Volume 7, Issue 10, October – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

ISSN No:-2456-2165

Main Approaches to Teaching Writing in EFL/ESL

Contexts: A Literature Review
YOUSSEF EL OUIDANI(Corresponding Author), SIDI YOUSSEF EL BAGHDADI
Ibn Zohr University, Agadir, Morocco

Abstract:- Effective teaching of the four skills has been II. APPROACHES TO TEACHING WRITING IN
the primary concern of research in the TEFL field. Yet, EFL/ESL CONTEXTS
the importance of writing makes it one of the most useful
and essential life skills for language learners and A. The Controlled-to-free Approach
teachers alike. Due to its multiple uses and functions, the It is an approach that is based on the Audio-lingual
writing skill enables learners to constantly expand their method which emerged in the 1950s and early 1960s, a
personal horizons. In actual fact, mastering the writing period known by a great emphasis on speech as the main
process contributes to the learners' achievement of their concern in language teaching. Writing then, was considered
immediate goals, while serving them in the classroom only as a merely secondary sub-skill for reinforcing speech
and beyond. Nevertheless, given the complexity of through mastery of language forms (Raimes, 1983). As a
teaching writing skills, teachers have consistently found matter of fact, in this approach students are first given
it to be one of the most difficult and challenging skills to grammar exercises that focus on single sentences and only
teach, especially in the EFL/ESL contexts. This article after having practiced this level, they copy, manipulate or
aims to illustrate, summarize, and above all synthesize change paragraphs (Hyland, 2003). This process is
the main approaches followed in teaching writing in sequential and aims at achieving accuracy; writing
ESL/EFL contexts. The article gives an overview of the instruction focuses on developing reproduction skills in
controlled-to-free approach, the free-writing approach, fixed patterns and the ability to identify and correct
the grammar-syntax-organization approach, the problems using their linguistic knowledge (Hyland, 2003).
paragraph-pattern approach, the communicative In short, this approach fails to strike a balance between
approach, the product approach, and the process accuracy and fluency. For instance, the classroom activities
approach, with a special focus on the two main are designed to develop the students’ ability to produce
approaches to teaching writing; namely, the process certain structures correctly. Hyland points out the problems
approach involving training student writers to follow the of focusing on language structure in the writing classroom.
stages of the writing process through different activities. First of all, presenting patterns of short sentences is not
These activities include brainstorming, paired- authentic and can make it difficult to develop writing skills
student and small- group language problem-solving beyond a sentence level. The fact that students can compose
activities, free writing, multi drafting, structured peer accurate sentences does not necessarily mean that they can
feedback and teacher-student conferencing. Along with produce appropriate written texts for a particular
this, the article gives an overview of the product communicative purpose. In addition, structure-oriented
approach to teaching writing. This approach involves instruction does not take into consideration the knowledge
teaching writing primarily through model analysis, of both writers and readers: writers decide what and how to
writing exercises, and structured teacher-student write depending on the readers and purpose of writing.
feedback sessions. Readers also bring up their linguistic and contextual
knowledge to infer the meaning of the texts(Hyland, 2003).
Keywords:- EFL; ESL;TEFL;Process approach; Product Therefore, syntax, grammar, and mechanics are mostly
approach; Effectiveness; emphasized instead of content, process, audience, and
purpose of writing. The controlled-to-free approach expects
I. INTRODUCTION writers to have error-free sentences, and this characteristic
makes such an approach completely different from the other
The writing skill is so particular in that it cannot be left writing approaches.
to itself or just naturally picked up like the other language
skills. It has to be consciously taught and learnt by doing, B. The Free-writing approach
practising, and improving. As to how to teach writing, there Unlike controlled methods, the free-writing approach
is no one answer to this question for there are as many introduced by Raimes (1983) emphasizes fluency and
answers as there are teachers and teaching styles, or learners content, as it focuses on audience, ideas and originality,
and learning styles. Researchers in the field have stressed rather than form and accuracy. Students write on given
different features of the writing process depending on how topics or topics of their interest, which engage them in the
they think writing is best learned. As a result, they have writing process and consequently become motivated and on-
suggested a variety of approaches to the teaching of writing. task. Within the framework of this approach, students write
freely without worrying about correct forms as their teachers
do not correct the structural aspect of their productions but
rather comment only on the content. Along with this, the
approach encourages students to read their writings to the

