spinach to chocolate

8/13/2019 Spinach to Chocolate

1/25

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)

"Spinach to Chocolate": Changing Awareness and Attitudes in ESL Writing TeachersAuthor(s): Lise WinerSource: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Spring, 1992), pp. 57-80Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3587369.

Accessed: 13/11/2013 11:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.144.196.208 on Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:42:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tesolhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3587369?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3587369?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tesol


2/25

TESOL QUARTERLY, ol.26,No.1,Spring 992

"Spinach oChocolate":ChangingAwareness ndAttitudesinESLWriting eachersLISE WINERSouthernllinois niversity-Carbondale

Thispaperuses data from tudentournalsn a TESL writingpracticumotrace heprocess ywhich racticefandreflectionon specific ctivitieshange wareness f and attitudesowardwritingnd theteaching f writing.tudents ighlightedourareas sproblems:readofwriting,oring r ntimidatingopics,insecurityboutwritingkills,nd nsecuritybout eachingkills(particularlyroviding eedback).Studentslso identifiedivestrategiesn thepart fthe nstructorsmosthelpfulneffectingchange: having tudents esignand respond o writingasks,requiringmandatoryevision, uiding eercoaching, rovidingguidedpractice n topic development,nd developing nder-standing f thewriting rocess. n contrasto contemporarypolarized models,the paper demonstrateshe necessity fintegratingrainingnddevelopmentnteacherducation.Models of language teacher education often use a polarizedframework of "training"versus "development" or "education."According to Richards and Crookes (1988), teacher traininginvolves a situation-orientedpproach, characterizedby finiteobjectives, nwhichtraineesmaster particularmodel ofteaching.In contrast,teacher education involves an individual-orientedapproach with a focus on developing decision-making andhypothesis-generatingkills, emphasizing process rather than aspecificmethod or model of teaching.Boyd (1989, pp. 195-196)distinguishes raining skillstraining or a specific job), develop-

ment skills raining lusbroadersubjects uch as problemsolving),and education(the"developmentofknowledgeand skills, s wellas attitudes, values, and sensibilities," p. 196); professionaleducation models "a particularview of expertise" ombined with"reflectionnaction" p. 196)-an ability o think eflectivelyboutand act deliberately n a broad rangeofeducational problems.57

This content downloaded from 193.144.196.208 on Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:42:54 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/25

Freeman (1989) similarlydescribes two strategies: teachertraining s direct intervention y the collaborator (e.g., teachertrainer)to work on specific aspects of the teacher'steaching;itfocuseson specificoutcomes thatcan be achieved through clearsequence of steps. Teacher development,on the otherhand, is "astrategyof influence and indirect intervention hat works oncomplex, integrated aspects of teaching; these aspects areidiosyncratic nd individual" (p. 40). Through development,thecollaborator"works to trigger he teacher'sawareness .. [and]endeavors to start he teacher on a process of reflection,ritique,and refinement f the teacher's classroompractice" (p. 40). Incontrast o training,nwhichspecific, lbeitfragmented,utcomescan be effective ndicators of change, changes that result fromdevelopmentcannotbe foreseenor expected within designatedtimeperiod. They are essentiallynternal, lthoughtheycan haveexternal manifestations through changes in performance orbehavior. The solutionsdo notnecessarily eed to be ones thatthecollaboratorknowsor can implement.In conjunctionwith uch a framework,reeman (1989) proposesa descriptivemodel of language teacher educationwhich definesteachingas a decision-making rocessbased on thecategoriesofknowledge, skills, attitude,and awareness. Freeman posits atti-tude-"the stanceone adopts towardoneself, heactivity f teach-ing, and the learnersone engages in the teaching/learningro-cess"-as the principal constituentof language teaching thataccounts for ndividualperformance, "bridgethat nfluences heeffective unctioningf the ndividual eacher nparticular ircum-stances" p. 32).Whenteachertrainersncouragereflection uring heprocessoflearning nd practicing pecificskills,what insight an be gainedabout details of theprocess of changein awarenessand attitudes?What implications does this have on the design of teachereducation?For example,awarenessofweaknessesin teaching anmotivate improvement,but too much doubt about their owncompetencecan render eachers o apprehensive nd insecure hattheir apabilitiesare seriously ampered.Thispaper examines heprocessofchanging wareness bouttheprocessofwriting,nd changes nattitudes owardswritingnd theteaching of writing n ESL. Althoughmuch change duringthisprocess is internal nd personal,thus best studiedby individualintrospection Bartlett,1990; Freeman, 1989; Murphy-O'Dwyer,1985;Porter,Goldstein,Leatherman,& Conrad, 1990), it need notremainopaque. Thisstudyused datafrom tudent-teacherialogue58 TESOL QUARTERLY



4/25

journalsndresponsesoquestionnaireso examine heprocess fchange.BACKGROUND: WRITTEN RACTICUMOURSE

The Writtenracticumsa requiredmethodologyourse ntheMA-EFLprogramtSouthernllinois niversity-Carbondale.hecurrentyllabustates sgoalsofthe ourse hat tudentshould:a)gain nsightntowritingrocessesnLi andL2; (b) becomefamiliarwithcurrentheory nd practice n the teaching f ESL/EFLwriting;c) develop and practice echniques nd materials orclassroomuse; and (d) develop professional ensibilitiesndcapabilitiesnwritingnd theteaching fwriting.he course sbased on a process pproach owritingPerl,1979;Pianko, 979;Zamel,1982, 983).Thispaperdescribes heprocess fchange hatgoeson inthiscourse,using s examples heexperiencesf approximately00graduate tudents nrollednfourpractica. ach classcomprises20-28 student eachersSTs) and a teacher ducator TE)-theauthor. About 60% of the STs are nonnative-speakingNNS)internationaltudents;lmost llnative nglish peakersNS) arefrom he U.S. Almost ll have had someprior anguage eachingexperience. bout nethirdfthe xperienced Ssandtwothirdsof the experiencedNNSs have had at least some experienceteaching SL/EFL writing;omeoftheNSs have alsotaught icompositionoNSs.VirtuallylltheNNSs willbereturningotheirnative ountrieso teach.TheNSswillbe teachingnbothEFL andESL situations. ritingkills ary, utareusually airlydvanced.Some are experiencednd accomplishedwriters, hereas thershave minor r seriousproblems anging rom rganizationndclarity f developmento grammarnd spelling.All graduatestudentsregiven compositionompetenceest pon nteringheprogram.tudents hodo notpassmust ake compositionlass nthedepartmentsfLinguisticsforNNSs) orEnglishforNSs).Althoughmuchofthe iteraturenteacher ducation iscussespracticumxperiencesnwhich Ts areteachingealESL classes,this ituations notalwaysavailable. For example,NNSs inthiscourse arely aveteachingssignmentsxceptntheir 1 inforeignlanguageclasses.)A number f articles e.g., Ellis, 1990)haveoutlinedotherpossible activities,ncludingobservation, asestudies,microteaching,ndpeerteaching.wo major dvantagesof a practicumourse n whichSTs are notinvolved n "real"teachingrea reduced ressurenSTs,anda greaterniformityfexperience, both making t easier forSTs to benefitfromgroupCHANGINGATTITUDES IN ESL WRITINGTEACHERS 59



