Balancing the Product and Process Writing Styles for Non Native Speaking Students in the Academy

Balancing the Product and Process1

Balancing the Product and Process Writing Styles for Non Native Speaking Students in the Academy

CharlesE. Riss

Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi


Abstract

Throughout this essay I address and illustrate the need to bridge

the gap between teaching and learning styles for L2 students in

the academy. Zhenhui Rao’s (2002) study revealed 6 of the most

common and basic learning styles of International students which

are: introversion, closure oriented, analytical field

independent, visual, thinking-oriented and reflective, and

concrete-sequential . Considering international students’

learning styles, writing instructors have a responsibility to

determine the effectiveness of process writing taught in writing

classes, in comparison to product writing found in specific

disciplinary settings, such as business and computer sciences,

and merge those pedagogies in a fashion that benefits non native


speaking students. According to George Pullman (1999) writing

classes teach process writing, while the majority of University

professors (outside the Humanities) favor product writing, which

indicates the need to either disregard one writing style or

combine both pedagogies. This essay is comprised of a literary

review from scholars in the process/product writing arena, and

determines a way to combine the approaches to assist in the

transfer of writing skills from introductory writing classes to

disciplinary specific settings. The primary conclusion

encompasses the use sustained content language teaching in

combination with a process writing approach that will enable L2

students to recycle their knowledge into an authentic voice that

encourages inclusion into mainstream classroom settings.


Balancing the Product and Process Writing Styles for Non Native Speaking Students in the Academy

International students have become a big business market for

many universities in the United States throughout the last

decade. According to Hinkel (2004), “about 10% of all college and

university enrollees are international and immigrant students”(p.

3). The increase of International students has manifested into a

gap between teaching and learning styles in the academy. Thomas

Kent (1999) indicates that the majority of International students

attending U.S. universities come from teacher centered cultures

with inflexible expectations about writing in specific

disciplines. An overwhelming amount of writing teachers in the

U.S. have been trained to teach writing through a student

centered approach, regardless of the students’ cultural

upbringing or learning style. In order to “bridge the gap”

between our teaching strategies and international students

learning styles, we need to develop a balance between product and

process writing pedagogies that adapts to the needs of the

academy and the student. Teaching writing to non native speakers

(NNS) cannot be accomplished through a one size fits all


approach; neither process nor product alone, but rather a

diversity of learning techniques that takes the students’

cultural and situational contexts into account, as suggested by

Canagarajah (2002).

This essay does not make a claim for a singular correct

method for teaching writers of other language. Its sole purpose

is to determine the most effective writing practices for NNS

students when they engage in their chosen field of study. During

the process of figuring that out, we must ask ourselves some very

tough questions about our own pedagogy practices. Can the demands

that we put on NNS benefit the overall success of their academic

writing and or future employment opportunities? Can we truly

claim that encouraging students to (re)produce and rewrite

documents outside their field of study, is a benefit to their overall

success in understanding the use of English in their field of

study or even in their home country? Pullman (1999) illustrates

through his research that rapid production of documents is a

necessity and reality in the working world of most students after

graduation. Based on Pullman’s claim, we should be using


pedagogical practices that “expose [NNS students] to schemas,

purpose[s], and rhetorical/syntactic conventions employed [in

their field of study]” (Amato & Snow, 1992, p. 230). This

research is not ignorant to the idea that process writing works

for (NS), but how can it work for NNSs when they’re unfamiliar

with process writing in a world that demands expedited products?

