Approaches In Developing Writing Skill At King Khalid University A Case Study

Approaches in Developing Writing Skill at King Khalid University: A Case Study
Sharmin Siddiqui1
* & Md. Mostaq Ahamed2
1
Lecturer, Department of English, Faculty of Languages and Translation, King Khalid University, Abha, KSA
2
Ex-lecturer, Department of English, Faculty of Languages and Translation, King Khalid University, Abha, KSA
Corresponding Author: Sharmin Siddiqui, E-mail: sharmin_sddq@yahoo.com
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
Received: February 06, 2019
Accepted: February 28, 2019
Published: March 31, 2019
Volume: 2
Issue: 2
DOI: 10.32996/ijllt.2019.2.2.29
The study investigates the pedagogical approaches used by L2 teachers in
teaching writing at the under graduate level at King Khalid University of Saudi
Arabia. For collecting data about how writing classes are taken and given and
how much effective and useful they are for inspiring L2 learners to be good
writers in the later phases of their personal and professional lives, two campuses
were selected and research methods were carried out through the interviews of
both learners and teachers. The study shows that most of the teachers teach
writing through the product approach which does not necessitate the applying of
thought processes of L2 learners in writing. The study shows that teachers
usually persuade L2 learners to come up with assignments which are in most of
the cases nothing but products of copying from available sources. L2 learners
with some exceptions are found quite reluctant to
brainstorm and get involved in peer or group discussion to produce ideas.
KEYWORDS
Genre, L2 learners
,product, process
1. INTRODUCTION
To L2 learners in the under graduate level at King
Khalid University, writing is the most difficult task as
their anxiety level goes high when they are found to be
involved in any kind of writing activities specially
during the examinations. They usually confuse the two
distinctive features of spoken and written language. In
most of the cases, teachers’ approaches in teaching
writing do not affirm the importance of differentiating
the characteristics between spoken and written
language. Spoken language tends to be less structured
and that may have plenty of incomplete sentences,
clichés, stringy description, back channels and
interruptions and those elements should not be present
in formal writing texts. Lexical choice in writing texts
also differs from the lexis of spoken language.
Colloquial expressions sneaking in formal writing
texts are common as L2 learners are very much aware
of those.
Teachers basically give emphasis on the mechanics of
writing and want learners to produce error free
writings. Consequently, learners are tensed with
attaining perfection rather than displaying creativity
and originality. That very attitude of teachers
encourages learners for rote learning and thus securing
grade in examinations. Learners are required to write
comparatively large answers during summative
examinations and a small number of learners can
accomplish the jobs. Learners basically like to have
objective type questions that are less tiring, difficult
and that can even be answered through blind guesses.
As a matter of fact, leaners
have great antipathy for essay type writings and
generating ideas going out of the box. Teachers are
well known about the general disposition of Arab L2
learners, so they usually go with the trend. At that
critical juncture, teachers do not feel the urge of
adopting process approach incorporating with
interactive activities though they are fully responsible
for reshaping learners’ attitude toward writing and
putting them in a right track. Though it is imperative
that teachers should constantly modify their teaching
styles to address the diverse learning styles of learners
and thus spark their interest in learning, they, by and
large, are responsible for developing negative anxiety
through an ineffective pedagogy of teaching.
1.1 Objectives:
The principal objective of this study was to investigate
the approaches that L2 teachers adopt in teaching
writing to learners of non-speaking backgrounds. The
other objectives of the study were as follow:
1. To know about the materials used for
teaching writing.
2. To know about the assessment procedures
and the objectivity of assessments.
3. To explore if L2 leaners and teachers
consider writing only a tool for practicing
grammatical and lexical patterns.
4. To know about how learners are assisted to
generate and process ideas.
International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation (IJLLT)
ISSN: 2617-0299
www.ijllt.org

