On the Future of L2 Writing

It is interesting to read what the “experts” have to say about the future of the field of L2 writing. Of course, the “Colloquium” article was published in 2000, so the writers have probably revised their thoughts by now. I would love to read an updated version of this group of writers’ work. Maybe they could call it “On the Future of Second Language Writing – 11 Years Later.”

My summation of the messages presented in this article goes as follows:

1)      The study of L2 writing is “dying before our eyes,” as Atkinson says (p. 2), because the field’s researchers are not, in terms of Ph.D. students who desire to continue the work, “replacing themselves” (p. 3).

2)      Silva says that Atkinson’s assessment is inaccurate, and that “second language writing (particularly ESL writing) has a very promising future” (p. 6). Silva does not anticipate the field merging with composition studies, as some researchers may indicate. Instead, Silva sees the field of second language writing growing as more and more students are “lured” (p. 6) into the program and become L2 writing specialists, then doctoral candidates, then Ph.D.s with great jobs where they can continue their research and teaching on L2 writing, and thereby continuing the cycle.

3)      Santos believes that the future bodes well for EFL writing, but not so well for ESL writing. (Santos combines NNES international students studying either at American institutions or at colleges and universities in their home countries in the EFL group, and only permanent-resident L2 students at U.S. colleges and universities in the ESL group.) Her optimism regarding EFL writing teaching and research stems from “a growing international representation in the field” (p. 8), the quantity of research studies and articles being produced by international writing specialists in various universities overseas, and the continual growth and expansion of intensive English programs for international students who come to the U.S. for training and support in the language. Santos’ pessimism seems to reflect an ideology of university English departments that holds that permanent-resident L2 students should be mainstreamed with L1 composition students, and that somehow they will catch on to writing by being exposed to ‘good teaching’ (p. 9). The fact that very few research studies have been published regarding the teaching of ESL in a U.S. context is proof to Santos that L2 writing specialists “are not working with ESL students” which is because the “ESL students have become the province of L1 composition programs taught by L1 composition teachers” (p. 9). Santos also seems to believe that L1 composition specialists in the U.S. don’t care enough to recognize that the ‘one-size-fits-all’ (p. 10) approach to education may not be the best “fit” for every student.  

4)      Erickson reports on her experience as an L2 writing specialist in an L1 College Writing program. In developing alternative writing courses, Erickson and her colleagues created special sections of the freshman writing course to be taught by L2 writing specialists. Since those filled up quickly, L2 students were often forced to enroll in mainstream course sections, whose instructors often felt “unprepared to meet the needs of these writers” (p. 11). Additional courses dealing with L2 writing pedagogy were created to meet this gap in pedagogy, in hopes that future instructors would be better prepared for their teaching responsibilities.

5)      Finally, Matsuda’s contribution to this article is a conditional optimism, reflecting the belief that it is up to the L2 writing specialists themselves to recognize the existing challenges and take the “appropriate” steps “to overcome those challenges” (p. 14). Part of overcoming the challenges includes L2 writing specialists becoming better versed in L1 composition studies, so that faculty members can work together in an interdisciplinary approach. Also, L2 writing specialists should be ready and willing to help develop programs and materials that are “L2-friendly” (p. 17).  Basically, Matsuda is arguing that L2 writing instructors need to become a willing resource for other faculty members within the academic department, as well as across disciplines. If the L2 writing specialists are willing and able to adopt this revised role, then the future of L2 writing will be bright.

I was encouraged by much of the message of the “Colloquium” article. Even allowing for the age of the writing, I can tell that some progress in the field of second language writing has been made, and the outlook for continued growth in the field appears to be good. Perhaps Silva’s “ivory tower” prediction was on target, and enough students were lured into existing programs. The pessimism that Terry Santos shared was not unfounded, however. While searching for specific articles or research studies on second language writing topics, I found many more articles discussing findings by international researchers than by researchers in the U.S. I hope that trend changes. The comments by Erickson reflected a desire by a college writing program to discover new strategies that could improve the writing program for all students. Her story inspires hope for a future in which writing instructors are prepared for any and all students they face, whether they are L1 or L2 writers. It is encouraging to learn that some departments want to provide better programs and training opportunities for their potential students. Matsuda seems to place L2 writing specialists on a somewhat higher plane than those instructors who haven’t been specially trained to teach L2 writers. (Maybe I’m reading too much between the lines.) I suppose his position is a fair one, and accurate. My reaction, however, is that perhaps there is too much assuming going on. In order for the L2 writing specialists to be effective in ensuring the future of L2 writing, they will have to become “activists” of sorts, promoting the field by becoming a resource for other teachers in addition to carrying out their regular schedule of teaching duties.

