Implementing Process Writing: a report from a Lengua Inglesa course.

López, M. & López Barrios, M. (1998). Implementing Process Writing: a report from a Lengua Inglesa course. In Federación Argentina de Asociaciones de Profesores de Inglés (Ed.), The Challenge of Globalization for TEFL. Conference proceedings. Bahía Blanca, 24-25-26 September 1998 (pp. 80-97). Bahía Blanca: FAAPI.

"Implementing Process Writing: a report from a Lengua lnglesa course"

Marisel Bollati de Lopez and Mario Lopez Barrios Universidad Nacional de San Juan

Abstract Moved by both the belief and empirical evidence about the effectiveness of the Process Writing approach, the authors are conducting an experiment in a Lengua lnglesa II course which aims at testing the effectiveness of multiple peer reading, commenting and assessing of the drafts on the students' written productions. The results so far reveal that, with appropriate training, students can become critical readers, and, given clear instructions, they can pass a grounded value judgement of their fellow students' texts. This criticism allows the writers to have a better understanding of their own shortcomings and it can also lead to a progressive overall improvement of their drafts.

1. Preliminary considerations The skill of writing is attracting more and more attention from specialists, as the load of publications produced in the last decade show. In Argentina, the discussion that was recently sparked by Ana Maria ·Armendariz in the electronic discussion list N&- V-L and the sequel of reactions to it from other contributors, together with the supplement on Teaching writing skills in the June issue of EL' News and Views bear witness to the revival of this much neglected skill. The supremacy of speaking over writing that has been claimed ever after the decline of the.Grammar-Translation Method together with the rise of communication technologies that were based on the transmission of voice (telephone, television, etc.) and the conception of writing as a secondary system only serving the purpose of recording speech, relegated writing both in first and foreign language education to a comer. However,

80

XXV F..A.A.P.I Annual Congress

writing is witnessing a revival in the last decade. In everyday life, this came about with the introduction of new information technologies (fax, e-mail, internet) that depend on the written word and that have generated the emergence of new genres. In the context of education, an awareness has set in of the power of writing to enhance the development of other skills and the improvement of the students' overall language proficiency. In terms of the growing professionalization of EFL teachers, the number of written communications (papers) presented at conferences or to be published in journals is increasing day by day. Writing has always been regarded as the most difficult of the four skills to he acquired in a foreign language. Some reasons for this are the distinct nature of written discourse as opposed to speaking and the lower degree of frequency of its use as compared to the other skills of speaking, listening and reading. In the context of a foreign-language related university career such as the training of EFL teachers 1 English is both the object of study and the language of most of the instruction. Evaluation is carried out to a considerable extent in written English, usually in the form of timed essay questions or research papers. This lack of balance between the low frequency and quality of writing instruction and the high requirements imposed on our students' writing by the members of the faculty have motivated us to take action and look.for ways to improve this unsatisfactory situation. For this purpose, we have set out to devise a . syllabus for writing instruction aiming at · ·developing autonomy in students' writing. ·Ideally this approach should include the following:· a) awareness raising about the writing process, b) the implementation of techniques such as the production of multiple drafts, peer reading, the use of checklists for revision and the use of reference materials and e) awareness raising about English text types and their Spanish counterparts.

2. The rationale

XXV F.A.A.P.I Annual Congress

8.1

The decisions we take in implementing the writing course are based on approaches tending to the development of learner autonomy and involve both authorial and discoursal considerations. According to Wenden (1988), promoting learner autonomy in foreign language instruction is a two dimensional concept consisting in both the development of the learner's interlanguage (linguistic autonomy) and their becoming effective learners (pedagogic autonomy). Learners should be shown how they can develop linguistic autonomy through the use of strategies to enhance and organize their learning (cognitive strategies) and to make them reflect upon their learning and language use (meta cognitive strategies). The authorial considerations we make reference to are those proposed by the process approach. This has influenced writing instruction ever since the influential paper by Hayes/Flower was written .in the early eighties. This approach was conceived as a multi modular model in which writing was viewed as taking place as a succession of stages · going from planning to reviewing 12 : (Hayes/Flower 1980: 11)

TASK ENVIRONMENT WRITING ASSIGNMENT Topic Audience Motivating cues

TEXT PRODUCED SO FAR I I

L

•

,r THE WRITER"S LONG

TERM

MEMORY Knowledge topic

0 ~

of r-

Knowledge of audience Stored writing

TRANS-

PLANNING

r-

,.-~

I ORGANIZING I _.

