studies in L1 composition instruction, which made a persuasive criticism of pure process writing .... (1993) offers a similar list of conceptual activities and writing tasks required in a .... Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Long, M. 1985.
L1 and L2 composition theories: Hillocks’ ‘environmental mode’ and task-based language teaching Brenda
Dyer
It has been ten years since Hillocks (1986) published his comprehensive survey and analysis of experimental studies in L1 composition instruction, which made a persuasive criticism of pure process writing instruction. Hillocks concluded that a task-based, process/product combination (the ‘environmental mode’) was the most effective mode of L1 composition instruction. This conclusion has been mirrored in the research of Horowitz (1986a, 1986b), Long (1985, 1992), and others involved in second language task-based instruction. This paper summarizes Hillocks’ findings and compares them to research into L2 composition instruction. Implications for teaching writing to EFL/ESL students are considered, and a process/product task-based approach to writing instruction is recommended.
Introduction
312
Battles in second language writing research have been pitched between first language (L1) and second language (L2) composition theories, and between process and product-oriented writing paradigms since the early 1980s. ESL specialists have asserted a distinction between L1 and L2 composition theories on psycholinguistic, cognitive, pragmatic, and ideological grounds (Santos 1992; Johns 1986). Other researchers have suggested that the problems are much the same in L1 and L2 (Jacobs 1982). In the current disillusionment with the writing process movement, blame is often put on the adoption of the process ideology and pedagogy from L1 composition: ‘Most of us accepted the L1-created process movement without questioning its validity for our populations and our educational contexts: and as a result, we have often done our students a disservice.‘ (Johns 1993: 86) However, this disillusionment with process is certainly not particular to ESL. George Hillocks sharply challenged pure ‘process’ as an effective mode of writing instruction in 1986, when he published his comprehensive survey and analysis of experimental studies in L1 composition instruction. Particularly interesting for ESL teachers is the overlap between Hillocks’ suggestions for the L1 composition instruction which he calls the ‘environmental mode’, and the task-based instruction promoted by Horowitz (1986a, 1986b), Long (1985, 1992), and others involved in L2 instruction and research. In this article I would like to reflect on a fruitful exchange of ideas between L1 and L2 ELT Journal Volume 50/4 October 1996 © Oxford
University Press 1996
articles
welcome
composition theories, particularly in the current research on process/ product writing paradigms and task-based language instruction. L2 composition theory: process writing to taskbased instruction
Since the mid 1970s L1 and L2 composition teachers in the United States have been involved in the ‘writing as process’ model, which typically carries students through a cycle of pre-writing talk, free writing, peer feedback, and revision. The teacher, as facilitator, does not assign specific topics, give evaluative criteria for judging writing, demonstrate ‘good’ writing with models, or assign grammatical exercises (Lawrence 1975, Zamel 1976, 1980). The idea is that students naturally learn to write by writing, and that the more they write, the better writers they become. However, by the mid 1980s there were several voices of protest in the L2 community. Horowitz (1986a) claimed there are as many different writing processes as there are academic writing tasks, and that the process-oriented approach fails to prepare students for essay examination writing or highly structured assignments. Further, the process approach in its almost exclusive concern with psycholinguistic, cognitive and affective variables, has failed to take into account the many forces outside of an individual writer’s control which define, shape and ultimately judge a piece of writing (1986b: 446). According to Horowitz, what is lacking in process instruction is the concept of writing tasks specific to the needs of students. Similarly, Swales (1986: 8-9) advocates an approach which emphasizes less the cognitive relationship between the writer and his or her internal world and more the relationship between the writer, the writing environment, and the intended readership ... This notion of language ‘tasks’ results from a pragmatic isolation of the tasks second language learners need to master to survive in English academic communities. A renewed interest in task-based ESL instruction has also been supported by psycholinguistic, linguistic, and cognitive research which shows that linguistic structures are not acquired separately and linearly, but rather, subconsciously in meaningful units ‘when the learner’s attention is focused on meaning, i.e. . . task completion, not language’ (Long 1992: 35). In Long’s proposal for taskbased language teaching (TBLT), a (target) task is ‘a piece of work undertaken for oneself or for others’ (1985: 81): Crookes defines it as ‘a piece of work or an activity, usually with a specified objective’ (1986: 1). Task-based syllabuses require a needs identification to be conducted in terms of the ‘real-world’ target tasks learners are preparing to undertake-buying a train ticket, etc. Pedagogic tasks are then derived and sequenced to form the syllabus. Horowitz (1986b: 455) noted that academic writing tasks typically assigned by university professors emphasized recognition and reorganization of data and de-emphasized invention and personal discovery. He classifies academic writing tasks into seven categories: summary of or L1 and L2 composition theories
313
articles
welcome
reaction to a reading, annotated bibliography. report on a specified participatory experience, connection of theory and data, case study, synthesis of multiple sources. and research project (p. 449). Currie (1993) offers a similar list of conceptual activities and writing tasks required in a freshman L1 English business course: finding and recording information, classifying. comparing, determining causation, resolving an issue, and so on. Thus the pendulum in L2 composition theory has swung from ‘process’ but not back to the traditional rhetorical ‘product’; rather, task-based writing instruction merges process and product in the concept of the communicative ‘task’. It is fruitful to review Hillocks’ (1986) survey of L1 writing research as it provides support for a process/product compromise in task-based instruction.
