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?

Book review assignment

I am planning to read:

Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

L2 Literacy in K-12 context

“Overall, the pervading gloom of the research published between 1980 and 2005 on L2 students in secondary school suggests that, except for relatively rare cases noted above, in many instances L2 students and the schools they entered were not ready for each other” (Leki et al., p. 27).

I find this comment interesting, and at the same time, disturbing. Why? Because it speaks to the pervasive ideologies that continue to manifest themselves within the educational institutions in our country, as well as in society as a whole. Why are the schools not ready for L2 students?

Chapter one in Leki, et al., provides an overview of a variety of myths and teaching strategies that researchers “debunk[ed]” during the 1980s and 1990s. A few of these included: 1) the belief that “L2 writers must learn to speak before learning to read or write”;  2) the idea that “children should each work to develop their writing abilities and texts individually”; 3) “encouraging (or forcing) children to function in only the target language instead of making use of L1 borrowing or code-switching strategies” (12). In addition, the chapter highlights more recent research which has focused on “how writing develops in biliterate children and how being bilingual affects literacy development in both languages…of their differences, with the differences viewed as advantages rather than as deficits” (14).

Chapter two focuses on some of the problems faced by L2 learners in high school. I noticed some of these problems when I completed some practicum hours at a high school in Peoria during the Fall of 2009. Many of the students were older than the average students of their grade level; for example, two female students who had recently arrived from Vietnam were ages 20 and 21, and despite their extremely low proficiency level in English, they were placed in 12^th grade because of their advanced ages. Several juniors were 18 already, and they knew that they were “too old” to be in the eleventh grade, but they needed to learn English, so they stayed in the ESL class, albeit somewhat reluctantly.

In my opinion, some of the concerns the students had regarding their placement in the high school ESL classroom were valid. There was such a wide range of proficiency levels in the class that it reminded me of a one-room schoolhouse from the early 1900s. In this type of situation, it is a challenge for both students and teacher to negotiate an atmosphere that is conducive to real learning. The students I observed seemed, for the most part, to be teenagers that wanted one thing most of all: to be themselves without being marginalized, to be able to navigate the halls of this American high school without feeling that they could never quite measure up to the “regular” students, who didn’t have to have special help to use the English language. I noticed that the teacher, who was not a native English speaker herself, contributed to the attitude problems of some of the students by her words and her actions. I was confused to observe that some of the assignments that she gave amounted to copying the itinerary of the day’s activities into the student’s “journal,” but then sometimes the assignments seemed very communicative and group-oriented, resulting in projects that displayed a lot of creativity, imagination, and skill.

I understand the frustration felt by many of the students in that ESL class; it truly seemed to be a room in which they were “stuck,” and doomed to spend most of their days until they could hopefully perform well enough (or get old enough) to “con” a diploma out of the school district. I used the word “con” because even the two Vietnamese girls (I should say “women”) got a diploma at the end of the year. Obtaining that piece of paper did not imply that they could use the language much better than they could when they had arrived in this country, however. But at least they knew a few words of English, and could perhaps continue to learn more as they entered the working world.

The message from the Lam article seems to be that if we expect L2 learners to become literate in English by attending ESL classes in school we (and the students themselves) will probably be disappointed. Instead, by helping students find things that they are interested in, and can pursue on their own, teachers can equip students to find their own ways to succeed in learning the language, and become more actively involved and interested (!) in their own education. Almon, the student in the article, became a better writer by spending lots of his own time on the Internet, communicating with e-pals through email and internet chat, as well as creating web pages. Lam attributes Almon’s success to “actively acquiring, and also actively reproducing, the many discourses and narrative roles in the English networked electronic environment” (475). And, even though the English he acquired was “the global English of adolescent pop cultures rather than the standard English taught in ESL classes” (476), this language learner found that he could  express himself “much more easily” (468) due to his electronic interactions with others and his experiences of creating web pages on the Internet.

What can we, as teachers, glean from this example? For a long time, I have thought that if a teacher can provide students with access to interesting and useful materials, such that the students can see a rationale or purpose to an activity, they can teach themselves, and even figure out what they need help with and discover who to ask. This type of student-centered and student-directed learning seems more likely to “stick” and to be “acquired” than more formal, traditional types of teacher-centered instruction.

