Teaching wriitten speech during the basic course

     1) sometimes students fail to read the written comments on their papers, caring only about the grade1;

     2)sometimes they do not understand or indeed misinterpret the written comments, and find themselves unable to make appropriate changes in future drafts;2

     3) sometimes they use comments to psych out a particular teacher's personal agenda, only hoping "to make the teacher happy" in the future;1

     4) sometimes they become hostile at the teacher's appropriation of their text

     In research on student response to comments in an L2 environment, Leki found that students expressed a lack of interest in teacher reaction to the content of their papers, and instead indicated a desire to have every error marked on their papers. Cohen found that students had a very limited repertoire of strategies for processing feedback, and as such, Cohen and Cavalcanti conclude, "Clear teacher- student agreements on feedback procedures and student training in strategies for handling feedback could lead to more productive and enjoyable composition writing in the classroom."2

     To address some of these issues, one step is to assure that the feedback on a particular piece of writing addresses that text in the context of how it was produced and with a clear agenda for what the student is expected to do with any feedback. In a process-oriented produce more than one draft of an essay, reflecting the steps of producing real-world texts. Thus, feedback on a first draft should most appropriately provide guidelines and suggestions for how to produce a second draft which would show improvement at the level of content and organization. However, Zamel (1985, p. 81) reported that studies provide "overwhelming evidence that teachers attend to surface-level features in what should otherwise be considered first drafts," completely ignoring the philosophy of process which they claim to espouse. In examining the responding behaviors of 15 EFL teachers by reviewing their written comments on portfolios of student papers, Zamel goes on to identify a host of "incongruous types of comments" in which "the major revisions suggested and the interlinear responses are at odds with one another." This use of "mixed signals" helps explain why many students find it difficult to decipher teacher commentary. Why, for example, should the student pay attention to problems in the sequence of tenses in a particular paragraph if a marginal or end note indicates that the whole paragraph is irrelevant to the development of the paper?

     As with other issues we have discussed, the question of the teacher's philosophy is a key determinant of his or her approach to commenting. Zamel notes of her 15 ESL teacher subjects “the teachers overwhelmingly view themselves as language teachers rather than writing teachers; they attend primarily to surface-level features of writing and seem to read and react to a text as a series of separate sentences or even clauses, rather than as a whole unit of discourse.” Unless the teacher adopts the stance of a writing teacher, he or she will be unable to provide feedback appropriate to that role.

     Forms of Feedback. Up to now we have been discussing feedback that is provided in writing by the teacher on various drafts of a student paper, a fairly traditional and undoubtedly time-consuming method, even for those teachers who do not respond to every draft as a finished product. But there are other ways for students to receive feedback on their writing which can and should be considered in structuring a writing course. Writing teachers who view themselves as judges or repositories of certain truths about effectiveness in writing will want, of course, to be in charge of providing feedback to their students, believingthatsuch feedback can play a vital role in the improvement of student writing. Those who view themselves as coaches or editorial advisors will also want to provide feedback, though not necessarily in the same way. Teachers should bear in mind that feedback can beoral as well as written, and they should consider the value of individual conferences7 on student papers and/or the use of tape cassettes as two additional ways to structure teacher feedback. From another point oi view, most writing teachers realize that they have many students in one class and they might also be teaching two or more writing classes, so the teacher has a very limited amount of time to provide feedback to any one student. Teachers whose philosophies embrace the value of collaborative learning1 therefore turn to the other students in the class to assist in the feedback process. Other students in the writing class can be taughtto provide valuable feedback in the form of peer response, which serves to sharpen their critical skills in analyzing written work as well as to increase their ability to analyze their own drafts critically.

     Oral Teacher Feedback. Because of potential communication problems, EFL students in a writing class need to have individual conferences with their teacher even more than native-speaking students do. Conferences of about 15 minutes seem to work best, and can provide the teacher an opportunity to directly question the student about intended messages which are often difficultto decipher by simply reading a working draft. Further, conferences allow the teacher to uncover potential misunderstandings the student might have about prior written feedback or issues in writing that have been discussed in class. Another benefit is that students can usually learn more in the one-to- one exchange than they can when attempting to decipher teacher-written commentary on their own.

