Overview of Freewriting
An informal expressive mode of writing, freewriting is a catchword for the expressivists and a technique as well as an invention strategy for the process theorists of writing used in and during composing process. Said to be a private form of writing, it is also used as a preliminary to more formal writing. Freewriting is also equated with stream of consciousness writing, invisible writing, automatic writing, desperation writing, impromptu writing, and personal journal writing and so on, the major characteristic defining it being non-sop, continuous writing for some predetermined period of time without any regard to spelling, grammar or correctness.
Defining freewriting, Peter Elbow and co-editors in the introduction to their book, Nothing Begins With N: New Investigations of Freewriting, write, “freewriting is what you get when you remove almost all of the normal constraints involved in writing” (xiii) such as order, coherence, accuracy; spelling, grammar, and mechanics; focus, quality, excellence etc. Free writing for them is liberation in writing since a freewriter has the concession of writing anything in any order from garbage to chaos to poetry in stream of consciousness fashion only condition being that s/he should not stop while composing. Joy Marsella and Thomas L. Hilgers also talk of freewriting in similar terms in their essay “Exploring the Potential of Freewriting” as, “nonstop writing in which writers follow ideas wherever they lead them; freewriting performed as timed exercise; focused freewriting; and any one of these combined in a series of systematic operations that acts as heuristic” (105). They use Freewriting as a generic term for a number of activities such as unfocused, timed or focused writing activities.
Many researchers and scholars of freewriting agree that it has oral quality. “Freewriting usually moves …toward the condition of putting down language without thinking about it, toward that “transparency” of language production that is characteristic of speech” (Introduction, Nothing Begins With “N” xv-vi), claim Elbow and co-editors implying the oral quality of freewriting. Elbow, following this spirit, instructs his students to “‘utter’ words onto paper with a kind of intensity” (“Toward a Phenomenology of Freewriting 190). For that matter, he calls freewriting “automatic writing or simply jabbering” (Elbow, Writing Without Teachers 1) and encourages people to generate words as is done while speaking, “put words on paper and indeed to put them down without stopping” (Elbow and co-editors, Introduction xiii) and continue “nonstop, non-censored writing” (Introduction, Writing Without Teachers xvi). In almost all of his writings on freewriting, Elbow thus is found to be describing freewriting in terms of the epithets of speech. His constant reference to voice in writing also indicates his emphasis on oral quality in freewriting. He claims that freewriting is a natural way of producing words in which “there is a sound, a texture, a rhythm- a voice- which is the main source of power in your writing” (Writing Without Teachers 7).
Some other scholars have equated freewriting with interior monologue or inner speech also highlighting the oral quality of freewriting. They argue that the properties of interior monologue or inner speech such as non-stop, private, flow without regard to syntax or semantics are also the properties of freewriting. “It is possible to understand freewriting as intimate conversation with oneself. As such, its syntax would resemble the syntax of inner speech” (21), writes Sheryl I. Fontaine in her essay “Recording and Transforming: The Mystery of the Ten-Minute Freewrite” emphasizing on the oral quality of freewriting. Association of interior monologue with freewriting implies its chaotic nature. Like psychological flow of thoughts in inner speech, freewriting may take any direction from one extreme to the other.
Generally, the technique of freewriting involves writing non-stop for few minutes whatever comes to mind concerning a subject. Elbow’s instructions for freewriting adequately explains its technique when he says, “simply write as quickly as you can, as though you were talking to someone” or when he suggests, “don’t plan, don’t stop, trust that something will come-all in the interest of getting oneself “rolling” or “steaming along” into a more intense state of perception and language production” (“Toward a Phenomenology of Freewriting” 190). He asks to simply follow the train of thought and “just babble onto paper” (“Toward a Phenomenology of Freewriting” 207).
