Assessment?

My own experience with assessing students always frustrated me, for a number of reasons:

• the requirement to assess a product, especially in comparison to that of other students
• my desire to encourage students who worked hard on the project / paper / essay, even if the final product does not 'meet the standards'
• my urge to nitpick (esp. grammatical errors), but without it influencing students' grades
• my unwillingness to 'ruin' students' grades in a high-stakes exam
• the fact there will always be students unhappy with their grade (either in comparison with other students or with their own previous works)
• my fear of making a mistake by either grading too high or too low (which I am afraid could depend on my mood and physical condition, attitude toward students, their attitude to me, time of the day, weather, time constraints, or power issues).

In my context, assessment is mostly product-oriented, often high-stakes; and I think in any context it is highly subjective. Students perceive it this way, too: The grade depends on the teacher. That is why it is the grade that is often the goal, not the skills or knowledge or learning, whatever the course is.

Therefore, if given a choice, I would rather have informal low-stakes grading or no assessment at all in my class. I like the example given by Casanave (2004) about her assessing the students in Japan, with them investing in projects they were interested in or were involved in in other courses. Unfortunately, it is not possible in my teaching context, since students are not using writing English outside the English class, except informally, online, or filling out application forms for study abroad scholarships. Coming up with the projects they could be whole-heartedly involved in outside their overloaded school work is also problematic, but is worth trying.

However, there are still other problems with that approach that were mentioned both in Casanave's chapter and in Hayat's blog: institutional requirements, students' needs (e.g., preparation for TOEFL iBT), and students' expectations.

Speaking & Writing

Speaking and writing in L2 are interconnected, which is clearly shown in the Chapters from The Oral – Literate Connection (2008) book. According to Williams (2008), writing can facilitate speaking because writing allows for more experimenting with less familiar forms, since it implies planning and is usually less threatening than speaking. Williams (2008) also discusses the research focused on how speaking can influence writing. The main idea in all three areas of research she covers (student-teacher conferences, peer review, and writing centers) is that "talking about writing improves the overall quality of writing" (p.17).T

he connections are also confirmed through my own experience of learning the literacies: Most of the secondary school classroom instruction was "from writing to speaking", i.e. students had to write grammatically accurate sentences or paragraphs or dialogs and memorize them for oral reproduction. At the university level, it was similar in the way that students were supposed to use certain vocabulary and grammatical structures, which could not happen spontaneously. Many students were fluent in speaking English, so it was natural to avoid unfamiliar or just learned structures, especially in speaking. It took thinking and elaborating sentences in writing to be able to produce the required structures in speaking. However, there was also the reverse process: "from speaking to writing". Prior to assigning a short essay, the teacher discussed it in class. Students would go through the whole required organizational structure, offering possible development of an essay, suggesting contextual / genre-appropriate use of connectors, vocabulary, and grammar structures.

Here, in the MA program, I also employ both processes. I often use "writing into speaking" when I want to ask a question during class or at the conference. I usually do it for two reasons: 1) writing (whether in L1 or L2) does help to focus thinking and put my thoughts into making-sense words and sentences (Hirvela, 2004); 2) seeing the words on paper helps to make sure that the sentence is "grammatically correct". The "speaking into writing" process has a slightly different role. It is similar to Seloni's (2008) doctoral students' negotiating the meaning among themselves. I usually try to talk to someone about the writing I need to complete. In the course of explaining the topic, I myself learn to understand it better, plan the organization of a paper, and get to answer questions that I would not think to ask myself or would disregard as self-explanatory. In other words, speaking with other students about my writing helps me to write.

 

Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (Eds.). (2008). The Oral-Literate Connection: Perspectives on L2 Speaking, Writing, and Other Media Interactions.

Hirvela, A. (2004). Writing to Read. In Connecting Reading & Writing in Second Language Writing Instruction, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 71-109.

Seloni, L. (2008). Intertextual Connections between spoken and written text: A microanalysis of doctoral students' textual constructions. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), The Oral-Literate Connection: Perspectives on L2 Speaking, Writing, and Other Media Interactions, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 63-86.

Williams, J. (2008). The speaking-writing connection in second language and academic literacy development. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), The Oral-Literate Connection: Perspectives on L2 Speaking, Writing, and Other Media Interactions, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 10-25.

Discussion Questions on Hirvela, Chapter 3

1. 1. Hirvela (2004) discusses three models developed by Eisterhold (1990), which represent reading-writing relationships (pp.72-73), but he uses only directional model for pedagogical implications. How would you use other models?
2. 2. Which writing-to-read techniques (summarizing, synthesizing, and responding) did /do you use as a reader? Do you find them useful?
3. 3. Which techniques would you as a teacher use in your context with your students? Why? (Would a writing instructor choose writing-to-read approach? Is it common to see a student as a reader rather than a writer in a composition class?)
4. 4. Why do you think summarizing, synthesizing, or responding might be difficult for L2 readers/writers?
5. 5. Paraphrasing and quoting are described as complex processes of reading and writing as a student “locates and reconstructs or appropriates material from the source texts” (p.94). It has never been presented like that to me. Rather, paraphrasing and quotations were technicalities that were practiced on the sentence level. Could you share your experience as language learner and language teacher? Do you agree with Hirvela’s position regarding these two aspects of synthesizing?
6. 6. For me, the idea of writing as a facilitator / foundation for reading as active and meaning-making process is quite new. Hirvela (2004) lists many benefits of using writing-to-read approach with L2 readers/writers. What would be the limitations of applying writing-to-read techniques in the classroom?

