Paper #5 Epistemological Alignment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Faced with questions as I started to think about paper #5, I realized this paper has the potential to be my stream of consciousness post. It is not only about who I am and where I align myself within the field of English Studies, but also about what I am learning and what is out there in 2015 — the possibilities for scholarship, for aligning my various personal and professional objectives. As such, this paper will directly lead into my last Paper #6: Being a Scholar of . . .

How do I align myself theoretically and etymologically? This term, I have focused on second-language writing within composition studies for all of my readings and posts.  I did this because it was an area I was interested in, but knew nothing about.  I am only just beginning to explore how it aligns with who I am as a student, scholar, librarian and teacher. First, I need to explain the largest part of who I am as a professional librarian and educator for the past 25 years. I do this by providing background on my specialty area within information literacy, as this concept and its accompanying standards are the methodologies by which academic librarians base the majority of their epistemology related to library instruction. Within the library profession, the Information Literacy Competency Standards are the equivalent of the Council of Writing Program Administrators’ Outcomes Statement. Used as both a theoretical foundation and guide for practice within librarian instruction, the IL Standards were first adopted by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) in 2000.

Julian’s Bower, Lincolnshire

Julian’s Bower, Lincolnshire

Now in the midst of a major revision, to be renamed the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education, Information Literacy is defined by ACRL in this revised Framework as “a spectrum of abilities, practices, and habits of mind that extends and deepens learning through engagement with the information ecosystem. It includes

  •  understanding essential concepts about that ecosystem;
  • engaging in creative inquiry and critical reflection to develop questions and to find, evaluate, and manage information through an iterative process;
  • creating new knowledge through ethical participation in communities of learning, scholarship, and civic purpose; and
  • adopting a strategic view of the interests, biases, and assumptions present in the information ecosystem.

The Standards will be referred to in the revision as a Framework, as they will be “based on a cluster of interconnected core concepts, with flexible options for implementation” (1). In this revision, threshold concepts are introduced as those ideas within a discipline that are “passageways or portals to enlarged understanding of ways of thinking and practicing within that discipline.  Six are identified within the Framework[1]

  • Authority Is Constructed and Contextual
  • Information Creation as a Process
  • Information Has Value
  • Research as Inquiry
  • Scholarship Is a Conversation
  • Searching Is Strategic

Added to these are knowledge practices, “demonstrations of ways in which learners can increase their understanding” of information literacy concepts, and dispositions, “ways in which to address the affective, attitudinal, or valuing dimension of learning.” Finally metaliteracies are to be included as they offer “a renewed vision of information literacy as an overarching set of abilities in which students are both consumers and creators of information who can participate successfully in collaborative spaces” (ACRL 1).

How I align all of this with my growing interest and scholarship in First-Year and Second-Language  Writing are the current balls in the air. As I look to my posts and readings from the term, I see connecting threads amidst my interests, goals, and seeds…points I identify as areas for future study.

From PAB #1, I described how I came to my focus area of second-language writing for this term:

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.

In PAB #3 and #4, the grammar debate both in L1 and L2 scholarship is of interest to me, as I began teaching English in 1985 as a staunch current-traditionalist amidst process composition frameworks.  I didn’t know that was what I was, but over the years, my focus on grammar, “correct” writing and formalist traditions now make me cringe as I see how much scholarship and pedagogy has been focused on alternatives…ouch.

With the death of George Hillocks this week, my post discussing his 1984 article that Janice Lauer argued “discredited the full-frontal teaching of grammar” (128) begs for a reread in his memory.

How do my identified objects of study fit in? Moving to PAB #5 and #6, I identified students as objects of study within second-language writing. Looking ahead, I plan to expand to both second-language and L1 students, examining how they approach writing from sources and move into research-based writing.

I looked to the section I wrote on students’ identities – how they are

“negotiated in text formation,” citing additional scholarship[2] on language use within “situated context and community” and “notions of imagined community”– all of which lead to students “affective roles of investment and belongingness in generating writing characteristic[s] of discourse communities” [my emphases] (114). There are very different student reactions to writing, research and citing conventions in Western academic writing, and students’ first-language knowledge is often at odds with academic English.

As I thought about my own agendas and professional/personal objectives, I looked to  PAB #7 and #8 and my reading in Process, Post-Process, Translingualism and Genre Theories within writing studies as these opened up yet more areas for potential exploration. Genre theory, as Hyland’s 2003 article points out, can align itself with social contexts and “complement process views” even as post-process theories have now displaced the areas of process-based pedagogies,

While process methods in writing have had “a major impact,” Hyland maintains that they have not resulted in improved writing due to approaches “rich amalgam of methods [that] collect around a discovery-oriented, ego-centered core which lacks a well-formulated theory of how language works in human interaction” (17).

There are also many trans- theories I potentially see myself aligned with.

  • Transdisciplinary–Matsuda’s call moving second-language learning from an interdisciplinary area of concentration.
  • Transfer—looking at how writing and first-year skills can be better aligned to demonstrate movement from the first-year to subsequent classes and learning. This can include both the WID (Writing in the Disciplines) and WAC (Writing across the Curriculum) movements.
  • Translingualism – the move from multilingual to a wider acceptance of the diversity in languages is a rising area of scholarship; but I am more interested in watching this – as Dr. DePew said – to see how it all plays out in practice.

In reading Matsuda and Horner et al for PAB #8, I realized how translingual approaches can provide me with ways to think differently about the writing classroom, tying together my growing discomfort for how Standardized English and its accompanying rules privilege a minority of students in the 21st century educational environment.

