Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Comparative Essay

•Download as DOCX, PDF•
•
D
dannaet

This document compares three authors' perspectives on teaching writing: Brown (2001), Nunan (1999), and Ur (1996). Brown focused on issues like process vs product and contrastive rhetoric. Nunan discussed process and product approaches and compared written and spoken language. Ur emphasized differences between written and spoken language and gave advice on evaluation and feedback. While the authors agreed on some aspects of teaching writing, they each brought a unique focus, with Brown emphasizing writing form, Nunan comparing modalities, and Ur advising on assessment.

1 of 6
COMPARATIVE ESSAY: TEACHING WRITING ComparativeEssay: TeachingWriting Dannae Del Campo Méndez y Gabriela Quezada Cabezas Universidad Católica de La Santísima Concepción
COMPARATIVE ESSAY: TEACHING WRITING The psycholinguistic Lenneberg(1967) once mentioned that human beings universally learn to walk and to talk, but that swimming and writing are culturally specific, learned behaviours. This quotation highlights the importance of teaching writing in an effective manner, teaching students the necessary strategies that will help them to develop and to improve their writing skills. In the following paragraphs will be develop the most relevant characteristics of teaching writing skill according to three different authors Brown (2001)Nunan (1999) and Ur, (1996). According to Brown (2001) there are 6 main issues on the process of teaching writing. One of these issues is called process vs. product. The author explained that half a century ago teachers were focused on the final product of writing instead of the process to get to that product which is what concerns teachers today. In the same issue, according to Shih (1986); it can be noticed that the approach focuses on the process of writing instead of the written product, it helps students to understand the process of writing, it also gives importance to process of revision, it gives students time to write and rewrite and it gives them feedback during the entire process and not just on the final product. Moreover, according to Nunan (1999) the nature of the writing is focused on product and process approaches. The first of the approaches is defined as an approach which is focused on the final product; furthermore, the second of them is focused on the steps involved in drafting and redrafting a piece of writing. Nunan (1999) gave special attention on the process approach and some critics about it such as the development of the necessary critical thinking skill to produce a factual writing in which they need to succeed in school. Finally the author concluded in terms of nature that what students need in the writing classrooms are appropriate approaches and procedures. Brown (2001) supported this idea by mentioning that it is
COMPARATIVE ESSAY: TEACHING WRITING important to find a balance between process and product but that the product is, after all, the ultimate goal and the process is not the end; it is the mean to the end. Furthermore, another issue named by Brown (2001) is called contrastive rhetoric and it is based on an article written by Kaplan (1996) in which he argued that all types of language have different patterns of written discourse. Consequently English learners bring predispositions because of their native language; this means that everyone’s native culture has an effect on the process of learning writing. Nunan (1999) also mentioned Kaplan’s work. He argued that the study has relationships between cultural thought patterns and discourse. The main argument of the research in contrastive rhetoric as it was mentioned above is based on that certain culturally determined ways of thinking and communicating will transfer themselves to second language texts. However, Nunan (1999) not only shows similarities with Brown (2001) but also with another author, Ur (1996). Nunan (1999) explained the