Curt's entry

Ken Hyland discusses in Chapter 9 his research on writing and writers in his book Second Language Writing (2003) where he problematizes the dichotomy between practical teaching and theoretical research. Hyland states his case in the following: “I have argued that the most effective teachers are those able to make informed classroom choices from an awareness of current perspectives on second language writing….But teachers are not simply consumers of others’ research. They tend to be curious about their students and their subject; they actively experiment with different tasks and materials; and they reflect on their approaches and decisions” (Hyland, 2003: 245). Hyland presents teachers as scholars who add to the pedagogical research and the discourses about that research. Hyland presents teachers as researchers. How does the teacher as researcher model open up new opportunities for reexamining second language learning. Hyland begins his approach to examining teacher as researcher in what he describes as action research, which he defines as collection and analysis of data with the specific goal of improving classroom teaching practices (Hyland, 2003: 246). I have used this action type of research as part of a teaching practice that is based upon a concept of continuous improvement in educational delivery within the classroom. I had found this to be a useful approach, but Hyland provides caution in the following: “But although this is a very accessible type of research, not all teacher studies are problem driven and change oriented. Research arises from a need to understand what people do in certain situations, and this may arise as much from a simple interest as to achieve a practical payoff” (Hyland, 2003: 246). This cautionary explanation gives pause to the teacher researcher that studies are very situational and must not always be focused upon a “problem” that needs to be changed. I have had to struggle with moving beyond that mode of thinking myself. I still hold that problem solving techniques have great and even versatile value, but hold this type of orientation is problematic in the sense that by seeing everything as a problem to be solved causes us as teachers to focus on learning problems rather than learner needs. I have found that second language learner needs vary according to situational needs including that involved with second language usages. As discussed in 345 TESOL Methods this past Tuesday, “I have found that when I was teaching in rural Alaska, the educational needs of Native Alaskans were different because their needs were different. Not only is the physical environment different than say Illinois, but more importantly, the economic environment is drastically different” (Curt, 345 13 Nov. 2012). I find that by remaining open to what the actual learning needs of the students are, and orientating my focus there, I have begun in a direction that is learner centered. In this way, research becomes practical and teaching becomes theoretical.

Lyudmila's entry on genre analysis and writing research

Genre analysis is definitely a necessary activity to include in L2 classroom for promoting students’ ability to describe typical features of text collections and, consequently, to write certain genres more accurately and effectively. Certainly, genre analysis adds to a model of language use by reflecting on social, cultural, and institutional contexts in which this or that model emerged. This way both teachers and students learn “ways to handle conventionalized aspects of texts” (Genre Book 195). Clearly, if students engage in the analysis of the moves or functional stages of various genre texts, features that characterize those texts, and their communicative purposes, this will help to identify the key features of the texts and to gain knowledge how these texts express particular functions. Moreover, seeing the social, cultural, and psychological contexts in which a text was created, understanding the writer in terms of getting acquainted with his or her demographic background, social status, and sex, and seeing how the genre relates to the writer’s activities, will help writing students uncover features outside the text and see how these features influenced the way the text was written (GB 197). Awareness that all texts are influenced by the community and the situation in which they emerge remind us that writing is a social practice. Such knowledge of social and cultural practices to which a certain genre relates will make it easier for students to process and write a certain genre and also will make the texts more accessible for them. I believe genre analysis should be introduced to both L1 and L2 students as both struggle with the writing process, and raising awareness of “ how a genre is written and responded to in different situations” will help both in terms of “demystifying forms and patterns of texts that otherwise would be seen as arbitrary and conventional” ( GB 208). Therein, a genre-based pedagogy is a powerful tool for helping students get control over the texts, understand how texts are constructed and what the underlying motives for creating a certain text were. This fairly young discipline is much needed to be incorporated in both ESL classroom and mainstream classroom as knowledge of how language works in human interaction and, more importantly, how to apply this knowledge in writing is still something that students have to figure out on their own, and providing them with this knowledge has become a responsibility of a teacher as we are far beyond the composition theory, cognitive psychology, and traditional grammars. As for the research on writing, when reading about ethical issues that a research may involve I thought about a longitudinal research on feedback provision on grammar and vocabulary in terms of its effectiveness on L2 writing. I realized that it may be a very difficult experiment to put into life due to the fact that it is unethical not to provide a feedback to the control group for a long period of time. This is why, there hasn’t been a longitudinal study conducted yet, and the debate between Truscott and Ferris remains open. I felt like a pioneer that can tackle this issue, but now I see the difficulties that will inevitably come with a longitudinal study on that issue, and to tell the truth, I am stuck because I am not sure how I would address it. I can see that it is unethical not to provide a feedback for a long period of time as I can see students may become aggravated and demotivated and even lose interest in the study of English. Thus, so far, this debate remains open, and so far, Truscott wins.

Lyudmila's post on plagiarism

I started to hear the word ‘plagiarism’ when in the 90s Russian singers would imitate U.S. or other Western singers. Then, later I came across with this issue when I first needed to produce an essay in an American college. Plagiarism sounded like a scary word to me as I was not sure how much I could take from the sentence. I remember exhaustingly trying to produce non plagiarized pieces while having not received appropriate information how to do it. I can see how “ignorance and lack of experience, rather than culture, lead to unorthodox textual borrowing” (Casanave, 177). I am glad to hear that we are supposed to use the words and ideas of others while integrating them into our own texts and still managing the piece to be original. The ambiguities in the Western notion of plagiarism are obvious as teachers themselves just vaguely explain it. Instead, more instruction, practice, and explanation is needed on behalf of teachers. In particular, organizing discussions on “the complexities of authorship, notions of originality and plagiarism, and cross-cultural practices of textual borrowing” will raise students’ awareness on the issues concerning textual borrowing. In addition, such exercises as true-false statements which expect answers on the context of the author’s teaching both in students’ countries and in the U.S., open-ended questions about students’ experiences on using source texts and their own interpretation of author and intellectual property, and the purposes of citation practices in English-language academic contexts provide will help students to reflect on their own as well as Western writing (Casanave, p. 183). These are crucial practices that will provide opportunities for writing students to see that the term “plagiarism” is a complex notion, and it relates to “the cultural construction of human identity, [and thus,] accusations of plagiarism may all too easily mask ideological arrogance” (qtd. in Pennycook, 218).