IJISRT22OCT580 www.ijisrt.com 524

Volume 7, Issue 10, October – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
class, which might constitute a communicatively- authentic pay attention to organization while working on the
audience (Raimes, 1983). In the free-writing approach, it is necessary grammar and syntax. For instance, to write a clear
important that teachers allow students to express what they set of instructions on how to use a computer, the writer
want to say and focus on the students’ own creativity and needs more than the appropriate vocabulary. They need the
self-discovery. That is to say, teachers should be more simple forms of verbs, an organizational plan based on
supportive than directive: they should try to provide a chronology; linking words like “first, then, finally”, as well
positive and cooperative environment to help students freely as sentence structures like "When... then... "(Raimes,
construct their own compositions to convey their meanings. 1983,p. 8). Besides, this approach gives the student writer an
Byrne (1988) argues that “many students write badly essential aspect of writing; namely, writing with a purpose.
because they do not write enough,” which subsequently In this way, students will see the connection between what
makes them incapable of writing (p. 22). they are trying to write, what they need to write, and why
they are writing in the first place. Accordingly, this
The free-writing approach has also received its share approach relates by implication, the purpose of writing to
of criticism. Practitioners in the field have reported that this that a form rather than the communicative one which
approach is unlikely to consider the special needs of remains merely a pre-text whereby students demonstrate
beginning-level learners. Those learners, especially in EFL their mastery and ability to use the target structure or form
classrooms, need more guidance on the part of the teacher. correctly and accurately.
Likewise, Hyland (2003) points out that the approach is
inappropriate to be in academic contexts where students D. The Paragraph-pattern approach
have to write about certain topics that require researching This approach regards the organization of writing as the
instead of freely writing down what they want to express. most important element in the composing process. It started
Moreover, the errors in students’ final products affect the with the claim that the organization of writing varies from
students’ grades as their compositions are judged in terms of one culture to another. In activities that are based on this
organization, accuracy, as well as content. In a nutshell, the approach students work on paragraphs; that is, they copy,
free-writing approach represents the complete opposite to analyze, or imitate model paragraphs. Exercises tend to
the controlled-to-free approach in the sense that the former include re-organizing and re-arranging scrambled sentences
emphasizes content but de-emphasized focus on its accuracy in the right order, identifying general and specific
related aspects. information, inventing a suitable topic sentence for a
paragraph, and the like. The objective is to help students to
C. The Grammar-Syntax-Organization approach learn English writing patterns that will enable them to write
This approach was also introduced by Raimes (1983). properly in English. Byrne (1988) describes this approach as
Teachers adopting this approach emphasize the need to “Focus on Text which is concerned with the paragraph
work simultaneously on more than one feature of the work, its organizing and constructing, and in which students
composition skills such as grammar, mechanics, work on a higher level than single sentences”. (p. 22-23).
organization, syntax, content, audience, purpose, and word Robert Kaplan (1966) also supported this assumption that
choice all at once. Writing, for them, is not composed of different languages have different patterns of written
separate skills which are learned separately one by one discourse. These patterns are described in the figure below:
Raimes (1983). Writing is a skill that requires students to

Fig. 1: The patterns of written discourse. (Kaplan, 1966, p. 14)

Contrastive rhetoric is the term used to refer to the idea viewed as too difficult to apply to a real writing classroom
of focusing on different rhetorical patterns among cultures. because students’ ages and language proficiency levels are
In Figure 1, English discourse patterns are described in a not taken into consideration. Also, contrastive rhetoric over-
straight line, Semitic writing in a zigzag line, Oriental simplifies and over-generalizes the rhetorical patterns of
writing in a spiraling formation, and Romance and Russian each culture (Hyland, 2003). In short, the paragraph-pattern
in a digressive pattern (Kaplan, 1966). Yet, the idea of approach emphasizes the organization of the target language
contrastive rhetoric has faced criticism in the sense that it is that varies and differs from one culture to another.

IJISRT22OCT580 www.ijisrt.com 525

Volume 7, Issue 10, October – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
E. The Communicative approach (The Functional better takes place while and through imitating and following
approach) the techniques previously determined by the teacher to
The communicative approach stresses the importance of respond to the stimulus he/she provides. The approach aims
purpose and audience (Raimes, 1983). Student writers are to help students learn specific features of the texts and
invited to act as writers in real life by considering the practice the skills. Afterwards, they may be ready to write
purpose behind their writing and audience they are writing on their own without any help from the teacher. For this
to. It refuses that teachers become the only audience for reason, the teachers’ response to student writing will be
their students’ writings. The approach is based on the claim limited to having students duplicate a model text and
that “writers do their best when writing is truly a examine whether their language features are appropriate and
communicative act, with a writer writing for a real reader”. correct in terms of grammaticality. In the product based
(Johnson & Morrow, 1981, p. 151). Therefore, teachers approach, teachers merely judge, evaluate, give a final
adopting this approach have extended the audience to grade, and sometimes provide feedback in the form of such
include other students or interlocutors in or outside the simple comments as “Good” which remains meaningless in
classroom, who do not only read them but also and most the eyes of the students and hardly has any influence on the
importantly interact and above all respond, as well as revision of the writing as well as on the targeted writing
rewrite in another form, summarize, or make comments. product.
Otherwise, the teachers can specify the target readership
outside the classroom. In so doing, student writers are a) Stages of the Product Approach
provided with a context that requires them to select The product approach to the teaching of writing
appropriate content, language, and levels of formality views the act of writing as “a linear model with three
(Raimes, 1983). In case students lack prior and background clear-cut stages (prewriting, writing, and rewriting)
knowledge about a certain topic, data may be supplied in the each of which contributes to "the growth of the
form of facts, notes, tables and/or figures, quotations, written product” (Flower & Hayes, 1981, p. 367). The
documents and so on and so forth(Shih, 1986). Thus, in a stages of this approach follow the following pattern:
functionally-oriented writing class, it is crucial that teachers  The pre-writing stage: In this stage, teachers
carefully define and specify the context, purpose, and select model texts, study them with students, and
audience for all the writing tasks. then help students to highlight the features of
genre. For instance, in the case of studying an
F. The product approach expository essay, the students' attention may be
The product approach is an approach to the teaching of geared towards the importance of paragraphing,
writing that is based on the reproduction of writing models connectors used, and the language used such as
(Nunan, 1991). Before the 1970s, research into writing tenses. Whereas when it comes to studying a story,
instruction was mainly product-oriented. That is, learning to the focus is on the techniques to be used to make
write was viewed as an exercise focusing on form and the story interesting, and hence the students’ focus
practised inside the classroom. During the audio-lingualism shifts to where and how the writer employs these
era, the role of writing in language classrooms was mainly techniques. After that, students practise the
seen as a supporting skill to learn sentence structures and highlighted features in form controlled practice
grammar. Therefore, adopting the product approach entails exercises.
that students be told to write an essay imitating a given  The writing stage: In this stage, which is one of
pattern. The focus was on the written product rather than on the most important stages for this approach,
how the student should approach or see the process of students focus on the organization of ideas. The
writing. In the light of this approach, the discourse and proponents of this approach believe that the
rhetorical aspects of the written text such as purpose and organisation of ideas is more important than the
audience are almost neglected in such contexts (Silva, ideas themselves and as important as the mastery of
1990). Abu- Jaleel (2001) noted that the main assumption of language.
this approach is that students have specific needs whether  The rewriting stage: This stage features the end
for instructional writing or for personal writing, with the product of the learning process. In other words,
emphasis here being on sentence structure, grammar, and students choose from a couple of writing tasks.
the mechanics of writing such as spelling and punctuation. Then, individually, they use the skills, structures
According to Badger and White (2000), “writing itself is and vocabulary they have been taught to produce
viewed as mainly concerned with the knowledge about the the product. In so doing, they show what they can
structure of language, and writing development is mainly the do as fluent and competent users of the language.
result of the imitation input, in the form of texts provided by
the teacher” (p. 154). Because of this, this approach is b) Arguments in Favour of the Product Approach
considered as teacher-centered whereby teachers become the The product approach is still the main approach used
arbiter of the models used (Brakus, 2003). in writing classrooms nowadays across the world.
Add to this, it is ranked amongst the most suggested
Modeling the correct language in the product approach approaches by curricula and syllabi in many
is the main concern for students. Their attention is focused EFL/ESL contexts. In Morocco, for instance, most of
on studying model texts, and duplicating them. To reach this the textbooks used to teach English at high schools
end, students need various exercises to produce a similar contain model texts in their writing lessons. (see
text (Jordan, 1997). As Pincas (1982) indicates, learning Ticket to English p. 30, 46, 61, 76, 90, 106, 121,

