國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides an overview of this study. It first explains how the researcher is motivated to conduct this study, describing the context of and the rationale for this study. Then the purpose of the study and its significance are stated.
1.1 Background & Motivation
Of the four language skills, writing tends to receive the least amount of attention.
Most instruction in English as a Second Language (ESL) focuses on developing students’ skills and abilities in listening, speaking, and reading while ignoring the development of students’ writing skills (Edelsky, 1982; Edelsky & Smith, 1989). This lack of attention to writing instruction has also led to a neglect of research in writing compared to other skills (Graves, 1984). Another scholar, Harris (1985) concluded that only 2% of ESL instruction covered writing activities. Of this two percent, 72%
was related to the mechanical aspect of writing, such as syntax, punctuation, and spelling. Yet for L2 or EFL learners, writing is an essential skill for communicative or academic purposes.
Apparently, writing has not got as equal attention as reading in Taiwan’s schools – a statement made in a study on the theses written by in-service English teachers. Analyzing 62 ETMA (Master of Arts in English Teaching) theses at National Taiwan Normal University from 2002-2006, Chuang (2007) observed that 23 theses focused on reading while only 11 on writing – an indication that reading is still the primary focus of English teaching in Taiwan. In both General Scholastic Test and Department Required Test, writing only takes up approximately one-fourth of the test
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
while reading dominates the rest. With writing as the secondary focus in high schools, it is no wonder that more than twenty thousand students got zero on English
composition in 2009, according to a report issued by the College Entrance
Examination Center (CEEC) (as cited in Lee, 2009). Encouragingly, however, Chuang (2007) pointed out there has been an increasing attention to writing research ever since the writing sections (translation and composition) were required in both General Scholastic Test and Department Required Test.
Mixed opinions on the draft of English composition in the College Entrance Exam have long existed. Despite supportive voices from some high school English teachers (Chang, 1996), several professors (Lee, 2009; Yang, 2003) suggested that writing should be abolished, for it only signifies an enormous gap of English teaching between rural and urban areas or it displays an unfair evaluation of one-time draft without proper consideration that “writing is a thinking process” (Zamel, 1982), where students need to write and revise again and again until they come up with a satisfactory final product. Still others (Chang, 2009; Lee, 2009) even pointed out that there has long been a two-peak distribution of English composition score. Even though the English education has started in elementary schools, it doesn’t help students get more interested in English. It seems to end up that the younger students get to learn English, the earlier they quit learning English.
Although many published writing guidebooks are available on the market, they either fail to teach students how to develop writing competence through a step-by-step process writing model or ignore the necessity of developing content by connecting the real life experience to the writing. Four writing guidebooks written by local English teachers (Lee, 2003; Lin, 2009; Liu, 2005, 2009) include only students’ composition samples together with sentence pattern practices or fragments of writing strategies, to name a few, brainstorming or outlining. Even one of the best selling writing books in
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Taiwan, Writing from Within, written by native speakers (Gargagliano & Kelly, 2001), though discussing writing strategies systematically, pays little regard to building content by writing about the real-life experience, with which students can write more and with greater fluency and satisfaction (Perl, 1980). Another two books, Smart Writing for Senior High (Shih et al, 2004) and Classroom Composition for Senior High (Chen et al, 2007), do cover themes closely related to teenagers’ life and introduce outlining and brainstorming strategies, but fail to provide a writing process model to help students develop their writing ability step by step. This inspires the present writer to design a writing course where students can write about their real life experience following a recursive process writing model.
Other than insufficient resources, the way writing is taught in Taiwan’s high schools is also more product-oriented than process-oriented. Since students are only required to write a one-time essay in the two Entrance Exams (General Scholastic Ability Test and Department Required Test), most of the English teachers in high schools focus on training students how to write a one-time essay within a time limit.