Curt's reflections on plagiarism and textual ownership

The issues involving plagiarism has been problematic for generations and now has been problematized with increasing concern due to the access of the Internet’s World Wide Web by an increasing number of international students whose cultural values are very different in regards to how intellectual property is perceived. “Still, the globalization of the Internet has complicated perspectives on plagiarism by challenging conventional views of authorship and of what constitutes the ownership of intellectual property” (Bloch, 223). He continues with, “For instance, although the Internet remains distinctly “American,” can or should Americans impose their views of intellectual property on all writers, regardless of their geographical location?” (Bloch, 223) These concerns are continued to be debated as finer points from the earlier broad question of, “Does the citing of a text from the Internet carry the same weight as the citing of a text from a print journal?” (Bloch, 222) I have had English 101 students as well as high school students ask that very question. I have used this as a teaching moment to examine citation styles using the very accessible The Purdue University Online Writing Lab (OWL), which has a great amount of understandable information on the details of citations styles including Modern Language Association (MLA) and American Psychological Association (APA), which are the two most commonly used styles in a broad cross-sections of academic disciplines. I inform students early on that these are only two citations styles from among many. In my syllabus, I provide a short section referring to plagiarism and departmental policies are referenced. In practice, I attempt to setup the writing assignments in a procedural format that helps to dissuade pressures to take “short-cuts” since students turn-in sections of their paper at a time as part of a building process. By using this type of process, I can relate important feedback in a timelier manner as well as help alleviate the temptation of “all-nighter” cram-sessions that can press for “mis-appropriated” filler. By taking this proactive approach, I am attempting to reduce the situations in which acts of plagiarism is likely to occur. I find that by being a proactive teacher is helpful in both L1 & L2 language learning environments. This also has effect of organizing the overall process in a more effective manner that will in turn encourage preparatory questions by the students that increases active engagement while reducing misunderstandings. Sometimes, it helps to problematized potential situations, such as academic dishonesty, before the first day of class, addressing these potential issues in ways that reduce their occurrences. This type of preparation comes with experience. Bloch states, “It is common knowledge that students are often confused about plagiarism. It is important that we understand the sources of this confusion in all their complexity before we attempt to help students engage the issues involved. Otherwise, our solutions may be simplistic and detrimental to their development” (Bloch, 224). This is why it is import to explain such issues early as well as effective strategies for avoiding such situations during the academic term, rather than let it be a “witch hunt chase” after the occurrence. This ideology presents itself in the following: ““If you copy other writer’s words,” teaching materials for first-year Arts Faculty students at Hong Kong University warn, “pretending they are your own, you are engaging in what is known as plagiarism. If you plagiarize in this way, you are guilty of intellectual dishonestly. You will be penalized heavily for this. Take care to avoid it, therefore”” (Pennycook, 1996: 220). Interesting is the part that begins with, “If you plagiarize in this way,” which has a limiting factor about it. However, I must ask if these issues of plagiarism are examined from a preventative measure at least in equal to the punitive measure of this statement. The authors of the articles have primarily focused upon the Chinese students almost to the point of making an exaggerated dichotomy although each author had made statements to the contrary. Joel Bloch, author of “Plagiarism and the ESL Student: From Printed to Electronic Texts” opens his article with the following statement: “The integration of previously published written texts into a new text is governed by a set of rules, the violation of which is called plagiarism” (Bloch, 209). It is interesting to see just how problematic the actual lack of a consistent definition for what actions would actually constitute an act of plagiarism in within a university, let alone a university system.

Lyudmila's reflections on SLW assessment

It is true that oftentimes lay people critique assessment practices as too demanding, unreal and unjust. Just take a unified state exam (or a standardized state matriculation exam) that has recently (from about 2009) been introduced to graduating High School students throughout the country in order to avoid cheating and corruption. It may have good intentions, but it also brought a lot of criticism from parents and High School students themselves. In addition, the general admission requirements to Russian community colleges include the submission of the results of this unified state exam. ‘Since 2009, EGE is the only form of graduation examinations in schools and the main form of preliminary examinations in universities’ (Wikipedia). A lot of students, parents, and school teachers believe that “the EGE is a poor measure of academic aptitude, and is already having a detrimental effect on learning at schools” (article) There were antiEGE (the name of this exam) movements throughout the country. The main argument is that changing the tests before changing the curriculum is putting the cart before the horse. There is no curriculum for that exam, and teachers really struggle with providing a good preparation for this exam. Also, the questions are believed to be written poorly, and the way the test is composed, which is mainly multiple-choice questions, “discounts imagination, creativity, and other qualities of well- rounded students” (article). Also, “the old Soviet screening system for high-school graduates which was comprised as a mix of school grades, written university entry exams, and oral exams prized as a particularly effective way of identifying talented students” (article). To cut a long story short, an exam on Russian language is also introduced as a multiple-choice test and, according to Hyland, is an indirect assessment. The second and third parts of the exam includes elaborate answers on questions and an essay. The shortcoming of this test is that it is more concerned with accuracy, but not communication. In the past, “every Russian graduate wrote an essay on a literary topic. [In addition], when applying to universities, every applicant wrote additional preliminary exams as set by the institutes of higher education they applied to” (article 2). I can’t say that I know much about this exam but after reading feedback on .org sites , which makes me think the info is credible, I got an impression that the test on Russian language is not quite valid and reliable. As there have been complains that the test does not actually assess what has been taught (validity), and a writing task does not measure consistently the same student on different occasions and the same task across different raters (reliability). Moreover, who are the raters (members of a special exam commission) and why they have the right to decide a student’s life is kept behind the iron door of the officials’ department. Finally, this exam resembles SAT, and I wanted to ask what are the practices of this exam and if you consider this exam as valid and reliable? References: http://www.rferl.org/content/Russias_New_Standardized_Exams_Fail_The_Public_Test/1761799.html http://chalkboard.tol.org/russia-will-the-use-be-useful