By arguing for the fluidity of languages, translingual approaches “question language practices,” asking “what produces the appearance of conformity, as well as what that appearance might and might not do, for whom, and how” (Horner et al. 304). With translingualism, there is no “standard” English, described as a “bankrupt concept” by the authors. Rather the varieties of English, as well as other languages, are looked at by way of what “writers are doing with language and why” (Horner et al. 305).

I find that the more I read Matsuda’s scholarship, the more I am interested in aligning my professional work as a librarian and teacher, with continued scholarship and study in the field of second-language writing, concurring with Matsuda as he recommends that scholars learn “more about language—its nature, structure, and function as well as users and uses” and to “develop a broader understanding of various conversations that are taking place—inside and outside the field” (483).

library palace

William Randolph Heart’s San Simeon Library

As I continue to review my posts and readings for the term, thinking about these last few weeks of class and how I might align myself within the discipline, I return  to Fulkerson’s, “Four Philosophies of Composition” (1979),  and “Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century” (2005).  He discusses the landscape of composition theory, in what he refers to as his “every ten years frustration” in trying to make sense of where composition studies has been, but also where it is going. Throughout his 2005 article, he looks at the “social turn” of composition (655) and I see myself most aligned with this latest social-constructivist approach to pedagogy and teaching as I move forward. The text that I have begun to look more closely at A Guide to Composition Pedagogies is helping me more clearly delineate the varied areas of focus within the field. I am really just beginning to return to this area of scholarship, since first teaching in the mid-1980s, having aligned myself with library research and instruction until this past year.  Much has happened in the last 30 years! guide to composition pedagogies book cover A Guide to Composition Pedagogies

Lingering questions of alignment to be explored in Paper #6…

  •  Composition Theories – Am I a latent current-traditionalist or have I moved to post-process? What is next?
  • Social Constructivism – The social turn in composition (Bizzell, Bartholomae, Berlin, Harris) appeals in some ways to me, as to how the language and mind work together to construct meaning – and how the various discourse communities align with my current teaching methods.
  • Critical pedagogy – The ideas surrounding power in the classroom (Delpit, Freire) – the socioeconomic and cultural conditions of students and teachers – how does this apply to my beliefs and teaching style?
  • Post-structuralism – Bringing rhetoric back into composition and exploring how invention can persuade within an argument (Crowley). How can I apply this to my own teaching and scholarship?

While Matsuda’s work in 2L scholarship has opened up my eyes and interest to continue exploring in this area, I have three paths that are converging – first year writing (including how these skills transfer – and the connections to writing across the curriculum and writing in the disciplines), how students research and use sources (which includes the ugly P word, plagiarism), and from the library instruction and critical literacy lens, I include issues of English as a second language in writing/research in the first year. How these will ultimately align and play themselves out in my study and scholarship, I honestly have no idea at this point.  I will look at this more in Paper #6 as I examine how I can contribute to the Major Debates in English and Library/Information Literacy Studies, as I plan to keep moving all three paths forward, adding theory, scholarship, new insights and knowledge.  I am  in a collection/learning mode for a little while more.

 §

Notes:

[1] Threshold Concept Theory is noted by Ann Johns as “a relatively new framework that deepens our understanding of critical learning experiences.  The theory provides a framework of characteristics for identifying crucial conceptual knowledge that represents learning portals within a subject area of discipline” (150).

Jan Meyer and Ray Land’s Overcoming Barriers to Student Understanding: Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge (2006) and Threshold Concepts within the Disciplines (2008) provide additional background and establish their Meyer and Land’s ground-breaking scholarship in this area.

 §

more books

Tony DiTerlizzi | Digital Artwork |Books Gallery

Works Cited & Further Reading

A Work in Progress…Staring at the Labyrinth

 As I start looking through all of my accumulated articles related to my posts, as well as those I have identified as “must reads,” I put them here in my blog as my growing learning path…

Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. Accessed: November 18, 2014.

Adams, Katherine H., and John L. Adams. “The Paradox Within: Origins of the Current-Traditional Paradigm.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 17.4 (1987): 421-31.

Baca, Damián. “Rethinking Composition, Five Hundred Years Later.” JAC 29.1/2 (2009): 229-42.

Baer, Andrea. “Why Do I Have to Write That?: Compositionists Identify Disconnects between Student and Instructor Conceptions of Research Writing that Can Inform Teaching.” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 9.2 (2014): 37-44.

Bartholomae, David, and John Schlib. “Reconsiderations: ‘Inventing the University’ at 25: An Interview with David Bartholomae.” College English 73.3 (2011): 260-82.

Beam, Joseph. “BEAM: A Rhetorical Vocabulary for Teaching Research-Based Writing.” Rhetoric Review 27.1 (2008): 72-86.

Berlin, James. “Rhetoric and Ideology in the Writing Class.” College English 50.5 (1988): 477-94

Bewick, Laura, and Sheila Corrall. “Developing Librarians as Teachers: A Study of Their Pedagogical Knowledge.” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 42.2 (2010): 97-110.

Brent, Doug. “The Research Paper, and Why We Should Still Care.” Writing Program Administration 37.1 (Fall 2013: 33-53.

—.“Transfer, Transformation, and Rhetorical Knowledge: Insights from Transfer Theory.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 25.4 (2011): 396-420. DOI: 10.1177/1050651911410951

—. “Reinventing WAC (Again): The First-Year Seminar and Academic Literacy.” College Composition and Communication 57.2 (2005): 253-276.