Multilingual writing across the curriculum: WAC and ESL collaborations

In addition to explaining the “L2 metaphor,” Matsuda and Jablonski (2000) discuss and critique its use in composition studies, providing readers with a clear understanding of the benefits of the metaphor as well as its drawbacks. In terms of benefits, it “gives WAC specialists a way of explaining to teachers across the disciplines…” (p. 2) the problems and difficulties student writers have when trying to create appropriate written text in a subject-area assignment.  In terms of drawbacks, the L2 metaphor can lead to a focus on sentence-level errors while at the same time minimizing the “complexity of second language learning” (p. 3). Matsuda and Jablonski also seem concerned that the two areas (WAC and ESL) have each kept to themselves for many years, aware of the other’s existence, and maintaining a healthy distance while acknowledging the importance of each other as separate entities. Their goal is to develop a model in which the faculty in both areas can work toward an interactive relationship of mutual collaboration, striving together to more effectively meet the needs of all students, and by doing so, to accomplish more (and conserve more resources) than either program could have achieved separately.

I can understand how both of the entities (WAC department and ESL department) involved in the proposed collaboration might be a bit nervous. Neither would want to give up their existing status or position, let alone any funding of programs. As Matsuda and Jablonski explain, “a thorough consideration of the consequences of such an interaction” (p.5) should be developed before any interaction between disciplines is attempted.

Writing almost a decade after Matsuda and Jablonski, Hall (2009) offers a “fresh” look at the efforts of WAC and ESL professionals to collaborate, in consideration of the current and constantly revising demographics of the university campus. Hall’s “Next America,” (p. 34) like Huxley’s Brave New World, is a very different place from the America of the 20^th century. Hall pictures the majority of inhabitants of the “Next America” as multi-lingual, and able to function and communicate in a multicultural society on a global level.

For this to happen and to work efficiently and effectively, institutions will have to provide faculty with adequate training and professional development to handle the changing needs of the multilingual students. Hall points out the fact that “our first task is to re-educate ourselves” (p. 42) so that we are ready to evaluate what changes need to be made in our course assignments and even in the way we approach the teaching of the content of our courses. Hall discusses the value of looking at techniques and strategies that have proven to be effective pedagogies in the K-12 context, such as particular models employed in bilingual education programs, mainstream programs, and content-based language instruction. He also discusses some of the beneficial aspects of the English for Academic Purposes movement, especially its focus on cross-cultural learning through the four skills of speaking, listening, reading and writing.

What Hall advocates overall, it seems, is the same goal that Matsuda and Jablonski wrote about nine years earlier: a collaborative effort between or among all disciplines to provide the best possible educational experience for all students, despite their language backgrounds, keeping in mind that the “Next America” will be a quite different environment, and that those who are charged with teaching will have a quite different task awaiting them.

Even though his article is less than two years old, I feel as if Hall’s “Next America” is already here in many ways. It seems as if his “new linguistic majority” (p. 34) has already taken that position, but many of the Americans from the “Previous America” haven’t caught on yet.

Hall makes the important point that in the “Next America” there will be “…undiminished—if anything increased—need for thorough mastery of advanced English language skills in writing, reading, and critical thinking for every undergraduate, because strong communication skills in English are more than ever a prerequisite for success in fields which involve interaction with global partners and competitors—i.e., every field” (pps. 34-35). This, to me, is good news. From many of the discussions we have had in class, I had begun to get the idea that while English language skills overall were increasing in value and importance, some areas of English were being seen as less important and not worthy of explicit instruction. Hall’s comment seems to counter some of the ideas that had slipped into my thoughts.

Another point that Hall makes is that “our students are way ahead of us” (p. 35) in respect to living in a world in which we daily encounter and communicate with speakers of multiple languages from multiple cultural backgrounds. He states that “[t]he pedagogical task before us, then, is to produce and test strategies for negotiating the gap between a system of higher education that was founded in the previous America, and the one that needs to work in the next America” (p. 36). In this regard, those who would presume to teach must be willing to adapt, by “[redefining]” our “professional identity” to the ‘new world’ in which we now live.

References:

Hall, J. (2009). WAC/WID in the next America: Redefining professional identity in the age of the multilingual majority. The WAC Journal. 20: 33-49. Web.

