ESL writing teachers working in academic settings (e.g., high schools, community colleges, universities) seem to voice similar, recurring concerns: How do I help students reach beyond the basics of the five-paragraph essay? How can I motivate students to produce enough work of increasingly higher quality? This article draws on writing pedagogy to offer a set of teaching strategies and techniques for ESL academic writing.

Four key concepts serve as a foundation: creativity, systematicity, operationalization, and validation. First, creativity is inherent in all humans, and writing teachers can cultivate originality and artistry in students. Recognizing and stimulating a student’s artistic side is imperative because it creates pleasure as well as develops the writer’s voice. In my classroom, I emphasize that to write well is an art as well as a skill. This emphasis implies that I am teaching academic ESL writing from the perspective of traditional academic skills, and also from the perspective of teaching writing as a creative endeavor. Second, systematicity also promotes good writing. In teacher development programs, teaching routines are encouraged because they create security, support development, and potentially encourage appropriate risk-taking in students. Also, famous authors tend to write at certain times of the day in certain spaces (George, 2005), so emerging writers should be encouraged to develop their own routines for writing. Third, operationalizing the essay or research paper into specific writing processes makes the work doable. The Chinese have a saying that “To get through the hardest journey, we need take only one step at a time, but we must keep on stepping.” Finally, validating an ESL writer’s work remains crucial to supporting the emotional as well as academic needs of second-language learners. I have found that emotional validation parallels supporting the creative nature of my writers. In this article, I apply these four concepts to ESL academic writing instruction by means of these six teaching techniques: cultivating fluency in writing via creativity, teacher modeling of writing processes, reducing anxiety by breaking down the writing process into smaller tasks, increasing the accessibility of writing processes via collaboration, guiding revision, and achieving validity in assessment through writing portfolios.

CULTIVATING FLUENCY IN WRITING VIA CREATIVITY

Many students, not just ESL writers, are afraid of the writing process. Consequently, writing teachers and coaches may employ various types of short, simple writing tasks (e.g., free-writing, in which students write down whatever comes to mind; brainstorming, in which students list ideas or details tied to their topic; and drafting, in which students organize main ideas and supporting details tied to their purpose or main argument―all of which may be observed but not be graded by the teacher) that may help students relax and prepare for longer or more complex writing tasks (which may ask the students to use specific grammatical, semantic, or stylistic forms previously presented by the teacher). Also, such exercises may help nervous writers draw on their creativity, which is associated with left-brain functions (George, 2005). To specifically cultivate creativity, instructors may employ 3- to 5-minute free-writes that use postcards, images of animals or scenery, blank cartoons, or other kinds of unusual graphics as visual writing prompts for warm-up writing tasks. Asking students to write in response to these images may activate creativity, generate enthusiasm, and cultivate enjoyment at the beginning of an ESL writing class. However, to encourage self-awareness and student responsibility in writing processes, I suggest varying the opening warm-ups between these creative visual exercises and short quizzes. In my classes, the format of these quizzes takes the form of timed free-writes, and the content for the quizzes is self-reflection on writing processes. Examples of prompts for the quizzes are: What did we talk about yesterday to improve our writing? What have you learned about your strengths and weaknesses so far?

TEACHER MODELING OF WRITING PROCESSES

Even at the elementary level, scholars assert that ESL writers want to observe and experience authentic writing processes (Graves, 1994). Students perceive and personalize authenticity when teachers model their own writing process. This shows ESL students that all writers, even native speakers writing in their own language, must revise their texts. In this way, modeling authenticates the writing process; using texts generated by the student also serves to help students witness their own process. However, using student writing as models can be tricky; the teacher must walk a fine line between the need for validation and revision. I overcome reluctance about the revision process by modeling the process, using short excerpts of my own work in progress. Next, I ask students to attempt their own revisions at scheduled times during the semester. Finally, I note that participation in personal and peer revisions also counts as assessment points toward final grades.

REDUCING ANXIETY BY BREAKING DOWN THE WRITING PROCESS INTO SMALLER TASKS

Anxiety can overtake all kinds of writers, not just ESL writers. Famous fiction writers have recounted that they build their stories by writing small sections of the work, sometimes in random order; this type of nonlinear thinking is well known to creativity experts (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). Second-language psychology recommends breaking down the writing process into smaller tasks that sequentially represent the writing process and “conscious movement towards goals” (Oxford, 2001, p. 362; Bialystok, 1990). Because academic writing is a formidable task, students can benefit by breaking it down into smaller portions. For example, for a research paper, these portions can be used: collection of evidence (i.e., research); topic selection and thesis; outline of main ideas and supporting details; reference page; adding references in the text (i.e., indirect and direct citations); introduction; conclusion (i.e., summary plus meta-commentary); transitions; title page; and formatting guidelines. Each of these sections can be adjusted to the students’ proficiency. To cultivate independence in the writing process, I have students submit their papers with a checklist that is designed to acknowledge that they have completed all the requirements for each section (see appendix). This coversheet is thoroughly reviewed during the first week of class and reviewed throughout the term.

INCREASING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF WRITING PROCESSES VIA COLLABORATION

One way to counteract any negative feelings about revisions is to ask students to work collaboratively. When two ESL students or a small group generate or revise texts together, the process becomes dynamic and collaborative. ESL students may scaffold onto each other’s writing processes, accept peer revisions, and create texts reflecting a higher level of academic register (in terms of vocabulary, organization, correct grammar, and stylistic nuance) together better than they could alone. In the classroom, setup can be varied to encourage collaboration. Activities can also be varied from solitary writing exercises to pair or group activities, with both types of activities either timed and untimed. In addition, sometimes I create a scrambled-sentences activity from a text written by a collaborative pair. First, the class re-sequences the sentences. Then, I divide the class into small groups, with the collaborating pair of writers functioning as class consultants for the activity. The class works in small groups to revise and expand upon the text, thereby creating a new, longer version of the original draft. The consultants circulate and offer advice, comments, and support to their peers.