Sheridan Blau, on the other hand, equates freewriting with invisible writing: “an experimental…writing (in which) the writer writes with an empty ballpoint pen on a blank piece of paper backed by a piece of carbon paper and a bottom blank sheet...the writer can’t see what he is writing as he writes but still produces a carbon copy of everything he has written” (283-84). Blau argues that since writers cannot see and reread what they have written and are required to write non-stop in invisible writing, their writings are almost like freewritings.
Elbow and Ken Macrorie are often associated with freewriting as the founding figures. Many credit Elbow but Elbow himself regards Macrorie as the father of this genre. Macrorie, in turn, credits Dorothea Brandea for inventing this technique citing her call for freewriting sometimes in 1940s as, “write anything that comes into your head: last night’s dream, if you are able to remember…write any sort of early morning reverie, rapidly and uncritically” (quoted by Macrorie in “The Freewriting Relationship” 72). Macrorie confesses that he is following Brandea’s footprint and calls any writing that appeals to unconscious, freewriting as, “Under the name of freewriting all sorts of writing may be done... it taps the unconscious language power in all of us. We locate that best by trying for some kind of truth, whether in fantasy, fiction, or non-fiction” (188). Then onwards, freewriting is being used as a heuristic or as a pre-writing technique of writing process. Many composition textbooks are recommending freewriting in chapters on “getting started” or “prewriting (Marsella and Hilgers 93-4).
Thus, it can be said that any writing that is lively, voiced, alive, or even authentic done without any plan, goal or aim is termed as freewriting. Freewriting is as at the heart of expressionistic theory of writing and is also being used as a tool for generating ideas or as a component writing process, a form of prewriting.
Freewriting as Invention Technique
Freewriting is being used primarily a technique for exploring and generating the ideas pertaining to a chosen topic. Quoting Elbow’s notion of freewriting as uncensored, generative writing form intended to stimulate writing skills, creativity, and new perspectives (Elbow 1986), Jame W. Pennbaker writes that freewriting, by virtue of being a kind of self-expressive writing, “strongly encourages the expression of individuals’ very deepest emotions and thoughts about personal and, oftentimes, traumatic events and issues” (158) . For him, freewriting is the only such technique that helps to express the ideas dormant in the deepest recess of mind or unconscious. As such, freewriting has proved to be a method of self-exploration and is instrumental in probing into one’s own reservoir of thoughts or ideas as it is for finding ideas to write a paper. Jeanne A. Simpson also expresses the similar opinion that, “Freewriting is an important method …for helping you to discover what you think about events around you and what your values, ideas, and problems really are.” (21). In this sense, freewriting can be a best resort for those facing a writer’s block or feeling stuck during composing process as it helps to warm up or activate the mind triggering it to probe into the heart of the matter thereby helping to discover unforeseen shades of meanings. That is why it is regarded as one of the major techniques of invention in writing.
Freewriting is a technique of invention also because invention itself is a preliminary form of formal writing. During invention, one does not have to worry about commas and spelling or even complete sentences. The aim is just to dump the ideas down however possible keeping in mind that they can be cleaned up later. Arrows, abbreviations, shorthand, fragments, lists, circles, and underlining are all perfectly acceptable. Invention is for one to begin to work from. It is not a perfect outline of your paper. (Simpson 2). Freewriting like invention exactly does the same thing. It can also be a preliminary to formal writing. It simply encourages generation of ideas by encouraging free association. It is generative for the writer who has trouble getting words on paper because it pushes the writer to begin and continue (Marsella and Hilgers 109). Freewriting is said to be much more easier to practice compared to other techniques of invention in writing process. The feature that distinguishes freewriting from other types of writings or invention strategies and therefore makes it easy to practice is its freedom from all worries and anxieties because it keeps the generating activities separate from the analytical or editorial. In this sense, it reduces the burden of editing or critical thinking while composing. All it requires is the ability to transcribe the ideas on paper or translate somehow the ideas or thoughts into some form of writing on paper. This is the only stake (if it is a stake at all) of freewriting that freewriter needs to be able to put the ideas non-stop on words. Elbow and co-editors also consent this aspect of freewriitng as they write, “freewriting asks us to do the most frightening thing of all-write nonstop” (xiii). This is what Marsella and Hilgers also imply when they say, “To learn how to use the freewriting heuristic, students must first experience themselves as capable of sustained, uncensored writing” (99). In this light, freewriting seems to require a certain level of linguistic command or resources in writers which may, therefore, may render this heuristic not equally feasible for all types of writers.