Matsuda, P. & Jablonski, J. (2000). Beyond the L2 metaphor. Towards a mutually transformative model of ESL/WAC collaboration. Academic Writing. Web.

L2 Writers and University Writing Centers: Tutors and Tutees

The articles by Thonus and Matsuda & Cox brought out several interesting points regarding the differences and similarities among second language writers in the United States.  First, the Thonus article categorizes these L2 writers as follows:

1.      EFL writers who were educated in their mother tongue (L1) and are learning English as their L2 (often referred to as foreign or international students)

2.      ESL writers who are recent immigrants to the United States, often with educational backgrounds in their L1

3.      Generation 1.5 writers who are long-term U.S. residents and English learners fluent in spoken English (Thonus, p. 17).

Next, the writer discusses how tutors at university writing centers can help Generation 1.5 writers to develop and improve their writing skills. Thonus points out that writing center personnel need to be trained on how Generation 1.5 English learners differ from international students or recent immigrants who are also English learners. It was obvious from the excerpts included in the article that tutors must be adequately trained to work with these specific populations. I wonder how much training tutors typically receive at college or university writing centers. I have always assumed that writing center personnel would focus their tutoring attention on sentence-level issues, such as grammar and punctuation, since those are “quick fixes.” It makes sense, however, to focus instead on the five general principles outlined in Thonus’ article, in order to provide English learners with a more comprehensive methodology that they can adopt for future writing endeavors.

The Matsuda & Cox article discusses how important it is that writing center tutors understand the various features that ESL writers’ texts may contain.  The authors point out that “one of the important factors” in understanding second language writing “is the ESL writer’s L2 proficiency” (p. 44).  However, it is interesting to note that when the ESL writer falls in the category of a Generation 1.5 writer, the teacher or tutor may find it challenging to approach the student’s writing limitations because the student communicates orally at a high level of proficiency. And, [a]lthough language proficiency affects the overall quality of ESL texts, the relationship between language proficiency and writing proficiency is not simple; the ability to speak English does not necessarily correspond directly with the quality of texts they produce” (Matsuda & Cox, p. 44). Teachers, tutors, and colleagues may tend to assume a higher level of written proficiency because of verbal interactions with the writer.

Another statement in this article that I found interesting is a quote from Ilona Leki: “ESL students can become very fluent writers of English, but they may never become indistinguishable from a native speaker, and it is unclear why they should. A current movement among ESL writing teachers is to argue that, beyond a certain level of proficiency in English writing, it is not the students’ texts that need to change; rather it is the native-speaking readers and evaluators (particularly in educational institutions) that need to learn to read more broadly, with a more cosmopolitan and less parochial eye” (p. 46).  Is this likely to happen in academia? How would professors of content area courses respond to a mandate that they ‘need to learn to read more broadly, with a more cosmopolitan and less parochial eye’? How would we explain these terms?

References:

Matsuda, P. and M. Cox. (2009). Reading an ESL writers’ text. In S. Bruce & B. Rafoth (Eds.) ESL Writers. A guide for writing center tutors. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton Cook Publishers.

Thonus, T. (2003). Serving Generation 1.5 Learners in the University Writing Center. TESOL Journal. 12 (1).

World Englishes and the Teaching of writing

After reading the Matsuda & Matsuda article, I realized even more than before why the assessment of student writing is so problematic, and why teachers often focus on errors in punctuation, spelling, and grammar. Those are the easiest things to detect and correct! It is far more difficult to try to teach students how to write in a dominant language form. And textbook writers must really be scratching their heads when they are told to include “specific strategies for addressing language differences” (371). Teachers cannot predict which variety of English their students will need in the future, and therefore, it has historically been common for them to focus on something called “Standard Written English.”  One of the problems now is that there are several “acceptable” varieties of English, and teachers and students alike are confused. The Matsuda article outlines several teaching principles that can help with this dilemma. The goal of the implementation of these principles is to acquaint students with the dominant and nondominant language varieties and usages, to teach them what variations work and which ones don’t work, as well as how to effectively incorporate the use of nondominant varieties and usages to a specific rhetorical situation, while understanding the risks inherent in doing so. The message seems to be that in order “to prepare students adequately in the era of globalization” (373) teachers need to permit and even encourage the use of “World Englishes”; however, students need to be instructed in how to incorporate WE most effectively in a given context.

