of a total of eleven. Even when she read for
sense, Janeen was focusing on the possibility of error rather than ideas:
she sensed that her mind outstripped her pen, but instead of seeing this
as a natural feature of the messy and inaccurate draft-writing stage, she
- 87 saw this as yet another failing on her part. Janeen’s school experience
had taught her that she was an “atrocious” speller (not borne out by the
samples), and she focused on this fiercely to the exclusion of any real
consideration of what she wanted to say. In the final interview she
admitted that she actually used to re-shape her answers before she
expressed them to avoid using words she could not spell.
7.5.8 Janeen’s writing profile after the model was explained
In the second video session Janeen did not focus obsessively on
corrections while she was engaged in idea-generation. Corrections were
dealt with almost automatically, and did not perceptibly check the idea
flow, as shown in the steady progression of her production of text in the
video recording. When she paused to read back over her text, she was
aware of reading for ideas, an appropriate behaviour for stage 2. In her
first video performance her pauses and readings were clearly “errorfocused” - even her reading for sense was motivated by the fear that
she might have left words out, rather than the need to get in touch with
her ideas. An interesting feature of the second video performance is the
very definite separation of stage 4 activities from stage 2 activities: in
the second performance all prolonged focus on errors was left for the
final “editing session” with her pencil at the end.
When she had finished, Janeen said that she had felt dissatisfaction with
her first paragraph: this is not in fact a preoccupation with error, or
stage 4 issue, but a matter of: “Is it okay?”, and coming as it does right
at the end of stage 4 editing activities, could be seen as evidence of an
embryo stage 5 (evaluation) developing. This seems to indicate that
Janeen was starting, at least, to be aware of evaluating her writing when
she had finished producing and correcting it.
- 88 Another interesting feature of the second session indicates that Janeen
was considering her reader’s needs: she left an asterisk in her text to
assist me as researcher to establish (on video playback) the time at
which she had made a correction in her text.
Figure 6: Graphs showing writing profiles before and after the model
was explained to Janeen
NAME: JANEEN
SESSION: 1
SESSION: 2
STAGES
1
M
I
N
U
T
E
S
2
3
4
STAGES
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
KEY TO STAGES:
1 Prewriting, 2 Draft writing,
Evaluation
1
M
I
N
U
T
E
S
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
3 Major editing,
4 Minor editing,
5
7.5.9 What the graphs show about Janeen’s writing profile before and
after the explanation of the model
In the first graph more time is spent on correcting than anything else stage 4 dominates the graph from an early stage. For a full two minutes
the “idea generating” stage is actually terminated during a desperate
pre-occupation with correct spellings. The second graph shows
- 89 corrections coming in at a much later stage, and the progression is what
one would expect of “good” writers”.
7.5.10 The effect of explaining the model on Janeen’s writing profile
Janeen’s writing behaviour changed considerably after the intervention,
in that in the second session she left corrections to a more appropriate
stage later on in the process. Whether this change in behaviour was due
to being told about the model, or the sight of herself on video, or a
combination of both is not clear. However, without the explanation of
the model, it is highly unlikely that she would have seen the significance
of her preoccupation with spellings too early in the process.
7.5.11 Janeen: overall conclusions about effects of explaining the model
Of all the subjects, perhaps Janeen needed to change most. There is
evidence of change in her concept of writing, in her samples of written
text, and in her behaviour as recorded on video and represented as
writing profiles. Although the model clearly played a significant part in
explaining the nature of the necessary change, and what steps to take in
going about it, there is no doubt that the video playback highlighted her
inappropriate focus on spelling errors in stage 2. What is particularly
interesting about Janeen’s dramatic change, is that this suggests that, in
spite of its level of abstraction, the user’s model can be of help to pupils
in academically weak streams.
7.6 THE PHENOMENON OF “CONTAMINATION” IDENTIFIED
The extent to which focus on error interfered with Janeen’s steady
production of text in stage 2 led me to explore the phenomenon which I
- 90 have termed “contamination”.
By contamination I mean the
interference with the activities of one stage by focus on the activities of
another stage. It is apparent from Janeen’s comments about “learning
problems”, that contamination can be caused by inappropriate teacher
interventions, or by incorrect interpretation by pupils of such. Teacher
focus on poor spelling rather than ideas communicated can be
interpreted by learners as an injunction to focus more on spellings while
writing. Unless this focus is withheld until the ideas are generated,
“contamination” of stage 2 by stage 4 can result. This is illustrated
dramatically by Janeen’s initial performance on the video playback.
Even pupils who achieve well at school can be influenced in this way, as
is borne out by Tracy and Marina’s “before” profiles. Janeen’s own
comments suggest another form of contamination: she wanted to make
her second video piece more lively by using slang, but felt that the
teacher would disapprove. We discussed the appropriateness of slang
in her piece, and decided that not only was it appropriate, but that the
piece was much more vivid if slang was used. In this case, I could see a
focus on a stage 5 issue (evaluation) interfering with stage 2 production
of ideas. This led me to explore other possibilities of interference by
focus on inappropriate activities. The resulting combinations and
permutations are described in Appendix C.
7.7 CASE STUDY 3: MARINA
Marina was from an academically advanced Std 8 class. In talking about
the school’s rating of her, she made a point of commenting on the
extent to which she was influenced by teacher-feedback in her
enjoyment of writing. She felt that any teacher’s rating was subjective,
yet she realized how much influence this had on stimulating or inhibiting
her own writing. Of her own ability as a writer, she said: “I think I’m a
- 91 fairly good writer, I think I’m creative...um, I have a problem with
spelling though, and I desperately need a dictionary or else I can’t write
a decent essay.” When asked how she thought the school rated her, she
explained in detail how her enthusiasm for writing - and her marks - had
varied with different teachers. She felt that her marks were just above
average on the whole. She gave as her good points her ability to be very
descriptive, and said that she usually had good ideas, but that she found
it difficult to sustain the ideas through extended passages. She
explained this vividly: “I have this excellent spark of an idea but it just
doesn’t go through the whole essay.” She then said: “I’m quite happy
with the way I write, but I like the dictionary, definitely.” She asked if
they were allowed to use dictionaries to write the samples, adding,
wryly: “Spelling errors - here we come!” I replied that if she usually used
a dictionary, and felt happier using one, she could bring it along. She
said that it would be far more typical of her work if she used a
dictionary. She said that she usually enjoyed writing.
7.7.1 Marina’s concept of writing before the model was explained
In the first interview, when I asked her what writing was, she started to
talk about being given a topic, and then asked me if this was what I
meant. I pursued the point about being given a topic, and she said she
did not think that she had ever had time just to sit down and write what
she wanted to. She said that she was not “stereotyped”, and that she
did not like writing under pressure. She added that it was a very
personal thing and that the teacher’s response was very subjective,
which pupils found depressing. (She qualified this by saying that this
applied to English essays only.)
- 92 7.7.2 Marina’s concept of writing after the model was explained
After the intervention Marina said that writing was putting your ideas
down on a piece of paper, and that it was something “unexplained”.
She repeated that fact about it being personal and subjective. She said
that as you got older you wrote more what you wanted to write, not
just what you were told to write.
In the follow-up interview, when I asked her if the way she saw writing
had changed in any way, she said that she had not realized that writing
was not so stereotyped. She said that she realized that she could
improve in certain areas, but that she had not felt it necessary to learn
the “Five Steps”.
7.7.3 The effect of explaining the model on Marina’s concept of writing
In the “after” interview Marina had appeared to be in a capricious
mood - I actually made a note that this session was like drawing teeth!
She commented later that she had been going through a bad phase
then. Thus the “comparison” of her concept of writing before and after
is inconclusive. However, her comment in the follow-up session that
writing was not so “stereotyped”, which she said she already intuitively
knew, but had thought was wrong until the sessions with me, is
significant. Apparently even highly creative writers can be led to doubt
their intuitions through a misplaced emphasis on accuracy.
7.7.4 Characteristics of Marina’s written texts before the model was
explained
Marina produced two drafts for each sample: a rough pencil draft, and a
neat ballpoint draft, headed and with margins. There are signs of
revision and reworking on the pencil drafts, mostly stylistic in the book
- 93 review, but more major structuring (moves and omissions) in the letter
to the press, although some is copied verbatim. There are no apparent
corrections on the rough drafts, but the final drafts do have signs of
corrections - paragraphing, letters changed - in pencil. An interesting
feature of her letter to the press is that there are seven incorrect
spellings in the pencil draft, and that these all appear correctly spelt in
the ballpoint draft. The letter to the press has been reworked more than
the book review. The changes in the video sample are also more of the
stylistic kind than major editing, although five lines of explanation are
left out (an improvement, in my opinion). The video sample also has a
pencil doodle in the top right hand corner of the page. There is only one
spelling error in the final drafts of all three of her “before” samples.
7.7.5 Characteristics of Marina’s written texts after the model was
explained
Marina’s “after” samples follow exactly the same pattern as those
before, except that her rough drafts are “messier” if anything, and she
uses both ballpoint and pencil to make changes in the text. Marina, like
Janeen, has different handwritings, but these appear both before and
after the intervention. There are more spelling mistakes in the final
drafts of the last three samples she wrote: 3 (out of a total of 123) and 5
(out of a total of 199). I interpret the evidence of a lessening of her
preoccupation with spellings as a healthy sign.
7.7.6 The effect of explaining the model on Marina’s written texts
Marina’s “before” drafts already showed the features of “good” writing
behaviour - multiple drafts, rephrasing for the reader, stylistic changes,
corrected final versions - therefore one would expect little or no change
- 94 in her “after” texts. What the sample texts did not show was that
Marina’s preoccupation with spellings was actually timed
inappropriately - in the video sessions this came across clearly.