Implying freewriting as an invention technique, people like Marsella and Hilgers describe Freewriting as heuristic for invention, i.e. as an instrument that facilitates the discovery of ideas and thoughts on topic under consideration. Their view is that freewriting heuristic-three-step process of writing, reflecting and asserting- can be used to generate the making of full-fledged piece of finished prose. Ruth Spack also believes that invention strategies like freewriting can be employed to narrow down a topic, generate content, discover a form and create a thesis for an assigned essay (649). This way, freewriting has proved to be a popularly known technique of invention in writing process.
Freewriting for ESL Students: Prospects and Stakes
While Freewriting is such a widely used heuristic or technique of invention in writing, none of its founding figures or exponents of seem to talk of it with reference to ESL students. Therefore, there is dearth of literature on freewriting heuristics/exercises for ESL students, hardly any regarding its feasibility in the writing class. Only of late, some of the ESL teachers are trying to extrapolate this technique in the ESL classrooms. All who have researched and experimented with freewriting in the ESL classroom have found that this invention strategy is feasible but requires adaptation or modification of certain kind and degree as the realities, stakes and concerns of ESL students are different from those of the native students.
They have also mentioned that, after practicing freewriting technique, ESL students also feel that freewriting is a significant tool that inspires or provokes ideas or thoughts on topics under consideration. Freewriting practice also make the ESL students realize that since it forces their minds to generate or produce something on paper, it can be a tool for discovery or invention. For instance, Spack in her essay, “Invention Strategies and the ESL College Composition Student” states that when ESL students practice freewriting and other invention techniques “they can learn that writing, in addition to being a powerful tool for communicating ideas, is an intellectual thinking process, a creative craft, a way to use language to discover meaning, and a mode of learning.” (64). Her point is that the students understand freewriting and other attendant techniques to be helpful for the discovery of ideas and meaning after practicing freewriting.
Heekeyeong Lee is another researcher who investigates freewriting activities in a Canadian university and finds that it being adapted quite differently in ESL writing classrooms. Opposed to Elbow’s original notion of allowing students/writers to write anything off the heads about any topic of their choice, Lee observes that “the ESL program encouraged the writing teachers to stimulate students’ interests in writing topics by using a variety of prompts, such as writing down some words or phrases and showing pictures, pieces of music, or cartoons, while still allowing students to write whatever they want (Donaldson, 1990)” (60-61). During his study, he interviewed some of the ESL students and from their responses, came to realize that adaptation done so far was still not optimum. He feels the necessity of adaptation in allotted time of 10-15 minutes for the freewriting assignment too. He then confirms that “For some students, especially for those who had little experience in English composition previously, the time limit may be too short to respond to a given topic in written form” (71).He reached to this conclusion after many interviewees complained him about the inadequacy of allotted time for completing the assigned task. For instance, one of the interviewees answered him that he “felt that it was hard to get to used to writing quickly in 15 minutes” (72). Another responded similarly that time limit of 15-20 minutes was “too short, almost every time. I need 25 to 30 minutes…I am slow at writing down…I am not used to writing drafts or whatever writing… so I need more time than other people…” (72).
Lee, however, does not bother to find the answer to the question as to why all ESL students cannot complete their task within the given time frame which their native counterparts or relatively skilled colleagues can and thus leaves this question unaddressed. The answer to this question may lie on the fact that ESL students herald from different cultural, linguistic and topographical backgrounds and do have specific stakes, concerns and realities. The first among them is the obvious fact that unlike the native speakers of English, they do not have the intuitive sense of English and that most of them are still struggling with grammar, spelling or are at the phase of language acquisition and are therefore not in a position to be able to express themselves fluently and comfortably. Some of them may even be below the level of basic writers in terms of linguistic felicity though sophisticated in thinking level or idea generation. The language factor may have certain bearing on the feasibility of freewriting heuristic in the ESL classroom.
