In Korea, as in many other Asian countries, the focus in teaching EFL (English as a Foreign Language) composition at the university level tends to be almost entirely on grammatical correctness.  It is generally accepted among Korean language program administrators, language instructors, and students that other approaches to teaching writing, including the process approach, are inappropriate for the Korean situation.
        This paper begins by presenting the results of a study of student attitudes toward a number of "process-oriented" techniques used in EFL writing classes at two major universities in Korea over a period of four years.  Data collected from questionnaires, student reflective writing, and other ethnographically-oriented techniques suggest that some of the techniques used in these classes helped students to produce longer and better-developed compositions as well as increase their confidence and motivation to write.  Specific techniques students found helpful include the teaching of prewriting activities, writing in multiple drafts, teaching students how to peer- and self-edit effectively, instructor comments on early drafts that focus more on content and organization than grammar, group activities that encourage interaction and sharing of ideas among students, and an emphasis on the "publication" of students' work.
        Next, the author describes his successful efforts to implement curriculum changes that provide a series of process-oriented writing courses in the English Department of the Korean university where he is currently working and gives some practical suggestions for introducing these techniques in a way that is culturally appropriate in Korea and, perhaps, other Asian countries.

1. Typical Attitudes about Teaching Writing and Learning to Write in Korea

• "The practice of language teaching in most Asian countries…usually employs a traditional product-oriented, examination-centered approach, with a strong emphasis on grammar." (Pennington, Brock, & Yue, 1995, pp. 227-228)
• "There is a considerable amount of careful, painstaking translation of text among Korean college students: a tendency to memorize dialogues, a great interest in grammatical analysis, a strong desire to be corrected whenever a mistake occurred (sic). This behavior reflects typical Korean students (sic) perspective of learning in general." (Kong, 1996, pp. 114-115)
• "Writing has long been neglected in English language teaching in Korea…. Little attention is paid in the classroom to developing students' ability to write at a paragraph or discourse level…many English teachers still consider grammar and translation to be the two most important components of language teaching." (Ahn, 1995, p. 73)
• "Of course, you will teach your composition classes by having students write a lot of sentences in English and then correcting all of their mistakes." (Chair of the English Department of a major university in Seoul, personal communication, 1994)
• "I don't know grammar very well. So I think before write something, must to know grammar. I hope to learn grammar in this semester. We need more grammar." (Daejin University student writing in response to this question: What do you hope to learn in this [composition] class this semester? 1997)

• "Today we tend to think of writing as a complex intellectual-linguistic process involving the recursive application of a wide range of thinking skills and language abilities." (Proett & Gill, 1986, p. 1)
• "As we see it, the goal of [a process-focused approach] is to nurture the skills with which writers work out their own solutions to the problems they set themselves, with which they shape their raw material into a coherent message, and with which they work towards an acceptable and appropriate form for expressing it." (White & Arndt, 1991, p. 5)
• "…teachers actually have strongly differing ideas as to what process writing is." (Caudery, 1995, p. 1)
• "[In the process approach] students first explore a topic, write drafts, receive feedback from classmates and the teacher works throughout to make their meaning clearer. When marking, the teacher might evaluate more than the final product, considering as well the process that led up to it." (Brock, 1994, p. 52)
• "Group writing assignments, peer editing, and the multiple revisions allowed in process writing serve to demystify the task of writing in a foreign language. In addition, students are provided with valuable opportunities to learn from each other." (White & Caminero, 1995, p. 323)

• Given the typical attitudes and expectations of Korean professors and students, can the process approach be used successfully in Korean university writing classes?
• Which specific "process-oriented" techniques do students find most helpful?

• "Reflective essays" written by students in two advanced composition classes at two universities in Korea:
• Spring semester 1996; N=24 (all female); junior English majors
• Fall semester 1998; N=14 (6 female, 8 male); junior English majors
• Ethnographic data collected from these and several other writing classes at three Korean universities over five years

• To make students understand that writing involves more than being able to write grammatically correct sentences
• To help students realize that writing is a recursive process that involves revision and rewriting
• To give students the opportunity to work through the writing process by developing several essays in multiple drafts
• To increase students' confidence by showing them that they were able to produce interesting, well-organized, well-developed essays for a specific audience
• To help each student to produce at least one essay that he/she would feel comfortable "publishing" in a printed class collection of essays
• (In the 1998 class) To help each student develop an English Internet home page to "publish" his/her writing

