The role of the outline in second language composition.

Abstract

Few language teachers would deny the recent surge in, and the benefits of, process- (as opposed to product-) oriented writing instruction. An essential ingredient in process-oriented writing instruction is the pre-writing activity. This study investigates the role of the outline as a pre-writing activity for second language compositions. Results suggest that the static a priori nature of the typical outline may stand in opposition to the fluid essence of the composing process.

Introduction

According to Nancy Lay (1990), language teachers "should not be satisfied only with what students write, the finished product, but how they arrive at it; in other words, the process" (p. 406). To this end, process-oriented writing instruction has become the philosophical aim of many first- (L1) and second- (L2) language classrooms (Barnett, 1989; Flower and Hayes, 1981). At least in theory, the L2 teaching profession now accepts composition as being less of a linear, "tidy, accretive affair" (Emig p. 22), and more of a recursive process (Omaggio Hadley, 1993; Matsuda, 1997). Practice, on the other hand, does not appear to be as tolerant of this shifting vision of composition. An essential yet diverse ingredient in process-oriented writing instruction is the pre-writing activity. Whereas the L2 classroom certainly embraces the notion of pre-writing or idea-generation phases, it is the unremitting role of the outline as one of the most traditional and pervasive of all L2 pre-writing tools that is object of the following pages.

Process-Writing

Prior to the process bandwagon, L1 and L2 composition instruction was unquestionably linear in nature. Students were encouraged to compose a detailed outline, a first draft, and a revised final draft for each writing assignment (Emig, 1971; Omaggio Hadley, 1993). L1 research by Flower and Hayes (1981) involving think-aloud protocols provided a critical impetus for a shift from a linear to a recursive theoretical vision of the composing act. By observing writers in action, as opposed to analyzing the static final product, many L1 researchers concluded that there was a need for:

1) a greater focus on the strategies involved in "real-time" writing;

2) a consideration of the mental processes involved in composing; and

3) a vision of writing as complex and recursive.

In 1989 Marva Barnett served as an important conduit in the transfer of process-oriented ideas from the realm of L1 and ESL to that of the L2. Indeed, Barnett encouraged L2 teachers to become "writing" teachers as well as "language" teachers (p. 31) by considering the mental processes involved in composition. Clearly, the composing process is cognitively complex as writers must move their thoughts through the information stored in long-term memory to writing processes such as idea-generation, organization, evaluation, reviewing, and revising (p. 35). Barnett also suggested that L2 teachers look at each piece of writing as one particular version in a fluid progression toward the expression of ideas by dividing composing activities into three distinct, yet recursive, stages: pre-writing, writing, and re-writing.

Pre-writing

Pre-writing activities are intended to help students begin the composing process by involving students with a topic, highlighting vocabulary, and assisting writers with the organization of ideas (Shrum and Glisan, 1994). For Scarcella and Oxford (1992), pre-writing encompasses "finding a topic, finding out about the topic, and thinking about it in such a way that ideas are generated, shaped, refined, and organized" (p. 124), as well as considering the audience and the purpose of the writing task.

Within the professional literature, the typical character sketch of the "good" writer perennially refers to her ability to plan or pre-write before composing, "good writers take sufficient time to think about what they are going to write" (Scott p. 2). For Krashen (1984), good writers appear to plan more than poor writers do. Specifically, more-skilled writers "show some evidence of planning or organizing before they sit down to write the first draft. They also tend to take more time before beginning to write, whereas less proficient writers report that they prefer to begin to write 'just by beginning'" (p. 17). Typical pre-writing or planning activities include drafting outlines, developing thesis statements, interviews, dialogues, word games, free-writing, journal-keeping, brainstorming, and discussing writing models. The fluid and recursive nature of process-oriented writing instruction, however, has raised important questions about traditional pre-writing activities, namely the static a priori outline.

The Outline

Decades of L1 and L2 writing instruction sought to help students develop a clear focus by requiring them prepare a priori planning tools such as the prospectus or outline (Walvoord, 1982). The outline process generally consists of generating a list of subcategories and following the prescribed steps like a recipe or map until the composition is complete. In spite of the stronghold that outlining may have in the classroom, "there is a fairly common practice in language teaching wherein students are taught to outline their essays before they actually write" (Taylor p. 3), many theorists have begun to question its utility. Indeed, outlining is based upon the "assumption that writing is a one-way process of recording on paper ideas which are already well thought out and organized [when, in fact,] writing is not the plan-outline-write process that many of us believe it to be" (Taylor p. 3).