Even Elbow seems to have been aware of the role of language factor in freewriting exercises. “Peter Elbow claims, in fact, that skilled, experienced writers, rather than basic writers, are the ones who find freewriting most satisfying and profitable” (Blau 295). Elbow also, however, does not specify what level of linguistic competence and writing performance is desirable for the effective freewriting practices. He simply declares that everyone can benefit from freewriting. But the language factor can be a major consideration with ESL freewriting as freewriting places so much importance in fluency in writing. Those who are not fluent in generating sentences or putting ideas in words or simply in writing have little disadvantage compared to those who are fluent as Marsella and Hilgers also feel, “to learn how to use the freewriting heuristic, students must first experience themselves as capable of sustained, uncensored writing” (99). While even natives who have intuition and speech fluency have hard time freewriting, we can just imagine the situation of ESL students from varied backgrounds and realities for many of whom English is second, third or even foreign language and are venturing freewriting exercises. The stake is high and many of them get crippled and clogged or incapacitated by inadequacy of vocabulary or linguistic resources for unblocked expression.
Elbow vaguely refers to such writers when he describes an extreme situation of freewriitng:
a bunch of people … who all make lots of grammatical mistakes. Perhaps they speak some other language and know English partly, or perhaps they speak some “non-standard” dialect of English-or perhaps both…When they want to write for an audience that insists on Standard English, they must get someone to help them make the appropriate adjustments...” (Writing Without Teachers 138)
He, however, fails to propose those adjustments. But the condition of many ESL students is similar to what he says. These students make lots of grammatical mistakes, speak some other language, know English partly and are writing for some native teacher who insists on Standard English. Therefore, these students often undergo pain freewriting. Their major stake is the translation- translation of their thoughts or ideas or consciousness into words on paper. It is again Elbow who realizes that translation is the major issue in freewriting:
I sometimes think of it as a matter of translation. That is, it feels to me as though the “contents of mind” or “what I am trying to say” won’t run naturally onto paper- as though what’s “in mind” is unformed, incoherent, indeed much of it not even verbal, consisting rather of images, feelings, kinesthetic sensations... it often feels…writing requires some act of translation to get what’s in mind into freewriting”. (“Toward a Phenomenology of Freewriting” 20)
The above description is Elbow’s experience, of the one well known for writing, a native with years of scholarship and mastery, himself a founder of freewriting technique. What may be the predicament of ESL students particularly those at the initial phase of learning of English? Will they be able to translate their thoughts or perceptions into English? These questions also need further exploration to be able to assess the feasibility of freewriting in ESL classroom.
Due to language inadequacy to fluent writing, ESL student are found to require rereading and pauses to continue writing or make a move in writing. But freewriting does not allow the writers the opportunity to reread or go back see what they have written. Blau, with reference to invisible writing, a variant of freewriting, says, “Deprived of the ability to reread what they have just written, basic writers engaged in invisible writing may feel they can find nothing to connect their thinking to and therefore seem to have no resources for forging ahead in coherent continuous discourse” ( 294). He also reports that these writings are particularly difficult for basic writers because they disallow or discourage the “what next” strategy by making it difficult for a writer to use each written sentence as a cue for the next one. The ESL writers being somewhat like basic writers also get stuck or muddled when forced to write non-stop as freewriting forces the writers to concentrate on the emerging idea rather than on the surface features of language. Therefore, the ESL cannot generate as many sentences as is needed to express ideas pertaining to given topic.
With some limitations and adaptations notwithstanding, researchers, scholars and teachers, however, agree on the point of the potential of freewriting being a powerful tool of invention for ESL writers/students too.