differences and similarities between writing and a “talk written down”. At first, he quoted Halliday (1985) to explain the purposes of the written language, such as communicating actions, information and entertainment. Then, he explained that written language and spoken language are similar in terms of function. Nevertheless, they differ in the context in which they are used. They also differ in the permanent or semipermanent record through the time and in the ratio of content words to grammatical words. Moreover, Ur (1996) explained only the differences between written and spoken language. She argued that the permanence is one of the characteristics that differentiate written from spoken language. She also mentioned that the density is more present in written than in spoken language among others.
COMPARATIVE ESSAY: TEACHING WRITING On the contrary, Brown (2001) mentioned only the characteristics of written language, not mentioning the spoken language. Some of these characteristics are the permanence, the production time, the distance and the orthography, among others. Finally, Brown (2001) and Ur (1996), gave special attention to the process of evaluating students’ writing and giving feedback. Ur (1996) gave as an advice to correct language mistakes and make suggestions about content and organization, also she explained how important is that students rewrite their pieces of writing, not only because it reinforces learning but also because it is an integral part of the writing process as a whole. At last she also mentioned that peer-correction is a good option because it can be a time-saving and useful technique. Moreover, (Brown, 2001)gave other kind of advices about evaluating and giving feedback students. He explained that the most instructive evaluative feedbacks that a teacher can give are their commands, both specific and summative, regarding the students’ work. He also mentioned that he emphasize of the evaluation should be on the content of the papers, then the organization and discourse and finally the syntax, vocabulary and mechanics. Another important fact that it is mentioned is that students need to understand that the teachers’ grades, scores, and comments are varying forms of feedback from which they can benefit. To sum up, in Nunan’s words (1999) “the written language is in terms of skills the most difficult thing to do in language; it is something most native speakers never master”. In the previous paragraphs were described and mentioned some characteristics, similarities, and differences between 3 authors’ points of view. The first author analysed was Brown (2001) who createdspecial attention on the written form itself, not mentioning spoken language as Nunan (1999) and Ur (1996) did. Moreover, Brown (2001) also gave attention
COMPARATIVE ESSAY: TEACHING WRITING to the process vs. product and contrastive rhetoric as some of the issues of the process of writing. The second author analysed, Nunan (1999) mentioned the process and product as the nature of language. He also compared the written and spoken language, not mentioning the evaluating or giving feedback process as Ur (1996) and Brown(2001)did. Finally, Ur (1996) mentioned in her work the differences between spoken and written language and some advices directed to teachers about how evaluate and give feedback to students, not mentioning the issues of the process of writing.
COMPARATIVE ESSAY: TEACHING WRITING References Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy. Longman Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural Thought Patterns in Inter-Cultural Education.Language Learning, 16(1-2), 1–20. Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundations of language.Wiley. Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning.Heinle&Heinle Publishers. Shih, M. (1986).Content-Based Approaches to Teaching Academic Writing.Tesol Quarterly, 20(4), 617–648. Ur, P. (1996) A Course in Language Teaching.Cambridge University Press.

