Anda di halaman 1dari 26

Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 22 (6): 789-795, 2014

ISSN 1990-9233
IDOSI Publications, 2014
DOI: 10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2014.22.06.21943

Comparative Analysis of Process Versus Product Approach of


Teaching Writing in Malaysian Schools: Review of Literature
1

Sarala @ Thulasi A/P Palpanadan, 2Abdul Rahim Bin Salam and 3Fauziah Bte Ismail
1

Faculty of Education, Universiti Tenologi Malaysia


Language Academy, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

2,3

Abstract: This makes a comparison analysis oftheeffect of process and product writing approacheson writing
skills development of language learners in Malaysian schools. Literature reveals that despite of much importance
attached to English language in Malaysian education system, students are found to have poor language
competencies. This is more alarming inwriting skills. Many studies have examined the problems faced by
teachers and students regarding writing skills learning. However, little research has looked into the causes for this
problem. This paper contributes to this gap in the current literature. For this purpose, the paper carries out a wide
survey of existing research on process and product writing approaches. The paper also explores the reasons why
product approach is adopted in Malaysian classrooms at the cost of process approach. The findings showed that
teachers prefer to use product approach due to its easy application and avoid process approach due to its being
time consuming. However, keeping in view the typical scenario of Malaysian schools, this paper suggest that
instead of using either product or process approaches in isolation, teachers should blend both approaches and use
them according to the demand of situation and nature of learners and their learning styles. This will help teachers
to use the merits of both approaches and avoid their demerits.
Key words: Comparative Analysis

Process Approach Product Approach Language Classrooms


classroomsto conduct the
knowledge about writing
writing lessons effectively
techniques, feedback and
INTRODUCTION
[4]. On the basis of this
evaluation so that ESL
writing instructions are
Today, researchers have shown great concern about situation they suggest that
adequately carried out in an
the low standards of English language learning amongfor students to develop
ESL
classroom.
This
Malaysian learners [1]. They hold many reasons good writing skills, the
situation necessitates more
responsible for this state of affairs. For example, some writing teachers need to
different
writing
investigation
into
say, that Malaysian students do not seem to be able to use
theapproaches that teachers
attain reasonable language literacy even after going techniquessuch as creative
adopt in Malaysian schools
through 11 years of learning English language at primary writing, reflective essays,
and
critical
essays
and
so
to
teaching
writing
and secondary levels [2]. On the other hand, it is
on
in
classrooms.
This
will
especially
in
ESL
observed that muchimportance is given to English
provide
students
with
more
classrooms
[6].
language in Malaysian education system. Despite of this,
students are failing the subject especially in the writing opportunities to practice
For knowing this
section which is perceived as the lowest skilled area for writing. Scholars have
situation
in depth it is
argued
that
teachers
students [3].
necessary
to peak into the
This study specifically focuses the
writing componentpractices in their writing
deeply
history
of
language
as it usually carries the greater part
of the examinations.instructions
learning. Literature reveals
The paper investigates reasons of why students do not influence students writing
possess a sufficient writing skills to produce well- performance [5]. For this
that many developments
purpose they suggest that
constructed essays.
occurred in L1 composition
Recently, researchers have found that in Malaysian teachers for developing
pedagogy and research in
schools, many ESL teachers are faced with many students writing skills, it is
1960s, 1970s and
important
thatteachers
need
challengesespecially with writing instruction in ESL
to have sufficient writing

Corresponding
Author: Sarala @

789

Thulasi A/P
Palpanadan,

Faculty of Education, Universiti


Tenologi Malaysia.

Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 22 (6): 789-795, 2014

by
ESL
1980s [7].writing
According teachers
at
to
othersprimary and
many
secondary
teaching school levels
approaches have
gone
in
L2through
writing
several
actually
paradigm
stem fromshifts due to
the
L1the changes
writing
in the needs
practices asof
the
there are nopracticability
comprehen of the writing
sive
instruction
theories inselected by
L2 writingthe educators,
at presentinstitutions
[8].
and
policy
However, makers [10].
writers
The
have
main aim of
elaborated this paper is
that
to make an
amongthe analytical
different comparison
language about
the
learning
effectiveness
approaches, of
product
the productand process
and processapproachesan
approaches d to provide
are
the language
profuselyus teachers some
edby
insights about
language these
two
teachers inwriting
the
ESLapproac hes.
writing
The review is
instructions important
around thebecause
it
world [9].reflects
on
Interestingl how
the
y,
inapproaches
Malaysia, are
these
conceptualize
writing
d
in
the
approaches classrooms
practiced while raising

question
about
the
prevailing
low writing
competencies
among
the
Malaysian
language
learners.The
paper
also
suggests the
knowledge on
how
Malaysian
ESL
teachersand
learners can
overcome this
problem
contextually.