Because many ESL and L1 writing theorists and instructors now consider the writer's task to be a thinking task, intended to be as flowing and recursive as her thoughts, they now emphasize the generative nature of the composing process. Indeed, writers reformulate meaning and ideas as they write, not merely before composition begins. Therefore, the role of the static a priori outline in composition--to include L2 composition--must be reexamined not by the theorist but by the practitioner. For Zamel (1983) the teaching of composition "should be informed by and based upon what writing actually entails, an understanding of the composing process [that] calls into question approaches that are prescriptive, formulaic, and overly concerned with correctness" (p. 165). Certainly, early decisions to continue in a pre-specified direction can lock "writers into a premature solution before they have entered the problem (Flower, 1980). Even though logic and current theory might suggest that the rigid aspects of the typical outline and the more fluid nature of composition may not make the friendliest companions, the following study sought to test this hypothesis in the L2 classroom. To this end, a series of French compositions generated from oral brainstorming followed by the creation of an outline were compared to those resulting from oral brainstorming without an outline.

The Study

Design With the aim of comparing the quality of a series of L2 compositions developed from student-generated outlines to those composed without outlines, a group of second-year university French students were divided into two subgroups. Each subgroup was given the same composition topic and given fifteen minutes of class time to engage in pre-writing brainstorming by discussing the topic together in French. Students in both subgroups composed their essays outside of class. Although the initial brainstorming took place together and in class, one of the two groups of students was required to draft an outline before beginning the composition. The outline was collected along with the final product. In order to counterbalance the research design, the students who drafted an outline for the first composition were not allowed to use an outline for the second composition.

Participants Eighteen undergraduate speakers of English (nine males and nine females) who were enrolled in a third semester French course at the University of Nebraska at Omaha participated in the study. The third semester class meets three days a week for fifty minutes a day.

Materials The ten composition topics were based upon the ten thematic textbook chapters covered in the course. At times the topic was taken directly from the composition sections of the textbook. On other occasions the textbook topics were modified. The topics were as follows:

Composition 1. A robbery is taking place in a neighborhood store. Describe the the scene.

Composition 2. Imagine that you spent yesterday at the mall. Describe what you did, what you saw, and what you bought.

Composition 3. Imagine that you are far from your boyfriend/girlfriend. Write a letter expressing your feelings of loneliness and abandon.

Composition 4. Imagine that you are breaking up with your boyfriend/girlfriend. Compose a letter to him or her explaining your feelings.

Composition 5. Imagine that you were an animal in a past life. Describe your experience.

Composition 6. Imagine that you were recently ill. Describe your symptoms and your cure.

Composition 7. You are at a travel agency. Describe in detail the ideal two week vacation.

Composition 8. You are a witness to a car accident. A insurance agent asks you to describe the scene in detail.

Composition 9. Compare and contrast leisure activities typically associated with adolescents to those associated with adults.

Composition 10. Compare and contrast life at the university to life in high school.

Procedure The eighteen participants were randomly assigned into two groups of nine. Each group was given the same topic and fifteen minutes to discuss the topic in French. All students were required to write a one-page typed composition in French based upon the given topic. Before composing, one group was instructed to draft an outline that the participants would use to guide their compositions. The outline and the composition were collected. The second group was simply given the topic, encouraged to brainstorm ideas (as were members of the first group) but were not instructed to draft an outline. Each of the ten writing assignments were given on a Friday. The resulting compositions (and outlines) were due the following Monday. The within-subjects design was counterbalanced in terms of treatment across the two conditions. For example, while working on the first composition, group 1 drafted an outline while group 2 did not. Conversely, for the second composition, group 2 produced an outline, whereas group 1 did not.

Scoring Each composition was scored by two independent graders. The scale used to score the compositions was a modified analytical scale based upon Scott's (1996) model (see Figure 1). See website <http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/spr2003.htm> An analytic scoring scale examines a set of predetermined writing features such as vocabulary, organization, or grammatical accuracy. Because process-oriented composition is more concerned with communicative ability than grammatical accuracy, the analytic scale used in the present study included features such as "expression," "organization," and the less tangible "global impression." Each category was scored according to a five-point scale (1 low, 5 high).

Results The mean and standard deviation scores for each analytic feature in both conditions are presented in Table 1. <http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/spr2003.htm> In terms of the grammar and expression features, there was effectively no difference between the compositions generated from an outline and those composed without the use of an outline. The average grammar score was 3.54 in the no outline condition and 3.50 in the outline condition. For the expression feature the average was 3.52 in the no outline condition and 3.50 in the outline condition. More noticeable differences occurred for the global impression and organization scores. For the global impression feature the average score was 3.73 for the outline condition and 3.98 in the no outline condition. In terms of organization the average score was 3.72 with the outline and 4.06 without the outline. Although scores in the no outline condition were higher than scores in the outline condition for every feature (grammar, expression, organization, global impression), paired t-tests for dependent samples revealed that the differences were not statistically significant.