7.7.7 Marina’s writing profile before the model was explained
Before the intervention, Marina thought about what she was going to
write, made at least one rough draft, and shaped it during the copying
out of the neat draft. She showed many of the characteristics of a
“good writer” as described in the readings:
- Flexibility: often she started with more than one idea: “Start up one,
change to another”
- Redrafting: “I usually always write my essays about three times,
though”; “When I write my essays in rough I often write them over
(like) quite a few times.” Her comment on her first draft was: “It’s
what my essays look like in exams.”
- Adopting a reader role: she said that she read it over at the end as if
she were the other person.
- Self evaluation: as she read it over, she said that she decided
whether she liked it or not.
She also showed creativity in her imagery and her association of ideas:
“Lately, whenever I write for you, I just get these quick whisks of ideas.”
(“whisks” was her motif in the first video composition.)
However, although she expressed herself fluently and accurately in
writing, before the model was explained to her she showed considerable
anxiety about correct spellings. Marina had a more methodical, effective
approach to “spelling anxiety” than Janeen, who tended to panic (in the
before samples) and to become easily discouraged. Yet every time
- 95 Marina took up her dictionary to look up words and meanings in the first
video recording, she stopped the composing process. What I find most
interesting is Marina’s insistence afterwards that she had never allowed
corrections to become a preoccupation during the idea-generating stage
- this is contradicted by her behaviour as recorded on video.
7.7.8 Marina’s writing profile after the model was explained
Although the change in behaviour is not so marked as that occurring
with Janeen, Marina’s writing profile shows definite changes. Before
the explanation of the model, she showed considerable preoccupation
with spellings during the idea generating stage. The profile emerging in
the graph of the second video recording shows a much more smoothedout progression through the stages, with the major and minor editing
occurring much later in the sequence.
7.7.9 What the graphs show about Marina’s writing profile before and
after the explanation of the model
A focus on stage 3 and 4 has moved from the first half to the second half
of the time span.
7.7.10 The effect of explaining the model on Marina’s writing profile
Even though Marina is a competent, creative writer, her writing
behaviour appears to have been affected by the same “contamination”
that was apparent in Janeen’s case, i.e. contamination of stage 2 by
stage 4, until she was given “permission” by the model to stop worrying
about correctness until later on in the process. Her preoccupation with
spellings at an early stage of the writing process would not have been
apparent from a study of the texts only.
- 96 Figure 7: Graphs showing writing profiles before and after the model
was explained to Marina
NAME: MARINA
SESSION: 1
SESSION: 2
STAGES
1
M
I
N
U
T
E
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
2
3
4
STAGES
5
1
M
I
N
U
T
E
S
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
KEY TO STAGES: 1 Prewriting, 2 Draft writing, 3 Major editing, 4 Minor editing,
5 Evaluation
- 97 7.7.11 Marina: overall conclusions about effects of explaining the model
Although Marina initially showed many of the characteristics of good
writers as described by Shaughnessy, Daiute and Raimes, she did not
appear to trust her intuitions about the flexibility of the writing process
until after the model had been explained to her. It is also interesting
that once she had changed her strategy by eliminating a preoccupation
with corrections from the early “create” stage, she conveniently
“forgot” that she had ever done this. Rather than accepting the model
in its entirety, she appears to have used aspects of it to alter subtly her
own already effective writing procedure. This seems to suggest that a
writer who has already developed effective strategies may consciously
reject the model, or be affected only subconsciously by aspects of it
which she has not already made a part of her own overall strategies.
7.8 CASE STUDY 5: NADENE
Nadene was from an academically average Std 9 class. One of her
subjects was Art, and she later drew parallels between Art and writing.
When asked to rate herself as a writer, she said that she had ideas, but
that she could not always express them as clearly as she wanted to. She
said that spelling was a problem, and that because of problems in junior
school and had had to take extra English lessons. She thought that this
had set her back somewhat. She said that the school rated her writing
twelve out of twenty, and that teachers made comments like: “Good
idea, but you haven’t expressed yourself well.” She said that this was
true: “sometimes I get myself mixed up.” She said that she became
confused with the word order, and that she “got the spellings wrong all
the time.” When asked to give good points about her writing, she said
- 98 that she sometimes liked her ideas, but that she ran out of ideas if she
had to write more than one essay at a time. She said that she liked
writing sometimes, when she was given interesting topics, and just one
essay to write at a time.
7.8.1 Nadene’s concept of writing before the model was explained
In the first interview, Nadene said that writing is a way of expressing
one’s feelings or thoughts; it can also tell a story or describe something.
Sometimes it describes people’s innermost thoughts or feelings.
7.8.2 Nadene’s concept of writing after the model was explained
After the intervention, she said that it is a creative means, that the mind
never stops thinking, and that your thoughts might go a completely
different direction from where they started. One had “good and bad
moments”, as with painting. When asked why they are similar, she said
that both painting and writing are creative, they both use the creative
part of your brain, they can both tell stories or express emotions - you
could use “colour” in both writing and painting, but “flowery language”
is not essential to get your point across in writing. She said that her
thoughts about writing had not changed, but had become more indepth.
When I asked her why this was so, she attributed it to the writing she
had done with me: it was different from school writing, there was a
more relaxed atmosphere, less time pressure, open topics, and she had
enjoyed it. She felt that her in-depth view of the writing process had
evolved gradually, almost as a subconscious process, and was a result of
having seen her own behaviour change, and knowing now that she could
change. When she concentrated on what she was writing, and did not
worry about correctness, the ideas flowed more easily: it was not what
- 99 she wrote, but how she wrote. She was also focusing more on what she
wanted to say, rather than on spellings.
In the follow-up interview, when I asked her if she was aware of any
changes in the way she went about writing, she said that she was: she
was now collecting her thoughts, and letting her ideas flow. She had
now identified her good points - redrafting, and her bad points,
“grammar” - poor structuring, and she thought it had “come together”
more. She realized that she must let her ideas flow in the early stages,
but in the exam she had to organize while she was collecting her
thoughts, because of time pressure. She felt more relaxed and
enthusiastic about her essays, whereas before she had dreaded them.
When I asked the reason for this, she replied that it was because I had
shown her how to write in the two weeks. She said that none of the
girls in her class knew about the “Steps”, and were doing things “all
together”. She then, unprompted, made a very perceptive comment
about Art essays: she said that the Art teacher had been trying to
improve their essays, and that she was doing the wrong thing, because:
“She’s looking at the end product.”
7.8.3 The effect of explaining the model on Nadene’s concept of writing
Nadene had obviously been influenced by the model, as she saw it as an
effective way to teach writing. She said: “You showed me how to
write”, and the only direct advice I gave on how to write was when I
explained the model. However, she seemed most influenced by two
factors in her concept of writing: firstly, by the relaxed, non-prescriptive
atmosphere of the case studies, and secondly by the identification of the
creative element in writing as being similar to Art. When I described the
model to all subjects I explained how the “creative” side of the mind had
to co-operate with the logical side of the mind - this could be seen in the
- 100 rapid switches from stage 2 to stage 3 activities as a person wrote. She
readily made the connection with Art, and saw rough drafts in writing as
being similar to preliminary sketches in Art.
7.8.4 Nadene’s samples of written texts before the model was explained
All samples are written in two drafts: a rough pencil draft and a neat
ballpoint draft, except the second sample, which consists of two
ballpoint drafts. The pencil drafts have no margins, and have many
insertions and deletions. The ballpoint drafts (even the rough one) have
two pencil margins, and the final versions are headed and dated (except
the letter, which is set out as a letter). There are signs of revisions on
both the rough pencil drafts, and the neat drafts. Most revisions seem
to be rephrasals for the reader rather than corrections.
7.8.5 Nadene’s samples of written texts after the model was explained
The samples after the intervention show very little change, if any. All
three rough drafts are in pencil, and all neat drafts are in ballpoint.
There are fewer changes in the rough and neat drafts of the book
review, and the letter to the press has very little change in the final
version. The video sample, however, has extensive changes from the
rough to the neat draft.
Nadene’s consciousness of her writing being “disconnected” is born out
by the samples: sometimes she seems to contort normal word order, or
leave out vital connecting words when transcribing from rough to neat
drafts. There is “a loose link somewhere” (her own words), but it does
not seem to be a matter of cognition or intelligence, as Nadene is highly
perceptive and articulate in her speech: rather a failure to co-ordinate
certain elements of text intelligibly. Possibly her anxiety about her
“English” as being something learned in lessons (which she missed)
- 101 actually distorts her intuitive knowledge of language patterns when she
consciously revises her drafts. In some cases her rough drafts are
clearer than her neat copies (not always: she is capable of intelligent
revision, especially in elaborating for the reader). It is important to note
that although Nadene worked with two drafts, a feature of “good”
writers, she initially saw this as a weakness in her writing performance,
proof of her inability to produce flawless “once-off” drafts.
7.8.6 The effect of explaining the model on Nadene’s written texts
The explanation of the user’s model had no apparent effect on Nadene’s
written texts. Before and after the explanation of the model, Nadene’s
drafts superficially resemble those of “good” writers, but her
preoccupation with error and her anxiety about “learned” skills in
English often mean that her message is not as clear as she would like it.