Seldom do they ask students to write in the process writing model: prewriting, drafting, revising, editing and publishing (Applebee, 1986). Most teachers just give students a topic to write about in a given time limit, ignoring the fact that “writing is a process through which meaning is created” (Zamel, 1982). In such a case, students care less about how to develop their writing ability through a necessary writing process than what scores they will get from this one-time essay. What’s worse, some students memorize some sample essays or follow a fixed formula to fit in the format required for the Entrance Exams. With limited teaching hours and constant focus on the final product of one-time essay, most English teachers in high schools are reluctant to implement the process writing model in writing practice. As a result, the one-time essay writing practice is popular in the English writing class of high schools
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
in Taiwan while the process writing is never a grave concern.
Stress on product over process can also be found in local theses on writing. A search in Electronic Theses and Dissertation System revealed that most
writing-related theses focus on syntax, collocation analysis or error analysis while several explored the use of model essays in writing class. On the other hand, theses on process writing strategies (Chang, 2002; Huang, 2002; Huang, 2004) are
comparatively few.
Even in the United Kingdom and the United States, where process writing has been widely practiced over several decades, there still remained some unresolved issues regarding the practice and deficiency of process writing. Despite the fact that process writing was introduced to the L1 context for several decades, product approach has still been dominant in the UK and the United States (Purves, 1992). In the United States, Harris and Graham (1996) argued that few activities were practiced in the classroom to help students to develop their writing process, even though
process writing started to be implemented in America. In the UK, it was believed that the introduction of a product-focused National Literary Strategy discouraged
recursive writing, a core concept of process writing (Hilton, 2001). Meanwhile, opponents of the process writing often criticized it for its loose structure (Baines, Baines, Stanley & Kunkel, 1999) and failure to see product as important as the writing process (Barnes, 1983). Barnes (1983) even questioned if Zamel’s process-oriented approach would ultimately improve students’ final writing product, which is
indispensable in the real life, especially for college courses. In this regard, more and more scholars (Blake, 1995; Dyson, 1992; Lensmire, 1993) called for teachers and students to connect process with product and reversed their concept that the process can be isolated from the product. Therefore, how to improve the final product in the process writing classes becomes a new trend of today’s process writing.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Though process writing prevails in L1 and L2 context, few studies on process writing have been conducted in an EFL classroom (Pennington & Brock, 1992;
Pennington, Brock & Yue, 1996; Pennington & Cheung, 1995; Pennington & So, 1993). With limited research on process writing in EFL context and controversies over the practice and deficiency of process writing in either L1 or L2 context, the
researcher feels the need for further investigation to explore a proper way to implement process writing in EFL context.
Despite the practice difficulties and deficiencies of process writing, technology may offer a satisfactory resolution. In recent years, the use of computer in writing has started to overthrow the traditional writing habits. In the United States, students are reported to use word-processing tools and online resources in writing practices (Applebee, 2009). The abundance of online resources provides students with
inspirations and reference to enrich the writing content while word-processing tools are used to improve the accuracy of final written products. It seems that the computer may be a good facilitator for the development of content and the improvement of final products. Supposedly, in a process writing class combined with the use of computer, the content would be well developed and the attention to final products be equally paid.
Providing basic word-processing function and links to online resources, blog has become a new form of publication popular among teenagers and teachers (Lowe &
Williams, 2004). Without a doubt, blog and process writing do have some features in common: self-expression (content), self-reflection (journal), interactivity
(commenting) and publication (e-portfolio). With these four unique features, blog may be a good medium to reinforce the practice of process writing. First, the text-based and text-rich content makes blog an ideal forum where students develop their writing content through self-expression. Second, originally an online journal in a reverse
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
chronological order, blog may also serve as a great platform for students to document their writing process online through self-reflection. Then, leaving comments on the blogs, students improve their writing through interaction with others. Finally, as a new form of publication (e-portfolio), blog may also help students develop a sense of audience in mind. To sum up, with these four features, – self-expression,
self-reflection, interactivity and publication – the blog provides a great chance to improve the practice of process writing. However, few studies have been seen to practice a process writing model in a blog-mediated environment.
To explore the possible relationship between process writing and blog, a
blog-meditated process writing was therefore designed. Since most local research on blog-mediated writing has been conducted in college (Hsiao, 2006; Lin, 2007; Peng, 2007; Wang, 2006), this present researcher feels the need to explore how the high school students respond to the process writing class in the mediation of blog.