Carr, Jean F. “Composition, English, and the University.” PMLA 129.3 (2014): 435-41.

The Citation Project: Preventing Plagiarism, Teaching Writing. Accessed:  November 18, 2014.

Costino, Kimberly A., and Sunny Hyon. “Sidestepping Our ‘Scare Words’: Genre as a Possible Bridge between L1 and L2 Compositionists.” Journal of Second Language Writing 20.1 (2011): 24-44.

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

Dirk, Kerry. “‘The “Research Paper” Prompt: A Dialogic Opportunity for Transfer.’” Composition Forum 25 (2012).

Downs, Douglas and Elizabeth Wardle. “Teaching About Writing, Righting Misconceptions: (Re)Envisioning ‘First Year Composition’ as ‘Introduction to Writing Studies.'” College Composition and Communication 58.4 (2007): 552–84.

Drabinski, Emily. “Toward a Kairos of Library Instruction.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 40.5 (2014): 480-85.

Elbow, Peter. “Inviting the Mother Tongue: Beyond “Mistakes,” “Bad English,” and “Wrong Language”” JAC 19.3 (1999): 359-88.

Elmborg, James. “Critical Information Literacy: Implications for Instructional Practice.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 32.2 (2006): 192-199.

Faigley, Lester. “Competing Theories of Process: A Critique and a Proposal.” College English 48.6 (1986): 527-42.

Fister, Barbara. “The Library’s Role in Learning: Information Literacy Revisited.” Library Issues 33.4 (2013).

Flower, Linda. “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.” College Composition and Communication 32.4 (1981): 365-87.

Hofer, Amy R., Lori Townsend, and Korey Brunetti. “Troublesome Concepts and Information Literacy: Investigating Threshold Concepts for Il Instruction.” portal: Libraries and the Academy 12.4 (2012): 387-405.

Horner, Bruce, Min-Zhan Lu, Jacqueline Jones Royster, and John Trimbur. “Opinion: Language Difference in Writing: Toward a Translingual Approach.” College English 73.3 (2011): 303-321.

Howard, Rebecca Moore, Tricia Serviss, and Tanya K. Rodrigue. “Writing from Sources, Writing from Sentences.” Writing & Pedagogy 2.2 (2010): 177-92.

Howard, Rebecca Moore. “Plagiarisms, Authorships, and the Academic Death Penalty.” College English 57.7 (1995): 788-806.

Imai, Junko. “Review: Practicing Theory in Second Language Writing.” TESOL Quarterly 46.2 (2012): 430-33.

Jacobs, Heidi L. M. “Information Literacy and Reflective Pedagogical Praxis.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 34.3 (2008): 256-62.

Jacobson, Trudi E., and Thomas P. Mackey. “Proposing a Metaliteracy Model to Redefine Information Literacy.” Communications in Information Literacy 7.2 (2013): 84–91.

Johns, Ann  M.  “The Future of Genre in L2 Writing: Fundamental, but Contested, Instructional Decisions.” Journal of Second Language Writing 20.1 (2011): 56-68.

–. “Genre Awareness for the Novice Academic Student: An Ongoing Quest.” Language Teaching 41.2 (2008): 237-252.

Johnson, J. Paul, and Ethan Krase. “Coming to Learn: From First-Year Composition to Writing in the Disciplines.” Across the Disciplines 8 (2011): 1-30.

Keck, Casey. “Copying, Paraphrasing, and Academic Writing Development: A Re-Examination of L1 and L2 Summarization Practices.” Journal of Second Language Writing 25 (2014): 4-22. Kell, Catherine. “Ariadne’s Thread: Literacy, Scale and Meaning Making Across Space and Time.” Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies 81 (2013): 1-24.

Kolb, Kenneth H., Kyle C. Longest, and Mollie J. Jensen. “Assessing the Writing Process: Do Writing-Intensive First-Year Seminars Change How Students Write?” Teaching Sociology 41.1 (2012): 20-31. Krashen, Stephen. “The Composing Process.” Research Journal: Ecolint Institute of Teaching and Learning. International School of Geneva 2 (2014): 20-30. Web.

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

Li, Yongyan. “Academic Staff’s Perspective upon Student Plagiarism: A Case Study at a University in Hong Kong.” Asia Pacific Journal of Education (2013): 1-14.

Li, Yongyan, and Christine Pearson Casanave. “Two First-Year Students’ Strategies for Writing from Sources: Patchwriting or Plagiarism?” Journal of Second Language Writing 21.2 (2012): 165-80. Li, Yongyan. “First Year ESL Students Developing Critical Thinking: Challenging the Stereotypes.” Journal of Education and Training Studies 1.2 (2013): 186-96.

Li, Yongyan. “Undergraduate Students Searching and Reading Web Sources for Writing.” Educational Media International 49.3 (2012): 201-15.

Löfström, Erika and Pauliina Kupila. “The Instructional Challenges of Student Plagiarism.” Journal of Academic Ethics 11 (2013): 231-242.

Mackey, Thomas P., and Trudi E. Jacobson. Metaliteracy: Reinventing Information Literacy to Empower Learners. Chicago: Neal-Schuman, 2014.

Martin, Justine. “Refreshing Information Literacy.” Communications in Information Literacy 7.2 (2013): 114–27.

Matsuda, Paul K. “The Lure of Translingual Writing.” PMLA 129.3 (2014): 478-483.