IJISRT22OCT580 www.ijisrt.com 526

Volume 7, Issue 10, October – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
150). Practitioners and researchers who favour this the writing process, not only before and after. It is more
approach argue that it enhances students’ writing about guiding learners through the processes of writing. The
proficiency. Badger and White (2000) state that approach divides the process of writing into meaningful
“writing involves linguistic knowledge of texts that processes, stages, and activities instead of only analyzing
learners can learn partly through imitation” (p. 157). and correcting the final product by the teacher. These
Arndt (1987) also argues that the importance of processes include “prewriting, drafting, revising, editing,
models used in this approach are effective not only and publishing” (Laksmi, 2006, p. 145-146). Tompkins
for imitation but also for exploration and analysis. (1994) also points out that these processes, which are the
Myles (2002) adds that if students are not exposed to same and exact processes that real writers apply when
native-like models of written texts, their errors in writing, are recursive and not linear. This means that any
writing are more likely to persist. Hence, according to writer can go back and forth from one stage to another as
its advocators and users, the product approach is key they write. In addition, unlike the product-based approach
to developing students writing competence. to writing, the three elements of written discourse: audience,
purpose, and context are all considered in the process model.
c) Arguments Against the Product Approach In process writing classrooms, writing is viewed as a
The product approach, often referred to as the creative activity and a cognitive process-involving going
traditional approach (Matsuda, 2003; Pullman, 1999), through several recursive stages. Thus, writing is no longer
has received a good deal of criticism that has led viewed as a simple linear activity consisting of several
teachers and researchers to reassess the nature of stages that are independent and sequenced. Contrary to the
writing and the ways writing is taught. The approach product approach, writing has become viewed and
encourages students to imitate and reproduce a model recognized as a complex and integrated set of interactive
text, which is usually presented and analyzed prior to and recursive processes. Al Souqi (2001) notes that writing
students’ writing. It emphasizes the “finished involves the ability to generate ideas as well as the ability to
product” and not on “the subtle processes that occur express them cohesively, coherently, and logically.
in the process of writing” (Hinkel, 2002, p.35).
Prodromou (1995) stated that one of the most serious For White and Arndt (1991), writing is a thinking
fallacies of this approach is that it “devalues the process that necessitates conscious intellectual effort, and
learners’ potential, both linguistic and personal” (p. cognitive skills. To put it simply, since students require
21). Besides, the approach is teacher-centered as it extensive language resources to call upon as they write, this
brings back the role of the teacher as the only source approach considers writing also as a process of problem-
of information. Further, it is also criticized for not solving which includes “generating ideas, planning, goal-
allowing sufficient room for students’ creativity setting, monitoring and evaluating what is going to be
especially in a skill such as writing. As a result of written and what has been written, as well as searching for
this, students dislike writing activities as they become language with which to express exact meaning.” (White and
“a chore not a form of expression” (Tribble, 1996, Arndt, 1991, p. 3).By the same token, Hedge (2000) also
p,18). Consequently, a movement calling for the re- emphasizes the view of writing as a “thinking” and
evaluation of the approaches and practices used in the “discovery” process consisting of a number of activities, and
writing instruction led to a paradigm shift, which in considering a piece of writing as the result of a series of
turn, revolutionized the teaching of writing that complicated cognitive operations, study skills, and learning
subsequently gave birth to the emergence of the strategies such as "setting goals, generating ideas,
process approach. organizing information, selecting appropriate language,
making a draft, reading and reviewing it, then revising and
G. The Process Writing Approach editing. " (p. 302).
According to Tribble (1996), the process approach is “an
approach to the teaching of writing which stresses the Johns (1990) characterized the process approach as an
creativity of the individual writer, and which pays attention expressivist and cognitivist one. Indeed, the approach
to the development of good writing practices rather than the emphasizes the individual’s expression and cognitive
imitation of models” (p.160). It "arose ... as a reaction process of writing as a self discovery, and creative practice.
against product-oriented pedagogies" (Susser, 1994, p. 34). That’s why it is necessary for teachers to assist and
According to Bernard Susser (1994), from the early empower students in their writing act. They should also
twentieth century, process began to appear in L1 provide formative feedback during the process of
composition literature, influenced by John Dewey’s idea composition, and devise writing activities that allow for a
that learning is a process. Since then, the term has been meaningful and purposeful interaction between teachers and
frequently used for discussion of writing theories, writing students. More importantly, the process approach aims to
pedagogies, and writing research. The term “process” is supply useful support for writers with strategies for planning
used to mean the writing process itself, which implies that and revising, and “help students gain greater control over
writing involves a variety of other mini-processes and the cognitive strategies involved in composing.” (Hedge,
stages. Also, the product approach to writing, as Zamel 2000, p.308). Furthermore, the revising and rewriting stages
(1985) argues, does not take into account the real act of the can help writers critically evaluate their writings (Jordan,
writing process itself. Therefore, the process approach helps 1997).
students to write better by helping them during the actual
process of writing. In this approach, teaching occurs during