Process and
Product
Approach as
Writing
Instructions
Process
Approach:
Back
in
1970s
and
1980s,
a
paradigm
shift occurred
in the arena
of
writing
process. This
was the time
when
the
process
writing
approaches
were started
to
be
employed in
language
classrooms
with
the
attention to
content prior
to form [11].

In
thisknowledge
regard,
and stated the
writers
importance of
developed aprior
cognitive knowledge
model ofeither from
writing
students
processes. schemata or
This
teacherconsisted ofassisted
component activities in
s
andwritten
organizatio discourses.
n of longSome
term
scholars
memory, havetermed
planning, the students
reviewing writing
and
development
translating as
a
thought
movement
into
text.from
The
knowledge
planning telling
to
stage wasknowledge
further
transforming
divided into. They have
three sub-further
activities explained that
such
asit is an ability
planning, to
decide
generating what
to
and
include, what
revising
to
exclude
[12, 13]. and how to
In
order ideas
another
[15, 16, 14].
study, [14]
developed
writing
processes
to
help
students to
develop a
cognitive
structure
within
which the
process of
composing
produces
reconstructi
on
of

Basically
,
process
approach is a
cyclical
approach. In
this approach,
students are
needed
to
move
back
and
forth
while going
from
one
stage
to
another stage
and
taking
part in the
writing
activities.
During
the
activity, they
may return to
pre-writing
activities
even
after
reaching the
revising stage
(final stage).
In
this
process, the
focal point is
the writer and
the
writing
process. The
emphasis is
on
the
linguistic
skills
of
learners such
as planning
and drafting
prior
to
linguistic
knowledge
like grammar
and
text
structure [9].
Some of the
researchers
argue that in
this type of
writing
process, the
writing

developme final
nt
isevaluation
expected tofrom
the
take placeteacher. The
unconsciou process
sly.
model
is
According shown below
to writers,adopted from
in this type[18].
of writing
approach,
the role ofFigure 1:
the teachersThe Process
Model:
is that of a
facilitator
Stage 1:
who
Brianstromin
monitors g
the
Stage 2:
activities inPlanning
various
Stage 3:
stages. InMind
mapping
process
Stage 4: First
writing
draft
approach,
Stage 5: Peer
many
feedback
models inStage 6:
process areEditing
used, butStage 7: Final
there
areDraft
four
Stage 8:
interrelated Evaluation
activities
involved -Product
generating, Approach
The
organizing, (PD):
composing product
approach is
and
one of the
revising
most
[17].
Basically apracticed
approaches in
typical
schools
process
around
the
writing
world.
This
approach
comprises writing
approach
eight
essential encourages
students
to
stages
produce
an
before the
end product
students
produce thewhich may be

likened to a
model essay
or the essay
normally
provided by
teachers. The
main aim of
the approach
isto provide
some
linguistic
knowledge
about
to
language
student [19].
Writers
explain that
in this type of
wiring
approach, the
students are
expected to
have
knowledge
about
language. As
a
result,
students
merely
imitate some
simple
sentences to
get
familiarity
with
the
content. They
also copy and
finally
transform the
models into a
new essay to
be as perfect
as the one
that they have
imitated by
focusing on
the
correct
language as
instructed by
the teachers.
After that, the
790

Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 22 (6): 789-795, 2014

Familiarizatio
students aren
required toStage 2:
submit theirControlled
writing
written
Stage 3:
essays toGuided
the teacherwriting
to
beStage 4: Free
marked andwriting
graded
rather thanComparison
evaluated. of (PD) and
The
Interestingl (PC):
y,
theabove review
students areon both the
asked
toprocesses of
resubmit writing shows
the
the essaysthat
to
theprocess
approach
teacher
after doingfocuses more
objective and
the
necessary it focuses on
corrections. the process of
writing rather
A typical
than the endproduct
product.
approach
Writers also
comprises
inform that in
four stages
process
before
approach, the
students
end-product
produce the
is
not
endcompletely
product for
neglected.The
evaluation.
best product
The chartis believed to
below
be achieved
depicts theafter a few
stages
drafts. In this
involved: method, the
This
hasgrammatical
also beenmistakes are
adopted
tolerated to
from [18]. improve the
development
Figure 2: of the content
Product
ideas of the
Approach
learners. On
(PC)
the
other
Model:
hand,
researchers
Stage 1:

