ORAL DEFENSE

First and foremost, I would like to thank the Jury for the
taking the time to read and assess my work. I would also
like to express my gratitude to my tutor, Dr. Yolanda
Caballero, for her invaluable help. I will divide this
presentation into three main parts. First, I will deal with the
reasons why I have chosen the topic, the research question,
the main hypotheses and the methods used in the present
research. Second, I will briefly discuss the most relevant
findings. Finally, I will summarize what my conclusions were
and how doing this RP has helped me in my teaching
practice in TTC.

The topic of my RP is Process Writing and Its Influence in

the Development of Analytical Literary Tools in a Teacher
Training College. I became interested in this theme because
I have been teaching American Literature for almost ten
years now and I have always doubted whether the use of
process writing just brought about significant improvement
at a linguistic level or whether it also helped students
improve their declarative and procedural knowledge of
literary tools for the analysis of novels, short stories, poems
and plays. I talked to several colleagues who share the
same approach to the teaching of Literature as me, and
they told me that they were not sure to what extent process
writing facilitated the development of analytical strategies.
Therefore, I set out to investigate the effect of process
writing in an American Literature course in TTC.

This RP is informed by the following research question:

Does process writing help Literature students develop
analytical tools for the exploration of literary texts?
Based on the research question above, the following
hypotheses will be examined:
1. Literature students develop analytical tools for the
exploration of literary texts by using a process approach to
writing.
2. Literature students do not develop analytical tools for the
exploration of literary texts by using a process approach to
writing.
3. Literature students do not only edit their language in the
successive renderings but they also explore the literary
texts in more in depth.
Therefore, the objectives of the present research are:
To determine whether students develop their literary
analytical tools when using a process
writing approach in a Literature course.
b. To identify the areas in which students improve and the
kind of pedagogical intervention which brings about such
improvement.
c. To determine the effectiveness – or lack thereof – of the
feedback provided by the instructor during the writing
process.
d. To gain insight into what students do at each point in a
process writing approach within the specific context of a
Literature course.
e. To contribute a piece of research on process writing
applicable by other colleagues in the same institution.
This research project has been carried out at Instituto
Superior del Profesorado “Dr. Joaquín V. Gonzalez”, a state-
run Teacher Training College in the city of Buenos Aires.
This institution was founded in 1904 in order to train
university graduates who wanted to become teachers in
their speciality. A few years later, students without a
university degree began to be admitted and teacher
training courses were extended to four years. The English
Department was created in 1911. There was only one
teacher at the time who trained students in all subjects. It
was only in 1914 that the first English Literature teacher
was hired, even though there were Literature courses
before. Jorge Luis Borges, one of Argentina’s best-known
writers, taught several English Literature courses in this
institution.

The subject to which this Research Project will be applied is

American Literature, a fourth-year course which implies that
students need to have passed related subjects before
attending it. Fifteen students belonging to the 2009
American Literature course (stream D, evening shift)
participated in this research project. As a general rule, most
students who participated in this project had attended
English Literature I, English Literature II and were attending
English Literature III and Contemporary Literature. Besides,
they had already passed Language I, II and III as well. The
latter group of subjects are important since it is in
Language courses that students develop their academic
writing skills. It is also worth mentioning that, since there
was an important change in curriculum design, some
students had also attended a subject called Academic
Writing.
According to Hyland,
“To be answerable, our questions must relate to specific
students, writers texts, users, or set of practices, and in this
sense small-scale research is as valuable to the
accumulation of our understanding of writing as larger
projects.”(2002:150)
Two main research methods have been used: content
analysis of 15 essays and the corrected renderings, and
questionnaires to those students who were attending
American Literature and had written the essays mentioned
above. Triangulation, which implies ¨the use of two or more
methods of data collection in the study of some aspect of
human behavior¨ (Cohen el al 2000:112), is also carried out
between the two methods used to ensure validity and
reliability in the analysis of the data collected.
It is worth mentioning that, content analysis was of utmost
importance because it allowed me to have some insight
about what students produced through a process writing
approach and therefore determine whether their analytical
tools had developed by this kind of writing instruction or
not. The analysis of the essays was organized into different
areas which are usually problematic in a Literature course.
The purpose of this classification was to determine whether
students not only improved their use of English and
organization of the essay, but also the depth of analysis and
their accurate use of literary terminology.
The questionnaire aimed at finding out: a) which subjects
the students had already taken (to hypothesize the kind of
training in academic writing they had already received), b)
what kind of writing instruction they had received before
setting off to write and how effective they thought it had
been, c) the kind of feedback they had been given and how
useful they had found it, d) as well as the students’ general
assessment of process writing as a tool to develop their
literary analytical skills.
RESULTS
Content Analysis
All the essays evidenced improvement. The instructor’s
comments aimed at helping the learner detect the area in
which he or she had to concentrate. Only one student just
deleted the problematic segment. All the other students
seemed to have changed their flawed passages and used
concepts in a more accurate way. In many cases, a further
rendering would have been in order.
The areas which seemed to be more problematic were
those connected to more technical aspects, such as point of
view and focalization or symbols. In all cases, students
improved their use of the literary terms in question. They
seemed to understand the concept once they had applied
it, which shows that they learnt through trial and error.
The linguistic area also improved, but this did not seem to
be the most problematic area. Besides, they showed
greater improvement in technical rather than mere
linguistic aspects.