5/25

work and for TEs to structure ssignments o shape the learningprocess.After wo class periods,STs are divided intogroupsof6-8; eachgroupchooses a name for tself.Allwriting asks nd peer coachingare done amongmembersof thisgroup.An initialquestionnairesgiven to STs the first ay of class. This includes questionsaboutwhat the STs write, ike to write, re good/poor at writing; heirperceptions of learners' writing problems; and their teachingexperience.Students re also asked to write at least two dialoguejournal entries to the TE duringthe term; the journals includethoughts, questions, reactions, evaluations, and experiencesconcerningwriting rom heir wn previous experiences, eadings,or classwork.The TE respondsto the ournals nwriting.The questionnaire and journal responses which are quotedthroughout hispaper as well as commentsfromteacher-studentconversations ave been gatheredfrom pproximately 00 STs, inthree classes from1988, 1989, and 1990. The data illustrate heproblemsengendered by their xperienceofwriting, heresultantnegativeattitudes owardswriting nd theteachingofwriting,heprocessesofchangetheseattitudes ndergoduring hecourse,andthestrategieswhichappear tohelp bring bout thesechanges.

"I SAY ITS SPINACH":NEGATIVEATTITUDES TOWARDSWRITINGANDTEACHINGWRITINGAlthoughndividuals iffer,Ts repeatedly ighlightour reasasproblems:a) a dreadofwriting,speciallywritingo be graded;(b) boredomwith eneral opics nd ntimidationytechnicalnes;(c) insecuritybout heirwnwritingkills;nd d) insecuritybouttheir wnteachingkills, articularlyngiving eedback,markingerrors,ndgrading.

DreadofWritingGivenan opportunitynd encouragemento explorepersonalopinions about writing, he STs in thepracticumvividly expressnegativefeelings owardsengaging nwriting:1. Producing piece of writing as alwayscome after periodofsuffering.2. I amnowexperiencingompletendtotal nxietyverwriting.An examinationfthefirstournal ntriesor achclass shows novert xpressionfnegative ttitudesowardswritingnd/or heteaching fwriting,s evidencedbytheuse of wordssuch as dread,60 TESOL QUARTERLY



6/25

anxiety, fraid, errified or about 90%of all STs. In theiropportu-nityfor advanced study, hese STs represent smallsubgroupoftheirpeers; theirmotivation obecome teachersofEnglishwritingmustbe recognized nspiteof their ear nd dislikeof t.When STs themselvesdo not like writing, his fact inevitablyleads to anxiety nd lack of enthusiasm bout thewritingwhichwould be involved nanywriting ourse:3. I did not like the idea of havingto take a writing racticum,especiallywhen learned hatwe weregoing o practice n eachother.. anytype fwriting ouldbe good practice ndimprovemy bilities, ut didn't hink was going oenjoy t. viewedthecourse sbelongingnthe amecategorys spinach.STs frequentlyink uchfeelings irectlyo frustrationsithpre-vious experiencesas a student n first r second languagewritingclasses.Typically, omplaints ocusonanundueemphasis n super-ficial errors n grammar nd spellingwithoutregardto content,lack ofprewritingnputand preparationbothin content nd lan-guage), and a nonsupportive, onsympatheticttitude n thepartof the teacher:4. Allthatmy English rBahasaMalaysia eachers verdid were: i)provide he lasswith topic, ii) grade he omposition.o lengthydiscussions eregiven;many imes didn't nowwhat ocus shouldgive o a certainompositionopic. don't now how] survivedllthose lasses.5. Writingn a second language, n French,was sheerhell.., ingeneral. ssaystructure,rganization,nd nterestingontent entoutthewindow s I agonized vergrammaticalerfection.6. I used to hate compositionn highschool.... The teacherwas

alwaysmad becausewe had so manygrammatical istakes. henshewouldgiveus a lecture n the mportancef English-ifwedidn'tmprove urEnglish, e weren't oing oget ncollege...itmademehate omposition.Such negative feelings owardstheir wn writing irectly ffecttheir eaching fcomposition ourses, speciallywhen,as teachers,they ssume(often orrectly)hat heir wnstudents atewritingtleastas muchas theydo:7. In recent ears, havegrown ohatewriting.used towrite lotwhen wasyounger-everythingromhorttories opoetry. ut,over the years,writing as begun to be a task,rather hanapleasure ... Over the summer, taughtWriting ... I reallyfeltlike nidiot.There wastryingo teach ther eoplehow towrite,when I can'tevendo itmyself.

CHANGINGATTITUDES IN ESL WRITINGTEACHERS 61



7/25

Nonetheless, heonlymodels theyknowforteaching end to beones theythemselves uffered nderas students.The questionfortheTE, then, ecomeshow touse theirnsightsobreaktheviciouscycle ofteaching s theyhave been taught:8. I didn't ikethebook at all-and I don't hinkhestudentsiked teither-but didn't nowwhat lse todo.9. I still an recall omeunpleasantxperiencesfminewhile was astudentearningo writenEnglish. hereweretwoextremes:newas that was askedtokeep ournals very ay nEnglishwithoutany guidance and comments .... All the teacher did was ... countthepages hadwritten.he resultwasthat did notknowwhat owrite nd how to mprovemywriting.oon lost nterest.he otherextreme asthatmy ompositionrittennthe lassroom ithinwo

hours ndwithoutevision otso much ed nkon itto mark verymistake hadmade,which iscouragedme so much hat had littleconfidence left. Unfortunately. . when I became a foreign an-guageteacher, was almost lways emptedo do the amestupidthing.Insecurity boutOne's OwnWritingkillsConsiderable nsecurityboutwritingkills sexpressed, lthoughNSs tendto focuson surface rrors fgrammar nd spelling, nd onexplicitknowledgeofrules:10. Ifone is going oteachwriting,ne shouldknowthegrammarianrules fEnglishnside ndout. don'tknowthem hatwellyet.haven'ttudied nglish rammarince wasa kid.NNSs also express anxietyand frustrationt lack of specificlinguistic nowledgeof English,but even morefrustrations theyrealize thatmanyof theskills heyworkedso hardtodevelop inL1writing re notstanding hem ngood stead.11. Allthe kills wasso proud o havedevelopednparaphrasingnddecoratingmystylenSpanish re nowuseless nd dangerousnfrontf the oncisenessfEnglish.NNSs oftenassume theywill never develop adequate skills inwritten nglish,yettheyknowtheymustteach t.Insecurity boutTeaching kills nd theAbilityo Provide eedbackThe STs have often een therelationship etween teachingandlearningwriting s tenuous:12. Gettingnterestingstudent] ritingseemed ucha mystery.otsomethinghatust nyone oulddo.62 TESOL QUARTERLY