Process Overview

For the purpose of this essay, the central core of process

writing is based on the belief that “every student has something

important and meaningful to say and uncontested and creative

ways to say it” (Casanave, 2004, p.78). Process writing is

student centered and encourages discovery through exploration in

writing. Several scholars have made life-changing contributions

in the field of process writing , such as Linda Flower (1977);

Janet Emig (1971); James Britton (1980); Kenneth Macrorie (1994);

Kenneth A. Bruffee (1984, 1993); and Peter Elbow,(1994) . Flower

(1977) concluded that writing is recursive, which came about

after a study of “think aloud protocols,” where writers announced

and recorded what they were thinking as they were writing (qtd.


in Pullman, 1999, p. 23). Emig’s (1971) study of eighth graders

concluded that the more a student revises a paper the higher the

grade will be; indicating that process writing is a progressive

learning tool. James Britton’s (1980) claim in the process arena

is that, writing about personal events can improve writers

understandings of themselves, while assisting them in improve

their writing abilities . Brittan is suggesting that writers need

a clear mind about themselves to articulate disciplinary specific

in a fashion that expresses one’s ability to be creative with the

expectations of the genre while voicing a scholarly opinion.

Ken Macrorie’s (1994) contribution to the process theory of

writing is that “the more time students spend on a variety of

prewriting activities, the more successful the paper will be”(Qtd

in Lindemann, 2001, p. 110). Macrorie suggests that the following

techniques will increase the success of writing skills:

Perception exercises (i.e. overcoming writers block);

Brainstorming and clustering; free writing; producing journals;

and Heuristics (Qtd. in Lindermann, 2001, P.113-118). Peter Elbow

seems to have his stamp on every part of the process pedagogy


ranging from student centered classrooms to self discovery. Elbow

(1994) claims that “writers need to know themselves […] and

writing can help them do that, but not the kind of tightly

constrained, rule-bound writing that characterizes typical

academic assignments”(qtd. in Casanave, 2004, p. 77). Elbow is

arguing that writing liberates writers, but that’s not what is

expected when students write for academic purposes. Elbow (1994)

claims that writing should be taught and occur in a sequence of

“first-order creative, intuitive thinking, and second ordered

critical thinking” (Qtd. in Johnson, 2008, p. 566), in order for

the writer to understand her/himself before taking part in the

critical aspects of processing information through writing. His

belief is that writing is learning, we learn as we write and we

write to learn. The majority of thinking that evolves when we

write occurs between the writers’ fingertips and the keyboard. To

further emphasize the need to balance the product and process

styles of writing, Elbow (1994) argues that he “wants to help

his students become writers as well as academics, goals that he

believes conflict” (qtd. in Casanave, 2004, p. 79). If Elbow’s

claim holds a grain of truth that there is a conflicting


difference between what is expected in the academy and what one

does in regards to writing, we need to demystify those

conflicting ideas for ourselves and not leave NNS students to

their own devices in hopes of figuring out what is expected in

academic writing.

Product Overview

Product writing is based on a the submission of one draft

that that mirrors scholarly text and discourse in an acceptable

form of communication within a specific disciplinary community.

Product writing scholars have made several influential

contributions to ESL writing techniques for NNS, consisting of

Thomas Kent (1999); Xiao-Ming Li (1996); , George Pullman

(1999); , Eli Hinkel (2009); and Alice Horning (1987).

Horning’s argument seems to exist more in the situational arena

than the product stage, but her suggestions for teaching NNS

students about academic writing are very applicable to this

study. Horning (1987) claims that students need to situate

themselves within the discourse before becoming proficient at

expressing their knowledge in creative ways that lack genre


expectations. In other words, Horning claims that students need

to understand the specifics of a discipline in order to embark in

creative and sophisticated ways of expressing their ideas

through process writing.

Kent (1999) argues that “the writing act is public,

thoroughly hermeneutic, and always situated, and therefore cannot

be reduced to a generalized process” (p. 5). Kent (1999) also

states that “writing requires interpretation and interpretation

cannot be reduced to a process”(p. 4). Kent’s argument parallels

Hinkel’s (2004) claim that “it is necessary for [NNSs] to decide

upon a particular type [ of English] to be mastered, for there is

no single kind that is used throughout all the English speaking

world” (p. 34). Mastering a particular type of English such as

business, engineering, or computer science requires a submersion

process of learning the content before becoming proficient in

process writing without a foundation.