     Some teachers provide all their feedback orally by asking students to submit a cassette tape with each draft. This method probably works best when the teacher silently reads a student's paper and makes comments directly into the tape recorder while marking some accompanying numbers or symbols on the student's text. For EFL students, this method has the advantage of providing more extensive feedback than that likely to be made in writing, as well as allowing the student to replay the tape as many times as necessary to understand and benefit from the teacher's comments. Once the teacher has learned to use this technique, it probably takes less time to complete taped remarks about a paper than it would to put them in writing.

     Peer Response. Because the use of peer response is a key component of classrooms teaching writing as a process in the LI environment, many ESL teachers embraced the idea of having students read and/ or listen to each other's papers for the purpose of providing feedback and input to each other as well as helping each other gain a sense of audience. But embracing a philosophy without understanding how to translate it to the L2 environment can often lead to rather disappointing results. That is, simply putting students together in groups of four or five, each with rough draft in hand, and then having each student in turn read his or her paper aloud, followed by having the other members of the group react to the strengths and weaknesses of the paper in the role of interested audience member, indicating further reader needs that have not been addressed, is not a format likely to work with even the most sophisticated class of ESL students. Because ESL students lack the language competence of native speakers, who can often react intuitively to their classmates' papers, peer responding in the ESL classroom must be modeled, taught, and controlled in order for it to be a valuable activity.

     One way to control peer response is for teachers to provide a short list of directed questions which students address as they read their own or other students' papers. A first exercise of this type can involve giving students a short checklist of attributes to look for in their own papers, such as to check for a particular grammatical feature that might have been discussed in class (e.g., subject- verb agreement) or to check to assure that no irrelevancies have been included. The checklist is submitted with the paper as a way for the student to assume responsibility for reading over his or her paper carefully. Next, students can be trained to read and respond to other students' papers by reviewing an essay written by a student in a previous class and working through, as a class, a peer editing sheet that asks a few specific questions that would elicit both a general reaction to the paper and suggestions for improvement. As the students gain practice in reading and analyzing each other's papers and their awareness of the conventions of writing increases, the questions can be made more complex and varied. Some typical questions to begin with might include these: "What is the main purpose of this paper?" "What have you found particularly effective in the paper?" "Do you think the writer has followed through on what the paper set out to do?" Some peer guideline sheets for students who have more practice in the technique might include the following steps: "Find at least three places in the essay where you can think of questions that have not been answered by the writer. Write those questions in the margins as areas for the writer to answer in the next draft." "Read only the introduction and then write what you predict the rest of the essay will discuss. Then read the essay and compare your predictions with the actual content of the essay."

     In order to maximize the value of the feedback to the EFL student, responses should be written, incidentally providing practice in the valuable skill of text analysis for the student commentator. These written responses can be given to the student writer with or without the anonymity of the student reader preserved or used as the basis for oral discussion between reader(s) and writer. The teacher might also want to read the student feedback sheets to assess the analytical skills of the student readers.

     Error Correction. Regardless of what agenda the writing teacher sets and the number of drafts that students produce, the papers that EFL students write are likely to exhibit problems in language control. However, it is very important that the teacher not be swayed by the presence or numbers of these problems into turning a writing course into a grammar course. Rather, error must be dealt with at an appropriate stage of the composing process, and is perhaps best considered part of the final editing phase. The role of editing, when seen as distinct from rewriting, is essentially working to eliminate grammatical problems and stylistic infelicities; this type of editing is certainly essential to the production of good prose, but it should be an activity that is probably best attended to when a text is considered complete in terms of having been shaped by content, organization, attention to the needs of the reader, and a consideration of its purpose. In fact, editing or correcting errors on first drafts can be a counterproductive activity, possibly exacerbating whatever insecurities students might have about their writing and drawing their attention away from the other kinds of revision work that must be attended to. Chenoweth concedes, "It may be hard for teachers to give up their habit of correcting every grammatical mistake," but also believes grammatical problems should only be dealt with "when the meaning the student wants to express has been adequately dealt with.

     In addition to deciding when to correcf errors, teacher must also decide who will cor rect the errors, which errors to correct, and how to correct errors. Besides the obvio role the teacher plays as a corrector of errors, the student writer and other students in the class can also be called upon to provide feedback on errors as part of the peer feedbac process. Again, the use of a checklist naming specific grammatical features often helps to focus student attention on areas the teachei feels the student should be able to monitorfoi and self-correct.

