論 文

Approaches to Writing and the Japanese University Context

Nicholas Bradley

要旨

英語教授法やライティングスキル習得方法については，多くの研究が現在までに報告されている。また，どのように英語力を向上するかを記した多数の手引きが存在する。それらの教授法には，教育面や文化面から長所と改善すべき点があり，ライティング指導方法もその例
外ではない。ライティング指導方法の提案者達は，自分の指導法を別の方法と比較し，持論の重要性と長所を容易に主張しているのではな
いかと考えられる。教師は授業内容と生徒の特性を考慮し，クラスに適切な指導方法を選出しなければならない。
日本の大学の英語教員の立場から，この論文ではまず始めに日本の大学での英語指導方法，日本人学生の特徴について述べ，次に主なラ
イティング指導方法［product, process, and genre］について説明し，
どのライティング指導法が日本の大学で最適かを最終的に評価することが大切であると考える。
Keywords : writing approaches（ライティング指導方法），process（プロセス），
genre（ジャンル），product（プロダクト），Japan（日本），university（大学），
pedagogy（教育学）

―1―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 26

Much has been written on the subject of teaching and learning the skill of writing in
English and different approaches to this key skill have developed overtime. However,different pedagogical approaches will have differing strengths and weaknesses whenapplied to certain educational and cultural contexts, and approaches to writing are
no different. While proponents of the different approaches to writing may be quick
to assert the value of their approach and the strengths it has when compared to otherapproaches, a teacher must consider ones own teaching context and students in an
attempt to ascertain the most suitable approach for their classroom.
As a teacher of English at a Japanese university, this paper attempts to explore themajor approaches to writing and their relevance and value to the Japanese university
context. To do this, I will examine some contextual features of English language
teaching in Japanese Universities and some characteristics of Japanese learners before
exploring the major approaches to writing: product, process, and genre. This paper
is written to assess the appropriateness of the major approaches to writing within theJapanese university context and, therefore, identify which approach, if any, is mostsuitable.

The Japanese Context.
One of the key influences on English language teaching in Universities is thestudents’ experience before they enter university. Prior to entering university, mostJapanese students will have studied English for at least six years. Writing activities
during this time will, for most students, have been tightly controlled with freewriting being almost unheard of. Given that Japan regularly features towards thebottom of English proficiency ranking tables among Asian countries, it would appear
that a move away from the traditional approach employed prior to university isrequired. However, more than a simple examination of the Product, Process andGenre approach to writing is required.
The Japanese educational system is famous for its university entrance examinations.
The often heard ‘examination hell’ or preparations for the university entrance
examination begin in earnest many months before the first wave of tests are taken.
―2―Approaches to Writing and the Japanese University Context
The English requirement for the first entrance examination is the same for all
students with the individual universities then demanding that further tests be taken
as their course or prestige demands. Given that the first entrance exam is taken by
all and is often all that is required, schools across Japan feverously prepare theirstudents for the test to such a degree that this extends far beyond the classroom andhas become a national obsession (Shimahara, 1991). As Hyland points out, “Written
examinations alone determine grades and future success” (Hyland 1993 pp 73).
With English being a compulsory element of the entrance examination it isunsurprising that it exerts an enormous impact on English teaching at high schools,
an impact that is considered by many to be overly negative (Terauchi 1995, Shimahara
1991, Fujimoto 1999). The English component of the entrance examination
overwhelmingly focuses on the students understanding of grammar and vocabulary.
As such, the teaching methods, curriculum and energy of teachers and students athigh schools are devoted to meeting the requirements of university entrance
examination. Such is this devotion of high school English teaching to the entrance
examination that Japanese statesman Wataru Hiraizumi as far back as 1975 called forthe removal of English as a compulsory part of the entrance examination (Terauchi
1995). Hiraizumi highlighted that excessive focus on the entrance examination, alack of student motivation and ineffective teaching methods were the main causes ofpoor English ability among Japanese. However, the entrance examination remained
and offers university teachers a level up to which they know all their students haveattained, particularly in vocabulary and grammar.
Japanese teachers traditionally hold a belief that ‘teachers are to teach’ (Azuma 1998).
Personal experience working within the Japanese high school system leads me toconcur with this statement and with Hyland when he states that traditional methods
and materials are dominant in the Japanese classroom, which centres on the teacher
and where students are expected to be passive (Hyland 1993). To try to achievetargets dictated by university examination requirements, many schools take on text
based teaching at an accelerated pace with subject matter being repeatedly drilled
and students tested in mock situations (Shimahara, 1991). A grammar translation
approach to writing is dominant and reflects the knowledge demanded by the
―3―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 26

