Mohammad Shamsuzzaman and John Everatt :University of Canterbury (From previous issue)The Americans discovered that unlike them, the British taught writing as a process of individual development, a matter of self-discovery. Writing was not discipline or genre specific: the dichotomy between academic and personal writing was not as vital as may have been considered. Hence, writing may be viewed as a generic skill. Once that skill is acquired, it can be customized to fulfil the requirements of any genre or discipline. What this implies is that academic writing is personal (or creative) writing disciplined. Academic writing is a learned skill, which presupposes the acquisition of the generic skill. One of the pieces of evidence presented against the traditional method of writing (i.e., teaching writing as a product) is that writing itself is only a small part of the task. Prewriting (i.e., planning) and rewriting (i.e., editing) should take the larger proportion of time and effort (see, for example, the views of Murray, 2003). Yet, students are judged on the basis of the least effortful part of the task. Proponents of the writing as a process viewpoint argue that writing is a learned skill, not a taught skill. Students who learn the act of writing themselves are empowered and encouraged to become engaged in the process of discovering the world through writing, particularly when instructors respond as readers (Emig, 2003). This is consistent with Murray’s (2003) conceptualization of process pedagogy of writing: “This is not a question of correct or incorrect, of etiquette or custom. It is a matter of far higher importance. The writer, as he writes, is making ethical decisions. He does not test his words by a rule book, but by life. He uses the language to reveal the truth to himself so that he can tell it to others. It is an exciting, eventful, evolving process.” (p. 4). And this evolving process rewards the exploration of self through narrative and reflection, as well as recognizes the fact that every student has something important and meaningful to say. What this means is that students are provoked to discover and construct their own world of learning through writing. This should focus on topics in which they are invested (Elbow, 1973). Such a view of the writing process argues against it being rule-bound. The analysis of discourse into words, sentences, and paragraphs, the classification of discourse into description, narration, exposition, and argument, as well as style into economy, clarity, and emphasis (Young, 1978) may be considered unconnected and counter-productive to the teaching and learning of writing. Simply put, grammar, mechanics, and punctuation must not restrict the writer’s thinking. At the end of the process though, writing instructors must have a product for evaluation. Elbow (1973) suggested that this product should be the portfolio of journal writing, and evaluation should be delayed until the end of the period of learning (in tertiary education, most likely the end of a semester). Students will be evaluated not on the basis of what they have produced throughout the semester, but on the basis of what they are potentially capable of producing. Evaluation is only marginally important as far as teaching writing as a process is concerned. Given this view on course assessment procedures, it is perhaps understandable that there is doubt that this process pedagogy can fit into EFL contexts such as Bangladesh; and research is needed still to conclusively advocate for the process pedagogy of writing. However, there is no reason to believe that this process pedagogy will not yield positive results in Bangladesh, despite the unique local constraints. International evidence supporting the writing as process position should be as relevant to Bangladesh as anywhere. Considered from this perspective, the process pedagogy of writing merits application in Bangladesh. However, the following recommendations may need to be considered. First, instructors of English in Bangladesh need to move away from the view that the only prerequisite to teaching writing is to have recognized academic qualifications in English. It is commonplace for tertiary level teaching in Bangladesh to be area-specific. However, an instructor with a linguistics qualification, or an ESL background, may be ineligible to teach writing. Writing is an esoteric area with its own accumulated scholarship of thousands of years. A writing instructor, therefore, should be writing informed and undertake professional development on the nuances of writing, as well as pedagogical approaches toward teaching writing. This can be supported through participation in workshops on teaching writing and extensive reading of books and journals about writing. And, of course, another way to ensure that instructors understand the process of writing is for them to be writers themselves. Secondly, writing instructors will need to realize that they are not the only source of learning for the students. Students can learn from their peers and technology. Indeed, technology can be a powerful tool in learning how to write. Different software tools (including computer conferencing, computer-mediated feedback, automated feedback) can support students’ learning. There are numerous Websites on teaching writing as well. Perhaps the most effective at the moment is maintained by Purdue University (i.e., the Purdue Online Writing Lab, OWL, http:/owl.english.purdue.edu/). This detailed and carefully crafted Website contains almost everything that the novice, as well as advanced, writer needs to know to learn writing. Such useful resources to enhancing writing skills can be included in course information produced by writing instructors in Bangladesh. Furthermore, writing instructors in Bangladesh need to move away from the suspicion that students are always the culprits. Students’ poor performance may be an outcome of poor course planning as much as a lack of student ability. Research suggests that second language writing skills cannot be acquired by practice in writing alone but also need to be supported with extensive reading (Krashen, 1993). However, a course such as Introduction to Composition is unlikely to be based on such evidence. (In the actual course outline, 21 classes are devoted to different kinds of grammar related activities and only the remaining three are assigned as related to reading comprehension work. This is indeed a grammar course.) In a situation such as this, it may not be altogether surprising if students fail to hone their writing skills. These recommendations ask for a reconsideration of the way tertiary education institutions in Bangladesh teach writing: one that does not consider writing independent of the writer. This will involve some of the instructors’ authority being compromised. However, teaching writing as a process should help to develop students who are capable writers that enjoy the process of writing (an aim mentioned in the course details of Introduction to Composition). ConclusionTeaching writing should, ultimately, be a rewarding occupation. Writing instructors aspire to instil mechanical, syntactic, and semantic sophistication in students whose learning is influenced by social, perceptual, and cognitive filters. These attributes are not instantly amenable to instruction, meaning that the thoughts and language used in written artefacts may, at least at first, appear unsophisticated. Teaching writing, therefore, may be considered a challenging and frustrating job. However, with practice, students will come to show facility in choosing diction, sculpting argument, and manipulating information. These are the earmarks of critical intelligence, and writing instructors can boast of being instrumental in fostering it. These potential risks and rewards of teaching writing exist in an EFL context like Bangladesh as much as anywhere in the world. Despite unique constraints, the excuse that teaching writing in English in Bangladesh is altogether a different phenomenon, so it has to be approached differently, is not a valid one. Being a language of critical global significance, local principles with regard to teaching English have to be informed by standard international practices. Although experts differ in their views, and the preference for pedagogical approaches varies across setting, many writing scholars argue for teaching writing as a process, for it places emphasis on the “inventive power of the writer” and puts “an important part of creativity where it belongs-in the hands of working, thinking writer” (Flower & Hayes, 2003, p.296). How writing teachers in Bangladesh re-tool themselves to re-invent writing, and the writer, in light of such contemporary research remains to be observed.(Concluded)