McClure, Randall. “WritingResearchWriting: The Semantic Web and the Future of the Research Project.” Computers and Composition 28.4 (2011): 315–326.

McClure, Randall, and Kellian Clink. “How Do You Know That? An Investigation of Student Research Practices in the Digital Age.” portal: Libraries and the Academy 9.1 (2009): 115-132.

McCulloch, Sharon. “Citations in Search of a Purpose: Source Use and Authorial Voice in L2 Student Writing.” International Journal of Educational Integrity 8.1 (2012): 55-69.

Matalene, Carolyn. “Contrastive Rhetoric: An American Writing Teacher in China.” College English 47.8 (1985): 789-808.

Meyer, Jan H.F., and Ray Land. Overcoming Barriers to Student Understanding: Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge. New York: Routledge. 2006.

Murray, Donald M. “Teach Writing as a Process Not Product.” Ed. Victor Villanueva. Cross-talk in Comp Theory: A Reader. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1997.

Nutefall, Jennifer E, and Phyllis Mentzell Ryder. “The Timing of the Research Question: First-Year Writing Faculty and Instruction Librarians’ Differing Perspectives.” portal: Libraries and the Academy 10.4 (2010): 437–449.

Oakleaf, Megan. “A Roadmap for Assessing Student Learning Using the New Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 40.5 (September 2014): 510–4.

Otto, Peter. “Librarians, Libraries, and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2014.139 (2014): 77-93.

Panetta, Clayann Gilliam, ed. Contrastive Rhetoric Revisited and Redefined. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrece Erlbaum Assoc., 2000.

Pecorari, Diane, and Bojana Petric. “Plagiarism in Second-Language Writing.” Language Teaching 47.3 (2014): 269-302. Web.

Pecorari, Diane. “Good and Original: Plagiarism and Patchwriting in Academic Second-Language Writing.” Journal of Second Language Writing 12.4 (2003): 317-45.

Petrić, Bojana. “Legitimate Textual Borrowing: Direct Quotation in L2 Student Writing.” Journal of Second Language Writing 21.2 (2012): 102-17.

Pierstorff, Don K. “Response to Linda Flower and John R. Hayes, “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing”” College Composition and Communication 34.2 (1983): 217.

Plakans, Lia, and Atta Gebril. “A Close Investigation into Source Use in Integrated Second Language Writing Tasks.” Assessing Writing 17.1 (2012): 18-34.

Polio, Charlene, and Ling Shi. “Perceptions and Beliefs about Textual Appropriation and Source Use in Second Language Writing.” Journal of Second Language Writing 21.2 (2012): 95-101.

Purdy, James P., and Joyce R. Walker. “Liminal Spaces and Research Identity: The Construction of Introductory Composition Students as Researchers.” Pedagogy 13.1 (2013): 9–41.

Romova, Zina, and Martin Andrew. “Teaching and Assessing Academic Writing via the Portfolio: Benefits for Learners of English as an Additional Language.” Assessing Writing 16.2 (2011): 111-22.

Rosenblatt, Stephanie. “They Can Find It, But They Don’t Know What to Do With It: Describing the Use of Scholarly Literature by Undergraduate Students.” Journal of Information Literacy 4.2 (2010), 50-61.

Schneer, David. “Rethinking the Argumentative Essay.” TESOL Journal  (2013): online prepub, n.p.

Schwegler, Robert A., and Kinda K. Shamoon. “The Aims and Process of the Research Paper.” College English 44.8 (1982): 817–824.

Shi, Ling. “Rewriting and Paraphrasing Source Texts in Second Language Writing.” Journal of Second Language Writing 21.2 (2012): 134-48.

Simmons, Michelle Holschuh. “Librarians as Disciplinary Discourse Mediators.” portal: Libraries and the Academy 5.3 (2005): 297-311.

Swales, John M. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990.

Tardy, Christine M. “Enacting and Transforming Local Language Policies.” CCC 62.4 (2011): 634-61.

Tate, Gary, Amy Rupiper Taggart, Kurt Schick, and H. Brooke Hessler, eds. A Guide to Composition Pedagogies. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2014.

Thompson, Celia, Janne Morton, and Neomy Storch. “Where From, Who, Why and How? A Study of the Use of Sources by First Year L2 University Students.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 12.2 (2013): 99-109.

Thonus, Terese. “Tutoring Multilingual Students: Shattering the Myths.” Journal of College Reading and Learning 44.2 (2014): 200-13.

Townsend, Lori, Korey Brunetti, and Amy R. Hofer. “Threshold Concepts and Information Literacy.” portal: Libraries and the Academy 11.3 (2011): 853-69.

Tucker, Virginia, Christine Bruce, Sylvia Edwards, and Judith Weedman. “Learning Portals: Analyzing Threshold Concept Theory for LIS Education.” Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 55.2 (2014): 150–65.

Van Beuningen, Catherine G, 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.

Welch, Barbara. “A Comment on “Plagiarisms, Authorships, and the Academic Death Penalty”” College English 58.7 (1996): 855-58.

Yamagata-Lynch, Lisa C. “Chapter 2: Understanding Cultural Historical Activity Theory.” Activity Systems Analysis Methods: Understanding Complex Learning Environments. New York: Springer, 2010. 13-26.

Zorn, Jeffrey. “English Compositionism as Fraud and Failure.” Academic Questions 26.3 (2013): 270-84.