LATING

r---

~ ~

ffi I 0

GOAL SETTING

I

I

REVIEWING

I

READING

I

I

EDITING

I

•

plans

I

MONITOR

12

For a description of this model see for ex. Johnston (1996), Tribble (1996) or Caudery (1997).

82

XXV F.A.A.P.I Annual Congress

J

The notion of the linearity of the stages was the object of much criticism and with the course of time, different interpretations of this model have been suggested which emphasize the recurrent nature of the subprocesses of planning , translating and reviewing (Cf. Tribble 1996, Caudery 1997). Further adaptations of this model for foreign language writing · were suggested by Borner "(1987; 1992) who recognized the absence of crucial aspects of the production of written texts in the context of a foreign language. These include language related constraints that the learners have to tackle such as the reduced resources they possess in the foreign - language and which become evident mainly but not only during the translation stage, the need to make use of reference materials to help them to construct their texts both at the micro and the macro level and the existence of text schemata in both languages. Probably the most important contribution the process approach makes to writing instruction is the metacognitive potential it offers. By neatly separating the different stages in the process learners can be made aware of the purpose each one of the stages serves. But this emphasis on linearity rather than on recursiveness has been criticized on the grounds that it forces students into a behavior that may not necessarily suit the writer's individual styles, as Armendariz (1998) argues. Although this approach was developed from the mid 70s to the early 80s and since then the positive effects of its use have been referred · to, especially in publications from the United States 13 , it has only started to exert a more widespread influence on_EFL only a decade later, as an analysis of textbooks produced in the last 15 years shows 14 . The discoursal considerations referred to above are still an aspect to be given more prominence in our writing programme. Whereas the process approach focuses on the writers and the processes they engage 13

7'Cf Zamel (1982; 1983); Raimes (1983).

14

Cf. two EFL textbooks produced in 1985: neither Harmer for beginners nor Fowler/Pidcock for learners at CPE level make any reference to the process approach. See Johnston (1996) for an assessment of process writing in coursebooks published in the early 90s.

· XXV F.A.A.P.I Annual Congress

83

in for the creation of texts, the genre approach emphasizes the rhetorical qualities readers expect from texts: In general, approaches which focus on the reader emphasize the constraints of form and content that have to be recognized when a writer attempts to match a text to a social purpose, and have come to he associated with the notion of genre. (Tribble 1996: 46) This awareness of texts matching a social purpose, and more specifically, of texts being products of a culture and having rhetorical features that make them unique is one students generally cannot be expected to have developed at school. The experience of comparing genres in English and Spanish is one which gives students an insight into . a number of rhetorical characteristics they have in most cases never considered before. These include features at macrostructurat level such as differences in layout, text construction and realization of speech acts.

3.

The experiment

It is our belief that students can perform better in their written productions if they know how they will he assessed. For this purpose, we have made our assessment criteria public in the hope that this will help students understand what qualities we expect to find in their writing. For this we have broken up the components of communicative competence pertaining to writing skills according to the framework put forward by ·Canale/Swain (1 9 80) and Canale (1983) which consists of:

•

grammatical competence

•

sociolinguistic competence

•

strategic competence

•

discourse competence These components of communicative competence are reflected in ·

the following assessment criteria:

84

XXV F.A.A.P.I Annual Congress

Content

•

Structure

Relevance of • Structure of content (relation content to task • Connection of assigned) sentences/pa rag raphs • Richness of content • Adequacy of Clarity of text type • purpose Orientation • towards the audience (Adapted from Lopez Barrios 1998: 231)