entrance examination.
This is illustrated by the example of a writing class taken from a school textbook(Element English Writing) used by a Japanese colleague at an academic high school(appendix one). The writing class has the target of using connectors in writing andthe writing exercises themselves are mostly gap-fill or guided writing at the sentenceor short paragraph level. This class would appear to be the rule rather than the
exception as most writing classes feature English only at the sentence level orparagraph level at best (Asaoka & Usui, 2003). The exercises employed would also
support Hyland’s belief that “The Japanese education system does not seem to value
independence nor assign creative or imaginative tasks” (Hyland, 1993: 73).
The limited exposure of students to writing does not seem to be limited to English.
Asaoka and Usui found that this was the case in L1 writing as “…the writing training
in Japanese at school is usually limited to personal writing such as diaries or bookreports mostly on novels….” (Asaoka & Usui, 2003: 145). It is therefore unsurprising
to find that a study conducted among university students of an EAP course
discovered students had greater difficulty with macro-level issues such as planning,
topic choice, focus, conclusion etc than grammatical accuracy, which was not viewed
as a problem (Asaoka & Usui 2003). University teachers of other subjects also foundorganisation to be the most problematic area of L1 student writing indicating the
problem was deeper than just English instruction (Asaoka & Usui, 2003).
Just as students’ writing ability is partly a consequence of the teaching style andmethods employed by teachers, so too are their classroom demeanour and preferences
for learning. Personal experience has shown that students rely heavily on dictionaries
and textbooks thereby indicating a preoccupation with accuracy. Indeed, research
conducted among foreign English teachers found that Japanese students do not liketo take risks in the classroom (Dorji, 1997). Japanese students have also beencharacterised as being unable to express their opinions, debate or even discuss issues(Allen, 1996). While cultural issues may play a part in this, it seems certain thatteacher centred classes that do not require or encourage student participation are an
influencing factor. The teacher-centred nature of classes no doubt also contributes to―4―

Approaches to Writing and the Japanese University Context
the feeling among foreign English teachers that students have difficulty in accepting
and taking part in learner-centred group activities (Dorji, 1997).
Despite this characterisation of Japanese students, a number of studies suggest thatstudents wish to move in another direction. When asked why they studied English
60% of university students answered that communication was most important,culture was the second most frequent answer with 29.1% (Terauchi, 1995). Japanese
university students also expressed a desire for more semi-free to free task types(Davies, 2006). These studies indicate that Japanese university students, having
studied English for many years through methods considered by many to be
restrictive, look towards freer and more expressive approaches of English learning.
This wish of students seems to have been partly realised. Although many teachers atuniversity continue to teach in the grammar translation style in which they were
taught (O’Sullivan, 1992), it appears that some teachers are increasingly using aprocess writing approach in their writing classes (Wachs, 1993).
In the following sections I will review the strengths and weaknesses of the major
approaches to writing and assess their applicability to the Japanese context as
described above.

Product.
The product approach, popular until the 1970s, viewed writing as an extension ofgrammar (Hyland 2003). Focus is on syntactic and grammatical forms with accuracy
being paramount. Students were taught incrementally, error was prevented andaccuracy was expected to arise from a student’s practices with structures (Reid, 2007).
End-product construction was the desired outcome of the product approach withlearning being achieved as a result of teacher and textual input. These ends weresought by working through a process characterised by the four stages offamiliarization with grammar and vocabulary through a text, controlled writing
exercises featuring manipulation of fixed structures, simple teacher guided writing
exercises imitating model texts, and free writing in which students use the patterns
―5―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 26they have been taught to create a target text (Hyland 2003). However, Raimes (1983)
adds that students were only allowed to attempt free compositions after reaching ahigh-intermediate/advanced level of proficiency. Therefore, the work of students
below this proficiency threshold was strictly controlled with it being very easy forstudents to work without making mistakes. Mistakes were even rare when it came tofree writing as writing became merely an imitation of the previously studied text andstructures.
As an approach that focuses on form, product writing removes the creativity andindividuality of writing to a large degree which, it can be argued, can lead todisinterested students. With little acknowledgement of writing macro-functions, itapproaches writing in a way that does not accurately reflect how tests are created.
Little focus on the reader also results in the social functions of writing being largely
ignored. In addition, the highly controlled nature of the product approach minimises
mistakes which can aid student learning and provide meaningful feedback.