Paper #4: Theories in Second-Language Writing

Tags

, , , , , ,

Democritus – Ancient Greek Theory of Matter

“There are perpetual discussions on the seemingly irreconcilable divide between theory and pedagogy. Many practitioners in the field of language teaching have felt – and will probably continue to feel – that much theory remains too obtuse and inaccessible to be immediately applicable in their classrooms. For other practitioners, the day-to-day realities of the classroom are enough of a juggle, without adding the task of keeping up with current research trends.” (Racelis & Matsuda 383)

 ℘ 

Theories…a bit of background in Second-Language Writing:

Tony Silva and Paul Matsuda, in their “Introduction,” in Practicing Theory in Second Language Writing, note that while the term theory has been “widely used,” there is no common understanding of what this means, due to the interdisciplinarity of the field (vii). They posit that within the entire community of scholars and practitioners, there has yet to be “an open and sustained conversation about what theory is, how it works, and, more importantly, how to practice theory” (vii). Theirs is a must read book for anyone interested in how theory and practice align within second-language writing, as each essay explores connections and differences, such as in Dwight Atkinson’s “Between Theory with a Big T and Practice with a Small p: Why Theory Matters” in which he attempts to “rhetoricize his own practice” as a teacher/scholar by suggesting that theory should be delinked from practice.  In this approach, he would use theory as a “speculative approach” whereby it could lead practice, rather than follow  and offer critical approaches that would help “envision our [teachers’] role and place in the wide world” (16).  With this approach, theory and practice would be “combined,” with a “lively dialogue” and theory as the “spark or sometimes…irritant” that moves practice beyond what has always been done.  This reminds me of how lore has often defined practice, and in the absence of applied theory, can become the defacto norm.

Petroglyph – Ancient Astronaut Theory

In the case of second-language writing, it is young in its history, without agreed upon or underlying theories of its own, drawn mainly from composition theory and applied linguistics.  Ryuko Kubota points out that in the last two decades, the field has “made a critical turn” (191).  Critical theories applied to second-language studies, specifically writing, now include contrastive rhetoric, critical applied linguistics (including postmodernism, poststructuralism, and postcolonial studies), as well as cultural studies. Critical contrastive rhetoric, what Kubota notes has moved toward a renaming of itself to intercultural rhetoric, also has implications within second language writing. Examining “how power, knowledge, and discourse are implicated” and pushing rhetoric in this direction, aligns well with one of the theories, I have selected to examine for this week – translingual theory (192-194).

Translingualism

“Languages are not necessarily at war with each other; they complement each other in communication.  Therefore, we have to reconsider the dominant understanding that one language detrimentally ‘interferes’ with the learning and use of another.  The influences of one language on the other can be creative, enabling and offer possibilities for voice” (Canagaragah, “Translingual Practice” 6).

In my PAB posts for #7-8, I provided an introduction to translingualism through four articles, all written by major scholars in the field. Other voices currently writing on translingual theory are A. Suresh Canagarajah, Bruce Horner, Ken Hyland, Min-Zhan Lu, Jackie Jones Royste,  John Trimbur, and Vershawn Ashanti Young, among others.

As I started my reading surrounding translingualism with Paul Matsuda’s article, “The Lure of Translingual Writing,” I approached the topic with more reticence and skepticism than I might have had I read Suresh Canagarajah or Bruce Horner first.  Not having any familiarity with the term or this theoretical framework, I relied on knowing that Matsuda was a respected voice in the field of second-language writing.  He questions the theoretical underpinnings of translingualism as contrasted with the other scholarship I found.   For Matsuda, translingual writing theory “refers to loosely related sets of ideas and practices that have been articulated by scholars” [PAB post #7-8), with a tendency toward “linguistic tourism” and “rhetorical excess” (482, 479). Matsuda points to Suresh Canagarajah as a leading voice in the movement, who writes “[t]here is now a general feeling that theorization of translingual literacy has far outpaced pedagogical practices for advancing this proficiency in classrooms” as “code-meshing poses unsettling questions for pedagogy” (“Negotiating” 41).[1]

Easter Island - Ancient Alien Theory

Easter Island – Ancient Alien Theory

Written as a response article in a themed issue of Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Alastair Pennycook, Professor of Language Studies at University of Technology, Sydney[2] in “Translingual English” writes “It is not enough just to question monolingualism and argue for multilingualism, since both conceptions emerge from the same context of European-based thinking about language” (30.1). He argues that the “epistemological framework of languages” must change in order to “get beyond questions only of pluralisation” (30.2) to a place where linguistic differences within communities and in how language functions within certain contexts can be appreciated, rather than criticized as “[m]etroethnicity” is being adopted, where “[p]eople of different backgrounds now ‘play’ with ethnicity (not necessarily their own) for aesthetic effect” (30.4).

Within this frame of translingual theory, there is a “move towards an understanding of the relationships among language resources as used by certain communities (the linguistic resources users draw on), local language practices (the use of these language resources in specific contexts), and language users’ relationship to language varieties (the social, economic and cultural positioning of the speakers)” (30.4). Language in this case is based in the social, as an activity, rather than as a form of communication (30.5).

 “understanding of translingual practice can help take us beyond the ugly and simplistic labels of grammar-translation versus communicative language teaching that have reduced English to a language used and taught only in its own presence.” (30.4)

In my interview with Dr. Kevin DePew,[3] translingualism was the critical theory he mentioned as key to the field of second-language writing. He noted that within the field, World Englishes, contrastive rhetoric and the “grammar” debate were all areas that scholars and teachers needed to be aware of and to “raise awareness.” He said that a lot of people have very little linguistic background and do not understand the linguistic realities of how people speak and learn.  This aligns with Matsuda’s views that more linguistic awareness is called for, as Matsuda recommends that scholars and teachers learn “more about language—its nature, structure, and function as well as users and uses” and to “develop a broader understanding of various conversations that are taking place—inside and outside the field” (483).