The Canagarajah piece explores this idea in greater depth, calling for the acceptance of multiple literacies in a time during which there are more non-native than native speakers of English. Canagarajah advocates “…English as a plural language that embodies multiple norms and standards. English should be treated as a multinational language, one that belongs to diverse communities, and not owned only by the metropolitan communities” (589). What seems to be of utmost importance, according to Canagarajah, is the art of negotiating differences in the various Englishes. And, what I find rather interesting is the statement that “in order to be functional postmodern global citizens, even students from the dominant community (i.e., Anglo American) now need to be proficient in negotiating a repertoire of World Englishes” (591). The article also includes a discussion of code-meshing and how its use should be encouraged, but that it should be considered carefully and with the goal of accomplishing a particular rhetorical purpose.

I agree that teachers can unwittingly “stifle the development of a repertoire that will help students style shift according to different communicative contexts” and that this is wrong. Teachers should be willing and able to train students “to negotiate grammar for their rhetorical purposes” (611), and thereby produce texts that are authoritative while conveying a clear, appropriate, and poignant message to the readers.

The article by Michael-Luna and Canagarajah discusses in much more detail the ideas of code-switching and code-meshing.  It is clear that code-meshing is an important tool in the first grade classroom that was studied, as well as a strategy that should be encouraged in higher education. The bilingual teacher (Tom) makes effective use of code-meshing in order to help his students comprehend the lessons. The teacher's pattern of instruction conveyed the implicit message that the students’ home language was not a deficit; instead, it was a highly valued resource, and in fact, the teacher comments that his students ‘don’t have all their concepts or content experiences in one language…I need to make room for different types of meaning making in my classroom…' (64).  

Again, the message to teachers is that we need to help students see their status as “multilingual” as a benefit, as a resource that can help them learn or acquire English; however, at the same time, teachers need to be aware of the forces that are not in favor of this approach. Many of the other teachers in our schools, as well as some administrators, may disapprove of this strategy modeled by “Tom,” the teacher whose class was studied. In that situation, teachers must be prepared to back up their pedagogical strategies with well-documented research that supports the use of code-meshing in an ESL context.

Sources:

Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). The place of World Englishes in composition: Pluralization continued. CCC, 57 (4), 586-619.

Matsuda, A. & Matsuda, P. (2010). World Englishes and the Teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly.

Michael-Luna, S., & Canagarajah, A.S. (2008). Multilingual academic literacies: Pedagogical foundations for code meshing in primary and higher education. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4 (1), 55-77.

Teaching EFL Writing & the Politics of Globalization-influenced Changes

The article by You discusses the varied effects that globalization has had on the teaching of English as a Foreign Language in China (and other non-English-dominant countries). The influence of globalization has led to changes in the way English is being taught, and further demands of the organizations in power have, by decree, ensured that the specified changes are implemented. In 2004, the Ministry of Education in China published “Teaching Requirements for College English Curriculum,” a decree that specifies changes in curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, and administration.  Included in this decree’s is “the teaching of language learning strategies and cross-cultural communication skills” (190), as well as a change in the way English literacy is defined and quantified. Instead of two levels of proficiency or language ability, with unclear delineations of each level (which had previously been in effect), the new decree outlines three very specific levels of ability that can define a student’s proficiency upon exiting the English program. There is a clear message in the new decree: students who plan to pursue advanced degrees will have to perform at high levels to proceed.  In addition, the decree specifies the expectation of a high level of student proficiency with technology and with independent, individualized learning strategies.  Technological literacy goes hand in hand with language literacy.

I find it interesting that what is happening in the 21^st century in China is not far behind what is happening in the United States. In fact, it has not been that long ago that I was teaching in the computer lab at a Peoria high school, and similar “decrees” were issued (you know how school boards and parent groups can be!), which produced many changes in our school’s curriculum involving student achievement and technology. Just as we experienced (our desire for the changes was not on equal pace with our school’s ability to afford the desired technologies), apparently schools in China are experiencing or have recently experienced. One of the biggest challenges is to make everything that you want happen when you need it to happen. Unfortunately, it takes time (a significant amount of it), and money (a huge amount of it), and terrific planning skills – to make it work, and it does not stop there. Once you get the ball rolling, you must set in place the operations (and the resources) to keep it moving, and moving smoothly.  Yes, English is a necessary “tool for international communication” (190) in our global society, and the changes in curriculum and pedagogy are warranted. However, the problems faced by the institutions in China have been faced by other institutions making similar changes, and these problems/challenges should have been anticipated. The fact that there was dissension in the teaching ranks shows that despite cultural differences, teachers have similar attitudes when placed in similar situations. It also seems apparent that faculty and staff need advance notice and preparation to ensure that anticipated changes are presented in a thorough fashion to all interested (and uninterested, but involved) parties—prior to the changes being implemented. Things usually go smoother when more people are knowledgeable about the way the new equipment/curriculum/ teaching methods are supposed to work.