8/25

BothNSs andNNSsexplicitlyink tudent ailures o earnwritingskills o teacher ehaviornwritinglasses. t wouldbe easyforthem o become defensive bout their xperience, ut n mostcases,NNSs takepainsto explainthehandicaps theyfeel that eachers thomewereworkingunder,e.g., largeclasses, ack of training,ndorientationnlytowardsexaminations:13. Teachershaveto conform o the traditions.lso, tudentsre soused tothegrammaticalpproach hatt s hardfor hem oacceptany reativepproaches.14. Teachingwritingsnotpreferable.tgivesmorehomeworkotheteacher han he other ubjects.t is time-consumingnd itoftenmakes he eacheroseher emper ecause tubborn istakesftenappear nthe tudents' riting.ut incewritingsrequired ythecurriculum,here hould e someone o sacrificeo teachwriting.Frustration verpersistentrrorsnstudentwriting nd inabilityof theSTs to deliverwhattheyfeelto be effective eedback havebeen consistent omplaints:15. I taught course nwritingesearch apersat a small ollege nKenya.... I had no idea ofwhere ostartwhen orrecting....naivelythought hat spending] he first alf of the semesterreviewing grammar, usage, punctuation.. . could reduce theoccurrenceferrorsn the students' esearch apers.Well, waswrong.... I shouldn't e so condescending-my rading killswere ust s poor.NSs who feel moreconfidentn their inguisticnd writingbil-itiesand have had editingor teaching xperience n L1 oftenfindthetransitionoteachingL2 compositiondifficult:16. Asaneditor ... [straightened]p articles nmy wn-correctingspellingmistakes, ddingorremoving unctuation.. The tempta-tion o do thatwhengradingtudents'apers sstrong.17. I'd taught ritingtonative nglish peakers] or everal ears ..theenvironmentnthe ESL] classroom, owever,wastotally if-ferent. couldno longer akeforgrantedhatmy tudents ouldunderstand veryword I said, what topics I referred o .... Andalthough hadbackpacked hrough uropeonmyown.. . I stillhadnot xperiencedhe omplete ulturend anguagehock hesestudents ere xperiencing.Some NSs who are excellentwritersnEnglishexpressfrustrationnot as writers ut as teachers; heyrealize thatdevelopingempathywith L2 learners also means that they have to learn more,consciously, boutwriting rocesses:

18. A problemfor me is teachinggood writinghabitsto mystudents,because I usuallydon't use themmyself.CHANGINGATTITUDES IN ESL WRITING TEACHERS 63



9/25

19. BecauseI enjoywritingnd don'tfind tparticularlyifficult,think havecertain elatedproblemsnteachingt... youcan'tteach nstinctoyour tudents.Although Ts are aware of their rustrationsnd insecurity, avingto write he ournals cts as whatmight e called a powerful riggerto awareness and thusdevelopment; hearticulationnd analysisofcauses and effects eflect hecharacterization fwriting s a pro-cess ofdiscoveringmeaning Flower& Hayes, 1981;Zamel, 1982).ProblemswithTopics

Rigidity and boredom associated with typical topics (i.e.,content, ubject matter) n writing lasses are frequently ited ascauses ofnegative ttitudes owardswriting ybothNSs andNNSs:20. Whydo most fthe tudentsot ike he ourse fcomposition?think hat ne ofthereasonss that hetopics renot nteresting.Before,he tudentsidn't aveany hoice.21. Mostwritingssignmentsn mypast experience ave centeredaround ither ery trictlynforced oundariesn bothformndcontentsuchas a research aper)or thecomplete pposite-noboundariest all:"Write boutyour eelingsboutdeath." he firstwasdoablebutnon-creativendtedious.. the econddoablebutB.S.Studentswho have taught, r who see a likelihoodof teaching,scientific or technical English writinghave felt particularlyintimidatedby the prospect, even before they are aware thatparticular tyles, iscoursefunctions,nd grammatical atterns reassociatedwith uchwriting. heydespairatfinding nytopicthatcould please everyone:22. It'shard o select opics or tudentsowrite.fa teacherets topicthat s not nterestedystudents,he tudents on't eel ikewritingbecausethey on'tknow.whato write ndhowtogeneratedeas.Thiswill care hemway.

STRATEGIESFOR CHANGING NEGATIVEATTITUDESST journals nd questionnairesonsistentlydentify ive trategies

as mosthelpful n changingnegativeattitudes owardswriting ndtheteaching fwriting:a) havingSTs designwritingasks nd thenactuallydo them, b) requiring evision f tasksand responses, c)guiding peer coaching, (d) providingguided practice in topicdevelopment,and (e) helping STs analyze and understandthewriting rocessthroughwritingournals.64 TESOL QUARTERLY



10/25

Designing ndResponding oWriting ssignmentsThroughout the course, STs do small assignments nvolvingspecificaspects ofdesigningwriting asks,forexample,writing radapting a controlledwritingpassage with an exerciserequiring

wordor sentence-levelmanipulation, r a guidedcompositionwithquestionson a picture. n mostcases,one ST designs taskforESL/EFL students,and another ST in the group responds, that is,actuallydoes thetask.Thisusuallyproducesan immediatenegativereaction, ometimes ecause thedesigner ealizeshowunappealingtheresultingask sto do and sometimes ecause of fearofexposureof one's work to peers (based on past experienceof ridicule orseverecriticism):23. Thefirsthinghat thought henyoutoldus to "do"the xercisethatwe'd writtennclass (aboutthediagram f theroom)was,"Yuck wouldn'twant ohave to do this "tmade mereallyhinkaboutall the ssignments've givenn thepastandhow wouldn'thave wanted ohavetodo them.24. Whenyoutoldus togive omeone lseour room ssignments"ortheother owrite esponseso, wasclearlyhocked.. I for nedidn't ake tookindlyo the dea of some"stranger"ookingnd

making ommentst mywork.. . It's one thing o be labelledstupidby theteacher.. and quiteanother o be ridiculed y afellow lassmate.Although this might be considered only a teacher trainingtechnique focusing n mastering particularpiece of the processmodel of composition, t is another inkto teacherdevelopment.Recognition fproblemswithtasks eads to sometimesdevastatingself-criticismhatcomes withawarenessthatpast teaching xperi-ence has been inadequate:25. This classmakesme embarrassedbout thewritinglasses 'vetaught. es-I've madeallthose orrible,oring ssignments.26. If anyonewould have suggestedhat heseeminglynwarrantedpoor response omeofmy tudents ave madetomyassignmentswaspartly ecause ofmeI wouldhavebeenoffended. owever,the nsighthat havegainednto heprocess fwritingmonthgohas mademe changemymind.The realization f this ruth asalmost een traumatic.In two respects,ST responses often manifestfewerproblemsthanwouldbe thecase ina regularESOL class.First, ecause oftheadvanced level ofwritingkills ntheclass,thenumberoferrorsnthe responses is small. Second, the peer responderscan oftenunderstandwhat the instructionseally ntended and answer the