Lyudmila's entry on error correction debate

While seeing positive in all types of feedback practices, I appreciate teacher’s written feedback as it gives me an opportunity to come back and reread the comments. I like to keep everything at hand, and if I forgot what helped me to improve a certain paper, going back to it and reanalyzing teacher’s suggestions on the content as well as reflecting on certain grammar corrections helps me considerably in order to answer expectations posited by my current academic and future workplace settings. From my experience, marginal feedback helps me see proximately the exact point in the text where the issue occurred while the end feedback prioritizes key points and makes general observations on the paper. As for rubric, I also find them useful as when reviewing the feedback, it also helps to understand what the teacher values in a particular piece of writing. In addition, after reading about the controversial reaction on grammar feedback, I still think that it is an important part of feedback and should be provided along with focus on content. Certainly, too much red ink is discouraging, but correcting grammar errors that grossly interfere with the successful expression of the idea is necessary. I agree with Hyland, that reinforcing the patterns that were taught when modeling a genre can really help with simultaneous attention to form and meaning. As writing can be a painful process, support from a teacher is very important. I am always looking for a positive feedback not only in my final draft but especially at the beginning as my first draft is my “trying it out,” and if the teacher says ‘A good start! You are on the right track,” I feel encouraged and looking forward to continue my process of writing. Moreover, I support Ferris in her assertion that without explicit instruction and feedback on students’ errors, adult acquirers may fossilize and not continue making progress in accuracy of linguistic form. I doubt I would have achieved accuracy in my writing unless my teachers provide me a feedback on both form and meaning. As a L2 student, I am in dire need of such corrections as it helps me reflect on my writing, improve my writing, and at the same time, mind the structure of a sentence and how I can successfully articulate meanings through the selection of appropriate forms. After having read the article “Students must learn to correct all their writing errors” by Dana Ferris, I discovered for myself that, indeed, by systematically training students in self-editing strategies and making it a lifelong habit to use these skills can be valuable and productive in helping students to produce writing that meets high standards. Second, I realized that there is no magic bullet which will get students to the elusive point B. Rather, identifying individual error patterns and asking students to log errors into appropriate categories on an error chart, identifying and marking errors in student papers, and encouraging students to autonomy will help students to be conscientious about their drawbacks in writing and boost their still-developing linguistic competence.

Curt's reflective response on error correction debate

Ken Hyland’s book Second Language Writing (2003) discusses various attributes and some potentially troublesome aspects of each form of teacher written feedback. I find in my own teaching experiences that I tend to rely more heavily on the rubric in written form of feedback as a method of structuring the objectivity of evaluation; the students have clear access to the rubric well in advance of the writing assignment. Rubrics have long been a staple within the K-12 educational pedagogical curriculum and instructional model both in the United States as well as in many nations abroad. They are very adaptable to the assessment needs of classroom teachers, district requirements, and state standards. My favorite attribute of using well formulated rubrics is that they provide clearer communication as to what the teacher expectations are before rather than after the fact, grade. I have found that the use of rubrics help the English 101 students in their transition into college because they are so adapted to them during their K-12 educational experiences. However, in problematizing the use of rubrics, I have found that rubrics that are poorly or haphazardly made as well as good rubrics that are somehow misapplied can be troublesome for both teachers and students. This is why I customize each rubric to fit the evaluative criteria of larger projects. As I explain the rubric for a given project, I check for student understanding and even at times have invited some input on a particular project from students which in turn requires adjustments to the rubric. In fact, I had adjusted my power point presentation rubric due in part to both adaptions to the text used, Grassroots Writing Research Journal and some student input. The rubric itself is posted in the digital reserve. Another problem is the over reliance on the use of rubrics on the part of the teacher as well as an overdependence on their availability on the part of the student. Rubrics became popular near the dawn of the Industrial Age as an attempt to adapt education to rigors of regularity and even conformity of industrial employment. This regularity comes at the expense of creativity and originality on the part of the students. So in balance, I present the smaller assignments without a rubric, but still with expressed expectations so the students can still understand the expectations and still feel safe to experiment with its forms and/or content a little. Rubrics are interesting in that a teacher can utilize and problematize them at the same time. Verbal feedback in the form of teacher-student conferencing was also discussed by Hyland. I use this interactive form of one to feedback on individual specifics as well as some classroom interactive commentary on the more generalized trends that are occurring in student work. Both the positive and critical elements of the feedback are constructively framed in a here is how it is working well and how to fix what is not working. I have positive responses from students since they want to know how to succeed within the parameters of each project and paper. Hyland states, “The most successful conferences are those in which students are active participants, asking questions, clarifying meaning, and discussing their papers rather than passively accepting advice” (Hyland, 2003: 192). This is perhaps one of the cornerstones of the educational process itself. However, Hyland raises a valid point that can problematize teacher-student interactions with a particular concern with second language students. Hyland states in the following: “While learners have the opportunity to get individual attention and fully discuss their writing face-to-face with their teacher, second language students are not always in a good position to make the most of this. Conferences differ considerably from the typical classroom situation, and some students may lack the experience, interactive abilities, or aural comprehension skills to benefit. Some learners have cultural inhibitions about engaging informally with authority figures, let alone questioning them (Goldstein and Conrad, 1990), and this can result in students passively incorporating the teacher’s suggestions into their work without thought” (Hyland, 2003, 193). Again, the teacher needs to tailor the form of conferences to fit the functionality that the conferences are to serve. For example, specific project conferences differ from midterm or final course conferences, both of which needs to be thoughtfully planned. The third broad area that Hyland discusses in chapter seven is the use of peer review. In examining the use of peer review, a sense of evenly distributed student cohesiveness within the classroom is a prerequisite for its effective use beyond the most superficial of levels. In L2 classrooms, this interactive approach can seem to be so alien of pedagogy that the problems generated will outweigh the possible benefits. I have used this approach sparingly because even when students embrace it, they still tend to focus on surface level forms with generalized statements. To teach students how to go beyond that, the peer review skills become the content of the class displacing time needed for the subject content. In many cases, students resist the acceptance of the use of peer review. The use of classroom peer review certainly has it merits beyond the workshop types of classes of the creative humanities curriculum, but such a type of peer interaction can be problematized in so many ways, including a cultural resistance of second language learners. Teaching experiences in working with key critical issues within the context of English as a second language writing class are shared by Dana Ferris in his article, “Myth 5: Students must learn to correct all their writing errors” (Ferris, 2008: 90-114). Farris outlines a “what we can do” list that truly makes sense quite often for the English as a first language writers as well as a definite list to consider while teaching English as a second language classes. In all, Ferris concludes that good effective writing takes time and it should be valued enough to prompt one to take time for it, and this includes the editing as well. Both the writing and revision processes should be allocated a greater amount of time resources and utilize proofreading strategies as well. Ferris even suggests allowing others to proofread their work as assistance to their own proofreading as having another of eyes reading the text for a first time. Ferris brings in applicable writing and editing strategies and presents them in a clear manner that can be effectively used in a variety of writing instructional situations. Both authors have brought teaching strategies that are helpful in teaching a skill that is notoriously difficult for many teachers to teach and most students to learn.

