Towards eclecticism: A hybrid product-process approach to the teaching of EFL writing
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54475/jlt.2022.010Keywords:
writing instruction, hybrid product-process approach, eclecticism, methodAbstract
This article argues for the adoption of a hybrid product-process approach to EFL writing instruction. It lays bare the weaknesses of the well-established writing approaches: the controlled approach, the current traditional rhetoric, the process approach and the genre approach. Then, it makes it clear how language teaching methods in general have lost their credibility and fallen out of favor over the last few years. Reasons of this discreditation are presented. This condition paved the way for the emergence of eclecticism, which started taking shape as a favorable classroom practice in the post method era. Within this framework, this paper suggests an eclectic approach to the teaching of writing. This approach pulls together and merges the strengths of both product and process approaches. The nine stages of this model are explained in depth. The article also presents practical tips and examples that would aid teachers in the adoption of this eclectic mix in their classrooms.
References
Alharbi, S. H. (2017). Principled eclecticism: Approach and application in teaching writing to ESL/EFL students. English Language Teaching, 10(2), 33-39. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n2p33
Ali, A. M. (1981). Teaching English to Arab Students. Jordan: Al-Falah House.
Allwright, J. (1988). Don't correct-reformulate. ELT Documents, 129, 109-116.
Allwright, R. L. (1991). The death of the method (working paper No.10). Lancaster, England: The university of Manchester. The exploratory Practice Center.
Bouziane, A. (2019). Six ways of feedback to student writing. MATE ELT series: Book 4: ELT issues in Morocco .59-68.
Brown, D. (2002). English language teaching in the “Post-Method” era: Towards better diagnosis. In J. C. Richards, & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching (pp. 9- 18). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511667190.003
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Dyer, B. (1996). L1 and L2 composition theories: Hillocks' ' environmental mode' and task-based language teaching. ELT Journal, 50(4), 312-317. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/50.4.312
Freeman, D. L. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hammerly, H. (1991). Fluency and accuracy: toward balance in language teaching. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1986). No new lamps for old yet, please. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 790-796.
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Routledge.
Klimova, B. F. (2012). The importance of writing. Paripex-Indian Journal of Research, 2(1), 9-11. https://doi.org/10.15373/22501991/jan2013/4
Kumar, C. P. (2013). The eclectic method theory and its application to the learning of English. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 3(6), 1-4.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 27-48. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587197
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Routledge.
Lees, E. O. (1979). Evaluating student writing. College Composition and Communication, 30(4), 370-374.
https://doi.org/10.2307/356714
Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Process and post process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 65-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(02)00127-3
Mellow, J. D. (2002). Towards principled eclecticism in language teaching: The two-dimensional model and the centering principle. TESL-EJ, 5(4), 1-18.
Mwanza, D. S. (2017). The eclectic approach to language teaching: Its conceptualisation and misconceptions. International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education, 4(2), 53-67. https://doi.org/10.20431/2349-0381.0402006
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge, England: University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100009578
Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology: A textbook for teachers. Prentice hall.
Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 589-618. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587534
Prabhu, N. S. (1990). There is no best method-Why? TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 161-176. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586897
Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. New York: Oxford university press. https://doi.org/10.5785/1-2-508
Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly, 407-430. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586978
Richards, J. C. (1998). Beyond training: Perspectives on language teacher education. Cambridge University Press.
Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Language teaching methodology. ERIC Issue Paper.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209
Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ula, M. Z. (2018). The implementation of eclectic method in teaching writing recount text of the eight graders. RETAIN, 6(2), 126-134.
Ur, P. (2015). Using the coursebook: A teacher's perspective. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 4(2), 5-28.
Wali, N. H. (2009). Eclecticism and language learning. Al-Fatih Journal, 39, 34-41.
Weidemann, A. (2001). The old and the new: reconsidering eclecticism in language teaching. Per Linguam, 17(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.5785/17-1-131
Yorio, C. (1987). Building multiple bridges: Eclecticism in language teaching. TESL Canada Journal, 91-100. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v5i1.519
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Journal of Language Teaching
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