CHANGINGATTITUDES IN ESL WRITING TEACHERS 65



11/25

presumedtaskrather hantheactual instructions.For example,aninstruction to "change woman to man and all pronouns" isunderstood as "change the gender of all relevant pronouns.")Nonetheless,"real" problems occur regularly.Perhaps the mostimportantesson s that askdesigners etwhatthey skfor,nsteadof whattheymayhave had inmind:27. It is a goodwaytohaveusplaythe oleboth s a studentndas ateacherby practicingdesigning ssignmentso students ndrespondingotheother'sssignments.romthese xercises, canrealize whatpossibledifficulties studentmayencounterfthegiven ask sunclear runproper.RevisionI have made revision of virtuallyall tasks and responsesmandatory.Grades are not recorded until all revisionshave beenmade, including evision or ontent evelopment nd organizationas well as grammar, ocabulary, nd mechanics.The literature n revision s an importantnd beneficialpartofthe writing process is extensive (e.g., Flower, Hayes, Carey,Schriver, & Strateman, 1986; Rose, 1980; Sommers, 1980).Unfortunately,nmanywriting lassrooms evision s still iewed aseither n unaffordableuxury r as cheating.Even thoseSTs whoagree that revision of their own work-for example, researchpapers-is desirablegenerallyhave little dea of whatis involved,how to do it,and what tfeels ike:28. I findmyself ritinghe Magnolia" aragraph our r five imes.Thisreallymade meawareof what t s that amwritingbout ndhow should o it.

Given the STs' negativeattitudes owardswriting, he revisionpolicy addresses themfirst s writerswho need to understand hewriting rocess,even ifthey re good writers hemselves. econd,they lso improvetheir wn writingkills, t their evel. Everyonemakes errors nd produceswork whichcan benefitfromrevision;therefore,Ts need to understand ndpracticerevision s a normalpart of the writing process. The main ways in which thisunderstandings encouraged are the journals,open discussionofdifficultiesand joys) ofwriting nd revision, nd quotationsfromfamouswriters n the difficultiesfwriting.Yet thesearenotsimply tudents fwriting, utwritingeachers,whoneed todevelop an awarenessofthewriting rocess-of whichrevision s a part-throughthe tasks,rather hanbeing fixatedontheir actual writtenproduct. They also need to learn to see the66 TESOL QUARTERLY



12/25

relationship etweenthe tasks theydesign and the resultantimplicationsortheresponses o thesetasks. This helps themtransferheir nderstandingftheirwnwritingrocessesothoseof theirtudents:29. After ritingut he xercisesor hemuseumour astweek, feltvery nsatisfiedbout t.Especiallyo afterookingt L's]fantasticexercises felt ikethrowingmine n the drain But refrainedmyself went o the ibrarynd tried orefinemyexercises....Theenormousmountf books n the ibraryeally elpedAt the beginning, he extraworkthatrevisionentailsproducesresentment,nd the criticism iven,no matterhow constructive,engendersshock,particularly romNSs. However, eventually he

benefits ecome apparent:30. I alwayshated, fter ne ofmyburst fbrilliance hilewriting,ogobackandcleanupandtieup and rethinkany] pparentweakpoints. 'd gottenhroughhe task nd thatwas it-the painwasover, ndmyproduct asdelivered. ut .. I've earnedoedit, e-edit,re-read,tc.... I often ind hingshat wasn't ooking or:imperfect rganizationas if my organizations ever perfectanyway),ndproblems ithogicorcontent.nvariably,am ableto mprovemypaper hroughhis rocess.Guided PeerCoaching ndFeedbackSTs lack skillsand confidence n givingfeedback. Often theirprevious experience as language studentshas left them with arepertoire f feedback techniquesof verylimitedrange: a gradealone, a grade plus general vague comments such as "good,""unclear," r"awkward,"or a moreor essdetailedmarking revencorrecting fall surface rrorsZamel, 1985):31. When wasingrammarchool .. I always houghthatmygradedependedmore n howthe eacher elt hat articularaythan nthequalityofthepaper. . . The few teachers hatgave comments,onlygavenegative nes.Some ofusare toosensitiveo handle omuchcriticismwithout nypraise. ... I sometimeswonder f willremember hat t s ike obe a studentfter havebeenteachingformanyyears.

In ordertoprovideSTs withexperience ngivingmoreconstruc-tive,process-orientedeedback, nthepracticum eedback sinitial-lymodeled concretely nd explicitly y theTE; it s closely guidedduringthepeer coachingexperiences. call itfeedforward o en-courage STs to view this n a way otherthanpunishment r criti-cism.CHANGINGATTITUDES IN ESL WRITINGTEACHERS 67



13/25

Peer coaching s related to cooperative earningprocessesand topeer review (Mittan, 989),butoccurs at the evels of bothstudent(writer)and teacher coach). For each assignment, ne personineach group sdesignated hecoach for hat ssignment. hatpersonis responsiblefor a) collectingassignments tasksand responses)fromgroup members, b) giving nitialfeedback, (c) handinginmarkedassignmentsnd cover sheetto theTE, (d) receivingTE'scommentsand revisingfeedback if necessary, e) workingwithgroupmembers on revisions, nd (f) collectingand handing n allrevisionsto theTE. This close modeling s necessary n ordertoforceSTs topracticenew typesofassignments.The first ssignments collected by theTE, who giveswrittenfeedforward; his ervesas a model for thetypeof feedback to bepracticed.For each assignment, hedesignatedcoaches meetwiththeTE at the end ofclass to go over their oachingtask. Feedbackis requiredas follows: a) a content-orientedesponseto thepieceof writing, ndicating mpathy,understanding,nd interest e.g.,"Yes, it's an awfulfeeling o be lost";"This sounds ikea greatplaceto spend a vacation."); (b) comments, queries, criticism, ndsuggestions n organization nd developmentofcontent,ncludingclarity fmeaning f ndividual entences e.g., "Whichpersondoesthis?" How about putting ll thedescription f the outsideof thehouse together, nd all the insideof the house afterwards?"); ndfinally c) marking f individualerrorswith a set of error ymbols(e.g., ww = wrongword,tns= wrongtense,wo = wrongorder).Atfirst,oaches typically ithermisssurfaceerrors r catchonlysurface errorsbut do not address more global problems.Whenresponding o difficultangled entences, oaches tendto usevagueinstructionsuch as "rephrase." n manycases, bothNS and NNScoaches mark s incorrectomething hat s, nfact, orrect-due totheir own lack of English competence (sometimes in basicgrammar, ometimes nstylisticrdialectvariation):32. Both imes s a coach, 'venoticed hat ouhavepicked utwrongusesofwords hathavegoneright yme. Once pointed uttheyseemvery latant.Coaches at first suallyrespondto content nlywithcomments

like "good" or "interesting." riticism s oftennot balanced bypraise, for example, "You didn't writeabout why thissingerispopular." (insteadof "The description f the singer's ifestory svery good. Why is he so popular?"). Practice,and insistenceonrevision n response to'feedforward, lleviatesmuch of the STs'insecurityboutwritten esponse.68 TESOL QUARTERLY