196
5. To see if the existing styles and strategies of
teaching writing are adequate or they require
modifications.
6. To know about learners’ motivational factors
in writing and the way teachers provide
stimuli to learners.
1.2. Rational of the Study:
The importance and the need of this study are based on
various reasons. Firstly, it is found that the existing
teaching writing techniques of L2 teachers at the under
graduate level are the most traditional ones as L2
teachers hardly aware of the changes in modes of
teaching writing in a second language. Evidences
show that a good number of L2 learners are frustrated
with their attempts at writing expression because of the
difficulties with the mechanical aspect of writing. As
rules of grammar are taught deductively in a
monolingual class, learners struggle and occupy only
with the rules for framing sentences. The study
rationalizes the need of additional strategies and
systematic procedures in mastering the teaching
writing by growing out of typical product class where
writing development is seen mainly the result of the
imitation of input (Badger &White 2000). Secondly,
the substandard writing skill of learners of the under
graduate level has given birth to the issue whether the
universities are failing to turn out a good number of
first-rate pupils with commendable writing skill. The
study manifests that teachers themselves considerably
contribute to students’ reluctance and negative feeling
to accomplish writing assignment and so a new insight
that written out-put is a matter of complex mental
processes of L2 learners is needed to be imbibed by L2
teachers.
Thirdly, the study is important for encouraging L2
teachers to adopt process approaches specially for
teaching young adult learners and blended approaches
for young learners. As learners learn differently based
on their ages, maturation, cognitive development and
consonance, teachers should consider which approach
can be brain compatible for learners of diverse
backgrounds.
Fourthly, the study is significant for knowing the fact
about how far the communicative approach is
successful in teaching writing as the communicative
approach does not emphasize much the rhetorical
convention of English texts. In this approach, learners’
attention is not called upon the structure, style and
organization of their writings and even the least stress
is given on the creativity of an individual writer
student.
Finally, the study states the importance why teachers
need to tailor their teaching approaches to address the
needs of diverse learners. Process approaches urge the
changing role of learners and teachers and emphasize
their effectivities but on the other hand, in reality we
can’t put product approaches in an archive. The study
signifies the necessity of incorporating interactivity
into product approaches to make it effective specially
for dealing with young learners. Leki (1991) with
regard to traditional writing states that, in order to get
good marks in writing assignments by avoiding errors,
students naturally write very cautiously and
conservatively in their second language and as a result,
the natural fluidity of language is hindered.
At this backdrop, it is imperative to study the
approaches that are usually adopted by L2 teachers of
Saudi Arabia and encourage them to hold a new
attitude in teaching writing and facilitate L2 learners
reflecting their creativities and presentation skills in
their writing.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
It is a widely held view that language learning is a
process and teaching writing is a product. That very
idea opposes the teaching writing as a process that
involves several mental activities. Nunan (1991) has
mentioned that there is a perennial tension in most
aspect of language learning and teaching between
language as a process and writing as a product.
Syllabus designing is one of the issues that confirms if
emphasis is given on the product approach of writing
or process approach of writing. Nunan (1991) points
out that traditionally, in curriculum practice, a
distinction has been drawn between the activities of
the syllabus designer, which have been focused on
product, and the activities of the methodologies, which
have been focused processes.
The teaching- learning activities through product
based approaches involves learners in imitating,
copying and transforming models of correct language.
(Nunan 1991). The earliest view of teaching was that
learners should acquire adequate knowledge in
forming or structuring sentences before they write
essays or paragraphs coherently and cohesively. The
notion faced a challenge when the beginners are
encouraged to write down on papers without being
obsessed with the correctness of language. A new
approach emerged in teaching writing that took into
consideration the different stages of thought
processing and the approach significantly and
controversially discounted the role of grammar.
According to Leki (1991), emphasis was given on the
new approaches that enable L2 learners exploring