     The decision whether to address all or selected errors is a complex one and probably depends a great deal on the level of writing the student is capable of producing, However, correcting all of a student's errors is probably rarely called for, unless there are very few errors present in the text. Rather,the teacher should probably concentrate on calling the student's attention to those errors which are considered more serious and/or represent a pattern of errors in that particular student's writing. Traditionally, we take "serious" to mean that which most interferes with communication, soer rors of sentence structure are very important to deal with, while those errors which are unlikely to lead to faulty interpretation or to interfere with the reading process might be seen to be less significant. Unfortunately some errors which are not serious by these standards tend to have an "irritation factor," and many faculty outside EFL programs, for example, find little tolerance for errors in EFL writing which seem like careless proofreading mistakes to them, most notably mistakes in article usage. Since mastery of the article system is actually a very difficult task, con- I sciousness raising about typical ESL learner problems among non-ESL faculty might be just as important as attempts to improve proficiency in article usage among ESL students.

     Finally, the "how" of calling students' attention to the errors they have committed is also a complex issue. Teachers can choose to (1) point out specific errors using a mark in the margin or an arrow or other symbolic system; (2) correct (or model) specific errors by writing in the corrected form; (3) label specific errors according to the feature they violate (e.g., subject-verb agreement), using either the complete term or a symbol system; (4) indicate the presence of error but not the precise location (e.g., noting that there are problems with word forms); or (5) ignore specific errors. Most teachers use a combination of two or more of the methods mentioned above, depending on what they perceive to be the needs of the student, and studies of acher feedback are inconclusive as to what the best methodology might be. One study of feedback procedures by Robb, Ross and Irortreed, for example, concludes that "the more direct methods of feedback do not tend to produce results commen- ' rate with the amount of effort required of the instructor to draw the student's attention tothesurface error." However, another study by Fathman and Whalley involving feedback on content versus feedback on pnmar reports that all students who revived feedback on grammar improved the grammatical accuracy of their revised texts while only some students improved the content of their writing following feedback on ontent. The best approach to feedback on rrors must undoubtedly derive from con- idering the circumstances of the individual udent coupled with the goals of the , course and the stage of the composing process a particular draft reflects.

      Part 3. Making writing more communicative 

     Students need to be personally involved in writing exercises in order to make the learning experience of lasting value. Encouraging student participation in the exercise, while at the same time refining and expanding writing skills, requires a certain pragmatic approach. The teacher should be clear on what skills he/she is trying to develop. Next, the teacher needs to decide on which means (or type of exercise) can facilitate learning of the target area. Once the target skill areas and means of implementation are defined, the teacher can then proceed to focus on what topic can be employed to ensure student participation. By pragmatically combing these objectives, the teacher can expect both enthusiasm and effective 1 learning.

     Choosing a Target Area . Choosing the target area depends on many factors; what level are the students? What is the average age of the students, Why are the students learning English, Are there any specific future intentions for the writing (i.e. school tests or job application letters etc.). Other important questions to ask oneself are: What should the students be able to produce at the end of this exercise? (a well written letter, basic communication of ideas, etc.) What is the focus of the exercise? (structure, tense usage, creative writing). Once these factors are clear in the mind of the teacher, the teacher can begin to focus on how to involve the students in the activity thus promoting a positive, long-term learning experience. Having decided on the target area, the teacher can focus on the means to achieve this type of learning. As in correction, the teacher must choose the most appropriate manner for the specified writing area. If formal business letter English is required, it is of little use to employ a free expression type of exercise. Likewise, when working on descriptive language writing skills, a formal letter is equally out of place. With both the target area and means of production clear in the teacher's mind, the teacher can begin to consider how to involve the students by considering what type of activities are interesting to the students: Are they preparing for something specific such as a holiday or test?, Will they need any of the skills pragmatically? What has been effective in the past? A good way to approach this is by class feedback, or brainstorming sessions. By choosing a topic that involves the students the teacher is providing a context within which effective learning on the target area can be undertaken.

     Finally, the question of which type of correction will facilitate a useful writing exercise is of utmost importance. Here the teacher needs to once again think about the overall target area of the exercise. If there is an immediate task at hand, such as taking a test, perhaps teacher-guided correction is the most effective solution. However, if the task were more general (for example developing informal letter writing skills), maybe the best approach would be to have the students work in groups thereby learning from each other. Most importantly, by choosing the correct means of correction the teacher can encourage rather discourage students.