IJISRT22OCT580 www.ijisrt.com 527

Volume 7, Issue 10, October – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Viewed from another angle, Mahon (1992) sees “the writing will be. Moreover, Al Abed (1992) also
process approach to writing as an enabling approach in stresses that ''the pre-writing stage encourages
which the writer engages in the creative process of shaping effective writing because it promotes originality,
their raw materials into coherent message and work towards creativity, and personal awareness'' (p. 83). In the
an acceptable and appropriate form for expressing them” same vein, Min (2006) considers this stage as “a good
(p.39). The process approach, then, takes the stance that foundation for the entire writing process” (p.1-2),
language teaching should be concerned more with what the because it prepares the students for the actual act of
learner wants to say. The learner's interaction or purpose writing. In the pre-writing stage, the focus is on
becomes of paramount importance. Thus, the learner is seen stimulating students’ creativity and having them think
to have a role of an initiator, rather than that of a mere about what to write and how to handle the chosen
responder or an imitator of other people's intentions and topic. Hedge (2003) suggests that during this stage
expressions. teachers should remind students of two important
aspects: the purpose of their writing and its
.Smith (2000) and Wyse and Jones (2001) summarize the audiences. To illustrate this, students should bear in
main features of the process approach as follows: mind the intended readers and content of the text
 It includes a variety of expressive as well as expository when they plan and outline their writing. In an
writing models. attempt to provide teachers with a more clear-cut
 It encourages writing conferences in which the teacher sits guideline, Brown (2001) suggests the following
with the students as they are writing and scaffold them on classroom activities for the pre-writing stage:
how to progress.  Brainstorming
 Writing involves going through a series of multiple drafts.  Listing
 It regards writing as a cooperative activity in which  Clustering
students assist one another while composing their  Free-writing
writings.  Reading a passage
 It considers errors natural and suggests that they are  Skimming and/or scanning a passage (p, 348)
corrected in the final stages.
 Teachers respond to students' multiple drafts with fewer While White and Arndt (1991) add the following
judgment and more questions and suggestions. activities to the list:
 Grammar is learned in the context of writing for  Fast-writing
communication.  Loop-writing
 It emphasizes revision as an essential stage in the writing  Making structured or unstructured notes
process during which teachers give their students  Train of thought
opportunities to review, clarify, and re-organize what they  Using visuals such as pictures, readers, cartoons,
have written. drawings, maps …
 Using role plays and simulations (p, 20-40)
H. The Stages of Process Writing
As noted earlier, the process writing approach The activities listed above aim at helping students
emphasizes that teaching occurs during the writing process generate ideas about a topic for their writing and allow them
itself, not only before and after. It stresses the importance of to start their writing in an informal way. These techniques
guiding learners through the processes of writing. The are commonly used in the writing classroom thanks to their
approach divides the process of writing into meaningful practicality, as they do not require teachers and students to
processes, stages, and activities instead of only analyzing prepare additional materials in advance and are so time-
and correcting the final product by the teacher. These saving and easy to practice in the classroom. Barbara Kroll
processes include prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and (1995) states that “while giving chances to practice all the
publishing. (Laksmi, 2006; White & Arndt, 1991). techniques, teachers should encourage students to choose
Tompkins (1994) also points out that these processes are the the most effective technique for them” (p, 223). In the
same processes that real writers apply during their writing. process writing approach, the pre-writing stage is one of the
The following is an in-depth examination of each of these most essential writing processes because it affects all of the
stages. next writing stages. Teachers should grasp and realize that
although pre-writing activities are usually done before the
a) Pre- writing:
actual writing, students can go back to this stage at any time.
In this stage students prepare to write by generating
In a nutshell, the pre- writing stage is one of the most
ideas. They determine the topic, the audience, and
important stages in the process of writing as it aims at
activate their prior and background knowledge
preparing students to write and generate ideas.
through brainstorming, mind mapping and other
activities of the like. Harp and Brewer (1996) argue
that this stage is based on a number of steps such as
determining the topic and the audience as well as
activating student's background knowledge through
brainstorming and other activities. Also, as Richards
(2006) emphasizes, the more time students spend on
pre- writing activities, the more successful their

IJISRT22OCT580 www.ijisrt.com 528

Volume 7, Issue 10, October – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
b) Drafting should try not to rewrite a student’s sentences.
In this stage students write down their ideas on paper Instead, teachers can ask students what a particular
as a first draft without focusing on mechanics but sentence means or give suggestions for helping
rather on content and elaboration. To help students students express what they mean in a better way.
transform their plans and ideas into first drafts, Ron
White (1991) suggests the following: Therefore, as Berkenkotter (2001) points out,
(A) Associate the theme with something else “revising is considered the heart of the writing
(D) Define it process, the means by which ideas emerge and evolve
(A) Apply the idea and meanings are clarified” (p. 47).In this regard,
(D) Describe it revising is a stage in which students re-read their first
(C) Compare it with something else drafts, get feedback from teacher and peers, and
(A) Argue for or against the subject revise them with an eye to better communicate their
(N) Narrate the development or history of it (p, 55) ideas to an audience.

