L2 literacies in K-12

The desperation of the situation of L2 learners in middle and high schools, as presented by Leki, Cumming, and Silva, was disturbing. They described many situations that were clearly not conducive to L2 learning, such as isolated ESL classrooms and classes that focused so intently on grammatical knowledge that other content was forgotten—and I found myself thinking of my own rural Michigan high school, where almost every single student spoke English as a first language. I remember one Hispanic student whose family arrived to the community when he was about 16. The school didn’t have any ESL program or teacher, and so the student was simply put into classes with other 16-year-old students and given one or two supplementary class periods with the school’s guidance counselor, where presumably, he was getting language lessons. The more I learn about L2 studies, the more surprised I am that there is not some ESL training or preparation required for all teachers in the US. Leki, et al. point out that they found that “…there is an amazing failure of awareness on the part of, particularly monolingual, mainstream teachers and, more to the point, of administrators, of what is involved in learning a language and of how they might make their classes more accessible to English language learners” (25).

Perhaps it is because of the chosen focus of Wallace’s article, but the children she converses with do not seem to experience such strong problems as described by Leki. There are hints of complex, perhaps even conflicting, identities (especially in the case of Suresh, who seems intent on proving that he’s English through his tastes, his abilities, and his style). However, Wallace’s study does not show a strong separation of those students from the mainstream—though the students might have experienced it, her conversational transcripts don’t show this. One factor that can be identified in this short article as perhaps accounting for the ease and openness of conversation is the context of the Literacy Hour. Wallace herself concludes, “What seems important is to offer access to texts that mediate in different kinds of identity expression” (78).

So, is the right kind of literacy training or class lacking in the many schools and settings that Leki and her colleagues describe? Are the programs lacking an engaging focus on reading, and/or the kinds of texts that students will be able to relate to? Should middle and high school L2/ESL writing be approached in the same way we’ve been discussing college-level writing, or do the age difference and educational culture difference (between high school and college) necessitate a different pedagogy?

For the Book Review

For the book review assignment, I chose Suresh Canagarajah's 2002 text Critical Academic Writing and Multilingual Students, part of the Michigan Series on Teaching Multilingual Writers (as is the Casanave text we use in class).

I have not started intensely reading this book yet, as I've been focusing on the readings I need to complete to gain better background of my paper topic. When choosing this book, I had hoped that it might serve as a resource for my topic (which has developed into the acceptability/nonacceptability of nonstandard varieties of English in academic writing), but from what I've flipped through, picked out, and skimmed, it will not directly inform my paper.

some remaining thoughts from the discussion on genre

It was interesting to discuss the second question on our handout, especially because I never really thought of genre approaches and the process approach as polar opposites. Even when reading the two articles we discussed today in class, I didn't quite get the sense that they were separate extremes.

In our discussion, Amy and I talked about how these approaches seem to us to be very complementary rather than separate. Even within the Writing Program's genre studies approach at ISU, there are some aspects of process: in genre studies, the process of writing is also a focus, as opposed to a one-shot perfect end product. Emphasis is also placed on the drafting process and the editing process. One important difference in the genre approach is that the social aspect of the text is emphasized, although I would argue that (especially because of students' literacy backgrounds) that individual aspect of the process approach is not completely wiped out in our ENG 101 classes.

Especially in L2 writing classrooms, it's important to combine awareness of the writing process with the social situation and social conventions. Feez's circle that we talked about and that Kristi presented on the handout implies some aspect of process in its cyclical nature of genre explanation, and the fact that the cycle can be re-entered and gone through various times is reminiscent of process, I think.

Genre theories in L2 writing

I was first introduced to genre studies upon arriving at ISU; the Writing Program here (and the req-for-Comp-teachers ENG 402 with Joyce Walker) work with these theories. Although we studied the theories in-depth in 402, and though we did have a short (but heavy) introduction to the schools of genre theory (SFL, ESP, and New Rhetoric), I struggled last semester to see a clear connection between genre theory and ESL/L2 pedagogy.

Returning to these concepts has cleared up some of that struggle for me—the pieces seemed to fit this time around. Having built our discussion in this class on process and post-process approaches helped establish the basis for genre pedagogies. Hyland’s article addressed some of my own concerns about applying process writing to L2 writing classes: namely, that introspective writing/processes are not what L2 students need most, at least not until a very advanced level, and that, in Hyland’s words, the process approach “neglects the actual processes of language use”—the social aspect (18). In my opinion, understanding social context is key to successful L2 language learning, in both spoken and written language. I see the usefulness of adapting these genre ideas to a L2 class curriculum. Although, from my understanding, I most like the ESP approach for an L2 classroom, I don’t see strong divides between the three schools of thought.