Hillocks: What works in teaching composition?
Hillocks (1984,1986) examined over 500 experimental treatment studies in L1 composition instruction completed between 1963 and 1982. From the 500 studies. 60 (involving 11,705 students) which met various criteria (e.g. made use of a similar scale of writing quality) were included in the meta-analysis. Three variables were identified as potentially producing gains in writing quality: duration of instruction, mode of instruction, and focus of instruction. a. Duration
of instruction
Common pedagogical sense claims that improvement in writing ability is a slow process. and the shorter the instructional period. the less the improvement (Burton 1973). However, Hillocks found no relationship between duration of instruction and change in the quality of writing. b. Mode of instruction
Hillocks identified four modes of instruction: presentational mode, natural process mode. environmental mode, and individualized mode. The presentational mode is a teacher-centered approach in which students are the passive recipients of the rules (grammatical and rhetorical) and examples of good writing. Students imitate a pattern. or follow rules which are given through teacher lecture. In the natural process mode. there is no presentation of criteria or models; the instructor facilitates students to write for their peers and revise their drafts from peer feedback. In the individualized mode students receive instruction through tutorials. computer instruction, etc. on an individual basis. In the environmental mode the instructor plans activities that result in high levels of student interaction concerning specific, structured, problem-solving activities, and tasks with clear objectives; multiple drafts and peer revision are a part of the classroom activity, but explicit criteria for evaluation are considered. Teacher lecture is minimized as much of the class time is spent in small group or individual task completion. The results of the meta-analysis were counter to common classroom practice. The least effective mode examined was the presentational mode, third effective was the individualized mode, and 314
Brenda Dyer
articles
welcome
second best was the natural process mode. The environmental mode was responsible for significantly higher gains than the other three modes. c. Focus of instruction
The third variable in Hillocks’ analysis involved the focus of instruction - the types of writing activities. These included grammar and mechanics, the study of models, sentence combining, the use of scales (a set of criteria for application to pieces of writing which students apply to their own or their peers’ writing), inquiry (presenting students with sets of data and tasks for dealing with the data, e.g. description, forming hypotheses, classification, argument), and free writing. Again, the results were counter to common classroom practice. The study of traditional school grammar was found to have no effect on raising the quality of student writing. Free writing was more effective than teaching grammar, but still showed low results when used exclusively. The most effective focuses of instruction were: inquiry, the use of scales, sentence combining, and models. Implications for teaching composition to ESL/EFL students
There are several implications of this study for teaching composition to ESL/EFL students. Firstly, the hours spent by both instructor and student in locating and correcting grammar errors in composition may not be the most efficient use of valuable language teaching and learning time, although students may expect that it is the most important part of their writing instruction. Exercises such as sentence combining. and the analysis of models, are effective in improving writing quality. Peer editing, and the revision of drafts is most useful when explicit criteria for evaluation are considered. Lastly, clearly defined writing tasks with specific objectives result in the most significant gains in student writing: these tasks are sequenced from personal response (note-taking, response journals) to precise comprehension (summary, paraphrase) to critical synthesis, analysis. comparison, and evaluation of ‘data’. The following are examples of effective writing tasks from Hillocks’ (1986) study which I have found appropriate for Japanese college classes in English composition:
1 Criteria application The teacher leads a discussion on a sample of student writing, helping students to apply a set of criteria to it. Then, working in small groups, students apply the same criteria to other writing samples, ranking the essays accordingly. A more inductive variation is to present sample essays of varying quality and have small groups of students rank them and generate a list of evaluative criteria. They come to a consensus on the ranking. and each group writes their ranking on the board. This leads to teacher-led discussion about what makes a good essay. Every time I have done this activity in class, the students are surprised and impressed by the similarity of the small group consensus rankings. It is an empowering activity which leads students to understand that judgment of good writing is not an arbitrary, mysterious teacher behaviour, but something which they themselves can learn to do more and more effectively. 31.5
L1 and L2 composition theories
articles
welcome
2 Peer editing
Peer editing sheets present questions which imply criteria (e.g. Is there a central idea (thesis) reducible to one sentence? Where is it? Are there reasons or examples given to support the idea? Where?). Students exchange their draft essay with others in their class; in a classroom time block of about 45 minutes, students can pass their draft six times, thereby receiving six evaluations of their own work, and evaluating six others. In this way, criteria for acceptable academic writing are internalized, and students become more independent critics of their own and others’ writing. I have found this activity works very well with Japanese students, who are shy at first to express criticism of a peer’s work, but who learn to become very helpful and thorough peer editors. They seem to take the responsibility seriously, and use their peers’ comments to revise their own work. 3 Inquiry