To further elaborate on the importance of the situation in

which writing occurs, Pullman (1999) states that “the genre, the

circumstances, the subject, and the whole dynamic of the


rhetorical situation influence what process will lead to what

document” (p. 26). Pullman’s claim for product writing is

grounded on the basis of expediency on the job, and real world

applications and expectations from employers and non-process

instructors in the university. Pullman’s encompasses the idea

that if we train students in the process method of producing

writing samples, while neglecting to focus on the product and

situation in which the writing occurs, students’ and their

employers will be short changed. Pullman (1999) claims that if

we only push the process of writing, rather than the product or

neglect to focus on the student’s specific discipline, we are

unjustly imposing the agent of discourse used primarily in the

Humanities, rather than considering any other disciplinary

guidelines.

If writing classes are teaching the process of writing,

while the rest of the University professors favor the final or

finished product, with no regard to the value of process writing,

who pays the consequences other than the students? Pullman’s

ultimate claim is; “because the product is unstable, the process


that produces the product cannot be described fully, except in

particular situations” (Pullman, 199, p. 28). If we cannot

describe the process or what we expect from process writing in

measureable terms, we cannot claim it be useful for NNS that are

trying to simultaneously learn a language and a specific

discipline. The forthcoming segments of this paper will

illustrate the common learning styles of NNS and suggest methods

for balancing the product and process of writing without trying

to disproportionately claim that “the bandwagon enthusiasm for

process approaches neglects the kinds of writing that students

need to survive in academic settings”(Casanave, 2004, p. 78)

NNS learning styles

Both principles of writing have their place within the

academy, such as chunking and the emphasis of creativity that

were brought to the forefront by process proponents, while

product advocates illustrated the importance of situational

writing and specific applications for real life situations .

When the two pedagogical approaches become balanced and merge

into one, Non Native Speaking (NNS) students will mature as


successful writers within their chosen discipline and receive

writing instruction that is useful in their careers home country.

Until the transition occurs between process and product writing,

NNS students will be inadequately prepared to write in real world

settings. Hinkel (2004) indicates the differences that exist

between L1 and L2 writers create barriers in the classroom for

NNS students, which are:

Discourse and rhetorical information

Ideas and content for writing

Rhetorical modes (e.g. exposition, narration, and

argumentation)

Reliance on external knowledge and information

References to sources of knowledge and information

Assumptions about the readers knowledge and expectations

(i.e. assumed common knowledge and familiarity with certain

works in relation to the discipline)

The role of the audience and text production

Discourse and text cohesion


Employment of linguistic and rhetorical features of formal

written text (i.e. fewer/ less complex sentences,

descriptive adjectives, passive voice, lexical variations,

simple nouns and verbs) (p.85).

Synthesizing the approaches

According a quantitative research done by Dudley Evens and St.

John (1998) “the process approach [to teaching L2 writing],

although extremely valuable in helping students organize and plan

their writing has failed to tackle the actual text that students

have to produce as part of their academic and professional

work”(qtd. in Hinkel, 2004, p. 25). Specific disciplinary

centered instruction which enables students to understand how

and why writing should evolve needs to be the core focus for

teaching effective academic writing to NNS students.

With such differences between L1 and L2 learners as

mentioned by Hinkel (2004), it’s essential to the success of NNS

that we balance and adjust our writing instruction in a way that

adapts to the student’s learning rather style than our own

ideology of how they should learn. Peter Elbow’s (1994) order of


operations for writing indicates that students need to learn

about themselves through process writing prior to expressing

academically sophisticated thoughts about their chosen discourse.

Xiao-Ming Li is a Chinese national who obtained a Masters degree

in linguistics and a doctorate in rhetoric and composition and

literature, in the U.S., illustrates the importance of knowing

the differences between NNS and NS learning styles. and Li

(1996) claims that “ the most important function of the teacher’s

response to students writing is to offer text-specific advice, to

communicate to the student/writer in a subtle or straight forward

manner, the criteria for good writing” (P.2). I argue that

students need to understand the critical content of their

discipline through extensive exposure, prior to expressing their

own creative ideas about an unfamiliar topic. Considering Li’s

firsthand experience and success, we must take that claim to

heart and make it one of our teaching practices in NNS

classrooms. We must also find ways to appropriately encourage

students to find value in process writing. To combine both

Elbow’s and Li’s recommendations, I use a combination of writing


styles suggested by Lindemann (2001) and Casanave (2004) for

balancing product and process writing.