Expression

•

• • •

Precision of expression Independence of expression Adequacy of register Variation in sentence construction and connection

•

Correctness of Lanauage Correctness of expression in terms of grammar, spelling and punctuation

The criteria content and structure have a bearing on the macrostructural level of text production whereas the aspects impinging on the microstructural level have been grouped. under the labels of expression and correctness of language. Writing implies the transmission of a content in a form that is predetermined by a number of constraints making up the commuriicative event. Consequently, the area of content is one that deserves attention as well as that which has to do with the form of its expression. Contents are assessed according to their relevance in relation to the task set as well as for their richness, and constitute an area that is typically included by Examination boards such as UCLES in their assessment criteria. The area of structure is covered by that of discourse competence, which Canale defines as concerning "mastery of how to combine grammatical forms and ·meanings to achieve a unified spoken or written text in different genres. " (1983: 9). This competence involves the application of the writer's knowledge of the discourse features of the language in question, which comprises cohesion i. e the logical, grammatical and lexical ties that keep discourse together, and coherence, that quality of text that operates at the macrostructural level and includes those features that identify genres, such as macrofunctions and macrostructures.

At the microstructural level, the criterion of expression relates both to sociolinguistic competence and strategic competence, in that it XXV F.A.A.P. I Annual Congress

85

concerns features such adequacy of register and independence of impression.

Canale . characterizes

sociolinguistic

competence

as

addressing "the extent to which utterances are produced and understood appropriately in different sociolinguistic contexts depending on contextual

factors such as status of participants, purposes of the interaction, and norms or conventions of interaction" (1983: 7). Under strategic competence Canale groups those strategies used "to compensate for breakdowns in communication due to limiting conditions in actual communication ... or to insufficient competence in one or more of the other areas of communicative competence and ... to enhance the effectiveness of communication" (1983: 10-1 I.). Furthermore, within this criterion we look at the precision of the use of lexical items as regards meaning and collocation as well as the ability to employ different types of sentences and connectives. Correctness of language refers to Canale's grammatical competence which is concerned with "mastery of the language code .;. itself' (1983: 7). This area of communicative competence has been the one that has traditionally been paid the most attention as a quality criterion in writing, more often than not to the total detriment of the other areas. Since we believe that effectiveness in communication is equally important to correctness of language, we assign each of the areas the same proportion of marks of the total grade. At present, we allocate a mark between 3 and 0.to each of the correction criteria, whereby 3 stands .•for a very good performance with only very few mistakes that are unlikely to hinder communication; a 2 represents a performance displaying some inaccuracies causing little confusion to the reader, a 1 is given for a performance containing several mistakes that hamper communication, · thus requiring the reader to go over sections of the text more than once to recover meaning and a 0 for a largely unacceptable performance, which we consider to he the case when readers cannot make sense of large · portions of the text. Peer readers report some difficulties in assigning grades, as they feel our performance descriptors to be fuzzy. For this purpose, we intend to revise the descriptors to make them more accurate.

86 ....._

XXV F.A.A.P.I Annual_Congress

.......

Nevertheless, we are aware of the difficulty involved in the tapping of foreign language proficiency, which should reflect itself in the production of transparent rating scales. Once students are familiar with our rating criteria, the process of revision of the first draft can be guided by it and further facilitated by the use of checklists. This process, whose function is "to improve the quality of the written text" (Hayes/Flower 1980:

16),

involves two different

subprocesses operating at distinct levels: editing and reviewing. Editing is an automated procedure affecting the text surface which operates mainly at the local level of text production and whose purpose is "to detect and correct violations in writing conventions and inaccuracies of meaning and to evaluate materials with respect to the writing goals" (Hayes/Flower 1980: 16). Reviewing is a conscious and deliberate act of correction, which affects the larger sections of the text and also the text as a whole. This involves decisions that hear on the "content" and structure" areas of the quality criteria describes above. When reviewing, we instruct students to read for meaning first, i.e., to explore the contents and their structure, and to postpone focusing on the more local issues of text production (expression and correctness of language) until they can judge the contents. Many readers find this separation difficult, since in their previous

