Monthly Archives: September 2014

Paper #2 (ENG 810): Major Questions: Writing, Grammar and Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing

30 Tuesday Sep 2014

Posted by in ENG 810 Major Debates (Fall 2014), Papers (810)

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Pendulum“How to — or even whether to – incorporate grammar instruction into the teaching of writing has been hotly debated in first language (L1) composition circles and later among experts in second language writing.” (Frodesen and Holton 142)

The “grammar issue” or written corrective feedback is neither a new nor just a second-language (L2) writing concern. In L1 composition, a number of publications in the 1960s created what Patrick Hartwell[1] called “pro-and anti-grammar instruction camps,” notably after the publication of Research in Written Composition by Braddock, Lloyd-Jones and Schoer. Their conclusion was “stated in strong and unqualified terms: the teaching of formal grammar instruction has a negligible or…even harmful effect on the improvement of writing” (37-38). Followed in 1984 by George Hillocks writing “What Works in Teaching Composition: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Treatment Studies,” he furthered this belief, writing that traditional grammar instruction “has no effect on raising the quality of student writing” and, in some cases, “has a deleterious effect on student writing” (160). By the mid-1970s, grammar-focused, WCF began to seriously move out of favor as current-rhetorical tradition and writing as a product was replaced with scholars (Peter Elbow, Donald Murray and Janet Emig) arguing for writing as a process, encouraging prewriting, writing and rewriting, with less attention spent on lower-order writing concerns (such as grammar and punctuation) until the final writing stage.

Grammar ChartJohn Truscott threw down the grammar gauntlet for L2 in 1996 with his seminal article “The Case against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes” to which Dana Ferris responded with, “The Case for Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes: A Response to Truscott” and Truscott rebutted her response with, “The Case for ‘The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes’: A Response to Ferris” in 1999. These three articles alone have been cited more than 1800 times, fueling discussions in the L2 writing community and scholarship –with no consensus– in the L2 writing community that carries through to the current year.

“Taken as a whole, the response literature is likely to leave practitioners with the impression that all types of feedback may (or may not) be helpful to L2 writers. Especially conspicuous in response research is the amount of attention bestowed on the (in)effectiveness of written corrective feedback (WCF). Despite several decades of WCF research, debate on this topic, and on how to investigate it, continues unabated.” (Belcher 134)

Linda Blanton writes in Composition Tales: Reflections on Teaching that in her early years teaching English to non-native speakers in the 1960s, texts for second-language teaching stressed the methodology of the “Michigan Materials” from the English Language Institute (ELI) at the University of Michigan, using grammar primers such as Lado & Fries (1958), English Sentence Patterns and Fries (1945), Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. Dominant in second-language teaching for the next 20 years, it was only with the publication of Shaughnessy’s and Krashen’s books[2] that this form of teaching began to change.

Sample page from Lado’s textbook

Early language teaching focused on speaking over writing, as Blanton related her own experience in the early 1970s approaching publishers and being told, “you can’t teach writing at the beginning levels. ESL students have to speak English before they can write it” (140). Now in their 3rd edition, Blanton’s textbooks were originally published in 1977 (Composition Practice. Boston: Heinle & Heinle) and she comments that she taught writing before “we learned that ESL students become more fluent writers of English by writing English before they are fluent. That the writing process itself promotes fluency and greater proficiency” (141).

Charles Fries: Teaching & Learning English as a Foreign Language book coverBasic writing and early second-language English instruction were often placed together. As I wrote in Paper 1, “Early Basic Writing instructors and publications focused on ‘traditionally excluded students’ and how to improve their access to higher education, aligning with ESL in discussions and research.” Mina Shaugnessy wrote “basic writing students write the way they do, not because they are slow or non-verbal, indifferent to or incapable of academic excellent, but because they are beginners and must, like all beginners, learn by making mistakes” (5). Krashen furthered this connection in his research by stressing that

“[r]eal language acquisition develops slowly, and speaking skills emerge significantly later than listening skills, even when conditions are perfect. The best methods are therefore those that supply ‘comprehensible input’ in low anxiety situations, containing messages that students really want to hear. These methods do not force early production in the second language, but allow students to produce when they are ‘ready.’ recognizing that improvement comes from supplying communicative and comprehensible input, and not from forcing and correcting production.” (7)

Blanton posits that it was with Chomsky’s influence and the move from “teaching to learning (from behaviorism to cognitivism)” that second-language writing established awareness within “language and literacy issues” (150). In 1990, Barbara Kroll’s Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom also helped to give L2 writing increased visibility (Blanton 153).

Writing / Grammar ChartMatsuda notes that “there were times when I focused almost exclusively on the issues of grammar and style; then there were times when I went to the other extreme, refusing to comment on grammar issues at all.” He further writes that “[a]t one point, I was so disgusted by the overemphasis on grammar in some ESL writing classrooms that I was opposed to teaching English ‘as a second language’ altogether” (168).

Where is the WCF or grammar debate today? 2014 publications include overview works, theses and dissertations examining the history and suggesting best practices for L2 writing classrooms. Most current scholarship concurs that “written grammatical accuracy improvement should not be the primary objective of the L2 writing class, but can and should play an effective minor role” (Ducken v). The most recent work by two Master’s students in the field has resulted in comprehensive reviews of the literature related to written corrective feedback. In 2013, Yuan-Yuan Meng, an EdM student at Columbia University published “Written Corrective Feedback: A Review of Studies Since Truscott (1996)” in Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics and Daniel Ducken in his 2014 MA Thesis, “Written Corrective Feedback in the L2 Writing Classroom” synthesized research through 2012, noting that “much contemporary research points toward the efficacy of comprehensive WCF over that of focused WCF regardless of student L2 proficiency level” (32-33).

 “…research on the role of written CF [corrective feedback] in SLA (Second Language Acquisition) has produced mixed results, and a consensus on the positive role of written CF has not yet been obtained.” (Ferris 2010 as cited in Meng 69)

Examining 15 studies over the past 16 years, Meng writes, “these studies have shown that error correction is effective for short-term revision, and increasing evidence also suggests that both focused and unfocused CF can facilitate the acquisition of either a single or a wider range of grammatical features.” But even this position comes with a qualifier, “[d]espite the promising results, there are still lingering concerns…(Meng 81).

Belcher sees a change in focus for L2 writing, noting that “[w]hat is exciting about the direction L2 writing appears to be headed in is that it is becoming less about what exactly L2 writing teachers should do for their students and more about how to facilitate learner autonomy” (Belcher 438). She also points to the scholarship of A. Suresh Canagarajah, “whose underlying message… is that…many of us remain fixated on helping learners of English develop the ability to produce texts, usually academic, that are reader-friendly to those we privilege as native speakers of English” (Belcher 2012, 132). There is a need for more inclusiveness and understanding of both Inner and Outer Circle Englishes, as “[w]hat Canagarajah argues for is the need to see EAL writers as multi-competent, rather than barely competent” (Belcher 2012, 135).

Text Correction imageWith most studies focused on individual points of grammar within the realm of standardized English, areas of new research are called for, as there is a move for more inclusive World Englishes and interest in writing outside higher education. Matsuda stresses that “the field encompasses research on writers of all ages and proficiency levels who are writing in various languages in diverse geographic, institutional, and sociolinguistic contexts,” pointing to “different perspectives” and positioning of voices within the field (448-449, 2013). With little background in the field, but with a growing interest, especially related to World Englishes and the multi-faceted functions of language within different discourse communities, I am encouraged that there are lingering holes in research areas, as Belcher points out that “[c]uriously, much less research attention has been given to the efficacy of rhetorical or content-oriented feedback despite evidence that readers who are not language or literacy (or specifically writing) instructors are more attentive to meaning than to grammar, and likely to notice language mainly when it affects comprehensibility” (Belcher 134, 2012). It is time to explore further.

The last word — from Ferris & Hedgcock (2014), received after my original post above…

“…there is now extensive evidence that corrective feedback, provided under specific conditions, can indeed help L2 writers to acquire target structures and improve the accuracy of their texts over time.” (282)

Works Cited & Further Reading

Barton, Ellen. “Linguistics and Discourse Analysis.” English Studies: An Introduction to the Discipline(s). Ed. Bruce McComiskey. Urbana, ILL: NCTE, 2006. 67-105.

Belcher, Diane. “The Scope of L2 Writing: Why We Need a Wider Lens.” Journal of Second Language Writing 22 (2013): 438-439.

—. “Considering What We Know and Need to Know About Second Language Writing.” Applied Linguistic Review 3-1 (2012): 131-150.

Bitchener, John and Dana R. Ferris. Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition and Writing. New York: Routledge, 2011.

Blanton, Linda Lonon and Barbara Kroll, eds. ESL Composition Tales: Reflections on Teaching. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002.

Canagarajah, A. Suresh. (2006). “Toward a Writing Pedagogy of Shuttling between Languages: Learning from Multilingual Writers.” College English 68 (6): 589– 604.

Dean, Deborah. “Shifting Perspectives about Grammar: Changing What and How We Teach.” English Journal 100.4 (2011): 20-26.

Ducken, Daniel. “Written Corrective Feedback in the L2 Writing Classroom.” Master’s Thesis. Eastern Washington University, 2014.

Ferris, Dana and John S. Hedgcock. Teaching L2 Composition. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge, 2014. [NEW Publication]

Ferris, Dana R. “The ‘Grammar Correction’ Debate in L2 Writing: Where Are We and Where Do We Go from Here? (and What Do We Do in the Meantime..?” Journal of Second Language Writing 13 (2004): 49-62.

—. “Error Feedback in L2 Writing Classes: How Explicit Does it Need to Be?” Second-Language Writing in the Composition Classroom: A Critical Sourcebook. Eds. Paul K. Matsuda, Michelle Cox, Jay Jordan, and Christina Ortmeier-Hooper. Bedford/St. Martin’s: Boston, 2006. 380-402.

—. Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003.

—. “The Case for Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes: A Response to Truscott (1996).” Journal of Second Language Writing 8.1 (1999): 1-11.

Frodesen, Jan and Christine Holten. “Grammar and the ESL Writing Class.” Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing. Ed. Barbara Kroll. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Krashen, Stephen D. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. 1982.
< http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/principles_and_practice.pdf>

Matsuda, Paul K. Eds. Linda Lonon Blanton and Barbara Kroll, eds. ESL Composition Tales: Reflections on Teaching. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002. 163-171.

Meng, Yuan-Yuan. “Written Corrective Feedback: A Review of Studies Since Truscott (1996).” Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics 13.2 (2013): n. pag. <journals.tc-library.org/index.php/tesol/article/view/968/610>.

Truscott, John. “The Case against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes.” Language Learning 46.2 (1996): 327-69.

Truscott, John. “The Case for ‘The Case against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes’: A Response to Ferris.” Journal of Second Language Writing 8.2 (1999): 111-122.

Van Beuningen, Catherine, Nivja H. De Jong, and Folkert Kuiken. “Evidence on the Effectiveness of Comprehensive Error Correction in Second Language Writing.” Language Learning, 62.1 (2012), 1-41.

Terms:

While both are often used interchangeably, distinctions noted are below.

Teaching English as a second language (TESL). English taught to non-native speakers within English speaking countries.

Teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL). English taught outside the U.S. when English is not the country’s primary language.

Notes:

[1] Cited in Frodesen and Holton, 142, Patrick Hartwell’s, “Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar,” College English 47.2 (1985): 105-127 is called a seminal case. Hartwell’s main argument is that “grammar is an internalized system of rules” and not learned about as a “language in isolation” by “manipulating [it into] meaningful context.” He cites James Britton’s analogy, “likening grammar study” to “forcing starving people to master the use of a knife and fork before they can eat” (115).

Additionally, Noam’s Chomsky’s “universal grammar” theory in linguistics forwards the belief that “some rules of grammar are hard-wired into the brain” and he argues that “language is not learned by imitation, correction, stimulus-response, or any of the other constructs of behaviorism….Instead…language acquisition must be explained as a part of human cognition and development. …The rules of a language are deeply internalized and highly abstract generalizations worked out in the process of language acquisition” (Barton 72).

[2] Mina Shaughnessy’s Errors and Expectations (1977) helped establish the field of “basic writing” and Stephen Krashen’s Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition (1982) addressed language acquisition and the complex role of grammar and corrective feedback.

PAB #3 & #4: Major Questions–The Grammar Debate in L2 Writing

22 Monday Sep 2014

Posted by in ENG 810 Major Debates (Fall 2014), PAB

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Hand writing with a quill. Photograph: Stephen Johnson/Getty

Within second-language writing studies, one question that has been debated for over 20 years and still lacks consensus is whether grammar correction has benefit in second-language writing feedback. In articles by John Truscott (1996) and Dana Ferris (2004) for this week’s post, how much of the practices of written corrective feedback (WCF) depended on teacher lore was startling.

“Teachers and researchers hold a widespread, deeply entrenched belief that grammar correction should, even must, be part of writing courses.” (Truscott 327)

Truscott in, “The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes” took on this “entrenched belief,” by arguing that it was not just “ineffective,” but that it has no place in writing courses and should be abandoned. . . . and that “given the nature of the correction process and the nature of language learning” that “grammar correction has significant harmful effects…” (328).

Examining the numerous research studies pre-1996 and breaking down individual arguments by citing researchers’ failure in examining the “nature of the correction process” or the many “practical problems involved in grammar correction,” Truscott began what Dana Ferris calls “The Grammar Correction Debate in L2 Writing” in her 2004 article (328). Countering Truscott’s claims, Ferris writes “Error treatment, including error feedback by teachers, is a necessary component of L2 writing instruction” (49). While acknowledging that “the research base on error correction in L2 writing is indeed insufficient…” (50), she points out three observations:

  1. Research to date has not “adequately addressed” whether error feedback helps L2 students. Studies are lacking that are both controlled and that provide longitudinal results.
  2. Studies are “fundamentally incomparable” as they are different in almost every variable.
  3. Research that does exist “predicts” that there may be positive effects with written error correction, encourages “developing linguistic competence” and wards off students “fossilizing” at certain language competency levels.
Puzzle parts of speech

Parts of Speech

Truscott however, in positing that students risk damage by corrective feedback focuses on incomplete language development, stressing that students will improve based on “extensive experience with the target language” through reading and writing (360) instead of through correction that may inhibit their attempting more complex writing structures. While students may think they want corrective feedback, in truth, giving students what is good for them, not what they may actually want is teacher lore…Truscott would not resort to supplying it, even as he writes “students obviously do think correction is helpful—and even necessary…” (355) and Ferris reiterates this, pointing out that “students are likely to attend to and appreciate feedback on their errors” (56).

Ferris does offer “best guesses” at how error treatment should be approached in a classroom with 6 suggestions

  1. While error treatment is necessary, it must be done competently, faithfully and consistently.
  2. Feedback should be indirect most of the time and engage students in “cognitive problem solving.”
  3. Not all errors can be treated the same as students may not understand lexical and/or global problems.
  4. Revision has to be part of the process.
  5. Supplemental grammar instruction is beneficial.
  6. Error charts created by students can make students more aware of weaknesses.

From Dr Zareva’s lecture on world Englishes and English as a world language movement, I do question Ferris’ offerings in her article of ways of “correcting weaknesses” without any mention of how Standard English and its monocentricity privileging the Inner Circle of English may affect how English, Standard English and with it Standard English grammar, is inherently taught. Looking at points from last week’s discussion on what is the “norm” even for native speakers of English, I do wonder about L1 grammar research and its efficacy on student writing.

While Truscott points to L1 research (Knoblauch and Brannon 1981; Hillocks 1986; Krashen 1984 and Leki 1990) that demonstrates the lack of effect that grammar correction has on students’ writing ability, this is an area that still necessitates further reading as I question what is current pedagogy and theory in L1 research, if it has changed and been debated as much as in L2 and how changing views on Standard English have changed the conversation? Janice Lauer addresses this to some extent in Chapter 2 “Rhetoric and Composition” in English Studies: An Introduction to the Discipline(s), noting, “One of the most controversial aspects of the work in rhetoric and composition in the eyes of the public is the field’s teaching of grammar, spelling, and punctuation” (128). She goes on to emphasize that George Hillock, in his 1984 article, “discredited the full-frontal teaching of grammar,” but it nevertheless remains as part of “formalist pedagogy” in classrooms.

inner circle

Kachru’s three-circle-model. Figure adapted from Crystal, D. (1999), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP, p.107.

One thing stood out from this week’s readings, there is no lack of questions in L2 writing research as in any other area of English Studies. Each of the articles points to many holes in the literature that offer opportunities for new studies and research in the field.  Good news for those of us interested in future research!

Definitions

  • Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) – Providing written correction on a student’s writing through a variety of means, including:
  •  Indirect WCF – Noting errors on a student’s writing without providing the corrections. This could be through underlining, circling, or otherwise singling out the error.
  •  Direct WCF – Providing the correct form on a student’s writing by crossing out, writing the correction, or adding missing terms.
  •  Focused WCF – Correcting errors selectively on a student’s writing by addressing only a specific or limited range of error types, such as articles, tense, or agreement.
  •  Unfocused WCF – Correcting all errors on a student’s writing.

 Works Cited

Ferris, Dana R. “The ‘Grammar Correction’ Debate in L2 Writing: Where Are We and Where Do We Go from Here? (and What Do We Do in the Meantime..?” Journal of Second Language Writing 13 (2004): 49-62.

Lauer, Janice M. “Rhetoric and Composition.” English Studies: An Introduction to the Discipline(s). Ed. Bruce McComiskey. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2006. 106-52

Truscott, John. “The Case against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes.” Language Learning 46.2 (1996): 327-69.

Paper #1 (ENG 810): History of Second-Language Writing within Composition Studies

15 Monday Sep 2014

Posted by in ENG 810 Major Debates (Fall 2014), Papers (810)

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Second language writing in its common usage has two distinct functions. On the one hand, it is a catchall term that encompasses writing in any language other than the writer’s “native” language (a problematic term in itself, I realize). On the other hand, it also means writing that is done in contexts where the target language is the dominant language outside the classroom, especially when it is contrasted with “foreign” language writing. (Matsuda 450, 2013)

Before the 1940s, teaching English as a Second Language (ESL) was not considered a profession in itself, although teaching English to Native American students occurred as early as the 19th century (if not earlier!). Paul Matsuda, Professor of English and the Director of Second Language Writing at Arizona State points to the 20th century and J. Raleigh Nelson at the University of Michigan in 1911 as offering the first class in English specifically for international students. While a few of the major universities offered ESL classes; many did not, using instead what Matsuda terms a “sink-or-swim approach to language learning” in the classroom (1999, 702).

In reviewing the work of composition historians in the field,[1] Matsuda sees no second-language “component” in their work, positing that “ESL writing has not been considered as part of composition studies since it began to move toward the status of a profession during the 1960s” (700). This references the separation of teaching ESL from teaching composition as a “disciplinary division of labor,” occurring as a result of the belief that “teaching writing to ESL students falls upon professionals in another intellectual formation, second-language studies, or more specifically, Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL)”(700).

In the early 1900s, “letter writing” was viewed as the most advanced writing that second-language learners would need. However, with Roosevelt’s Good Neighbor policy in 1933, and a subsequent conference in 1939, the focus of teaching English to second-language students become more prominent and led to the establishment of the English Language Institute at the University of Michigan in 1941. Matsuda points to this opening as “one of the most significant events in the history of TESL in the United States” (702). Prior to the ELI’s opening, “it was commonly believed that anyone whose native language was English was qualified to teach English to nonnative speakers” (Matsuda 702, 1999).

Tony Silva calls the time period after 1945, “the beginning of the modern era of second language teaching in the United States” (11). It was during the 1940s to 1960s, that the “language of speech” view became dominant through the work of Leonard Bloomfield and Charles C. Fries with second-language learning interest resulting from national security interests as totalitarianism moved into Latin America (Matsuda 15, 2006). There were early assumptions by both Charles Fries and Leonard Bloomfield that “students would be able to write once they mastered the structure and sounds of a language” (Matsuda 16, 2006). Bloomfield drew from both Fries and Otto Jespersen, but still focused on spoken, not written language, with his publication of Outline Guide for the Practical Study of Foreign Languages in 1942. From these early methods came the audiolingual approach to teaching students in ESL and foreign language classrooms (Matsuda 16, 2006).

Silva references “controlled composition” as having its roots in this time period (12). Second-language writing became part of ESL programs in the 1960s, but few teachers were trained for second-language learners, as it was often viewed as remedial instruction as spoken instruction was what had been the focus. Silva sees this time as being “filled by the ESL version of current-traditional rhetoric”[2] by bringing grammar and Kaplan’s contrastive rhetoric into the ESL classroom (13). ESL moved to process-oriented teaching in the classroom, mirroring L1 composition pedagogy, but this too had its drawbacks, as Silva recognizes that critics of this approach see an “omission of approach” and wish for more focus on ESL composition within an “academic discourse community (16).

Differences between applied and structural linguistics related to the professionalism of the field during the 1940s-1970s, provided disagreements as to “how” ESL was taught. From the applied linguists of the 1940s, professionalism was a group concern and elicited a sense of belonging.  For Fries and structural linguists at UM, professionalism was the “application of the principles of linguistics” – the beginning of the use of applied linguistics in referencing the teaching of language (Matsuda 704, 1999). Fries saw applied linguistics as “hierarchical,” with linguists at the top – focusing on the production of teaching materials that used “scientific linguistic research” (704). With the creation of Language Learning: A Quarterly Journal of Applied Linguistics in 1948 by Michigan ELI, “Michigan professionalism” became the tacit teaching methodology in ESL development.

While histories of second-language writing appeared in the 1960s, it was not until the 1990s that second-language writing recognition “emerged as an interdisciplinary field situated at the crossroads between second-language acquisition and composition studies” (Matsuda 7, 2006) and became an integrated part of the [second-language writing] curriculum in higher education. (Matsuda 15, 2006). Composition and ESL studies began to align more closely as it became apparent that second-language writers did not become fluent with just a few semesters of instruction and that student writing was a concern throughout the curriculum (Matsuda 23, 2006). Early Basic Writing instructors and publications focused on “traditionally excluded students” and how to improve their access to higher education, aligning with ESL in discussions and research. Matsuda cites early recommendations that included using the Michigan ELI[3] materials focusing on spoken language, since no other materials were being used at that time (17, 2006).

While the “Students’ Right to Their Own Language” Committee was formed in 1971 and passed by the Executive Committee of CCCC that same year (Smitherman 22), it wasn’t until 2001 when the Conference in College Composition and Communication (CCCC) and the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) adopted the “CCCC Statement on Second-Language Writing and Writers.” This was also endorsed by Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). Since that time, it has been revised (2009) and is now a part of the Committee on Second Language Writing’s 2016 Charge 3 for “Distributing and helping members use the revised (2009) Statement on Second Language Writing and Writers.” In their 2014 Spring, the committee update notes, “[t]he linguistic diversity of our students is further intensifying” and “[t]he Committee on Second Language Writing plays an important role in raising the awareness of the issue of linguistic diversity in the writing classroom, providing insights into the internationalization of writing studies, and in providing resources for writing teachers and scholars.”

English as a Second Language (ESL) and first-year composition are still frequently administered separately by different departments and with “different sets of objectives, teaching practices, and research” (Matsuda 26, 2006). Pointing to continuing needs within the classroom, Matsuda writes that “Second-language students in first-year composition continue to encounter curricula, assignments, and assessment practices that are not designed with their needs and abilities in mind, and even the most conscientious of composition teachers often have not been given access to the background or resources to make their instructional practices more compatible with their students” (2, 2006).

From the time of Silva’s 1990 article, pedagogy has moved both the L1 and ESL classrooms toward critical discourse communities and English for specific purposes as evidenced by initiatives in Writing across the Curriculum (WAC) and Writing within the Disciplines (WID) throughout academic curricula. As second-language writing has not had its own “instructional domain,” as part of applied linguistics and other disciplines, it is sometimes viewed as the “evolving discourse community” where perspectives are shared (Matsuda 26, 2006). Belcher points out that there are research gaps studying how EAL writers fare in their many content-area classes in English at medium universities and how they grow as they move through their programs of study” (135).

What has the history of ESL brought us in 2014 and where do we go now, looking ahead? Belcher sees “far less attention paid…helping novice L2 academic writers learn to independently analyze varying context-specific genre expectations” and recognizing adult L2 learners that have needs beyond academic writing (428). Pointing out that there is still “surprisingly little …known about what actually happens in classroom with L2 writing students,” Belcher stresses “learner autonomy” as a way to move students’ writing outside just a writing classroom, echoing L1 writing concerns as current research explores ways to engage students and encourage writing for different discourse communities and in different “writing contexts” (as cited in Belcher 131, 134; 2012).

Finally, Matsuda proposes second language writing as a “transdisciplinary field” with “a proactive call for continued advocacy and activism on behalf of students” (450). Looking at second-language writing in this way, thinking of how the field transcends individual fields, instead of intersecting them  is worthy of further discussion. What differences can transdisciplinary offer second-language writing within Linguistics, Composition, and other areas of English Studies? Or is it just interdisciplinary with a different name?

Works Cited

Belcher, Diane. “The Scope of L2 Writing: Why We Need a Wider Lens.” Journal of Second Language Writing 22 (2013): 438-439.

—. “Considering What We Know and Need to Know About Second Language Writing.” Applied Linguistics Review 3.1 (2012): 131-150.

“CCCC Statement on Second-Language Writing and Writers.” NCTE: CCCC. Jan. 2001, Revised Nov. 2009. <www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/secondlangwriting>. 15 September 13, 2014.

Matsuda, Paul K., Michelle Cox, Jay Jordan, and Christina Ortmeier-Hooper, eds. Second-Language Writing in the Composition Classroom: A Critical Sourcebook. Bedford/St. Martin’s: Boston, 2006. 14-30.

—. “Response: What is Second Language Writing—and Why Does it Matter?” Journal of Second Language Writing 22 (2013): 448-450.

Silva, Tony. “Second Language Composition Instruction: Developments, Issues, and Directions in ESL.” Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom. Ed. Barbara Kroll. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990. 11-23.

Smitherman, Geneva. “Students’ Right to Their Own Language: A Retrospective.” The English Journal 84.1 (January 1995): 21-27.

For Further Reading on the History

Journal of Second Language Writing 22 (2013). “Disciplinary Dialogues.” and “Selected Bibliography of Recent Scholarship in Second Language Writing.” 425-459.

Matsuda, Paul K. “Second-Language Writing in the Twentieth Century: A Situated Historical Perspective.” Second-Language Writing in the Composition Classroom: A Critical Sourcebook. Eds. Paul K. Matsuda, Michelle Cox, Jay Jordan, and Christina Ortmeier-Hooper. Bedford/St. Martin’s: Boston, 2006. 14-30.

Silva, Tony J. and Paul Kei Matsuda. Landmark Essays on ESL Writing. Mahwah, NJ: Hermagoras, 2001.

About the Field

Journals:

Journal of Second Language Writing

TESL-EJ

TESOL Quarterly

 

Associations:

Second Language Writing Interest Section, Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) International Association

Committee on Second Language Writing and the Second Language Writing Interest Group at the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC)

American Association for Applied Linguistics

More…

TESOL’s Second Language Writing Interest Section

Symposium on Second Language Writing 2014

OWL @ Purdue – ESL Teacher Resources

~ ~

[1] Composition’s influential historians mentioned by Matsuda include James Berlin, Robert Connors, Susan Miller and David Russell.

[2] Current-traditional rhetoric developed in the late 19th century and emphasized product over process writing, stressing grammar and usage (punctuation, spelling and syntax). While still used in many schools, it has been replaced with more process and user-focused methods of pedagogy. For a summary overview of CTR, see James Berlin and Robert P. Inkster. “Current-Traditional Rhetoric: Paradigm and Practice.” Freshman English News 8.3 (1980): 1–14.

[3] Charles C. Fries became the director of the first intensive language program at the University of Michigan in 1941.

PAB-ENG 810: #2: The Division of Labor within the ESL / Composition Classsrooms

09 Tuesday Sep 2014

Posted by in ENG 810 Major Debates (Fall 2014), PAB

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

For both entries this week, I have focused on articles by Paul K. Matsuda. In this second post, I selected another article that is frequently mentioned in second-language scholarship, “Composition Studies and ESL Writing: A Disciplinary Division of Labor.” In his 1999 article, written while he was still a doctoral student at Purdue, Matsuda notes that “few composition theorists include second-language perspectives in their discussions” (699) and points to the growing presence of international students and ESL students within composition classes without adequate consideration in research and specializations.

There is a likelihood if you teach composition in higher education, that you will encounter second-language students and Matsuda writes that there are “linguistic and cultural differences they bring to the classroom” that can “pose a unique set of challenges to writing teachers” (700). Citing Tony Silva, from his chapter in Writing in Multicultural Settings and Joy Reid’s Teaching ESL Writing, Matsuda notes that there is a “need for writing instructors to become more sensitive to the unique needs of ESL writers” (700).

Matsuda discusses some of the same composition and second-language events during the mid-20th century as mentioned in his later article (PAB #1) and notes that “one of the central topics of discussion at this workshop was the question of how to deal with international ESL students in the regular composition course at institutions where neither ESL specialists nor separate ESL courses were available-a question that continues to be relevant today” (708). Mentioning early practices that included placing ESL students in “speech clinics where speech therapists treated them as suffering from speech defects,” or in basic writing classes with native speakers “without making any adjustments or proving sufficient linguistic support” (709), Matsuda points to the focus on the oral practice and tradition of teaching English as a result of Fries’ earlier work.

The division of labor for teaching ESL was argued “on the basis of the need for a specially trained ESL instructor” (710), with early programs established to insure that those who taught had linguistic training, but as Matsuda writes, “were also motivated by the need to release composition specialists from the extra ‘burden’ of teaching ESL students in their classes” (710).

In this article, Matsuda does not argue for a merging of composition and second-language studies, but outlines ways that “second-language writing should be seen as an integral part of both composition studies and second-language studies” with both groups integrating the pedagogy and practices that would help both groups (715). Offering suggestions that composition specialists learn more about ESL writing and adopt second-language perspectives in their work and theories, Matsuda sees second-language readings and research as requisite for graduate programs in composition[1].  He lists prominent names and areas of focus to explore further.  Looking finally at writing program administration, he examines ways in which ESL students can be offered as many options as resources as possible (717).

Perhaps because this was Matsuda’s earlier article, I saw this more reflective of Ostergaard and Nugent’s “Preservation and Transformation” discussion from our reading in Transforming English Studies (“Introduction,” 13-15) of a transformative response– than did his later article I reviewed. How much did moving into the academic community as a professor affect his outlook – and his ability to work within the institution’s bureaucracy to influence second-language learning within the curriculum?  While he certainly would be an example of Gallagher, Gray and Stenberg’s discussion of the need for a student to be a “troublemaker” once they graduate by working to effect change in their academic institutions, it seems that Matsuda also recognizes the need for collaboration and “relational work” as a necessary compromise within a system that has been working “for more than 30 years…to improve the institutional practices for ELS writers in second-language classrooms” (Ostergaard 26-40, Matsuda 718).

  * * *

[1] In a list of readings focusing on second-language writing, Matsuda mentioned these topic areas with authors that I note for my own further study: Writing in the disciplines (Belcher and Braine; Johns, Zamel and Spack; Literacy (McKay, Rodby); Assessment (Hamp-Lyons); Reading and Writing (Carson and Leki); Writing Program Administration (Braine, Kroll, Roy, Silva and Williams); and Written Discourse Analysis (Connor, Connor, Connor and Kaplan, Purves)

   * * *

Works Cited

Matsuda, Paul K. “Composition Studies and ESL Writing: A Disciplinary Division of Labor.” College Composition and Communication 50.4 (1999): 699-721. JSTOR.