IJLLT 2(2):195-206
197
their own knowledge of subject before attempting to
write about it. This emphasis paved the way to
constitute the ideas of process approaches in teaching
writing. Process approaches focuses on orchestrating
and pulling together the different components of
writing through the mobilizing of mental effort. It
indicates a mental route in which L2 writers process
ideas, gather and sort the information before and while
writing. Tribble, 1996 (cited in Badger and White,
2000) suggest that process approaches give emphasis
on the innovativeness of the individual writer, and
which pays attention to the development of good
writing practices rather than the imitation of model.
According to Holmes (2012) thus, the focus shifts
from the final product itself to the different stages the
writer goes through in order to create this product and
by breaking down the task as a whole into constituent
parts, writing can seem greatly less daunting and more
manageable to EFL students.
Though process approach is highly appreciated and
accepted, it has received a lot of criticisms. One such
criticism mentioned by Nunan (1991) that the process
approach confines children largely to narrative forms
and that represents a serious limitation on their ability
to master text types such as reports, expositions and
arguments which are essential for academic success at
school and school beyond. From that point of view,
academic writing accentuates the necessity of genre
approach that is adopted by L2 teachers for teaching
different genres of writing.
Genre approaches are relatively newcomers to ELT
(Badger &White, 2000). Genre- based pedagogy
views languages as an open dynamic system, where
knowledge about language is taught in an explicit
manner and genres (types of texts) are used as the
starting point of modeling, deconstructing, and
understanding language (Martin, 1999 cited in Badger
and White, 2000). More explicitly, genre approaches
stress that writing varies with the social context in
which it is produced. According to Badger and White
(2000), for genre analysts, the central aspect of the
situation is purpose. Different kinds of writing, or
genres, such as letters of apology, recipes or dialogue
are used to carry out different purposes. The reality is
that most of the L2 learners at under graduate level in
Saudi Arabia are not familiar with the term, genre-
based approach in writing. They are not much familiar
with the conventions and cultural and social norms of
writing in the target language and they usually tend to
borrow the styles of writing to the target language
from their own language. L2 learners confuse the
rhetorical conventions of English texts with the
conventions of Arabic. Dudley-Evans, 1997 (cited in
Badger and white, 2000) identifies three stages in
genre approaches. First, a model of a
particular genre is introduced and analyzed. Learners
then carry out exercises, which manipulate relevant
language form and, finally produce a short text.
2.1. Conclusion:
The product approach is a traditional teacher centered
approach, but most writing classes are still based on
mechanistic product oriented exercises and drills
(Zamel, 1987 cited in Nunan 1991). Conversely, the
process approach is learner centered approach but
involves complex processes and inductive ways that
are not suitable for all learners. Nevertheless, the
process approach by virtue of its pedagogical
implications is able to hold the interest of most of the
linguists.
The genre approach has been introduced in teaching
writing, which emphasize the variation of writing
according to different social contexts but genre
approach can be regarded as an extension of product
approach (Badger and White, 2000). In fact, many
linguists have emphasized on the integration of both
the approaches, many of them have argued for
collaborative approach to encourage every member of
a team to contribute to a writing task and many of them
have placed stress on providing L2 learners with
models so that they can practice and apply them in an
authentic context.
2.2 Research Question:
The study has been framed around the following
question:
1. How is the writing skill developed at the under
graduate level in Saudi Arabia?
3: METHODOLOGY
The research has been carried out using the following
tools.
3.1. Observation:
Writing classes by the L2 teachers of two different
institutions were observed for this study. The
researcher was a non-participant observer to collect
data about what went on in a natural setting. It was an
unstructured observation and the researcher recorded
the required data by penning them down and using
audio recording.
3.2 Questionnaires:
A questionnaire consisting of ten questions was
designed to elicit information from the L2 teachers
regarding their teaching writing approaches. The
question format was close-ended and the respondents
were given the questionnaires to pass opinion
anonymously. Fifty L2 teachers of the two institutions
spontaneously answered the questionnaires and the
responses were collected within the seven working
days. The questionnaire

198
had no time limit to finish and the respondents were
expected to finish at their convenience within seven
working days.
3.3 Interview of the Focus Group:
To collect data about how learners learn writing and
what their attitude toward teachers’ approaches of
teaching writing is, the interviews of the focus group
were held. There were four focus groups and each of
them consisted of five members. The individual group
comprising of female learners was formed through
random assignment. The interviews were held in an
informal setting in a manner of discussion and they
were held on every Wednesday in a month during the
free time of both the teachers and the learners. There
were unstructured and follow-up questions that helped
have the data about students’ deeper insight into
learning writing and experiences.
3.4 Setting:
The study was conducted in two female campuses of
King Khalid University situated in Abha city.
Regarding academic performances, the two campuses
have become noticeable over the past few years. The
current roll strength of these two institutions is about
two thousand in total and most of the learners belong
to privileged class.
3.5 Participants:
As regards the educational qualifications of the L2
teachers of these institutions, most of them have
master degrees in English literature, applied linguistics
and English language teaching. A few of them have
PhD. They also have several professional trainings
from different governmental and non- governmental
organizations. The participants of the study were the
under graduate students of same gender, similar in age
ranging from 18 to 22 years, having the same mother
tongue Arabic and studying throughout the Arabic
medium. All of them have a minimum of five years of
formal education and they have intermediate
proficiency level on average.
Classroom procedures and testing related to this were
taken place during the participants’ regular class time
and were entirely integrated into daily classroom
activities.
4. DATA PRESENTATION
4.1. Data from Questionnaire:
To collect data about how the teachers involve learners
in writing activities at the under graduate level, close-
ended questionnaires (see appendix) were distributed
among the teachers and semi-structured interviews
were taken (see appendix).
The first structured question asked to the teachers was
if they use any particular technique, method or
approach in teaching. There were given four options,
viz., (a) Yes), (b) No, (c) Sometimes and (e) others.
The table below shows the reply:
Teachers’ Table-1
Question Yes No Sometimes Others
Do you
use any
particular
technique ,
method or
approach
in teaching
writing?
33.3% 16.7% 50% 0%
The table shows that around 33.3% of the teachers
opted for the first choice, 16.7% for the second, and
50% for the third. According to the survey, 50%
teachers sometimes teach writing by using a technique,
method or an approach but around 16.7% does not use
any. The first follow-up question asked to teachers in
the interview was, “What approaches do you use in
teaching writing? Many of them talked about
communicative and collaborative approaches and tried
to explain their ways of teaching writing based on
those approaches. 16.7% respondents were found to be
quite ambiguous and they did not adopt any particular
approach but exert their own techniques.
Teachers’ Table -2
Do you
encourag
e learners
to
consider
the
audience
of a
particular
writing?
16.7
%
26.7
%
33.3% 23.3%
Table-2 shows that 26.7% of the teachers did not
encourage their students to consider the audience of a
particular writing while 16.7 % of the teachers
responded yes. 33.3% of the teachers sometimes
encouraged their students to consider audience while
23.3% of the teachers opted for the option ‘others’ and
they mentioned that they did not have much idea about
audiences of writing. The complementary