White (1991) suggests the following catch phrase “A d) Editing:

DAD CAN” to enable students to remember the idea- In this stage, students edit their writings by correcting
generating process, which eventually helps students write them in terms of spelling, grammar, capitalization,
their first drafts. and punctuation. Tompkins (1994) describes the
editing process as “putting the piece of writing into
It is very important to note that, in the drafting stage, its final form” (p. 88). Therefore, this stage is mainly
students focus on putting thoughts into words without about students proofreading their own writing or
worrying about grammatical and mechanical errors. In this peer’s writing carefully to correct mechanics and
regard, Fulwiler and Gaber (2003) recommend that grammatical errors. Tribble (1996) says that editing
instructors and students should not expect the first drafts to checklists can guide students to focus on specific
be error-free. Teachers should instead focus on more global points in the editing stage, and the checklists might
issues particularly topic, organization, and content, and vary depending on learners’ ability levels and needs.
ignoring surface problems like spelling, punctuation, and Moreover, teachers should only indicate grammatical
capitalization because these can be resolved in the following and mechanical errors but not correct them. Instead,
stages. Hedge (2003) also highlights the importance of they can suggest further word choices and linking
focusing on content in this stage: “Good writers tend to words to improve clarity and coherence of writing.
concentrate on getting the content right first and leave Particularly in EFL writing classrooms, teachers
details like correcting spelling, punctuation and grammar should encourage students to write without worrying
until later” (p. 23). Thence, expressing ideas about a topic about grammatical accuracy until the editing stage.
on paper is important in the first draft stage whereas refining Therefore, the editing stage represents an opportunity
content, organization, and polishing what students have for students to polish their drafts and come up with a
written are more important concerns in subsequent drafts. final version of their writings.
To conclude, in the drafting stage students are supposed to
write down their ideas on paper focusing on content not e) Publishing:
mechanics. After having revised and edited their writings,
students can publish them in this final stage of the
c) Revising writing process. There are many ways students can
In this stage, students revise their writings by looking publish their works. They can publish them in their
at organization, main points, support for main ideas, classroom newspaper, school magazines, classroom
and connections between ideas. This stage is very bulletin board, or class blogs, or they can simply read
important as it allows students to think critically and them aloud to the class. In so doing, students learn to
reflect on their writings in an attempt to best evoke the targeted audience and have confidence in
communicate their ideas to an audience. In the themselves as writers. To this end, teachers should
revision stage, students should understand that ensure an environment conducive to engaging
revision is not only about correcting minor grammar students in authentic communication through their
errors but also about focusing on content and written texts. Tompkins (1994) elucidates that having
organization of the whole text. Tompkins (1994) students share their completed works with audiences
states that “Revision is not just polishing writing; it is such as peers, friends, families, or community,
meeting the needs of readers through adding, teachers can “promote real communication between
substituting, deleting, and rearranging material” (p. writers and readers in the process writing classrooms
83). Additionally, Brown (2001) suggests that during since students can have real audiences who can
this stage teachers should provide students with meaningfully respond to their writing and develop
specific directions for revision “through self- confidence as authors” (p. 94). According to
correction, peer-correction, and instructor initiated Tompkins (1994), “sharing is a social activity” that
comments” (p. 355). In short, to provide adequate helps students develop not only sensibility to readers
feedback on students’ first drafts, teachers should but also confidence as authors. In addition, Teachers
respond to the first drafts focusing on the overall also should not only read students’ writings to
meaning of the writing. Most importantly, teachers identify errors and give a grade but rather read for