DePew mentioned interlanguage – how people learn a language as important; and that rather than using second-language learning/writing as an add on to a course, that teaching writing through a “trifocal approach” is more realistic. Her suggests looking at writing through the commonalities and differences in how each might be approached: mainstream, ESL and bi-dialectically. He sees the translingual “debate” as a movement to keep watching.  Uncertain of how it might resolve itself – or if it will, he explains that nobody keeps their languages discrete – and that there is a blending of languages going on linguistically.  The problem he sees is that because the movement is “ideological and outspoken” it may overshadow the actual discussion involving second-language writing, with it being another theory vs. practice dichotomy, without clear focus of what to do in the classroom.  When asked what was “next” in second-language writing theory, he responded that it will be interesting to see how the translingual debate plays out. He questions whether it will become more practical – with a move to a more multilingual ESL approach, adding that teachers want it and if everyone can figure it out, “that part of the movement could have wheels.”

 ℘

Process, Post-Process & Genre Theories

When “teachers look for theory in L2 writing, they find that genre theory has been applied to L2 academic writing contexts perhaps more than has any other, but much of genre theorists’ attention has been on formal features of genres, especially the research article, a genre more pertinent to graduate than undergraduate needs. Far less attention has been paid to how to instill genre awareness—helping novice L2 academic writers learn to independently analyze varying context-specific genre expectations and consider how and why they should (or should not) meet them.” (Belcher 438)

In exploring the beginnings of genre theory in second-language writing, it is necessary to also examine the theory that preceded genre within writing studies, that of process [PAB #7]. Matsuda writes that “[w]riting process research[4] and pedagogies were introduced to L2 teaching in the late 1970s and the early 1980s and became influential among L2 writing teachers” (387).  As process and post-process theories continued to be discussed in L1 classrooms during the 1980s and 1990s, L2 writing research moved to debating process and genre theories, with Matsuda pointing out, that as a “debate,” it was “based largely on misunderstandings and exaggerated claims, construing process and genre as mutually exclusive rather than different aspects of writing—two sides of the same coin” (389).

Genre-based pedagogies entered writing-based classrooms, “as a response to process writing, which, it was felt, did not realistically prepare students for the demands of writing in academic context” (Paltridge 303).[5] Genre and the move to Writing for Specific Purposes (WSP) within second-language writing traces its beginnings[6]  to the work of John Swales, in Aspects of Article Introductions[7]  who introduces genre as a concept, as well as his Creating a Research Space (CARS) framework used with English for Specific Purposes (ESP). His later seminal publications in genre theory include Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings[8] (1990) and Research Genres: Explorations and Applications (2004).

Matsuda, an established scholar in second-language studies, has written on all of the theories mentioned within this paper.  A recent article he co-authored with Juval Racelis, an Arizona State University doctoral student at and instructor, is written as a reflective conversation and provides both practitioner and theorist insight into process and genre-theory within second-language writing. Matsuda notes that “contemporary approaches to genre are not necessarily the same as the prescriptive approach of the past (although genre can be – and has certainly been – taught in simplistic and reductive ways)” (Racelis & Matsuda 389). Christine Tardy supports this assertion in her editorial, “The History and Future of Genre in Second Language Writing,” as she reviews genre theory and pedagogy from Swales to Hyland (PAB #7), as well as other scholarship[9] that has moved to “build richer theories and more flexible pedagogical approaches” (2). Paltridge in his most recent article, “Genre and Second Language Academic Writing,” provides an extremely informative and comprehensive timeline of the history of genre in second-language writing that includes both theory and pedagogical works.[10]

As the history of second-language writing only reaches back to the 1960s [Paper #1], its accompanying theories are reflective of this, borrowing initially from composition and rhetoric. It is with the critical turn two decades ago (Kubota) and the recent advent of translingualism that the field has begun to establish itself theoretically.  As Dr. DePew noted in his interview, whether translingualism establishes itself and lasts will be interesting to observe.

 ℘

 Notes

 [1] Canagaragah cites the work of Creese & Blackledge (2010) and Tardy (2011) to support this view.

[2] Cites his own work throughout on global Englishes: Global Englishes and Transcultural  Flows. London: Routledge, 2007; “English as a Language Always in Translation.” European Journal of English Studies, 12.1 (2008): 33–47; “Plurilithic Englishes: Towards a 3-D model.” Global Englishes in Asian contexts: Current and future debates. Eds. K. Murata K. and J. Jenkins. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2009. 194-207.

[3] Interview, September 24, 2014, Dr. Kevin E. DePew, Associate Professor of English, Old Dominion University.

[4] Further reading on the background and approaches within process theory in Composition Studies can be found in Murray (1972), Flower & Hayes (1981), Faigley (1986), Berlin (1988), Susser (1994), Elbow (1999), and Ferris & Hedgecock (2005), with a move beyond process to post-process articulated in

[5] Paltridge cites Daniel Horowitz (1986). “Process not Product: Less than Meets the Eye.” TESOL Quarterly 20, 445–461. This has also been sourced to most histories writing of the move from process to post-process and genre pedagogies in second-language, as well as L1 writing classrooms.