Curt's post on genre-based writing instruction

Ken Hyland’s book Genre and Second Language Writing maps out a five principle process of organizing a genre-based writing course that is based upon five basic principles. The first principle is the concept of writing as a social activity, which has an intended contextual purpose of communicating to a given audience. This sense purpose applies even if the audience is one’s self as a reader of their own personal journal or diary. By having the writer begin with examining their audience with a purpose in mind, appropriate language usage will be realized. For example: research papers will use different language than classroom project assignments. This leads to the second principle that learning to write is needs orientated. I like that the concept of students achieving their goals even though their goals are ever changing. Even in the English 101 class, the student goals are changing to the needs of each project, but these goals are progressive as well. This is addressed in part by sequencing of writing assignments because the development of writing skills is progressive. A third principle relates to the notion that learning to write requires explicit outcomes and expectations including final expectation by the end of the course. This is referred to as the visible pedagogy which teacher helps the students unpack during crucial times the coursework beginning with the syllabus. This type of writing pedagogy is very interactive in facilitating student comprehension in specific instructor expectations. Fourth, by examining the methods of learning to write as a social activity involving collaborative support based upon a Vygotskian type of scaffolding approach. The fifth principle is that learning to write involves learning to use language. Although this conceptual principle may seem overly obvious, in part this includes the concept of making correct diction choices as well. I really find the aspect of integrating the grammar in the context of texts to be meaningful in a more naturally realistic way than the old “grammar grinds” that were so tedious and boring for students. I have unfortunate memories for middle and high language classes, English as well as other languages being “ground” in such artificially contrived ways. This chapter clearly maps out methods of researching the needs of the writing class beginning with asking a few a few simple questions including: Who are the learners? How do learners learn? Why are learners taking the writing course? And what do learners know about writing? By asking such questions objectively, the instructor can assess on how to best meet the needs of the students within a given class. This objective mapping facilitates the development of overall goals and their smaller supporting objectives. Hyland suggests that teachers should have enough professional autonomy or agency to collect and analyze their own research needed to adapt genre samples to the learning needs of the students. Again, sequencing genres is discussed in greater detail as to different types of sequencing including by topic, families, sets, repertoires, and relations among reading, talking, and writing. Each type of sequencing has pedagogical advantages as well as limitations that must be assessed by the writing instructor. Meanwhile, Ken Hyland’s other book Second Language Writing examines what constitutes effective syllabus design and lesson planning including the basic principles and techniques planning upon how learning goals and objectives are to be best met in serving the needs of the students. I had to keep such parameters in mind when I composed the syllabus for the English 101 section that I am teaching this semester. I find the follow three factors listed by Hyland relevantly pertinent. First, is that it should begin with the needs of the learners and incorporate these, such needs of my current class of English 101 student is to be able to transition successively into college from high school and that includes taking a greater role in the management of their own learning and following through on assignments without daily reminders. In second language learning, the instructor needs to ascertain as to what purposes and goals that the students have in their language learning. Secondly, such a plan should take account of wider curricular goals, both within and outside of language learning, basically how does this course fit within the overall curricular plans of a student’s educational program. Some more basic coursework tends to have students of a more diverse array of career and educational interests whereas as each student progresses, their language learning needs become more finely defined. And third, the syllabus will reflect the teacher’s philosophy of writing, including a view of language and learning. A syllabus may be a useful tool for discussing aspects of a teacher’s philosophy of education with students, which may have an even greater impact upon the effective accomplishment of learning than just simply stating the learning goals and objectives of the given course. I use this as part of an opening for students to get to know “from where I am coming from” and what is to be expected during the course itself. Hyland included figure 3.1 on page 56 cited from (Hutchison and Waters, 1987: 74) that I may use when refining my syllabus for the following semester. So far, I have made changes to courses each semester that I have taught them based upon expectations and the actual results of those expectations. After assessing student needs and balancing them with departmental learning goals, I have developed my syllabus based overall upon a genre driven model, figure 3.5, yet I include key components of a process driven model, figure 3.4, when constructing the major course projects. My students, as well as myself have found this blended model to be the most useful and meaningful for achieving positive learning results within the context of the class. Again, Hyland reminds readers of his texts about how planning lessons are key components focused upon a larger instructional goal or theme within the larger units of work contained within the syllabus itself. Hyland lists detailed elements for an organized lesson plan format that conveys a clear purpose with structured activities that fits within the parameters of the classroom environmental time frame as well as actual physical space. Both the time and space elements of the class need to be considered when mapping out the details of the syllabus for a given class. Other aspect of tailoring learning projects to meeting the interests and learning needs of the students includes structured choices, with each being valid for meet given learning goals. For example, allowing to select their presentation chapters, articles, and weeks for conducting their in class semester presentations. This facilitates the development of a more detailed learning upon chosen topics that may be of a greater interest in meeting deeper learning goals upon specific topics with an assortment of relevant issues studied within the materials of the class. In all, I have found Hyland’s chapters to be quite useful in stimulating ideas in the planning and organization of a genre based writing course.