• Use of multiple drafts (usually three), with prewriting, revising, editing, rewriting, and proofreading presented as separate but often recursive steps in the writing process
• Individualized feedback (mostly written comments, but some teacher-student conferences)
• Comments on early drafts that focused more on content and organization than on the mechanical aspects of writing
• Use of peer- and self-editing techniques
• Emphasis on the "publication" of students' work

• End-of-semester assignment: "Reflect on the work you have done for this class and write a short essay (no more than 1-2 pages typewritten) about what you have learned this semester about writing and, especially, how you write."
• "Helpful" or "Useful" activities specifically mentioned in students' reflective essays:

Spring 1996 Class (N=24)

Activity, Number (Percentage)

1. Writing multiple drafts, 17 (71%)

2. Reading instructor's comments, 13 (54%)

3. Reading other students' essays, 9 (38%)

4. Reading other students' comments (peer-editing), 5 (21%)

5. Class/Group discussion of topic before writing, 3 (13%)

6. Preparing for class essay collection, 3 (13%)

7. Self-editing, 2 (8%)

8. Prewriting exercises, 1 (4%)

 

Fall 1998 Class (N=14)

Activity, Number (Percentage)

1. Writing multiple drafts, 10 (71%)

2. Using the WWW for research, 8 (57%)

3. Making an Internet home page, 7 (50%)

    Reading instructor's comments, 7 (50%)

5. Using e-mail, 6 (43%)

    Preparing for speech, 6 (43%)

7. Reading other students' comments (peer-editing), 5 (36%)

8. Class/Group discussion of topic before writing, 4 (29%)

    Prewriting exercises, 4 (29%)

10. Reading other students' essays, 3 (21%)

11. Preparing for class essay collection, 2 (14%)

12. Typing assignments in English, 1 (7%)

　

About multiple drafts

• "Revising my homework several times was very useful for me. Because I could have time to look for materials concerned my essay in internet or magazines, and I could think about my topic deeply. As a result, I could strength my essays with other people's suggestions and materials I found." (#2-7)

• "I had taken another course related to English composition when I was a freshman. At that time, in returned papers there were no professor's comments but only grade. I did not read my essays again but I just checked my grade. . . . But in this time, I could make my works better through professor's comments and my endeavor to improve." (#1-15)

• "…it was useful to read others' work. In fact, it wasn’t pleasant to see other students read my essay, but through these opportunities, I could compare my essay with others." (#1-8)

• "I realized [having other students read my work] was the best way to know one's faults and mistakes, such as wrong expressions, lacks of conclusions and examples. So, the advices of friends and [my instructor] helped me to modify my essays properly." (#1-17)

• "I got confidence about writing in English from having my work published on the Internet and the collection of essays. I thought the essays was important more than simple assignments for grades. . . ." (#2-13)

• "…when the teacher said we would write three essays during the semester…I said to myself, 'I can't'…[but] when I think about my two essays I've already written, I am proud of myself…now English writing is not longer fearful to me, but I am ready to try to write an essay in English with pleasure." (#1-13)

• "Not write to make understand yourself, but to make understand others…is something I have learned…. This is the basic, key point in writing." (#1-10)

• "Friday was really a deadline! Writing is hard work! But frankly I waited the day I received my former writing. To find faults in my writing is one of the most interesting things in this class as well as the most useful. I appreciated the opportunity of correcting my errors. Through it I felt my writing improving and gaining better structure and grammar. I learned writing is a course completed through correcting. And in writing again, I could express my opinion more exactly. Even what I thought I knew is actually what I didn't know. In writing, I come to know." (#1-7)

• The Process Approach: Use of several process-oriented activities and techniques seemed to be successful in these Korean university writing classes; increased students' confidence and motivation; helped students to develop "publishable" essays.
• Multiple Drafts: Students benefited from writing fewer but longer essays with more time to develop their ideas; improvement in content, organization, and structure.
• Instructor Feedback: Students came into the classes expecting instructor feedback mainly on structure; reported benefiting from comments on content and organization as well as structure; appreciated the opportunity to correct their own errors.
• Peer- and Self-editing/Sharing of Ideas in Class: Students found peer-editing useful, but still preferred instructor comments; especially appreciated the chance to read others' essays and share ideas with classmates both before writing and during the process; peer- and self-editing are skills that must be taught
• Publication of Work: Students liked having their work published and seemed to gain confidence and motivation from it; encouraged more careful editing and more revision.