IJLLT 2(2):195-206
199
question of the interview was “Why do you think
considering audience of writing is important for
students?” According to respondents, knowing the
audience of writing helps them make decision what
information they should include, how they should
arrange that information and what kind of supporting
details will be necessary for readers to understand
what they are presenting. 26.7% of the teachers never
encourage their learners considering the audience, as
they were obsessed with the thought that students
know that either the teachers or fellow students (or
both) would be their audience.
Teachers’ Table-3
Do you help
learners do
brainstorming
in groups or
pairs in
writing class?
15.4% 23% 23% 38.4%
The third question was if they helped students do
brainstorming in groups or pairs. Only 15.4% teachers
replied that they do. However, 23% of the teachers do
not do any kind of brainstorming in groups or pairs. In
reply to the complementary question, “why don’t they
help students do brainstorming in pairs and group?”
They said that the duration of each class is only fifty
minutes and it is impossible for them to do all those
things within that time period. One of the teachers
remarked, “A small classroom size but a large class
size, traditional sitting arrangement, pressure of
completing syllabus within the stipulated time frame
do not allow us to do all these things.” The table shows
that 23% of the teachers sometimes conduct the
activities and 38.4% opt for others. The feedback
question was “Why do you think helping students in
brainstorming in pairs and groups is important?” The
majority (38.4%) that opted for others made several
comments such as, ‘A writing class needs silence for
concentration’, ‘Writing is an individual work’,
‘Time-constraint’, ‘Not possible’ ‘A new concept’.
Teachers’ Table-4
Are you very
much strict
about
checking
grammar?
87.5% 0% 6.25% 6.25%
In response to the fourth question a striking number of
teachers opted for yes (85.5%) and no one opted for no
(0%). Only 6.25% of the teachers check grammar
occasionally because according to them they give
emphasis on free writing. Same number of teachers
(6.25%) went for the option others and they mentioned
that they would check grammar if the purpose of a
writing test was checking grammar. The table shows
that most of the teachers hold rigid attitude toward
checking grammar. The complementary question was
“Why is it important to check grammar strictly? In
reply, one of the teachers said, “The writing is strictly
checked to put emphasis on accuracy. The writing is
carefully controlled so that the students can see only
the correct language and practice grammatical
structures that they have been taught”.
Teachers’ Table-5
Do you give
learners
writing
assignments or
homework?
85% 0% 15% 0%
The table shows that around 85% of the teachers give
their students writing assignments or home works and
15% of the teachers sometimes do it. The
complementary question of the interview was “Why
do you think giving homework or assignments can
help students develop as a writer?” In reply to the
question one of the teachers said that echoed the voices
of other teachers, “Giving homework will engage them
in writing activities at home.” The teachers opted for
sometimes believe that giving writing assignments at
regular basis may ruin the real tastes of writing. They
concerned about the students’ ability of taking the load
and therefore preferred giving less home works to the
learners.
Teachers’ Table-6
Do you talk
about the
topic before
they start
writing?
73.4% 0% 26.6% 0%
Question -6 was, “Do you talk about the topic before
your students start writing?” and 73.4% of the teachers
responded positively. The follow-up question asked in
the interview was, “Why do you