     The most important factor in writing exercises is that students need to be personally involved in order to make the learning experience of lasting value. Encouraging student participation in the exercise, while at the same time refining and expanding writing skills, requires a certain pragmatic approach. The teacher should be clear on what skills he/she is trying to develop. Next, the teacher needs to decide on which means (or type of exercise) can facilitate learning of the target area. Once the target skill areas and means of implementation are defined, the teacher can then proceed to focus on what topic can be employed to ensure student participation. By pragmatically combing these objectives, the teacher can expect both enthusiasm and effective learning.

     Choosing the target area depends on many factors; What level are the students?, What is the average age of the students, Why are the students learning English, Are there any specific future intentions for the writing (i.e school tests or job application letters etc.). Other important questions to ask oneself are: What should the students be able to produce at the end of this exercise? (a well written letter, basic communication of ideas, etc.) What is the focus of the exercise? (structure, tense usage, creative writing). Once these factors are clear in the mind of the teacher, the teacher can begin to focus on how to involve the students in the activity thus promoting a positive, long-term learning experience.

     Having decided on the target area, the teacher can focus on the means to achieve this type of learning. As in correction, the teacher must choose the most appropriate manner for the specified writing area. If formal business letter English is required, it is of little use to employ a free expression type of exercise. Likewise, when working on descriptive language writing skills, a formal letter is equally out of place.

     With both the target area and means of production, clear in the teachers mind, the teacher can begin to consider how to involve the students by considering what type of activities are interesting to the students; Are they preparing for something specific such as a holiday or test?, Will they need any of the skills pragmatically? What has been effective in the past? A good way to approach this is by class feedback, or brainstorming sessions. By choosing a topic that involves the students the teacher is providing a context within which effective learning on the target area can be understaken.

     Finally, the question of which type of correction will facilitate a useful writing exercise is of utmost importance. Here the teacher needs to once again think about the overall target area of the exercise. If there is an immediate task at hand, such as taking a test, perhaps teacher guided correction is the most effective solution. However, if the task is more general (for example developing informal letter writing skills), maybe the best approach would be to have the students work in groups thereby learning from each other. Most importantly, by choosing the correct means of correction the teacher can encourage rather discourage students.

     Writing, like all other aspects of language, is communicative. Think about what we write in real life. We write e-mails, lists, notes, covering letters, reports, curriculums, assignments, essays perhaps if we study. Some of us write articles or work on blogs, forums and websites. A few write stories and poems - but very few. All of these writing tasks have a communicative purpose and a target audience. In the English language classroom, however, writing often lacks this. There are lots of reasons, as there are lots of ways to make the writing we do with learners more communicative. By its nature, writing is often a solo activity, done silently, involving physical effort and taking a lot of time. This may not make it attractive to learners or teachers as a classroom activity. In addition to this, writing is difficult, even in L1. There are linguistic, psychological and cognitive problems involved, making teaching it and learning it a considerable challenge. It is also important to remember that many people never write anything of any length in their daily lives, or anything using paper and a pen, or without using a spellchecker. But this is often what we ask them to do in English.

     Responding appropriately to writing that learners give us is time-consuming and taxing, whether we are addressing errors or the content. We often have to work as hard as our learners have done. Our response is also often dictated by our concern with sub-skills and so correction is often at this level rather than at that of communicative competence. This is aggravated by the fact that it is not easy to evaluate this competence, especially formally - as can be seen in the complexity of the speaking criteria for exams such as IELTS and Cambridge Main Suite. In addition, it is important to recognize that learners are equally concerned about correctness in writing at a sub-level, in areas such as spelling and punctuation. This is especially true when compared to speaking. This inhibits communication.

     The kinds of tasks we set learners may not be motivating, relevant or indeed very communicative. Writing is rarely incorporated into a lesson, ending up relegated to homework - which reduces the possibilities to be communicative. We need to give learners tasks that are intellectually satisfying, especially when writing. Adult learners become aware of their limitations very quickly when they try to express complex ideas on paper. As a final note coursebooks don't necessarily always help us develop writing. We need materials that provide relevant, real and communicative practice.

     We need to make a distinction between writing to learn (other things, like structures, spelling and vocabulary) and learning to write. If we understand this distinction and make sure our learners do too then the communicative purpose of writing will be clearer.