ScienceDirect Constraints and difficulties in the ...

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 122 (2014) 433 – 437

2nd World Conference on Design, Arts and Education DAE-2013

Constraints and difficulties in the process of writing acquisition Blanka Frydrychova Klimova* University of Hradec Kralove, Faculty of Informatics and Management, Rokitanskeho 62, Hradec Kralove, 500 03, Czech Republic

Abstract Writing is considered one of the most difficult language skills to be acquired but also taught. However, at present it is one of the most used forms of communication thanks to the development of information and communication technologies. Therefore, the aim of this article is to reflect on the cognitive, social and cultural aspects, which might hinder the development of writing skills. Moreover, the author of the article links the theoretical knowledge with the practical outcomes of the questionnaire distributed among the students of Management of Tourism from the Faculty of Informatics and Management of the University of Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic. Finally, she attempts to propose what teaching method should be exploited when teaching writing purposefully. Selection andAuthors. peer-review underbyresponsibility Prof.Dr.Ayşe İlhan,Ankara University,Turkey © 2013 The Published Elsevier Ltd. of Open access underÇakır CC BY-NC-ND license. © 2013 Published by Elsevier Selection and peer-review underLtd. responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center. Keywords: Constraints, difficulties, second language writing, students;

1. Introduction Thanks to the development of modern information and communication technologies, writing is one of the most commonly used forms of communication nowadays (Frydrychova Klimova 2012). However, this skill is also one of the most difficult to acquire in a foreign language (FL). The reason is that in addition to learning strategies, writing requires a high proficiency of the target language. The author agrees with Kern (2000) who claims that knowing how to write a "summary" or "analysis" in Mandarin or Spanish does not necessarily mean that students will be able to do these things in English. As a result, any appropriate instruction must take into consideration the influence from various educational, social, and cultural experiences that students have in their native language. Therefore, this article mainly focuses on the constraints and difficulties in the process of writing acquisition. 2. Constraints and difficulties in the process of writing acquisition One of the reasons why writing is not easy to learn must certainly be cultural differences in the way academic register is perceived and understood in different countries. Clyne (1987) and Duszak (1994) characterize English as a low context culture while German, Czech or Polish belong to high context academic cultures. In a nutshell, this means that the English academic texts are perceived as being more clear and easy to understand than German texts which are more complex, full of nominalisations, compounds and modals. However, recent studies prove (cf. Biber, Gray & Poonpon 2011 or Biber & Gray 2010) that academic writing is generally structurally ‘compressed’, with phrasal (nonclausal) modifiers embedded in noun phrases.

* Corresponding author: Blanka Frydrychova Klimova Tel.: +420493332318 E-mail address: [email protected]

1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1367

434

Blanka Frydrychova Klimova / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 122 (2014) 433 – 437