200
think talking about the topic before they start writing
is important? If not, why?” One of the teachers said,
“It is important to give some prior ideas about the topic
to the students. They listen to us and then can expand
their ideas while writing.” 26.6% of the teachers
sometimes discuss the topic as according to them; they
let the students generate ideas solely by themselves.
Sometimes the teachers talk a little about the topic.
They give different writing assignments to their
students and ask them to memorize and produce them
in classes.
Teachers’ Table-7
Do you ask
learners for
peer
correction or
assessment?
3.3% 83.3% 13.4% 0%
The table shows that around 83.3% of the teachers do
not ask their students for peer correction or
assessment. The follow- up question asked in the
interview was, “Why don’t you ask your students for
peer correction or assessment?” In reply to the
question one of the teachers said, “A student does not
feel good whenever he is asked for peer correction.
May be, a student suffers from a kind of inferiority
complex to share his mistakes with his fellows who
are, in intelligence, about equal.” “Sometimes students
do not consider their peers’ corrections and advice
reliable and do not view their peers as authorities who
can correct their errors,” remarked another one. The
table shows that only 3.3% teachers ask their students
for peer correction and 13.4% occasionally ask their
students for peer correction. The percentage indicates
a limited scale of collaborative culture in tutored
situation.
Teachers’ Table-8
Do you ask
learners to
write on
topics out
of their
syllabus?
6.7% 83.3% 13.4% 0%
It is conspicuous from the percentage (83.3%) that
most of the teachers do not ask their students to write
anything out of their syllabuses. The complementary
question asked in the interview was, “Why don’t you
ask your students writing topic out of their syllabuses.”
They answered almost in one voice that they had time
constraint. They point out that learners also do not like
to discuss topic out of their syllabuses, as they like to
write what may be set in their question papers.
According to them, even the parents of the students do
not like it, as they want the teachers to be very much
focused and particular. The survey shows that only
6.7% of the teachers opted for yes and 13.4% opted for
sometimes.
Teachers’ Table- 9
Question Yes No Sometime
s
Other
s
Do you use
conferencin
g to discuss
writing with
learners?
16.7
%
66.7
%
16.6% 0%
According to the survey, 66.7% of the teachers do not
conference with students to assess their writing skill
and guide them to improve their writing over time. The
complementary question asked in the interview was,
“Don’t you think conferencing can help students
develop their writing skill? If not, why?” One of the
teachers reported, “All the things required for the
development of writing skill are done in classes. We
don’t think it requires holding a further
conference to discuss writing.” Another teacher said,
“Students are always welcome to us with any question
that dawn on their mind. When they come, we try to
help them. Isn’t it conferencing?” “We do not use
conferencing if you mean by conferencing an
organized and planned activities. However, we are
always counseling our students so that they can
develop their writing skill.” The survey report shows
that 16.7% opted for yes and 16.6% opted for
sometimes. They reported that conferencing could
infuse new insight into students and they could
gradually develop themselves as creative writers by
attaining cognitive maturation.
Teachers’ Table-10
Do you look
for
creativity
when you
edit?
84.4% 0% 16.7% 0%

IJLLT 2(2):195-206
201
The last close-ended question to the teachers was if
they looked for creativity when they edited students’
scripts. Around 84.4% of the teachers answered yes,
0% teachers opted for no and 16.6% chose the option
sometimes. The complementary question asked in the
interview was, “Why do you think considering
creativity more important than mechanics of writing?”
This question contradicts question no. 6 and 7 and
elicits contradictory answers form teachers. One of the
teachers said, “I like to nurse and nurture the creativity
of a student. I try to see if learners are able to reflect
their thoughts in their scripts. A learner may do
mistake but it is important to see how far he/she is
successful in portraying himself/herself in writing.”
The teachers belonging to ‘sometimes’ group clarified
their stance mentioning, “It depends on what we want
in their writing. It will not be logical if we overlook
their mistakes but simultaneously it will never be
rewarding if we ignore their creativity. Our duty is to
help them attain perfection in both the areas.”
4.2. Data from Focus Groups:
There were four focus groups and each focus group
consisted of five members. They were interviewed to
elicit information from them and the interviews were
held in an informal setting in a manner of discussion.
There were unstructured and follow-up questions,
which helped gather information about learners’ views
toward learning writing in second language.
The first question to the students was, “What do you
think about your writing skill in English?” Their
answers speak volumes for their dissatisfaction with
their writing skill. One of respondents said, “We only
write during examinations and therefore, we have to
memorize the important lessons. Our teachers make us
write only the important things and thus impose
limitations on us.” The next question was, “Do you
think your listening and speaking skills are better than
your writing skill?” The answered with a same
depressed tone to express their weaknesses in writing
skill. To know if there are activities in their writing
classes, the students were asked, “What is your
favorite activity in a writing class?” A participant
replied, “There is a few activities in a writing class.
Teachers ask us to write on a topic (most of the times
the topic is given the previous class for memorizing it)
from our syllabus and we all do it silently. While
checking the scripts, the teachers appreciate those who
have done less grammatical mistakes.” Another
question that was asked to find out their attitude
toward learning through sharing was, “Do you allow
your class friends to see your writing?” In reply to the
question, one of the students said, “Usually we do. We
have the culture of sharing things with our
class friends and in this case, we copy form each
other.”
5. ANALYSIS OF DATA
The data collected from the study present a significant
evidence of the effect of teaching writing approaches
on L2 learners at the under graduate level at King
Khalid University. The study bears evidences that still
the two approaches; the process approach and
comparatively new, the genre approach are quite
unfamiliar to L2 teachers though over the last twenty
years, process approach and in the last ten years, genre
approach have been profusely used in teaching
writing. The finding reflects Rashid‘s (2008) remark
that no well-defined method or approach in teaching
English is followed in King Khalid University.
According to data, a good number of teachers speak
about adopting communicative approach in teaching
writing. It indicates that they have knowledge about
the positive effect of the communicative approach in
teaching English but they are quite unaware if the
approach is suitable for teaching writing. According to
data, though 33.3% of the teachers adopt approaches
in teaching writing, they adopt traditional mechanical
approach. According to Leki (1991), the traditional
philosophy of teaching language has persuaded
teachers that learners are not ready to create language,
they are only ready to manipulate form.
From the study, it is found that a good number of
teachers are not much aware of the fact that audiences
of writing can be different according to the purposes
of writing. Many of the teachers think themselves the
only audience of their students’ writing, which
indicates their traditional outlook in teaching. This
very attitude reflects the nature of product approaches
which are primarily concerned with mechanics of
writing.
It is important for a student writer to create a text that
will be both rhetorically and linguistically appropriate
(Firkins, Forey & Sengupta 2007). However, the
finding speaks volumes for the fact that most of the
teachers at the secondary level do not have adequate
knowledge about the rhetorical norms of writing and
consequently their students are not supposed to know
about this. John (2004) remarks that written language
looks at how the thoughts and oral language are
transformed into written language maintaining the
norms of the target language. It is significant to notice
that there are many dissenting voices among the
teachers (around 53.3%) regarding the necessity of
maintaining rhetorical norms in writing because many
of them never have heard about it.