argue
that
product
approach is
more
concerned
with finished
texts. In this
type
of
writing
the
main focus
ison
the
linguistic
accuracy of
learners
rather
than
their abilities.
Some writers
further
say
that under the
product
approach, the
teachers
feedback is
based on the
grammatical
and
lexical
errors andthe
writing tasks
become
decontextuali
zed where the
contexts and
audience are
neglected.
For
more
clarity,
a
comparison
of
Product
Approach
versus
Process
Approachis
provided
below with
the
characteristic
s of each
approach.
Product
Writing:
imitate model
text, features

highlighted How is the


including text written
controlled and how to
practice ofimprove the
development
those
features, of the content
ideas
organizatio and
n of ideas[20].
are
more
important
than ideas
themselves,
emphasis
on
end
product,
individual,
one draft.
Proces
s Writing:
text as a
resource for
comparison
, ideas as
starting
point, more
global,
focused on
purpose,rea
der
is
emphasized
, emphasis
on creative
process,coll
aborative,
more than
one draft.
The
above
characteriz
ation shows
that product
approach
looks
at
What
is
written in
the text and
what score
can
be
given? and
the process
approach
looks
at

Which
Method
Teachers
Prefer and
Why?:
As
mentioned
above that the
ESL writing
teaching in
Malaysian
classrooms
have
undergone
many
paradigm
shifts
over
the last many
years.But
before
in
1970s,
product
approach
became very
popular due
to its many
features
as
illustrated in
the
above
table. In this
type
of
writing
approach, the
main focus is
on the text
features
of
model
texts.Further
more, in this
approach,
rules
of
grammar
govern
the
language
learning
process. This
is considered
to
be
traditional
concept
of
writing
instructional
discourse
[10]. Despite
of its less

popularity, in Malaysian
this
ESL
approach isclassrooms
widely used[21].
by teachersHowever, this
around theapproach
world.
which
However, focuses
on
according the
to
somedevelopment
researchers, of the writing
in
laterprocess faced
years, thatmany
due to theconstraints
prodigious during
its
critique
implementati
about thison.
approach
On the
which was
other
hand,
very model
some
based, the
language researchers
are of the
and
that
education view
teachers
specialists
began
toconsider the
process
pay
attention toapproach to
timeindividual be
consuming.
learning
Literature
and
processes explains that
of the mindprocess
rather thanapproach
involves
end
several drafts
product.
before
For
example, instudents
the
lateproduce the
draft.
1980s, thefinal
Therefore,
processwriters argue
oriented
that
many
writing
teachers
are
instruction
to
with
itsunable
finish
the
emphasis
on
theactivities in
process ofone or two
composing lessons which
rather thanis usually the
the
end-time allocated
to
teach
product
writing
per
was
week.
In
introduced

addition,
some writers
suggest that
teachers need
more time to
read
and
mark all the
drafts
prepared by
the students
which adds
on to their
workload.
Recent
researchers
have argued
that
in
Malaysian
ESL
classrooms
every
language
teacher may
have
approximatel
y five classes
to teach and
each
class
might
comprise
more than 30
students.Ther
efore, writers
are
apprehensive
that
the
continuity of
working on
the drafts will
be impaired if
teachers are
late
in
marking. As a
result, many
teachers
overlook
process
approach for
finishing the
syllabus on
time.
Another
characteristic
of
process

approach intexts
view
ofproduced are
linguistic isnot perfect as
that in thisthey
are
type
ofproduced by
approach students who
many errorsare
novice
are
writers.
tolerated. Therefore,
The reasonwriters
is that theassume that
791

the
final
essay
produced is
considered
imperfect and
there is a felt
fear among
the learners
that mistakes
(without
deliberate

Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 22 (6): 789-795, 2014

the task of
correction) teaching
writing
will
effectively to
become
fossilized their students
in students.[17]. This is
Some
ofthe situation
where
the
researchers teachers
to
also assumeprefer
practicethe
that
languagetea product
chers areapproach as a
sometimes way to ease
confused their task in
over
theintroducing
of
features ofessays
many types
the
could
approaches that
where theyhelp them to
the
claim thatcover
syllabus
on
they
are
time.This was
using
the
belief
process
approach among
but actuallylanguage
in
they
areteachers
focusing on1990s which
motivated
the
to
structure, them
content. Asslowly revert
a
result,back to the
they stressproduct
on
theapproach in
ESL
grammatica the
l
errorswriting
which areinstruction
22].
the
main[23,
However,
the
characterist
ic of theproduct
approach
product
was
approach which
believed to
[22].
Resear solve
ch
hasteachers
revealed problemsin
writing
that mostthe
instruction
often,
has lent itself
teachers
other
resort to anto
approach challenges in
that
canthe teaching
writing.
enlighten of

Consequently
, the students
become
dependent
writers when
each
time
they
are
provided with
model essays
for reference
by
the
teachers and
the
subsequent
activities are
not
paid
attention to
[22, 14].
This
situation has
discomfited
the language
researchers
and
practitioners
alike.Thus,
there is a call
to scrutinize
the original
philosophy of
the product
approach and
its four stages
and the way it
is
implemented
whether
or
not all the
stages
are
practiced
chronological
ly in the
classrooms
[23]. Recent
researchers
argue that the
current
language
learning
practice
which
focuses
on
copying

sample
ns
are
essay
considered as
seems
toabenchmark
take overfor measuring
the stagesacademic
involved inachievements
the
of
students
approach [25]. Recent
for
thewriters have
convenienc described that
e
ofthe
above
teachers. Inmentioned
this
situation
situation, motivates the
students
teachers
to
fail
toask students
develop
to write using
critical
good use of
thinking language with
skillsof
error
free
creative
structures as
writing
the
most
abilities
preferred area
when theyin
the
are
assessment of
encouraged
students
to learn the
writing [4].
content by
As a result,
heart and
many
replicate a
teachers
model [24].
overlook the
This
communicati
attitude can
ve aspect of
lead
the language
students to
by
giving
become
attention to
plagiarist in
the teaching
future
as
of grammar
they do not
[3].
In
feel guilty
addition,
about
some writers
taking
found
that
others
many
ESL
work
teachers who
without
sufficient assume
acknowled themselves as
gements. language
Anoth
er aspect of
this
situation is
that
examinatio

teachers
rather
than
writing
teachers tend
to
utilize
writing
lessons as a
platform to
practice
grammar and
other
linguistic
feature of the
subject [26].
Thus,
students are
only
the
operators of
the
learnt
language
structure
earlier
and
the teachers
become the
editors
or
proof readers
who
are
interested in
the linguistic
accuracy
language
[27].
Accordi
ng to some
writers,
teachers feel
comfortable
with the way
they
are
trained and
decide
to
adopt
or
adapt writing
lessons inthe
same
way
they
learnt
writing
in
school,
teachers
training
college
or
university. In
this regard,
[28]
found

that most ofmodel essays


the
ESLcan lead the
teachers instudents
Malaysian astray
schools
because these
today
models have
prefer
tocertain false
teach
provision
traditional [29].Therefor
product- e,writers
oriented
advise
approach teachersto
which
analyze the
focus
oncharacteristic
linguistic s of the two
features
approaches
before
by way of
rhetorical scrutinizing
concern. the activities
This is seeninvolved in
as the keyboth
the
to effectiveapproaches in
writing.
order
to
But on theprovide the
other hand,best for their
students
students.
tend
to
Recent
write
researchers
according have
to
whatdemonstrated
they thinkthat
the
their
debate on the
teachers
usefulness or
would
disadvantage
consent andof
both
get
theapproache
deprivedof s is to provide
the
the
best
autonomy guidance for
of
studentsstill
expression. continues.
Others
However,
agree thatthere is still a
using
pressuring
model
need
to
essay
isaddress the
useful
current
especially problem that
underinevit ESL students
ablecircum need
more
stances.Ho improvement
wever,
on
English
some
language
writersargu proficiency
e
that

and language
use
[30].
Observation
shows
that
the process
approach that
seems to have
many
advantages
gained much
popularity in
the 1970s and
1980s. It is
still found to
be the most
favorable
practice
among
the
Malaysian
language
teachers. But
as mentioned
above,
despite
its
popularity,
the product
approach
seems to have
many
downsides
but the fact
that
many
teachers are
practicing it
proves that
the
conspicuous
influence of
this approach
cannot
be
refuted
completely.
Recent
researchers
have further
mentioned
that
many
teaching
practices that
seem to very
perfect
on
paper
may
not work that

smoothly ina report say


the
realthat
the
world
ofdisparity
teaching between
practices inpolicy
and
the
practice
in
classrooms. the Malaysian
For
ELT
example incurriculum is
one study,also one of
[31, 10] inthe reasons
792

that
contributed to
the
low
language
proficiency
among
the
Malaysian
language
learners. This

Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 22 (6): 789-795, 2014

students
whilethe
paper
intends toproduct
propose anapproach may
alternative prove
rewarding for
which
many
could
effectively others.It
seems
less
support
possible
to
both
the
have
an
approaches
alternative
and
be
approach by
helpful forcombining
ESL
the merits of
writing
both
teachers asapproaches to
a guide tocomplement
teaching each other to
produce
writing.
student writes
What
Iswho can be
the
authors than
Solution?: copiers [6].
In
theTherefore,
Malaysian these
schools
researchers
there
aresuggest that
students ofbefore
mixed
coming to a
abilities. conclusion on
This
an
situation alternative
makes theapproach that
application could work
of
onebest for the
approach Malaysian
impossible ESL
in writingclassroom
instructions context,
a
almost
thorough
impossible understandin
in most ofg
of
the
the
ESLstrengths of
classrooms. both
the
The processapproaches is
approach vital
may
beparticularly
useful forkeeping
in
some
view
the
classes ortypical
some
scenario of

the Malaysian
language
classrooms.
Research
ers
have
explained in
detail about
both
the
approaches
and
their
merits as well
as demerits,
however, the
main question
that can the
process and
product
approach as
pointed
by
[9]
which
seem to have
dominated
much of the
teaching of
writing
earlier in the
last four to
five decades
work
well
continuously?
[31] Can the
synthesis of
these
two
approaches
instead of the
single
approach help
to
produce
students who
do not have
to memorize
and
regurgitate
blindly
during
the
examination?
When
students
realize that
they are not
writing just to

score, willstudents
to
they realizescore A in
that it isthe school or
more aboutpublic
the
examination
experience while
of arrivingproducing
at the endfuture
product byindependent
getting
writers?
involved in
Althoug
the journey
itself thath according
to
some
would
writers
the
prepare
them
forprocess
another
approach that
journey,
had been a
independen common
tly
andpractice
in
effectively. the past has
Can this bemany
implemente advantages.
d
inFor example,
classroom the nature of
when
the process
employing approach
one
which
approach involves
itself hasvaried
become aactivities in
big
the classroom
challenge?
such as group
More
discussion,
importantly
brainstorming
, can this
and rewriting
suggestion
effectively
reduce the
contributes to
teachers
the
workload
development
by way of
of
looking at
the marking
loads?
Lastly, can
this method
which
is
meant
to
provide
sufficient
practice to
students in
writing,
help

language
skills. Thus,
students can
see
their
individual
mistakes as
they obtain
immediate
response
from peers or
teacher and
more
importantly,
all
the
comments
reach out to
students
themselves
and not just
their writing.
As a result,
students find
what need to
be rectified as
teachers
comments
facilitate
revision and
improvement.
On the
other hand,
some writers
explain the
fundamental
issue about
process
approach in
producing
several drafts
before
the
final
draft
helps students
in
many
ways. As the
response to
the
writing
begins in the
first
draft
itself,
students have
the
opportunity
to
promote
the
writing

principle asthe
writing
the draftsactivities and
develop
enjoy writing
further.
while
Next, thelearning takes
students
place
look at thenaturally.
developme Also teachers
nt
ofalso expect
writing
fewer errors
critically in the final
and
product [33,
analytically 18].
as they are
Nonethel
held
ess,
the
responsibili product
ty for whatapproach too
is
beinghas several
written.
advantages.
Eventually, For example,
students
in
this
and
approach,
teachers
teachers
become
response is
more
the key role
motivated for students
and
to see their
interested mistakes and
readers andcorrect them.
not just anThis is the
evaluators only way to
merely
reach
focusing onstudents since
the contentthere is no
developme time
for
nt.
Thisteachers for
studentindividual
centered coaching due
approach to the number
causes lessof
students
worry andper classroom
fear
(ofand
the
making
teachers
many
teaching
mistakes hours
in
that couldschools
(in
impede
Malaysian
students context).
creativity inSecond, there
writing)
is
an
among
opportunity
students
for students
where theyto
learn
could getgrammar and
engaged in

sentence
structure by
studying
teachers
marking and
feedback.
This
technique
works better
if
teachers
can mark the
essays
as
soon
as
possible
before
the
students
forget what
they
have
written after
some
time.
Apart from
that,
by
performing
the marking,
the teachers
have
the
opportunity
to show their
credibility of
being
knowledgeabl
e
and
responsible
especially as
a face value
to be shown
to
their
superiors
such
as
administrator
s
and
othereducatio
n officers. In
a nutshell, it
seems
improbable
that there can
be a one-sizefits-all model
of
writing
instruction
[15].
Other
researchers