Connections between Reading and Writing (Hirvela, Chapter 1)

Coming from EFL background, I found some assumptions about teaching reading and writing in English mentioned in the chapter not relevant. The author emphasizes the initial separation and disparity between how reading and writing were perceived and taught. Since I never had a writing course in school, I cannot really say that reading and writing were completely separate. They were two skills that were taught at the same time, within the same class sometimes.

However, while reading the chapter I realized that even though the two skills were never taught as separate courses, they were still treated as two separate skills. This becomes especially clear after analyzing Tiernye's tables on pp. 29-30. Even though writing and reading occurred in the same class (with writing usually being a home assignment or an in-class test), reading was indeed the way of receiving the information, while writing was (re)producing it. Reading was seen as a necessary skill preceding writing. Often the same text was used for reading (=getting the information and understanding it) and writing (=summarizing the understood information, sometimes adding something new to it). Reading was never seen as an "act of composing"; in fact, writing was not always composing either. Following the conventions of spelling and sentence structure was more important than the meaning.

So, there are a lot more connections between reading and writing than I thought would be relevant and applicable. I also believe that in EFL contexts, even more connections can be made, due to the differences in viewpoints about teaching English in different countries. This could lead to elaborating Reading-Writing Connections Models for every country or for every context. In this way, the absence of a single (=universal) model can be seen as an advantage.

Problems with Defining “good writing”

Casanave (2004) emphasizes the importance of defining improvement and good writing before discussing what works and what does not when teaching ESL writing. She divides improvement into two categories: improving quality of writing and developing L2 proficiency (p.66), which represent broadly the two constructs of L2 writing. Depending on which of these is a teacher's (and institution's) belief and goal, the teacher will see and pursue improvement in different ways identified first and foremost in assessment criteria. According to Casanave (2004), assessing quality of writing can be too ambiguous and non-satisfying for teachers, who tend to focus on criteria that are easier to count and correct (i.e., vocabulary and grammar). However, the question that I would ask is why is L2 proficiency necessarily related to grammar and vocabulary? Definition of language proficiency is problematic in itself (e.g., fluency vs accuracy debate), and choosing the countable ways of assessment does not always imply that the teacher aims for developing L2 proficiency in (through) students' writing.

Besides their own beliefs about good writing, English teachers should also take into account students' beliefs and institutional policy. Within our department, good writing was seen first and foremost in relation to accuracy in using language elements (grammatical and organizational features and vocabulary items) being targeted and studied at that particular time. Fluency was expected to increase with practice of writing and re-writing the essays. So, error correction and feedback played a very important role.

I would like to share two interesting cases I had. One was when I tutored a student (I will refer to her as Marina) who was accepted onto the major where students were expected to have studied English at school. However, Marina's foreign language at school was German and she had studied English only for two summer months with a tutor prior to the beginning of the school year. In other words, she had little acquaintance with English (e.g. extremely limited vocabulary), while certain level of knowledge of and about the English language was expected. For her, learning to write (as well as read and speak) implied translating and learning almost every word in the textbooks, understanding absolutely new grammar rules and sentence structure. Our tutoring sessions often involved my going through her draft, negotiating the meaning and discussing the word choices and grammar issues. Nevertheless, while the required vocabulary was often more difficult and sophisticated (e.g., reciprocate) for other students (who had studied English before), for Marina it was often the only vocabulary at her disposal. Therefore, she had no problem using that vocabulary and structures in her essays if she understood their function and meaning, while her peers sometimes resisted using the imposed forms. This meant that Marina ended up getting good grades according to the construct of good writing promoted by the department, even though her overall language proficiency, general fluency and probably quality of writing were not "good". Within the given definition, her writing improved dramatically over a semester. Her style of learning and department policy implied a lot of error correction on my part and re-writing and submitting a perfect product on hers.

Another case was the tutoring of Anna, who had studied English before, was confident in using English both in speaking and writing, but 99 % of her writing was impossible to understand. In spite of the fact that we shared L1 and her handwriting was intelligible, the sentences for some reason did not make much sense. Part of it could be attributed to spelling, but only part. Her choice of words, sentence structure and grammar was beyond comprehension, sometimes even for her. In order for her to be able to pass the English course, Anna had to be confined to a very rigid paragraph and sentence structure. In the end, she got a passing grade.

So, in the first case, the restrictions in form and content were taken up voluntarily, while in the second case, they were imposed. In the first case, the language learned served as a springboard for the student to strive for fluency, in the second – fluency was controlled by the rules which denied any freedom of expression. However, both cases showed improvement in students' performance, at least in accordance with the department's definition of improvement.