-

experiences as language learners, correctness has often been regarded as paramount and meaning as secondary. The purpose of our splitting the macro and the micro levels consists in the systematic training of this · behavior. Nevertheless, we are aware that we work with subjects that master the writing process to different extents, so that we may have students that are able to read for content and suggest repairs in the language area without losing the train of thought as they read on. Although the course of action we propose is aimed at the less proficient writer, we ·. try not discourage expert revisers from working in a way that suits their individual styles. The following are models of possible checklists: Checklist: Content/Structure

XXV F.A.A.P.I Annual Congress

87

•

6V'

6V'

Is the intended topic actually dealt with in the text? Try to summarize the communicative intention of this text in a short sentence. • How many different aspects of the topic have been considered? Can you think of other possible aspects? Now concentrate on the intended readership. Can you understand the contents? Have you got questions to the author? Please analyse the text structure: • Is the sequence of ideas clear and logical? Would you suggest a different order? Why? • Are the paragraphs clearly and logically connected? Does the text "flow" smoothly? • Have the conventions of the text type been respected?

Checklist: Expression 6V'

6V'

6V'

6V' 6V'

Consider the use of vocabulary: Is this the right word in this context? Collocation? Do use your dictionary! Read your text and see whether it is adequate in terms of the intended readership (register) and text type (characteristic features) In case you include a word in Spanish because there is no equivalent for it in English (ex. empanada), make sure you explain it to your readers Be careful about repetitions. Try using synonyms. Use a thesaurus! Now concentrate on sentence connection. Do try to vary the connectives you use.

Checklist: Correctness of Language 6V'

6V'

~

6V'

Re.ad your text and concentrate on punctuation (stops, commas, semicolons, colons , question and admiration marks). Use your grammar book. Now concentrate on spelling. Be sure you underline everything you may be doubtful about. Use your dictionary. Concentrate on grammar: • Verbs: Singular I Plural? Tenses (esp. simple past - pres. perfect)? Gerunds / Infinitives? Causative form? • Nouns: Countable I uncountable? • ·word order: Adverbials! • . References: Clarity of references: Pronouns, adverbs, connectives Use all sources at your disposal!

4. Description of the experience 4.1. The procedure

88

XXV F.A.A.P.I Annual Congress

...

W" W"

The instructions (i.e. heading) are important! Have you read them properly? · Read the text and consider its content Students were given various tasks during the course. For example,

"Write a description of your own city or town, introducing it to British or American people who have not been there before" adapted from Cambridge Advanced English by Leo Jones (16.6. D), or

"Write a

biography of a famous person." . Once the task was completed, (according to a deadline set for the presentation of the work) the students' work was to be submitted to peer reading, which would be conducted in the following manner: each text was .to have three separate readers, who would assess the text following the checklists given by the instructors. Reader# 1 was to read the text for content and organization and would assign a grade on the basis of the checklist provided by the instructors, and his or her own experience as a reader of English texts.

The reader was also expected to make

suggestions for overall improvement. of the work. Reader # 2 would then look at the text following the checklist for expression and again a grade was to be assigned in this case.

Reader # 3 would then focus on

correctness following the same procedure. Once this peer reading stage had been completed, the text would return to the writer for revision. The writer was to evaluate each reader's .comments and suggestions and rewrite the text informed by the feedback from his or her peers. The revised version was then to be handed in to the instructor, together with the first draft and the peers' comments, for assessment. It was the instructor's task, then, to provide further feedback, in terms of the same criteria defined in the checklists, and with the same grade scale used by peers.

Armed with this new feedback, the writer

would revise the text for the second time in order to produce the most satisfactory piece possible for his or her level and capabilities.