Curt's post on paths to improvement

Casanave’s third chapter, “Paths to Improvement”, in her textbook, Controversies in Second Language Writing, examines how what became known as process writing emerged as a pedagogy from the writing as a product-oriented versus writing as a process-oriented endeavor. Matsuda in “Process and post-process: A discursive history,” places this opposing writing ideologies in a form of succession in that the process-orientation that was part of a student-centered pedagogy had replaced the product-orientation of a teacher-centered pedagogy, because the development of individual writing competencies is a process that is centered upon the student’s participatory experiences. I have found that to be true in my own writing experiences. Each genre of writing has within it a preconceived idea of what an end product should have as an acceptable example of an article written in that genre. For example, a good cover-letter and resume will be required to conform to set of acceptable formatting within a culture of the writer’s targeted audience. If the product does not fit within these expectations, it will be rejected. The process-orientated model is established to center upon the student’s needs to develop what will become a good resume with an appropriate cover-letter for it given purpose of soliciting the writer’s targeted audience. Since no one has been known to be born knowing how to construct the perfect resumes or basically any other genre of writing upon their first try, writing then had to become a process-oriented endeavor, thus this activity is a recursive cycle. Then researchers have begun to examine writing as an activity endeavor that is as much a part of the relationship with the social environment of the individual writer’s discourse community. Atkinson examines in “L2 writing in the post-process era: Introduction” that the writing process-pedagogy paradigm has shifted to a post-process conceptualization with the act of composition as being considered to be a cultural activity. However, I do see writing as an action that is only affected by culture, but it provides a powerful discourse medium for affecting culture as well. Writers through the use of their writing have made profound sociocultural changes not only through their content, but also through their manner used in presenting that content as well. Looking at text, the long explanatory narrative passages have in many instances given way to using dialogue and constructed examples as a means of conveying meaning. The typical responses against the long passages are that reading such a vast sea for text is usually “boring” or “confusingly unclear” that seems to encourage more lively dialogue in fiction and clearly presented concise examples in non-fiction. As a previous middle and high school teacher, I find that the examinations of rhetorical and compositional methodologies to be both insightful in gaining a greater understanding of the writing endeavor itself as well as to be able to teach this endeavor to others in a meaningful way.