References/Suggested Readings

Ahn, B. (1995). The teaching of writing in Korea. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 6(1), 67-76.

Allaei, S. K., & Connor, U. M. (1990). Exploring the dynamics of cross-cultural collaboration in writing classrooms. The Writing Instructor, 10, 19-28.

Amores, M. J. (1997). A new perspective on peer-editing. Foreign Language Annals, 30(4), 513-522.

Blanton, L. L. (1987). Reshaping ESL students' perceptions of writing. ELT Journal, 41(2), 112-188.

Boese, P., Byrne, M. E., & Silverman, L. (1997). The rewards of a publication of student writing. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 24(1), 42-46.

Brock, M. (1994). Reflections on change: Implementing the process approach in Hong Kong. RELC Journal, 25(2), 51-70.

Caposella, T.-L. (1991). Students as sociolinguists: Getting real research from freshman writers. College Composition and Communication, 42(1), 75-79.

Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1996). Chinese student'  perception of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 1-19.

Caudery, T. (1995). What the “process approach” means to practising teachers of second language writing skills. TESL-EJ. 1(4), A-3, 1-16. Retrieved May 30, 1999, from the World Wide Web: http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ejo4/a3.html

Chenoweth, N. A. (1987). The need to teach rewriting. ELT Journal, 41(1), 25-29.

Crowe, C., & Peterson, K. (1995). Classroom research: Helping Asian students succeed in writing courses. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 22(1), 30-37.

Cumming, A. (1990). Expertise in evaluating second language compositions. Language Testing, 7(1), 31-51.

Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33-53.

Ferris, D. (1995). Teaching students to self-edit. TESOL Journal, 4(4), 18-22.

Hayward, M. (1990). Evaluation of essay prompts by nonnative speakers of English. TESOL Quarterly, 24(4), 753-758.

Johnson, D. M., & Roen, D. H. (1989). Richness in Writing: Empowering ESL students. New York: Longman.

Jones, N. (1995). Business writing, Chinese students, and communicative language teaching. TESOL Journal, 4(3), 12-15.

Kong, N.-H. (1996). The communicative approach to Korean college English. English Teaching, 51(1), 97-118.

Kroll, B. (Ed.). (1990). Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203-218.

Lindemann, E. (1987). A rhetoric for writing teachers (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Pennington, M. C., Brock, M. N., & Yue, F. (1996). Explaining Hong Kong students’ response to process writing: An exploration of causes and outcomes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(3), 227-252.

Proett, J., & Gill, K. (1986). The writing process in action: A handbook for teachers. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. New York: Oxford University Press.

Saito, H. (1994). Teachers’ practices and students’ preferences for feedback on second language writing: A case study of adult ESL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11(2), 46-70.

Tyson, R. E. (1997). Motivation, self-confidence, and the process approach in Korean university writing classes. Paper presented at the 1997 National Korea TESOL Conference in Kyongju, October 3-5, 1997.

Tyson, R. E. (1998a). A study of the motivational aspects of computer use in an advanced English writing course. Daejin University Collection of Educational Theses, 1, 343-365. Available: http://english.daejin.ac.kr/~rtyson/cv/paper_motivation.html

Tyson, R. E. (1998b). Teaching Korean university students to peer- and self-edit. Paper presented at the 1998 National Korea TESOL Conference at Kyung Hee University, Seoul, October 17-18, 1998.
Handout available: http://english.daejin.ac.kr/~rtyson/cv/peerediting.html

Tyson, R. E. (1999). The power of multiple drafts in writing classes. The English Connection, 3(4), 1,6.
Available: http://members.xoom.com/KOTESOL_PUBS/TEC_7-99.pdf

Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 51-75.

White, A. S., & Caminero, R. (1995). Using process writing as a learning tool in the foreign language class. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 51(2), 323-329).

White, R., & Arndt, V. (1991). Process writing. London and New York: Longman.

Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79-101.

Zamel, V. (1987). Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 697-715.

Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209-222.
 
 

Rodney E. Tyson
Daejin University, English Department
Pocheon, Kyeonggi, 487-711, Korea
rtyson@road.daejin.ac.kr
http://english.daejin.ac.kr/~rtyson/