There is widespread recognition in the literature of the pedagogical issues involved in teaching academic writing in the ESL context, and the challenges it poses for the majority of NNSE learners. There are a wide range of different approaches to teaching academic writing, and different methodologies to suit diverse groups of learners. Older approaches are not necessarily replaced with the emergence of new approaches (Paltridge, 2004: 49). This section provides an overview of the most popular approaches that have been widely practiced from 1940 to the present day.
2.1.1. Teaching approaches from 1940 to 1960
During the period from 1940 to 1960, the guided composition concept was the cornerstone of writing pedagogy (Paltridge, 2004). In this …show more content…
It viewed educators as directors of the learning process. In this approach, the teachers’ focus shifted from the text itself to the students’ learning process. However, there were some voices who argued against the process approach for significant reasons. They claimed that this approach was not sufficient in terms of considering the social and cultural aspects of writing. According to Atkinson (2003), diverse types of writing are affected by cultural and social features, but the process approach was limited to writing skills and progress within the classroom. This disregard for the social and cultural aspects of learning was confirmed by other scholars, who added further concerns to the argument. Johns (1995) argued that the process approach considered non-native students as authors but that they might be not prepared adequately. She justified her negative position toward the process approach via two main claims: that foreign learners were not taught how to construct an argument, and that learners were not exposed to certain issues of register. Horowitz (1986) agreed, adding that the process method did not prepare learners to write effective academic texts. As a result of these criticisms, other approaches were …show more content…
The first of these was that the emphasis of CBI on content instruction resulted in low attention to formal linguistic features such as grammar and syntax. Met (1997) stated that CBI focus was beyond grammar, but others, including Brinton and Holtens’ (2001) disagreed. They recommended that ESL teachers also needed to focus on language instruction. The second criticism of CBI was that content decision in CBI raised further issues in relation to the whats, whys, hows, whose (Duenas, 2004; Snow, 1998). This debate has continued, and there is a demand to reflect further on the underpinning theories informing CBI (Brinton & Holtens’ 2001; Duenas, 2004; Snow, 1998). Another demand is to look at institutional requirements and the nature of instruction before deciding on the content. Duenas (2004) also argues the need to illuminate the role of the teachers in the CBI pedagogy. This debate is as yet
2.1.1. Teaching approaches from 1940 to 1960
During the period from 1940 to 1960, the guided composition concept was the cornerstone of writing pedagogy (Paltridge, 2004). In this …show more content…
It viewed educators as directors of the learning process. In this approach, the teachers’ focus shifted from the text itself to the students’ learning process. However, there were some voices who argued against the process approach for significant reasons. They claimed that this approach was not sufficient in terms of considering the social and cultural aspects of writing. According to Atkinson (2003), diverse types of writing are affected by cultural and social features, but the process approach was limited to writing skills and progress within the classroom. This disregard for the social and cultural aspects of learning was confirmed by other scholars, who added further concerns to the argument. Johns (1995) argued that the process approach considered non-native students as authors but that they might be not prepared adequately. She justified her negative position toward the process approach via two main claims: that foreign learners were not taught how to construct an argument, and that learners were not exposed to certain issues of register. Horowitz (1986) agreed, adding that the process method did not prepare learners to write effective academic texts. As a result of these criticisms, other approaches were …show more content…
The first of these was that the emphasis of CBI on content instruction resulted in low attention to formal linguistic features such as grammar and syntax. Met (1997) stated that CBI focus was beyond grammar, but others, including Brinton and Holtens’ (2001) disagreed. They recommended that ESL teachers also needed to focus on language instruction. The second criticism of CBI was that content decision in CBI raised further issues in relation to the whats, whys, hows, whose (Duenas, 2004; Snow, 1998). This debate has continued, and there is a demand to reflect further on the underpinning theories informing CBI (Brinton & Holtens’ 2001; Duenas, 2004; Snow, 1998). Another demand is to look at institutional requirements and the nature of instruction before deciding on the content. Duenas (2004) also argues the need to illuminate the role of the teachers in the CBI pedagogy. This debate is as yet