Sources:

Lam, W. (2000). L2 Literacy and the Design of the Self: A Case Study of a Teenager Writing on the Internet. TESOL Quarterly. 34:3, 457-482.

Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A Synthesis of Research on Second Language Writing in English. New York: Routledge.

Benefits of the Genre approach in Teaching L2 writing process

I appreciated the comments in the Hyland article regarding the need for explicit instruction of the structure of genre types in the L2 classroom. He also implies that some L1 student writers may benefit from this kind of explicit instruction as well. Whereas the process approach provides strategies for idea generation, for organizing ideas, and for analyzing drafts, aside from the consideration of audience, the process approach, in a sense, lacks the social aspect of writing that genre pedagogies address.

Johns points out that “process instruction alone may not provide enough direction or situational focus for the ESL/EFL student who needs models, who needs to discuss cultures and cultural conflicts, and who needs practice in writing under a variety of conditions and in a variety of genres” (212). Incorporating the study of the structure of various genres can offer students valuable insight into the ways in which texts differ depending upon their purpose and their message.

The genre approach seems to offer something for teachers as well. When I taught English Composition in the 1980s and 1990s, the use of the process approach seemed to transform my role as “teacher” to something like “coach,” “collaborator,” or “facilitator.” Incorporating genre pedagogies into the writing classroom allows teachers to provide needed support in the form of “scaffolding” for those student writers whose cultural background and/or language skills make it difficult for them to produce the type of texts required by course assignments (Hyland 26).

The concern that Hyland mentions is that by explicitly teaching the structures of various genres, teachers may inadvertently imply that students should adopt these examples as templates that they can use to create a text. Instead, the teacher’s goal should be that students will learn why certain genres tend to construct text in specific patterns, and that students will develop the skill to adapt that knowledge to their own writing needs and situations (26). 

Here are a few questions that came to mind as I pondered this topic:

1)      Is there a “hierarchy” of genres that should be considered in teaching L2 writing? (In other words, are certain genres more appropriate than others for presenting to English language learners at particular levels of proficiency?) 

2)      If teachers adopt a“genre pedagogy” in their L2 writing classroom, how do they add it to the existing process approach that they currently employ and teach? Is it included as an additional step? If so, at what point is genre to be considered and discussed?

References cited:

Hyland, Ken. "Genre-based Pedagogies: A Social Response to Process." Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003): 17-29. Web.

Johns, Ann M. "Genre and ESL/EFL Composition Instruction." Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing. Ed. B. Kroll. 2003. 195-217. Print.

Plagiarism in the ESL context

The readings for this week took me back in time to the 1980s, when I was teaching English Composition at Indiana University. I was a young graduate assistant, and I had discovered my first case of plagiarism in a freshman student’s paper. It may sound crass, but I was appalled and somewhat nervously excited at the same time. I was not sure how to handle the situation, so I did what any good little grad assistant should do: I asked the director of the Writing program for his advice. After showing him the student’s paper and the passage in question along with a copy of the actual source (which I had easily found in the library), he told me that I should call the student in for a little conference about his paper. He suggested that I ask the student to tell me how he had come up with the ideas in the paper, and see if I could determine whether the plagiarism was intentional or unintentional. If the student admitted copying the passage, then he would be subject to the department policy of receiving an “F” for the paper and an “F” in the course. If I could determine that the copying was unintentional, and maybe done in ignorance, I could give the student an opportunity to revise this essay or to write a new paper.

What I heard was that I should “interrogate” the “defendant” to see if he would own up to intentionally participating in this “crime.” As the meeting time drew closer, I reviewed my planned line of questioning. I would ask the student how he had come up with the paper’s topic. I would carefully ask how his ideas had developed, and how he had researched the topic. Eventually I would broach the subject of plagiarism, and I would ask if he knew what it was.

Well, as it turned out, the student came right out and told me that he had copied the passage from the source. I recall that he did not seem apologetic at all; instead, he seemed rather shocked that I had sensed that the writing was not “original” and that I had been able to find the source material. This reaction was completely unexpected. I had assumed that the student would plead ignorance of how to paraphrase, beg for my forgiveness, and request a chance to redo the paper. I was appalled, and yet amazed.