Journal writing, which is often used in entry level writing

courses, can be a useful tool for connecting process and product

writing styles. I propose that students use journals not as a

form of self discovery, but as a tool for reflecting upon a

discipline in order to develop an understanding of the content.

For instance, business students are required to produce specific

formatted text with very rigorous guidelines. Through the process

of trying to understand those writing guidelines, the student

could develop an academic writing journal that consists of

learning logs based on class discussions through a process

approach, which would enable the students to develop their own

meaning from the appropriate material and conversations. On the

product side of journaling, I suggest that instructors give

students specific prompts to address in their journals. After

students achieve a basic understanding of the content, they will

be adequately prepared to express their critical ideas in a

scholarly and creative way. The use of such an academic journal,


according to Casanave (2009) would enable students to creatively

express “detailed and thoughtful ideas about the subject matter”

( p. 80).

The rhetorical situation in which the student writes is also

an important element that needs to be considered when teaching

NNS. Robert Kaplan’s (1966) evaluation of 700 international

students composition papers indicates that “[NNS students] can

only understand the whole context…if [they] recognize the logic

on which it was based”(p.21). Kaplan (1966) claims that logic is

based on cultural, and culture is situational, so in order to

understand logic, one must understand the cultural rules. In the

case of teaching writing culture is the academy and logic is the

discipline. We should submerge students into writing classes

based on their chosen field of study during the first two years

in the academy because that is when the greatest demands occur

for diverse writers in various disciplines (Hinkel 2004).. If the

student is writing for a humanities class, but is majoring in

business or computer sciences per se, we must factor in the

disciplinary norms in order to illustrate to the student where


and why improvements should be made. After addressing the

student’s disciplinary writing needs, instructors should evaluate

their pedagogical ideologies for the classroom and make

adjustments according to students future needs to produce

specific text. If one pedagogical practice (process) works for

NSs, but not for NNSs, as suggested throughout this essay, we

have to make adjustments to our teaching methods before it’s too

late and the student has to be retrained.

Those in favor of product writing pedagogies are not trying

to generate an oversimplified format for teaching NNSs how to

write, or to suggest that NNS deserve special treatment in the

academy, but rather to suggest a revision of techniques used in

the classroom. When the open admissions policy first began in New

York in the 1960s and 70s, it was designed to serve the needs of

nontraditional NS students through a democratic approach of equal

rights for all people. Now that the gates of the academy have

opened, we need to encourage ourselves as writing instructors to

become more adaptive to the needs of the global population. If

students come to the U.S. to study in the academy and return home


after graduation, we need to show them how to be successful by

exemplifying explicit expectations rather than suggesting

exploration techniques, with the hopes that students will learn

how to write from seasoned experts and then begin the exploration

process and critical thinking as suggested by Eblow (1994). We

need to do that with a show and tell mentality. We need to show

and tell until the rules of the discourse have been achieved!

Then, and only then will process writing be a positive form of

productive and useful discourse for the NNS student. Beaufort

(2007) illustrates the shortcomings that can occur when students

lack the ability to focus on specific requirements of a discourse

and venture into assignments with the mentality that process

writing is acceptable across discourses. Beaufort’s participant,

Tim, was encouraged to explore his ideal topic in a humanities

based writing class and graded on his process heavier than his

product. When Tim transferred the knowledge he learned in his

writing class to his chosen discipline of History, he failed to

meet the instructor’s writing expectations and claimed that “if

we want to promote the transfer of certain kinds of writing

abilities from one class to another, then we are going to have to


find the means to institutionalize instruction in the

similarities between the way writing is done in a variety of

context” (Beaufort, 2007, p. 149) .