GUIDING REVISION

ESL students can help each other with the writing process during a guided revision activity. A clear set of peer review guidelines is needed when requesting students to participate in peer-review activities. Many ESL writing textbooks, such as Oshima and Hogue (2006), have peer review guidelines in their appendices; the Internet also has a wide selection as well. As a teacher, I regularly hold mini-conferences with student writers throughout the semester. Usually, I hold a conference with a student for 10 to 15 minutes, or I meet with a group of students who share a similar issue. For example, if a student needs help paraphrasing or citing references, I will sit with her and listen carefully as she tells me about a section of her work. Then, we will look at this section, and I will ask her to point out problem areas. Sometimes, I will point them out and ask her to revise them with me. My writer’s conferences are all individualized instruction, yet they are based on allowing the writer to speak about areas that both the writer and the teacher feel need revision.

ACHIEVING VALIDITY IN ASSESSMENT THROUGH WRITING PORTFOLIOS

It makes practical sense that writers be assessed by what they produce. Many creative and rhetorical writing programs in the United States use portfolio-based assessment for writing courses; research shows that portfolio assessment can accurately index proficiency and skill (Huot & O’Neill, 2008). For ESL writers, this alternative assessment can help relieve stress and anxiety related to exams and testing. Assessment also directly validates the writer: This is your work; this is what you have created over time in my class. For example, I assess my ESL writers not only by how well they write in terms of content, correct grammar, punctuation, and formatting, but also in terms of how many times they revise, how many times they meet with a peer editor, and how many times they meet with me for writer’s conferences. (For advanced students who need fewer revisions, I ask them to serve as writing consultants.) In addition, I ask each writer to keep a dialogue journal, which I assess by weekly word counts. Finally, I assess the students by the number of essays they bring to completion, which includes having submitted two drafts.

CONNECTING THE CONCEPTS

Figure 1 illustrates how these concepts and elements are closely related.

Figure 1 visually represents the connections between validation, systematicity, operationalization, and creativity. Because these terms are abstract and because the composition of each classroom is unique in terms of learner identity as well as linguistic fluency, this figure is an approximation. But as the graph portrays, generally speaking, validation is most deeply influenced by teacher modeling of writing processes. Systematicity appears to be most influenced by a combination of increasing accessibility in the writing process and through validity in assessment. For operationalization, revision is key. Finally, creativity is well balanced throughout the six teaching techniques; I have found that appealing to real-life (culturally sensitive and culturally known topics and subjects) stimulates the highest levels of enthusiasm and achievement.

CONCLUSION

I feel that teaching academic writing is an exciting ESL field. Increasing the accessibility and effectiveness of writing instruction remains a daunting challenge. This challenge can be overcome if we consider writing as both a creative process and an academic product. By incorporating creativity, systematicity, operationalization, and validation in the ESL classroom and by dividing the academic writing task into six basic elements, both teachers and students will enjoy the journey. My writing mentor said to me many times: “Writing is thinking on paper. You can’t learn rocket science in one day, but you can eventually master the scientific components if you deconstruct the process. Take it nice and easy.” Cultivating fluency, segmenting the writing process into portions, writing together with your students, alternating production styles, tapping into peer scaffolding as well as personalized mini-conferences, and finally, choosing portfolio assessment―all these things may encourage your ESL writers to create more and better work.

REFERENCES

Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second-language use. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and psychology and the discovery of invention. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.

George, E. S. (2005). Write away: One novelist’s approach to fiction. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Graves, D. (1994). A fresh look at writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Huot, B., & O’Neill, P. (2008). Assessing writing: A critical sourcebook. New York, NY: Bedford/St Martin’s.

Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (2006). Writing academic English, level four (4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Longman.

Oxford, R. L. (2001). Learning styles and strategies. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.)., Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (3^rd ed., pp. 359-366). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Valerie Sartor is an ABD student at the University of New Mexico. She is interested in bilingual education for minorities and teaching academic writing to ESL and ELL students. Her dissertation focuses on Mongolian minority bilinguals in North China.

APPENDIX

WRITING ASSIGNMENT CHECKLIST FOR ADVANCED WRITING

[Note to reader: I copy this cover sheet for every typed assignment and staple it to my assignment.]

• I checked my assignment to make sure I used
• complete sentences
• correct spelling
• correct punctuation
• I typed this in Times New Roman 12 point font, double spaced.
• The assignment is on plain white paper printed on one side.
• I used the spell check function to check my spelling.
• The margins are one inch: top, bottom, right, left.
• I wrote this work myself; I did not cut and paste other people’s work.
• The register is academic; I have chosen my words and style carefully.
• My word choice is not casual; the register is academic.
• I do not have in my paper the following: really, very, great, cool, super.
• I varied my sentence length. Short sentences have more power.
• The topic is carefully thought out.
• The introduction has a compelling opener.
• The topic sentence of each paragraph is a clear assertion that serves the thesis.
• The other sentences in the paragraph support the assertion.
• My conclusion does not simply repeat the main argument; rather, it also summarizes discoveries and explains potential implications, generalizations, or applications.
• This assignment has the 1,000-word minimum.
• A UNM style cover sheet is attached.
• My paper has a header with my assignment (Draft 1 Argument - Sartor) and page number.
• The title of my paper is creative and informative.
• If applicable: This assignment has quotes and references, specified by the teacher.

SIGNATURE__________________________________

DATE _______________________