日本の大学教育における英文ライティング プロダクト プロセス アプローチの方法論

~A

EFB)~

jrll~~hjcll~z;~7jcl-~~)~~~:*~

₌

EnglishWritingintheJapaneseUnlversltyClassroom:

AMethodologyforaProductProcessApproach

H**ryHARRIS

ABSTRACT

Mainstreamsecondlanguagewritingresearchhasgenerallymovedfrom afocusonproductmethodologies,oftenwithsingledraftssubmittedfor correctionandagrade,tothoseofprocess,withmultipledraftsplanned andrevisedstep-by-stepbeforefinalsubmission.However,professionals arenotinagreementaboutthesignificanceordirectionofthisshift. BecauseofstudentneedsandEnglishreadingaudiencedemands,this papersupportsaproductprocessapproachintheJapaneseuniversity classroomandoffersamethodologyaccordingtowhichstudentsare askedtoemulatetextmodelsandprovidemultipledraftsoftheirwork aswellastoengageinconferencing,peerevaluation,andjournal writing.

-89-~~~1 ~i~**~~)7~T~/~~~~~7~~)EE7)*,*i~-~J~)~~:~*~*~*~i~r~)T~~~Z

'"~l~E;.

~~~V~~~~~~~~~:~FT'L~~~~~~)~)~+~~~~*~i~~)~~1~*fT~f~~J*~~~i~~~L~~~~C~) J~:~~r*~*f~~i~~:~~~=~~~~E*d~1~~A~~)~~~b~ib~~Ji~)~.~~f~i~~T~i~V~~~~~~~~fC-~~~~fC ~)'~:~~~.(~~)~:~;1~~~~~n~l[~~:*,~l*~)CV~~~)~~~}~f~;~~.~;~FB~}~~~~~C7

~

~~rf~/tf~~~.~~~~~~~)~-~~..~~)~~~~-•-~.~c*~~~)~f~J;~}Cfit~~~~~fC.~

~~))~~~~~=~l~~)jCll~~~hyCllt;~7j~I-~~,~!~~~.~~;~h~)

~-'-'"-E~)~~~~~/tf~~~t'f~~~V~t~;~~~.~~~1"~FfC~~~~~)~i'~.*~•~~f~~i~~~~~E*~l~~~~~)

I.Introduction

Forallofus,theprocessoflearningtoproduceapieceofwriting

meantforpublicconsumptionentailsaperiodofsocializationduring

whichweleain,withvariousdegreesofsuccess,toacceptand

approximateorrejectandretractfromthemainstreamconventionsand expectationsbywhichourreadingcommunityjudgethecontentand

intentofourproduct.Whetherwebrieflylistgroceryneedsfora

waitingspouse,carefullywordaletterofcondolencestoagrieving friend,purposefullycomposeane-mailofcomplainttoanoffending company,orfurtivelyscrawlanuglyobscenityonacitywall,wehave acceptedandtriedtoapproximateorrejectedandtriedtoretractfrom thosemainstreamconventionsandexpectations.Becausewearesymbol-seeking,problem-solvingsocialandsocializedanimals,thewritingthat weproduc,ebecomessymbolicofourbackground,andthereforeofus,

-90-EnglishWritingintheJapaneseUniversityClassroom:AMethodologyforaProductProcessApproach establishinginthemindsofothersvaryingdegreesofaffinityand, therefore,ofacceptanceintotheircommunity,howevertightlyorloosely theymaychoosetodefineit.Thisistruewhetherwewriteinourown language(L1)ordosoinanother(L2). UnfortunatelyforL2writers,however,theevidencenowoverwhelmingly

showsthatL1andL2writingarenotthesame,that,asSilva(1993)

concludesinhisexhaustivestudyofESLwriting,"Clearly,L2writingis strategically,rhetorically,andlinguisticallydifferentinimportantways fromL1writing"(p.669).Thisdifference,ofcourse,hastremendous implicationsforL2writerswhowouldhavetheirwritinggainsuccessful acceptancebycompetentandinquisitiveL1andL2readingcommunities. Aswell,ithasimplicationsforeducatorsandotherswithasimilar

interestinthesuccessofL2writersbecauseitmandatesthatthe

"differenceneedstobeacknowledgedandaddressedbythosewho

woulddealwithL2writ.ersifthesewritersaretobetreatedfairly, taughteffectively,andthus,givenanequalchancetosucceedintheir writing-relatedpersonalandacademicendeavors"(ibid.,p.671). ForEFLeducatorsteachingwritinginJapaneseuniversities,addressing thisdifferencemayposeevengreaterproblemsduetostudents'Iackof sufficientpreparationbeforeleavingK-12orevenafterenteringa university.Because[English]writingisgivenlessemphasisthanreading andgrammarinJapanesejuniorandseniorhighschools(Aiga,1990: citedinHeffernan,2006,p.250),students"donothavethenecessary

skillstocopewiththewntmgcoursesthatwillbepartofthe

unrversitycumculum"(Heffernanibid.);because"MostJapanese

learnerslearnhowtowriteinjuniorandsenior_highschoolfrom

-91-JapaneseteachersofEnglishbyusinggrammarandtranslatronbased methods"(Hirayanagi,1998:citedinHeffernan,ibid.),"learnersare woefullyunpreparedfortherigorsofconductingresearchandputting togetherawell-balancedpieceofacademicwritingthatwouldconformto thestandardsofWesternuniversities"(Heffernan,ibid.).Significantly, forthosetowhomthismatters,asHirose(1998)sorelevantlypomts

out"Translationatthesentencelevelisoneofthemostcornmon

writingpracticesnotonlyinhighschoolsbutalsoinuniversitiesin Japan"(citedinDavies,2004,p.80). Fujieda(2006)summarizesthepresumablyofficialreasonsfortheabove

situationbysayingthatitis"becausetheEnglishclassesrely

exclusivelyontheentranceexaminationpractices"andbecause"the ~apanese]MinistryofEducation...concentrates[theEnglishcurriculum] heavilyonthedevelopmentofspeakingproficiencysothatlearnerscan internationalizethemselves"(p.67).Thoughinreferencetosecond languageeducationonamoregeneralandinternationallevel,Jacobsand Farrell(2001)makethismorewidelyrelevantwhentheyarguethat changesinsecondlanguageeducationhavebeen"piecemealratherthan ...holistic"(p.2)andwhentheymaintainthatinmanycases"while

teachingmethodologyhasbecomemorecommunicative,testing

[continuestoconsist]ofdiscreteitems,Iower-orderthinkingandafocus onformratherthanmeaning...pull[ing]teachingback"(p.13).Less officially,inJapan(aspresumablyelsewhere)itmayalsobethat Englishteachershavebeenjusttoobusytorequiremeaningfulwriting assignrnentsoftheirstudents.Alternatively,theymayhavebeen

unawareoftheL2writingmethodologythathasevolvedfromL1

writingpedagogyandthatcontinuestoevolve,elsewhereandinJapan,

-92-EnglishWritlngIntheJapaneseUnlversityClassroom:AMethodologyforaProductProcessApproach

fromL2writingmethodsasaresultoftheresearchandhands-on

experiencethathavehelpedmanyL2writinginstructorsteachthisskill withgreatersuccess. Itis,then,withthisresearchinmindandthisexperienceathandthat thispapersupportstheuseofandoffersamethodologyforaproduct processapproachintheJapanesewritingclassroom.Theproductprocess approachrequiresthatstudentwritersbrainstorm,plan,write,andrevise theirworkinaseriesofstepsinaccordancewiththeguidanceoftheir instructorandtheirpeersandtheorganizationofspecifiedtextmodels, "intheformofsyntacticparadigms,essayswrittenbyprofessional authors,orspecificrhetoricalpatterns-whichstudentsareaskedto analyzeandthenemulateintheirownwriting"(Cumming,1995,p.382). Forourpurposes,studentswillbeprovidedwithmodeltextsdesrgned orselectedaccordingtopatternsof"rhetoricalorganization"or"modes ofreasoning"(SeeDavies,op.cit.,p.89,forhisexamples.)suchas descriptionandchronologyoraccordingtoacademicorexpressrve functionssuchaspr6cisandprediction.