Lee, for example, mentions a number of benefits of freewriting as, “Selecting a topic which relates to personal experience and stimulates specific ideas is very important for the students to increase writing fluency and to develop generation through freewriting activities…producing a longer composition within a limited time leads the student to feel confident in their English writing” (94). He also finds freewriting having a sequential relationship with the other academic activities and a hierarchical relationship with the overall process writing class (95). He even does not fail to declare that “freewriting activity…contributes to the overall success of the writing class” (119-20) and that “students build confidence and writing fluency through regular repetition of writing” (120). Similarly, Zamel in her essay, “The Composing Processes of Advanced ESL Students: Six Case Studies” discovers that ESL writers like their native counterparts experience writing as a process. From her observation of the ESL writers composing, she confirms that “certain composing problems transcend language factors and are shared by both native and non-native speakers of English” (168) and that “ESL and native English-speaking writers may experience similar difficulties with the composing process” (168). She observes the whole composing process (prewriting, writing and revising activities) of both less skilled and more skilled ESL writers. Her study, however, does not talk about freewriting directly. Even so, some of her observations and findings say something about difficulties encountered by both the skilled and unskilled ESL writers and the strategies devised by them to tackle such difficulties. For example, she saw that:
the more skilled writers devised strategies that allowed them to pursue the development of their ideas without being sidetracked by lexical and syntactic difficulties. These strategies included writing down the English word in question and circling it, leaving a blank space for a word or phrase, or using their own native language when the word(s) in English failed them. (175)
She observes that more skilled ESL writers devised strategies to tackle their blocks and continued their writing activity. Based on her observation, it seems that more skilled ESL writers/students are capable of freewriting exercises as they could devise the strategies to break the block and continue writing any way. In contrast, the least skilled ones, she found, failed to devise such ways and “talked about being anxious about vocabulary and grammar” (178). Even though more skilled handled the writing situation, her interviewees, both skilled and unskilled, responded her that they did not find freewriting comfortable. The responses of many of the students were like:
“If I have an idea, but I don’t have the words. I write in Chinese so I don’t lose it” (179).
“My big problem is spelling. I may have no idea how to put it down. I even sometimes cannot reread what I have written” (179).
“I don’t like some of my expressions because they are too weak. I feel angry because when I say something, it’s said a simple way. I don’t have the words that are adequate to explain my ideas” (179).
All of her interviewees stressed on the inadequacy of language resources in second language for fluent expression. Despite these interview responses, after extensive observation, interviews and analysis, Zamel makes the concluding remarks that, “while there is some concern with language-related difficulties, these difficulties do not seem to interrupt the ongoing process, but rather are addressed in the context of making and communicating meaning” (180).
As mentioned earlier, Zamel’s but was not specifically a study of freewriting process of the ESL students. She observed the whole process of pre-writing, writing and revision, and ultimately reached the above conclusion. But her conclusion may not say much about freewriting as a long process like hers allows writers time to think, reread, consult the sources and pause which freewriting does not.
Responding to Zamel’s finding, Joy Reid blames Zamel of treating ESL writers as native and failing to take into account the rhetorical differences across languages and cultures as, “their (ESL writers) approaches to rhetorical forms differ from the approaches of native speakers.” (151). Similar voice that the ESL students should not be treated the way the native students are is being heard for long. The implication of the voice is that ESL writers/students do have different concerns, stakes and realities, cultural or otherwise and therefore need special adjustment, which is, in case of freewriting exercise, adaptation, modification or methodical revision based on contexts is desirable.
As such, there are obvious differences in native and ESL students. They hail from different cultural, linguistic, topographical, religious and socio-economic backgrounds. The variation is evident even among the ESL students. Many scholars, researchers and teachers of ESL literacy firmly hold that these differences are to be taken into account while formulating curricula or approaching any academic activity for the ESL students. Even CCCC’s Position Statement reflects this spirit as it reads:
Second-language writers -- who have come from a wide variety of linguistic, cultural, and educational backgrounds -- may have special needs because the nature and functions of discourse, audience, and persuasive appeals often differ across linguistic, cultural and educational contexts. Furthermore, most second-language writers are still in the process of acquiring syntactic and lexical competence -- a process that will take a lifetime. These differences are often a matter of degree, and not all second-language writers face the same set of difficulties.