Sarah's post on paths to improvement

I have to start out by writing that I love how many times Casanave asks us, as teachers, to question our assumptions throughout this chapter. For example, she challenges teachers to question what they believe constitutes “writing improvement” and furthermore, what they believe constitutes “good feedback” and how that feedback reifies those believes about improvement. I loved this sentence: “Underlying the responses that teachers make to writing are beliefs, tacit or overt, about what improvement in writing means and what students need to do to improve” (70). I am always about people (myself included) making tacit belief systems more apparent to themselves, despite the fact that this is a very difficult process in a lot of ways (cognitively, emotionally, spiritually, etc.). I want to further reflect on Casanave’s useful chapter by relating one of her points to my previous teaching training. Casanave quotes Raimes, writing: “[t]he issue of what university writing is and what kind of writing ESL students should be doing is a thorny one, and the use of the term real relates to this issue in practice as well as in theory” (78). I wholeheartedly agree with this quotation and Casanave’s broader point in this section of the chapter. Many of the professors who taught the English education courses that I took throughout my Bachelor’s degree focused on the term real, insisting that we must find ways to give our students real-world writing assignments with real audiences. As a twenty year old who remembered writing mostly five-paragraph essays throughout high school, I thought this was revolutionary at the time, and I jumped on the real bandwagon with both feet. Then I was introduced to the genre studies approach and began to realize how vague the concept of “real writing” is. “Real” by whose standards? In what field/discipline? Following what set of cultural and social values? And does this “real” writing even align with the kinds of writing my students will need to do in the future? After reading Atkinson’s article, in particular, I have a much better sense of what “post-process” means—a term that I had heard before, but never understood. Yet, I still feel that I have a vague understanding of this theory in a lot of ways. I understand and support its goals in developing more socially and culturally nuanced views towards writing and writing-as-a-process. But I am confused, first, about how this plays out in the classroom. (I know, this is always my question.) What would post-process theorists have us do with our students to develop this awareness within them? I think I have a sense of what these activities might look like, but in actuality, they develop out of my awareness of a different theory, Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT), which I perceive to have similar aims in terms of pedagogical approach. Is this an appropriate conclusion to draw? To what extend are post-process and CHAT connected? And if they’re actually not that similar, then how is post-process different, and what would it have us and our students come to understand? I also just have to add that I’m pretty sure I was taught, especially throughout parts of high school by some teachers, using variations of the process model. And I was totally the kid that Atkinson is describing when he writes: “students often reinscribed the authority that process teachers were trying to vacate, for the very simple reason that they knew their composition processes would eventually result in a product for evaluation, and the canniest among them recognized that sincerity and authenticity of voice were the privileged means of symbolic exchange . . . . If process teachers were reading what they took to be direct and unmediated prose of personal experience, the most successful students were hard at work constructing the authorial persona of self-revelatory personal essays written in a decidedly non-academic style” (7). Lastly, I would like to try to articulate an idea that is pretty vague in my mind right now, but I think, kind of important. After reading Matsuda’s article, I am reminded of the complexities of the process of “defining” a field of study. Every discipline has a history, and that history (including the way that it drives research and enculturates new members) is defined somewhat arbitrarily by lines drawn in the sand, so to speak, separating (sometimes false) “paradigms” and “theories” that in reality, as Matsuda points out, overlap in complicated and important ways. But it seems that the histories of disciplines also intertwine with one another in complicated and important ways. Specifically, right now, I am thinking about the “disciplines” of English Education, Rhetoric and Composition, and Second Language Writing. It is difficult in my mind to even characterize these as three separate fields, for all the reasons I just mentioned, but in reality, they are conceived of as different in some way by scholars who characterize themselves as parts of these fields, and indeed by “outsiders” (like me, I guess) who aren’t necessarily “within” any of these three fields. Yet, as I read the assigned readings for this course, which are supposedly “within” the field of SLW, they read a lot like the things that I have read in my previous work in English ed. and rhet/comp. These readings “feel” the same to me in many ways as the work in these other fields—it almost feels like “review” to me. And we know, of course, that all three of these fields are quite interdisciplinary, indeed, with one another. But, I think, my question is this: how am I to read this work and understand it to be uniquely about second language learners and writers? Especially after reading a chapter like Casanave’s that ultimately offers more questions than “answers,” how can I apply this research and theory specifically to the needs and teaching of students who are learning English? Surely the theories “from other disciplines” (whatever you take that phrase to mean) cannot be unquestioningly applied to SLW, and yet it all “feels” the same to me, and moreover, much of what we have read so far has started to make connections to the SLW classroom, but these applications seem tenuous and, in a lot of ways, to be the same kinds of applications that you might think of for an L1 classroom. Surely these theories, concepts, and paradigms are being (and should be) taken up differently in L2 classrooms, as Matsuda writes, for example, “Yet it [the process approach] hardly reached the status of a paradigm [in the field of SLW]; process pedagogy was by no means whole-heartedly embraced by all L2 writing teachers” (78). But how?

Curt's post on Contrastive Rhetoric

It is interesting to read the correlative counter-arguments put forth by the authors of the three articles pertaining to cultures of contrastive rhetoric. It seems that even nearly forty years since the publication of Kaplan’s (1966) landmark article; “Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education” has sparked discussion that continues to this day. In all, it seems that the greatest issue taken with his research is that he lumped diverse languages into broadly defined generalizable regions that are categorized as much by geography as any other marker of definition (Connor, 2003: 224-225). Connor’s article, “Changing currents in contrastive rhetoric: Implications for teaching and research” explains that although Kaplan’s original article may have attempted to paint a detailed picture with a too broad of a brush by making hasty generalizations, he had in fact opened the door to an entire realm of research possibilities in the field of contrastive rhetoric. Over thirty years later, Connor took that contrastive premise and applied it to the business correspondence of the cover letter and used a sample of a predetermined population to use as empirical evidence that supports a claim of contrastive rhetoric and it effects upon international business correspondence of applications. Connor recommends that applicants must maintain a mindfulness of the formatting expectations of their target audience (Connor, 2003: 235). This reminds us that with any form of communication, it is the recognitions of the needs of the target audience, whoever this audience may be, must remain paramount in crafting the particular language. The authors, Kubota and Lehner, reminds their readers in “Towards critical contrastive rhetoric” that when examining expository discourse patterns, one must be careful not to overuse contrastive dichotomies such as their example of contrasting English as a linear, direct, deductive, and logical language to Japanese as being non-linear, indirect, and inductive language that leaves logical interpretations up to the reader (Kubota & Lehner, 2004: 8). This example demonstrates how other languages, in this case, languages other than English, are otherized in ways that seem to be logical and coherently clear in being useful in communicating ideas. This dichotomy can be seen as a means of perpetuating a linguistic gap between the colonizer and the colonized (Kubota & Lehner, 2004: 9). Also, “Colonialism draws a binary distinction between the logical superior Self and the illogical backward Other, legitimating unequal power relations” (Kubota & Lehner, 2004: 18). By examining the power dynamics in the above statement, one can see how the ridged implementation of a set standard can seem to be capricious and arbitrary, and thus problematic. The authors examine an advocacy of shifting from an assimilationist teaching protocol to having counter-hegemonic pedagogies such as allowing English to be an ever expanding language in the following statement, “English is a language that is added to the ways with words students bring to the classroom rather than a linguistic system meant to supplant their familiar discourses” (Kubota & Lehner, 2004: 21). This bilingual approach to teaching English as a second language allows people to gain access to trade opportunities without losing their own cultural identities. Casanave in “Contrastive rhetoric” note that many ongoing questions still linger in regards to the many issues surrounding the teaching of L2 writing beginning with how to define the issues themselves and how to address such issues when they arise during instruction (Casanave, 2007: 52-53). In addressing such issues, perhaps it would be most prudent to focus primarily upon the needs of the students that a particular teacher within the context of such givens as time, place, and learning situations which are occurring. These variables are continuously changing, which in turn requires teachers to notice emerging patterns of needs, while still taking care not to overgeneralize them, but to focus upon individual learning needs as they arise within their situational context.