The genre approach seems to be a nice response to our possible problematic situation of different cultural perspectives in the L2 classroom, because it emphasizes awareness and confrontation of those differences. It can be adapted to specifically address cultural differences in writing and make students aware that their way of writing in a specific genre may not be the same in another language/culture (see Johns 196 for her example).

The chart from Feez 2002, on page 203 of Johns’ article, seemed like a practical model. It reflects what is a common approach (at least from my ESP—business English—background) to teaching speaking and dialogue skills. From what I understand, it is the same model that Hyland refers to as a “‘visible pedagogy’ in which what is to be learned and assessed is made clear to students” (26). This is precisely what I have come to realize I implicitly advocate in the class and with every text that we read: make students aware of the development, the method, the course of action in writing. An approach which explicitly takes apart a text, analyzes its features, and allows for individual, social, and creative reconstruction gives the students an ability which they can use as a tool to navigate future writing tasks.

Much like our discussions on what needs to be taught concerning voice and plagiarism, genre pedagogies seem to be approaches that can be applied equally, at a similar level and in a similar way, in L1 and L2 classrooms. Referring specifically to genre, then—does a pedagogy emphasizing genre differ between L1 and L2 classrooms? Should it differ? (Would/should an L2 classroom follow the Syndey School, according to Johns’ definitions, or the ESP methods?) Or, are the differences in the approaches trivial and adaptable? (I think, just by including that question, my own opinion is evident…)

I also wonder if genre-based approaches are easier to apply or more effective in either a culturally homogenous L2 classroom or a mixed space, like those often found in L2 classrooms in the US (I’m not sure if any studies have been done on this; if not, this might be an interesting research question.)

Articles Referenced:

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.

Some questions for Thursday's discussion on Bloch's and Pecorari's articles

I'm posting here the discussion questions that I will be bringing up in class tomorrow. The topics are something I chose basically as an organizational tool, and as a way to condense questions into themes if (when) we run out of time to address each specific point.

I also wanted to put up a link to ISU's Code of Conduct, which includes a short clause on plagiarism (I will have hard copies of this clause in class tomorrow).

Discussion Topics and Questions: Plagiarism

Culture

1. Considering how Bloch believes the internet complicates issues of plagiarism: are we (the U.S. or the Western world) shifting our views on plagiarism, textual borrowing, and textual ownership because of the internet? Do you agree with Bloch that we might adopt more “Eastern” views?

2. Have we advanced in the internet-plagiarism issue since this book’s publication (2001)?

3. Does knowing the debate surrounding Asian perceptions of plagiarism—particularly in China, as discussed by Bloch and Pennycook—change your teaching style to L1-Chinese students?

4. We’ve talked about types of plagiarism that are more problematic than others. Are some cases of textual borrowing more serious in terms of source? (Internet forums vs. academic journals)

The University

1. Is it ever “counter-pedagogical” to bring an instance of plagiarism to university attention? (going off of the words of Howard, qtd in Pecorari, 232)

2. Are there different motivations to plagiarize in an L1 and in an L2? What about in an ESL course or in a university writing course?

Practical Approaches

1. Should we treat cases of plagiarism differently in an L2 classroom vs. an L1 classroom? Should the consequences be equal?

2. This is a problematic/debated concept in L1—so in L2 writing classrooms, should teachers follow the trends of that debate or is it necessary to develop another pedagogy specific to L2 literacy?

a. What happens then when NNSs are put into an L1 comp. or writing-intensive course?

3. The texts point us to the idea that in both L1 and L2 classrooms we need to include and explain the rationale behind plagiarism policies. How do we do that? What are some practical ways to approach this idea?

Take into consideration:

- the L1 and the L2, as well as the L2 level and/or general education level

- a cultural approach?

- a historical approach?

- the force of the word “plagiarism”

Issues of Plagiarism in L2

Plagiarism is a difficult issue to make L1 writers aware of (to explain what it is, how they might be committing it, and what the real and the threatened repercussions are). It has become a threat in U.S. classrooms, with every high school and university handbook including a clause with scare-tactics on plagiarism and academic dishonesty. This is still a concept we have to teach (or re-teach or remind students of) in L1 writing—and although our texts this week include a lot of examples of cultural differences (especially from Asian cultures), I think it’s important to remember that this is not something that is solved in English composition classrooms of native speakers. It’s the whole issue that we’re transferring, mixing in some culture, some long-standing traditions, and some variation of a language barrier.