IJISRT22OCT580 www.ijisrt.com 529

Volume 7, Issue 10, October – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
information and enjoyment. To sum up, as Poindexter In the same vein, Jacobs (1989) points out that:
and Oliver (1999) affirm, the purpose of publishing is
to share and celebrate students’ finished products. In The key advantage of the process writing approach is
so doing, students develop an awareness of the to change the role of students in the classroom. The
audience as well as build confidence in themselves as approach is seen to increase students’ involvement and
writers; two of the numerous elements which help insight; that is, students are given another role of readers and
student writers approach the writing task in an advisors in the writing process. Gradually, learners can
effective way. become autonomous and responsible in the learning process.
(p, 69)
I. Arguments in Favor of the Process Approach
A number of studies have been conducted on the Furthermore, Ho (2006) investigated how effective
implementation of the process approach to teaching writing process writing is in helping about 200 students at the upper
in different educational areas across the world, all of which primary school level and the lower primary school level to
highlighting its effectiveness in developing students’ writing improve their writing skills and their attitudes towards
competence both in first or second/foreign language writing. Six primary school teachers, three in the lower
contexts. Zamel (1982) emphasizes that “it was the process primary school level and three in the upper primary school
approach which contributed to writing proficiently in level, each implemented an innovative two-month process
English” (p.203). In a case-study approach, Zamel (1983) writing programme in their schools. The effectiveness of the
wanted to discover what skilled and unskilled ESL writers programme was investigated through interviews,
actually did during the writing process. Six advanced ESL questionnaires, a pre-test and a post-test, and pre- and post-
students participated in this study. Observing her subjects observations of the strategies used by the students in both
while they were writing, and in accordance with the their pretests and post-tests. It was found that the
recommendations of the process writing approach, she programme yielded positive results across all classes and in
found out that they followed a non-linear way of writing. both the upper and lower levels, though the results in each
Similarly, she concluded that skilled writers were concerned classroom differed slightly. Similarly, Goldstein and Carr
more about ideas and communication, unlike the unskilled (1996) examined the 1992 National Assessment of
writers who were concerned about language and spelling. Educational Progress (NAEP) writing assessment
This implies that in addition to the linguistic aspects, our administered to 7,000 4th graders, 11,000 8th grader, and
students have to be encouraged to pay more attention to the 11,500 12th grade students across the USA. The results
discourse features while they are writing. In this regard, and revealed that “process-related activities are strongly related
following the principles of the process approach, Zamel to writing proficiency” (p. 45). Mahon and Yau (1992) also
(1983) suggests that issues of content and meaning must be used a process-oriented writing program for two thirty-five
addressed first and that language is of concern only when students classes in a primary school. They state that by the
the ideas to be communicated have been presented. Besides, end of the program, “students’ writing ability improved by
unlike other approaches that are known for the ineffective adopting the process approach to writing” (p.93). Likewise,
response of teachers to student writings, the process Cheung and Chan (1994) carried out a writing programme in
approach is acknowledged for using such collaborative a primary school in Hong Kong. They also found that the
techniques as peer feedback and teacher-student conference process writing approach successfully helped the students
that are more attractive to students, more student-centered, develop their writing skills.
and for empowering learners more in expressing their ideas.
These activities are important in the sense that they In summary, numerous studies that have been
represent opportunities for teachers and students to conducted in the field of teaching writing confirm that the
negotiate, interact, and communicate their ideas. Teachers appropriate use of the process approach is very effective in
could also save time and energy in this way (Raimes, 1983; developing students’ writing competence. As Ferris and
Ferris & Hedgcock, 1998). Moreover, multi-draft Hedgcock (1998) state it, “the potential benefit of the
instructions become more important and effective for appropriate use of the process writing approach is enormous
student composition and revision as they give learners more even though it takes a great deal of effort and time” (p.189).
opportunities to develop the ability to examine their own J. Arguments Against the Process Approach
writing critically and learn how to improve it (Raimes, No one can deny the fact that there is no such a thing as a
1983; White & Arndt, 1991). Therefore, in order to develop perfect theory or approach, and the process approach is no
student abilities in revising and editing their writings, exception. The following are some views against the process
learners should be provided with guiding checklists (see approach. First, many writing teachers have reported that the
appendix X) as well as be trained on how to put codes (see process approach is one of the most time-consuming
appendix Y) in the appointed place and to ask for teachers’ methods used in the writing instruction (Ferris & Hedgcock
help (Jordan, 1997; White &Arndt, 1991). Additionally, the 2005; Hanson & Liu, 2005; Rollinson, 2005; Wakabayashi,
students’ reformulation of their writings, according to 2008). Indeed, as Tangpermpoon (2008) states it, using
Hedge (1988), provides them with a chance to discuss and process approach “makes learners spend quite a long time to
analyze the content and the organization of their own texts. complete one particular piece of writing in the classroom”
This results in developing student autonomy and helps them (p.103). Therefore, taking so long time to achieve a writing
accept responsibility for editing, correcting, and proof- task can be considered as a shortcoming of the process-
reading their own texts (Jordan, 1997). based approach. Besides, other teachers argue that it is

IJISRT22OCT580 www.ijisrt.com 530

Volume 7, Issue 10, October – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
complicated both for them and their students. Having stated [6.] Alsouqi, S. (2001).The effect of using computers in
that, teachers pointed out that the approach is too demanding teaching of L2 composition on the writing
as it necessitates providing guidance, giving feedback, as performance of tenth grade students in Amman
well as devising cooperative writing activities at each and private schools. Unpublished M.A. thesis.University
every stage. Moreover, this approach is said to be ineffective of Jordan.Amman. Jordan.
with young learners. Further, Horowitz (1986) argues that [7.] Arndt, A. (1987). Six writers in search of texts: A
students can not apply the process approach to their protocol-based study of L1 and L2 writing.English
academic writing. Just as Caudery (1997) argues, the Language Teaching Journal, 41, 257-267.
process approach “might help skilled writers produce good [8.] Badger, R, & White, G. (2000). A process genre
products, but on the contrary, can low proficient writers approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 34, 153-
make the best use of the approach to produce a good text?” 160.
(p. 21). Leki (1992) also indicates two main limitations. [9.] Barnett, M. A. (1992). Writing as a process. The
First, few ESL/EFL teachers receive specific training to French review, 63, 31– 44.
teach writing. Second, many ESL/EFL teachers are not [10.] Berkenkotter, C. (2001). Writing and problem
likely to abandon the traditional views dominating the solving. Michigan Technological University.
writing instruction. All things considered, the process Clearinghouse. USA. Retrieved March 12, 2019,
approach remains as one of the most promising approaches from http://tc.eserver.org/300061.html
to the teaching of writing especially in ESL/EFL contexts [11.] Bernstein, A. (1978). The school review, 86, 292-294.
despite the considerable criticism it has received. Retrieved March 05, 2019, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1084613
III. CONCLUSION [12.] Bourouis, A. (1995). Process vs. Product Writing:
between theory and practice in Moroccan high
Over time, different approaches have been introduced schools. Unpublished B. A. Dissertation, Casablanca:
into the writing classroom. The product approach presents a Faculty of Arts.
writing model and suggests repetition. In the process [13.] Bouziane, A. (2003). Linguistic and rhetorical
approach, teaching takes place as learners go through the features in Moroccan EFL pupils' narratives: A
stages of the writing process. Also, while the former seems longitudinal study. Unpublished Doctorate Thesis,
to be widely used by practitioners in the field, the process Rabat: Faculty of Education.
approach is viewed to have had the most positive impact on [14.] Brakus, P. (2003). A product/process/genre approach
developing students’ writing competence in many ESL/EFL to teaching writing: A synthesis of approaches in a
contexts (Graham & Fitzgerald, 2006). Therefore, since letter writing course for non-native English-speaking
learners have different writing needs depending on their age, administrative personnel. Unpublished Doctorate
level of proficiency in language, learning style, and purpose Thesis, University of
of their writing, it is very important that teachers take all Surrey.
these into account before deciding on which approach to [15.] Brannon, L., & Knoblauch, C. (1982). On students'
adopt for their writing lesson. rights to their own texts: A model of teacher
REFERENCES response. College Composition and
Communication, 33, 157-166.
[1.] Abouabdelkader, H., Bouziane, A. (2016). The [16.] Brookes, H., & Peter, G. (1990). Writing for study
teaching of EFL writing in Morocco: realities and purposes: A teacher’s guide to develop in individual
challenges. London: Macmillan. writing skills. Cambridge: Cambridge University
[2.] Abouabdelkader, M. (1999). The teaching of process Press.
writing. Proceedings of the Sixth MATE Annual [17.] Brown, H. D., (2001). Teaching by principles: An
Conference, 7, 3-86. interactive approach to language pedagogy. White
[3.] Abu- Jaleel, A. (2001). An investigation of the Plains: Addison Wesley Longman.
strategies of teaching writing for ninth and tenth [18.] Byrne, D. (1988). Teaching writing skills. London:
graders in irbid schools. Unpublished M.A Thesis. Longman.
The University of Jordan, Amman. [19.] Cameron, J., Nairn, K., & Higging, J. (2009).
Demystifying academic writing: Reflections
[4.] Al Abed, W. (1992). The effect of selected pre writing onemotions, know-how and academic identity.
activities on the quantity and quality of first year Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33, 269 –
students' composition in vocational training center. 284.
Unpublished M.A thesis. Yarmouk University. [20.] Caudery, T. (1997). Process writing. In Fulcher, G.
Jordan. (1997). Writing in the English language classroom.
[5.] Al Husseini, S. S. (2014). Academic writing skills Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall Europe ELT.
demonstrated in university Students’final year project [21.] Chaibi, A. (1996). Investigating problems
reports, and implications on the teaching of English constraining the implementation of process writing in
for academic purposes, in the Arab world. European the Moroccan EFL classroom. Unpublished
Scientific Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the
Journal, 1, 378 - 386. requirements of diploma of inspector
of English, Rabat: CFIE