In the Czech cultural environment knowledge and skills of writing are still neglected because writing is still perceived as a linguistic skill which is taught mainly at elementary schools and achieved through the mastering of grammatical and spelling rules. Writing is seen as an individual gift (Cmejrkova et al. 1999: 34). In the Anglo-Saxon world, however, writing is perceived as a skill which can be taught, practised and mastered. Czech students also tend to lack experience in writing and therefore the level of their writing is often very poor, even in the native language. This is unfortunately also true for higher education. Gillet (2004) sees writing as the most problematic use of English in Higher Education. Writing tasks vary from writing short answers in exams to writing dissertations and theses, and EAP courses often concentrate on the process of writing – planning, organising, presenting, re-writing, and proofreading. Typical writing skills include research and using sources; writing different text types as well as different genres; and using appropriate style (see also Cmejrkova 1999). Undergraduates and even Ph.D. students have problems in writing their bachelor papers, diploma papers and thesis, or even if they are required to write just a short scientific article or review. Therefore, to help university students to improve this skill, one must bear in mind that: • high cultural and social value is placed on the written version of the language; • the term literacy is almost synonymous with proficiency in the written language; • key definitions of what is standard language, what is correct and proper and even what is grammar are based on what has been described and codified in the written language (Carter 1995). Difficulties in writing might be also caused by social reasons, such as negative attitudes toward the target language, continued lack of progress in the FL, a wide social and psychological distance between them and the target culture, and, a lack of integrative and instrumental motivation for learning. Probably the key element for students’ writing from these is motivation (see also Frydrychova Klimova 2011). As Myles (12.6.2012) states, however, if students show an overall interest in the target language (integrative motivation), perceive that there is parental and social support, and have a desire to achieve their professional goals (instrumental motivation), they can become more proficient in their ability to write in English, despite the initial lack of self-motivation. Among the conditions for promoting motivation, Dornyei (2001: 138-144) cites: 5. Create a pleasant and supportive atmosphere. 6. Promote the development of group cohesiveness. 13. Increase the students’ expectation of success in particular tasks and in learning in general. 17. Make learning stimulating and enjoyable by breaking the monotony of classroom events. 18. Make learning stimulating and enjoyable by increasing the attractiveness of tasks. 19. Make learning stimulating and enjoyable for learners by enlisting them as active task participants. 20. Present and administer tasks in a motivating way. 23. Provide students with regular experiences of success. 24. Build your learners’ confidence by providing regular encouragement. 28. Increase student motivation by promoting cooperation among the learners. 29. Increase student motivation by actively promoting learner autonomy. 33. Increase learner satisfaction. 34. Offer rewards in a motivational manner. Furthermore, Dornyei (2005) proposed a new approach to the understanding of L2 motivation, conceived within the ‘L2 Motivational Self System’, which attempts to integrate a number of influential L2 theories (e.g. by Gardner 2001; Ushioda 2001) with findings of self research in psychology (e.g. Higgins 1987; Markus and Nurius 1986). He suggests three main components of the L2 Motivational Self System: • Ideal L2 Self, which is the L2-specific facet of one’s ‘ideal self’: If the person we would like to become speaks an L2, the ‘ideal L2 self’ is a powerful motivator to learn the L2. • Ought-to L2 Self, which concerns the attributes that one believes one ought to possess to meet expectations and to avoid possible negative outcomes. • L2 Learning Experience, which concerns situated motives related to the immediate learning environment and experience (e.g. the impact of the teacher, the curriculum, the peer group, the experience of success). In addition, Dornyei’s L2 Motivational Self System seems to make learners keener on doing things, but on the other hand, it makes them more responsible for their successes and failures. It also works with positive learning experiences.


435

Writing is believed to be cognitively complex. Particularly, acquisition of academic vocabulary and discourse style is difficult. According to cognitive theory, communicating in writing is an active process of skill development and gradual elimination of errors as the learner internalizes the language. Acquisition is usually a product of the complex interaction of the linguistic environment and the learner's internal mechanisms. One model that applies to both speaking and writing in a second language is Anderson’s (1985) model of language production, which can be divided into three stages: construction, in which the writer plans what he/she is going to write by brainstorming, using a mind-map or outline; transformation, in which language rules are applied to transform intended meanings into the form of the message when the writer is composing or revising; and execution, which corresponds to the physical process of producing the text. Besides knowing what they want to express and being under stress when writing, the most problematic stage of the writing process seems to be the process of transformation. The reason is that students most commonly lack a sufficient level of L2. Thus, they do not have a wide range of academic vocabulary and relevant discourse structures. Moreover, they try to apply certain linguistic rules in the target language on the basis of similarities with L2, which proves to be completely wrong. These errors are usually known as language interference. 3. Questionnaire outcomes In the summer semester of 2012, 20 students of Management of Tourism of the first and the third years of their study were given a questionnaire in order to find out what difficulties/problems they face when they write in L2 (in this case in English). As it has been mentioned above, the general outcome of students’ errors was a low proficiency of their English since they stated the following difficulties when writing. The difficulties are ordered according to their frequency in students’ questionnaires: • correct word order; • use of articles; • restricted range of vocabulary; • use of formal language; • correct spelling of English words; • grammar structures; • use of commas; • finding the ways how to start their writing; • transforming ideas from their native language into English; • writing references and bibliography. 4. Teaching methods/strategies Probably the most effective method when one speaks about writing is to let students write as much as possible during the course and provide them with diagnostic, constructive, useful and encouraging feedback on their writing performance. As Myles (2000) claims, it is important to systematically encourage learners to reflect on what they want to write and then helping them to make an appropriate choice of language forms has pedagogic value. However, before the writing itself students must be exposed to sufficient models of writing, both standard and non-standard in order to be able to distinguish and use different genres efficiently and effectively in their own writing. This is in fact the so-called product approach to writing. Overall, there exist two common approaches to writing, i.e. the product approach and the process approach. Recent trends in the teaching of writing emphasize process more than product (see Applebee 1981 or Steele 2004). The product approach to writing usually involves the presentation of a model text, which is discussed and analyzed. According to this model text learners construct a similar or a parallel text. This might seem a mechanical task; however, learners can discover the structure of the given discourse, its linguistic features and how its ideas are organized. The process approach to writing in contrast focuses on the development of language use: brainstorming, group discussion, re-writing. A comparison of both approaches is given below: Process approach

