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.

Reflecting on Canagarajah’s Challenge to Teaching Critical Writing

The chapter is very good at helping teachers see their responsibilities and difficulties when adhering to teaching ESL and EFL students critical writing. I agree with all of them, except that am overall picture is that a teacher is an all-powerful agent able to implement any changes he or she wants. Canagarajah chooses not to talk about the limitations and constraints we have as teachers in our contexts. For instance, he keeps repeating that "students are generally taught…", and we should teach them or they have to be taught. However, students have their own beliefs and goals that might contradict with some of our aspirations in terms of teaching them to write critically. In fact, they might not even want to be critical writers and thinkers, they might be taking a course to merely pass a test or to fulfill some requirement. They might resist anything non-traditional you are trying to bring into a classroom. Moreover, if we are to help them write critically, they have to do their part as autonomous learners.

Another factor that is not mentioned in the chapter is the institutional authorities, who might have a different perspective on what to teach and how. In my context, we do not even have English writing courses per se. There is also attitude toward English. Canagarajah mentions only one aspect, i.e. English as imperialistic language.

In no way I am saying that these constraints should be used as excuses for not teaching critical writing, but it is important to be aware of them. In fact, they should be added to the challenge that Canagarajah outlines in his chapter.

 

Canagarajah, A.S. (2002). Understanding critical writing. In Critical academic writing and multilingual students. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1-22.