I came out of that experience with a resolution to always do a thorough job of teaching students not only how to avoid plagiarism, but also how to work with sources: how to paraphrase; how to determine what should be quoted, and how to use the source material to help back up (or support) their own ideas.  What I have gathered from students over the years is that many of them do not believe that they have any ideas that are worth sharing, let alone valuable enough to sound authoritative on the topic.  When I tried to encourage students to try to adopt a more confident voice, some of them bravely responded and created decent (yet still tentative) sentences that could then be supported by authoritative sources.

I could relate to many of the concepts in our readings this week. The concept of plagiarism as a “crime” had been drilled into my head during high school and college, and while my teachers held us responsible for proper use of sources, I do not recall much instruction at all during our English classes. I asked my children (ages 25, 23, “almost” 13, and 10) whether their English teachers (or any other teachers, for that matter) had taught them how to paraphrase from sources, how to use direct quotes, or how to incorporate citations into their original texts. None of them gave a positive response; on the contrary, the two that have already graduated from high school reminded me of how much time I had spent helping them with research papers that required multiple sources and proper citations. (My excuse for not remembering all that—out of sight, out of mind!)

So now the question of plagiarism is being examined in the context of second language writing. As our readings pointed out, many questions arise (and must be carefully considered) so that English-as-a-second-language writers can approach the writing of researched papers with confidence instead of with fear.

Here are a few questions that occur to me:

1)      How should teachers of ESL approach the teaching of incorporating source material into research papers?

2)      Some writers have alluded to the idea that perhaps the Western notion of original writing as “intellectual property” needs to be reconsidered, especially in this era of easy access to the words of others via the Internet. Alastair Pennycook seems to wonder whether it is really that important “to know who really said them originally[?].” He further comments that “…the adherence to supposed norms of authoriality are becoming increasingly hazy” (216). My question is: Are we (writers and teachers of writing) becoming increasingly lazy?

3)  Is it possible for teachers or administrators to develop a policy regarding plagiarism as it may occur in the writing of students whose L1 is other than English?

Source:

Pennycook, Alastair. "Borrowing Others' Words: Text, Ownership, Memory, and Plagiarism." TESOL Quarterly 30.2 (Summer 1996): 201-30. Web.

Writing across borders

Several messages were clear in this video. As we have previously discussed in class, international students face many challenges in writing academic essays in English. In some cases, their cultural background dictates how they handle grammar issues, such as clear reference of pronouns (such as he, she, or it). Another challenge involves the difference in writing style taught in their native country, which may differ from the approach used by the majority of American students. Still another challenge mentioned in the video is that of plagiarism and the need to cite sources in academic papers. Students who were raised in countries that highly value the sharing of all resources often find it difficult to understand the need to specifically credit the source of a particular idea or quotation.

I found it interesting that one of the students on the video was surprised by all the format guidelines she had to follow in writing papers at an American university.  She had thought that because there is more freedom in America there wouldn’t be such strict rules for writing.

The brief discussion of L2 writing assessment asked whether all students, whether native English speakers or non-native English speakers in a content-area class or an English composition class should be held to the same standards. The consensus in the video seemed to indicate that teachers should ask the following questions when analyzing L2 student writing: 1) Is the grammar getting in the way of comprehensibility?  2) How many of the errors detract from the meaning? 

The treatment that is suggested is that teachers should allow reasonable accommodations for non-native English speaking students, whether that means additional time to complete in-class assignments or overlooking errors in grammar, especially those that the teacher considers inconsequential or unimportant, such as the use of articles and prepositions. What seems to be important to the teachers and researchers in the video is whether or not the intended meaning is conveyed adequately to the reader. In terms of teacher feedback on student writing, it was suggested that teachers ask students what kinds of feedback they prefer and what helps them the most. One student indicated that receiving a graded assignment covered in red ink was rather discouraging and de-motivating, and that he would prefer more sentence- or paragraph-based comments instead of every individual grammar or lexical error being marked.