Forthosewhowouldobjecttotheuseofmodelsbecauseofthepost-70soppositiontothemamongsomeprocessresearchers(See,for

example.Zamel[1982]below.),Iamsuggestingaproductprocess

approach,withtheprocessderivingfromtheproduct-here,themodel. Thisisopposedtotheexpressiveprocessapproach(SeeReid[200l]for hisdistinction:citedinFujieda,op.cit.p.64.),whichtends"toward individualdevelopmentthroughself-detectionandconcentratesentirely onadequatewritingproceduresratherthanonacompleteproduct" (Fujieda,ibid.)-essentially,withouttheuseofmodels.Restated,I

-93- arguethatinaJapaneseuniversityenvironmentwherestudentswithlow-levelEnglishskills,ingeneral,andlow-1evelEnglishWritingskills,in particular,(orevenlow-1evelJapaneseWritingskills)meetonlyoncea

weekfor12to26weeks,wherethereisseldomancillarysupportin

theformofwritinglabs,andwhereoutsideEnglish-1anguage

reinforcementisrare,providingstudentswithtextualmodelsthatthey willemulateintheirownwriting,afterthemodelsandassignments havebeenunderstood,iseffectivelyproductive.Furtherrestatedand

explained,Iarguethat"thetrueorultimatefocusofatextual

orientation...isafocusnotonformbutonaudience"(Leki,1991, p.135)andthattextualmodelsserveasanefficientheuristicdeviceto helpstudentsthemselvesfocusonaudience,therebygaininggreater affinitywithit,unlikewiththeexpressiveprocessapproach,which essentiallyasksthatstudentsdigdownintothemselvesandjustdevelop theirwritingwhiletheydevelopwithit.

Forthosewhowouldinsistontheuseofafullyexpressiveprocess

approach,withouttheuseofmodels,itmustbesaidthat,asDavies (op.cit.)warns: IntheJapanesecontext,...cautionshouldbeexercisedinadopting certainperspectiveswithintheprocessapproach,especiallythose associatedwithexpressivistmodesthatstressthepersonalvoicein

writing,becausetheystronglyresemblekansebunmodelsof

Japanesecompositionpedagogy,whichneglectorganizational structureandpromoteahighlypersonalizedapproachtocomposing. ...WhenappliedtoEnglishacademicwriting,howeverthekans6bun modelcanbeextremelyproblematic,resultingincounterproductive

-94-EnglishWritingintheJapaneseUnlversltyClassroom:AMethodologyforaProductProcessApproach writinghabitsthatshouldnotbereinforced.(p.87)

Relevantly,asLeki(op.cit.)pointsoutinherdiscussionofthe

pedagogicalimplicationsofcontrastiverhetoric,theideathat "preferencesinwritingstylesareculturallyinformed,...Japanese employsareader-responsiblerhetoricwhileEnglishfavorsawriter-responsibleone[anditisour]responsibilitytoteachtheexpectationsof theEnglishaudiencetoL2writers[because]readersunderstandbetter whattheyarefamiliarwith[and]'beingyourself,'...hasnoreality outsideapartrcularculturalandrhetoncalcontext"(pp.137-138). Finally,forthosewhowouldobjecttoanyuseofaprocessapproach,

withitsemphasisonstep-by-stepeffortsandholisticwriting

improvement,andwouldpreferatraditionalproductapproach,withits emphasisonsingledraftswhicharesubmittedforcorrectionanda grade,itcanonlybesaidthatwehavecomealong,thoughcircuitous,

waysincethedayswhenU.S.universitiesevaluatedstudentsfor

placementinESLprograrnsbyhavingthem,forexample,writeafree compositionanddetermining,asBracy(1971)pointsout,that: ifastudentcanwrite2OOwordsandmakefewerthanfiveerrors, heisonaleveltocompetewithintermediateforeignstudents.

Whenhecanwritethemesfromonetothreepagesandhopefully

makelessthanthreeerrorsperpage,heissupposedlyreadyto

competewithnativespeakersinanycollegeclassrequiring

compositionskills.(p.239)

-g5-Certainly,wecannowseethataprimaryobjectiveinwritingpedagogy

iswriterautonomyandthatthebestwaytocultivatethatisnotby

limitingourselvestothelaboriouslyauthoritarianrolesofsurface-error compositioncorrectorsofone-and-only-onestudentdrafts,uponwhich

studentsare"fimshed,"butbyencouragingstudentstotake

responsibilityfortheirownwork,askingthem"formultipledraftsofa workand[teaching]thatrewritingandrevisionareintegraltowriting, andthateditingisanongoing,multi-process,notmerelyahastycheck forcorrectgrammar"(Myers,1997,p.3). Insummary,then,thispaperarguesthattheproductprocessapproach providesaviable,andinmanycases,preferable,methodologythatL2 writinginstructorsinJapaneseuniversitiescanusetohelbtheir

studentsfocuson,andgainsomeaffinitywith,anL1orL2reading

audience.Withtheabovebackdropinmind,Iet'stakeacursorylookat developmentsinL2writingresearchandmethodologyinthelatterhalf ofthe20'hcenturyandthebeginningofthe2Ist,afterwhichwewill examineaproductprocessapproach.

II.DevelopmentsinL2ResearchandMethodology

Inhisconceptionallyperceptiveandinfluentialwork,TheStructureof ScientlficRevolutions,ThornasKuhn(1970,p.8)maintainsthat: Competitionbetweensegmentsofthescientificcommunityisthe onlyhistoricalprocessthateveractuallyresultsintherejectionof

onepreviouslyacceptedtheoryorintheadoptionofanother.

(italicsadded)

-96-EnglishWritlngintheJapaneseUnlversityClassroom:AMethodologyforaProductProcessApproach Kuhn(ibid.)thenintroduceshisusageofthewordparadigm,explaining thatparadigmsare: acceptedexamplesofactualscientificpractice...[which]provide modelsfromwhichspringparticularcoherenttraditionsofscientific

research...[inwhichmen]arecommittedtothesamerulesand

standardsforscientificpractice.(pp.10-11) InScientlficRevolutions,Kuhn(ibid.)talksaboutparadigmshifts, equatingthemwithrevolutionsandarguingthatsuchrevolutionsinvolve "acertainsortofreconstructionofgroupcommitments"(p.181)and thattheseshiftstakeplacewhenananomaly"subvertstheexisting traditionofscientlficpractice"(p.6:italicsadded),resultinginacrisis, leadingtoarevolutionifthereisacandidateparadigmtoreplacethe onethatisbeingquestioned.