I thought of something as I sat down to post: I recently started including end citations here, on this blog. I did so for two reasons: 1) I realized that having the text cited directly here might be useful to any unlikely wandering readers and to myself in case of any future academic perusal back through these posts; and 2) some notion of “academic respect” has been drilled into me, and the need to fully credit quotations and ideas could not be ignored—that’s what I want to see this feeling as anyway. But is it academic respect or fear of Big Brother, fear that Casanave is going to bring a lawsuit against me for posting her name and her words in my blog? I hate to say so, but I guess that fear works, at least for some law-abiding grad students.

Pennycook situates plagiarism as coming out of Western cultural notions; he does well in explaining a brief history of authorship, textual borrowings, and changing perceptions before going into more detail about the interviews he did and situations he saw in his own (and others’) teaching experiences. His examples of historical borrowing and imitation made me think of Casanave’s recommended functional phrases (184), which can be (and are) recycled throughout academia, found in articles and books written by students and professionals alike.

Setting up the complex background behind this idea is necessary to comprehend what issues may arise in an L2 classroom—and it is informative in order to think of effective ways of confronting those issues.

Pennycook doesn’t necessarily provide an answer to the L2 dilemma on how to teach and treat plagiarism and textual borrowing (in spite of his opening anecdote, which seems to suggest that he’ll give a pragmatic explanation on what to do when your student has knowingly/unknowingly plagiarized). He is most insistent on reminding us that, “All language learning is to some extent a process of borrowing others’ words and we need to be flexible, not dogmatic, about where we draw boundaries between acceptable or unacceptable textual borrowings” (227). That is, it’s up to each of us, in our own classrooms, bound by whatever university rules or cultural norms we are immersed in.

Casanave seems to suggest (as just the title of the chapter shows), that engaging the students on the issue is one of the best approaches. That is, as teachers, we must make our students aware of cultural perspectives on this issue, and we should either inform them or have them investigate the reasons for plagiarism and the reasons for condemning it. She also suggests that L2 teachers need to prep for any problems in things such as plagiarism when assigning some task (178).

Much of the best advice that I’ve gathered from the readings in this course thus far, in fact, hold that same idea at the core: the students don’t have to be, and shouldn’t be, isolated from the fact that there is no “answer.” That is, if a teacher is working abroad and is unsure about how to treat plagiarism, the teacher should bring the problem to the students’ attention as well—not just on a case-by-case basis, either, but as a whole class, facing the situation. If we ever get a chance to get into this debatable approach in class, I know there will be various sides and arguments, and I’d like to bring up one here: how much of this can practically be explained to an ESL class in English (or an L2 class in the L2)? It varies by level, of course. But is it better to address it in the L2, no matter the level of the students, or is it ever better to explain or bring it up in the L1?

Sources:

Casanave, Christine Pearson. Controversies in Second Language Writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2004. Print. Michigan Ser. on Teaching Multilingual Writers.

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

continuing the discussion on voice

One of the questions from our class handout asks, "How realistic is it to expect (and demand) from our NNEST students to develop an English self?" (I think that "NNES" might be meant instead of "NNEST"--non-native-English-speaking-teachers, but I think my answer addresses both anyway.)

The best advice I gathered from these readings, the documentary "Writing Across Borders," and our in-class discussion is that voice can be best viewed (or, though I hate to say it, graded) if the instructor has some awareness of the student's background. That is, the "voice" that we're looking for (an abstract concept defined and discovered differently by each teacher, in my opinion) is only going to make sense if we can contextualize it. These readings appropriately came right after our discussions on contrastive rhetoric, as CR can be applied to this search/demand for voice in L2 writing.

Hirvela and Belcher's case studies were particularly good in proving this. In the study of Jacinta, for example, we are told that "one of her coadvisors stated that 'she was an established professional writer in a Marxist paradigm,'" and encouraged her that she needed to shift that paradigm in her doctoral work (95). However, later in the case study they mention her fear in publishing that might appear to either support or oppose the Shining Path, a guerrilla group with strong and frightening influence through the 1980s and early 1990s. The coadvisor probably did not realize the sociocultural influence behind Jacinta's voice, but this must have been a huge force in both her L1 and her L2 writing. (I used to teach a Peruvian student who told me stories of his MBA studies and work in agribusiness during this time, and how he changed his route to work and school every day for fear of kidnapping by the Shining Path--and knowing this, I was more sympathetic to Jacinta's confusion on voice).