Another interesting pedagogical issue that the video brought out concerns lesson planning and testing methods. Students in the video indicated that teachers should re-think topics for class discussions and writing assignments, steering away from anything that might be offensive or too dependent on cultural context for international students to be able to manage. Testing and assessment strategies should also be evaluated. If the class includes any English language learners, perhaps teachers should reconsider assignments and tests which require lengthy, critical writing to be done in-class.

I think my favorite suggestion was to ask students about their previous writing experiences early in the semester. What do they consider “good writing”? Did they consider themselves “good” or “experienced” writers in their L1? What kinds of writing have they done in the past, in their native language, or in other languages?  Questions such as these can help teachers relate to the student’s identity as a writer, as well as helping students recognize their voice in their L1 or L2.

A few ideas regarding the final project

I have a few ideas regarding the final project:

1) the use of dialogue journals in teaching writing in ESL classes

2) using technology to teach writing (exploring various methods within the scope of "technology")

3) how to avoid plagiarism in L2 writing

Of the above, I am leaning toward the first idea. I came across this idea a couple of years ago when researching a topic for a writing pedagogy course, and I have been waiting for an opportunity to explore this subject further.

I would like to find out how much this method has actually been used in ESL classes, whether many teachers have employed "email" as the mode of journaling, and if any measurable results regarding improvement in student writing ability have been noted. (I'm interested in the students' perceptions of their ability, their motivation to write, and the teacher's analysis of their improvement over the time period in which they were involved in the journaling.)

Thoughts on Contrastive Rhetoric

I have always found it fascinating to read my students' writing--challenging, but fascinating. The challenge has been not so much in grasping the intended meaning of the text; instead, the linguist in me wants to understand why these L2 writers write the way they do. During the last two semesters my students at the English Language Institute have been classified as low intermediate to high intermediate level in their English proficiency. This transfers to a wide range in writing ability. It is interesting to note that overall, my students demonstrate much more oral than written fluency with English. This is a source of frustration for both of us—partly because there is more opportunity for immediate negotiation of meaning with oral communication—and partly because the writing fluency seems much more difficult to achieve.

After reading the 1966 Kaplan article, I could so easily imagine a scene from four decades ago when teachers discovered that the difficulties faced by their non-native English speaking students could be blamed on something that the teachers could understand. Also, by researching the rhetorical styles of L1 writing of the nationalities represented by the students, teachers could more fully comprehend what was behind the students’ problematic language and logic, as well as paragraph construction.

And once they understood the background of the problems, they developed teaching methods designed to acquaint students with the reasons they were having trouble with their English writing. To me, this sounds like a “this is what you are doing (because you are from X country, where they write this way), and this is what we (English-speaking Americans) do when we write; just copy this template and insert the appropriate words, and everything will be fine (or at least better; maybe then we can correct the remaining problems with grammar and punctuation). "

I know that is a simplistic analysis of teacher behavior in the 60s, but in the various readings for this week I have noticed quite a change in the pattern of thinking regarding this subject.

As more recent researchers have commented, there is more to consider than the rhetorical style of one’s L1. In fact, as Kubota (2004) noted, “the conceptual basis of contrastive rhetoric…has tended to perpetuate the othering of languages other than English…” (9) and by reflecting on how teachers may inadvertently be doing this in their classrooms, we can stimulate new teaching strategies in which teachers see “students as individuals rather than members of a generalized cultural group” (10).

Some of these strategies include developing a better understanding of our students’ needs.  I was very interested in Casanave’s discussion of the Grabe & Kaplan articles which mentioned the importance of teaching L2 writers “to define an audience before writing” and to teach them “that writing types, tasks, and organizational and other conventions may differ in L1 and L2; and that writers need subject matter knowledge and knowledge of the interactive and social nature of writing” (44). I was also interested in Casanave’s investigative pedagogical approach, in which “[t]eachers and students can investigate L1 and L2 texts, the kinds of writing instruction students received, and the expectations that readers have in L1 and L2” (46).

Casanave also suggests strategies for helping EFL students with more academic needs. These students can compare texts written in their L1 and in the L2 (English) in a particular genre that they need to learn or practice, with the goal of developing “a text-level sense of what kinds of information typically belong in different sections of academic articles” as well as being able to “take control…” and “…make informed choices in their own writing” (48).