Another way to look at the importance of understanding

product writing in specific disciplines is by comparing it to the

process of obtaining a driver’s license. For instance, when most

people learn to drive a car, there are rules and procedures of

the road that must be known before getting behind the wheel. If

the most basic rules of driving are not established prior to

taking a driving permit test, the permit isn’t granted by the

state. After the permit is obtained, the new driver is physically

trained by an experienced driver that can exemplify the

importance of following the rules of the road. This is what’s

meant by mirroring or imitating. The new driver mirrors the

seasoned driver and begins to develop individual techniques after

understanding how and why such things as stopping at a red light

or slowing down in a school zone are important. It’s not the new

driver’s responsibility to learn through a process approach, but


rather the teacher’s responsibility to show exactly what the

product of driving consists of.

The same approach is true for NNS students that are learning

to write in the academy. When we teach students how to produce

text for their discipline, we need to show them the basics, such

as writing in an active voice or even more basic than that, make

it clear that single sentence paragraphs are not acceptable in

the academy. For NNS to understand such basic principles we could

directly state to them, as suggested by Li (1996) that single

sentence paragraphs illustrate a lack of cohesion and

communication. Both driving and writing without understanding the

rules can be detrimental to one’s health. Wouldn’t it better

equip students with the specifics about their discipline prior to

setting them free into the world of discovery? I favor Kaplan

(1966) claim that “patterns [of NNS] need to be discovered or

uncovered and compared with patterns of [specific] English in

order to arrive at a particular means for teaching …non-native

users of the language”(p. 21).


One final approach that has successfully intertwined the

product and process of writing for NNSs is Marcia Pally’s (2000)

sustained content language teaching (SCLT) which has similarities

to English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and English for specific

purposes as suggested by Canagarajah (2002) . SCLT focuses on

“teaching NNS one topic or discipline for a half or full semester

so that information, vocabulary, and forms recycle, and so that

students engage in authentic, contextualized, reading, writing,

and speaking” (Pally, 2000, p. 46). In Pally’s (2000) SCLT,

instructors are suggested to teach by “engaging in the content

and practicing the required modes of expression from within the

discourse” (p. 49). Pally’s SCLT is a fresh and new

interpretation that could be useful for students that are not

receptive to the process method of writing for academic purposes.

Through Pally’s (2000) application for teaching writing to NNS ,

students can learn the content of their discipline while

participating in the writing process which enables them to see

value in the knowledge that develops from within their own

writing. When students are taught through a SCLT method, they

will be able to meet the writing demands of the academy by:


synthesizing information (i.e. paraphrasing and restating

information, such as journals and text book readings); identify

major themes that are threaded in a text and textually express

their findings in a way that is creative and relevant to the

discipline; and, understand a range of vocabulary that is

appropriate for use within the discourse community, which

according to Hinkel (2004) are all needed skills for NNS survival

in the academy.

Conclusion

The majority of international students learned their

English skills in a “teacher-centered, book centered grammar-

translation method with an emphasis on role memory” (Zhenhui Rao,

2002, p. 5). How students who are conditioned to a teacher

centered learning styles benefit from the dynamics of process

writing, without consideration to their previous

learning/teaching atmosphere? This is not to say that we have to

perpetuate the existing learning styles that have encompassed the

majority of NNS students, but rather make sure that when we do

encourage process writing and libratory classroom activities,


that students see the value and benefits off the practice and are

able to transfer their knowledge from introductory writing

programs to their chosen discipline. If we want to teach NNS

students how to become productive members of their chosen

discipline, we must give careful consideration to our own

teaching styles and beliefs. With the first hand experiences

expressed in this paper, from Beaufort’s (2007) “Tim” who

suggests the need for revamping the writing classroom, to Li’s

(1996) plea for directly stating to students what is expected of

them, how can we claim that process writing is the best way to

instruct NNS to write in the academy?

For NNS students to write in formats that meet specific

disciplinary expectations , such as: using an active voice, using

a paragraph to support only one idea, eliminating excess words,

and indicating when and where bullets, headings, dates, data, and

supporting figures should exist, we need to show before we tell;

we need to teach product expectations before teaching process

strategies.


