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.
No comments:
Post a Comment