202
5.1.. Findings:
Although in teaching of writing different approaches
have emerged, evolved and contributed to the
changing role and status of writing within English
language syllabuses and English as a foreign language,
teaching of writing has continued to be one of the most
difficult areas for L2 teachers at under graduate level.
As still traditionally writing is viewed mainly as a tool
for the practice and reinforcement of specific
grammatical and lexical patterns, a one- dimensional
activity, in which accuracy is all- important (Holmes,
2012), students’ ability to produce and develop their
own ideas by using their imagination and skill is spoilt
largely. The findings helped confirmed that teachers
have ‘trapped our students within the sentence’ and
‘responded to the piece of writing as item checkers not
as real readers’ (Raims, 1983 cited in Holmes, 2012).
According to Holmes (2012), even in more recent
communicative approaches to language teaching,
teachers can often still see writing as something of a
taboo area, threatening to detract valuable classroom
time from the development of oral communication
skill. L2 teachers at the under graduate level have been
found obsessed with communicative approach of
teaching emphasizing more importance on
communicative competence of learners though they
are still not much clear how they will apply
communicative approach in teaching writing. They
have a kind of misconception that people
communicate only through speaking and the other
three skills are not equally important for
communication. They seem to be unaware of the fact
that people also extensively communicate through
writing that necessitates the other two skills (reading
and listening) since the skills furnish the people with
syntactic and semantic knowledge, pragmatic and
discourse knowledge and lexical resources required
for successful communication through writing. As the
focus is mainly given on how one can speak good
English, a good number of students are found to
achieve a certain level of proficiency or minimum
communicative competency in speaking English by
picking up English through conversations in informal
settings or in organized classes. But the same numbers
of students are seemed to be bogged down in their
writings when they are given writing tasks for different
purposes. The lack of the proper balancing of all skills
while teaching a language is found to be a stumbling
block in becoming fluent in both speaking and writing
English.
Theoretically all methods are good but practically no
method is perfect or unique. The communicative
approach involves some challenges that require
trained and skilled teachers to handle them. It appears
that most of the teachers know the theory of CLT but
the application of their theoretical knowledge in an
ESL context for teaching writing is not in conformity
with the underlying principles of the approach. To
most of the teachers communicative approach means
nothing but particular types of classroom organization
and activities. Of course, learners can learn through the
activities but that has little to do with teaching writing
the appropriate ways. Not having well-thought-out
lesson plans in advance can’t dispel the doubt if the
teachers have succeeded in carrying their strategies
into effect and the students are going to make much
progress in learning.
It is found that to produce a coherent, well- written
text is extremely a stressful task for L2 learners at the
secondary level as the intervening stages in the process
of creating this text are overlooked. It is difficult for
L2 learners to produce a highly structured text without
first going through various pre-writing and drafting
stages (Holmes, 2012). The findings have revealed
that L2 learners at graduate level are not also able to
produce different varieties of acceptable written texts,
as they are not made familiar with the conventions of
various different genres of writing English. Besides,
combined with the frequently limited and
unconstructive, sometimes negative and often purely
grammatically focused nature of teacher feedback on
the completed piece of writing, contribute to a strong
lack of student motivation and a distinct reluctance to
complete writing assignments either inside or outside
of the classroom (Holmes, 2012).
It has been noticed that to capture students’
imagination and spark their motivation in writing L2
teachers do not have active participation in writing
classes and they have hardly played a collaborative
role in guiding, developing and arbitrating students’
decision about what a good writing looks like. Most of
the L2 teachers have failed to incorporate the essential
elements for teaching writing and therefore, students
do not have any framework for evaluating their own
work. For L2 learners, there has a less provision for
practice of writing in class and it has been transpired
from the study that writing has become low priority for
teachers, as they are mostly concerned with time and
syllabus constraints.
The types of assessments that teachers use to evaluate
learners’ performance in L2 writing also plays an
important role to reinforce learners’ interest in writing.
It has been identified that there have been no relations
between teachers’ evaluation criteria and their
instructions. Most of the teachers do not have clear
instructions whether they will grade students’ writing
on a matter of form, mechanics or a matter of content.
The traditional forms of assessment do not