XXV F.A.A.P.I Annual Congress

89

4.2. Strengths and weaknesses of the procedure

4.2.1. From the Instructors' point of view: We found the procedure useful in a number of ways. In the first place, it provided an organized path for correction . The checklists proved ·to be a valuable tool for us to identify problem areas more easily and so guide the . students more accurately in the revision stage.

As most

students were doing better work in one or two of the three categories, we found that it was less disheartening for them to know that their work needed improvement in a certain area rather than to know I be told that · their work was "rather poor" as a whole. A highly positive aspect of the procedure was the improvement of the texts derived from the writers' increased awareness of the reader. We all know that reader awareness is of utmost importance in the writing process, but it is often _hard for students to fully comprehend its dimension. In our experience, the peer reading stage constituted a very useful tool to raise students' awareness in this direction. Also derived from the peer reading was a wholesome strengthening of team spirit. When acting as readers, students put themselves in the writer's shoes, and felt the writer was "one of them." They sympathized with their classmates when they spotted a mistake and felt "it could also be their own mistake. " Many discovered they could help one another to ·grow. Another strength of the procedure, from the instructor's point of view, is that it provided a new role for the students. As students were supposed to assign ·a grade to their classmates' work, . they found themselves in an entirely new position, and became more aware of the · responsibility of their instructors as well as more aware of their future role as teachers. Of course, not everything was positive. Some problems came up during the implementation of the procedure. A number of students had difficulty telling right from wrong, appropriate from inappropriate or

90

XXV F.A.A.P.I Annual Congress

organized from loose,

and their comments consequently failed to

enlighten the writer. However, this was not the rule, as our students are permanently being exposed to well written texts, and develop certain intuitions about the language which inform their judgement in the same way as we, as instructors, have developed our own feeling of confidence towards the language. Another aspect of the procedure to be questioned was its lack of flexibility, as many elements in a text were difficult to categorize under the heading of

"correctne~s"

"expression" or "organization and content." To

some extent, the procedure could be said to go against the conception of language as a whole. In order to dispel this belief, we explained to our students that the separation of the analysis into three different criteria was done for the sake of order and organization, and was meant as a tool to help the writer focus on specific problem areas. We insisted that in no way should it be taken to represent a fragmented view of language. We hope we have not failed in getting this message across. As a final comment from the instructors' point of view, we must say that the implementation of the procedure called for a relatively high degree of discipline regarding deadlines, which was not always easy to comply with. Some negotiation had to be carried out among peers and between students and instructors. Last but not least: it does not take any less time to correct. Unfortunately, no procedure seems to spare us some of the hours we · invest in

reading and re-reading our students' work.

However, we

managed to save some time by reading some of the papers together with their writer (while the rest of the students were doing peer reading) and found this to be extremely useful for the students.

4.2.2. From the students' point of view:

Students were asked to express their views about the procedure by filling in a Strengths-Weaknesses form. The form was anonymous. As

XXV F.A.A.P.I Annual Congress

91

many of the comments are repeated, we have made a selection of the ones we consider to be the most representative. There was unanimous approval of the existence of the checklists as a source of orientation and as an element that helped create awareness of various aspects of a text: •

"The checklists were important to know how to separate the

different aspects we have to take into account when writing a . composition (grammar, context, spelling, etc), so that is why I believe it was helpful" •

"The checklists were a very good idea, a very good way to remind

us of what we have to keep in mind when reading or writing." •

"Really, really useful checklists, thanks to which I was able to

identify many mistakes that, otherwise,. I would have skipped." •

"We had a useful guidelist to make it all easier." As was to be expected, assigning a grade to each category posed

some problems. This was discussed in class and , as instructors, we used this opportunity to develop some awareness regarding the complexity of evaluation. The good thing is that students got really involved in the grading process. One of them even suggested an alternative way of assessing performance:

•

"Grade 0 to 3 for each category: it may be important in the future

since most of us will have to give grades when correcting quizzes, tests, etc. but it was difficult for me in a way that I was never completely sure about the grade I was giving to each category." •

"Sometimes it is too difficult to decide the marks for each category,

or maybe I don't agree with the marks that somebody gave me. I think it will be better to write comments like 'Try to improve your spelling' or 'Good job' instead of 1, 2 or 3."