Shen's article provided a similar story; he opened with a strong story giving context on why he could not capture the sense of English-language (specifically, American) individualism and the sense of "I"--again, a cultural context that Western/native English-speaking/American readers might not be aware of or comprehend. He discusses his struggle and claims that it's ongoing, though it's apparent through reading his article that he has pretty good grasp on "I"-focused writing now!

These case studies reminded me of the literacy narratives that we opened the semester with. Using these in class--in L1 or L2 writing classes--would allow instructors to develop some knowledge about the influences on a student's voice. (It is important to note here that when I use "voice" I'm not talking about a representation of some pure or true self, but the actual voice/tone/style that comes out on paper--the rhetorical structure--looking just at the text that is produced, and understanding the situation of that rhetoric.)

Overall, to give a more specific answer to the question, I think that the level of demand for an English voice should be in proportion to the student's situation and motivations. For example, with students who want to get admitted into ISU after they finish their English programs, I encourage more uniformity from their writing, more adherence to certain conventions--because, in the academic world of the university, the reality is that they will need to adopt a voice from a limited set of options deemed 'appropriate' by every professor who grades their papers. On the other hand, with students who definitely plan to return to their home countries and do not intend to pursue and future of writing in English, I am more lenient in regards to their rhetorical structures.


Sources:

Hirvela, Alan, and Diane Belcher. "Coming Back to Voice: the Multiple Voices and Identities of Mature Multilingual Writers." Journal of Second Language Writing 10 (2001): 83-106. Web.

Shen, Fan. "The Classroom and the Wider Culture: Identity as a Key to Learning English Composition." College Composition and Communication (1989): 123-33. Web.

Response to "Writing Across Borders"

Many of the points and tips I pulled out from this video were apparent in the readings as well, but they hit me much harder when I watched the video. Listening to the students explaining their situation made me really realize how much of a struggle L2 writing can be, culturally speaking.

Power was one of the issues that stood out most in the video. The Turkish student pointed out that other countries look up to US education, yet we saw that none of the students felt familiar or comfortable with the writing structure and expectations in US universities. With all of our talk about Kaplan’s ethnocentricity, some of Amy’s questions kept ringing in my head: are we only considering English writing linear because that’s our standard? Are we imposing standards on “others”?

I thought Tony Silva’s comment about having to simply decide what’s “good enough” was well-put. I think that wording might not be preferred by a lot of teachers—it sounds something like settling for quality that isn’t as high as possible—but it is true; we have to decide what is sufficient, what we can reasonably ask for and expect from our students—especially in FYC class—and then work to help the students improve that even just a small bit (especially in 101 classes).

The final discussion question from the handout we received gave me a long pause. I had a similar experience recently, so the hypothetical question has true relevance to my teaching. In the 101 class in which I act as a consultant (I run the class two out of five days a week and construct lessons and activities around the instructor’s larger projects; my classes usually address specific problems or concerns that students have brought up), I have one non-native speaker. Though both the instructor and I have taught ESL and spoke to her about it before (to the NNS student’s relief), I know sometimes the lessons are not as clear to her as they are to other students. Fortunately, a native speaker (NS) who sits next to her regularly helps clarify instructions to her and assists her whenever the technology used in the class confuses her.

The class recently finished its first major project, and a few days before the final draft was due, NS approached me after class and asked me if it would be okay if he edited NNS’s paper for, as he put it, “grammar and spelling.” I had to think about the question and took awhile to answer. I basically told him that, although I could see his concern was heartfelt, it would not be good or productive if he just ran over her whole paper in Word and “fixed” everything that didn’t look right. I told him that, if he wanted to help her, he could walk her through some of the common mistakes he saw in her paper and sit down with her to explain how and why—emphasizing that this wasn’t his responsibility at all, and that if NNS needed to see either me or the instructor, we’d gladly sit down with her and do something similar.

NS understood , but I could see his concern—the same concern of the student who wants his/her statement of purpose to sound like a native speaker had written it: the assumption is that, if it doesn’t sound like the writing of a native speaker, the “authorities” over that piece of writing are going to consider it junk. In my 101 class, of course, that isn’t true. However, I don’t know if it’s true in the case of a grad school committee. I’d like to say that it definitely isn’t, that some grammatical errors or a decidedly non-American essay construction are not going to be factors for which a NNS is not admitted to a grad program—but, tradition says that they would be factors.