Questionnaires
 2.1. Question 1

The answers to this question reveal that all the students who
participated in this study had already done Literature I and Language I, II
and III. What is more, 93 % of them had done Language IV as well. As
regards other Literature courses, 66.66 % had taken English Literature II, 40
% had passed English Literature III and only 20 % had done Contemporary
Literature and Academic Writing. This reveals that by the time they took the
subject where this study was conducted, most students had taken part in at
least two Literature courses and three Language courses.

2.2. Question 2

The answers provided in question 2 unveil the lack of experience

most students had had in process writing when they took American
Literature. 60% of learners had experienced process writing in Language III,
20 % in Language IV, 13.33 % in Language II and 13.33 % in Academic
Writing. As regards Literature courses, 33% of them had been trained
through process writing in Literature I and 13.33 % in Literature III. It is
striking to notice that they had only experienced process writing in six
subjects throughout their Teacher Training Course. This is highly relevant
since most students who participated in this research project had had little
experience in the strategy used during the study.

2.3. Question 3

In this question students were asked to determine the kind of

instruction technique which was useful before actually having to write their
essays. 73 % of the learners stated that reading theory on essay writing,
reading and analysing essays, reading by experts and discussing the
structure of an essay in class were the three most useful techniques. This
might be connected with the fact that students seemed to lack experience
in this kind of writing activity.

2.4. Questions 4 and 5

Even though the answers to question 4 revealed that all the students
believed the instructor’s feedback had been useful, the results of question 5
were even more interesting since they illuminated the reasons why this had
been so. Strikingly enough, 93.33 % of the students linked the usefulness of
feedback to the fact that it was supportive and not overcritical. This might
be connected to the fact that, historically, this institution and its members
have placed more emphasis on accuracy to the detriment of other aspects
of writing.

80 % of learners believed that feedback was clear and provided

orientation for correction. This might be contrasted with a product approach
to writing in which students are only corrected their mistakes and usually
provided with the right answer. 73 % of the surveyed students agreed that
feedback had helped them focus on both language and content mistakes.
This third option is linked to the previous two. As can be seen, students
lacked experience in process writing and most of them had only been
corrected their use of language as part of their training in this macro skill.

60% of students highlighted the use of questions to foster critical

thinking. This technique also contrasts with their apparent previous
experiences in writing since, in a product writing approach, students are
usually handed out the composition with a mark on it and corrections or
comments which are definite. No dialogue between the writer and the
reader (in this case, the instructor) is established. The use of questions to
foster this academic dialogue seems to have called students’ attention. 60
% of learners also mentioned that feedback on the whole and the different
sections of the essay was very useful to them. This may be connected to the
fact that in a more traditional view of writing as a skill, teachers used to
focus on specific linguistic aspects of the composition rather than on the
whole piece as an instance of discourse.

In keeping with the previous results, 46.66 % of students attributed

the usefulness of feedback to the fact that it identified the kind of language
mistake. This might be linked to the established practice within this Teacher
Training College of either underlining the language mistake or just providing
students with the right answer. The reason why this is so can be found in
the large amount of students Language and Literature courses usually have
in first and second year. Teachers usually claim that it is impossible for
them to write the kind of mistake and provide qualitative feedback to the
big amount of students they have.