[23,
12]program that
discus twocomprises
aspects offour stages:
good
awarenesswriting ofrising,
the productsupport,
and processpractice and
approach infeedback.In
his cyclicalanother study,
teaching [25]
framework highlighted
for writingthe
skills
importance of
793

getting
students
involved in
the
composing
process (the
process
approach)
while
providing
students

Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 22 (6): 789-795, 2014

the process
with
and product
models (theapproach to
product
teaching
approach) writing
for analysisespecially to
and
the students
discussion with
low
as a guideproficiency in
to know theEnglish. They
schematic feel that the
structure ofinformation
the writtenfrom a model
discourse can
inform
for
students
effective about
the
writing
conventions
outcome.In of expressing
a
recentideas which
study [16]they
may
have
adapt
to
suggested articulate
that
thetheir
own
blending ofexpression.
the product
Writers
and processhave argued
approach tothat
teaching generally,
writing willmany
assist
language
student
learnersstrug
writers
gle with their
widen theirfirst
skills
insentencewhen
using thethey have to
language write
an
by
essay.
experiencin Therefore, as
g a wholemany
writing
researchers
process ashave
well as gainhighlighted,
knowledge writing
from
theactivities at
model
the
pre
texts. Yet inwriting stage
another
are crucial to
study [32,get
the
19] found itpotential
is useful towriters
combine startedwith

the
writing
task. Taking
into
consideration
of
the
importance of
providing
input in the
brainstorming
session [15]
suggest for
merging
brainstorming
and planning
stages
in
process
approach
with product
approach by
providing a
model to the
students.
Teachers can
save time by
providing
students input
found in the
model
and
getting
students
to
read
and
brainstorm on
the features
highlighted in
the
text.
Others have
also
suggested
that students
need to be
allowed
todiscuss and
include
necessary
points related
to the topic of
discussion
and organize
them under
the various
main ideas.

Secon with
the
d,
teacher.
studentsma Meanwhile
y
startstudents can
working improve their
critically onown drafts as
drafts. Inthey edit their
this
way,drafts based
students areon
peer
more
feedback
confident inuntil
they
starting
work on their
their essaysfinal
draft
using the(perhaps with
highlighted least number
features
of mistakes)
into
theby
targeted
considering
topic andthe teachers
produce theor
peers
first draftfeedback.Fina
(in pairs orlly, teacher
small
evaluates and
group).
provides
Next,
feedback
students
where
exchange students get
the draftsto do the final
and
readcorrections.
each
In this way,
others
the teaching
work whichand learning
would helpof
writing
them
tomay
take
become
place in a
better
more
readers.
meaningful
This stageway.
defies the
complaint
about the
product
approach
which
allows only
one
opportunity
for students
to write and
that
too
without
face to face
discussion

CONC
LUSI
ON
On the
basis of the
above review
this
paper
suggests
keeping
in
view
the
typical
situation in
Malaysian
language
classrooms, it
is
essential
todesignlangu
age learning
activities by
adopting and
adapting
some
prominent
features from
both
the
approaches
that can be
married
to
suit
the
Malaysian
ESL
classrooms.
In addition,
several
research
results prove
that
the
combination
of
product
and process
approach help
learners
to
achieve
a
better
capacity
in
writing
ability. This
paper
also
suggests that
a
complementa
ry use of
product
approach and
process

approach
accordingly
would be
suitable for
teachers (in
Malaysian
context) to1.
teaching
writing.Thi
s
suggestion
may not be
either
perfect than
any other
models, but
it
was
found to be
a useful.
On the
basis of the
above
review the
paper
concludes
that
focusing on
the
end
product
alone will
marginalize
the process
of writing
and the real
purpose of
writing will
2.
not
be
achieved.
Thus, the
suggestion
of
designing
activities
by blending
the process
approach
with
product
approach
willbe more
effective
rather than
selecting
one
approach.