This extract implies that every ESL student is different in terms of capacity, background, and linguistic competence and therefore needs a special care and attention. An adoption of same set of techniques and approaches in all situations is doomed to fail and therefore the choice of pedagogical approach should be contingent upon the contexts, requirement or other ground realities of the students. In this sense, CCCC’s call “to include second-language perspectives in developing theories, designing studies, analyzing data, and discussing implications” holds special meaning.
Robert B. Kaplan also explores the cultural and rhetorical differences characteristic of the ESL students in his essay, ““Contrastive Grammar: Teaching Composition to the Chinese Student” and mentions the fact that ESL students have to struggle a lot before being able to write as fluently as native speakers such as “ the Chinese student- even one who has mastered English syntax to a relatively high degree of proficiency- may still not generate English paragraphs because he does not possess in his linguistic inventory the materials generating links between individual syntactic units and links between larger units of discourse” (13). In the similar vein, Florence Baskoff argues that the students’ native languages constrain over their writings in second language to some extent. She labels such a phenomenon as ‘cultural interference’ which is, she says, is due to the difference in the style of literary and rhetorical patterns of expression in their native language and English (84).
Keeping in view all these cultural and linguistic diversities, Bela H. Banathy forwards a distinct view about literacy for ESL students and says that native tongue of the students should be made a starting point because most of ESL students feel comfortable writing and reading in their native languages. He says, “The base from which to proceed in specifying the learning task in the acquisition of a foreign language is the native language of a learner. It is this base to which the foreign language is compared and contrasted in order to establish similarities and differences…” (78). Similarly, referring to the process turn in ESL writing instruction, Ann Rhimes objects the use of invention strategies like freewriting in the ESL classroom saying, “We should not… swing too far in the direction of treating students like native speakers of the language…” (232) because, according to her “the process of writing in a L2 is startlingly different from writing in our L1” (232). Like Banathy, she also suggests that resorting to L1 can be helpful at the time of crisis such as not finding words in L2 or feeling stuck due to the lack of linguistic resources in L2. She reports many her students confessing that they “sometimes turned to their L1 to help them out....” (238). Similarly, she observes the ESL students pausing, rereading, editing and letting the idea gel and find its form and voice while composing and then doubts, “Are we perhaps doing our ESL writers a disservice if we ask them to do a rapid free writing, if we try to cut down on those pauses and backtracking, all in the name of “fluent writing”?”(247). She points to the possible reality that ESL writers may need time and recursiveness to generate ideas as well as L2 with which to express the idea. After such an observation, she recommends ESL teachers that “we need to give our students what is always in short supply in the writing classroom-time…” (248) and assess the level of linguistic competence before assigning fluent writing because, “To generate, develop, and present ideas, our students need an adequate vocabulary” (248). She underscores the point that before assigning any freewriting exercises, ESL teachers make sure that the students possess certain level of linguistic resources and have adequate time required to complete the task.
Similarly, scholars Ilona Leki and Joan Carson report that their students complained against being asked to write off the top of their head in limited time. According to them, their students’ complaints was that “time limits prevented them from finding ideas they felt satisfied with and accessing appropriate vocabulary to express those ideas (49).”
Mauris Harris and Tony Silva, on the other hand, speak about the absence of intuitive capacity of English in ESL students. They request all the concerned to keep in mind the fact that non-native speakers of a language (especially ones with lower levels of second language proficiency) simply don’t have the intuitions about the language that native speakers do. They suggest that it is better to “tell ESL writers that it is unrealistic for them to expect to be able to write like native speakers of English” (531). This way, the issue of linguistic resource is raised time and again when it comes to talking about ESL literacy. Lisa Winer too, in her essay, “Spinach to Chocolate”: Changing Awareness and Attitudes in ESL Writing Teachers” writes that the non-native speakers of English often “express anxiety and frustration at lack of specific linguistic knowledge of English” (62) when asked to write.