Forourpurposes,itmustberememberedthatsecondlanguage

educationisadisciplineinwhichcompetitionandscientificmethodsare integralparts.Hypothesesareformulatedandthentestedthrough research,theresultssharedanddefendedinprofessionaljournalsor

otherforums.Furthermore,ifwecontinuewithKuhn'slineof

argumentation,itmustalsoberecognizedthat,asothersargueGacobs andFarrell,2001;Raimes,1991),therehasbeennocompleterevolution involvingproductandprocessL2writing,probablybecausethefieldof ESL/EFLissolargeanddiverse.Granted,asJacobsandFarrell(op. cit.)summarize,inthelanguagesciencesthemselveswehaveseen

somethingofashiftfromemphasison"thetenetsofbehaviorist

psychologyandstructurallinguisticsandtowardcognitive,andlater,sbcio-

-97-cognitivepsychologyandmorecontextualized,meaning-basedviewsof language"(p.3).However,inKuhnianterms,todate,theshiftfrom producttoprocessinL2writing,despitetheobviouscompetitionand useofscientificmethodsinthefield,isincompleteasis,forwhatever reasons,theoneinvolvingbehavioristandcognitivemethodologyin languagessciences,ofwhichL2writingresearchandmethodologyarea part.Text-manipulationandfill-in-the-blankexercisesarestillwithusas aregrammardrillsanddialogmemorization.

Theaboveisnottosaythattherehavenotbeenchangesoffocus

amongsomemembersoftheL2writingresearchandteaching

community.Therehavebeen.Raimes(1991),forexample,recognizes fourfocifrom1966-1991:FocusonForm,orproduct,inwhichstudents imitateandmanipulatetexts;FocusontheWriter,orprocess,inwhich

studentsbecome"creatorsoftexts";FocusonContent,inwhich

studentsmeetthe(instructor-determined)academicdemandsintermsof contentandrhetoricalorganization;andFocusontheReader,inwhich studentwritersmeetthedemandsofanacademiccommunityintowhich theyaresocialized(pp.408-412).Theperceptivereader,however,will

notethat,duringa25-year-period,wehavemeanderedwiththe

producVprocessissue.Anilluminating,thoughbrisk,Iookatthe literaturewillhighlightthatpath. The1960swasaperiodwhentheincreasingnumbersofinternational studentsstudyinginAmericanuniversitiesmadeitpossibleforgreater numbersofprofessionalstoconsiderESLacareerchoice.Itwasalsoa periodwhenbehaviorismandtheaudiolingualapproachheldpreeminence inthefieldofsecondlanguageeducationandwhenmanyprofessionals

-98-EnglishWritingintheJapaneseUnlversityClassroom:AMethodologyforaProductProcessApproach startedtolookseriouslyatL2writinginstruction.Manyofthese professionalsbegantoquestiontheearlieremphasisontheaudiolingual preceptofmastering"writingtechniquesextensivelyafterachieving phonologicalawareness"(Fujieda,op.cit.,p.61),butsettledona behaviorism-basedwritingpedagogythatdealtwithaheavyfocuson surface-errorimprovement,textmanipulationintheformofdrills,and productanalysis,rejectingfreecompositionand,initially,anyideaof meaningiullearnerautonomy,aswewouldlatercometounderstandit. Arapoff(1967),forexample,thoughagreeingthat"writingisaprocess" (p.35),heldthatwiththe"freecompositionapproach...studentsmake somanygrammaticalerrorsthattheircompositionslosemuchofthe originalmeaning"(p.34)andthat"Byusingsentencesgleanedfrom readingtheycanavoidmakinggrammaticalerrors"(p.35).Apparently takingthisfurther,Rojas(1968)stressed,inwhatmanynowwouldsee assignifyingacallforaninterminablylongperiodofextendedcare,that "Solongasthey[L2students]areunabletowritewithoutmakingthe kindofmistakesthatnativespeakersofEnglishwouldnevermake, theyneedtobegivenabundantdrill-typepracticeexercises"(p.127).

Kaplan's(1966)earlyworkincontrastiverhetoric,inwhichhe

maintainedthatournativelanguagesandculturalbackgroundsinfluence thewrittenorganizationalstructuresthatweproduce,furtherreinforced thisneedforproductanalysis,Ieadingtoexercisesthat"oftenstress imitationofparagraphoressayform,usingwritingiromanoutline, paragraphcompletion,identificationoftopicandsupport,andscrambled paragraphstoreorder"(Raimes,op.cit.,p.409).Perhapswiththisin mind,Arapoff(1969)wrotethat"thestudents[should]firstreadand comparetwowrittenmodelssimilarincontentbutdifferentinform.In thiswaytheylearntorecoguizedifferences"(p.300).

-99-Alongwiththeshiftfromabehavioraltoacognitiveattitudetowards learning,the1970sand1980ssawashifttotheviewoftheL2writer as"languagelearnerandcreatoroftext...[1eading]toaprocess approach,'withanewrangeofclassroomtaskscharacterizedbytheuse .invention...,peercollaboration...,revision...,and ofjournals.., attentiontocontentbeforeform..."(Raimes,op.cit.,p.409).Bracy(op. cit.)earlyonrecognizedtheneedforthis,thoughonlywithadvanced students,whenshesummarizedthefollowingsuggestionsmadeduringa UCLAseminar: 1)Changethesourcematerialsfromliteratureanalysis... to activitiessuchaspanels,groupdiscussions,individualspeeches andlectures.... 2)Usetheseactivitiesasthebasisforcompositionsratherthan thepreviouslyusedarticlesdrawnexclusivelyfromliterature texts. 3)Incorporate...thoseskillsnecessaryforthestudentsintheir regularacademicclasses....(p.241)

Despitethisnewemphasis,however,thereseemstohavebeensome

disagreementastowhattodowithmodels.Watson(1982),for

exampleaftercautiouslyexplammgthatmodelscanbe"artificial"(p.7) andoffer"falsereassurance"(p8)appearstohavesuggestedamove towardswhatwehaveexplainedaboveasaproductprocessapproach, concludingthatifstudentscomparetherr"ownproductsatvarious stagesofcompositionwiththatoftheprofessional[model],thenthe alienproductistrulyinvolvingtheminoriginalprocess"(p.12).Onthe otherhand,Zamel(1982)inanapparentmovetowardsanexpressive

-Ioo-EngllshWritlngintheJapaneseUniversltyClassroom:AMethodologyforaProductProcessApproach

processmethodology,arguedthatweneedtoreconsidertheuseof

rhetoricalmodelsinwritingpedagogybecauseitmaybe"misleading" sinceit"failstoshowstudentsthatthethinkingandwritingthat precededthesemodelsmayhavebeenchaoticanddisorganizedandthat theirownattemptstowritemayinvolvethissamedisorder"(p.206). However,theteetertotteredagainwhenChaudron(1987)addedhis weighttotheideathat"theprovisionofexplicitknowledgeabouttarget languagediscourseformswouldbeanecessarycomponentofclassroom

supportforthewriter,justasaspecificknowledgebasewouldbe

necessaryforthewritertoexpoundupon."(p.674),thoughheexplained thatwearenotreturningtoa"traditionalproductonentednarrowly focusedinstruction..."(ibid.).