IJISRT22OCT580 www.ijisrt.com 531

Volume 7, Issue 10, October – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
[22.] Cheung, M. & Chan, A. (1994). Teaching writing as [39.] Hasan, M. K., & Akhand, M. M. (2010). Approaches
a process. Hong Kong: Education Department. to writing in EFL/ESL context: balancing product and
[23.] Coffin, C., Curry, M. J., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., process in writing class at tertiary level. Journal of
Lillis, T. M. S., & Joan. (2003). Teaching academic NELTA, 15, 1-2.
writing. London: Routledge. [40.] Hedgcock, J. & Lcfkowitz, N. (2005). Feedback on
[24.] Darayseh, A. (2003). The effect of a proposed feedback: assessing learner receptivity toteacher
program based on semantic mapping and response in L2 composing. Journal of Second
brainstorming strategies on developing the English Language Writing,3, 141-163.
writing ability and attitudes of the first scientific [41.] Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the
secondary students. Unpublished Ph.D. language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University
Thesis. Amman Arab University for Graduate Press.
Studies. Amman. Jordan. [42.] Hedge, T. (2003). Writing. New York: Oxford
[25.] El Said, S. (2004). The efficacy of some proposed University Press
activities for developing creative thinking ofEnglish [43.] Hedge,T . (2005). Responding to writing: Writing
learners at the preparatory stage- second year. revisited plenary paper. IATEFL Research SIG.
Unpublished M.A Thesis. El Azhar University. Cairo. Cambridge.
Egypt. [44.] Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers’ text:
[26.] Ferris, D. & H. Hedgcock. (1998). Teaching ESL Linguistic and rhetoric features. Mahwah, NJ:
composition: Purpose, process, and Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
practice. Mahwah, N J: Laurence Erlbaum. [45.] Ho, B. (2006). Effectiveness of using the process
[27.] Ferris, D. (2003). Responding to writing. In B, Kroll. approach to teach writing in six Hong Kong primary
Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing classrooms. Working Papers in English and
(pp. 119-140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Communication, 17,12-24.
Press [46.] Horowitz, D. (1986). Process, not product: Less than
[28.] Flowerdew, L. (2005). Integrating traditional and meets the eye. TESOL Quarterly, 20,14-144.
critical approaches to syllabus design: the what, the [47.] Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for language teachers.
how and the why? Journal of English for Academic Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Purposes, 4, 135 - 147. [48.] Hyland, F. ( 2003). Focusing on form: student
[29.] Flower, L & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31, 217-
theory of writing, college composition, and 230.
communication. 32, 365-387. [49.] Ibnian, S. (2011). Brainstorming and essay writing in
[30.] Fulwiler, M. (2003). Reading the personal: toward a EFL class. Theory and practice in language studies.
theory and practice of self narrative in student TPLS journal, 01, 41-45.
writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [50.] Johns, A. (1990). Ll composition theories:
[31.] Gaber, A. (2003). The effectiveness of a suggested Implications for developing theories of L2
program based on the whole language approach in composition. In Kroll, B. (ed. ) Second language
developing student- teachers' essay writing skills. writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Unpublished M.A Thesis. Ain Shams University. [51.] Johnson, K. & Morrow, K. (1981). Communication in
[32.] Gabrielatos, C. (2002). EFL writing: product and the classroom: Longman.
process. Retrieved January 10, 2019, from http:// [52.] Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purpose:
www.gabrielatos.com/Writing.pdf A guide and resource book for teachers. London:
[33.] Goldstein, A. A. & Carr, P. G. (1996). Can students Cambridge University Press
benefit from process writing? [53.] Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-
NCE Report, 01, 96-845. cultural education. Language learning,16,1-20.
[34.] MacArthur, C. S., Graham, C. & Fitzgerald, J. [54.] Karen, R., Harris, B., Graham, S., Charles, A.,
(2000). Handbook of writing research. New York: MacArthur, R., Linda H., & Mason, B.(2011). Self-
Guilford. regulated learning processes and children’s writing
[35.] Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, from: Handbook of self- regulation of learning and
context and text: aspects of language in a social- performance. Retrieved
semiotic perspective. Geelong: Deakin University March 12, 2019 from
Press. https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/97
[36.] Hammani, M., Ahssan, S., & Tansaoui, L. 80203839010.ch12
(2007). Ticket 2 English, Second year Baccalaureate: [55.] Keen, J. (2010). Strategic revisions in the writing of
student's book (2013 ed.). Casablanca : D.I.O. El year 7 students in the UK. The Curriculum Journal,
Hadita. 21( 3), 255 – 280.
[37.] Harmer, J. (2001). Practice of English language [56.] Kim, Y., & Kim, J. (2005). Teaching Korean
teaching. London: New York: Longman. university writing class: Balancing the process and
[38.] Harp, L. & Brewer, D. (1996). Reading and writing: the genre approach. Asian EFL Journal Online, 7(2),
teaching for the connections (2nd ed.). Fort Worth: 69-90.
Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

