Technology has altered communication style from face to face to written communication. An increased participation in chats, blogs, and other forms of social media along with a growing trend to work from home or to study on-line has increased the need to perfect academic written communication. Lithuanian students who have been trained in product approach are in desperate need to enhance skills in creativity, self-expression, independence and criticality, skills that can be taught through a process or a post-process approach to writing. An overview of product, process, and post-process approach suggests that second language learners trained in process or post-process approach display significant advantages in academic writing compared to students trained in product approach. Writing has been neglected as a skill for several reasons in Lithuanian English classrooms, yet the demand for academic writing in today’s world is increasing in accelerated speed. Process and post-process approach provides necessary skills that have been highly neglected in ESL teaching in Lithuanian schools and universities.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
Asano E. (2017). How Much Time Do People Spend on Social Media? Infographic. Retrieved from https://www.socialmediatoday.com/marketing/how-much-time-do-people-spend-social-media-infographic.
Atkinson D. (2016). Second Language Writing and Culture. In R. M. Manchón &P. K. Matsuda (Eds.) Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing (pp. 545–566).
Arteaga-Lara H. M. (2017). Using the Process-Genre Approach to Improve Fourth-Grade EFL Learners’ Paragraph Writing. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning 10(2) 217–244.
Badger R. &G. White. 2000. A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal 54(2) 153–160.
Belcher D. &Braine G. (1995). Academic Writing in a Second Language: Essays on Research and Pedagogy. Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Bloch J. (2007). Abdullah’s Blogging: A Generation 1.5 Student Enters the Blogosphere. Language Learning &Technology11(2) 128–141.
Breuch L. K. (2003). Post-Process ‘Pedagogy’: A Philosophical Exercise. In V. Villanueva &K. L. Arola (Eds.) Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader (pp. 97-125).
Celce-Murcia M. (2000). Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (3rd ed). Heinle &Heinle.
Collier V. P. (1989). How Long? A Synthesis of Research on Academic Achievement in a Second Language. TESOL Quarterly 23(3) 509–531.
Cummins J. (2016). Reflections on Cummins (1980) The Cross-Lingual Dimensions of Language Proficiency: Implications for Bilingual Education and the Optimal Age Issue. TESOL Quarterly50(4) 940–944. DOI https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.339.
Česnienė Z. (2015). Rašymo įgūdžių tobulinimas taikant studentų tarpusavio vertinimo metodą. Pedagogy 120(4) 61–72
De Freitas Villas Boas I. (2014). Process Writing in a Product-Oriented Context: Challenges and Possibilities. Revista Brasileira de Lingüística Aplicada 14(2) 463–490.
Ellis R. (2002). The Place of Grammar Instruction in the Second/Foreign Curriculum. In E. Hinkel &S. Fotos (Eds.) New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms (pp. 17–34).
Ferguson G. (2012). Barbara Seidlhofer: Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford University Press 2011. Applied Linguistics33(4) 463–465.
Hairston M. (2002). The Winds of Change: Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in the Teaching of Writing. In D. Jolliffe D. Keene M. Trachsel &R. Voss (Eds.) Against the Grain: A Volume in Honor of Maxine Hairston (pp. 29–44).
Hashemnezhad H. (2012). A Comparative Study of Product Process and Post-process Approaches in Iranian EFL Students’ Writing Skill. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 3(4) 722–729. DOI doi:10.4304/jltr.3.4.722-729.
Hakuta K Butler Y.G. Witt D. (2000). How Long Does It Take English Learners to Attain Proficiency? The University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute. Policy Report 2000–2001. Retrieved from https://web.stanford.edu/~hakuta/Publications/%282000%29%20-%20HOW%20LONG%20DOES%20IT%20TAKE%20ENGLISH%20LEARNERS%20TO%20ATTAIN%20PR.pdf.
Hinkel E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing: practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. Mahwah N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Hirokawa K. &Swales J. (1986). The Effects of Modifying the Formality Level of ESL Composition Questions. TESOL Quarterly20(2) 343–345.
Hyland K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing 12(1) 17–29. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00124-8
Johns A. M. (1997). Text role and context: developing academic literacies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kalan A. (2014). A Practice-Oriented Definition of Post-Process Second Language Writing Theory. TESL Canada Journal 32(1) 1–18.
Kantar TNS. (2017). Žiniasklaidos tyrimų apžvalga 2017. Retrieved from http://www.tns.lt/data/files/Metines_apzvalgos/Kantar_TNS_Metinė_žiniasklaidos_tyrimų_apžvalga_2017m.pdf.
Kent T. I. (ed. and introd.). (1999). Post-Process Theory: Beyond the Writing-Process Paradigm.
Kroll B. (1991). Teaching Writing in the ESL Context. In M. Celce-Murcia (Eds.) Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 219–232).
Leki I. (1995). Coping Strategies of ESL Students in Writing Tasks Across the Curriculum. TESOL Quaterly. 29(2) 235–260. DOI doi.org/10.2307/3587624.
Lindemann E. (1982). Rhetoric for writing teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.
Office of Ombudsman for Academic Ethic and Procedures of the Republic of Lithuania. (2018). Petras Baršauskas violated the law on the Adjustment of public and private interests in the civil service. Retrieved from http://www.etika.gov.lt/2018/01/2018-01-17-petras-barsauskas-violated-the-law-on-the-adjustment-of-public-and-private-interests-in-the-civil-service/.
Miliūnaitė R. (2014). Mokytojai Apie Informacinių Technologijų Poveikį Mokinių Raštingumui. Bendrinė Kalba 87 1–16.
Prodromou L. (1995). The backwash effect: from testing to teaching. English Language Teaching Journal21(1) 1–25.
Pullman G. (1999). Stepping Yet Again into the Same Current. In T. Kent (Ed.) Post-Process Theory: Beyond the Writing-Process Paradigm (pp. 16–29).
Scollon S. (1999). Not to Waste Words or Students: Confucian and Socratic Discourse in the Tertiary Classroom. In E. Hinkel (Ed.) Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 13–27).
Smith K. (2018). 121 Amazing Social Media Statistics and Facts. Retrieved from https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/amazing-social-media-statistics-and-facts/.
Sun Y.C. Chang Y.J. (2012). Blogging to Learn: Becoming EF Academic Writers Through Collaborative Dialogues. Language Learning &Technology 16(1) 43–61.
Ware P. Kern R. &Warschauer M. (2016). The development of digital literacies. In P. K. Matsuda &R. K. Manchón (Eds.) Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 307–28).
Xu X. &Li X. (2018). Teaching Academic Writing through a Process-Genre Approach: A Pedagogical Exploration of an EAP Program in China. TESL-EJ22(2) 1–21.
Zheng B. Yim S. &Warschauer M. (2016). Social Media in the writing classroom and beyond. In J. I. Liontas (ed.) The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching.
Žindžiuvienė I. (2003). Rašomosios anglų kalbos ugdymo paradigmos svarbiausios gairės. In Acta paedagogica Vilnensia 11 19–28.