Process.
Some academics (e.g Tribble, 1996 and Raimes, 1993) view the process approach to bea reaction against the product approach to writing. Whether or not this is the case,
it is clear that a process approach is in stark contrast to the product approach as itplaces importance on meaning rather than attention to form. The focus of theprocess approach is on the student as a writer who brings in his/her own individuality
and writing resources. However, this assumption of writing skills might not reflectreality.
Writing is seen as unpredictable and highly individualistic (White and Arndt, 1995).
All writing, even the most routine, is viewed as being creative and demanding of“conscious intellectual effort, which usually has to be sustained over a considerable
amount of time” (White & Arndt, 1995: 3). Process writing involves the generating
and processing of ideas as well as the planning of writing. The development ofstudents’ meta-cognitive awareness is key to process writing and teachers aim tonurture students’ ability to reflect on strategies they use to write (Hyland, 2003).
―6―

Approaches to Writing and the Japanese University Context
The teacher in the writing classroom adopts a role of facilitator, guiding students
through the process of writing towards these ends and a written outcome that isneither preconceived nor determined by the teacher or materials. The desirable
atmosphere of the process writing classroom is close to that of a collaborative
workshop with teacher and students adopting complementing roles and holding
similar status (White and Arndt, 1995). However, it is suggested that this may
disempower teachers and make them bystanders in their own classrooms (Hyland,
2003a).
The process of writing itself contains several stages: generating ideas (usually throughbrainstorming), focusing, structuring, re-viewing, drafting and evaluating (White andArndt, 1995). These stages do not follow a linear path but rather can be seen as acycle, with it being possible for students to revisit any stage in the process as theirwriting demands or as new ideas are formed. Allocating sufficient time for thegeneration of ideas and for providing feedback on the content is crucial to theprocess approach (Raimes, 1983). Feedback is central to a student’s improvement inprocess writing and is viewed as an interactive exercise between teacher and student
or between the students themselves, and so it is seen as most effective when face toface (White and Arndt, 1995). Feedback is provided on the content of the student’s
work, requesting expansion or clarity when needed, pointing out which points wereagreed with or were particularly interesting and indicating which points were difficult
to understand. The student then acts on this feedback to produce a new draft which
again will receive feedback and so on. White and Arndt (1995) indicate thatsurprising improvements may result from at least two drafts and sensitive feedback.
However, Raimes (1983) suggests that a three draft process with teacher feedback ateach stage, an evaluation of progress throughout the stages and the assigning offollow-up tasks in areas found to be weaker than others will be highly effective andturn writing from being just a language exercise into an “ongoing process of
discovery” (Raimes, 1983: 142).
Although process writing would raise awareness of planning and the complexities ofwriting, genre proponents would suggest that it presents writing as a decontextualizedskill isolating the writer (Hyland, 2003a). An understanding of how language operates
―7―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 26in writing as a form of human interaction is lacking in the process approach. Process
writing pays only lip service to the reader, instructing students that they should
consider the audience if required (White & Arndt, 1993: 9). Genre proponents would
argue that this is always required and is the most important aspect when considering
writing. Effective written English requires an understanding of the social purpose
and context which is not offered by the process approach.

Genre.
Several observers have commented that genre and product share several
characteristics, for example both are predominantly linguistic (Badger and White,
2000) and value the end-product as the main object of focus (Harmer, 2007).
However, genre differs from product as it looks beyond textual features. Genre is anapproach to writing which highlights the reader and suggests that students “…also
need knowledge of the culture, circumstances, purpose and motives that prevail inparticular settings” (Paltridge, 2001: 7). These settings are separated into different
genres of writing based on the language used and the context for which they are
produced. Genre emphasizes the constraints of form and content that must be
reorganised to for a text to fit a social purpose (Tribble, 1996).
The idea of social purpose is central to the genre approach as a letter of complaint, apostcard to a friend or an academic article will all employ distinct forms of language,
have an intended purpose, and will be read by different readers who will interpret the
text in ways dictated by social practice. Genre seeks to offer explanations on the way
language functions in the many social contexts so that students recognise we write
something for some purpose and what we write differs depending on the purpose
and who will be reading it.
In the classroom, the provision of multiple example texts from a specific genre allows
students to compare and deconstruct the language used and thereby discover theunderlying assumptions and ideologies (Hyland, 2003a). The genre teacher supportsor ‘scaffolds’ learners as they progress with the amount of support reducing as they
advance and begin to produce their own drafts and texts of the target genre.
―8―