REFE
RENC
ES
Musa,
N.C.,
K.Y. Lie
and H.
Azman,
2012.
Explorin
g
English
Languag
e
Learning
And
Teachin
g
In
Malaysi
a.
GEMA
OnlineT
M
Journal
of
Languag
e
Studies,
12 (1),
Special
Section,
pp: 3551.
Naginde
r Kaur,
2006.
Nonautonom
y
and
lowEnglish
proficien
cy
among
Malaysi
an
Students
:
Insights
from
multiple
perspecti
ves. In

Kamisah
Arifin,
Mohd.
Rozaidi
Ismail,
Ngo Kea
Leng,
and
Roslina
Abdul
Aziz.
(Eds.),
English
in
the
Malaysi
an
context
(21-34).
Shah
Alam:
Universi
ty
Publicati
on
Centre
(UPEN
A)
UiTM

3.

Nesamal
ar, C., S.
Saratha
and Teh,
2001.
ELT
methodo
logy:
Principle
s
and
practice.
Selangor
:
Penerbit
Fajar
Bakti.

4.

PourMoham
madi,
M., M.J.
Zainol
Abidin
and C.
Lai
Fong,
2012.
The

Effect
of
Proces
s
Writin
g
Practic 5.
e on
the
Writin
g
Qualit
y of
Form
One
Studen
ts: A
Case
Study.
794

Asian
Social
Science,
8(3): 8899.
Shafie,
L.A., A.
Maesin,
N.
Osman,
S.
Nayan
and M.
Mansor,
2010.
Understa
nding
Collabor

ative
Academi
c
Writing
among
Beginne
r
Universi
ty
Writers
in
Malaysi
a.
Studies
in
Literatur
e
and
Languag
e, 1(2):
58-69.

Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 22 (6): 789-795, 2014

6.

7.

Ghabo
ol, N.,
E.M.
Maria
nn and
K.
Seyye
d
Hossei
n,
2012.
Investi
gating
Malay
sian
ESL
Studen
ts
Writin
8.
g
Proble
ms on
Conve
ntions,
Punctu
ation,
and
Langu
age
Use at
Secon
dary
School
Level.
Journa
l
of
Studie
s
in
Educat
ion,
2(3):
130143.
Hasan,
M.K.
and
M.M.
Akhan
d,
2010.
Appro
aches
to

Writing
in
EFL/ES
L
context:
Balancin
g
Product
and
Process
in
Writing
Class at
Tertiary
Level.
Journal
of
NELTA.
15(1-2):
77-88.
Silva, T.,
1990.
Second
Languag
e
composi
tion
instructi
on:
develop
ments,
issues,
and
direction
s
in
ESL. In
B, Kroll
(nd),
Second
Languag
e
Writing.
Researc
h
insightsf
or
the
language
classroo
m (1023).
Cambrid
ge:
Cambrid
ge
Universi

ty Press.
9.

Badger,
R. and
G.
White,
2000. A
process
genre
approach
to
teaching
writing.
ELT
Journal.,
52(2):
153-160.

10.

Taghizad
eh, M.E.,
M.J.Z.
Abidin,
E. Naseri
and M.
Hosseini
, 2013.
In
the
Importan
ce
of
EFL
Learners'
writing
Skill: Is
there any
Relation
between
Writing
Skill and
Content
Score of
English
Essay
Test?.
Internati
onal
Letters
of Social
and
Humanis
tic
Sciences
, (06): 112.

11.

Wingate,
U.,
2012.

Using
Acade
mic
Litera
cies
and 13.
genrebased
model
s for
acade
mic
writin
g
instruc
tion: A
litera
cy
journe
y.
Journa
l
of
Englis
h for
Acade
mic
Purpos
14.
es, 11:
26-37.

12.

Hayes,
J.R.
and
L.S.
Flowe
r,
1980.
Identif
ying
the
organi
zation
of
writin
g
proces
ses. In
L. W.
Gregg
and
E.R.
Steinb
erg
(Eds.),
Cognit
ive
proces
ses in

writing.
Hillsdale
,
NJ:
Erlbaum
.
Graham,
S. and
K.
Sandmel
, 2011.
The
process
writing
approac
h:
A
metaanalysis.
The
Journal
of
Educatio
nal
Researc
h,
104(6):
396-407.
Scardam
alia, M.
and C.
Bereiter,
1987.
Knowle
dge
telling
and
knowled
ge
transfor
ming in
written
composi
tion. In
S.
Rosenbe
rg (Ed.),
Advance
s
Flower,
L.S.
1980.
Identifyi
ng the
organiza
tion of
writing
processe

s. In L.