Not all the changes in her final drafts are improvements: not all
rephrasals are intelligible, and her intuitive grasp of spellings is actually
better than her conscious focusing on them. (This was demonstrated
when I asked her to identify words she had spelt wrongly: she pointed to
words which were actually spelt correctly.) Nadene’s apparent grasp of
a “good” writing technique - redrafting - coupled with her poor
performance emphasizes the importance of using writing techniques
within the framework of the model: the techniques in themselves are
not necessarily effective.
7.8.7 Nadene’s writing profile before the model was explained
In the session before the intervention, Nadene came across as a careful,
conscientious writer. She dutifully redrafted, but she saw this as an
error on her part, a failure to get it right the first time. She actually said
- 102 that correcting error was the sign of a bad writer. She also appeared to
suffer from “spelling anxiety”, although in actual fact most of her
misspellings were of the “where/were” variety i.e. easily confused
words.
Figure 8: Graphs showing writing profiles before and after the model
was explained to Nadene
NAME: NADENE
SESSION: 1
NADENE
STAGES
1
M
I
N
U
T
E
S
2
3
4
SESSION: 2
STAGES
5
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KEY TO STAGES: 1 Prewriting,
5 Evaluation
M
I
N
U
T
E
S
2 Draft writing,
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
3 Major editing,
4 Minor editing,
- 103 7.8.8 Nadene’s writing profile after the model was explained
After having the user’s model explained, Nadene’s preoccupation with
spelling occurred much later on in the process. She was aware of this
change of emphasis: “It’s not my spellings...it’s now what I’m trying to
say.” She said later that I had showed her “how to write”, and
commented that the creative flow had to occur in the “early steps”.
7.8.9 What the graphs show about Nadene’s writing profile before and
after the explanation of the model
The profiles appearing in the graphs show much less preoccupation with
corrections in the early stages of writing in graph 2.
7.8.10 The effect of explaining the model on Nadene’s writing profile
Like Marina, in the first session Nadene tended to focus on correcting
early on in the process. Explaining the model, in which corrections are
left till later, appears to have caused a shift in Nadene’s preoccupation
with corrections to a later stage in the process.
7.8.11 Nadene: overall conclusions about effects of explaining the model
Nadene appears to have needed confidence in her own ability, more
than a framework for writing. She admitted that she was not a very
confident person. The experience of the case study seemed to give her
confidence a boost. She appeared to have more confidence in her
ability to generate ideas, without worrying about errors while she was
doing so. She emphasized the fact that she had relaxed more in our
sessions together, and seemed to have been very much struck by my
description of the spontaneity and freedom of the “create” stage:
“...you said to me that I must let my language flow, and relax...”
Nadene’s comments made me realize that focusing on correctness at
- 104 inappropriate stages not only hinders the fluency of idea-generation,
but can add to the overall tension of the learner writer.
7.9 CASE STUDY 6: TRACY
Tracy was in an academically high-rated Std 9 class. She rated herself as
a better than average writer, “better than most people”. She saw
reading as helping her to write well. She saw herself as having an
extended vocabulary and as being a divergent thinker, and also being
capable of writing good descriptive prose. Sometimes she felt that
teachers did not respond favourably to her writing, and that this
resulted in a lower mark then she had anticipated. She felt that the
school’s rating might lag somewhat behind her own for this reason. She
gave as a weak point that she tended to be over-descriptive and
sometimes did not “really say very much in an essay”. She said that she
liked writing, but that she had to be “in the mood”. She did not like
“planning things too much”, she preferred to write “as it comes”. Tracy
spoke confidently, and had no difficulty in handling abstractions as she
spoke.
She appeared to have reached the highest cognitive
development of all the subjects, in terms of her age and intellectual
ability.
7.9.1 Tracy’s concept of writing before the model was explained
Initially, when I asked her what writing is, she said that it is a way of
putting forth ideas in a different way. It is a subtle way of putting across
your feelings or your views on certain things. She was aware that
“writing out” feelings changed the nature of the feelings, and felt that
her reading (romances, thrillers) influenced her writing.
7.9.2 Tracy’s concept of writing after the model was explained
After the intervention she said that it is not one thing: but that it is
- 105 different things for different people, and that some people write for
different reasons. But basically writing is a way of putting down on
paper creative thought. It is a way of getting rid of frustration. Writing
is a creative act: with writing you are creating something. Writing can
be informatory, or have a high emotional content. Your attitude
towards writing affects what you class it as, and this would also affect
reading, as they are linked.
She felt that she had a more in-depth view of writing than before: her
ideas had been quite sketchy at the beginning and she had “reinforced”
these. Looking at and analysing what she was doing had helped this.
When I asked her what had helped this insight, she said that the
breakdown into stages had helped. It had made her realize that there
was far more to writing than just writing down things and making a few
corrections. She might have done some of the stages before, but she
had never consciously thought this.
In the follow-up interview I asked if she was aware of any change in the
way she saw writing before and after. She said that there was. When
asked to explain, she did so in some depth. She said that before she had
seem writing as just a way of getting ideas in one’s head and putting
them down on paper. She mentioned the steps, and said that she had
been trying to do everything at once. When asked why she had been
doing it like this, she replied: “school”, because one was not given time
to think. Now she had a routine to follow, i.e.: “use all your little steps”,
she felt that this helped. She also commented on the fact that this was
not just limited to English essays. She said that her whole view had
changed and that she had found the sessions with me helpful.
- 106 7.9.3 The effect of explaining the model on Tracy’s concept of writing
Tracy’s answers clearly illustrate the flaw in the openness of the
“concept” question: I should have asked, “How do you see writing as
happening?” or “How does a person go about writing?” However, in
spite of the vagueness of the question, Tracy’s replies clearly indicate
the process model has changed the way she sees writing occurring. Not
only that, but she sees it as giving her a useful routine to follow. The
purpose of the model was to provide a description of the writing process
and useful advice to learner writers. Possibly the descriptive aspect is
not fully comprehended by learners until they have reached near-adult
conceptual level, as Tracy clearly has.
7.9.4 Characteristics of Tracy’s written texts before the model was
explained
Two of the first three samples are once-off drafts in ballpoint; the third
(book review) has what appears to be a false start, as she starts again on
a new page with a different book. She has used margins and underlined
headings on two samples, but not on the video sample. (This may have
something to do with having to line up the paper for video. There are
deletions and insertions, for the most part spellings or other corrections,
but there are a few rephrasals.
7.9.5 Characteristics of Tracy’s samples of written work after the model
was explained
After the intervention there is an interesting change in the samples: all
three “after” drafts are written in pencil, and the script has changed to
block capitals. She said later that she found writing in pencil easier.
There are no margins. She has still written her name and standard on
the sheet for identification, but has not always underlined it.
- 107 7.9.6 The effect of explaining the model on Tracy’s written texts
There seems to be a shift from the attempt at the “once-off”, “finished”
draft, towards incomplete first drafts. There are signs that she has
started the process of editing, correcting and polishing them, but at this
stage is quite happy to hand in a rough draft. It is almost as if the rough
draft has acquired respectable status in her eyes.
7.9.7 Tracy’s writing profile before the model was explained
Tracy’s performance was that of an impulsive writer - she tended to rush
things down, and reconsider at a later stage, during which she also
gathered her thoughts for the final burst. From her comments, it would
seem that the “once-off” nature of school writing had given her the
habit of dashing her thoughts down in a kind of creative frenzy, with
little time for thought or revision.
7.9.8 Tracy’s writing profile after the model was explained
Before the intervention she was much more concerned with corrections
while she was generating ideas - after the intervention she focused on
corrections at a much later stage.
7.9.9 What the graphs show about Tracy’s writing profile before and
after the explanation of the model
The graphs show a change from focusing on corrections in the early
stages to much later on in the process.
7.9.10 The effect of explaining the model on Tracy’s writing profile
Tracy’s writing behaviour changed in that her first drafts became rough
drafts, in pencil, more easily changed and reworked. She concentrated
on getting ideas down first, then corrected her text later.
- 108 Figure 9: Graphs showing writing profiles before and after the model
was explained to Tracy
NAME: TRACY
SESSION: 1
SESSION: 2
STAGES
1
2
3
4
STAGES
5
1
1
1
2
2
M
3
M
3
I
4
I
4
N
5
N
5
U
6
U
6
T
7
T
7
E
8
E
8
S
9
S
9
10
2
3
4
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
KEY TO STAGES:
1 Prewriting, 2 Draft writing, 3 Major editing, 4 Minor editing, 5 Evaluation
7.9.11 Tracy: overall conclusions about effects of explaining the model
Tracy changed in all three areas, the cognitive, the textual and the
behavioural after the intervention. She identified the model as having
influenced the way she saw writing, and the changes in her texts and
behaviour are all consistent with the good writing behaviour suggested
by the model.
- 109 CHAPTER EIGHT
INTERPRETATION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE CASE STUDIES AND
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE TEACHING OF WRITTEN COMPOSITION
8.1 INTRODUCTION
An overview is given of the findings of the case studies, which are
discussed in terms of what they suggest about the effects of
communicating the model directly to the learner. Further avenues of
research are suggested, and the implications of the research for using
the model for the teaching of written composition are discussed.
8.2 OVERALL FINDINGS OF THE CASE STUDIES
Based on a comparison of the data collected before and after the
intervention with the user’s model, the following picture emerged as
regards changes in the conceptual, textual and behavioural areas:
- As far as conceptual change is concerned, four subjects showed
evidence of changing their concept of writing, two markedly so. Of
the other two subjects, the results are either inconclusive or show no
change at all.
- The written texts produced by four subjects showed no significant
changes, while those of two subjects showed marked changes.
- One subject showed no change in behaviour at all. The other five
showed change, two markedly so.
As the table below shows, the same subject (the youngest) showed no
changes at all in all three areas, while another two subjects showed
marked change in all three areas.