Finally, 46.66 % of learners highlighted the fact that feedback

referred to specific parts of the literary texts which contradicted their points
and this allowed them to reconsider their ideas. This might reveal the
importance of questions as a pedagogical strategy to help learners
construct their own knowledge rather than imposing interpretations which
students cannot comprehend.

It is worth noticing that no option had a lower percentage than 46.66,

which is quite high. This might reveal that even though some feedback
techniques are more effective than others in the view of learners, the
abovementioned ones are all useful when it comes to process writing.

2.5. Question 6

No student chose any of the options in question 6. The options

referred to typical areas which can be problematic when providing feedback,
such as the tone used by the teacher, the kind of information provided, the
lack of evidence to contradict learners’ points, etc. The surveyed students
do not seem to find any of these characteristics in the feedback provided, as
is also shown in the results to question 5.
 2.6. Question 7

This question aimed at gathering information about the tasks

students perform when having to re-write the essay. 93.33 % of them re-
read the essay before beginning the re-writing process. 80% of learners re-
read specific parts of stories based on the instructor’s comments and also
tried to find evidence to support the points they had made or assertions
which were unclear to the reader. This is in keeping with the low percentage
(20%) of students who re-read the whole story before beginning their
correction process.

As regards the order in which they went about correction, 60% of the
participants worked on content first and then edited the language. Only 20%
of the surveyed students admitted they worked on language first.

As regards the resources used, 40% of students looked up words in

the dictionary, whereas 20% consulted the Dictionary of Literary Terms.
60% of learners went back to their class notes and only 33.33 % of students
re-read their notes on essay writing. No one consulted a grammar book.
Finally, 20% of the participants asked a classmate to help them correct the
essay.

2.7. Question 8 and 9

All the students stated that process writing had been a very useful
instructional technique. When asked to explain why they thought so
(question 9), 93.33 % of students explained that process writing had helped
them develop analytical tools further and that they had learned how to read
a text more in depth. 73% of learners claimed that a process writing
approach had enabled them to present their ideas in a clearer way and
helped them solve problems of textual misunderstanding. 60% of students
admitted that they had become more aware of their own mistakes and 43%
of participants stated that they had improved their language use. Finally,
33.33 % of respondents claimed that process writing had allowed them to
clarify their understanding of certain literary terms.

2.8. Question 10

No student chose any of the answers in question 10. The main ideas
included in this question came from the usual complaints students make
when using process writing and what authors have pointed out as its
disadvantages. Nevertheless, students seem not to have considered them
valid in this particular experience.

2.9. Question 11

Only five students made use of this section to express their views.
Their comments mainly aimed at reinforcing the idea that:
 a) Feedback must be supportive and to the point.
b) Process writing can mean hard work but is worth the effort.
c) They learned how to read a text in a more detailed and in-depth way.

These ideas are in keeping with what was mentioned in each of the
questions above.

In order to compare and contrast the information gathered through

both research methods, we will refer to some categories that are highly
relevant to the research question and the hypotheses guiding this research
project.

TRIANGULATION
3.1. Development of Analytical Tools
The results of the content analysis of several essays seem
to indicate that students significantly improve their
handling of the technical aspects used in textual exegesis.
This seems to be in keeping with students’ perceptions
gathered through the self-administered questionnaire:
93.33 % of students considered that process writing had
enabled them to develop analytical tools for the analysis of
literary works and that they had learned how to read a text
more in depth.

Another point worth mentioning is that fact that out

of 15 essays, only three students were corrected important
misconceptions regarding specific literary jargon. In two of
those cases, the misconception was correctly improved (the
third student did away with the segment). In the self-
administered questionnaires, results show that only 20 % of
learners consulted Cuddon’s The Penguin’s Dictionary of
Literary Terms and Literary Theory. This might have, at
least, a twofold explanation. First, students take American
Literature in fourth year and, in most cases, they have
already taken two or three other Literature courses where
this jargon is also used. Second, students seem to rely more
on class notes than on the abovementioned dictionary (60%
of participants consulted class notes before re-writing the
essay).
3.2. Feedback
Content analysis reveals that the feedback provided by the
instructor seems to have been in all cases aimed at helping
the learner improve on the pieces by reflecting on their
own. This appears to be in keeping with previous research
in this area (Li 1992). Besides, most students in the self-
administered questionnaire claimed that feedback was
clear and supportive. This seems to be supported by the
evidence in the content analysis section.
Another relevant point is that feedback seems to be
pervaded with questions to help learners reflect on their
pieces rather than providing final answers students should
just copy. This has also been perceived by 60 % of the
surveyed students who point out that feedback was
beneficial thanks to questions which fostered critical
thinking. Moreover, 60 % of learners claimed that a process
writing approach had helped them become more aware of
their mistakes.
Finally, even though language occupied a place in the
feedback provided, most of it seems to be connected to
content. In the self-administered questionnaires, 73 % of
students perceived that feedback had helped them work on
both language and content. Besides, 43% of participants
admitted that they had improved their use of English.

