The Theoretical Foundation of the Educator - Case Study Example

Lecturer 4 February Process and product approaches Product based approaches of teaching composition often emphasize the importance of from over content. They may take different shapes depending on the theoretical foundation of the educator. Some educators may select a language-structures approach. Here, teachers emphasize the importance of grammatical rules and linguistic knowledge on teaching English. This strategy treats words, sentences and other structural units as the basic elements of writing. In this way, writing is a product of the learner’s grammatical command. As such, teachers will control and guide writing through fixed patterns. They may expect writers to fill in missing texts and words in structured frameworks or tables. Syntactic as well as lexical knowledge is something that may arise owing to this approach. Emphasis is on making error free sentences. Therefore, little attention is given to the communicative aspect of composition. Meaning making is not important and mostly fixed patterns are learnt. The structured model may also be manifested through the form of text functions. Here individuals dwell on the functional use of language in writing. This means that the communicative function is given greater emphasis over other purposes of language. Once again, little emphasis is given on the meaning of words. Instead, writers tend to stress the arrangement of writing instructions in a particular order (Hylad 3). Therefore, in this type of product-based approach, a teacher will give students functional units in which they can reorder sentences into certain paragraphs. Usually, a student is meant to start their paragraphs using topic sentences and then follow them up with supporting sentences. One ought to have transitions and then finalize those paragraphs with closing sentences. Therefore, the text function strategy is simply a modified version of the language-structures approach. The only difference is that this strategy is applied on a larger scale to paragraphs. Students may even select suitable sentences for completion of paragraphs. Instructional strategies are structured in nature and the overall product of this teaching approach is the development of effective paragraphs. Conversely, process-based approaches tend to dwell on facilitating writing tasks in order to make learners more effective. Teachers tend to pay more attention to writers rather than any other aspect of writing. In one form of process-based teaching, educators’ main goal of teaching is to foster creativity and self expression. They believe that students who have a strong sense of self awareness are the ones who are critical thinkers. When compared to the product-based approaches, the creative expression route is one that is quite flexible. Teachers only facilitate students’ meaning-making processes within a cooperative environment. Therefore, process-based composition teaching is not prescriptive in nature. Educators tend to place a lot of confidence in their students’ abilities to come up with effective models of writing. Conversely, in product-based strategies, teachers will have a given model that can only be altered moderately in order to fit into a prescribed outline. An overemphasis on error reduction is rather common in product-based composition teaching. The idea is to minimize these as much as possible such that proficient English may be realized. On the other hand, in process-based teaching, educators will merely initiate and guide. They will respond to ideas rather than attempt to eliminate mistakes in their writing. Risk aversion is a key characteristic of the writing process in product-strategies. Conversely, educators tend to encourage more risk taking and free writing in process-based teaching. When teachers mark composition scripts on the basis of product-based approaches, they often rely on preset rules to do so. Therefore, it is easy to assess good or bad wiring in this regard because certain guiding principles exist. Conversely, this is not true for process-based teaching. Most times, teachers may simply aim at fostering originality and creative thought. Self discovery means different things to different people and this may be difficult to assess. Sometimes elements like wordiness excessive reliance on passive voice and writing style may be checked but these are rarely the only standards used. In fact, sometimes, such rules may be broken if they serve the overall function of the piece. Meaning in process-based approaches is thus critical to writing. The content that one is concerned with always takes precedence to grammatical rules and standards. This is not applicable to product strategies which do not care much for the communicative content of the composition. One’s theories of composing thus support a process approach if they consist of any of the above-mentioned elements. Non linear and generative processes as well reformulation of ideas are what process-writing is all about. While certain guidelines exist, they are rarely well-ordered. In fact, most times people may perform process-based writing simultaneously. It may be imperative to revise, evaluate and carry out any other form of arrangement without necessarily doing in this in a chronological way. Therefore, a person may brainstorm, draft and refine their ideas on the basis of these alterations. Challenges may arise between LI and L2 students when utilizing both product and process-based strategies exclusively. The challenge with excessive reliance on product-based composition writing for second language English learners is that they may demonstrate grammatical prowess but still be unable to combine sentences effectively. A number of them may get too comfortable with the use of writing frameworks that they may be unable to construct sentences freely without them. Product approaches prevent second language learners from fully understanding the dynamics of the second language because they may refrain from risk. When exposed to new methods, they may not know how to deal with them appropriately. Perhaps more importantly, for second language learners, it is critical to understand how to apply the newly learnt grammatical rules in different settings. It is not enough to simply know what to say, they must also infer the meanings associated with them and them appropriate them appropriately. Teachers who are aware of the product-process division may work towards placing the grammatical rules in context. They may merge structure with content in an attempt to provide a richer environment. It should also be noted that no form of writing is disassociated from the writer’s context. However, these may differ depending on the cultural background of the speaker. Some native speakers with divergent social linguistic backgrounds may have divergent interpretation of content. Therefore, too much emphasis on structure may be detrimental to this. Conversely, when using process-based teaching, educators ought to be cautious about the possibility overdependence on creative expression (Hylad 15). Certain cultures do not value individualism; this is especially true in South East Asian countries. Therefore, too much focus on creative expressionism may cause some second language learners to miss out on the real purpose of communication in their world. Certain social consequences of writing exist. One must not assume all people value self expression in equal measure. 2) Reflection Prior to this class, the most important aspect of language learning was grammatical prowess. Most analytical processes often stress the relevance of having a proper grasp of sentence structures, word orders, and other rules. Therefore I had a rule-based orientation prior to entry into this class. The purpose of writing and its application bore little meaning for me because I assumed it would come naturally. Furthermore, I lacked confidence in the writer’s ability to curve their own models in composition. I automatically assumed that one can become a proficient writer so long as they understand lexical structures. The readings in the class have confirmed that there is a certain degree of relevance for these sorts of ideas. However, they cannot operate in isolation. The teachings have shown that composition writing is not devoid of content. Cultural and social implications of writings must be put into place. Risk taking is something that can make writing more expressive. Furthermore, the use of structures does not always relate to the real world as it cannot be applied in specific contexts alone. The theories and research have thus shown that product-based teaching is a starting point in language teaching. They are widely applied in classrooms through vocabulary building and other unit-based ideas. For new English learners, this may be an effective ways of building confidence and effectiveness. Therefore, the writings have validated some of the assumptions I held prior to writing development. Nonetheless, the most interesting aspect in the readings was that no teaching method is superior or inferior. Process based approaches lack the standardization and ease of assessment that product-based approaches provide. Therefore, only those educators who selectively apply any of these parameters will succeed. Utmost consideration of the language levels of the participants, their culture as well as the purpose of writing must be done in this regard. Work Cited Hylad, Ken. Second language writing. Cambridge: CUP. Read More