14/25

For both NSs and NNSs, insecurity bout writingskills andteachingskillshampersefforts o give specificor helpfulfeedfor-ward. This problem is specifically ddressed duringthe stage inwhich the TE is checkingthe coach's initialfeedforward.Queries,corrections,nd suggestions rom heTE are put on thepapers onPost-itnotes,so that the coach can incorporatethese notes intocomments o thewriter.f these notes are not mmediately learorthere s disagreement etween the coach and thewriter, hecoachand TE discuss theproblems:33. I thoughttwouldbe fun obe a coach-to do whatmyteachersusedto do onmy ompositions.HA )Aftereing coachtwice,realizedthat t's notfunto be a coach and it'snoteasyto be a

teacher.34. I'veagonized ver .. the xperiencefbeing he oach. read ndreread the compositionswondering f my responses wereappropriatend meaningful.f a sentence idn'tseem clear,wonderedf twas the entence rmy nterpretation. . was itabad sentence,r was ta goodsentencehat didn'tikebecause twaswrittenna style ifferenthanmy wn?35. I despisehaving ther eople peers) ritiquemywork]. .. So Iunderstand hen tudentsalk tmy uggestionoreadeachother'swork ndcommentn t.Again, direct intervention y the TE (throughdirected andmodeled coachingand feedback)can lead bothto a specificchangein classroompractice, nd also "start heteacher ST] on a processof reflection nd critique" (Freeman, 1989, p. 40). Ellis (1990)describesteacherpreparation ractices s those that re "experien-tial" and those that"raise awareness,"but notes thattheyare notmutually xclusive, nd can be combined nthesame activity. heexperiencesreportednthis tudy upport hisview that here s,orcan be, a very loseconnection etweentrainingnskills ndoveralleducation.Specifictensions ccasionallyarisebetween NNSs and NSs, andwithinndividuals verwearing hetwo hatsofstudent nd teacher.BothNSs and NNSs commenton feelingdiscomfort t havingto

give criticism o peers-coaches maintaininghat tis easy to givefeedback to students,but not to equals. This attitude s easy tounderstandgiven these STs' past experience of feedback as animportantfactor in their well-developed dread of (teaching)writing. he guidelineproposedtothecoaches is a simplevariationofthegoldenrule:givefeedforwardoyour tudents s iftheywereCHANGINGATTITUDES IN ESL WRITINGTEACHERS 69



15/25

yourpeers,notvice versa. Learningto do this s supportedby: (a)guidedpractice, b) theface-savingupport fhaving heTE checkcoaches' feedbackbefore t s seenbythewriter,nd (c) therestingof authoritywith theTE as theonly personwho can give a final"OK" on anyassignment,hat s,can rule tacceptable,requiring ofurther evision.NNSs are often reluctant o give commentson discrete errorsbecause theyfeelthey ack linguistic ompetenceand also assumethatNSs writers' rganizationmustbe, by definition,orrect.NScoaches are almost always more correct in English, but arenonethelessuncertain bout errorsbecause of their ack of overtknowledge of rules.NNSs are usually ess linguisticallyccurate,but often have explicit knowledge of rules and are able to giveexplanations hatNSs cannot;nonetheless,heyfeel ntimidated ndwithout heright ocriticizeNSs.36. To correct ative peakers' ssignmentsas hard ndeasy. t washardbecause heir nglishanguagekills remuch etter hanmineand t's lmostmpossibleo ook for mistake.t'seasybecauseallI could do was writegood organization,lear anguage" tc. or tocatch heirypingmistakes.STs are oftenunsureto what extentpeers can be asked to redoassignments, particularlywhen problems arise from incorrectinstructionsr otherproblemsin theoriginalassignment.n suchsituations, oaches or othergroup membersmay talk to the TEprivately nd ask foradvice or intervention. he more severe ofthese problems are usuallyhandled in TE-coach conferences, nwhich theTE givesboth specificsuggestions orwordingof feed-forward nd rulings n "correctness."Manyoftheseconflicts temfrombasic negativeassumptions: hatrevision s punitive nd thatsuggestions orrevisionmustcome from recognizedauthority.STs all recognizethebenefits fworkingninternationally ixedgroups.For U.S. NSs who have had no EFL experience, heNNSSTs are an invaluable source of information about specificconsiderations uch as suitability f topic,or appropriate evel ofdifficulty.ometimesNSs are not aware of how culturally oundtheir ssignmentsre, as evidenced in this ournalentry-and lateron in direct and tactful commentsto the task designer-by aFilipinaST:37. The contextse made .. wereculturallyiased.... I don'thavethebackgroundnowledgebout his art fAmerica's istory...Whatwouldhewritef askedhim o make compositionn"tikogweaving"when haven'toldhimwhat ikogs?

70 TESOL QUARTERLY



16/25

Of course, the dynamics of group work are importanthere.Insecuritynd reluctance oexpose ignorance rto criticize eers sto some extent alanced by themotivation o improve:38. I freaked utwhen saw some fthework ther eopleweredoing,itseemed omuchmore ndepth hanmine.39. This sthefirstime realize hat writinglasscan nvolve lotofpeercommunicationnd nteraction. . working ith hepeersofthe amegroup educes heembarrassmentndtensenessroughtabout f he tudents tofacethe eacher lone. n order o comeupwith good assignment,hestudents f the samegroupneedtoshare mutual enseof devotion nd cooperation. ven thoughsomeshy nd introverttudentsmayfeel nhibitednspeakinguttheir pinion,hey an overcome heirhynessngroupparticipa-tion.Although he findings f thisstudyrepeatedlydemonstrate hesimilarities ather handifferencesn the experiencesof NSs andNNSs and the benefitsof the group-workprocess, there areoccasionally problems-potentiallyexcellent vehicles for aware-ness-raising. he dynamicbetweenNSs and NNSs peerscan lead tocoaches becoming emotionallyparalyzed. NSs are reluctanttocriticize nd thereby urt hefeelings fpeople intheirgroupwhoare alreadyhavingproblemsand maytherefore eeldiscriminatedagainst. NSs can also become frustratedwith NNSs' "incompe-tence" as supposed peers and become disappointedthattheyarenotgetting s muchhelpfrom hem s they regiving.On theotherhand, NNSs can become frustrated with NSs' "arrogance,""condescension,"or incompetent elp and feel guilty skingthemformorehelp.

