Braz-TESOL National Convention 2010 July 21, 2010

1. Teaching efl process Writing to teens In a product-orientedcontext: challengesandsuccesses Isabela VillasBoas Casa Thomas Jefferson, Brasília www.thomas.org.br

2. Contemporary l2 writing Writing as a social actof communication

4. (Atkinson, 2003)

6. Processwritingprinciplesadoptedby ELT Institute: Process approach withoutlosingsightofthe final product Modelscanandshouldbeused for analysis: linkingliteracies textual features genres Studentsshouldbetaughtrhetoricalpatternsandconventions (noticing).

7. Typicalwritingassignment In theeflinstitute

8. School A EFL institute School B School C Educational Context Contemporary studies tend to consider in more detail contextual factors in their effort to understand complex phenomena such as the learning of a language. (Van Lier, 2005)

9. Thestudy Typeofstudy: Case studywithstrongfeaturesofeducationalethnography “Ethnographyseeks to explain, describe, andprovide insight intohumanbehavior in context.” (Purcell-Gates, 2004, p. 93) Setting: ELT Institute in Brasília – oneyear, all classes thatinvolvedwriting 3 private regular schools in Brasília, 9th grade: 2 classes each, allaroundtheargumentativetext Participants: Classof 16 teenagersaged 13 to 19 – lastyearofintermediatelevel (3 A and 3 B); 6 ofwhomstudying in the 9th grade oftheselectedschools (2 in eachschool) ; their EFL teacher and their Portuguese teacher

10. Thestudy Questions: How is theteachingof L1 writing in thestudents’ regular schools? In whatways do theteachingprinciples converge withthoseofthe ELT Instituteand in whatways do they diverge? Takingintoaccountthefindings in Q1, how do thestudentsrespondandreact to thebasicstagesofprocesswritinginformedbytheprinciplespreviouslystated?

11. Writing in students’ regular schools Writing in the schools focuses more on the product than on the process. The different stages of writing, such as pre-writing, rewriting, and peer revision are rarely focused on in the schools. The regular schools in general value the writing tests more than classroom assignments. Even though students produce texts in class or at home to practice writing, great part of of their grade is composed of the timed writing test grade, even in the ninth grade, with a view to preparing students for the university entrance examination exam.

14. ( JO) At school they only give the topic and we write.

15. (ME) We have a writing class with exercises. Then, at the end of the class, they assign the writing and we have to bring it the next class.

16. (Researcher) Tell me what you think is similar and what you think is different about the teaching of writing in your EFL school and in your regular school?

17. (M) The topics that the teacher proposes, the questions she asks us to answer. At school there is no such thing. The teacher assigns a topic and we write.

19. School B: rewriting is not a common practice; according to the teacher, this is the stage in the process that the school has the least conditions to include.

20. School C: the student has to take at least one text per unit to the writing center; only the unsatisfactory texts are rewritten; this rewriting seems to be restricted to “cleaning up”.

22. School B: the student who read the text and provided feedback.

23. School C: the writing aide; the teacher only reads the test essays.

25. ( T): What really counts are the tests.

26. (teacher School C): Because on the test they have a writing task that is worth a lot of points. If they don’t submit their writings to the writing center aide, they won’t see the mistakes they are making.

27. School A: There aren’t any writing tests. The assessment is based on all the writings produced throughout the year.

28. School D (added later): The writing test is 40% of the grade.

32. Planning, cont. The text narrative; the structure; the development. I think I learned a lot regarding vocabulary. It’s very important to know how to write in English. It will benefit us for the rest of our lives. Knowing the number of paragraphs, how to write an introduction, a good conclusion, this needs to be learned both in Portuguese and in English. Text structures. The structure of a text, how to put together a text. Punctuation and coherence. I learned how to organize my ideas to produce a good text.

35. Peerrevision After a year-long, carefullyscaffoldedpeerreviewprogram, in the final, open-ended, face-to-faceconversationwiththeirpeersabouttheirtexts,moststudentswereable to establish a competent dialogue, providingsuggestions for improvement.