Reflections on “Writing Development & Biliteracy” (Chapter 1)

Most of what Fu and Matoush (2006) describe in their chapter, I have experienced myself as a bilingual Russian-English speaker: the reasons for code-switching, "language errors," non-linear pattern of the four stages of acquiring English writing skills, lack of confidence as an English writer. I did not go to a bilingual school or to mainstream classes in the USA, though. My context is different – I learned English in Russia. So, I do not know how applicable the approach offered by the authors would be in EFL context. However, while reading the chapter I noticed that nothing is mentioned about the existing or potential problems associated with implementing this approach in an American school.

I can see at least three challenges that come with the biliteracy approach suggested. First, the teachers of English in schools should know students' L1(s) to see students' development and to be able to communicate with them and help them. The authors do not mention assessment, which also should be negotiated with school administration. Second, I would assume that students' and their parents' expectations might be different, and they could be resistant to the approach. This could also be an alternative explanation why students in the study made an effort to write in English at first, even when given options to do it in Chinese. Students can be pushed by parents to stick to English. Some teachers having to use the approach would also resist if they disagree with the approach, especially if they teach other subjects and are forced to accept students' L1 writing. Finally, the third challenge would be the lack of community of practice if all students are with different L1s or forming exclusive communities of practice, if a few students do not share their peers' L1. The reason is that students will not be able to exchange much of their expertise, as they will not be able to understand their peers' writing in first through third stages.

Fu, D., & Matoush, M. (2006). Writing development and biliteracy. In P.K. Matsuda, C. Ortmeier-Hooper, & X. You (Eds) The Politics of Second Language Writing: In Search of the Promised Land. West Lafayette: Parlor Press, pp. 5 – 29.

L1 Composition & L2 Writing

Leki (2006) describes ESL writing as having prevalence in university courses aimed at helping ESL students succeed academically, while other skills are being ignored or deemed unimportant. She partially attributes this attitude to L1 composition legacy and the position it secured in many US universities, i.e. a required course for undergraduate students. In this light, it is definitely a positive development to recognize the needs of ESL students and have a separate writing course for them. It also seems to explain the lack thereof in my teaching context: Since we do not require all majors to take L1 composition courses, English writing courses seem redundant. In fact, the way (academic/college) writing is defined and viewed is quite different. In the US, as far as I know, most of the exams both on graduate and undergraduate levels, are taken in the written form (a test or a paper). In Russia, the preference is given to oral exams (which has its own drawbacks) that can be preceded by a requirement to submit a paper, however, a lot less attention is paid to the problems of plagiarism. Similarly to Yang's nursing classes, the content and the information rather than form is given priority when grading. Without seeing academic writing as a skill to be required of all students in their L1, it is understandable that L2 writing is perceived in the like manner.

In the USA, L1 composition classes resist being perceived and treated as a "service course" (Leki, 2006, p.68) in university programs. As far as ESL writing courses are concerned, it seems that they are meant to be "service courses", teaching students academic writing literacy that would be used in all their majors and all of their courses. In Russia, writing in English is even less independent. It is still used as a "means of reinforcing the acquisition of grammar and vocabulary" (Leki, 2002, p. 60). At a more advanced level, it includes particular sentence structures and linking devices. In other words, the content is irrelevant, especially because it is the language that is taught, not the subject. So, when writing is evaluated, it is usually accuracy and complexity of grammar structures and vocabulary that are graded, not the students' creativity. It also needs to be taken into account that students do not write papers in English; the maximum length of an essay would be two pages. Nobody (at my home university) writes research papers in English. Upon graduation, students are more likely to use English to take an exam (TOEFL or IELTS), to search for information, to translate or interpret than to write papers. Hence, the position of EFL writing – there are no exclusively writing courses.

So, I would say that the way L1 and L2 writing is treated at a university level does not merely hint at the university's attempt to define writing (Leki, 2006). It is the other way around: the way writing is defined at an institution (or country) determines the position (and existence) of writing courses at that institution. This is exactly the case presented in Chapter 4 by Kubota and Abels(2006): it took comparing the definitions of ESL literacies with those of foreign languages acquired by American students abroad to see the double standards and discrepancies (e.g. favoring monolingualism and monoculturalism)

Leki, I. (2002). Second language writing. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 60-69). New York: Oxford University Press.

Leki, I. (2006). The legacy of first-year compostion. In P.K. Matsuda, C. Ortmeier-Hooper, & X. You (Eds.), The Politics of Second Language Writing: In Search of the Promised Land (pp.59-74). West Lafayette:Parlor Press.

Kubota, R. & Abels, K. (2006). Improving institutional ESL/EAP support for international students: seeking the promised land. In P.K. Matsuda, C. Ortmeier-Hooper, & X. You (Eds.), The Politics of Second Language Writing: In Search of the Promised Land (pp. 75-93). West Lafayette:Parlor Press.