As also stated above notwithstanding all these constraints, concerns, stakes and differences, scholars, researchers and ESL teachers like Spack believe that if invention strategies like freewriting if adapted and used appropriately, even the ESL students benefit a lot from them. She says, “Although ESL students may experience invention differently from their native English-speaking counterparts, they can benefit from instruction in invention which is adapted to meet their needs” (649). But she regrets to state that many of the composition textbooks have failed to delineate the complexity of composing process of ESL students and says, “These texts have not shown students how meticulous and even painful writing can be, especially for non-native speakers” (649). Realizing the complexities of ESL composing process, she says that she institutes freewriting heuristic with little modification. In her assignment, “students are encouraged to use their native language or to coin a vocabulary word in English does not immediately come to mind so that they can keep their pens moving” (656). She thus grants the students liberty to use their mother tongues or coin the words in case they feel blocked. Also she asks the students to practice freewriting and other invention strategies only after assessing their linguistic capacity because she deems it necessary to determine when “ESL students are ready to be taught and to use the art of invention” (663) and also believes that to make sure they perform excellently, “students should not give up on invention techniques too early” (657). Along with linguistic consideration, she also suggests to take into account the cultural and attendant aspects of the students to ensure the better performance in freewriting heuristic. To support her statement, she cites the resistance of some Japanese students to practice freewriting at the beginning of the semester as, “they have been trained to believe it is wrong to write whatever comes to mind without regard to error” (663).
She then lists some preconditions for assigning freewriting in the ESL classroom. The first is that students need to have rich vocabulary and sufficient language resource. Secondly, if assigned prior to students’ gaining command of English language, the students are be allowed to use their native vocabularies citing Lay’s finding from his investigation of four Chinese college students that “recourse to the native language is both helpful and effective” (664).
Thus, from the discussion, analysis, scrutiny and assessment of findings, observations and experiences of so many ESL scholars, researchers, teachers and students, some generalization about the freewriting heuristics in ESL classroom can be made such that freewriting heuristic is feasible in ESL classroom but requires adaptation or modification based on a number of situational variables such as linguistic ability, cultural background, social values, rhetorical patterns etc. of the students. Before instituting freewriting heuristic teachers need to assess the linguistic resources or competence as well as ESL writing performance of the students. They should allocate relatively more time for the ESL students and also allow the students use mother tongue in case blocked or stuck. Moreover, freewriting should not be assigned at the beginning of the semester or the course. Since there is the possibility of cultural interference, the students are to be oriented towards and trained in freewriting or other modes of writing gradually over a semester or two. In short, what is required is the situational and delicate adaptation and handling of freewriting exercise. It is entirely the matter of teacher’s discretion but an ESL teacher should be the one well read in ESL stakes, concerns, differences and literacy. S/he should anchor the class activities including freewriting delicately and sensitively. Only then ESL students will be able to make most of freewriting heuristic by doing excellently what Elbow terms as “the most frightening thing of all-write nonstop”.
Works Cited
Banathy, Bela H. “Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis”. Journal of English as a
Second Language, 4 (Fall 1969): 89-96.
Belanoff, Pat, Peter Elbow, and Sheryl I. Fontaine, ed. Introduction. Nothing Begins With
N. Carbodale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1991. xi-xviii
Blau, Sheridan. “Thinking and the Liberation of Attention: The Uses of Free and
Invisible Writing”. Nothing Begins With N. Ed. Belanoff, Pat, Peter Elbow, and
Sheryl I. Fontaine. Carbodale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois, 1991. 283-303
CCCC. “Statement on Second Language Writing and Writers”. 2001. JSTOR. Edith
Larland Dupre Lib., U of Louisiana at Lafayette. 15 April 2008
Elbow, Peter. “Towards a Phenomenology of Freewriting”. Nothing Begins With N. Ed.