36. Werethepeerreviewactivitiesuseful? 9 3

38. Notpartofstudents’ “frames”

39. Tendency to praise (saving face)

40. Studentsappreciatedreadingtheirpeers’ texts more thantheylikedhavingtheirtextsreadby a peer

41. Studentsfelttheneed for thesuggestions to be “validatedbytheteacher”. H O W E V E R

42. Thoughthepedagogical work withprocesswritingproved to beeffective, in theend, students still demonstratedgreaterappreciationofthe more teacher-directedsteps in thedevelopmentoftheirwritingprocess:

44. JO: The positive points (ofthepedagogical work withwriting) werethe chance to learnbyrevisingourtextsand to knowbetterhow to assessourerrorsandthatofourclassmates. Another positive pointwaspostingthewritingonthe Internet. MR: It wasinteresting to revise a student’stext(ananonymoustext), butnot to revise a classmate’stext. (...) Giving feedback onstudents’ writing is theteacher’sresponsibility, notthepeers’.

45. M: Writing for school is a wasteof time, especiallywhenwehave to makeup a story. Weshouldlearnonlygrammar . (...) Bylearninggrammar, I alsolearnhow to write. Teacher 2: Thewriting classes I hadattheuniversityfocusedmainlyonstructuralfeaturesofwriting, andtheteacher’s feedback wasusuallyongrammar, vocabularyandmechanics. Weneverworkedwithprocesswriting. JL: Since I don’twrite for university, I’mreviewingwhat I learned in highschoolandalsolearningthings(in thewritingassignments) thatwillbeimportant for my future.

46. REFERENCES Atkinson. D. (2003). L2 writing in the post-process era: Introduction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 49- 63. Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, Volume 12 (1), 17-29. Matsuda, P.K. (2003). Process and post-process: a discursive issue. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12 (1), 65-83. Purcell-Gates, V. (2004). Ethnographic Research. In N. K. Duke and M. H. Mallette (Eds). Literacy Research Methodologies. New York: The Guilford Press. Reid, J. (2001). Writing. In Carter, R. and Nunan, D. (Eds.). The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 28-33. Van Lier, L. (2005). Case study. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.) Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p. 195-207.

47. SUGGESTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Campbell, C. (1998). Teaching second-language writing: Interaction with text. Canada: Heinle & Heinle.. Canagarajah, A.S. (2002). Critical academic writing and multilingual students. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Casanave, C. P. (2003). Looking ahead to more socio-politically oriented case study research in L2 writing scholarship (But should it be called “post process”?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 12 (01), 85-102. Casanave, C. P. (2004). Controversies in second language writing: dilemmas and decisions in research and instruction. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press. Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to written work. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 181-188. Cope, B. and Kalantzis, M. (1993). Introduction: How a genre approach to literacy can transform the way writing is taught. In Cope, B. and Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). The powers of literacy. London: Falmer, p.1-21. Cumming, Al. (2003). Experienced ESL/EFL writing instructors’ conceptualizations of their teaching: Curriculum options and their implications. In B. Kroll (Ed), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom, pp. 71-92, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Ferris, D. and Hedgcock J. (2005). Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, process, and practice. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Grabe, W. (2001). Reading-writing relations: theoretical perspectives and instructional practices. In Belcher, D. Hirvela, A. (Eds.). Linking literacies – Perspectives on L2 reading- writing connections. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, p. 15-47.

48. SUGGESTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. London: Longman. Hammond, J. and Derewianka, B. (2001). Genre. In Carter, R. and Nunan, D. (Eds.). The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 186-193. Hedgcock, J.S. (2005). Taking stock of research and pedagogy in L2 writing. In Hinkel, E. Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p. 597-613. Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, Volume 12 (1), 17-29. Kroll, B. (2001). Considerations for teaching an ESL/EFL writing course. In Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.). Teaching English as a second or foreign language(3rd ed.), pp. 219 -240. Boston: Heinle. Liu, J. and Hansen, J. G. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press. Matsuda, P.K. (2003). Process and post-process: a discursive issue. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12 (1) 65-83. Matsuda, P. K.. (2006). Second language writing in the twentieth century. In Matsuda, P. K., Cox, M., Jordan, J., Ortmeier Hooper, C. (Eds.) Second language writing in the composition classroom – A critical sourcebook. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin’s. Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become effective peer reviewers. System, 22, 293- 308. Nation, I.S.P. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL Reading and Writing. New York: Routledge. Raimes, A.. (2002) Ten steps in planning a writing course and training teachers of writing. In Richards, J. and Renaya, W. A. (Eds.). Methodology in language teaching: an anthology of current practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, p. 306-314.

49. Isabela.villasboas@thomas.org.br