Practice nTopic DevelopmentToo often,ESL writing lasses are characterizedby spendingshort mountsof time on differentopics,sometimeswithundueemphasison controversialopicsto stimulatewriting r on generaltopicstowhicheveryone ntheclasspresumablyhas equal access.The approach followed nthisclass,however,fallswell within heapproaches to writing enerallydescribed as content-based e.g.,Shih,1986) or "language across thecurriculum."n thecourse oftopic development,responsibility or nitial nputcomes from heTE; thisresponsibilitys thentransferred o the STs when theypreparetheirndividualfinalprojectson their wn.A successionoftopics and projects of increasing complexity and increasingindividualresponsibilityorresearch redone inclass.A numberofCHANGINGATTITUDES IN ESL WRITINGTEACHERS 71



17/25

small, ndividual, pparentlyunrelated ssignments re givenfirst,focusingon areas including asktype contextualizedfreewriting,controlled, semicontrolled,and guided); note-taking;discoursefunctions;grammarpoints; transfer f information; ormats; ndstyles.Attention s given to writing tyles haracteristicf naturalscience, social science, engineering,business, and humanitieswritingtyles.The first omprehensive topic project is done on a topic forwhichknowledgeand responsibilitys sharedequallyby the entireclass. The mostfrequent opic has been maple syrup based on afieldtrip nd writtenexts).Allmembers f the classgo on the fieldtrip and have access to the same texts. A set of assignmentspracticing revioustechniques s givenand coached within roups.In the second projectstage,each groupworksondevelopingoneaspect of a single topic (e.g., forests,harks, lbatrosses,Australia).The whole class has a common body and depth of knowledgeprovided, forexample, by viewingthe same video orreadingthesame texts.Each groupis then ssigneda subtopicto research ndforwhich to design writing ssignments, or example, scientificstudyof thebaskingshark,protection f Australian eaches fromsharks, nd transferf sharksbetweentanks n an aquarium.When

all groupshave finished,opies oftheir inalrevisedtasks remadeavailable to everyone lse inthe class.In the finalproject tage,each ST chooses an individual opicanddevelops itprimarily orwriting asks.A finalprojectchecklistseetheAppendix) that s attached to the finalproject is provided toensure hatparticularypesof tasks ndexplanations re ncluded ntheproject,but there s a tremendous ariety fdesigndependingon theST and thetopic.STs typically nter he class terrifiedt theprospectofdoinganindividualfinalproject:40. I see the classbuilding p to something,ike a mountainn thedistance,oomingver loser ut till ery ar way. seea project,sometask,much ikethe mountain:mposingooking, efinitelysomethingne doesn'tustshrug ff.We'rebeingshownhow tochip way tthemountain,o find hepath hatwill eadto ts eingmovedslowly.We aren't llowedto go around, t'stoo big forthat. .. No,we have omove t omehowndwe havebeen howna coupleofways hat ake stonehere nd there.Wearesupposedtoapplythat o moveother tones,othinkf otherwaystomovestones.Godit's bigmountain.... But t's omposed frocks,ndrocks an be moved.

Theyare often ntimidated ythe dea thatourclassprojectwillbeabout science; bothNSs and NNSs are overwhelmedby technical72 TESOL QUARTERLY



18/25

vocabularynvideos rtexts,venwhen heresample xplanation.Therefore,onsiderablettentionspaidtoprewritingreparationand tohelpingTs to ike ndunderstandhe opic:41. One thing really njoyed eeing n class was thatdiversitynsubjectmatter elpsthe nstructoreep studentsnterestedndmakesteaching un. sufferedhroughmanyhoursof Englishclasses nhigh chool nd so forthnd cannot ecallhavingearnedmuch f nything.t'snice obe able torecall ow pecificnstancesofpicking p littlehingsere ndtherehat didn't nowbefore.Maple syrup,harksndgarbage ometomindmmediately.42. I've beenenjoyingeeing he ndless arietyfsources hat anbeexploited n a writing lass .... I have slowlydrivenmyself atty,lookingtpoetryooks nthe ibrary,verymagazinerticle,verypicture, veryadvertisement,ven postagestamps, s possiblematerial or a project.Will recover,nd be able to look at aNationalGeographicor njoymentver gain?Since manyoftheSTs in thecourseare simultaneously eachingESL composition ourses, hey ften ry ut new techniquesntheirown classrooms, aking he nextsteptowards ndividual ontrol fthe process by adapting it fortheirown needs. Seeing how the

techniqueworks nd reflectingponit ead togreater warenessoftheoverallapproach:43. I tookmy .. Writing class to theUniversity useum.Ourtourincluded heforestryndpioneer ectionsndsomeofthe tudentswandered intothe section on Indians .... As I read their ssays,realized nceagainhowgoodsuch hands n"writingxperiencesreally re. The students' escriptions ereveryclear and theirvocabulary adobviouslyxpanded.44. I havealready ried roup ditingnmyLevel1class nd tworkedgreat had been toldmystudentsouldn't vendo their wnrewritingo I hadn't venconsideredroup diting. ut heyove tand do learn. 'mregaining y nthusiasmorwriting ith 1 andthey repickingtup.In some cases, the trial s notsuccessful; heST has an opportunityto discuss twiththe TE (often nthe ournal)to try ounderstandwhathappened and how toimproveknowledgeofa technique.The attempts o try utthisnew approachaffects spectsof lifeoutsideoftheclassroom, orexample:45. I wantedmy hildren.. towriteettersoourrelativesndfriendsinColombia.Ofcourse, eitheridtheywritewhat hey adto nor[enjoy] the writingactivity. . . I gave them two sets of fivequestions about possible interesting ews my children'sfriends




19/25

would want to know ....In thisway it was so easy forthemtowrite,ndtheproductwasso neat ndorganizedhat really awmychildrennjoyedwriting.... The daywhenthey repare hequestions ill omesoon.WritingournalsndUnderstandingheWritingrocess46. Writingsa process. orme, this ourse]wasalso a process.In this ourse, heprocess pproach owritingomplementedprocessapproach tothe earning f teachingwriting.Most evidentat thebeginning reSTs' realizations hat heir reviousunderstand-ingsof how good writing omes about were based on misconcep-tions,supporting mpossiblemodels which guaranteeda sense ofdismay fnot totalfailure:47. I was somewhaturprisedo learnfrom he research hatgoodwriters utline ndrewritemorefrequentlyhando poorwriters.Heretofore, assumed hatgoodwriters id not outline rwriterough rafts.waspleased ofind hat, hilemywriting aynotbegood, am at eastgoing bout heprocess fwritingntheproperfashion.Not only does thischange in viewpointrefer to the process ofwriting s a writer,but to the demystificationf the process ofteachingwriting.