Inquiry focuses the students’ attention on strategies for dealing with sets of data. The data is either given to students or collected by them. For example, students are given sets of data about a controversial situation, such as a pollination problem in a small community. Groups of students take various roles (e.g. conservationist, chemical plant executive, unemployed person) and develop an argument to present at a simulated public hearing (e.g. role play in front of the class). Students learn to formulate and support generalizations and to predict and counter arguments. This is a task-based classroom activity which then leads into a writing assignment of a persuasive paper on the topic. Conclusion
There appear to be at least three reasons to shift from pure process or product composition instruction to a task-specific, process/product hybrid: what has been found in experimental comparison groups to result in improved writing in L1 students (as in Hillocks’ 1986 study), what L2 writers need to be able to do in L1 academic environments (e.g. write research papers, take timed essay exams), and how L2 acquisition appears to occur, not in structural/functional units but rather, in meaningful chunks such as in task-completion. In a response to Horowitz’s article (1986a), Hamp-Lyons (1986: 793) redefines the process approach as ‘one which helps developing writers to understand their own strategies and how to use them effectively’. She advocates a search ‘for a descriptive model which will allow us to reconcile the product approach and the process approach’. Similarly, Spacks (1988: 34) suggests a ‘process-centered course around text-based or data-based tasks in which written language acts as a medium for learning something else’. Students should learn general inquiry strategies, rhetorical principles, and tasks that can transfer to other course work (p. 41). Raimes (1991: 422) likewise calls for a synthesis of L2 writing methodologies: ‘one that presents a governing philosophy but pays attention within that philosophy to all four elements involved in writing: form (product), writer (process), content, and reader’. A review of Hillocks’ decade-old suggestions for L1 composition instruction,
316
Brenda Dyer
articles
welcome
specifically, his so-called ‘environmental mode’ of instruction, can give a thoughtful reprieve in the continuing disagreement between process and product-oriented composition theories. His model of individual, whole class, and small group problem-centred writing tasks, with clear and specific objectives and explicit evaluative criteria, is consistent with the recently renewed interest in task-based second language instruction, and successfully combines the principles of both process and product methodology.
References
Burton, D. L. (1973). ‘Research in the teaching of English: the troubled dream’. Research in the Teaching of English 7: 160-9. Crookes, G. 1986. Task Classification: A CrossDisciplinary Review (Tech. Rep. No. 4). Honolulu: Social Science Research Institute, Center for Second Language Classroom Research, University of Hawaii at Manoa. Currie, P. 1993. ‘Entering a disciplinary community: conceptual activities required to write for one introductory university course’. Journal of Second Language Writing 2: 101-17. Hamp-Lyons, L. 1986. ‘No new lamps for old yet, please’. TESOL Quarterly 20/1: 790-6. Hillocks Jr., G. 1984. 'What works in teaching composition: a meta-analysis of experimental treatment studies’. American Journal of Education November: 133-70. Hillocks Jr., G. 1986. Research on Written Composition. Urbana, Ill: NCRE/ERIC. Horowitz, D. 1986a. ‘Process, not product: less than meets the eye’. TESOL Quarterly 20/1: 141-4. Horowitz, D. 1986b. ‘What professors actually require: academic tasks for the ESL classroom’. TESOL Quarterly 20/3: 445-62. Jacobs, S. 1982. Composing and Coherence (Language and Literacy Series). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Johns, A. M. 1993. ‘Too much on our plates: a response to Terry Santos’ ‘Ideology in Composition: L1 and ESL’. Journal of Second Language Writing 2/1: 83-8. Johns, A. M. 1986. ‘Coherence and academic writing: some definitions and suggestions for teaching’. TESOL Quarterly 20: 247-65. Lawrence, M. 1975. Reading, Thinking, Writing. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Long, M. 1985. ‘A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching’ in K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienemann (eds.) Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Long, M. 1992. ‘Three approaches to task-based syllabus design’. TESOL Quarterly 26/1: 27-56. Raimes, A. 1991. ‘Out of the woods: emerging traditions in the teaching of writing’. TESOL Quarterly 25: 407-30. Santos, T. 1992. ‘Ideology in composition: L1 and ESL’. Journal of Second Language Writing 1/1: 1-15. Spacks, R. 1988. ‘Initiating ESL students into the academic discourse community: how far should we go?’ TESOL Quarterly 22/1: 29-51. Swales, J. 1986. 'Utilizing the Literatures in Teaching the Research Paper’. Unpublished manuscript. Zamel, V. 1976. ‘Teaching composition in the ESL classroom: what we can learn from research in the teaching of English’. TESOL Quarterly 10/1: 67-76. Zamel, V. 1980. ‘Re-evaluating sentence-combining practice’. TESOL Quarterly 14/1: 81-90.
The author
Brenda Dyer has a BEd from the University of Western Ontario and an MA from Oxford University. She has taught ESL in Canada and England and EFL in Portugal and Japan. She currently teaches English composition to first and second-year Japanese students at Chuo University, and EAP through content-based courses in global issues, women’s studies, and literature at Chuo University and Tsuda College, Tokyo.
317
L1 and L2 composition theories
articles
welcome
