Teachers of English To Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) TESOL Quarterly
Teachers of English To Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) TESOL Quarterly
Teachers of English To Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) TESOL Quarterly
(TESOL)
Teaching Composition in the ESL Classroom: What We Can Learn from Research in the
Teaching of English
Author(s): Vivian Zamel
Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Mar., 1976), pp. 67-76
Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3585940
Accessed: 30-01-2019 16:05 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
This content downloaded from 148.88.244.231 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 16:05:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TESOL Quarterly
Vol. 10, No. 1
March 1976
Ms. Zamel is a research assistant and Ph.D. candidate in the Teaching of Eng
to Speakers of Other Languages at Teachers College, Columbia University. She has
taught adults in the American Language Program at Columbia University and children
in the Boston Public Schools.
67
This content downloaded from 148.88.244.231 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 16:05:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
68 TESOL QUARTERLY
This content downloaded from 148.88.244.231 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 16:05:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TEACHING COMPOSITION 69
This content downloaded from 148.88.244.231 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 16:05:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
70 TESOL QUARTERLY
writing, in the sense of creating, truly entails, they still, like the f
insist upon control. Rejecting the notion that writing is the m
sentence patterns, they nevertheless put restraints on the composin
Writing for the ESL student is still essentially seen as the form
a habit. The imitation of various styles and organization patter
helpful for students who are still coping with the acquisition o
This kind of practice, however, is hardly the expression of genuine
and ideas.
It is obvious that there is a predominating concern with the quality
the students' output; because the students are attempting to compose
language other than their own, control and guidance are paramount.
thermore, it is felt that once the imitative stages are mastered, expre
will somehow automatically take place. Opposed to this position are t
who believe that the composing process necessitates a lack of control; r
than emphasize the need to write correctly, the proponents of this app
stress the need to write much and often. In other words, it is quantity
quality, that is crucial. Erazmus (1960) claims that the greater the
quency, the greater the improvement, and Briere's (1966: 146) pilot s
seems to indicate that, when the emphasis is upon writing often rather
error correction, students write more and with fewer errors. Povey (
reiterates this theme, underlining the importance of providing opportunit
to say something vitally relevant.
It is no wonder, in the light of the foregoing discussion, that ESL t
ers are confused and still searching for answers. They face the decisio
having to choose one of several approaches. These approaches can be s
as points along a spectrum ranging from total control to total freedom:
total free
control (increase in complexity >) composition
substitution, imitation & frequent,
manipulation or differentiation uncontrolled
transformation of stylistic writing
of sentences & patterns practice
patterns
This content downloaded from 148.88.244.231 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 16:05:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TEACHING COMPOSITION 71
This content downloaded from 148.88.244.231 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 16:05:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
72 TESOL QUARTERLY
(see, e.g., Dressel et al. 1952).1 Thus, in the light of this research evi
we cannot help but agree that "English teachers . . . should not assi
elicit any writing for the purpose of developing composition unless the w
ing becomes the vehicle for functional instruction" (Hunting 1967:
If the number of compositions written has no effect or even detrime
effect upon the quality of writing, and if there are other factors th
related to the improvement of writing, then the issue becomes one
termining what this "functional instruction" should be. Let us elim
error correction from the outset since by instruction we mean the te
that will prepare students to write, not the proof-reading on which teac
waste so much of their time and which probably has little effect up
students' ability to compose. When we look at the kind of instructio
has been recommended in the past, however, we find that it is not
much better than the grading of papers with red pencil marks. Just
ESL approach to teaching composition has largely been based on gra
tically-oriented instruction, the study of grammar and usage has lon
synonymous with the teaching of composition in the field of Englis
needs only to look at the great number of experiments seeking to es
the effect of grammar on the improvement of writing to realize th
over a century teachers had been teaching grammar and expecting, i
assuming, that it would help their students write better" (O'Hare 1
The evidence of the research clearly undermines the case for gram
and thus has tremendous implications for the ESL teacher who pro
extensive practice with the manipulation and imitation of patterns
even longer passages. While it is true that no direct teaching of gr
may be taking place, the ESL teacher is nevertheless assuming that
exercises are the key to unlocking the creative process. Extensive res
however, has shown us otherwise: over and over again, the study of gram
whether formal or not, has been found to have little, no or even ha
influence upon the students' writing ability.
At first, studies were carried out to demonstrate the futility of f
grammar study (see, e.g., Frogner 1939 and Kraus 1957). Harris' clas
study (see Braddock et al. 1963: 83) established for once and for all
the systematic study of traditional grammar has a "negligible or ev
harmful effect upon the correctness of writing." With the new approach
grammar study, however, came new attempts to show their effects upon
dents' writing ability. Thus, researchers influenced by Charles Fries
to demonstrate the progress made by students receiving instruction
on a structural approach to grammar (see, e.g., Suggs 1961, O'Donnell
Klauser 1964, White 1964 and Henderson 1967). Not surprisingly, th
1 While there has been some experimental support for the positive effects of w
frequency (see, e.g., Lokke and Wykoff 1948, Maize 1954, McColly and Remstad 1963
and Wolf 1966), one should bear in mind that these results were most probably due to
factors unrelated to the issue of frequency, such as the kind of instruction and learning
activities provided, the process and method of correction or the criteria for evaluation.
This content downloaded from 148.88.244.231 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 16:05:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TEACHING COMPOSITION 73
This content downloaded from 148.88.244.231 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 16:05:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
74 TESOL QUARTERLY
REFERENCES
This content downloaded from 148.88.244.231 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 16:05:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TEACHING COMPOSITION 75
This content downloaded from 148.88.244.231 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 16:05:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
76 TESOL QUARTERLY
This content downloaded from 148.88.244.231 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 16:05:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms