EFL Writing

The articles by You and Lei this week made me consider the differences in writing instruction in ESL and EFL. Most of my thoughts are going to take the form of tangential questions, as that’s what I was left with when I finished reading. Are the goals for the two contexts the same? Although they may be, I think it’s important to remember in our discussion that they also may not be; that is, the EFL classroom may have different, more local, goals and different teaching styles than the ESL class. Then again, students in an EFL writing course may eventually want to continue on to grad studies or even job-hunting in an English-speaking country like the US. So is it the job of EFL writing classes to teach students as if they were in a US classroom? Is that practical?

In You’s short report, he mentions a study done by Zhan Ju on student and teacher attitudes toward process pedagogy (255). He also opens his book chapter by explaining that “English writing instruction in non-English dominant countries has showed great interest in adapting Anglo-American norms of writing and writing pedagogies for the local contexts” (188). So I’m wondering—is it reasonable to try to export pedagogies? If they are established in one context and culture, what should we be wary of when we try to adapt them to another context?

As far as actual writing instruction in EFL contexts goes, should the EFL context be more accepting of non-Western rhetorics and styles? Or, especially in China, where these articles focus, are the English writing classes actually more rigid? (Does it depend on whether they’ve imported a Western pedagogy? Back to the above questions…) It was difficult to draw conclusions to those questions from the studies done by You and Lei, as that wasn’t the focus of either of their articles, but these seem to be relevant questions which underlie their work.

L2 writers in graduate studies

George Braine’s experience shows that the transition to graduate school for non-native-speaking students, at least in the US, can be difficult. Graduate school is demanding and exhausting for most students, and it is unsurprising that stress increases when grad school is in another language.

Based on my observations and Braine’s, it seems that the general perception of multilingual writers in graduate studies is that they are/should be proficient enough in the L2 to maneuver within their own disciplines. Based on ideas like this, I wonder: is it as common for L2 graduate students to seek assistance in their writing? Is there stigma attached to language-specific or writing-specific help (in writing centers or with the instructor of the class)? As Braine points out, though, “a knowledge of one’s chosen field of study, research skills, and good reading and writing skills form only the foundation for the acquisition of academic literacy” (60). That is, there’s more to succeeding in grad school than just academic literacy. He says that even the social culture can affect whether or not a student acclimates.

Along that vein, here are a few other questions (which could make good potential research questions): Do L2 graduate student writers conform more or less to common/accepted rhetorical strategies and writing styles in the L2 than undergraduate writers? Perhaps interviews with L2 writers could provide some insight into that matter, as well as to the next question: Is the attention to format and typing stylistics that Canagarajah mentions in the preface to Critical Academic Writing and Multilingual Students still prevalent (or more common than comments on rhetorical strategies and thought organization)? Braine, discussing Casanave and Hubbard (1992), says that teachers of grad courses in the humanities “consider global features of writing (such as the quality of content and the development of ideas) to be more important than local features” (64). Do the teachers show or convey that to the students? As Canagarajah rightly points out, “writing involves not just grammatical competence”—but I wonder, do L2 writers’ experiences align with that idea (9)?

Sources:

Braine, G. (2002). Academic literacy and the nonnative speaker graduate students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 59-68.

Canagarajah, S. (2002). "Understanding Critical Writing." From Critical Academic Writing and Multilingual students. 1-22.

First-year composition and L2 writers.

Though by this point in our discussion it seems natural, I was glad to see Ilona Leki made a distinction between the purpose of FYC classes and the needs of NNS students attending many universities (as in the case with Yang, 61-2). Leki suggests that L2 writing classes cannot and should not be set up in the same way as an FYC class. She examines the way in which FYC and L2 writing courses have become essential and how students’ success can depend on the ability to pass these classes, pointing out also the uselessness of the “first year” part of FYC: “students are learning something about writing at a time when they cannot even put that learning into practice outside the writing course” (66-7).

Like Leki, Matsuda points out that FYC classes are not made for everyone; his article deals with the fact that US composition classes assume and thus are built for English monolingualism. Based on the history and development of FYC, this assumption is unsurprising—but, based on the statistics Matsuda gives (more than half a million international students in the US in some recent years, and one out of six Americans using languages other than English at home), this is unfortunate and detrimental to students (640-1). The situation of the “myth of linguistic homogeneity” is not isolated to FYC or L2 writing courses; it seems that it should be the responsibility of the university as a whole, and though required or supplementary writing classes should certainly be viewed as resources on improving language skills, they should not be depended on as the sole source of those skills. A single semester is not enough time to introduce students to all of the writing skills they need to succeed in various university careers and courses, especially when the courses are taught by TAs, as Leki points out (who often do not want to argue with a set system or do not have the proper training to be able to argue with that system).

We’ve discussed in class before the idea of regarding a different L1 as a unique circumstance, as sort of a “handicap” in the university classroom, but I think this idea is worth returning to. Some questions: Based on Leki’s and Matsuda’s arguments, is it desirable to separate composition classes based on the students’ L1s? Especially looking at Matsuda’s main point—that students may not come from the same language (or variety) background—what problems does a separation create? On the other hand, what benefits does it engender?

Sources:

Leki, I. (2008). The legacy of first year composition. In P. Matsuda, C. Ortmeier-Hooper, X. You.(Eds.) The politics of second language writing. In search of the promised land.

Matsuda, P.K. (2006). The myth of linguistic homogeneity in U.S. College composition. College English. 68 (6), 637-651.