- 110 -
TABLE I: Summary of changes after intervention
(youngest)
CONCEPT
SAMPLES
PROFILE
DEBBIE
no change
no change
no change
MANDY
slight change
no change
change
JANEEN
marked change
marked change
marked change
MARINA
inconclusive
no change
change
NADENE
change
no change
change
TRACY
marked change
marked change
marked change
(eldest)
8.3 INTERPRETATION OF OVERALL FINDINGS
In the specific experimental situation in which the user’s model was
tested out, two of the subjects, after exposure to the user’s model of
the writing process, showed marked changes in their concept of writing,
the texts they produced, and their composing behaviour. In both cases
the behavioural changes were from behaviours which the literature
associates with poor writing habits to those associated with good
writing habits. Out of a total of six subjects, five actually showed a
change towards habits associated with good writers in their writing
behaviour. All behavioural changes except one were accompanied by
evidence of conceptual changes. The two subjects who showed marked
changes in their writing behaviour (i.e. changes to better writing habits)
also showed marked changes in their concept of writing, and in
- 111 discussing their concept of writing in the final interview made direct
references to the “Steps to Good Writing” version (see 5.5) of the user’s
model.
8.3.1 Effects of the intervention on the learner writer
This suggests that certain learners can in a short space of time both gain
insight into the process of writing and display the strategies of good
writers in their writing performance by having the user’s model, or some
similar construct, explained to them. No claims are made that the
effects of the intervention are long-term, or will even necessarily be
repeated: obviously some kind of on-going teaching programme or
monitoring system would be needed to reinforce the changed
behaviour. The point is that exposure to the process model in five cases
achieved a very rapid change of writing behaviour towards behaviour
which research identifies as effective.
8.3.2 How the model achieved the above results
The model seems to have achieved the above results by giving learners
both a metalanguage to understand the process itself, and helpful
injunctions on how to engage effectively in the process of writing, stage
by stage.
8.3.3 Change in writing behaviour not dependent on academic ability
The results of the studies also suggest that the change in writing
behaviour is not dependent on the academic ability of the subjects, as
the five subjects who showed changed behaviour were of mixed
academic ability, two coming from the highest academic stream, one
from the middle and two from the lowest stream. The two subjects who
showed marked change in all three areas came from highest and lowest
academic streams respectively.
- 112 8.3.4 Behavioural change related to conceptual change
Of the five who changed their behaviour, four showed signs of changing
their concept of writing: two (the those showing the most marked
changes) referred directly to the model and attributed their change to it,
while the other two mentioned aspects of the model, i.e. the advice
component, or mentioned stages in the model when discussing their
concept of writing.
8.3.5 No improvement claimed in quality of texts
No claim is made about the improvement of quality of the written
product: this would have to be tested out over a long-term period and
would be extremely difficult to establish conclusively, as it would be
difficult to connect any improvement directly with exposure to the
model.
8.3.6 Generalisability of the findings of the case studies
As Widdowson remarks, “Experiments express only relative truths”
(1984:32), and the results of exposing the subjects to the simplified
version of the user’s model in an experimental situation can only be
interpreted in the light of that situation and with specific reference to
six very different individuals of varying age and academic ability.
It is true that the user’s model was developed and first used in a
teaching situation, not an experimental one, and the results of the
intervention with the user’s model are congruous with my teaching
experience in communicating the model. However, the variables in the
teaching situation made it impossible to come to any specific
conclusions about the results of communicating the user’s model
directly to the learner in that situation.
- 113 Although I had seen indications of similar changes taking place in the
teaching situation, in retrospect I found it surprising that two of the
subjects showed evidence of such marked changes in all three areas, as
the external motivation of the teaching situation had not been present.
When the model was used in the teaching situation, the learners were
overtly encouraged to model their writing behaviour on that described
in the model, and were given explicit individual coaching on how to do
so. This individual coaching and follow-up did not occur in the case
studies. In the teaching situation university students and matriculation
pupils had the external motivation of having to cope with the academic
learning situation. In the case studies the only motivation to change
was supplied either by the terms in which the model was framed, or by
personal motivation brought into the situation by the subjects
themselves.
8.3.7 Possible reasons for change or lack of change in concept, texts or
behaviour
As case studies did not take place within an on-going teaching situation,
with overt encouragement to change behaviour or to improve, there
was no guarantee that any change would take place even if the subjects
did find the model useful as a potential theory to inform writing
behaviour. The subjects were not made aware that the purpose of
recording data before and after the explanation of the user’s model was
to record any possible changes in concept, texts or behaviour. The
subjects were offered the user’s model as containing insights from my
research into the writing process, but were given no indication that I
expected them to put it into immediate practice, nor were they
encouraged to use it in the writing sessions that followed immediately
afterwards.
- 114 Any incentive to use the model was contained within the model itself as
depicted in the “Steps to Good Writing” diagram (see 5.5). For example,
the title, “Steps to Good Writing”, was phrased in such a way to
encourage the subjects to believe that the procedure described might
improve their own writing performance. Obviously the fact that I was at
University and doing research into the writing process lent the model
credibility in the eyes of the subjects. Yet no motivation for change was
built into the sessions, apart from any need for change required by the
subjects themselves. Thus one would not expect any marked change in
behaviour unless there was a strong personal motivation or need to
improve on the part of the subjects themselves. A subject who already
possessed an effective working schema of the writing process, or rather
whose behaviour pre-supposed the existence of such a schema would
have no need to adopt the schema described in the “Steps” version of
the model.
Marina showed evidence of possessing such a schema before the user’s
model was explained to her, but subsequently altered her behaviour to
exclude a preoccupation with surface error in the early stages of writing.
To her the adjustment was so minor that she was reluctant to admit that
she had ever allowed surface error to become an issue in the earlier,
creative stages. However, her writing behaviour as captured on video
before the user’s model was explained shows clear evidence of a
preoccupation with surface error in the early stages of writing.
Janeen and Tracy both showed evidence of having accepted the model
and the behaviour suggested by it in its entirety. Janeen expressed a
strong motivation to improve academically, and appears to have seized
readily on a structured approach for handling her anxiety about correct
- 115 spellings. The motive for Tracy’s ready acceptance of the user’s model
and subsequent change in writing behaviour is less obvious. Her
comments indicate that she saw herself as being a creative writer, but
that teacher evaluation did not always match her own assessment of her
performance. I suspect that Tracy placed too much value on the ideagenerating stage, and that perhaps the model offered her a more
balanced concept of the writing process, with opportunities built in for
making her finished product more acceptable to the reader.
With Nadene the results are not so clear-cut, perhaps because she
needed concrete evidence of her ability to change her writing behaviour
rather than a structured way of behaving i.e. for her the model was
useful to her as a framework for illustrating her ability to change. Yet
Nadene showed the clearest perception of all of the concept that
writing is a process in an incidental comment about school essay writing:
she said that teachers were “looking at the end product” rather than at
how essays were written.
To sum up, the above seems to indicate that a learner-writer who does
not already possess an effective schema for engaging in the writing
process will be more motivated to accept the “Steps” version of the
user’s model than a learner who already has an effective schema. Even
so, flaws in an otherwise effective schema would seem to be rectified by
exposure of the learner to the model. As no overt motivation was given
to change writing concepts, behaviour, or texts, except by means of the
injunctions contained in the model, it can be assumed that the
motivation to change was provided either by these injunctions, by the
feasibility of the model itself, or by the learner’s need to master the
process.
- 116 Although academic ability does not seem to have been a factor in
deciding whether change took place or not (see 3.8.2 above), age may
well have been, in view of the level of abstraction involved in
understanding the user’s model, even in its simplified form. Debbie and
Mandy, at the youngest end of the age spectrum, showed minimal
changes or no change at all. It is interesting that, according to Debbie,
the video-playback put her in touch with her capacity to generate ideas,
i.e. the “create” stage. In the follow-up interview she said that
subsequent to the sessions with me she had received eighty percent (an
unusually high mark) for a piece of creative writing. Yet Debbie does not
seem to have been influenced by the user’s model at all. Nor does
Mandy, although her concept of writing and composing behaviour show
signs of change. She said that she had found the “advice” in the model
helpful; it would seem that she responded more to the specific
injunctions contained within the model than to a concept of the process.
Debbie and Mandy were the youngest of the subjects, being in
Standards 6 and 7 respectively. It is possible that the model as an
abstract concept of the process of writing is not assimilated by younger
learners, but this would have to be tested out specifically in further
studies. If this proved to be the case, the teacher of very young learners
could still use the model for its advice component, and base her
teaching practice on the model, rather than communicate it directly to
the learner.
8.4 OTHER FINDINGS
8.4.1
The predominance of the idea-generating stage in the adolescent’s
concept of writing
When initially asked: “What is writing?” all subjects mentioned that it
was “expression of feelings”.
This suggests two things.
Firstly,
- 117 although the adult writer may see writing in its full spectrum, ranging
from transactional to poetic uses, the adolescent (or at least the
adolescent girl) may see writing primarily as expression of emotions, i.e.
her view of writing is tied in with the adolescent preoccupation of
developing self-awareness and conflicting emotional surges.
If
expression of emotion is a primary need of adolescent girls, the teacher
of writing would do well to give pupils every opportunity to express
their emotions in writing, and to use this as a base from which to
develop other genres.
The second thought that it prompted, and this is sheer speculation, is
that perhaps the adolescent and pre-adolescent concept of writing is
not simplified (the assumption behind my simplification of the original
model), but partial, i.e. young learners focus mainly on the ideagenerating aspect of writing, and do not see the need for preparation,
structuring or polishing. This fits in with Britton’s theory that
“expressive writing” subsumes and provides the basis for the
transactional and poetic forms, which are developments from the
expressive forms. Hence his advice that pupils developing their writing
skills work from the expressive towards the transactional and poetic.
This led me to identify what Britton calls “expressive writing”, i.e. the
rudimentary form from which other forms of writing are developed,
with a stage of the writing process itself, i.e. the idea-generating stage.
The younger learner seems to focus mainly on this stage, and thus tends
to produce more “expressive writing” than anything else. What stops
expressive writing from being acceptable either as a transactional or
poetic form is its lack of research, reworking for a reader, polishing and
evaluating, i.e. the other stages of the writing process as shown in the
model.
- 118 Translated into the terms of the user’s model, this means that the
teacher could achieve this development from expressive to the other
forms by gradually widening the learner’s view of the writing process
and teaching him to gather more information, structure, polish and
evaluate. For the younger learner this would have to be done in
concrete ways, by giving him situations where he has to gather data in a
more organized way, where he has to ready his writing for other readers
by structuring and polishing it, and where he has a real need to evaluate
whether his writing achieves its purpose. The teacher not only needs to
provide opportunities for such activities, but also needs to show the
learner how to perform these functions, either by giving the advice
suggested in the model, or by setting up situations which will allow him
to practise these strategies. Pupils taught in this way will not need to
have the user’s model communicated to them directly, because their
experience of the writing process derived from teaching based on the
model will have allowed them to build up their own reliable schema of
how writing operates most effectively. The model could still have use in
diagnosing problems, however, where a direct communication of it may
help to eradicate poor writing habits.
8.4.2 The inadequacy of textual evidence on its own
Out of the five subjects who showed changed writing behaviour, three
showed no evidence of change at all on textual evidence alone, which
demonstrates how unhelpful it is to draw deductions about the learner’s
writing ability based on the evidence of the products of writing alone,
i.e. the written texts. Even where the texts showed change, these
changes would have been difficult to interpret without the data which
indicated the process which the subjects had been engaged in. A
process approach does not exclude taking the product into
- 119 consideration, but the product is interpreted in the light of the process
which produced it rather than being viewed in isolation. Looking at the
end product alone would have suggested that the following had
occurred as a result of explaining the user’s model: that Janeen’s written
texts had become inexplicably messy, that Tracy was incapable of
finishing off her texts, and that the rest showed no signs of change at all.
8.4.3 Misplaced emphasis on correctness
The findings of the case studies confirm Zamel’s misgivings about the
unhelpfulness of conventional teacher responses (Zamel 1985). She
suggests that the teacher’s preoccupation with “surface-level mistakes
“may be transferred to the pupils, with negative effects.” All pupils who
changed their behaviour initially showed this preoccupation with
surface-level mistakes (mostly spellings) in the idea-generating stage,
when they should have been focusing on getting ideas down as quickly
as possible. In Janeen’s case this demonstrably affected her idea-flow,
as she stopped writing for nearly one fifth of her total composing time.
This does not necessarily mean that Janeen’s teachers actually
encouraged her to correct spellings as she wrote; it is more likely that
their focus on correct spellings was interpreted by Janeen to mean that
correctness was a priority in the composing process, i.e. something to be
taken into consideration right from the beginning.
The findings of the case studies, particularly Janeen’s, suggest that
teachers would do well to put the emphasis on spellings in perspective,
especially for very young learners. Presumably the purpose of teaching
correct spellings is so that learners will possess the skills to refine their
finished written products into suitably polished “artefacts”, and
therefore render them socially acceptable. In Janeen’s case, focusing
rigidly on correctness not only broke the composing rhythm, but also
- 120 failed to achieve its purpose, as the word she focused on for so long was
left incorrectly spelt in the end. Nadene’s comments and behaviour
showed that her intuitive perception of the forms of words was more
accurate than when she focused consciously on spellings. This
misplaced emphasis on correctness, whether caused by faulty teaching,
or misinterpretation of teacher-injunctions by the learner, can generate
such anxiety in the learner-writer, that it can be seen not only to block
idea production, but to hamper the very process of correction itself.
Zamel says that we need to “establish priorities in our responses to
drafts and subsequent revisions and encourage students to address
certain concerns before others” (1985:96). It seems that teachers need
to make it clear to the learner that whereas correct spellings are
desirable in a finished piece of writing, editing should be left to a later
stage of the composing process, as suggested by the its order in the
stages of the user’s model.
8.4.4 The effect of the video in influencing behaviour
As the video was used to reconstruct the subjects’ composing behaviour
it was not possible to run a control study to assess to what extent the
video playback influenced changes, rather than the user’s model. In
some cases the video can be seen to have heightened the subjects’
awareness of their composing habits. Debbie said that the video
playback had made her aware of the speed and fluency of her writing.
However, there was no noticeable change in Debbie’s composing habits.
This admittedly small piece of evidence seems to suggest that videofeedback on its own does not contribute to better writing habits.
Without the framework of the model to interpret the video playback,
there is no reason to suppose that the subjects were aware of poor
writing habits or what to do to remedy the situation. However, the
- 121 video could be seen in some cases to reinforce the subjects’ acceptance
of their own poor writing behaviour, as they could not easily deny the
evidence on the screen before them, in graphic detail. Also changes to
good writing behaviour were highlighted by the video, especially in the
case of Janeen, who had initially despaired of overcoming her spelling
“problem”, and Nadene, who was incredulous about her ability to
change for the better until it was actually seen to happen on the screen.
8.4.5 Speed with which the model conveys information about the
writing process
The explanation of user’s model to the subjects took place in a half-hour
session. There was no coaching in the use of the model, or follow-up
sessions to work on individual writing problems. Subjects had at the
most the possibility of three “practice sessions” in which they could use
ideas suggested by the model (without guidance). That changes in
concept and writing behaviour took place after such a brief exposure to
the user’s model is significant in that it suggests that the model swiftly
conveys a great deal of information about the writing process in
concentrated form. Although one-to-one discussion was used to ensure
that the model was properly understood by each participant before the
second series of samples, the model can easily be communicated to
larger groups of learners, i.e. class groups of pupils.
8.5 PEDAGOGICAL APPLICATION OF THE USER’S MODEL
Using the model in a teaching situation and testing out the effects of
communicating the model directly to the learner in the case studies
suggested the following applications for the user’s model:
- 122 8.5.1 Applications for the learner writer
According to the case studies the model can be useful in giving certain
learners an overview of the writing process, and a stage-by-stage
breakdown of how to engage in the writing process. It can also help the
learner to identify and remedy certain writing problems, notably overemphasis on correctness in the early stages of writing.
8.5.2 Applications for the teacher
The fact that the model appears to be easily assimilated by adolescent
learners suggests that it can be used as a valuable teaching tool by
communicating it directly to the learner, provided that the learner is
sufficiently conceptually advanced to assimilate the model. It could also
provide the teacher with a framework for the effective teaching of
writing, either by using the advice component only, by constructing
writing experiences which would cause the learner to experience writing
as a series of stages, and by training the learner in the strategies needed
to complete the various stages. The model suggests a hierarchy of
appropriate teacher responses to pupil writing, depending on which
stage he has reached (see the diagram of reader roles in Appendix A). It
also offers a hierarchy of analysis of errors for the teacher, since errors
can be traced back to a failure to complete one or more stage
successfully, and can thus be tackled stage by stage. The diagnostic
potential of the model has implications for teachers, as an analysis of
the learner’s composing behaviour in stages makes it easier to pinpoint
ineffectual composing behaviour. (See “Contamination” in Appendix C.)
The key features of the writing process as summarised in the model can
be used as the basis for a comprehensive approach to the teaching of
writing in schools; after completing this research I myself initiated such
- 123 a programme at the high school where I teach. The model can be used
in a variety of teaching approaches, ranging from a traditional lecture
approach to a more progressive experiential approach. It was
formulated with the aim of providing a relevant framework for all kinds
of written composition, not just academic writing, although there may
be cultural variables which have not yet been explored. It is flexible, in
that it can be adapted to the individual writer’s personality. This does
not mean that all writers will see the model as being relevant, as many
writers may have idiosyncratic views about writing which result in
effective writing strategies.
8.6 IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
As mentioned above (5.8.3), this study was intended to be exploratory,
and in the course of this study many other related avenues of research
were suggested.
8.6.1 Learner-based research
The following issues remain to be investigated as far as the effect of the
user’s model on the learner is concerned:
- Whether the concept of writing as outlined in the model is in fact
accessible to younger learners, and if not, what age or stage of
conceptual development is needed to ensure comprehension and
retention of such a model.
- To what extent the user’s model as described in this study
corresponds to the schemata of competent adult writers,
professional and non-professional.
- The effectiveness of using the model as both a diagnostic tool and
means of remediation in the case of specific writing problems.
- 124 - Whether different writing profiles (in terms of the stages in the
model) emerge according to genre, age, or culture. This could have
relevance in determining appropriate teaching strategies, depending
on the genre of writing, the age group, or cultural group being
taught.
8.6.2 Teacher-based research
As a teacher I found many advantages in referring to the user’s model at
all stages of teaching written composition and at all stages of
responding to pupils’ written work. (See the diagram of reader roles in
Appendix A.) To determine the usefulness of the model as a
pedagogical tool, it would be necessary to test out various teachers’
reactions to using the user’s model, and to establish whether they found
it useful in the teaching of various kinds of written composition.