Several students said it was difficult to focus on one of the categories:

92 .......

XXV F.A.A.P .I Annual Congress

•

"Sometimes there were mistakes of spelling , and I was correcting

structure and it was difficult to focus only on that part I was correcting." •

"When reading someone else's essay I found it difficult to have in

mind only one checklist. Maybe the corrections should have been made considering the three checklists."

In many cases, the peer reading activity was perceived as a valuable tool for self-improvement, a way of becoming more aware of their own problem areas through the analysis of other people's work: •

"We were able to improve our knowledge by correcting other's

mistakes and taking some advice to correct our own." •

Receiving

the peer's feedback gave rise to some reflection, and

also to disagreement in some cases: •

"I also understood that my readers not always agree or like what I

write or how I write." •

"Some people considered wrong things that were right."

•

"I think that the peers' corrections sometimes were quite messy. On

some occasions I couldn't understand my partner's corrections or I didn't agree, so I didn't know what to do."

The rewriting process was seen as a positive element, although some students felt they were not writing 'enough' compositions: •

"Rewriting the composition helped us remember our mistakes."

•

"It was good to rewrite my composition with all the corrections

made." •

"Even though

t~e

process can take a long time, the results were

satisfactory, at least for me. I'm very proud of my final work." •

"As it takes time to complete the correction process, we write fewer

compositions. As I find writing particularly difficult, I think I need more practice." Very interesting were to us all the attitudes derived from interacting, which were reflected in students' comments.

We believe this sort of

reflection can only enrich the classroom experience, XXV F.A.A.P.I Annual Congress

even the few 93

negative comments contributed in this respect, as students become aware of the importance of attitude : •

"I learnt to see things from different points of view"

•

"Some people discouraged me from creating my own style of

writing." •

"We've been able to be in the teacher's shoes."

•

"Sometimes, I

couldn'~

avoid changing the author's version and

writing my own point of view, but when I saw that somebody had done the same with my writing, I realized that I had to respect the author's opinion." •

"Some people didn't take it seriously, many people don't feel

confident enough to show what they think." •

"We've been able to know about our classmates' ideas and style."

•

,,,We had the opportunity to know how the rest of the class work at

writing." · And finally, we have to admit, the procedure got messy at some points, but we are trying to find ways to correct that, as we continue to implement it: •

"There was a kind of disorganization with regard to the date in

which the compositions were supposed to be returned to their owners." 5. Conclusion

Process writing may not be the answer to all the problems a · language teacher has to confront with when training her or his students in the skill of writing. Promoting autonomy has to do with accepting the challenge of delegating some important decisions to the students that have traditionally belonged to the teacher, namely the power to use the red pen! - a very disquieting loss especially for those practitioners who may see their authority challenged in this way. However, students will profit from this new responsibility they have been assigned in that - with the teacher's guidance - they will be able to develop into more independent writers who can manage both the authorial and the discoursal resources needed to create written texts. 94 ....._

XXV F.A.A.P.I Annual Congress

Description

San Juan

Although some people may think of San Juan as a desert place, this province has a wide variety of interesting places to visit. From the well-known Valle de la luna -The Valley of the Moonto San Juan City, the most modern city of Argentina, the visitor finds an incredible time kaleidoscope .. lschigualasto (Valle de la Luna) and Felix Aguilar Observatory have reached a worldwide importance among archeologists and astronomers. However, the scenery is not only a scientific attraction but also an excellent place for the so-called x-sports such as rafting and motocross. · Just arrived, you meet the progressive San Juan city which was almost entirely rebuilt after the tragic earthquake in 1944. The constant increase in the number of vehicles in the city makes the traffic too busy and sometimes the patient and friendly dwellers tend to lose patience. As far as entertainment goes, cinemas, cafes, nightclubs and very important natural museums will satisfy either your interest in leisure activities or in knowing what the life on our planet was like 700 millions years ago. The high temperatures in summer make open air places a necessity, especially in those famous summer nights. The fall is also a time to enjoy short walks through the park to admire the way in which soft and blending colors change the landscape. On the whole, the province of San Juan is a unique oasis where even a short stay is a peaceful and exciting experience for the foreigner.