Graduate Studies for L2 Learners

Several important concepts stand out from the readings for this week. George Braine points out that the level of academic literacy required of students in graduate school involves “more than the ability to read and write effectively” (60). Graduate students must have a solid knowledge of their subject matter, good research skills, as well as “sound social skills” evidenced by frequent opportunities for communication with others within their department. In addition, despite the relationship of one’s writing skills to success in graduate courses, case study research indicates that “a collaborative relationship” with one’s advisor “is essential to” the success of the student (65).

Graduate students whose first language is other than English face additional challenges than do native speakers of English, as the article by Canagarajah points out. In the past few decades, teachers have focused on grammatical proficiency and cultural differences between students representing various multilingual groups. However, as Canagarajah has noted, these pedagogical concerns are perhaps not as important in today’s world, since, due to the increased globalization of English and Anglo/American culture, many ESL students are more aware than in previous years of “Western linguistic/cultural characteristics” (10), and therefore, they have developed a rather “hybrid” (11) perspective in terms of their “composing strategies” in English (12).  The challenges faced by non-native speaking graduate students of today involve the need to understand and negotiate the “identities, values, and discourses” (21) that these multilingual/multicultural students have brought with them in relationship to those of the dominant language/culture and its implicit ideologies.

I found the “social skills” aspect of graduate student development quite interesting. As important as knowledge of one’s subject matter and the ability to express oneself both orally and in writing must be, it seems equally (or more) important to possess the social aptitude for successful interactions with others in the department to be truly successful in a graduate program. This seems to be one of the most challenging aspects of graduate school for an L2 learner.

Second Language Writing in First Year Composition Classes

      The Leki and Matsuda articles seemed to encapsulate many of the issues that we have discussed in class regarding the teaching of writing in college composition courses. Leki outlines the following problems:

1) Students are required to take a composition course during the first year of the undergraduate program, which may not be the most effective time for a writing course.

2) These first-year courses are often staffed by the least experienced instructors or teaching assistants, which may not produce the best results (if the hoped-for result is better quality writing production from the students taking the courses).

3) These courses are often over-crowded, which might lead the instructor to spend less time, on average, assessing or commenting on each writing assignment, which in turn could translate into lower rates of improvement in writing skill by the students.

4) There seems to be an assumption that one year is enough time for all students (whether native English speakers or students who are non-native English speakers but have satisfied university admission requirements) to develop the necessary writing skills (or improve existing skills) to succeed in the academic environment of a university setting.

            Leki includes the above problems as “part of the negative legacy that second language (L2) English writing students and practitioners have inherited and typically must live with” (Leki 59).  This “negative legacy” might also be considered negative for some native English speaking students. For example, students who speak dialects other than “privileged varieties” (Matsuda 639) may have many of the same difficulties with composition courses as do international students and others for whom English is a second (or subsequent) language.

            In addition, Matsuda points out that “the myth of linguistic homogeneity” is not simply a problem in English composition courses; indeed, its repercussions abound in classrooms in universities throughout the United States. Many educators have realized that the majority of courses taught in America reflect, both in content and in ideology, a socio-cultural background that most native-English speakers can relate to, and can integrate new concepts with, but that many international students and many other English language learners (even at advanced proficiency levels) find difficult to understand, because they do not possess the knowledge required to connect these concepts to their existing background knowledge in the subject area.

            It seems that as the demographics of first-year composition courses in colleges and universities have changed, in many cases, the instruction has not changed. Many teachers find themselves facing students from a wide variety of ethnic and linguistic backgrounds, and despite their training, may not feel prepared to handle the challenges of teaching writing according to their notion of the “standard,” which is often what they assumed their job to be.

           Have the goals of the job changed? Or do they need to change? Should instructors of English writing courses, such as first-year composition, include other language skills (such as speaking) as part of the curriculum? Should this be a consideration only for classes offered as an option to ESL students in the university? Leki discussed briefly the fact that L2 students in American universities are typically not offered, and usually are not required to take “credit courses for any language skills besides writing…” (61). We know that it is important for all students to develop effective writing skills, especially those students who are planning to pursue further academic coursework, but should students whose first language is not English have the opportunity to register for an alternative first-year undergraduate course for credit, such as a course that combines writing and speaking toward a goal of improving L2 communication overall?