[6]Other histories of genre theory within second-language writing include Horowitz (1986), Bhatia (1993), Johns (1995) and Hyon (1996).

[7] Swales, J. M. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. Aston ESP Research Reports, No 1. Language Studies Unit, The University of Aston at Birmingham. Republished by University of Michigan Press 2011.

[8] Cited in Google Scholar over 8,497 times as of November 2014.

[9] Current genre scholarship in second-language writing includes Bawarshi & Reiff (2010), Bazerman, Bonini & Figueiredo (2009), Johns et al. (2006) and Paltridge (2014).

[10] Article posted in shared Drive folder. Timeline 306-318.

 ℘

Works Cited & Further Reading

Atkinson, Dwight. “Between Theory with a Big T and Practice with a Small p: Why Theory Matters.” Practicing Theory in Second Language Writing. Eds. Tony Silva and Paul K. Matsuda. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press, 2013. 5-18.

Belcher, Diane. “The Scope of L2 Writing: Why We Need a Wider Lens.” Journal of Second Language Writing 22.4 (2013): 438-39.

Canagarajah, A. Suresh. “Negotiating Translingual Literacy: An Enactment.” Research in the Teaching of English 48.1 (2013): 40-67.

. Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. New York: Routledge, 2013.

. “The Place of World Englishes in Composition: Pluralization Continued.” College Composition and Communication 57.4 (2006): 586-619.

Horner, Bruce, Min-Zhan Lu, Jacqueline Jones Royster, and John Trimbur. “Opinion: Language Difference in Writing: Toward a Translingual Approach.” College English 73.3 (2011): 303-321.

Hyland, Ken. “Genre Pedagogy: Language, Literacy and L2 Writing Instruction.” Journal of Second Language Writing 16.3 (2007): 148-164.

. “Genre-based Pedagogies: A Social Response to Process.” Journal of Second Language Writing 12.1 (2003): 17-29.

Johns, Ann M. “Genre and ESL/EFL Composition Instruction.” Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing. Ed. Barbara Kroll. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003. 195-217.

. “The Future of Genre in L2 Writing: Fundamental, but Contested, Instructional Decisions.” Journal of Second Language Writing 20.1 (2011): 56-68.

Kubota,Ryuko. “Critical Approaches to Theory in Second Language Writing: A Case of Critical Contrastive Rhetoric.” Practicing Theory in Second Language Writing. Eds. Tony Silva and Paul K. Matsuda. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press, 2013. 191-208.

Matsuda, Paul K. “The Lure of Translingual Writing.” PMLA 129.3 (2014): 478-483.

Pennycook, Alastair. “Translingual English.” Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 31.3 (2008): 30.1-30.9.

Racelis, Juval V., and Paul Kei Matsuda. “Integrating Process and Genre into the Second Language Writing Classroom: Research into Practice.” Language Teaching 46.03 (2013): 382-393.

Silva, Tony and Paul K. Matsuda, eds. Practicing Theory in Second Language Writing. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press, 2013.

Swales, John. (2001). “EAP-Related Linguistic Research: An Intellectual History.” Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes. Eds. John Flowerdew and Matthew Peacock. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 42-54.

Tardy, Christine M. “The History and Future of Genre in Second Language Writing.” Journal of Second Language Writing 20.1 (2011): 1-5.

PAB #7/#8: Theories in Second-Language Writing: Genre, Process (or is it Post-Process now), and Translingualism  

Tags

, , , , ,

translingual

The world and language

My digression for the week and apology for the length – but as with all topics this term, both new and interesting are a lethal combination and I want my blog to continue to be useful to me in my studies…thus a bit more verbose than even previous posts.  Selecting articles for this week’s theories in second-language writing was the most difficult of the term as it was a bit like falling into a rabbit hole. Every article led to two more that “had” to be included, with names, terms and references that were all aha moments.  All looked important, but all could not be covered in these last two PAB posts.  I am going to miss these posts!  I have had the chance to explore second-language writing without having to commit to a narrow research focus – perusing the literature and amassing an entire folder (bordering on hoarding) of “must reads.” But alas, just like Alice, I did have to return to real life and settle on this week’s articles – albeit, four articles, but identified within two theories: genre and translingualism…well, actually genre by way of process and post-process.

 Hyland, Ken. “Genre-based Pedagogies: A Social Response to Process.” Journal of Second Language Writing 12.1 (2003): 17-29.

Hyland, Ken. “Genre Pedagogy: Language, Literacy and L2 Writing Instruction.” Journal of Second Language Writing 16 (2007): 148-164. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.005

Hyland and Genre Theory

“Genre refers to abstract, socially recognized ways of using language. It is based on the assumptions that the features of a similar group of texts depend on the social context of their creation and use, and that those features can be described in a way that relates a text to others like it and to the choices and constraints acting on text producers” (21).

“Genre theory seeks to (i) understand the ways individuals use language to orient to and interpret particular communicative situations, and (ii) employ this knowledge for literacy education” (22).

Ken Hyland’s articles on genre pedagogy in 2003 and 2007 reflect his even longer publication history, with over 10 published articles on just this topic.[1] In his 2003 article, “Genre-based Pedagogies: A Social Response to Process,” he outlines how genre theory can “complement process views” in second-language writing “by emphasizing the role of language in written communication” (17). He posits that genre theory offers “explicit and systematic explanations of the ways language functions in social context” that “represent the most theoretically developed and fruitful response to process orthodoxies.” While process methods in writing have had “a major impact,” Hyland maintains that they have not resulted in improved writing due to approaches “rich amalgam of methods [that] collect around a discovery-oriented, ego-centered core which lacks a well-formulated theory of how language works in human interaction” (17).