Lyudmila's post on Contrastive Rhetoric

I agree with the weaker version of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that language influences thought. Moreover, as the author asserts, “if we look primarily at structural and organizational features of comparable texts written in different languages, differences are regularly found” (Casanave 29). If there are differences, then, it seems that there should be some structural aspects of L2 students’ writing that could be called “cultural” patterns of rhetorical organization. Kaplan’s thunder of the article “Cultural Thought Patterns Revisited” (1987) was that his seductively simple ideas together with the famous “Sapir-Whorf hypothesis” of linguistic relativity attracted immediate attention and helped people see their own writing and that of L2 writing in new ways (Casanave 37). I agree with Kowal’s critique in regard with Kaplan’s article that natural heteroglossia exhibited by every language prevents any language to exist as a self-contained system, “untinctured by influence from other languages” (38). Regardless the critique of Kaplan’s article, the value of comparative and contrastive text analyses for both research and pedagogy is unmeasurable. Contribution of CR to writing instruction can be tremendously in terms of understanding of the complexities of writing in L1 and L2 and applying that knowledge in classroom. For example, investigation of how different texts use organizational and linguistics features to fit readers’ expectations, a deep understanding of rhetorical differences, and a more complex understanding of how L1 rhetoric creates meaning are just a few examples how introduction to CR issues can raise students’ awareness in this field and help with the writing process. I, myself, think that John Swales’ work on structural features of academic and research genres, “such as ‘moves’ within research article introductions or other sections of research articles and features of other genres such as grant proposal” could help me in my writing process as I still struggle when writing papers for academic discourse. I do not agree with Kubota that CR legitimates the norm as given into which the marginalized are to be acculturated. And that CR together with cultural determinism tends to reinforce a cultural deficit in which certain groups are treated as innately deficient because of their cultural and linguistic background. Rather I consider CR as an empowerment of disadvantaged not their assimilation. Like the Australian genre approach is a movement against liberal humanistic approaches to literacy and is concerned with the social success of disadvantaged (Kubota 13). From my own experience, having acquired the discourse conventions of English academic writing, I feel empowered, not assimilated. I think these attempts to seek clear-cut unambigious difference between English and other given language as Kaplan asserted, in order to solve the writing problems of speakers of other languages who acquire how to function in written English, are very beneficial for L2 students and ESL/EFL teachers.

Curt's entry

After reading “Second language writing up close and personal: Some success stories” by Tony Silvia, Melinda Reichelt, Yoshiki Chikuma, Nathalie Duval-Couetil, Ruo-Ping J. Mo, Gloria Velez-Rendon, and Sandra Wood, I began to examine some of my own experiences of working with languages other than standard English. For the sake of brevity, I will focus upon my teaching experiences in Alaska while working with middle school and high school Eskimo children and my struggles in learning to work with the language of linguistics this past year after arriving here as prompted by Sandra Wood’s narrative. When I taught Yupik Eskimo Natives living on the Alaskan tundra I had found some of these same language issues to be at times problematic, since I was working with a younger age group of students who, in effect, seem to function between two languages. These two languages function as an articulation of their partial existence in part of two worlds, the English speaking school and the Yup’ik speaking village life of their elders. Code-switching had enabled these students to interact within both social environments, which have differing social values. My part of adapting to the language usage of this environment includes examples such as learning the difference between Yupik and Yup’ik. Yupik, which by the way is considered to correct on the word program, actually refers to the Yupik Natives still living in the Easternmost regions of Siberia, while the Yup’ik refers to the Yup’ik Natives who are living in the Westernmost delta regions of Alaska. The apostrophe’ exemplifies the pause of the spoken word as pronounced by the native speakers of the region. The agglutinative linguistic structure of the language had also presented a very formative challenge for a non-native speaker to actually be able to communicate effectively in such languages. I did advance beyond learning a few simple words and phrases. Unfortunately, I cannot count this situation as any sort of language success story. Other language learning situation is still occurring for me during my current endeavors to learn the language of linguistics. Like Sandra Wood, I too, see the language of linguistics as another form of communication that is to be worked out on separate terms from my daily discourses. Even the organization of ideas seems to be at times to be organized by aliens from another world, possibly the Cromulents from Cromula, representing a linguist’s humor. Linguists are represented as beings from another world dissecting the anatomy of human languages as though scientists studying the anatomy of insects with the use of a dissecting microscope. For example of the phrase “that is a perfectly crumulent word” when a character on the television program, The Simpsons, has a character inventing a new word that only the character knows its meaning. While, the humor may seem odd at first, the written discourse in linguistics seems to require a doctorate degree in linguistic to understand it to a level required to compose written thoughts in it. Sandra Wood states, “I had to learn to write for a linguistic audience, using correct terminology and following standard conventions of linguistic writing. It was almost like learning a new language for me” (Silvia et al, 106-107). I too have found that many conceptual ideas are to be reformulated while expressing them in linguistic terminological conventions.

