The Problem

• "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)

• "One result of this approach has been that, after many years of study, very few Korean students--even English majors--graduate with the ability to write a coherent English paragraph, let alone a longer essay, a business letter, or a research paper. Another result has been that students often consider writing in English to be boring and hopelessly difficult, and instructors dread the thought of being assigned the extra work of teaching composition classes." (Tyson, 1999, p. 1)

Why Teaching Composition Is Important

• Most employers are looking for students with highly-developed productive skills (i.e., speaking and writing).

• Graduate school or other overseas training requires productive skills.

• The new computer-based TOEFL and other standardized exams are putting more emphasis on writing (see TOEFL Online).

• More time and training is required to help students develop productive skills than receptive skills.

• Productive skills are more difficult for students to study and develop on their own than receptive skills.

• Still, many English programs put the most emphasize on receptive skills.

My Research

Ongoing qualitative study of Korean students' attitudes toward use of activities and techniques associated with the "process approach" (e.g., Tyson, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2000a, 2000b)

• "[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)

• Given the typical attitudes and expectations of Korean faculty and students, can the process approach be used successfully in Korean university writing classes?

• If so, which specific "process-oriented" techniques do students find most helpful?

Tentative Conclusions

• The Process Approach: Use of several process-oriented activities and techniques seem to be successful in Korean university writing classes at various levels; increase students' confidence and motivation; help students to develop "publishable" essays.

• Multiple Drafts: Students benefit from writing fewer but longer essays with more time to develop their ideas; improvement in content, organization, and structure.

• Instructor Feedback: Students come into the classes expecting instructor feedback mainly on structure; report benefiting from comments on content and organization as well as structure; appreciate the opportunity to correct their own errors.

• Peer- and Self-editing/Sharing of Ideas in Class: Students find peer-editing useful, but still prefer instructor comments; especially appreciate 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 like having their work published and seem to gain confidence and motivation from it; encourages more careful editing and more revision.

Suggestions for Composition Instructors

• Explain to students what the process approach is; show them the advantages of multiple drafts.

• Give students a chance to develop at least some of their assignments in multiple drafts; give fewer, but longer assignments that allow students to develop their ideas more fully.

• Encourage students to experiment with various types of prewriting activities, such as outlining, brainstorming, freewriting, mapping, etc. (for examples, see Elbow, 1998; Lindeman, 1987; Proett & Gill, 1986; Raimes, 1983; Reid, 1993; White & Arndt, 1995).

• Teach students how to peer-edit by showing examples of appropriate comments, providing peer-review forms with questions or instructions that guide them through the process, and modeling feedback in your own comments and corrections on early drafts (see Mittan, 1989; Tyson, 1998b).

• In responding to students' compositions, move from a focus on content and organization in the early drafts to editing of grammar and mechanics in the later drafts (see Leki, 1991; Saito, 1994; Zamel, 1985).

• Publish students' work to help them develop a sense of authentic "audience":
• Give them many chances to read each other's compositions.
• Use students' work as examples in class.
• Post good compositions on bulletin boards.
• Create class collections.
• Encourage students to submit their compositions to essay contests, speech contests, newspapers, etc.
• Publish their compositions on the Internet.

What Can English/English Education Departments and Programs Do?

• Recognize the importance of English composition as a central part of the curriculum.

• Recognize that grammar and composition are very different, and that students need a great deal of practice and time to develop the kinds of writing skills that will help them get jobs, get a good TOEFL score, or do well in graduate school.

• Provide a series of coordinated courses focusing on composition that lead to advanced skills (e.g., authentic business letters, long personal and opinion essays, and research papers), and find ways to encourage students to take them.

• Encourage students to write in English more often in literature, linguistics, education, and other content courses.

• Hire instructors with specific training in teaching composition and/or provide training for instructors.

• Limit the size of composition classes, and reduce the course loads of instructors who teach composition.

References

• Ahn, B. (1995). The teaching of writing in Korea. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 6(1), 67-76.
• Brock, M. (1994). Reflections on change: Implementing the process approach in Hong Kong. RELC Journal, 25(2), 51-70.
• Elbow, P. (1998). Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford 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.
• Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: Harnessing students' communicative power. In D. M. Johnson, & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 207-219). New York: Longman.
• Proett, J., & Gill, K. (1986). The writing process in action: A handbook for teachers. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
• Paimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Reid, J. M. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
• 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.
• TOEFL Online [Web site]. (Accessed November 10, 2000 on the World Wide Web: http://www.toefl.org)
• 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.
• 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. (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.nbci.com/kotesol_pubs/TEC_7-99.pdf)
• Tyson, R. E. (2000a). Increasing the effectiveness of composition instruction in Korean university English classes. English Language Education, 21, 205-214. (Available: http://english.daejin.ac.kr/~rtyson/cv/compinstruction.html)
• Tyson, R. E. (2000b). Using process writing effectively in Korean university EFL classes. Proceedings of the 12th World Congress of Applied Linguistics, Tokyo. (Available: http://english.daejin.ac.kr/~rtyson/cv/ailaproceedings1999.html)
• 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.

• Class Essay Collections (Available: http://english.daejin.ac.kr/~rtyson/students/):
• Should I revise one more time? (1997)
• Final essay #? (1998)
• Red lips and popcorn. (1999)
• Daejin University Online English Magazine (DUO). (Available: http://english.daejin.ac.kr/~duo/)