Approaches to Writing and the Japanese University Context
However, the overdependence on the teacher and examples could potentially resultin the ‘slavish imitation’ that Tribble (1996: 58) warns should be avoided at all costs
in a genre approach. Indeed, a criticism of genre is that it promotes imitation anddoes not raise students’ awareness of how complex the process of writing is. Tribble
argues the counter, however, when he suggests that “Genre is not a rigid set of rules
for text information. It is social practice, not simply the text, which makes the genre
possible, and social practices are open to challenge and change” (Tribble, 1996: 51).

Discussion.
As we can see, the product approach most closely corresponds to the writing classes
undertaken by Japanese high school students and is evident in the example provided.
From the textbook example provided, we see that the emphasis is on accuracy andform with the activities being highly controlled before moving on to a guided writing
exercise. However, the free writing component of product is conspicuous by its
absence; something that might cause surprise considering the textbook was used at a
private and academically well regarded high school, though as we have seen, this isconsistent with the general Japanese context.
From the devotion to grammatical form and syntax in Japanese high school teaching,
it is not surprising that many university students are satisfied with their ability in thisarea. Wachs (1993), discussing writing in Japanese universities, suggests that thebroad knowledge of English grammar and vocabulary gained in high school be put
to good use. With this in mind, it would seem logical to conclude, as Wachs did,that a process approach to writing is most suitable as students have had little
experience at free writing or exposure to the process of composing written English.
However, as we have seen, Japanese students seemingly have not had any great
exposure to free writing in Japanese either. This being the case, the writing skills thatthe process approach assumes students will bring to L2 writing from their L1, would
appear not to exist, making any attempt to implement process writing problematic.
Additionally, the teacher adopting the role of facilitator on the student’s level within
the process approach may feel uncomfortable and unnatural for Japanese students
―9―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 26and so may hinder progress. So too might there be issues with the levels of feedback.
Teacher feedback at the frequency suggested by process proponents, such as Raimes(1983), is not feasible in the Japanese university contexts in which a class of 50-70
students is quite normal (Anderson, 1993) and classes meet only once every week
(Wachs, 1993). Yet, as research found macro-level issues to be the most problematicfor Japanese students (Asaoka & Usui, 2003) and free task types to be the mostdesirable among Japanese students (Davies, 2006), implementation of process writing
to some degree would seem appropriate.
Knowledge of genre and the social realities of writing are also necessary for effective
writing. After all, students taking a university English writing course will do so formany reasons; employment, study overseas, travel, to communicate with friends/
family and so on. Although many will likely never call upon their English, one must
assume that university students, being the future leaders of society, will use it andneed to use it effectively.
A genre approach seems much more compatible with this environment. The
providing of multiple examples and the scaffolding of students towards an end
product would seem familiar to Japanese students looking to the teacher for the
input they see as being required for learning. Tribble (1996) suggests that to write
effectively, students need content knowledge, context knowledge, language systemknowledge and writing process knowledge. Indeed, if we solely adopt one approachat the exclusion of another, we do a disservice to our students. Many writing
commentators (Badger & White (2000), Tribble (1996), Hyland (2003), Raimes (1983)
suggest, even though they may favour one over another, that a mix of different
approaches represents best practice. Indeed, the “21st century classroom has teachers
designing curriculums’ based on a balance of institutional programme and student
needs rather than around dogmatic theories or approaches” (Reid, 2007: 29).