Lyudmila's Literacy Autobiography

I was born and grew up in Anadyr, Russia. I have a BA in Philology from the Buryat State University, Ulan-Ude. I am currently a MA student in TESOL at ISU. Speaking about my writing experience, I should say that my real journey as L2 writer started here in the U.S. Back in Russia, at the end of late 90s conserving and reproducing existing knowledge type of approach was favored. This kind of approach was applied in literature, foreign languages’ study, and history. We did write compositions where individual creativity and critical thinking was expected, but it was not very often. When I came to the U.S., my first class in English was TOEFL preparation. As the main aim of the class was to teach L2 students how write an essay in accordance with the Western approach to ‘good writing’, we were basically taught how to apply the same principles to entire essays. Texts were, thus, seen as composed of structural entities such as Introduction-Body-Conclusion. I enjoyed that class as the teacher was really empathetic, patient, and very encouraging. This intermediate step in my writing journey was an important moment as I had no idea the expectations in a mainstream English classroom. My next step was Composition 1 which was focused on both the writing process and content. As a writer, we were certainly expected to be independent producers of text. In addition, planning, drafting, revising, and editing were important writing processes of the classroom activities. The writing activities were organized around different topics of interest such as description of a place, the most memorable day in one’s life, religion, and so on. Schema development exercises were provided in order to generate ideas for writing and organizing texts. So we would read for ideas in parallel texts, react to photographs, and discuss Martin Luther King’s letter for example. Thus, Composition 1 was another important step in my writing journey. It was the most difficult one as we were expected to produce 5 pages per paper. I spent a lot of time just thinking about what to write, how to synthesize the material, what should go first, how much of information to include and so on. My paragraphs used to be quite clumsy and long. I had a lot of run-on sentences, lacked cohesion at times, and hated to write conclusions. Looking back at the torturous moments I had to go through, I still admit that writing is not easy for me. I still find myself struggling with analyzing and synthesizing the material. I find it difficult to choose a topic and do a research on it in terms of finding ‘the right material’. The latter always makes me somewhat anxious as I feel like a hunter who needs act quickly in order not to miss his or her game. However, after a year of studying at ISU, I can say that I feel much more confident in my writing endeavor. If I read several sources on a particular topic, I start putting it down on my draft. I don’t do an outline. I don’t know if it something that could help me greatly as I find myself looking through the pages of different articles in order to find that right sentence that I liked and that would provide excellent cohesion for my essay. Having said that, I want to say that I am right in the middle of my writing journey and still need a lot of practice.

Lyudmila's entry (week 2)

(I'm posting Lyudmila's response here until we figure out the problem she has with her individual blog) The structural approach to writing was an approach largely used by my teachers of English in Russia. Thus, writing was looked at as a product of the writer’s command of grammatical and lexical knowledge. Moreover, imitating and manipulating models provided by the teacher were expected to be followed. To be honest, I liked that approach as I was highly conscientious about grammar and did not feel like that I am a creative person in that field. The instruction employed “slot and filler” frameworks, and guided compositions were provided for constructing grammatically correct texts. As for focus on text functions approach, I have experienced it when I took TOEFL preparation course. As a matter of fact, I am glad I went through that step of writing experience as it gave me some kind of an idea of how particular language forms perform certain communicative functions. As “functions are the means for achieving the ends of writing”, effective paragraph development was a big concern of my teacher. Considering that I had to deal with the structural approach so far, I think that the functional approach was just right for me at that particular time. My next step was Composition 1 at ICC which was a class with a focus on both the writing process and genre. The goal of the first approach is the development of students’ strategies for generating, drafting, and refining ideas which provide the development of metacognitive awareness of the processes of writing. Genre approach concentrates on discourse and contextual aspects of language use. The instructor skillfully combined these two approaches and incorporated the advantages of both which helped to see how to construct the different kinds of texts we had to write. If process makes the process of writing transparent, genre makes textual conventions transparent (KH 24). Thus, having had personal experience of adjusting to the Western classroom, I agree with Paul Matsuda that it is surprising that “second-language issues have not become a central concern in composition studies” (p. 637). The myth of linguistic homogeneity still perpetuates the dominant image of composition and ignores multilingualism in composition scholarship. Moreover, a L2 student is tacitly assumed to have internalized a privileged variety of English. For example, while I already had grammar knowledge, I still needed help with the rhetorical practices. However, there was no such a moment in the classroom for L2 students in Composition 1 class. Also, I certainly had to take a placement test for composition placement! It is the policy of linguistic containment at work! The article is so up-to-date because I understand exactly what the author is talking about. I was also sent to the writing center in order to get into the groove with the mainstream composition course. So, it is so true that the policy of unidirectional monolingualism is present in the English composition course. However, as the author suggests, placement practices and second-language sections of composition are not that bad. I actually greatly enjoyed the TOEFL class before I was immersed into the mainstream English speaking classroom in which I felt somewhat lonely. Such classrooms are representative of the mainstream society of the U.S. with its “ideals, aims, history, and social and political background” (Matsuda 645). So, ESL classes indeed provide sort of an intermediate period while adjusting to expectations in a mainstream classroom in the U.S.

Symposium on Second Language Writing

Please find the info on SSLW 2012 here: http://sslw.asu.edu/2012/ SSLW IS is an annual conference on second language writing. The organizers, Paul Kei Matsuda and Tony Silva, are the leading scholars in cross-cultural composition and second language writing. We're fortunate that this year the conference will be held in Purdue University (only 3 hours of driving distance) The conference is scheduled for September 6-8, 2010. I would like to encourage you to attend this conference as it's a great venue for professional development, and it closely coincides with the goals of our course. I'll be going to present a paper, and would be happy to drive. Please let me know if you are interested in attending.

Welcome to 495!

Dear students, Welcome to English 495: Second Language Writing. This is an interactive writing space which will provide us a common ground to share our reflections and thoughts about various second language writing related issues we will be reading and discussing this semester. The goal of keeping a learning log is to trace the development of our ideas as well as reflecting on a wide range of important issues that we will face as writers of the 21st century's diverse classroom contexts. I look forward to learning from you and with you this semester. I wish you a productive new academic year! Dr.Seloni