15.

Hunter,
W.J. and
J.
Begoray,
1990. A
framewo
rk
for
the
activities
involved
in
the
Writing
Process.
The
Writing
Noteboo
k. 7(3):
1-5.

16.

Ferris,
D.R.,
2010.
Second
language
writing
research
and
written
correctiv
e
feedback
in SLA.
Studies
in
Second
Languag
e
Acquisiti
on,
32(02):
181-201.

17.

Gregg
and E.R.
Steinber
g (nd.),
Cognitiv
e
in
applied
psycholi
nguistics
(142175).
Cambrid
ge: Press
Syndicat
e of the

Univer 19.
sity of
Cambr
idge.

18.

Steele,
V.,
2004.
Produ
ct and
proces
s
writin
20.
g.
Retrie
ved on
10
Mac
2013
from
http://
www.
teachi
ngengl
ish.en
glish.o
rg.uk/t
hink/w
rite/ap
proac
hes.ht
ml

Pincas,
A.,
1982.
Teachin
g
English
Writing
.
London
:
Macmil
lian.
Fageeh,
A.I.,
2011.
EFL
learners'
use
of
blogging
for
developi
ng
writing
skills
and
enhancin
g
attitudes
towards
English
learning:
an
explorat
ory
study.
Journal
of
Languag
e
and
Literatur
e
(207803
03),
2(1).

21. Rodgers
, T.S.,
2014.
Approa
ches
and
methods
in
languag
e
teaching
.

Cambri
dge
Universi
ty Press.

22. Mahalet
chumy,
N.,
1994.
What do
ESL
teachers
do when
they say
they are
teaching
writing?
Unpubli
shed
M.Ed.
Thesis,
Universi
ty
of
Malaya

23. Nystran
d, M.,
2006.
The
social
and
historica
l context
for
wrotong
research
.
In
C.Macar
thur, S
Graham
and J.
Fitzgera
ld
(Eds.),
Handbo
ok
of
Writing
Researc
h. New
York:
Guilford
Press.

24. Hossein
Hashem
nezhad
and
Nasrin
Hashem

nezha
d
2012.
A
Comp
arativ
e
Study
of
Produ
ct,
Proce
ss,
and
Postproce
ss
Appro
aches
in
Irania
n EFL
Stude
nts
Writin
g
Skill.
Journ
al of
Langu
age
Teach
ing
and
Resea
rch,
3(4):
722729.

itory
essays
of ESL
students
in
a
Malaysi
an
seconda
ry
school.
Unpubli
shed
doctoral
dissertat
ion.
Kuala
Lumpur
,
Malaysi
a.

26. Dovey,
T.,
2010.
Facilitat
ing
writing
from
sources:
A focus
on both
process
and
product.
Journal
of
English
for
Academ
ic
Purpose
s, 9: 4560.

25. Foo,
T.V.,
2007.
The
Effect
s of
the
proce
ssgenre
appro
ach to
writin
g
instru
ction
on the
expos

27.

Gabriel
atos, C.,
2002.
EFL
writing:
product
and
process.
Retriev
ed on
14
April
2013
fro

http://w
ww.gab
rielatos.
com/Wr
iting.pd
f

28. Kroll,
B.,
1990.
Second
Langua
ge
Writing.
Researc
h
insights
for the
languag
e
classroo
m.
Cambri
dge:
Cambri
dge
Universi
ty Press.

29. Luchini,
P.L.,
2003.
Writing
Skill
Teachin
g:
A
New
Perspect
ive. The
Linguist
ic
Associat
ion of
Korea
Journal,
11(3):
123143.

30. Sahin,
C., K.
Bullock
and A.
Stables,
2002.
Teacher
s
Beliefs
and

Practi
ces in
relatio
n to
their
Belief
s
about
Quest
ioning
at
Key
Stage
2.
Educa
tional
Studie
s.
28(4):
371384.

G.
Feng,
2009.
Process
Approa
ch
to
Teachin
g
Writing
Applied
in
Differen
t
Teachin
g
Models.
English
Langua
ge
Teachin
g, 2(1):
150155.

31. Sun,
C.
and

32.
795

Tribble,
C.,

1996.
Writing.
Scheme
for
Teacher
Educati
on.
Oxford:
Oxford
Univers
ity
Press.

33.

Zamel,
V.,
1985.
Respon
ding to
student
writing.
TESOL
Quarterl
y, 19(1):
79-101.