Thoughinthe1990sandbeyond,wehavenotseenacompletereturn

inthemainstreamsecondlanguageliteraturetoanespousalofthe traditionalproduct-orientedmethodologyofthe1960s,andbefore(After all,thestudyofrhetoricdatesbackatleasttoAristotle.),wehave witnessedsomewhatofabacklashagainsttheextremesofidiosyncratic permissivenessintheexpressiveprocessapproach,which,remember, focusesonthewriter'sself-development.Thisbacklash,intheformof focusoncontent,hasrequiredthatstudentwritersrelinquishtheir choiceofwritingcontenttotheirinstructors;intheformoffocuson thereader,ithasrequiredthatstudentwritersmeetthedemandsof theiraudience,(Raimes,op.cit.,pp.410-412),inotherwords,the

demandsofacommunity.Despitethisbacklash,wehaveattimes

witnessedsomemovementtowardsaproducVprocesssynthesiswith Raimes(op.cit.)pointingoutthatthe"debatearoundtheseissuesis

thatprocessandproducthavebeenseenaselther/orratherthan

-Iol-both/andentities"(p.415)andLeki(op.cit.)arguingthat"aprimary focusononeoftheseapproachestoteachingwriting,innowayinand ofitself,mustentailtheexclusionoftheother"(p.137).Wehavealso receivedacaveatemptorfromCumming(op.cit.)that"information aboutthecognitiveaspectsofcomposingisnotreadilyretrievablefor studentsfromreadingtextmodels,teacher'sfeedbackoncompositions, orjustwatchingotherpeoplewrite"(p.383)andapedagogicalcallfrom himforthe"explicitmodelingofthecognitiveprocessesofcomposing" (ibid.).Too,wehavereceivedaffirmationbasedonanelectronicsurvey that"teachersactuallyhavestronglydifferingideasastowhatprocess writmgis."(Caudery,1995,p.1),and,toboot,inasummaryofwhere writingpedagogystandsatthispointinhistory,wearetoldthat"the

postmethodconditionthatisuponusfreesteacherstoseetheir

classroomsandstudentsforwhattheyareandnotenvisionthem

throughthespectaclesofapproachesandtechniques"(Canagarajah,2006, p.20). Atthispointintime,withthisteetertotteringbetweenmethodsand approaches,withthisaffirmingthatthegameisnotwellunderstood, andwiththisquestioningoftheneedtoparticipateintheverygame

itself,whatareweasprofessionalstodowithEnglishL2writing

educationinJapaneseuniversities?Wheretofromhere?Thiswriter cannotbutagreewithKumaravadivelu(2006)that(ifweareindeed reallythere)"Anyactualpostmethodpedagogyhastobeconstructedby teachersthemselvesbytakingintoconsiderationlinguistic,social, cultural,andpoliticalparticularities."(p.69),thoughwithanotabene thatconsiderationofthesefactorsshouldnotprecludeestablishmentor maintenanceofstandardsandobjectivesthatwillhelpourL2writing

-I02-EngllshWritingintheJapaneseUniversltyClassroom:AMethodologyforaProductProcessApproach studentsmakethemselvesunderstoodtoaninternationalEnglishreading

audience.Weneedtobeawareofourstudents'environmentsand

backgrounds,butwealsoneedtohelptheminthesocializationprocess oflearningtowriteEnglish,encouragingthemtoacceptandhelping themtoapproximatethemainstreamconventionsandexpectationsofL1 andL2readingcommunities,sotheycancreateanaffinitywiththat worldwhichmaysomedayjudgetheintentandcontentofthewriting thattheyproduce.Todothis,wemustcertainlycraftcurriculawhich

provideourstudentstheopportunitytolearntospeakEnglishin

meaningfulways.However,thesecurriculamustalsoprovideintegrated instructionintheotherskillareasbecausetheyreinforceeachother. And,moreimportantly,forus,theL2writingeducationprofessionals,L2 writinginstructionmustbe"inconjunctionwithreading,content-based, andform-focusedinstructiontoimprovetheoverallqualityofL2prose" (Hinkel,2006,p.125).Withoutthecontent,ourstudentswillhaveless towriteaboutandwillleaveourcourseswjthlessenrichmentfromthe experience;withouttheform,andtheproductprocessinstructionthat thiswritersuggestsbelowtoaccompanyit,ourstudentswillwriteless, withgreateragony,andwillleaveourcourseswithlessconfidencein theirpotentialabilitytocommunicatetheirideastoEnglishreading audiences.

III.AMethodologyforaProductProcessApproach

Thefollowingmethodologyisdesignedforfirst-semesteruniversity ireshmaninJapan,meetinginthirteen90-minutesessions.Though writingclassesinsubsequentsemesterswillbeconductedinmuchthe sameway,thefirstsernesterusuallyrequiresmorerepetitionofand

-I03-attentiontothedemandsofthecoursebecausemanystudentswillbe unfamiliarwithitsproceduresandexpectations.Itisimperativethatthe coursebeoutlinedonthefirstdayandthatstudentsreceiveasyllabus

(SeeAPPENDIXAfortheexamplethatwillbeusedinlater

discussion.)showingthemwhattheywilldo.Itisalsoveryimportant thatstudentsknowthattherewillbedeadlineswhichtheywillhaveto meet,withthataccountabilityreflectedintheirgrades.Thatsaid,this writerhasfoundthathehashadtobuildsomeinitialflexibilityintothe

deadlinedemandsduetotheincredulitywithwhichsomestudents

receiveandproceedwiththenewsofthecourserequirementsaswell asthepossibilityofcomprehensionproblems.However,forthiscourse tosucceed,again,thatflexibilitymustbeinitial,offeredjudiciouslybut atsomepoint,asfarasthedeadlinesgo,withdrawn.Afterall,inthe realworld,wehavedeadlines.Beforeweactuallytakealookatthe syllabus,whichwillframeourdiscussion,Iet'sexamineindetailother importantcomponentsofthisfirst-semesterwritingcourse.

FeedbackandGrading

Writingfeedbackwillfocusoncontent,organization,writingconventions, andsurfaceerrors.Importanttowritingeducationinparticular,and languageeducation(andeducation)ingeneral,studentsneedguidance

withtheirideasandtheirformulationofthemandshouldreceive

relevantfeedbackfromthoseinapositiontohelpthem.Theyshould alsobetaughtexpectationsforsuchwritingconventionsascapitalization, marginalignment,italics,andsoforth.Asforsurfaceerrors,despitethe lackofagreementintheliterature,thiswriteralsosuggestsselective feedback.SomeresearchsuggeststhatESLteacherfeedbackcanbe

-104-EnglishWritingintheJapaneseUnlversityClassroom:AMethodologyforaProductProcessApproach "indiscriminate"(CohenandRobbins,1972:citedinRobb,Ross,and

Shortreed1986p84)"mslgniflcant"intermsofimprovementof

writingqualityorreductionoferrors(Stiff,1967;Hendrickson,1978: citedinRobb,Ross,andShortreed,ibid.),counterproductive(Semke,

1984:citedinRobb,Ross,andShortreed,ibid.)and"confusing,

arbitraryandmaccessible"(Zamel1985,p.79).Morerelevanttothe purposeofthispaper,onestudyconductedinJapanconcludesthat "EFLwriterscanassimilateonlyasmallproportionofcorrective feedbackintotheircurrentgrammaticalsystem...[and]...highly detailedfeedbackonsentence=1evelmechanicsmaynotbeworththe instructors'timeandeffort..."(Robb,Ross,andShortreed,op.cit., pp.89,91).Thisseemstoindicatethatwrittenfeedbackonsurface errorsshouldindeedbeprovidedwithcaution.

