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.