8.7 CONCLUSION
I started out with the intention of discovering ways of teaching written
composition more effectively. In order to do this, I reviewed available
literature on the subject, drawing all the while on my own intuitions and
experience in both teaching (professional) and writing (nonprofessional). I needed to summarize all the information on the writing
process which I found in the literature, both to gain a perspective on the
subject myself, and to be able to communicate it easily to my learners.
This summary took the form of what Widdowson terms a user’s model
of the process of writing, and I found that the easiest way to
communicate my findings about the writing process to learner writers
was to explain the user’s model to them directly. Although I have found
pedagogical justification for communicating such models directly to the
learner by referring to the concept of metacognition (see Daiute
- 125 1983:138), I rather suspect that the underlying reason for
communicating the model directly to the learner is that once I discover
an idea which works for me, I cannot resist telling everybody about it.
And the user’s model does work for me, otherwise I would never have
completed this thesis, which is the most extended piece of expository
writing of this nature which I have attempted.
It may be that there are some writers for whom the model does not
work at all, and that personal schemata of the writing process are so
idiosyncratic as to make any attempt at modelling futile; it may be that
the participants in the case studies were influenced by my version of the
concept because they were young and impressionable, and so
influenced by my teacher-researcher role as to defer to me in accepting
my version. But the two participants who showed the most marked
change in behaviour were the same two who were most enthusiastic in
their recognition of how it had changed their ideas about writing, i.e. it
seems to have fulfilled a need to know how to write effectively, rather
than to have been a dutiful following of instructions. Possibly there are
more effective models, in which case I am quite happy to adjust my
model accordingly, with the proviso that it should remain accessible to
the learner writer. It must be remembered that the model is effective
purely in terms of whether or not it works for the learner, and not by
virtue of any resemblance to a description derived from pure theory, a
point stressed by Widdowson in his definition of the model (see 2.3).
As I have drawn heavily on Widdowson in this research, especially on his
concept of a user’s model, it is appropriate that I conclude with yet
another reference to him. In his chapter “The role of theory”
Widdowson (1984) refers to two kinds of English teacher. The “fuddyduddy” teacher is firmly rooted in traditional practices, and believes
- 126 that “recent thinking either introduces familiar ideas in fancy dress or
unfamiliar ideas that are too fanciful to be of use.” On the other hand,
the “fly-by-night” teacher glibly uses the latest educational jargon and
believes that “past practices must be abandoned in favour of the new
enlightenment” (Widdowson 1984:31). I cannot align myself with the
“fly-by-nights”, because although I have approached the teaching of
writing through a new perspective (new to me, at least), I have relied
heavily on what is known about accepted good teaching practice in the
literature available to me, and on my own experience of the teaching of
writing over the last twenty years. I could, and no doubt will, be
accused by traditionalists of introducing “familiar ideas in fancy dress”,
as there is little which was not already known about the writing process
in this study, apart from the abstract model of the process itself and the
idea of communicating it directly to the learner, which to my knowledge
is the first application of this approach to the teaching of writing. What I
have tried to do is synthesize the best from both worlds, what is known,
and what is new, and communicate these insights directly to the learner
to bring about improved performance in written composition.
- 127 -
APPENDICES
- 128 APPENDIX A
CONFERENCING
Internal dialogues are not contained in the user’s model
The importance of the role of internal dialogue was mentioned in
Chapter Three (3.4.2). However, the kinds of dialogue which the writer
must engage in to complete his task are not contained in the model, as
this would have made it too unwieldy. Moreover, the model was
initially used in a teaching situation where the internal dialogues were
“modelled” by teacher-discussions with the learner, i.e. conferencing
sessions. A brief explanation of the process-conference approach
follows.
The process-conference approach explained
Conferencing is one of the techniques associated with the process
approach to writing. Graves (1978) describes the “process-conference
approach” to teaching writing: “Teachers using this method help
students during the process of writing, rather than by assigning topics in
advance of writing and making extensive corrections after the writing is
finished” (1978:19). The teacher responds at various stages of the
process with appropriate advice and help. He does this by responding
to the pupil’s ideas, rather than by merely evaluating or correcting.
Zamel (1985) holds that conventional teacher responses are vague and
unhelpful. She also suggests that the teacher’s preoccupation with
“surface-level mistakes “may be transferred to the pupils, with negative
effects.” For example, a learner writer who focused on correcting
spellings too early in the composing process could seriously inhibit the
idea-flow. Zamel says that we need to “establish priorities in our
responses to drafts and subsequent revisions and encourage students
to address certain concerns before others”; “we need to play a whole
- 129 range of roles as readers of student writing and adopt those that are
appropriate for the various stages of a developing text” (1985:96). For
example, pointing out spelling and punctuation errors before the
learner writer has himself corrected and polished his piece is hardly a
helpful response, since the writer at that stage is more interested in a
response to his ideas; whereas at a later stage of finishing and polishing
the writer himself is focusing on correctness and needs to know about
any errors he has missed when proof-reading.
To sum up: conferences are teacher/pupil discussions in which the
teacher assumes a supportive collaborative role, responding primarily
to pupil ideas as expressed in the text (although advice on form and
editing techniques is not excluded), and in which the pupil is
encouraged to take the initiative and assume control of his writing.
Although the focus is on “individual conferencing”, Graves (1983)
mentions “all-class” conferences and “group conferences” (1983:36).
Thus other learners, as well as the teacher, can learn to respond
supportively and constructively to learner writers.
The significance of conferencing in terms of writing as discourse
Conferencing enables the learner writer to engage in the kinds of
dialogues he will need to internalise as he engages in an imaginary
dialogue with his intended reader. Graves mentions the role of
dialogue in developmental work on first graders (1981), where he
observes very young writers actually verbalising this dialogue out loud:
“he (the writer) ... supplies the sound for the page, almost making it
speak back to him.” As remarked by Daiute above, inexperienced
writers have not learnt or internalized these dialogues. Teacher
responses during conferencing make the writing experience “more like
the conversational experience” (Daiute 1983:140), and make the writer
aware of the fact that he is writing for a potential audience. Teacher
- 130 responses also demonstrate to the learner the same kinds of dialogues
he must learn to hold with himself to become a competent writer.
These dialogues are explored in more detail below.
The role of the user’s model in conferencing sessions
As mentioned in Chapter Four (4.2), the “user’s model” was formulated
in response to a teaching situation, i.e. student conferencing sessions,
where the overall purpose was to give appropriate feedback to students
on various drafts of academic essays. The purpose of the model was
twofold: to offer the pupils an effective way of going about writing by
showing them how the process worked, and to offer the teacher
(myself) a structure of priorities for appropriate responses to the
students during conferencing sessions (see 4.2.2).
Reader roles identified
The students’ need for me to assume an evaluative reader role made
me aware of the fact that although the conferencing approach
emphasised response to ideas, i.e. a collaborative reader role, “a whole
range of roles” (Zamel above) is involved at various stages of the writing
process. To clarify for myself what these roles were, so that I would be
clear about my response to student essay drafts at varying stages of
completion, and also to establish what Zamel calls “priorities in our
responses to drafts” (Zamel above), I drew up the following diagram of
reader responses which the writer needs to adopt during the various
stages of writing. Like the user’s model, which it complements, the
purpose of the schema is twofold: it indicates to the learner writer the
internal dialogues he must engage in to complete the various stages of
the writing process, and it guides the teacher in responding to the text
- 131 overtly in ways which the learner will imitate and internalize. Although
the model of reader roles was intended as a guide for the teacher in
terms of timing and appropriateness of response, it could be used to
complement the user’s model in communicating to the learner writer
the kinds of internal dialogue in which he interacts with his text.
Diagram illustrating internal reader roles which the writer adopts at the
various stages of the writing process
The diagram below shows what “reader roles” good writers switch to at
the various stages of writing, and the function of each role:
Diagram of reader roles
READER ROLE
DIALOGUE FUNCTIONS
STAGE OF WRITING
1. Deliberate
Question how it can be Prewriting
done.
2. Collaborate
Respond to ideas: creative Draft writing
discussion.
3. Elaborate
Analyse
for
meaning, Major Editing
argue, demand elaboration
or textual detail.
4. Denigrate
Nitpick, criticise, tidy up: Minor Editing
corrective criticism.
5. Evaluate
Objective appraisal.
Evaluation
- 132 Source of the model of internal dialogues
Some of these dialogues were already identified in the readings; for
instance, the idea-generating and reader accommodating dialogues (2.
and 3.) are referred to by Widdowson (1984:74), and the proofreading
dialogue by Daiute (1983:187). The notion of the prewriting dialogue (a
reader dialogue with the topic) and the evaluative dialogue emerged in
conferencing sessions.
Explanation of the internal dialogues
As with the user’s model, there is a clear change of focus in the reader
dialogue at each stage of the writing process. In stage one, the dialogue
focuses the writer’s attention on analysing the task, considering the
audience, and possible sources of data. In the collaborative dialogue of
stage 2, the focus is on ideas: the dialogue is a creative discussion
between the writer and his recorded ideas wherein new ideas are
generated. Once intuitions are recorded as text, they are no longer
fleeting and inchoate, the writer is made aware of what he thinks, and
can use the recorded ideas as a springboard for further ideas. As more
and more ideas are recorded, the focus switches to reader
accommodation: the writer attempts to distance himself from his text,
and begins to realise that the ideas which he found so exciting in stage
2 have to be reworked considerably if they are to make a similar impact
on his prospective reader.