These are some of the goals I have for my classes: to help my students develop an awareness of what is going on when they are writing, and to help them develop strategies for success as they strive to improve their L2 writing skills.

Ideas on Assessment of L2 Writing

Summary of Casanave – Chapter 4 Assessment

In her introduction, Casanave identifies and differentiates the various terms under the umbrella of “assessment;” for example:  “assessment, testing, measurement, grading, evaluating” (114). While all of these terms are related, they do not represent the same idea. Even within the individual terms there are shades of difference in meaning. For example, a student entering a program for intensive English instruction will take several types of tests, the scores of which will be used by teachers and administrators to assess his proficiency in the language by measuring his listening, speaking, reading, and writing abilities. The student’s progress over the term of instruction will be evaluated periodically to ensure that his placement represented a fair and accurate assessment of his overall fluency and skill in using the language, and that he is making adequate progress in the program.

Casanave briefly discusses the construction of “rubrics” for evaluating pieces of writing, and provides an overview of the difficulties teachers face when trying to establish criteria for writing assessment. She also briefly discusses some of the arguments in research literature related to different types of assessment, and brings up several topics of concern: fairness, objectivity and subjectivity, reliability and validity, authenticity, and ethical issues related to assessment.

Of special interest to me are Casanave’s comments on the conflicting roles of writing teachers and “the dilemma of being both supportive nonjudgmental readers and critical evaluators who ultimately must assign a grade to student performance” (136). She shares her experience of assigning Japanese upper-level and graduate-level EFL students to work on a project of their choice throughout the semester (and even beyond). Assessment was provided weekly, in various forms, and students were promised that if they “attended all classes and worked regularly on a writing project” they “would easily pass with at least a B” (139). This project-writing concept seems like a great idea for a specific situation, such as the course Casanave taught. I am curious about its adaptability to other scenarios, such as K-12 ESL classes or undergraduate-level courses. My thought is that this “project approach” if we can call it that (another new term!) could be a way to incorporate the good elements of the process approach with the types of assessments that teachers seem a bit more comfortable with. By using this approach for a shorter period of time (to be determined by the teacher and the specific teaching situation), it would not preclude other classroom activities or teaching strategies; in fact, it might incorporate them in a desirable manner.

Summary of Leki, et al. – Chapter 10 Assessment

This chapter discusses the two main types of assessment: formal tests and formative assessment, and how the results of each type can inform the other.  Formal tests are designed to assess student proficiency in four areas of language skill development: listening, speaking, reading and writing. The results of these tests are typically used in determining admission or placement into particular academic programs, graduation from programs, evaluation of a program’s effectiveness, or to certify an individual’s abilities. Formative assessments are related to teaching and learning, and are ongoing throughout the student’s educational “career.” Teachers use formative assessments to help students improve their writing ability, to inform themselves of areas that need focus or further instruction, and to evaluate a lesson or assignment’s effectiveness, among other things.  This chapter reiterates the dilemma faced by teachers (mentioned in the Casanave chapter as well) regarding separating their role as “assessor” or critical evaluator of student writing from their role as instructor who is trying to respond “meaningfully to the ideas and content that students are attempting to convey in their written drafts” (84).

Leki, et al. reminds us of the ongoing debate related to “how” and “whether” teachers should respond to errors in L2 student writing.  Truscott (1996) argued “that correcting errors in L2 students’ writing is not beneficial, and even counterproductive, to students’ writing development” (84). Other researchers, such as D. Ferris, have pointed to specific types of error correction that seem to have merit. The chapter goes on to discuss various types of assessment (peer- and self-) as well as the timing, modes and media used for feedback, rating processes, and validity issues.

Questions for discussion:

1)      What suggestions would you offer your fellow teachers who ask for your advice on how to provide feedback on student writing?  For example, should feedback be done during one-on-one conferences with students, or should it be provided in writing, via email, via audio recording, or in some other mode? How much feedback should a teacher provide?

2)      Have you ever used peer response techniques in a writing course? What type of reaction did your students have? After using this technique, what was your reaction? Did you consider this an effective use of your class time? What reaction would you expect from students from “collectivist” cultures? Do you think this technique is appropriate or beneficial in an ESL context?