Discussion In spite of a lack of significance, it is nevertheless interesting to note that the greatest difference between conditions occurred for the organization feature while the smallest differences occurred for the grammar and expression features. Both theory and common sense suggest that a rigid predetermined outline can limit idea generation and the students to an underdeveloped organizational schema. For Walvoord, the more fluid free writing activity is advantageous because it "gets ideas flowing and sometimes unlocks for the writer a wealth of images, ideas, or even insights that might never have emerged in a more constricted planning form such as the list or outline" (p. 59). Similarly, Taylor (1984) believes that the traditional outline model ignores a fundamental characteristic of the composing process, such that the "art of writing [or speaking] in addition to reflecting thought, can itself serve as a facilitator of thought and may in fact even help the writer in the process of writing to shape and refine ideas which are not yet fully formed" (p. 3-4).

Because the no outline (brainstorming only) condition encourages a more flexible organization schema, similar to the fluid nature of thought itself, it is reasonable to find the greatest differences between groups (in favor of the no outline condition) for the organization feature. It is also reasonable to find the smallest differences between groups for the grammar and expression features given that there were no explicitly grammar or vocabulary-oriented components in the pre-writing activities for either condition.

Limitations The most obvious limitation of the present study is the lack of statistically significant results. The absence of significance could be due to several factors. First, although the sample size was found to sufficient based on the alpha, beta, and effect size, a larger number of participants would have nevertheless been preferable. Second, the thematic composition topics used in the study were taken directly from the textbook used in the course. The selection of text-driven topics was done in order to approximate a natural classroom writing environment and to generate findings that best reflect the typical classroom situation, rather than selecting topics that might yield more powerful results.

Conclusion

Forcing students to fit their ideas into "preexisting organizational modes" (Taylor p. 6) is not only incompatible with thought processes (Grabe, 2001; Omaggio Hadley, 1993; Scarcella and Oxford, 1992; Walvoord, 1982; Zamel, 1983), but it can also be detrimental to the overall coherence of a piece of writing. In fact, outlines or "inflexible plans" (Rose, 1980) stand in direct opposition with the fluid essence of process-oriented writing instruction. Whereas process writing encourages writers to modify or even "discard chunks of discourse or original plans as they review their writing [and] reconsider its function," (Zamel p. 166) outlines limit the reconsideration of both content and organization.

Most foreign language teachers would agree with Kroll (1990) in that writing in a second language is more complex than composing in one's first language. Indeed, the difficulties of the composing process are compounded by those of the new linguistic code. The results of the present study suggest that the use of the outline as a pre-writing activity in the second language classroom does not facilitate composition organization and may even be a hindrance. Further study on the role of the outline in the L2 classroom at different levels of instruction, in different languages, and using different composition topics and lengths is, nevertheless, still needed.

References

Barnett, Marva. (1989). Writing as Process. The French Review, 63, 31-44.

Emig, Janet. (1971). The Composing Process of Twelfth Graders. NCTE Research Report No. 13. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Flower, Linda. (1980). Planning to be Creative. Composition and Teaching, 2, 61-67.

Flower, Linda & John Hayes. (1981). A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-87.

Grabe, William. (2002). Notes Toward a Theory of Second Language Writing. In Tony Silva & Paul Matsuda (Eds.) On Second Language Writing. (pp.39-58). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Krashen, Stephen. (1984). Writing, Research, Theory and Applications. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Kroll, Barbara. (1990). What Does Time Buy? ESL Student Performance on Home Versus Class Composition. In Barbara Kroll (Ed.) Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom. (pp. 140-154). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lay, Nancy. (1982). Composing Processed of Adult ESL Learners: A Case Study. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 406.

Matsuda, Paul. (1997). Contrastive Rhetoric in Context: A Dynamic Model of L2 Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6.1, 45-60.

Omaggio Hadley, Alice. (1993). Teaching Language in Context. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Polio, Charlene. (2001). Research Methodology in Second Language Writing Research: The Case of Text-Based Studies. In Tony Silva & Paul Matsuda (Eds.) On Second Language Writing. (pp.91-115). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rose, Mike. Rigid Rules, Inflexible Plans, and the Stifling of Language: A Cognitivist Analysis of Writer's Block. (1980). College Composition and Communication, 31.4, 389-401.

Scarcella, Robin & Rebecca Oxford. (1992). The Tapestry of Language Learning: The Individual in the Communicative Classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Scott, Virginia. (1996). Rethinking Foreign Language Writing. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Shrum, Judith & Judith Glisan. (1994). Teacher's Handbook: Contextualized Language Instruction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Silva, Tony & Paul Matsuda. (2001). On Second Language Writing. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Taylor, K.K. (1984). The Difference Summary Skills of Inexperienced and Professional Writers. Journal of Reading, 17, 691-99.

Ting, Y.R. (1996). Looping Forward: Drafting in My Own Language. ELT Journal, 50.2, 135-42.

Walvoord, B. (1986). Helping Students Write Well. New York: The Modern Language Association of America.

Zamel, Vivian. (1983). The Composing Processes of Advanced ESL Students: Six Case Studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17.2, 165-86.

Carolyn Gascoigne, University of Nebraska at Omaha

Dr. Carolyn Gascoigne is an Associate Professor of French and Second Language Acquisition.