According to Widdowson, reader
accommodation is achieved largely by a process of elaboration and
expansion (1984:75-77), and thus the internal dialogue gears itself
towards eliciting elaboration and explanation. In proofreading, the
focus is firmly on the text itself - meaning is not an issue, except in
terms of being blurred by faulty textual items. The reader dialogue
becomes fussy and critical, and focuses on surface detail: the traditional
- 133 “teacher response”, which writers find so unhelpful at earlier stages,
but useful at this point. In the final internal dialogue, the writer
attempts to distance himself from the text as much as possible, and
assess the value of his piece of writing objectively. Thus from stage 2 to
stage 5 there is a clear progression from a very intimate, involved
reader stance, to a more distant, objective one.
Purpose of the diagram of reader roles
The diagram of reader roles was intended to complement the user’s
model, and serves two purposes: it indicates the “inner dialogues”
which help the writer complete each stage, thus making the learner
writer aware of the reader roles which good writers have internalized.
Secondly, it provides a “hierarchy of priorities” for the teacherconferencer (or pupil-conferencer), which informs her of the kinds of
responses which are likely to be helpful to the writer at the various
stages of writing. This is particularly important when responding to
learner writers: experienced writers are more likely to be aware of
their feedback requirements, and to be able to specify the response
which they find most helpful.
- 134 APPENDIX B
USING THE USER’S MODEL IN CONFERENCING SESSIONS
Using the model in conferencing sessions with university students
I held individual conferencing sessions with each student to discuss the
first draft of his academic essay. Before commenting on the essay draft,
I explained the writing process as shown in the diagram of the user’s
model (see Figure 1). This meant that the student came into the
discussion with a similar frame of reference to that of the tutor. I asked
the student to identify the stage of the writing process he was at
present engaged in, to test out whether he had seen any connection
between the model and his own writing behaviour. I then conferenced
with the student, attempting to make my responses appropriate to the
stage of the process he had reached. At the end of the session I asked
the student whether he knew how to proceed with his essay, to test out
whether the model had given him guidance for stage-by-stage
completion of the writing process. In some cases I arranged further
conferencing sessions, especially where major redrafting seemed
necessary.
What student conferencing sessions indicated about the effectiveness
of the model as a teaching tool
During conferencing sessions I became aware of certain advantages to
both teacher and learner in using the user’s model of the writing
process. The advantages to the teacher are described below. Possible
effects on the learner were tested out in the case studies, and are
described fully in Chapters Seven and Eight.
Advantages to the teacher in using the model
As a teacher, I found the model useful in these areas:
- 135 -
a Teacher response to writing
Identifying the stage the writer was at enabled me as teacher:
(1) to respond more appropriately, especially in terms of responding to
student ideas, because of the “hierarchy of responses” suggested by
the reader roles identified during student conferencing;
(2) to identify the stage the writer was at, either by referring to the
model myself, or by referring the learner to the model;
(3) to give clear advice as to how to complete the stage, based on the
strategies suggested by the model;
(4) to point the writer towards the next stage, or, again, let the model
do this for him.
b Teacher perception of error in student texts
I noticed a marked change in my perception of student error. Whereas
previously I had tended to focus on errors in the texts, and had been
uncertain of where to start or what to do to remedy the errors, i.e. had
no real hierarchy or methodology of response, after formulating and
using the model I saw the errors in perspective and in relation to the
stage of writing the student had reached. With some effort, I
consciously avoided focusing on surface errors, unless the student was
at the proofreading stage and actually took the initiative in consulting
me on issues of correctness. Some specific points in my change of
attitude follow:
1. I noticed that many features which I had before identified as
“errors” were in fact acceptable features of the various stages, for
example the “messiness” and minor errors of rough drafts, and
- 136 the fragmented and unfocused nature of prewriting notes, which
one student handed in mistakenly as his first draft. Previously I
would have corrected the rough drafts, destroying the student’s
enthusiasm and confidence in his own proofreading abilities; and
would have marked the prewriting notes as “disjointed” or
“unfocused”, instead of commending the student for his thorough
grasp of background information, and encouraging him to move
on to planning how to use the information in his first rough draft,
which he had not actually yet written.
2. Many of what I previously would have classed as syntactical errors
were found to arise not from ignorance of the grammatical forms
but from a failure to accommodate the reader, or from a failure to
proofread effectively.
To sum up: the model supplied a “hierarchy of response to student
errors” (which in several cases meant NOT responding to them as
errors) which was effective in that it was tailored to the learner’s own
immediate needs, identified by consulting the stage of the process he
was at. Because the response was geared to the process of writing and
not the product (finished or unfinished text), the student’s own
progress was facilitated, rather than hindered or inhibited, as it often is
by conventional teacher responses, which treat all drafts as finished,
polished texts.
Using the model in coaching sessions with matriculation students
As the model seemed to work in student conferencing, I decided to test
it out further on high school pupils in a second series of conferences, as
I wished to see if the model was accessible to learners in secondary
education. The target group comprised matriculation pupils, and as
- 137 their stage of conceptual development did not seem to differ markedly
from that of first year students, I used the same model in coaching
sessions. The sessions differed from those described above in that the
learners chose their own areas of writing development to work on, and
instead of holding individual conferences, I conferenced with pupils in
pairs.
Points arising from coaching sessions
These general points arose from the conferencing sessions using the
process model:
- I became more aware of the negative effects of conventional teacher
feedback and advice.
- The pupils showed confusion in evaluating their writing, especially in
pinpointing their strengths and weaknesses: poor marks were
generally attributed to “bad spelling and grammar”, even by pupils
who showed no particular deficiency in these skills. This confusion
was in most cases a direct result of misinterpretation of teacher
comments. Although the written teacher comments were often very
perceptive, the pupils did not actually understand these comments,
or understand what to do in order to improve their essays.
- The effects of examination writing on general writing habits and
confidence indicated that this might be a worthwhile area of
research: the conferencing sessions suggested that not only do
examinations generate poor writing habits, but that these bad habits
are carried over into non-examination writing situations.
- There was a noticeable dearth of good student models for expository
subject writing. Good writers consult examples of the genres of
- 138 - writing they are involved in learning, yet the pupils I coached had
difficulty in obtaining good student models of academic subject
essays.
- The value of peer-conferencing was demonstrated, with the proviso
that the pupils themselves choose their conferencing partners.
- It soon became apparent that the model had potential as a
diagnostic tool for solving writing problems. The model used in a
conferencing situation made it relatively easy to diagnose the
problem and rectify it, as the problem could be narrowed down to
difficulties with specific stages, and dealt with in the order in which
the stages occurred.
- 139 APPENDIX C
CONTAMINATION
I have used the term “contamination” to refer to the phenomenon of
inappropriate or divided focus during any stage of the composing
process. Inappropriate focus is evident when the behaviour necessary
to complete any one stage is interrupted by behaviour which is more
appropriate to another stage. As shown in her first video sample,
Janeen was prevented from effectively carrying out the activities
needed to complete stage 2 - i.e. jotting down ideas and reading for
sense - because she allowed a preoccupation with correct spellings (a
stage 4 focus) to predominate. Focusing excessively on correctness in
stage 2 can be seen to inhibit or block idea-generation. On considering
the ways in which the specific focus of each stage might become
diffused by interference from another stage, I became aware of other
possibilities, listed below:
1 contaminated by 5 (“I’ll just never think of anything good enough
for...”)
This results in “writer’s block”: the writer blocks the process of
mustering his own ideas on the topic, by anticipating a hypercritical
response from the reader.
2 contaminated by 5 (“This stuff is just no good...”)
This also results in writer’s block, although the piece does get started:
the writer misjudges the messiness of the idea-generating stage in
terms of the perfection required in stage 5.
- 140 3 contaminated by 4 (“Let’s just correct this and that...”)
This results in too great an investment in the polished text to redraft for
reader. Pieces are left in, even if they do not make sense, because the
writer has too great an investment in them to leave them out.
3 contaminated by 5 (“It just doesn’t sound good enough...”)
This results in “purple patches” with very little message: the writer
focuses on style and grand effect rather than making the text accessible
to the reader.
3 contaminated by 2 (“It’s just perfect as it came out...”)
This results in patches of brilliance, but has a garbled effect on the
whole. Here the writer naively assumes that inspiration is all, and that
it is dangerous to meddle with it. This is probably a feature of
egocentric writing: the writer’s identification with the creative
functioning of his brain is so strong that he cannot view his writing
objectively, i.e. cannot switch to a reader role.
2 contaminated by 3 (“Now let’s just write to a logical order..”)
This results in dull, stilted writing, or writer’s block: the writer just as
naively assumes that writing is a linear, logical process and tries to write
rigidly to order. Here the writer identifies so strongly with his brain’s
logical functioning that he cannot relinquish control to allow creative
data to flow into short term memory.
1 contaminated by 3 (“What ought to go in? What if I leave anything
out?”)
This results in writer’s block: the writer is so anxious about the
structuring of his piece that he cannot think clearly about his content.
- 141 The best way to find out what one has left out is to jot down a plan, or
to get on and write the piece (both stage 2 activities), then check if
there are any obvious omissions. This is a particularly difficult block to
bypass, as it blocks the very stage that is needed to resolve the block.
Origins of contamination
The origins of the writer’s focus at any given stage during the
composing process being contaminated by inappropriate focus from
another stage can be traced back to inappropriate reader response,
especially when the writer was at an impressionable age. If the reader
is in a position of authority, the responses assume the force of
injunctions (in fact they are often teachers’ instructions). These
inappropriate responses are internalised as directives by the learner
writer, and instead of adopting useful reader roles, he adopts ones
which reinforce and perpetuate the contamination.