However-ormoreover,despiteKrashen'sandTerrel's(1983)

interpretationthatSelinker's(1972)conceptofinterlanguageimpliesthat surfaceerrorcorrectionispointless,Mason(2002)iscriticalbecause

"therearenostudiesasyetofthelong-termeffectsoferror

correction."Inpointoffact,wejustdonotknowtheseeffectsand, therefore,cannotjustignoresurfaceerrors.Evenifimprovementis

slowornotevenvisible,wehavedodealwiththem,whetherinthe

"finalstageofediting,"asKrashenhimselfmaintains(1984:citedin Robb,Ross,andShortreed,op.cit.,p.83),orearlier,asthiswriter prefers,especiallyiftheyareparticularlyegregious,inordertomake

ourstudentsawarethattheydoneedtoworkonsurfaceerrors.

AccordingtoMyles(2006):

-105-Withoutindividualattentionandsufficientfeedbackonerrors, irnprovementwillnottakeplace.WemustacceptthefactthatL2 writingcontainserrors;itisourresponsibilitytohelplearnersto developstrategiesforself-correctionandregulation....Ifthis feedbackisnotpartoftheinstructionalprocess,thenstudentswill bedisadvantagedinimprovingbothwritingandlanguageskills. (p.21)

Thereare,ofcourse,anumberofwaysforinstructorstoprovide

feedback-fromdetailedcorrectionsandcomments,tonumbersorother symbolscorrespondingtopre-agreeduponerrorcategories,toemotive-stylecommentslike"good."However,inviewofthediscussionabove onerrorcorrection,thiswritersuggeststhatthefirsttypemaynotbe worththeinstructor'sorstudents'timewhereasgeneralcommentsmay nothelpstudentswithbasicEnglishskillsimprovesurfaceerrorsand

vocabularyusageintheirwriting(thoughtheycanoffer

encouragernent).Withthatinmind,thiswritersuggeststheuseof numbersorsyrnbols,dependingonwhatworksbestwiththeinstructor

andhis/herclass.Myers,awareoftheenormoustimeandworkthat

writingcorrectioncaninvolveanddecidedlythinkingeconomy,offersthe followingsimplifiedmarkingsystem,withwhichshereportsoverall "sentence-1evelaccuracy"inherstudents'papersoverasemester(op. cit.,p.6):

^add

()omrt

?mystery separate >indent

Whichever yourclass systemyoudodevise,adaptit andyourobjectives,modifying

-I06-to it theneeds ifnecessary. (andsize) Also,if of you

EnglishWritingintheJapaneseUniversltyClassroom:AMethodologyforaProductProcessApproach areinvolvedinanintegratedWritingprogramwithdifferentinstructors indifferentsemesters,forthesakeofconsistency,ifpossible,itis highlyrecommendedthatyouagreeupononesystem.Moreirnportantly, asexplainedlater,instructorfeedbackshouldnotbelimitedtowritten remarksandsymbols.Conferencingshouldbepartoftheprocess. Gradingsystemjustificationissomethingthatalleducatorshavetodeal withintheircareers.Thisisanindividualissuewithsomedegreeof occasionalguidancefromtheinstitutionswhereweteach.Ideally,an instructor'sgradingsystemshouldbetransparentandfairsothat

studentswillhavenodoubtofcourseexpectationsandteacher

commitment.Forwritingclasses,thiswriterbasesgradesonattendance, classparticipation,andassignments.Carefulrecordsarekeptofwriting draftsthatstudentssubmit,intermsoftheirtimelinessandcompletion. Becausestudentsbringtotheclassroomdifferentcognitiveand, therefore,IearningstylesaswellasEnglisheducationpreparation,the draftsarenotgradedaccordingtoanideal,touchstonestandardofwhat isgood,butaccordingtothestudents'effortstomeetdeadlinesanddo theirbest. Conferencing ConferencmgrsanmtegralpartoftheWntmgfeedbackprocess.Itis "interactive,immediateandindividual...[showing]individualsupportthat eachstudentrseagertoreceive"(WatanabeandYoshida,2006,p.139). Itcanhelpimprovestudents'writing,even(especially?)thatof"low-achieving"studentsaacobsandKarliner,1977:citedinWatanabeand

Yoshida,op.cit.)."Forstudentswhodonotknowhowtobegin,

-I07-conferencingplaystheroleofjump-starts.Itcanhelpthestu~ents decideontopicsentencesandmaketheirideastakeshape.Students whocannotwriteasinglewordinEnglishrequireconferencingfor mtensrveandcompletesupportfromteachers"(WatanabeandYoshida, op.cit.,143).

InstructorsmanyWntmgprogramforLIorL2students,shouldgive

senousconsiderationtoincorporatmgconferencmgmtotherr

methodology.Studentsoftenfindteacherfeedbackonassignments irretrievableor,tothem,irrelevant,whetherbecausetheydonot understandtheinstructor'shandwriting,thepurposeofthefeedback,or theneedtoconsiderit.Saliencyisimportantinanyeducationprogram, andsecondlanguagewritingisnoexception.Therefore,evenwhen studentsmayunderstandthewrittenfeedbackanditsimportance,it needstobereinforcedandexplainedsothatstudentscanmorereadily putitintoeffectintheirwriting.

Conferencingcanbedoneinoroutoftheclassroom.Forthosewith

busyschedules,itissuggestedthatyouspendagooddealoftimein eachclassdoingconferencingwhilestudentsareworkingonother assignments,suchaspeerevaluation,journals,orgrammarexercises. Essentially,theinstructortakesindividualstudentsaside(Thiswriter

takeshistothebackoftheclassroom.),praisesthemforthework

theyhavedone,andgoesoverpendingassignments.Outsideofthe

classroom,blogsareanoptiontobeexplored,wherebystudentswrite andreceiveinstructor(andpeer)feedback.

-108-EngllshWrltingintheJapaneseUniversityClassroom:AMethodologyforaProductProcessApproach PeerEvaluation Throughpeerevaluation,studentscanlearnfromeachotherAdvrce fromstudentpeerscanhelp"studentsincreasetheirmotivationby identlfyingcertainbehaviors,beliefs,andstrategiesaspossiblefor themselves"[orallow]"studentstoidentlfywiththe[peer]models, becomeinspired,andthemselvesbecomemoreeffectivelearners" (MurpheyandArau,2001,p.10).Moreover,peerevaluationgives: studentstheopportunitytospendtimeinclassreworkingtheir essaysinsteadofbelievingthatasingledraftisadequate.... [and expands]theconceptofaudiencetoincludemorethantheteacher, thusviewingwritingasasocialconstructionofmeaning.Itprovides anopportunityforstudent-writerstodiscussandformulateideas aboutthecontentoftheirwritingaswellastohelpeachotherin developingwritingskills(Levine,Oded,Connor,Asons,2002,p.1). Inshort,peerevaluationisimportant seethattheyarewritingforawider andbecausetheycanidentifywithand becauseitencouragesstudentsto audiencethanjusttheirinstructor learnfromtheirpeers. Peerevaluationisoften,butnotalways,doneintheclassroom.As suggestedabove,theinstructorcanallowstudentstoreadeachother's assignmentswhiles/heisinvolvedwithconferencing.Encouragethemto providetheirfeedbackoneachother'sassignmentsaswellastotalkto

eachother,eveninJapaneseifnecessary.Tothatend,forpeer

evaluationtobemoresuccessful,itissuggestedthatstudentsbegiven guidelinesastowhatwillbeexpectedfromtheminthisactivity.(See

-109-AppendixBforonepossibility,modifyingthisaccordingtotheneedsof

yourclass.)Manystudentsnewtothisprocedurewillmeetitwith

incredulity,purportedlybecausetheythinkthatitistheinstructor'sjob tocorrecttheirwritingorbecausetheythinktheyhavenothingto learnfrorntheirpeers.Manymayalsobeshyaboutlettingotherssee theirworkandtheproblemsitmayinclude.Encouragethemfromthe beginningthatintherealworld,otherswilloftenbereadingwhatthey write. Journals

Journalsareacornerstoneofmanywritingprograms.They"help

studentsdeveloporganizational...andanalyticalskillsandbecome clearer,moreconvincingEnglishwriters"(Hirayanagi,op.cit.,p.6).