436


• text as a resource for comparison; • ideas as starting point, necessitating more than one draft; • focus on purpose, theme, text type …; • the reader (audience) is emphasized; • collaborative with other peers; • emphasis on creativity. Product approach • imitate a model text; • organization of ideas more important than ideas themselves; • one draft; • features highlighted including controlled practice of those features; • individual; • emphasis on end product. (Steele 2004) Dudley-Evans & St John (1998) introduce a third approach to writing – the social-constructionist approach, which takes account of individual writers and readers. It does not take into account the broader context of the writing process. Writing is seen as a social act in which writers have to be aware of the context in which they are writing. The context places certain constraints on what writers can write and on the ways in which they can express ideas. Thus, writers reflect the values, expectations and norms of the community to which they belong. In practice, teachers of writing very often use a mixture of the above mentioned approaches. Dudley-Evans & St John (1998) suggest the following approach to writing: • develop rhetorical awareness by looking at model texts; • practise specific genre features, especially moves and writer stance; • carry out writing tasks showing awareness of the needs of individual readers and the discourse community and the purpose of the writing; • evaluate the writing (through peer review or reformulation). 5. Conclusion In conclusion one might say that L2 writing might become a challenge for students if teachers carefully consider their students’ personality, their learning styles, social, cultural and cognitive factors and appropriate teaching methods/strategies (see also Hubackova 2012). Obviously, the most effective strategy is to promote writing as often as possible, together with thinking and conscious reflection on it. Finally, students must be provided with feedback on what they have written in order to realize the errors they have made because without sufficient and relevant feedback students are not able to improve both their writing and language skills. References Anderson, J. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: W.H. Freeman. Applebee, A.N. (1981). Looking at writing. Educational Leadership, 458-462. Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity,elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 2-20. Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL QUARTERLY, 45(1), 5-35. Carter, R. (1995). Keywords in language and listening. London & New York: Routledge. Clyne, M. (1987). Cultural differences in the organisation of academic texts: English and grammar. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 211-247. Cmejrkova, S. et al. (1999). Jak napsat odborny text. Havlickuv Brod: Leda. Dornyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: CUP. Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. (1998). Developments in English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: CUP. Duszak, A (1994). Academic discourse and intellectual styles. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 291-313. Frydrychova Klimova, B. (2011). Motivation for learning English at a university level. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15(1), Elsevier Ltd., 2599-2603.


437

Frydrychova Klimova, B. (2012). The teaching of foreign languages. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31(1), Elsevier Ltd., 201-206. Gardner, R. C. (2001). Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Z. Dornyei and R. Schmidt (eds), Motivation and second language acquisition. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press. Gillett, A. (2004). The ABC of ELA...."EAP". IATEFL Issues, 178, April-May, 11. Higgins, E.T. (1987). Self-Discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–40. Hubackova, S. (2012). Reading and text analysis in teaching of professional German. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31(1), Elsevier Ltd., 503-508. Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–69. Myles, J. Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student texts. Retrieved June 12, 2012, from http://www.cc.kyoto-su.ac.jp/information/tesl-ej/ej22/a1.html. Steele, V. (2004). Product and process writing: a comparison. Retrieved March 17, 2010, from http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/articles/product-process- writing- a- Comparison. Ushioda, E. (2001). Language learning at university: Exploring the role of motivational thinking. In Z. Dornyei and R. Schmidt (eds), Motivation and second language acquisition. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.