3.3. Process Writing

The excerpts in the content analysis section reveal that all
students improved from one rendering to the next.
However, no insight into what they did can be hypothesized
just from the corrected versions. The self-administered
questionnaires did provide evidence of what learners did
before and in-between renderings.

Before writing the essay, most students (73%) explained

that they read theory on essay writing, analysed essays
written by experts and discussed the structure of an essay
in class. In-between essays, the most used technique was
to re-read the whole essay (93.33%), followed by re-reading
specific parts of stories and trying to find evidence in them.
This seems to indicate that learners constructed knowledge
on their own by trying to improve their pieces and
supporting their views with textual instances. The options in
the questionnaire which implied the consultation of further
sources (grammar books, a dictionary of literary terms or
class notes) seemed to be less popular.

CONCLUSIONS
The analysis of the essays and their subsequent re-
correction seem to demonstrate that students do develop
such tools in connection with different literary concepts
which are usually considered problematic in Literature
courses. Therefore, the first hypothesis proves to be right
while the second hypothesis can be discarded. These
results are highly supported by the students’ perception of
the process writing experience: 93.33 % of students
believed that this technique had helped them develop
analytical tools further and that they had learned how to
read a text more in depth.
As regards the third hypothesis, the analysis of the data
collected seems to indicate that Literature students do not
only edit their language in the successive renderings but
they also explore the literary texts in more depth. Based on
the students’ answers to the questionnaire, this study has
shown that 60% of the participants worked on content first
and then edited the language whereas only 20% of the
learners worked on language first. Besides, 80 % students
admitted to re-reading specific parts of stories before
writing their second rendering.
Other conclusions can be drawn which had not been
considered in the hypotheses at the beginning of the
present study. First, feedback needs to be precise and
supportive. It must provide enough information for students
to be able to self-correct. This is in keeping with research in
the area of feedback and process writing (Leki 1990; Li
1992).
Another point worth mentioning is the fact that students
improve from rendering to rendering by re-considering their
ideas and re-reading stories. This seems to indicate that
they further develop ideas or add new ideas which they had
not thought of at the moment of writing the essay for the
first time. This is also in keeping with Bereiter and
Scardamaglia’s (1982) hypothesis that students write less
than they are able to, not for lack of knowledge, but for the
lack of adequate tools to retrieve the knowledge they have.
Even though the present research project used a small
number of participants and a limited amount of essays, the
results seem to demonstrate that process writing is a very
effective technique which helps Literature students develop
critical and analytical tools for the exploration of literary
works. The kind of feedback provided and the tasks
students carry out in between renderings appear to have an
important impact on their performance as well.
This research project has helped me develop professionally.
Revising my approach to writing within my Literature
courses has allowed me to improve on my teaching
techniques and, as a result, my students’ performance has
also been positively affected. I also hope the results in this
project will be soon socialized among my colleagues at
Instituto Superior del Profesorado “Dr. Joaquín V. Gonzalez”.
FINALLY
The following research project was conducted in a very
specific setting. The results, therefore might not be
generalizable to other similar contexts. Besides, the number
of students who took part in the present study was quite
limited. A large-scale investigation can be conducted to
measure whether results coincide with the ones offered by
this work.
Another limitation in connection with this research project is
the fact that it was conducted in one academic year. It
would be interesting to conduct an extended investigation
to compare results among different academic years.
Another possibility would be to carry out longitudinal
research on the effect of a process writing approach in
Teacher Training College by studying cases from different
Literature courses throughout a students’ complete course
of studies.
Finally, one possible recommendation is to extend similar
research projects to other content subjects in Teacher
Training College so as to compare results (e.g. British
History, British and US Geography or Linguistics).