IJLLT 2(2):195-206
203
help them evaluate students’ writing work fairly and
rationally as their criteria of judging students’
performance do not focus on few specific aspects of
writing that they teach during the lesson;
The study finds that teachers often make learners to
rewrite papers until or unless they come up with error
free writing. This rewriting is kind of punishment
afflicting on them mainly for doing grammatical
mistakes. It does not correspond with the process
approach, which makes L2 learners prepare multiple
drafts just not to extract error free writing from them
but to see if they can express what they want to say.
Though teachers have been found to be satisfied with
their approaches in teaching writing, most of their
classes have not been organized properly and students
have not been motivated to go through the different
stages of writing. They have had their own teaching
styles, which represents nothing but the traditional
mode of teaching. The teachers have not conducted
any activities to facilitate L2 students to learn writing
rather it has been mostly teacher- centered class and
they have preferred their students to be silent for better
concentration.
Most of the students are dissatisfied with their writing
class because writing class is less interesting and
teachers only make them memorize several items from
syllabuses so that they can write them well in
examination.
L2 learners as well as most of their teachers tend to
think that the aim of writing is only for examinations.
They seem not to be aware of the fact that we write a
lot outside the class in a real life situation where
writing takes on a functional purpose.
6. IMPLICATIONS OF PEDAGOGY
The study has provided an overview of the approaches
that are adopted by L2 teachers for teaching writing at
under graduate level and implied pedagogy to the
nature of writing process, the roles of teachers as well
as learners and current directions in writing
instruction. The teachers need to understand that
writing is not merely putting pen to papers for the
representation of speech but writing is the integration
of several diverse neural pathways and learners put a
lot of pressure on themselves when they write.
Teachers need to hold experimental attitude with
different teaching approaches and activities in
teaching writing and monitor the results so that
teachers and students can determine whether the
learning goals are being achieved. Based on the
evidences that classroom experiences provide, L2
teachers need to assess their personal theories of
learning and by reshaping their attitude they need to
adopt the most effective approaches in teaching
writing.
It is important for l2 teachers to assess writing
processes and, strategies and use multiple assessments
of writing across various purposes, genres and content
areas (Malley and Pierce, 1995). Identifying student
strengths, educational needs and, interests and
determining what works most effectively in
instruction for each student are indispensable for
effective teaching writing. Teachers need to encourage
their students to assess their own writing as well as
their notions of how they learn to write, by giving them
opportunity to reflect on teaching-learning process.
Children who have difficulty with higher order
cognition problem will have to be helped to go through
the processes of writing as their writing skill improves
slowly over times.
6.1. Concluding Remarks:
The roles of teachers in teaching writing in a second
language have furnished a new insight over the years
and more emphasis has now been given on the mental
process that is activated during the intervening stages
of writing than on the final polished product, which is
mainly appreciated on its looks, clarity and neatness.
L2 teachers at the under graduate level are responsible
for providing learners with the necessary input so that
they can brainstorm, generate and develop ideas.
Besides, they will ensure collaborative learning, which
will inspire learners for peer editing and group editing,
to produce several drafts or version in a more
exploratory, less punitive, less demoralizing writing
class (Leki, 1991).
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Sharmin Siddiqui has an MA in Applied Linguistics
and ELT and has been serving as one of the faculty
members for 10 years in the faculty of languages and
translation at King Khalid University, Abha, KSA.
She is keenly interested in improving the writing skills
of learners through different approaches that suit the
needs of diverse learners.
Md. Mostaq Ahamed is an ex-lecturer of King Khalid
University, Abha, KSA, has MAs in English literature,
ELT and education. He is a Cambridge certified
teacher and a Teaching Excellence and Achievement
Fellow, George Mason University, Virginia, USA.
REFERENCES
[1] Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching
methodology: A textbook for teachers. Hamel
Hempstead, Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall International
(UK) Ltd.