Theyareamediuminwhichstudentshavetheopportunitytoworkon

quantitywriting,reinforcinglanguageskills.Thiswriterpairsstudents

upatthebeginningofthesemesterandhasthemwriteandexchange

threeA4double-spacedentriesweekly.Alsotobeconsideredwhere studentshaveregularaccesstocomput,ersareelectronicforumssuchas Writeboard(http://~lrw.writeboard.com/).Thismaytaketimesettingup butitmaybeworthwhilesinceinstructorswillhave24-houronline accesstostudententries,allowingforeasierconfirmationthatworkis beingdone.Aswell,theuSeofanelectronicmediumeliminatesthe issuesoflost,damaged,orundeliveredjournals,allofwhichthiswriter hasfacedonafairlyregularbasis.Howevertheyarehandled,itis suggestedthatjournalsbepartoftheconsiderationforthefinalgrade andthatatleastoneunscheduledcheckbemadeduringthesemester.

-110-EnglishWritingintheJapaneseUnlversityClassroom:AMethodologyforaProductProcessApproach TextModels

Forwritingclassuse,textmodelsareavailableinanumberof

textbooks,ortheinstructorcancreatethem,asthiswriterprefersto

do.Thoughthisisnottheplacetodebatewhethertohavestudents

emulateparagraphsvs.full-1engthessays,itissuggestedthatstudents beprovidedshortmodelswithsimplesyntaxandvocabulary.Asthe semesterprogresses,youcanconsiderprovidingmorecomplicated materialasyoucandoinsubsequentsemesters.Ifyouarepartofan integratedprogram,youwillcertainlywanttoconsiderinadvancewhich patternstoprovideandwhentoprovidethem-whetherbecausetheyfit

inwithactivitiesinothercoursesintheprogram,e.g.personal

description,foraSpeakingclass,orwhetherbecauseithasbeen

determinedthatthisiswhatstudentsneed,e.g.pr6cis,foraReading class.Forfirstsemesterfreshmanwriting,thiswriter'scurriculum committeehasdecideduponthefollowingpatterns:pr6cis,personal description,spatialdescription,chronological,process,andprediction. Otherpatternsareofferedinsubsequentsemesters.Studentswillalso beaskedtosendpersonale-mailtotheinstructoratsomepointduring thesemester. Syllabus Aspointedoutabove,inthefirstsessionofawritingclass,thiswriter presentsandexplainsasyllabussimilartotheoneinAppendixAbelow. Notethatthesyllabusspecifieswhenassignmentsaredue.Thisshould bebroughttotheattentionofthestudents,clearlyandvigorously,from dayone,inlanguagethattheyunderstand.Thedetailforin-class

-111-activitiesmaybeomitted,thoughsomestudentswillappreciateit. Thesyllabusisdemanding.Studentsareintroducedtosixpatterns duringthecourseofthesemester,essentiallyoneeveryotherweek. Uponintroductionofapattern,forhomework,studentswritetheirfirst draft,whichtheybringtothenextclass,whereotherstudentsreadand

commentonitasperguidelinessimilartothoseinAppendixB.The

studentsthentaketheirannotatedassignmentshome,rewritingthem andsubmittingaseconddrafttotheteacherthefollowingweek.This, theinstructortakeshome,reads,andprovideswrittenfeedbackon, bringingittothesubsequentclasssession,whenitisreturnedto studentsindividually,inone-on-oneconferences.Studentsprovidefurther draitsforthisassignment,eachtimemeetingwiththeinstructorin shorterconferences.Thenumberofdraftsastudentmayberequiredto writeis,ofcourse,uptotheinstructor.Ifindthatfourdrafts,including

thefirst,areusuallyenoughtocompletetheassignmenttomy

satisfaction,thoughIhavehadstudentswritemorebecauseIthought thattheywerenotprovidingenoughattentiontotheirwork.Usually, duringthecourseofthesemester,thesestudentslearntocheckmore carefullyforsuchandsofinishassignmentswithfewerdrafts.

Though,forreasonsofspace,AppendixAdoesnotreflectthis,

brainstormingandplanningareanintegralpartoftheintroductionof eachpattern.Afteramodelisintroduced,studentsmaybeaskedtojot downideasonapieceofpaperortosharetheirideasingroups,even

inJapanese.(ThisconsenttouseofL1shouldbecongruentwith

programpolicies;however,thegoalisforstudentstocomeupwith

ideas,quickly.)When,forexarnple,apr6cismodelispresented,asin

-112-EnglishWritingintheJapaneseUniversltyClassroom:AMethodologyforaProductProcessApproach AppendixC,studentsmaybeaskedtodiscusstheirfavoritemovieor book.Withthisfirstpattern,incidentally,thetimingmayberightto introduce,orreintroduce,studentstobasicoutlining.Studentsmaybe askedtoprovideanoutlineliketheoneinAppendixCorcompleteone asintheformulabelow:

OUTLINE

IMovietitle Good/bad/sad/grea~silly Storytoldby II.Maincharacters A. A. III.Story: about A. IV. V. VI. A. Bestscene Saddes~wors~silliestscene Recommendation Recommend/Don'trecommend Reason Outliningshouldworkout semesterwritingcourse, drawdiagramsforspatial fairlywellwiththeotherpatternsin thoughinstructorsmaywanttohave description. thisfirst-students Asreflected shouldhave inthe students syllabus,

dosome

withallofthe

preliminarywork

-I13-patterns,the withexercises instructor thatwill

helpthemgetthroughtheassignments.Thiswriterstartsthecourse offwithatitleexerciseandveryquicklymovesontoworkwithbasic punctuation,anareathatneedstobereviewedandbuiltonthroughout thesernester.(Punctuationissolidlylinkedtosentencestructure;work withtheformershouldtranslatetomoresophisticatedknowledgeand

eventualusageofthelatter.)Alsosuggestedarevocabularyand

grammarexercisesthatarerelatedtothepatterns.Forexample,when introducingpersonalandspatialdescription,theinstructormightprovide listsofvocabularydescriptiveofpeopleandpositions.Withchronological andprocess,suchtransitionwordsasfirst,second,andnextshould definitelybeintroduced.And,withprediction,studentscouldgeta worksheetbasedonafutureeventrequiringthemtofillinblankswith will,whennecessary,or,asanalternative,theymightbeaskedtojot

downwheretheywillbeandwhattheywillbedoinginthenextfive,

ten,fifteen,ortwentyyears.Again,afterstudentsareintroducedtoan

exercise,theycanworkonitwhiletheinstructorisengagedin

conferenceswithindividualstudents, Thesyllabusshowsthatthelasttwosessionsarespentinacomputer

lab.Thisprovidesstudentswiththeopportunitytocomplete

assignmentsinthesemester-endrush.Instructorswhofindthattheir

studentshaveweakcomputerskillsmaywanttoscheduleevenmore

timethere.Thisshouldnotbeseenastimeillspent,astheinstructor canaddressveryrealcomputerandwritingskillneedswhileinthelab workingwithindividuals.Thiswriterhasexperiencedsemesterswhen allwritingsessionswerescheduledinthelab;otherswhentheschedule calledforlabworkeveryotherweek;andstillotherswhenlabwork wasdoneatrandom,accordingtotheperceivedneedsofthestudents.