IJISRT22OCT580 www.ijisrt.com 532

Volume 7, Issue 10, October – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
[57.] Krapels, A. (1990). An overview of second language [76.] Susser, B. (1994). Process approaches in ESL/EFL
writing process research. Cambridge: Cambridge writing instruction. Journal of Second Language
University Press. Writing, 3, 31-47.
[58.] Kroll, B., & Schafer, J. (1978). Error-analysis and the [77.] Poindexter, C. & Oliver, I. (1999). Navigating the
teaching of composition. College Composition and Writing Process: Strategies for the young children.
Communication, 29 (3), 242-248. The Reading Teacher, 52, 41-55.
[59.] Kroll, B. (1990). Considerations for teaching an [78.] Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do
ESL/EFL writing course. In Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.). as they write: A classroom study of composing.
Teaching English as a second or foreign language TESOL Quarterly, 19, 229-258.
(3rd ed.). New York: Heinle & Heinle. [79.] Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing.
[60.] Laksmi, E. D. (2006). “Scaffolding” students’ writing New York: Oxford University Press.
in EFL class: Implementing process approach. TEFL [80.] Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language
Journal: A publication on the teaching and learning teaching today. Cambridge: Cambridge University
of English,17, 35-60. Press.
[61.] Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: A guide [81.] Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman
for teachers. London:Heinemann. dictionary of language teaching and applied
[62.] Leki, I. (2001). Material, educational, and ideological linguistics (4th ed.). London: Longman (Pearson
challenges of teaching EFL writing at the turn of the Education).
century. International Journal of English Studies, [82.] Smith, M. W. (2000). Reducing writing
1(12), 197-209. apprehension. Illinois : National Council of Teachers
[63.] Mahon, T. & Yau, R. (1992). Introducing a process of English.
approach in the teaching of writing in a lower [83.] Tangpermpoon, T. (2008). Integrated approaches to
primary classroom. ILEJ, 9, 23-29. improve students writing skills for English major
[64.] Min, H. T. (2006).The effects of trained peer review students. ABAC Journal, 28(2), 103-150.
on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. [84.] Tompkins, G. E. (1994).Teaching writing: Balancing
Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118–141. process and product. Columbus: Merrill.
[65.] Mina, P. (1977). Errors and expectations: A guide for [85.] Tribble, C. (1996). Writing. New York: Oxford
the teacher of basic writing. University Press.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. [86.] Weisendanger, K. D., Perry, J.R., & Braun, G.
[66.] Murray, D. M. (1982). Learning by teaching: (2011). Suggest-choose-plan-compose. A strategy to
Selected articles on writing and teaching. Boynton: help students learn to write. The Reading Teacher,
Cook Publishers, INC. 64(6), 451 –455.
[67.] Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and [87.] White, R and Arndt, V. (1991).Process Writing.
research: The writing process and error analysis in Harlow: Longman
student texts. Teaching English as a Second or [88.] Wyse, D. & Jones, R. (2001). Teaching English,
ForeignLanguage, 6(2),1-19. language and literacy. London: Routledge Falmer.
[68.] Nunan, D. (1991). The learner-centered curriculum: [89.] Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: the process of discovering
A study in second language teaching. Cambridge: meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16 (2),195-210.
Cambridge University Press. [90.] Zamel, V. (1983). The composing process of
[69.] Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language advanced ESL students: six case studies.
Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. TESOL Quarterly, 17 (2), 165-87.
[70.] Oshima, A. & Hogue. A. (1991). Introduction to [91.] Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing.
Academic Writing. Addison Wesley: Longman. TESOL Quarterly, 19,79-101.
[71.] Ouaouicha, D. (1980). Contrastive rhetoric and the
structure of learner-produced argumentative texts in
Arabic and English. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis.
Austin: The University of Texas.
[72.] Pincas, A. (1982). Writing in English. London:
Macmillan.
[73.] Prodromou, L. (1995). The backwash effect: From
testing to teaching. English Language Teaching
Journal, 21(1), 1-25.
[74.] Shih, M. (1986). Content-based approach to teaching
academic writing. TESOL Quarterly, 20(4), 617-642.
[75.] Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition
instruction: developments, issues, and directions in
ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing
research: Insights for the classroom. New York:
Cambridge University Press.

IJISRT22OCT580 www.ijisrt.com 533