The Effect of the Process Writing Approach on Writing Success and Anxiety

Abstract

Written expression is a difficult language skill for students. The fact that writing activities in schools are mostly oriented toward formal features (Göçer, 2011; Temizkan, 2007; Ülper, 2012) is among the reasons for this difficulty. It is preferable to give priority to content characteristics in the act of writing that aims at transferring a message. Moreover, receiving only negative feedback related to errors leads to writing anxiety in students (Barnett, 1992; Ma digan, Linton, & Johnson, 1996). This can result in unsuccessful acts of writing and consequently, unsuccessful texts. However, this problem can be solved if evaluation of the written text is conducted as part of the writing process. This study aims to determine the effect of Flower and Hayes's (1981) Process Writing Approach, which allows the written product to be checked and evaluated during the writing process, on students' writing success and anxiety. The Process Writing Approach Four different approaches have been proposed for writing: the Schmidt model, the Van Galen model, the Hayes and Flower model, and the Hayes model (Güneş, 2007). In the approach developed by Flower and Hayes (1981), the points to be realized throughout the writing process are focused on improvement of the written product. In this approach, three dimensions of the act of writing are empha-Abstract The process writing approach treats writing not as a completed product but as a process. Writing studies are carried out as a part of the process before the written text is completed. This approach focuses on the student in writing lessons, and the teacher only acts as a guide. The process writing approach involves activities occurring during the production of a written text. This study investigated the effect of the process writing approach on writing success and anxiety. The participants in this study were first-year preschool teaching students; a pretestposttest control group quasi-experimental design was employed. Experimental procedures for the study lasted 10 weeks. Data regarding the dimension of written expression were obtained through evaluation of academic writings generated by students at the beginning and end of experimental procedures. Data associated with writing anxiety were collected through the Writing Apprehension Test. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for statistical analysis of the data. As a result of the statistical analysis, the study found that the process writing approach had a significant effect on writing success and anxiety. Based on this finding, the use of process writing approach is recommended for written expression studies.

Relationship between Legible Handwriting and Level of Success of Third Grade Students in Written Expression

“…A process based approach to writing have been adopted in this study and students have been asked to write a story based on key words given to them. In studies (Dağtaş, 2012;Bayat, 2016b;Bayat, 2014) where a process based approach to writing is adopted, it is observed that students' written expression and creative writing skills are improved. For this reason, it's possible to say that, in order to improve students' written expression skills, it is necessary to allocate enough time to activities in which they can write on subjects that are interesting for them (Akkaya, 2014;Smith, 2013) and in which a process based approach to reading is adopted (Badger & White, 2000;Bayat, 2014;Graham et al, 2013).…”

“…To make an assessment of the written expression skills, students have been asked to write a short story by using these key words: "carrot", "lie", "rabbit", "danger" and "to promise" and their writings have been evaluated by "written expression observation form" Turkish Language Teaching Program and measurement tools used in the literature (Bayat, 2014;Dağtaş, 2012;Göçer, 2010;Graham et al, 2013) have been analyzed and an evaluation form consisting of 10 items have been developed. Form gives the following scores: very good (5), good (4), average (3), inadequate (2) and bad (1).…”

A Comparative Study on Mentor Text Modelling and Common Approaches to Teaching Writing in Iranian EFL Context

“…Notwithstanding the plentitude of studies on each of the three approaches under investigation (e.g., Bayat, 2014;Balakrishnan, 2010;Jouzdani et al, 2015;Sakoda, 2008;Kane, 2012;Saeidi & Shabkheir, 2011), no research, to the best of the researcher's knowledge, has been carried out to compare the efficacy of the three approaches in improving different linguistic components such as accuracy and fluency in writing tasks with different cognitive complexity levels. Nonetheless, as a similar attempt to recognize the most effective approach to teaching writing in an Iranian context, N. Hasheminezhad and H. Hasheminezhad (2012) performed a comparative study on product, process, and post-process approaches.…”

Supporting EFL Learners’ Reflective Practices through Systemic Functional Linguistic Praxis: A Longitudinal Case Study

“…This prompted them to resume their alignment with the SFL-based appraisal curriculum, which occurred in both expository and argumentative writing. In other words, the students became less anxious with their gradual increase in understanding of the knowledge embedded in the curriculum and awareness of the importance of being a reflective reader/writer (Bayat, 2014;Larrivee, 2000). As such, the students started to become more invested in renewing their knowledge of interpersonal meaning in conjunction with the appraisal system, thus reconceptualizing expository and argumentative writing.…”