-114-EngllshWritlngintheJapaneseUniversityClassroom:AMethodologyforaProductProcessApproach Aswiththesuggestionsforotherpartsofthesyllabus,tailoryour coursetotheconditionsinwhichyoufindyourself.

IV.ConcludingRemarks

WhetherinL1orL2,goodwritingskillsareasociallyrecognizedasset thatcanhelpusgainacceptanceintoreadingcommunities,allowingus tocommunicateourideastomorereceptiveaudiencesandparticipatein exchangesthroughwhichwecanhelpcontroltheflowofideasandthe

outcomeofevents.Formostofus,however,theseskillstake

considerabletime,constanteffort,andoftencarefulguidancetodevelop, especiallyifwefindourselvesengagedintheendeavortolearntowrite inanotherlanguage,andevenmoreespeciallyifthewritingtraditions orwritingexpectationsofourpotentialaudiencesmandateadherenceto organizationalschemataforwhichourownculturalbackgroundor academicpreparationhavenotpreparedus.Thispaperhasbeenwritten withthisinmind.

Thispaperhasalsobeenwrittenwithanawarenessofthewriting

methodologiesandapproachesthathaveviedforstage-centralpositions insecondlanguageeducationaswellasthosethathaverecededtothe

wingswheretheyarestilladmiredbecauseof,ordespite,past

performances.Thoughwehavereceivedhintsthattherewillbeno

moreacts,onecanonlywonderaboutthedifferentstagesonwhichthe limelightwillshowouractors,whowillmostcertainlyengageinother performancesbecauseoftheimportanceoftheplay.Itishopedthat thispaperhasprovideditsreaderswithsomeguidancesothattheycan

helptheirstudentslearntowriteEnglishthatwillbemore

-115-internationallyrecognizedsothatthose critiquethatplayaswellasengage provokingactivities. students, inother too,can thoughtful somedayhelp

andthought-AppendixA

DATE

IN-CLASSACTIVITIES

_HOMEWORK

Apr.11 Introducecourse;introducepre'cis;dotitle exercrse;etc. Draft1 pre'cisJOURNALS Apr.18 Peerevaluation;introducebasicpunctuation; dobasicpunctuationexercrse;etc. Draft2 pr~cisJOURNALS Apr.25 Introducepersonaldescriptionandintroduction, body,conclusionconcepts;workwithrelated vocabulary;collectDraft2pre'cis Draft1 personaldescription

Rewrites;JOURNALS

May9

Peerevaluation;conferencing;workon_{miscellaneousexercises;collectrewrites} Draft2 personaldescription

Rewrites;JOURNALS

May16 Introducespatialdescription;workwith relatedvocabulary;conferencing;collect Draft2personaldescriptionandrewrites Draft1 spatialdescription

Rewrites;JOURNALS

May23Peerevaluation;conferencing;workon_{miscellaneousexercises;collectrewrites} Draft2 spatialdescription

Rewrites;JOURNALS

May30 Introducechronological;workwithbasic connectors;conferencing;collectDraft2 spatialdescriptionandrewrites Draft1 chronological

Rewrites;JOURNALS

June6 Peerevaluation;conferencing;workon_{miscellaneousexercises;collectrewrites} Draft2 chronological

Rewrites;JOURNALS

June13 Introduceprocess;workwithbasic connectors;conferencing;collectDraft2 chronologicalandrewrites Draft1 process

Rewrites;JOURNALS

June20 Peerevaluation;conferencing;workon_{miscellaneousexercises;collectrewrites} Draft2 process

Rewrites;JOURNALS

June27 Introduceprediction;workwithwillandother relatedvocabulary/grammar;conferencing;collect Draft2processandrewrites Draft1 prediction

Rewrites;JOURNALS

July4 Peerevaluation;in-classcomputerlabwork_{onrewrite(s);conferencing;collectrewrites} Draft2prediction

Rewrites

July11 In-classcomputerlabworkonrewrite(s);

conferencing;finalcollectionofrewrites

-116-EnglishWritingintheJapaneseUniversityClassroom:AMethodologyforaProductProcessApproach

AppendfxB

SUGGESTIONSFORPEERRESPONSE:PQP~

PRAISE

•Saywhyyoulikedtheotherstudent'sassignment.

•Saywhatyoulik~daboutthetitleandintroduction.

•Choosethebodyparagraphthatyouthinkisthebestoneandexplain

why.

•Explainhowtheconclusionisrelatedtotherestoftheassignment.

QUESTION

•Howareyourtitle/introduction/conclusionrelatedtothebodyofyour

assignment?

•Whatpointareyoutryingtomakeinthisparagraph?

•Whatdoyoumeanwhenyousay...?

•Whydoyousay...?

•Canyougiveabetterexample?

POLISH-•Tellwhereyouwouldliketoseemoreinformation.

•Suggestanotherpossibletitleorsubtitle.

•Suggestwaystoimprovetheintroduction,body,orconclusion.

•Suggestwaystoimprovetopicsentences.

•Suggestotherwaystoconnectsentenceswithtransitionwords.

•Suggestwordsthatmightbebetter.

•Findthemostfrequentgrammarerrorsandtellhowtocorrectthem.

*AdaptedfromNeubertandMcNelis(1986).

-117-AppendixC

Titanic: Don'tMissThisGreatLoveStory!

Titanicisagreatmovieaboutasadromance.Anoldwomantellsthe

storyaboutherpast.Inthestory,theoldwomanisarichyounggirl.

HernameisRose.(SheisplayedbytheactressKateWinslet.)She

fallsinlovewithJackwhiletheyareonashiptravelingtoAmerica. Jackisapoorboy.(HeisplayedbytheactorLeonardoDiCaprio.)The storyisaboutthedifferencebetweenrichpeopleandpoorpeople.Jack,

whoispoor,isunhappywhenhetalkstorichpeopleontheship.

Rose,whoisrich,enjoystalkingtoJackandhispoorfriends.Thebest

sceneiswhenJackstandsinirontoftheshipwhilethewindblows

againsthisface.Thisisdangerous,butRosealsodoesit.Thesceneis romantic.IthinkthatitmeansthatRosetrustsJack.Sadly,theship hitsanicebergandsinks.Inthesaddestsceneinthemovie,Roseisin

asmallboat,andJackisholdingontoit.Mostofhisbodyisinthe

coldwater.Becauseheistired,heletsgooftheboatandsinksinto theocean.Ifyouhavetime,Irecommendthatyouseethismovie.You willcryattheend,butyouwillneverforgetJack'sandRose'slove.

OUTLlNE

I.Titanic A.greatmovie,sadromance

B.toldbyoldwomanaboutherpast

II.Maincharacters A.Rose,playedbyKateWinslet B.Jack,playedbyLeonardoDiCaprio

-118-EngllshWritingintheJapaneseUnlversltyClassroom:AMethodologyforaProductProcessApproach ll.Story:aboutdifferencebetweenrichandpoorpeople A.Jack,poor B.Rose,rich IV.Bestscene V.Saddestscene VI.Recommendation A.Recornmend B.Sadbutunforgettable Aiga,Y. 17, (1990).IsJapanese (2),139-145.