3)      The Ferris article discusses that initial L1 research findings (from Leki 1990a) showed that students who received teacher feedback did not show improvement in subsequent writing assignments, nor did they seem to appreciate the feedback.  Ferris offers several suggestions for teachers who want their feedback to be effective and useful (123-125).  If a teacher is able to implement all of these suggestions, would the peer response/feedback technique offer any additional benefit(s)?

4)      Have you experienced the role dilemma that both Casanave and Leki, et al. discuss? How have you dealt with this problem of separating your role as assessor/evaluator and your role as supportive/nonjudgmental reader? Does it seem that your role “morphs” from one to the other as the student proceeds through the writing process?

Questions pertaining to the readings for 1/20/11 to think about or discuss

1)      The article by Atkinson points out some of the problems ESL students and teachers experienced during the era of process pedagogy. Why was the process approach problematic for second-language learners?

2)      What elements should be addressed in considering how to teach writing in an ESL context?

3)      Assume that you are a teacher of ESL at the English Language Institute at a university somewhere in the Midwest. You are assigned to teach a course in academic writing.  Your students all hope one day to attend the university as undergraduate or graduate students. You have permission to design and structure the course as you see fit. Should you plan to explicitly teach patterns of paragraph and essay development and organization?

4)      How do writers’ sociopolitical purposes and the sociopolitical contexts in which they write influence their strategies and processes for writing? (from Casanave, p. 90).

5)      What are some of the “potential pockets of resistance to sociopolitically-oriented case study research” that Casanave warns about? Do you think her concerns are valid?

6)  What is your reaction to the following quote from the Matsuda article (p. 78-79): “Atkinson’s definition, which recognizes the continuation of many of the tenets of process pedagogy, seems congruent with Susser (1994), who argued that the notion of process is best defined not as a complete theory or a pedagogical approach but as a set of pedagogical practices that can be adapted to any pedagogical approaches. Post-process, then, is ultimately a misnomer, for it presupposes a certain conception of process and proclaims its end—after all, it literally means “after process.” Yet, I do not mean to suggest that we ban the term. Rather, my goal in this article was to show how such a term could mask the complexity of ideas to which it refers, and to caution against defining post-process as the complete rejection of all tenets of process pedagogy or theories. Instead, post-process might be more productively defined as the rejection of the dominance of process at the expense of other aspects of writing and writing instruction. If we can keep that definition in mind, the term may serve a useful heuristic purpose as the field of L2 writing moves toward the era of multiplicity.”

My Literacy Autobiography

Growing up in the 1960s and 70s, my six sisters and I were always looking for fun things to do with the other kids in the neighborhood. If we weren’t playing softball or kickball in our large back yard or one of the neighbor kids’ yards, we were riding our bikes up and down the street, usually flying down King Drive's awesome hill with both hands in the air as we headed home just before dark. While most of the time we were just playing and enjoying the outdoors, during one particular summer we got creative, writing and performing short plays for the other kids who lived on our street.

This was the first time I had ever seen my written work produced and performed for a real audience. It was not a scholarly or academic effort, but I remember the experience as one of the most enjoyable activities I had ever been involved in.

During my upper elementary and junior high school years, I wrote many book reports and short “research” papers for various classes, but the assignment that stands out most in my mind as a serious academic effort was the paper on the history of the Jewish people that I wrote for my ninth grade English class. I wrote this lengthy paper longhand, carefully forming the words of the report on every other line of my paper, making sure to leave enough space at the bottom of the sheet for the appropriate footnotes. My teacher had taught us the basic formatting style for source citations, along with the correct method of organizing a term paper.

During my senior year in high school I took two English courses: Advanced Grammar and Advanced Composition. One of our daily assignments in the Composition class was to write in a journal, which the teacher would collect and “grade” periodically. I don’t remember if we were told what the purpose of this journal-writing was, but it served as a quasi-diary of my daily activities. I don’t think we did any additional assignments or projects based on what we had recorded in our journals, but it was good practice in narrative writing. I do remember that at the time it seemed like a chore to write something every day.

