Another crucially important factor that determines the rationale behind the teaching of FL writing in your department is that of methodology. In particular, the debate regarding the process and product approaches to writing is important.

One of the most common approaches to developing FL writing has been to use model texts (a product-based approach). Here, students are given an example text (eg a letter or a newspaper article) and some time is spent on comprehension work. The important features of the text's genre and conventions are then isolated and analyzed (for example, its organization, layout and the vocabulary and stylistic features used). Following this, students may be asked to complete controlled exercises to practise the various features of the text before moving on to freer writing production (parallel writing, text continuation, etc). The 'model text' approach is communicative in that the learner is exposed to language in a total context, rather than to individual, uncontextualized elements of the language, as was the case with the audio-lingual or grammar-translation approaches to FL instruction. The reading text, ideally, reflects the kind of text that the students are expected to produce.

The model text approach has at least some advantages:

• it gives students an immediate, clear idea of what the final text should look like;
• it saves time;
• it gives students an opportunity to see the TL in context;
• it allows students to look at the style of good writers;
• it give students something to aim for;
• it helps to direct their writing.

However, the model text approach could be criticized for its overt focus on the form of the finished product, without taking into consideration the psychology of the writing process. Although this may help learners to handle more complex writing tasks (by giving a clear model or demonstration of a particular genre) and to use more complex rhetorical features and modes of discourse (Richards, 1990), it may have the following disadvantages:

• it is teacher-imposed;
• it is not a very realistic way of writing;
• it does not reflect the processes or stages that a good writer goes through;
• it is not particularly student-centred or interactive;
• it does not focus sufficiently on the way the writer thinks.

More recent thinking suggests the benefits of focusing on (and emulating) the stages good writers go through in composing a successful piece of work: in other words, it is helpful if writing is seen as a personal resource rather than a social constraint (Maybin, 1995). The process approach draws initially on the research of 'expressivist' thinkers such as Murray (1985) and Elbow (1998). Concentrating on writing strategies themselves, and how to teach these, they emphasize the link between writing development and 'self-actualization' (Hyland, 2002). These authors see writing as a kind of self-discovery, best achieved within a positive, encouraging environment, in which there is minimal interference from the tutor. The process approach to writing has also been heavily influenced by the research of writing theoreticians such as Flower and Hayes (1981). Flower and Hayes contend that writing is primarily influenced by the task environment, and that it is possible to set up an ideal list of stages that a good writer goes through, along the following lines:

When comparing process and product approaches, Nunan (1990) sees 'no principled reason' why the two approaches cannot be integrated. Hyland (2002) is similarly circumspect about advocating a direct preference for one at the expense of the other. As he remarks:

The process-writing approach may be championed as an orientation which allows us to understand writing in a way that was not possible when it was seen only as finished products. It does, however, over-emphasize psychological factors and fails to consider the forces outside the individual which help guide problem-definition, frame solutions and ultimately shape writing.

Hyland's view is reflected in the disparity between FL departments in terms of how writing is taught. While some departments or individuals may actively promote collaborative learning, with students participating to the full in class, others may rarely use the term 'writing process' at all, and the entire psychological process of writing may simply be 'assumed'. For some more traditional departments, the product approach, in which only the final draft is seen, remains the staple methodological norm, and in such circumstances, it might be very surprising to see writers engaged in collaboration and evaluation during class time.

Reflection activity 6

In doing the above task, you will tend to find either that (a) your students are approaching writing as an individual act, or (b) your students are used to sharing their ideas. If the first of these is true of your teaching situation, consider whether there may be some small ways in which you can change the classroom to allow for greater collaboration. If nothing else, it is good practice to try to adopt other methods of reaching your goals from time to time.