48. Howrelieved feel hat wasn't he nly newhofacesdifficultynwriting. ow relieved feltwhenour nstructorxplained hatgood pieceofwritingsusuallyheresultf much re-thinkingndpre-writingiscussionandrevision].It]helpedmeto understandmyownprocess fwriting.Part oftheprocessoflearning boutprocessis guided introspec-tion. Porteret al. (1990, p. 227) have described theusefulnessof"learningogs" ("a running ccountofwhat s goingon as [theSTs]workin a particular ourse") in teacherpreparation ngetting Tsmoreinvolvedin their wn learning nd helpingthemmake moreconnections between themselves and the course material. Theexperience of thispracticumcertainly upportsTE-ST dialoguejournals s a crucial inkbetweenpractice nd awareness.Havingto

writereactions, deas, and insights or anotherpersonhelps defineand focus these, encouragingor even guaranteeing n analyticmode. Furthermore,he overwhelmingmajorityof STs will notdiscusstheir eactions rallywith heTE. In somecases,thecontentispersonal,painful, rperceivedas embarrassing,nd thewritingsa usefulway togainsomeprotective istance.The journals re thus74 TESOL QUARTERLY



20/25

an invaluableway forthe TE to understandwhatis developinginthe STs and to gain some insightsnto the reasons forchange. Adialogue journalencouragesreal collaboration etweenteacher ndstudentrather han one-sided evaluation Vannett& Jurich, 990).(For ongoing elf-awareness,Ts are encouragedtokeep diariesoftheir wn teaching nd learning xperiences.)CONCLUSION

Mostworkpublishedonthequestionof howbestto teachwritingteachers o teachwritingddressesEnglishas a firstanguage (e.g.,Krupa, 1982; Papay, 1983; Ruszkiewicz, 1987; Spooner &O'Donnell, 1987). Work on training eachers to teachESL writing(e.g., White,1979) has not addressed the issues raised here, andresearchon ESL teachereducation e.g., Richards& Nunan,1990)has notspecifically ddressedtheteaching fwriting.Most issues in teaching writing re the same forNS and NNSteachers, or xample,bothrespond imilarlyolackof feedback orto only negativecriticism,nd both tendto teachin theways theyhave been taught.However,somesourcesofnegative ttitudes ndinsecuritiesare different.NSs may dislike developing furtherwriting kills n theirL1, buttheyusuallyhave some confidence ntheir inguisticntuitions, hereasNNSs are generallymuchmoredoubtful bout their 2 abilities.On the otherhand,NSs oftenhavelittle nsightnto overtprocesses involved n L2 writing nd oftenfeelfrustratedryingoteach orexplainwriting,whereasNNSs aresometimesmore aware of specificdifferences etweenwritingntheirL1 and L2 and can sometimesexplain these more easily tolearners. NNSs can also usuallyempathizemore specifically ndeasilywith heir tudents han anNS teachers, speciallywhenNSshave had little xperiencewritingnan L2.The overwhelmingesponseof STs inthis lass to nitial uestionson how theyfeel about writinghas been mildlyto profoundlynegative.Thishashamperedtheir bilities operformffectivelysteachers of writing.These STs are aware of thisproblem; theyrecognizethe inkbetweentheir wnattitudes owardswritingndtheteachingofwriting.t is essential hattheir ttitudes hangetomorepositiveones.49. I never houghtwouldsay anythingikethiswrite nythingikethis)but actuallymisswritingompositions.. couldthismeanthat amactually eginningo ike t?The principles nwhichtheapproachdescribedhere sbased arewellknown:earningydoing, earner-centeredndteacher-structuredCHANGINGATTITUDES IN ESL WRITINGTEACHERS 75



21/25

learning, onsciousness-raising.s Youngand Lee (1985) pointout,"new attitudes re more likelyto be transferredhrough ace-to-face communication"nd by"activeparticipation y thesubject nsome behavior associated with the new attitude" (p. 189).Furthermore,those teacherswho are betterable to identify heprinciplesunderlying new approach are also more likelyto feelthat t s a more effectiveway ofteaching" p. 192).One essential ngredientn thisprocessof change is to developSTs both as writers nd as writing eachers.By recognizing heirown struggles nd ways of succeeding and by empathizingwiththosestruggles nd ways of succeedingin their tudents, eacherslessen the distancebetween themselves nd students nd removemuch of the unfairburden of unrealisticmodels of the writingprocess and of writing competence; STs develop reasonableexpectations fresponsibilityor mprovingwritingndreplace (orat least supplement)bad writing xperiencewitha good experi-ence.50. We arebeing ssigned ualroles: ne as a EFL graduatetudentstudyinghe heoryndart fteaching ritingna foreignanguageprogramnd theother s a studentearningowritena foreignlanguage.On the onehand,we arelearning ow toteachwritingfrom omposing rocesses uidedandrevealed tep by step. Byassignmentesigningnd redesigning...we are developing nunderstandingfthebasic characteristicsndtechniquesfgradedwriting.n the ther and, oing esponsendrevision orkmakesmeexperienceomethingaluablefrom positionfa student hois earningo writen foreignanguage.Myownresponse rovidesanimmediateeedbackbout hewritingaskdesigned.Richards& Crookes (1988) distinguish irect (actual teaching)

and indirectobservation) xperiences rovidedfornoviceteachersin practica.However, thepracticumexperiencedescribedhere issomewhere nbetween.The class is not an ESL writing lass,yet tcontainsdevelopingsecond languagewriters. here is an emphasison learningbydoing,yettheexperience s structurednd directed.The development of self-awareness s also encouraged by thejournals nd trainingn structuredbservations fwriting lasses.Could the kindofchangedescribedhere come about outsidethestructureof an overt teacher trainingenvironment uch as apracticum class? Exceptionally motivated and secure teacherscould no doubt come to such understandingson their own,particularlyhrough eepinga journal.However,theoverwhelmingfeelingsof insecurity,nxiety, nd dread expressedby these STsindicate a block for which some type of outside guidance,76 TESOL QUARTERLY