ReferencesBishop, Wendy. Something Old, Something New: College Writing Teachers and Classroom

Change. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1990. Print.


Canagarajah, Suresh. "Multilingual Writers and the Academic Community:towards a Critical Relationship." Journal of English for AcademicPurposes 1 (2002): 29-44. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. Pergamon, 2002. Web. 5 Mar. 2011. <www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap>.

Carroll, Lee Ann. Rehearsing New Roles: How College Students Develop as Writers. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2002. Print.

Casanave, Christine Pearson. Controversies in Second Language Writing: Dilemmas

and Decisions in Research and Instruction. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2004. Print.

Cloud, Nancy, Fred Genesee, and Else V. Hamayan. Literacy Instruction for

English Language Learners: a Teacher's Guide to Research-based Practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2009. Print.

Elbow, Peter. “What do we mean when we talk about voice in text?” Voices on voice: Perspectives, definitions, inquiry Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English. 1994. 1-35. Print.

Ferris, Dana. Teaching College Writing to Diverse Student Populations. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2009. Print.

Gale, Xin Liu. Teachers, Discourses, and Authority in the Postmodern Composition

Classroom. Albany: State University of New York, 1996. Print.Hinkel, Eli. Teaching Academic ESL Writing: Practical Techniques in Vocabulary and

Grammar. New York: Routledge, 2009. Print.Horning, Alice S. Teaching Writing as a Second Language. Carbondale: Southern

Illinois UP, 1987. Print.Irmscher, William F., Virginia A. Chappell, Mary Louise. Buley-

Meissner, and Chris Anderson. Balancing Acts: Essays on the Teaching of


Writing in Honor of William F. Irmscher. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1991. Print.

Johnson, T. R. Teaching Composition: Background Readings. New York, NY: Bedford/St. Martins, 2008. Print.

Kachru, Braj B. Asian Englishes: beyond the Canon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong UP, 2005. Print.

Kent, Thomas.. Post-process Theory: beyond the Writing-process Paradigm. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1999. Print.

Li, Xiao Ming. "Good Writing" in Cross-cultural Context. Albany, NY: State University of New York, 1996. Print.

Lindemann, Erika, and Daniel Anderson. A Rhetoric for Writing Teachers. New York: Oxford UP, 2001. Print.

Luk, Jasmine C. M., and Angel Lin. Classroom Interactions as Cross-cultural

Encounters: Native Speakers in EFL Lessons. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007. Print.

Miller, Jennifer, Alexander Kostogriz, and Margaret Gearon. Culturally

and Linguistically Diverse Classrooms: New Dilemmas for Teachers. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, 2009. Print.

Matsuda, Paul Kei., and Tony J. Silva. Second Language Writing Research: Perspectives on the Process of Knowledge Construction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005. Print.

Pally, Marcia, and Nathalie Bailey. Sustained Content Teaching in Academic

ESL/EFL: a Practical Approach. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000. Print.


Pullman, George. "Stepping Yet Again into the Same Current." Post-

process Theory: beyond the Writing-process Paradigm. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1999. 16-29. Print.

Rao, Zhenhui. "Bridging the Gap Between Teaching and Learning Styles in East Asian Contexts." TESOL Journal 11.2 (Summer 2002): 5-11. Print

Reid, Suzanne Elizabeth. Book Bridges for ESL Students: Using Young Adult and

Children's Literature to Teach ESL. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow, 2002. Print.Richard-Amato, Patricia A., and Marguerite Ann. Snow. The Multicultural

Classroom: Readings for Content-area Teachers. White Plains, NY: Longman, 1992. Print.

Wong, Shelley. Dialogic Approaches to TESOL: Where the Ginkgo Tree Grows. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2006. Print.

Yatvin, Joanne. English-only Teachers in Mixed-language Classrooms: a Survival Guide. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2007. Print.

Balancing the Product and Process Writing Styles for Non Native Speaking Students in the Academy

Documents

Transcript of Balancing the Product and Process Writing Styles for Non Native Speaking Students in the Academy