More Related Content

Comparative Essay

  • 1. COMPARATIVE ESSAY: TEACHING WRITING ComparativeEssay: TeachingWriting Dannae Del Campo Méndez y Gabriela Quezada Cabezas Universidad Católica de La Santísima Concepción
  • 2. COMPARATIVE ESSAY: TEACHING WRITING The psycholinguistic Lenneberg(1967) once mentioned that human beings universally learn to walk and to talk, but that swimming and writing are culturally specific, learned behaviours. This quotation highlights the importance of teaching writing in an effective manner, teaching students the necessary strategies that will help them to develop and to improve their writing skills. In the following paragraphs will be develop the most relevant characteristics of teaching writing skill according to three different authors Brown (2001)Nunan (1999) and Ur, (1996). According to Brown (2001) there are 6 main issues on the process of teaching writing. One of these issues is called process vs. product. The author explained that half a century ago teachers were focused on the final product of writing instead of the process to get to that product which is what concerns teachers today. In the same issue, according to Shih (1986); it can be noticed that the approach focuses on the process of writing instead of the written product, it helps students to understand the process of writing, it also gives importance to process of revision, it gives students time to write and rewrite and it gives them feedback during the entire process and not just on the final product. Moreover, according to Nunan (1999) the nature of the writing is focused on product and process approaches. The first of the approaches is defined as an approach which is focused on the final product; furthermore, the second of them is focused on the steps involved in drafting and redrafting a piece of writing. Nunan (1999) gave special attention on the process approach and some critics about it such as the development of the necessary critical thinking skill to produce a factual writing in which they need to succeed in school. Finally the author concluded in terms of nature that what students need in the writing classrooms are appropriate approaches and procedures. Brown (2001) supported this idea by mentioning that it is
  • 3. COMPARATIVE ESSAY: TEACHING WRITING important to find a balance between process and product but that the product is, after all, the ultimate goal and the process is not the end; it is the mean to the end. Furthermore, another issue named by Brown (2001) is called contrastive rhetoric and it is based on an article written by Kaplan (1996) in which he argued that all types of language have different patterns of written discourse. Consequently English learners bring predispositions because of their native language; this means that everyone’s native culture has an effect on the process of learning writing. Nunan (1999) also mentioned Kaplan’s work. He argued that the study has relationships between cultural thought patterns and discourse. The main argument of the research in contrastive rhetoric as it was mentioned above is based on that certain culturally determined ways of thinking and communicating will transfer themselves to second language texts. However, Nunan (1999) not only shows similarities with Brown (2001) but also with another author, Ur (1996). Nunan (1999) explained the differences and similarities between writing and a “talk written down”. At first, he quoted Halliday (1985) to explain the purposes of the written language, such as communicating actions, information and entertainment. Then, he explained that written language and spoken language are similar in terms of function. Nevertheless, they differ in the context in which they are used. They also differ in the permanent or semipermanent record through the time and in the ratio of content words to grammatical words. Moreover, Ur (1996) explained only the differences between written and spoken language. She argued that the permanence is one of the characteristics that differentiate written from spoken language. She also mentioned that the density is more present in written than in spoken language among others.
  • 4. COMPARATIVE ESSAY: TEACHING WRITING On the contrary, Brown (2001) mentioned only the characteristics of written language, not mentioning the spoken language. Some of these characteristics are the permanence, the production time, the distance and the orthography, among others. Finally, Brown (2001) and Ur (1996), gave special attention to the process of evaluating students’ writing and giving feedback. Ur (1996) gave as an advice to correct language mistakes and make suggestions about content and organization, also she explained how important is that students rewrite their pieces of writing, not only because it reinforces learning but also because it is an integral part of the writing process as a whole. At last she also mentioned that peer-correction is a good option because it can be a time-saving and useful technique. Moreover, (Brown, 2001)gave other kind of advices about evaluating and giving feedback students. He explained that the most instructive evaluative feedbacks that a teacher can give are their commands, both specific and summative, regarding the students’ work. He also mentioned that he emphasize of the evaluation should be on the content of the papers, then the organization and discourse and finally the syntax, vocabulary and mechanics. Another important fact that it is mentioned is that students need to understand that the teachers’ grades, scores, and comments are varying forms of feedback from which they can benefit. To sum up, in Nunan’s words (1999) “the written language is in terms of skills the most difficult thing to do in language; it is something most native speakers never master”. In the previous paragraphs were described and mentioned some characteristics, similarities, and differences between 3 authors’ points of view. The first author analysed was Brown (2001) who createdspecial attention on the written form itself, not mentioning spoken language as Nunan (1999) and Ur (1996) did. Moreover, Brown (2001) also gave attention
  • 5. COMPARATIVE ESSAY: TEACHING WRITING to the process vs. product and contrastive rhetoric as some of the issues of the process of writing. The second author analysed, Nunan (1999) mentioned the process and product as the nature of language. He also compared the written and spoken language, not mentioning the evaluating or giving feedback process as Ur (1996) and Brown(2001)did. Finally, Ur (1996) mentioned in her work the differences between spoken and written language and some advices directed to teachers about how evaluate and give feedback to students, not mentioning the issues of the process of writing.
  • 6. COMPARATIVE ESSAY: TEACHING WRITING References Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy. Longman Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural Thought Patterns in Inter-Cultural Education.Language Learning, 16(1-2), 1–20. Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundations of language.Wiley. Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning.Heinle&Heinle Publishers. Shih, M. (1986).Content-Based Approaches to Teaching Academic Writing.Tesol Quarterly, 20(4), 617–648. Ur, P. (1996) A Course in Language Teaching.Cambridge University Press.