22/25

intervention,nd even insistence s probably necessaryin mostcases; the process is too painful, specially at the beginning.Thestunninghanges Ts report rom hebeginningothe ndofthecourse nclude their ecognitionhat heywould quite probablynothave made this hangeon their wn:51. I was shocked.... I foronedidn't ake tookindly o the dea ofsome "stranger" looking and making comments at mywork. .. Whatwas todo except omply?.. It'sonethingobelabelled stupidby the teacher . . and quiteanother obe ridiculedbya fellow lassmate orwritingike nuneducatederson. o fearofappearingtupidnfrontfmy lassmates otivated e toworkharderto avoid moreerrors.Now, I'm not "composition-shy"anymore,t eastnot s paranoid s I initiallyas.52. Thisprojectwasreallyworthwhile.onlywish wouldhavedoneit on myown.A TE can move STs to tryto reach new understanding,oth byprovidingguided stepsforwriting,whichcan encouragethe STs'awarenessand change,and by simplyhavingenoughexperience oknow that the STs can write and can teach writing, herebyproviding onfidencewhentheSTs themselves annotprovide t.The process described here does not support a dichotomybetweenteacher rainingnd teacher ducation.Clearly, rainingnspecifictechniquescan lead to greater elf-awareness,nd greaterunderstanding f one's own writingprocess can lead directly ochanges none's teaching:

53. [Now] at the endofthecourse, willeven admit hat enjoyedsome ofthework, speciallynce got tarted. actually njoyedaspects ftheprocess fwriting,uch sbeing ble to mprove hatwas already written. ... Perhaps [the course] is morelike a crossbetween pinachndchocolate.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSAn earlierversion f thispaper was presentedt the 24thAnnualTESOLConventionnSan Francisco,March1990.Theauthors gratefulor ommentsfromJeanMcConochie,whoalso suggestedheterm oach,and fromRichardYoung,KateParry,ndMonicaHodges.Above ll,thanksredue tothe tudentsinLING585,whopermittedheirournalsobe quoted.CHANGINGATTITUDES IN ESL WRITINGTEACHERS 77



23/25

THE AUTHORLise Winer s Assistant rofessorn theDepartmentf Linguisticst SouthernIllinoisUniversity-Carbondale.er publicationsncludeESOL readers nd ateacher's uideto Caribbean iterature;he s preparing handbook or ollegeESOL compositioneachers. erresearchnterestsnclude eacherducationndthe eachingfwriting.REFERENCESBartlett,. (1990). eacher evelopmenthrougheflectiveeaching.nJ.C. Richards D. Nunan Eds.), econdanguageeacherducation(pp. 202-214).Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity ress.Boyd, F. A. (1989). Developing presentationkills:A perspectivederived

fromprofessional ducation.EnglishforSpecificPurposes,8, 195-203.Ellis,R. (1990). Activities nd procedures for teacher preparation. nJ.C. Richards D. Nunan Eds.), Second anguage eacher ducation(pp. 26-36). Cambridge: Cambridge Universityress.Flower, L., & Hayes,J.R. (1981). A cognitiveprocess theory fwriting.CollegeCompositionndCommunication,2,365-387.Flower, L., Hayes, J.R., Carey, L., Schriver,K., & Strateman,J. (1986).Detection,diagnosis, nd thestrategiesfrevision.College CompositionandCommunication,7,16-55.Freeman,D. (1989). Teacher training,evelopment, nd decisionmaking:A model of teaching and related strategiesfor language teachereducation.TESOL Quarterly, 3(1), 27-45.Krupa,G. H. (1982). Helpingnew teachersofwriting:Book,model, andmirror.ollegeCompositionndCommunication,3,442-445.Mittan,R. (1989). The peer reviewprocess:Harnessing tudents' ommu-nicativeforce. n D. M. Johnson D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness nwrit-ing: EmpoweringESL students pp. 207-219).New York:Longman.Murphy-O'Dwyer, . M. (1985). Diary studies s a methodforevaluatingteacher raining.nJ.C. AldersonEd.), Lancaster ractical apers nEnglish Language Education: Vol. 6. Evaluation (pp. 97-128).Englewood Cliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall International.Papay, T. Y. (1983). A writing enterfor eachers.TeachingEnglish ntheTwo-Year ollege, ,157-160.Perl,S. (1979). The composing processes of unskilledcollege writers.ResearchntheTeaching fEnglish,8,317-336.Pianko,S. (1979). A descriptionof the composing processes of collegefreshmanriters.esearchn theTeaching fWriting,3,5-22.Porter,P. A., Goldstein,L. M., Leatherman,J.,& Conrad,S. (1990). Anongoing dialogue: Learning logs for teacher preparation. InJ.C. Richards D. Nunan Eds.),Second anguage eacherducation(pp. 227-240).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity ress.Richards,J.C., & Crookes,G. (1988). The practicum nTESOL. TESOLQuarterly,2(1),9-27.78 TESOL QUARTERLY



24/25

Richards,J.C., & Nunan,D. (Eds.). (1990). Second language teachereducation.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityress.Rose, M. (1980). Rigidrules, nflexible lans,and thestiltingflanguage:A cognitivistanalysis of writer's block. College Composition andCommunication,1,389-401.Ruszkiewicz,J. J. (1987). Trainingteachers is a process too. CollegeCompositionndCommunication,8,461-464.Shih,M. (1986). Content-based pproachesto teaching cademic writing.TESOL Quarterly,0(4),617-648.Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers andexperienced adult writers.College Compositionand Communication,33, 148-156.Spooner, M., & O'Donnell, H. (1987). From cheap labor to juniorcolleague:TrainingTAs incomposition. nglishEducation, 19,122-126.Vannett,L., & Jurich, . (1990). A context or ollaboration: eachersandstudentswriting ogether.n J.K. Peyton Ed.), Students nd teacherswritingtogether:Perspectives on journal writing pp. 49-62).Washington, C: TESOL.White,R. V. (1979). Trainingteachers to teach writing. n S. Holden(Ed.), Teacher training Special issue]. Modern English Teacher, 3,26-30.Young,R., & Lee, S. (1985). EFL curriculumnnovationand teachers'attitudes. n P. Larson,E. L. Judd,& D. S. MesserschmittEds.), On

TESOL '84: A Brave New WorldforTESOL (pp. 183-194).Washington,DC: TESOL.Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: he processofdiscoveringmeaning.TESOLQuarterly,6(2),195-209.Zamel, V. (1983). The composingprocessesofadvancedESL students: ixcase studies.TESOL Quarterly, 7(2), 165-187.Zamel, V. (1985).Responding o studentwriting. ESOL Quarterly, 9(1),79-101.




25/25

APPENDIXGrading heetfor ndividual inalProject

Name ofStudent:TitleofProject:0. Student/Class etting:1. Content:2. Culture:3. WritingAssignment ypes:

controlled guided freea) context:role, udience, format, easonforwriting, lace, timeb) instructionsreclearc) assignmentsre workable

4. Discourse Functions variety, ppropriate):5. SupportingExercises: vocabulary grammar6. Note-taking xercise:7. ReadingTexts:8. Media and Sense Variety:9. PhysicalActivity:

10. Arithmetic ctivity:11. GeographyActivity:12. Instructions oTeacher (optional):13. Presentation fProject:

grammar mechanics spelling, unctuation)references vocabulary overallformat

80 TESOL QUARTERLY

spinach to chocolate

Documents