I had begun studying French during my freshman year in high school, and while the first few years of study did not provide opportunities for much academic writing in a second language, it did give me practice in personal writing. We all had pen pals from French-speaking countries, and mine was a girl who lived in France. She wrote to me in English, and I wrote back in French. Writing to her and reading the letters she wrote to me helped me to understand that writing in a second or foreign language could be very challenging. I used my big English-French dictionary to find words or expressions that I wanted to include in my letters but did not already know. Thinking back, I wonder how many of those words or expressions actually made sense to her. Corresponding with a French girl my own age was a lot of fun, and it solidified my resolve to continue studying and learning the French language.

I added Spanish to my schedule the following year, and German the year after that. (I think I wanted to experience many languages to broaden my view of the world and to be able to communicate with as many people as possible in the future.)

After high school I attended a small, Christian liberal arts college in Indiana (5 hours from my hometown in Ohio), and continued to develop my writing skills in English in several genres. I experimented with poetry writing for my own enjoyment, and I became a journalist for the campus newspaper, writing news and feature stories for the weekly editions. I served as managing editor for the newspaper as well, and helped to plan issues, deal with layouts, and coordinate all aspects of the production of the newspaper. In addition to my work with the campus newspaper, I contributed to and served as editor for the college’s creative writing magazine. These extra-curricular writing opportunities seemed more like “fun” than “work,” but my professors kept me busy writing research papers for various classes, so it was not “all play.”

Reflecting back to those days as an undergraduate student, it is amazing to realize that so much of the “fun” writing, the extra-curricular writing, was done at the oddest hours of the day and well into the night. We often worked on the newspaper until the early hours of the morning in order to complete the final draft so that we could get it to the printer on time the next day. Rather than being exhausted the next day (or actually later that morning!), I usually felt great, sort of like a mother who has birthed a baby after many hours of labor.

After earning my Bachelor’s degree in English Education, I began my graduate work at Indiana University. I studied French for a few years in order to complete my teaching certification in the language. One of the upper-level courses I took was in French Literature and Civilization. We had many writing assignments in this class, and of course, we were required to write in French. Even though I had completed several college courses in French already, writing essays in the language proved to be more difficult than I had imagined it would be. I quickly learned that I could not simply write the essay in English and then translate it into French. Instead, in order to write effectively I had to start thinking and composing in my second language so that I could express myself more effectively in French. I still used my huge dictionary when I got stuck for a particular word or phrase, but the more writing I did, the easier it became to write coherent paragraphs and essays.

I eventually relocated with my family to Illinois, and I spent the next few years raising children, substitute-teaching, and working as a correspondent for a small-town newspaper. My job involved discovering newsworthy activities around town and writing articles about them for the weekly paper. I also had the opportunity to write about other subjects and to create a column of whatever I felt would be of interest to the readers. This was like a dream come true. I was getting paid (okay, it was $50 a week!) to do something I loved to do, and there were people reading my work every week. What a wonderful experience that was!

In the interest of time and space, at this point I will fast-forward.

Over the past three decades I have taught four different subject areas: English, Latin, French, and Computers; and I have taught at three different levels: middle school, high school, and college (undergraduate).

In 2006, I fulfilled a lifelong dream of traveling to France when I flew to Paris with my daughter and her January term class. We spent a week learning about the history of Paris and absorbing as much of the city and region as possible. We shopped at the sidewalk vendors, in big department stores and at flea markets. We explored the city by bus and by train, and of course, on foot. We spoke French to native speakers, and got along wonderfully. It was amazing to discover that we could communicate effectively in a non-English speaking environment.

I think that trip triggered something inside me that had lain dormant for years, because I started thinking about going back to graduate school to complete my degree.  I eased myself out of the business world that I had been involved in full-time since 2000, and began taking courses at ISU in January, 2009. Since February, 2010, I have been teaching English to second-language learners at the English Language Institute at ISU, while pursuing a Master’s degree in English studies with a concentration in TESOL.     

           In my experience as a student learning a foreign language, and as a teacher teaching English to students from other countries, I have learned that developing a native-like level of literacy in a second language is a long, involved process. In my own case, I know that at this point in my life I would need to devote a lot of time and effort in order to recapture the level of literacy in French that I had previously achieved, but I think it is a worthwhile goal.