Belanoff, Pat, Peter Elbow, and Sheryl I. Fontaine. Carbodale and Edwardsville:
Southern Illinois, 1991. 189-214
---. Writing Without Teachers. 2nd ed. New York: OUP, 1998.
Fontaine, Sheryl I. “Recording and Transforming: The Mystery of the Ten-Minute
Freewrite. Nothing Begins With N. Ed. Belanoff, Pat, Peter Elbow, and Sheryl I.
Fontaine. Carbodale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois, 1991. 3-16
Harris, Muriel and Tony Silva. “Tutoring ESL Students: Issues and Options. College
Composition and Communication. 44 (1993): 525-537. JSTOR. Edith Larland Dupre Lib., U of Louisiana at Lafayette. 15 April 2008
Kaplan, Robert B. “Contrastive Grammar: Teaching Composition to the Chinese
Student”. Journal of English as a Second Language 68 (1968): 40-48.
Lee, Heeykong. “Investigation of Freewriting Activities in ESL Process Writing
Classrooms”. Diss. Carleton University, 1999.
Leki, Ilona and Joan Carson. ““Completely Different Worlds”: EAP and the Writing
Experiences of ESL Students in University Courses”. TESOL Quarterly. 31
(1987): 36-69. JSTOR. Edith Larland Dupre Lib., U of Louisiana at Lafayette. 15 April 2008
Macrorie, Ken. “The Freewriting Relationship”. Nothing Begins With N. Ed. Belanoff,
Pat, Peter Elbow, and Sheryl I. Fontaine. Carbodale and Edwardsville: Southern
Illinois, 1991. 173-189.
Marsella, Joy, and Thomas L. Hilgers. “Exploring the Potential of Freewriting”. Nothing
Begins With N. Ed. Belanoff, Pat, Peter Elbow, and Sheryl I.
Fontaine. Carbodale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois, 1991. 93-111
Mullin, Anne E. “Freewriting in the Classroom: Good for What?” Nothing Begins With
N. Ed. Belanoff, Pat, Peter Elbow, and Sheryl I. Fontaine. Carbodale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois, 1991. 139-148
Pennbaker, James W. “Self-Expressive Writing:Implications for Health, Education, and
Welfare”. Nothing Begins With N. Ed. Belanoff, Pat, Peter Elbow, and Sheryl I.
Fontaine. Carbodale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois, 1991. 157-170
Raimes, Ann. “What Unskilled Students Do as They Write: A Classroom Study of
Composing”. TESOL Quarterly. 19 (1985): 229-258. JSTOR. Edith Larland Dupre Lib., U of Louisiana at Lafayette. 15 April 2008
Reid, Joy. “Comments on Vivian Zamel’s “The composing Processes of Advanced ESL
Students: Six Case Studies”. TESOL Quarterly. 18 (1984): 149-153. JSTOR. Edith Larland Dupre Lib., U of Louisiana at Lafayette. 15 April 2008
Simpson. Jeanne H. The Element of Invention.New York: Eastern Illinois
University, 1990.
Spack, Ruth. “Invention Strategies and the ESL College Composition Student”. TESOL
Quarterly. 18 (1984): 649-670. JSTOR. Edith Larland Dupre Lib., U of
Louisiana at Lafayette. 15 April 2008
Winer, Lisa. ““Spinach to Chocolate”: Changing Awareness and Attitudes in ESL
Writing Teachers”. TESOL Quarterly. 26 (1992): 57-80. JSTOR. Edith Larland
Dupre Lib., U of Louisiana at Lafayette. 15 April 2008
Zamel, Vivian. “The composing Processes of Advanced ESL Students: Six Case Studies.
TESOL Quarterly. 17 (1983): 165-187. JSTOR. Edith Larland Dupre Lib., U of
Louisiana at Lafayette. 15 April 2008
0 comments:
Post a Comment