References

Englisheducation changing? Cross Currents,

Arapoff,

(2) ,

N.(1967).

33-39.

Writing: Athinking process.TESOLQuarterly,I,

---(1969) foreign Discover students. andtransform:A TESOLQuarterly, methodofteaching 3,(4),297-304. writingto Bracy,M.(1971). Quarterly,5,(3) , Controlled 239-246.

writing vs.free composition.

_TESOL

Canagarajah,

TESOL

A.S.

Quarterly, (2006). 40,(1)

TESOL

,9-34.

atforty:Whatare

theissues? Caudery,T. teachers. (1995).What TESL-EJ,1, the"process (4A-3),1-16.

-119-approach"meanstopracticing

Chaudron,C.(1987).Analysisofproductsandinstructionalapproaches inwriting:Twoarticlesonthestateoftheart:Introduction. TESOLQuarterly,21,(4),673-675. Cohen,A.D.,&Robbins,M.(1972).Towardassessinginterlanguage performance:Therelationshipbetweenselectederrors,Iearner characteristics,andlearnerexpectations.LanguageLearning,26,54-66. Cumming,A.(1995).FosteringwritingexpertiseinESLcomposition instruction:Modelingandevaluation.InD.BelcherandG.Braine (Eds.),Academicwritinginasecondlanguage:Essaysonresearch& pedagogy(375-397).Norwood,NJ.:AblexPublishingCorporation. Davies,R.(2004).WrittendiscourseacrossculturesI:Towardsan integratedapproachedtoEL2compositionpedagogy.EhimeDaigaku KyoikuGahubuKiyo,36,77-100. Fujieda,Y.(2006).Abriefhistoricalsketchofsecondlanguagewriting studies:Aretrospective.KyoaiGakuenMaebashiKokusaiDaigaku

Ronshu,59-72.RetrievedNov.14,2006,iromKyoaiGakuen

MaebashiKokusaiDaigakuRonshuWebsite http://w~w.kyoai.ac.jp/college/ronshuu/no-06/fujieda.pdf Hendrickson,J.M.(1978).Errorcorrectioninforeignlanguageteaching: Recenttheory,researchandpractice.TheModernLanguageJournal, 62,387-398.

-120-EnglishWritlngintheJapaneseUnlversityClassroom:AMethodologyforaProductProcessApproach Heffernan,Neil.(2006).Anintegratedapproachtoteachingacademic writing.AsianEFLJournal,8,(3-12),249-258. Hinkel,E.(2006).Currentperspectivesonteachingthefourskills. TESOLQuarterly,40,(1),109-131. Hirayanagi,Y.(1998).Writingtoimproveanalyticalandorganizational skills.TheLanguageTeacher,22,(12),21-23. Hirose,K.(1998).TheeffectsofEnglishparagraphwritinginstruction onJapaneseuniversitystudents.JACETBulletin,29,51-63. Jacobs,G.M.&Farrell,T.S.C.(2001).Paradigmshift:Understanding andimplementingchangeinsecondlanguageeducation.TESL-EJ,5, (1,A-1),1-16. Jacobs,S.,&Karliner,A.(1977).Helpingwriterstothink:Theeffect ofspeechrolesinindividualconferencesonthequalityofthought instudentwriting.CollegeEnglish,38,489-505. Kaplan,R.B.(1966).Culturalthoughtpatternsinintercultural 'education.LanguageLearning,16,1-20. Krashen,S.(1984).Writing:Research,theoryandapplications.Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress.

Krashen,S.,&Terrel,T.(1983).TheNaturalApproach.Hayward,

California:AlemanyPress.

-121-Kuhn,T.S.(1970).Thestructureofscientificrevolutions(2~ded.). Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Kumaravadivelu,B.(2OO6).TESOLMethods:Changingtracks,

challengingtrends.TESOLQuarterly,40,(1),59-81. Leki,I.(1991).Twenty-fiveyearsofcontrastiverhetoric:Textanalysis andwritingpedagogies.TESOLQuarterly,25,(1),123-143. Levine,A.,Oded,B.,Connor,U.,&Asons,I.(2002).VariationinEFL-ESLpeerresponse.TESL-EJ,6,(3-A1),1-18.

Mason,T.(2002).Lecture7:Interlanguage.TerryMason'sSite.

RetrievedDec.I,2006,fromTerryMason'sWebSite

http://w~v.timothyjpmason.corn/index.html Murphey,T.andArau,H.(2001).Reportedbeliefchangesthroughnear peerrolemodeling.TESL-EJ,5,(3,A-1),1-15. Myers,Sharon.(1997).Teachingwritingasaprocessandteaching sentence-1evelsyntax:ReformulationasESLcompositionfeedback. TESL-EJ,2,(4,A-2),1-16. Myles,J.(2006).Secondlanguagewritingandresearch:Thewriting processanderroranalysisinstudenttexts.TESL-EJ,6,(2,A-1),1-20.

-122-EngllshWritlngintheJapaneseUniversltyClassroom:

Neubert,G.A.andMcNelis,S.J.

disciplines.EducationalLeadership, Raimes,A. teaching AMethodologyforaProductProcessAp~roach (1986).Improvingwritinginthe 43,(7),54-58.

(199D.Outofthewoods:

ofwriting.TESOLQuarterly,

Reid,J.(2001).Writing.InR.Carter

CambridgeguidetoteachingEnglish (pp.60-65).Cambridge:CambridgeUP. Robb,T., error (1), Rojas,P. 129. Ross, andits 83-95.

S.,&

effect M.(1968). Shortreed,

onEFL

Writingto Emergingtraditions 25,(3),407-430. inthe

andD.Nunan(Eds.),The

tospeahersofotherlanguages I.(1986).Salienceof writingquality.TESOL

learn.

_TESOL

Quarterly,

feedback Quarterly, 2,(2), on 20, 127-Selinker,L. Linguistics,

Semke,H.

Journals, (1972).Interlanguage. 10,209-230.

D.(1984).The

17,195-202. effect International

ofthered

Reviewof

pen.Foreign Silva,Tony.(1993).Towardandunderstandingof

L2writing:TheESLresearchandits

Quarterly,27,(4),657-677. thedistinct irnplications. Applied Language natureof

TESOL

-123-Stiff,R.(1967).Theeffectuponstudentcompositionofparticular correctiontechniques.ResearchintheTeachingofEnglish,I,54-75.

Watanabe,K.andYoshida,K.(2006).Effectsofconferencingon

revisioninEFLwriting:AcasestudyofJapanesejuniorhigh

schoolstudents.BulletinofCenterforEducationalResearchand

Development,15,139-144.RetrievedNov.6,2006,fromNara

UniversityofEducationCenterofEducationalandDevelopment Website http://w~rw.nara-edu.ac.jp/CERT/bulletin2006/b2006-H05.pdf

Watson,C.B.(1982).TheuseandabuseofmodelsintheESLwriting

class.TESOLQuarterly,16,(1),5-13. Writeboard.From37signalsBasecampWebsitehttp://~rw.writeboard.com/ Zamel,V.(1982).Writing:Theprocessofdiscoveringmeaning.TESOL Quarterly,16,(2),195-209. ---(1985).Respondingtostudentwriting.TESOLQuarterly,19,(1),79-101.