Ostergaard, Lori, Jeff Ludwig, and Jim Nugent. Transforming English Studies: New Voices in an Emerging Genre. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor, 2009.

PAB – ENG 810: #1: Selections from Second-Language Writing in the Composition Classroom: A Critical Sourcebook

08 Monday Sep 2014

Posted by in ENG 810 Major Debates (Fall 2014), PAB

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

[Take my Survey]

Paul Kei Matsuda, a Professor of English at Arizona State University, in his widely anthologized article, “Second-Language Writing in the Twentieth Century: A Situated Historical Perspective,”[1] examines how second-language studies[2] developed as part of an interdisciplinary relationship within composition studies. Noting that “composition scholarship overall has been rather slow to reflect the influx of second-language writers in composition classroom” (2), he points out that while histories of second-language writing appeared in the 1960s, it was not until the 1990s that second-language writing recognition “emerged as an interdisciplinary field situated at the crossroads between second-language acquisition and composition studies” (7).

Part of what Matsuda cites as a “disciplinary division of labor” (1999), he sees “disciplinary gaps” between composition and second-language learning in their historical perspectives, as well as in how students have been labeled and divided within composition classrooms (8). Matsuda outlines how early second-language instruction focused on speech, using the applied linguistic theories of phoneticians Henry Sweet and Paul Passy, based on the belief that “phonetics should be the basis of both theoretical and practical studies of language” and “take precedence over the written form.”

Matsuda writes that it was in the late 1950s that second-language studies began to become professionalized as second-language writing started to move away from composition (16). Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) was formed in 1966 and Matsuda points to this time as when the disciplines divided the labor of teaching L1 and L2 students. It was later, through need that second-language writing courses became a “sub-discipline” of TESL (Matsuda 21).

Drawing on Stephen North’s use of “teacher lore,” as did Louise Wetherbee Phelps in our reading from last week (“Practical Wisdom and the Geography of Knowledge in Composition,” 1991), Matsuda echoes Phelps’ concerns with how theory does (or often does not) provide adequate or timely connections with practice. Recognizing that both fields are multidisciplinary in nature –echoing in this instance, our reading for this week as the many theories and disciplines come together within English Studies (“Composition Studies: Dappled Discipline,” Lauer, 1984). By 2000, research areas and programs grew as second-language writing was “recognized as a legitimate field” (Matsuda 23). Matsuda closes his article stressing that interdisciplinarity is a must and that “second-language writing should be seen as a symbiotic field” (26).

From this article, I have a number of questions and areas to explore further. What are the current pedagogical methods used in composition for second-language writers? At my own university, as in many without a composition sequence in the first year, students all take first-year seminars and second-language students often face writing challenges during their first year, but only a small percentage of second-language students are enrolled in an additional course to support their second-language needs.

Much of the second-language writing research I have read so far is over 10 years old, but as I have no background in this area, it is informative to research and learn the history of the field, its relationship to composition studies and how best I can align myself within these two areas for my future research and study.

*

šWorks Cited:

Matsuda, Paul K., Michelle Cox, Jay Jordan, and Christina Ortmeier-Hooper, eds. Second-Language Writing in the Composition Classroom: A Critical Sourcebook. Bedford/St. Martin’s: Boston, 2006. 14-30.

Selected Readings from text for PAB #1:

“CCCC Statement on Second-Language Writing and Writers.” Second-Language Writing in the Composition Classroom: A Critical Sourcebook. Eds. Paul K. Matsuda, Michelle Cox, Jay Jordan, and Christina Ortmeier-Hooper. Bedford/St. Martin’s: Boston, 2006. 10-13.

“Introduction.” Second-Language Writing in the Composition Classroom: A Critical Sourcebook. Eds. Paul K. Matsuda, Michelle Cox, Jay Jordan, and Christina Ortmeier-Hooper. Bedford/St. Martin’s: Boston, 2006. 1-4.

Matsuda, Paul K. “Second-Language Writing in the Twentieth Century: A Situated Historical Perspective.” Second-Language Writing in the Composition Classroom: A Critical Sourcebook. Eds. Paul K. Matsuda, Michelle Cox, Jay Jordan, and Christina Ortmeier-Hooper. Bedford/St. Martin’s: Boston, 2006. 14-30.

————————

[1] This article appears not only in the text I have cited, but in numerous other second-language texts, as a single article, and reflects his dissertation focus, ESL Writing in Twentieth-Century US higher Education: The Formation of an Interdisciplinary Field (2000).

[2] Matsuda lists a number of terms used to describe second-language writers and learners, but uses these two terms as they are used within the “CCCC Statement on Second-Language Writing and Writers.”