XXV F.A.A.P.I Annual Congress

95

Bibliography •

"Teaching Writing Skills". Feature Supplement 5.2. EL T News & Views (Buenos Aires). June 1998.

•

Armendariz, Ana .(1998) "Reflections from an anxious writer". In Teaching Writing Skills. Feature Supplement 5.2. ELT News & Views (Buenos Aires). June 1998. 10-1 1.

•

Borner, Wolfgang (1987) "Schreiben im Fremdsprachenunterricht: Oberlegungen zu einem Medell". In: Lorscher, Wolfgang/Schulze, Rainer (Hrsg.), Perspectives on language in performance. Volume 2. TObingen: Narr (TObinger Beitrage zur Linguistik 317). 1336- 1349.

•

Borner,

Wolfgang

(1992)

"Das

Werkzeug

'Textverarbeitung'

im

fremdsprachlichen Schreiben: ldealkonzeption und Realisierungen". In: BornerNogel (Hrsg.) Schreiben in der Fremdsprache. ProzeB und

Text, Lehren und Lemen. Bochum: AKS-Verlag. (Fremdsprachen in Lehre und Forschung 10). 297-313. •

Canale, Michael (1983a) "From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy". In: Richards, Jack C./Schmidt Richard W. (eds.), Language and communication. London/New York: Longman (Applied linguistics and language study).

•

Canale,

Michael/Swain,

Merril

(1980)

"Theoretical

bases

of

communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing". In: Applied Linguistics 1. 1-47. •

.•

Caudery, Tim (1997) "Process writing". In Fulcher, Glenn (ed.). 3-23 .

Fowler , WS./Pidcock, J. (1985) New Proficiency English. Book I: Language and Composition. Walton-on-Thames: Nelson.

•

Fulcher,

Glenn

(ed.) (1997)

Writing in the English Language

Classroom. Herne! Hempstead: Prentice Hall (ELT Review). •

Harmer,

Jeremy (1985)

Meridian.

Teachers

Longman.

96

XXV F.A.A.P.I Annual Congress

Guide

1.

Harlow:

•

Hayes, John/Flower, Linda (1980) "Identifying the organization of

writing processes". in: Gregg, Lee W./Steinberg, Erwin R. (eds.), Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 3-30. •

Johnston,

Helen

(1996)

"Survey

review:

process

writing

in

coursebooks". In English Language Teaching Journal 50. 347-355. •

Jones, Leo (1991) Cambridge Advanced English. Cambridge: CUP.

•

Lopez Barrios, Mario (1998a) Die curriculare Grundlegung der

Fertigkeit Schreiben i1J7 DaF-Unterricht. Frankfurt/Main u.a.: Peter Lang

(Europaische Hochschulschriften:

Reihe 1,

Deutsche Sprache und

Literatur.Bd. 1674). •

Raimes, Ann (1983) Techniques in teaching writing. New York, NY:

OUP (Teaching techniques in English as a second language). • · Tribble,

Christopher

(1996)

Writing.

Oxford:

OUP

(Language

Teaching). •

Wenden, Anita (1988) "A curricular framework for promoting learner autonomy". In: The Canadian Modern Language Review 44. 639-652.

•

Zamel, Vivian (1982) "Writing: the process of discovering meaning".

In

TESOL Quarterly 16. 195-209.

•

Zamel Vivian (1983) "The composing process of advanced ESL students: six case studies". In TESOL Quarterlv 17. 165-187.

XXV F.A.A.P.I Annual Congress

97