Conclusion.
It would seem clear that an English writing class at a Japanese university should
contain elements of process and genre. Exploring how writers actually write through― 10 ―

Approaches to Writing and the Japanese University Context
a process approach will develop the meta-cognitive skills that may be lacking anddevelop self reliance. The use of feedback is also a valuable tool though, given therealities of the Japanese university, peer feedback might be frequently required asteacher feedback is not always possible. Overdependence on process would exclude
any exposure to genre and the social dimension to writing. It would potentially also
place great strain on the students used to a tightly controlled teacher-centredenvironment. Such an extreme change may prove counter productive and so
adopting the scaffolding method of genre may help students ease in to aspects of thewriting process.
There is no reason why both genre and process approaches cannot co-exist in thewriting classroom. Process techniques such as brainstorming can be adopted to
discuss different genres, examples can be studied to improve language knowledge andstudents can then write their own versions towards their own ends. Drafts can beused and feedback offered by the teacher or peer. The teacher can adopt a role
moving towards that of a facilitator as the scaffolding is removed and students
advance. Such a mixed approach would be relevant to the teaching experiences andlearning expectations and of Japanese students. The blend of genre and process
would build on the existing foundation of sound vocabulary and grammaticalknowledge and an attention to form to offer an outcome much greater than if one
approach was adopted exclusively.

― 11 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

Appendix 1.

― 12 ―

No. 26

Approaches to Writing and the Japanese University Context

The above example of a writing class was taken from the latest (at the time of writing)version of Element English Writing published by Keirikan. Details of this and otherbooks in the range can be found on their website: http://www.shinko-keirin.co.jp― 13 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 26

References.
ALLEN, K. (1996) Interference from Japanese: A positive view. The Japanese Learner, 10 (2),
135–152.
ANDERSON, F. E. (1993) The enigma of the college classroom: Nails that don’t stick up. IN
WADDEN, P. (EDS) Handbook for Teaching English at Japanese Colleges and Universities.
Oxford, Oxford University Press.
ASAOKA, C. & USUI, Y. (2003) Students’ perceived problems in an EAP writing course. JALT
Journal, 25 (2) 95–113.
AZUMA, H. (1998) Japanese collectivism and education. IN PARIS, S. G. & WELLMAN, H. M.
(Eds) Global Prospects for Education: Development, Culture and Schooling. Washington DC,
American Psychological Association.
BADGER, R. G., & WHITE. (2000) A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal,
54 (2), 153–160.
DAVIES, A. (2006) What do learners really want from their EFL course? ELT Journal, 60 (1)
3–12.
DORJI, L. (1997) A comparative analysis of Japanese students’ learning styles and British TEFL
teaching styles. The Japanese Learner, 11 (1), 23–39
FUJIMOTO, H. (1999) The examination backwash effect on English language education in
Japan. The Japanese Learner 19 (2), 101–119
HARMER, J. (2007) The Practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow, Pearson Education.
HYLAND, K. (1993) Culture and learning: A study of the learning style preferences of Japanese
students. RELC Journal 24 (2), 69–87
HYLAND, K. (2003a) Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second
Language Writing 12 (1), 17–29.
HYLAND, K. (2003) Second Language Writing. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
PALTRIDGE, B. (2001) Genre and the Language Learning Classroom. Ann Arbor, University ofMichigan Press.
O’SULLIVAN, J. (1996) Teaching English in Japan. Brighton, International House.
RAIMES, A. (1983) Techniques in Teaching Writing. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
RAIMES, A. (1993) Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. IN
SILBERSTEIN, S. State of the Art TESOL Essays: Celebrating 25 Years of the Discipline.
Alexandria, Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Inc.
REID, J. (2007) Writing. IN CARTER, R & NUNAN, D. The Cambridge Guide to Teaching
English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
SHIMAHARA, N. (1991) Examination rituals and group life. IN FINKELSTEIN, B, IMAMURA,
A & TOBIN, J. Transcending Stereotypes: Discovering Japanese Culture and Education.
Yarmouth, Intercultural Press.

― 14 ―

Approaches to Writing and the Japanese University Context
TERAUCHI, H. (1995) Issues in English language teaching in Japanese universities. The Japanese
Learner 7 (2), 150–171.
TRIBBLE, C. (1996) Writing. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
WACHS, S. (1993) Breaking the Writing Barrier: Approaches to the Composition Class. IN
WADDEN, P. (EDS) Handbook for Teaching English at Japanese Colleges and Universities.
Oxford, Oxford University Press.
WHITE, R & ARNDT, V. (1993) Process Writing. London, Longman.

― 15 ―