The term “contamination” is derived from its use in transactional
analysis, where ideas from certain ego states can be contaminated by
ideas from other ego states (Steiner 1974). Basically, inappropriate
behaviour is transferred from one state to another, and then retained
rigidly. As these ego states are influenced by “parental injunctions” in
very much the same way as the learner’s behaviour is influenced by
teacher injunctions, the parallel should become clear. It is not
accidental that these ego states correspond to some extent to creative
and logical modes of behaviour. What is interesting is that in both
cases, the instructions are often perfectly appropriate for one stage, but
disastrous when applied in another area. The instructions are not in
themselves necessarily malevolent or destructive (who could fault: “See
that your spellings are correct” - in stage 4?). It is the recipient’s
- 142 interpretation and application of these instructions which renders them
harmful. The concept of contamination in transactional analysis is used
to explain inappropriate, destructive or blocked behaviour: once the
patient has worked through the inappropriateness of the behaviour for
that ego state, the contamination is removed. In very much the same
way, when Janeen had realised to what extent her focusing on
correctness had blocked her idea-generation, she eliminated this kind of
behaviour successfully from stage 2 operations.
- 143 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akinnaso, F.N. (1982) On the differences between spoken and written
language. Language and Speech 25(2):97-125.
Auerbach, E.R. (1984) Tips from writing teachers for writing teachers.
TESOL Newsletter (supplement No.1: Writing and composition)
18(1):16.
Barnes, D., Britton J. & Rosen, H. (1969) Language, the learner and the
school. Allen Lane: Penguin Education.
Beaman, K. (1984) Coordination and subordination revisited: syntactic
complexity in spoken and written narrative discourse. In D. Tannen (ed.)
Coherence in spoken and written discourse 12. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Bennett, Bruce (1981) Writers and their writing, 15 to 17. In C.N.
Candlin (ed.) Learning to write: first language/second language. Essex:
Longman.
Benson, R. (1984) Tips from writing teachers for writing teachers. TESOL
Newsletter (supplement No.1: Writing and composition) 18(1):16.
Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1981) Does learning to write have to be
so difficult? In C.N. Candlin (ed.) Learning to write: first
language/second language. Essex: Longman.
Berg, S.M. (1984) Tips from writing teachers for writing teachers. TESOL
Newsletter (supplement No.1: Writing and composition) 18(1):16.
Britton, J. (1970) Language and learning. Allen Lane: Penguin Press.
Britton, J. (1981) Shaping at the point of utterance. In C.N. Candlin (ed.)
Learning to write: first language/second language. Essex: Longman.
- 144 Candlin, C.N. (ed.) (1981) Learning to write: first language/second
language. Essex: Longman.
Chafe, W.L. (1982) Integration and involvement in speaking, writing,
and oral literature. In D. Tannen (ed.) Spoken and written language 9.
Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Chick, J.K. (1978) Writer’s guide. Pietermaritzburg: Shuter & Shooter.
Chick, J.K. (ms) Report on roundtable discussion: key questions about
writing. 19th Annual Convention of TESOL. New York 1985.
Cook-Gumperz, J. (ms a) The social construction of literacy.
Cook-Gumperz, J. (ms b) Literacy and schooling: an unchanging
equation?
Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1980) Research Methods in Education. London:
Croom Helm Ltd.
Corbett, E.P.J. (1981) The status of writing in our society. In M.F.
Whiteman (ed.) Writing: the nature, development, and teaching of
written communication. Volume 1 Variation in writing: functional and
linguistic-cultural differences. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Daiute, C.A. (1983) The computer as stylus and audience.
Composition and Communication 34(2):134-145.
College
Dixon, D. (1986) Teaching composition to large classes. Forum 24 (3):2-5
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Fruger, A.M. & Freeman, C.F. (1985) Creating a writing lab based on
composition reformulation techniques. TESOL Newsletter 19(5):15-17
- 145 -
Graves, D.H. (1978) Balance the basics: let them write. Paper on
research about learning. New York: Ford Foundation.
Graves, Donald H. (1981) The growth and development of first-grade
writers. In C.N. Candlin (ed.) Learning to write: first language/second
language. Essex: Longman.
Gumperz, J.J., Kaltman, H. and O’Connor, M.C. (1984) Cohesion in
spoken and written discourse: ethnic style and the transition to literacy.
In D. Tannen (ed.) Coherence in spoken and written discourse 12.
Norwood,N.J.: Ablex.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1986) No new lamps for old yet, please. TESOL
Quarterly 20(4):790-793.
Heath, S.B. (1983) Ways with words. Cambridge University Press.
Heath, S.B. (1981) Towards an ethnohistory of writing in American
Education. In M.F. Whiteman (ed.) Writing: the nature, development,
and teaching of written communication. Volume 1 Variation in writing,
functional and linguistic-cultural differences. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Heath, S.B. (1982) Protean shapes in literacy events: ever-shifting oral
and literate traditions. In D. Tannen (ed.) Spoken and written language
9. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Hendrix, R. (1981) The status and politics of writing instruction. In
Writing: the Nature, development and teaching of written
communication. Volume 1 Variation in writing: functional and linguisticcultural differences. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- 146 Horowitz, D.M. (1986) The author responds to Liebman-Kleine. TESOL
Quarterly 20(4):788-790.
Johnson, K. (1981) Communicative writing practice and Aristotelian
rhetoric. In C.N. Candlin (ed.) Learning to write: first language/second
language. Essex: Longman.
Johnston, S.A. (1985) An approach to the teaching of academic writing.
ELT Journal 39(4):248-252.
Kameen, P.T. (1981) Syntactic skill and ESL writing quality. In C.N.
Candlin (ed.) Learning to write: first language/second language. Essex:
Longman.
Kaplan, R.B. (1981) Contrastive rhetorics: some implications for the
writing process. In C.N. Candlin (ed.) Learning to write: first
language/second language. Essex: Longman.
Kinneavy, J. (1981) A pluralistic synthesis of four contemporary models
for teaching composition. In C.N. Candlin (ed.) Learning to write: first
language/second language. Essex: Longman.
Kirby, D.R. & Kantor, K.J. (1981) Towards a theory of developmental
rhetoric. In C.N. Candlin (ed.) Learning to write: first language/second
language. Essex: Longman.
Lakoff, R.T. (1982) Some of my favourite writers are literate: the
mingling of oral and literate strategies in written communication. In D.
Tannen (ed.) Spoken and written language 9. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Liebman-Kleine, J. (1986) In defense of teaching process in ESL
composition. TESOL Quarterly 20(4):783-788.
- 147 Lindfors, J. (1987) Teaching writing to second language students. In The
Natal Association for the Teaching of English Journal 13:23-30
Martin, N. (1981) Scope for intentions. In C.N. Candlin (ed.) Learning to
write: first language/second language. Essex: Longman.
Mcdonough, S. (1985) Academic writing practice. ELT Journal 39(4):244247.
Mead, W. (1983) A course in C.A.L.L. for an M.A. programme in TESL.
TESOL Newsletter 17(5):13.
Michaels, S. & Collins, J. (1984) Oral discourse styles: classroom
interaction and the acquisition of literacy. In D. Tannen (ed.) Coherence
in spoken and written discourse 12. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Newton, A.C. (ed.) (1986) Forum 24 (3) Washington, D.C.: U.S.
government printing office.
Odell, L. (1981) Redefining maturity in writing. In C.N. Candlin (ed.)
Learning to write: first language/second language. Essex: Longman.
Pfingstag, N. (1984) Showing writing: modeling the process. TESOL
Newsletter (supplement No.1: Writing and composition) 18(1):1-3.
Raimes A. (1981) Anguish as a second language? Remedies for
composition teachers. In C.N. Candlin (ed.) Learning to write: first
language/second language. Essex: Longman.
Raimes, A. (1985) What unskilled ESL students do as they write: a
classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly 19(2):229-256.
Schrieber, M. (1985)
Newsletter 19(2):14.
An authentic writing experience. TESOL
- 148 -
Scribner, S. & Cole, M. (1981) Unpackaging Literacy. In M.F. Whiteman
(ed.) Writing: the nature, development, and teaching of written
communication. Volume 1 Variation in writing: functional and linguisticcultural differences. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shaughnessy, M.P. (1977) Errors and expectations. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Spack, R. (1984) Invention strategies and the ESL college composition
student. TESOL Quarterly 18(4):649-670.
Spack, R. & Sadow, C. (1983) Student-teacher working journals in ESL
freshmen composition. TESOL Quarterly 17(4):575-593.
Squire, J.R.(1981) Instructional focus and the teaching of writing. In C.N.
Candlin (ed.) Learning to write: first language/second language. Essex:
Longman.
Steiner, C.M. (1974) Scripts people live. New York: Grove Press.
Szwed, J.F. (1981) The ethnography of literacy. In M.F. Whiteman (ed.)
Writing: the nature, development, and teaching of written
communication. Volume 1 Variation in writing: functional and linguisticcultural differences. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tannen, D. (ed.) (1982) Spoken and written language 9. Norwood, N.J.:
Ablex.
Tannen, D. (ed.) (1984) Coherence in spoken and written discourse 12.
Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Whiteman, M.F. (ed.) (1981) Writing: the nature, development, and
teaching of written communication. Volume 1 Variation in writing:
- 149 functional and linguistic-cultural differences. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Widdowson, H.G. (1979) Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Widdowson, H.G. (1984) Explorations in applied linguistics 2. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Winterowd, W.R. (1981) From classroom practice into psycholinguistic
theory. In C.N. Candlin (ed.) Learning to write: first language/second
language. Essex: Longman.
Zamel, V. (1985) Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly
19(1):79-101.