204
[2] Badger, R. & White, G. (2000, April). A process
genre approach to teaching writing. ELT journal
volume 54/2.Retrieved March 24, 2012 from
newsearch.wikispaces.com/file/view
/genre+proess+approach.pdf
[3] Malley, J.M. & Pierce, L.V. (1995). Practical
approaches for teachers. Authentic assessment for
English language teachers. Virginia: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company.
[4] Hatch , E. 1992.Discourse and Language
Analysis. Los Angles. University of California
[5] Leki, L. (1991).Teaching second language
writing: Where we seem to be. Teacher development
making the right move.pp.170-178
[6] Firkins, A. Forey, G. Sengupta, S. (2007,
October). A genre-based literacy pedagogy: Teaching
writing to low proficiency ELT students. Retrieved
fromwww.twghsksk.edu.hk/
hp/English/farkins_Forey_Sengupta.
[7] John, H. (2004, October). Exercise for improving
dialogue. Retrieved from poewar.com/IL-exercise-
for-improving dialogue.
[8] Quader, D.A.1999. Students’ Perception of
Difficulty of Learning English: National and Regional
Issues in English Language Teaching: International
Perspective. Dhaka. NCTB and British Council
[9] Rasid, M.H. (2011, January). English language
teaching in Bangladesh. The News Today. Retrieved
www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-246309811.html
[10] Karim, M & Irine, T.(2011,January). The nature
of teacher feedback in second language writing
classroom: A study on some private universities in
Bangladesh. Journal of the Bangladesh Association of
Young Researchers. Retrieved from www.
Banglajol.info/index.php/ JBAYR/ariticle/view/6837
[11] Holmes, N. (2012, June). The use of process-
oriented approach to facilitate the planning and
production stages of writing for adult students of
English as a Foreign or Second Language.
Developing Teacher.Com. Retrieved from
www.developingteachers.com/ariticles
tchtraining/processw1/Nicola.htm.
[12] Hoch, F. Writing English as a second language:
strategies for helping English language learners
throughout the writing process. Retrieved from
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pag es/672
[13] Hasan, M.K. (2011, April). A approach to the
teaching second language writing at tertiary level in
Bangladesh. Private universities. Journal vol.31 no.1.
Retrieved from
www.journal.au.edu/abac_journal/2011/jan2011/103
_approaches.pdf

IJLLT 2(2):195-206
205
APPENDIX
TEACHERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE
Conducted in 2019
Institution: Education Qualification:
Experience at the under graduate level: Date:
Questionnaire Yes No Sometimes Others
(please
specify
in the
box
below
1. Do you use any particular technique, method or approach in teaching
writing?
2. As a writing teacher, do you encourage learners to consider their
audience?
3. Do you help learners do brainstorming in groups or pairs for letting
them think about the topic of writing?
4. Are you very much strict about checking grammar?
5. Do you give learners writing assignments or homework?
6. Do you talk about the topic before learners start writing?
7. Do you ask learners for peer correction or assessment?
8. Do you ask learners to write on topics out of their syllabus?
9. Do you use conferencing to discuss writing with learners?
10
.
Do you look for creativity when you edit?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COLLABORATION

206
TEACHER’S QUESTIONNAIRE
Oral Interview
Conducted in 2019
Institution: Education Qualification:
Experience at the under graduate level: Date:
1. What approaches do you adopt in teaching writing?
2. Why do you ask your learners to consider the target audience of writing?
3. Why do you think brainstorming important for writing?
4. Why don’t you often let your learners work in groups or pairs in your writing class?
5. Why are you much strict about the mechanics of writing? If not, why?
6. Why do you give learners writing assignment or homework?
7. Why do you talk about the topic before they start writing? If not or often, why?
8. Why do ask them for peer correction or assessment? If not, why?
9. Why do you ask learners to write on topic out of their syllabus? If not, why?
10. Why do you use conferencing to discuss writing with students? If not or often, why?
11. Why do you look for creativity when you edit? If not, why?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COLLABORATION

Approaches In Developing Writing Skill At King Khalid University A Case Study

More Related Content

Similar to Approaches In Developing Writing Skill At King Khalid University A Case Study (20)

More from Todd Turner (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Approaches In Developing Writing Skill At King Khalid University A Case Study