Throughout the article, genre theory and approaches are offered as not just complements to process, but as ways to save writing from it.  Process is offered as “decontextualized skill” with “little systematic understanding of the ways language is patterned in particular domains” that “disempower teachers and cast them in the role of well-meaning bystanders” (19-21). While Hyland stresses that he is not out to “condemn process approaches,” it is evident from this article, that he favors genre theory in the writing classroom for the ways it offers a “socially informed theory of language and an authoritative pedagogy grounded in research of texts and contexts” (18). With processes approaches, inherently lacking as a complete theoretically-sound writing pedagogy, genre is its “social response” (27).

Hyland points to three schools of genre theory: 1) New Rhetoric Approach, influenced by post-structuralism, rhetoric and first language composition; focusing on the “relationship between text type and rhetorical situation.” 2) ESP Approach, that looks at genre as “a class of structured communicative events” within discourse communities and a shared purpose. 3) Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), known as the “Sydney School,” this approach “stresses the purposeful, interactive, and sequential character of different genres” through lexico-grammatical patterns and rhetorical features (21-22).

Assumptions and concepts Hyland points as essential to genre theory are that “writing is dialogic,” discourse community is a “powerful metaphor” central to “joining writers, texts and readers in a particular discursive space” and are not “overbearing structures which impose uniformity of users” (23).

While most of Hyland’s article focuses on the broader understandings of genre theory, he does connect it specifically to second-language writing as a way to “acknowledge that literacies are situated and multiple” whereby “writing cannot be distilled down to a set of cognitive processes.” For second-language writers this allows for them to “gain access to ways of communicating that have accrued cultural capital” and make “the genres of power visible and attainable” (24).  Addressing critics to genre theory in second-language writing, Hyland offers that failure “to provide learners with what we know about how language works as communication denies them both the means of communicating effectively in writing and of analyzing texts critically” (25).

In practice, genre can offer practices as well as views about writing, with a more supportive structure for teaching. Hyland notes that the theoretical basis for pedagogy using a genre approach is from Vygotsky, who emphasized “interactive collaboration between teacher and student” and a supportive environment that utilized scaffolding, with the teacher as an authority (26).

Hyland (2007) outlines key principles of genre-based theoretical teaching:

  • Writing is a social activity
  • Learning to write is needs-based
  • Learning to write requires explicit outcomes and expectations
  • Learning to write is a social activity
  • Learning to write involves learning to use language

℘ 

Map of World

Map of World

Horner, Matsuda and Translingual Writing

Horner, Bruce, Min-Zhan Lu, Jacqueline Jones Royster, and John Trimbur. “Opinion: Language Difference in Writing: Toward a Translingual Approach.” College English 73.3 (2011): 303-321.

Matsuda, Paul K. “The Lure of Translingual Writing.” PMLA 129.3 (2014): 478-483.

Bruce Horner, Min-Zhan Lu, Jacqueline Jones Royster and John Trimbur are current scholars within the field of translingual writing. In their 2011 opinion article, they outline an alternative to the inadequacies they see in the “traditional ways of understanding and responding to language differences.” With a translingual approach, the focus shifts from “barrier to overcome” in language differences, to “resource for producing meaning” (303).

They point to other scholars and the CCCC declaration of “Students’ Right to Their Own Language” for the rights of students to use their own “varieties of English” (discussed earlier in Paper 2). In recognizing a translingual approach, they acknowledge that it is an ongoing discussion, one these authors started at a 2009 Symposium at the University of Louisville.  They note that this article,

“is neither all-inclusive on the issues it does address, nor the final word. We have developed this piece because we believe it is far past time for the issues it addresses to be engaged more aggressively in our field, and we hope to open a much-needed conversation that will be continued in many places, in many genres and forums, from many different points of view—with an eye toward change in the conceptual, analytical, and pedagogical frameworks that we use here” (315).

By arguing for the fluidity of languages, translingual approaches “questions language practices,” asking “what produces the appearance of conformity, as well as what that appearance might and might not do, for whom, and how” (304). With translingualism, there is no “standard” English, described as a “bankrupt concept” by the authors. Rather the varieties of English, as well as other languages, are looked at by way of what “writers are doing with language and why” (305).

“Traditional approaches to writing in the United States are at odds with these facts. They take as the norm a linguistically homogeneous situation: one where writers, speakers, and readers are expected to use Standard English or Edited American English—imagined ideally as uniform—to the exclusion of other languages and language variations” (303).

Power, and “dominant ideology” are mentioned throughout by Horner et al. as writers using a translingual approach would “negotiate standardized rules in light of the contexts of specific instances of writing” (305). The authors list three points that translingualism argues for:

1) honoring the power of all language users to shape language to specific ends

2) recognizing the linguistic heterogeneity of all users of language both within the United States and globally

3) directly confronting English monolingualist expectations by researching and teaching how writers can work with and against, not simply within, these expectations. (305)

Set against two historical approaches to teaching language differences, 1) the traditional approach – that seeks “to eradicate difference in the name of achieving correctness” and 2) tolerance—distanced from the first by “codifying” changes in language and “granting individuals a right to them.” Horner et al points to this as more tolerant on the surface, but segmenting language use to “assigned social sphere[s]” (306).

“A translingual approach requires that common notions of fluency, proficiency, and even competence with language be redefined” (307).

“A translingual approach rejects as both unrealistic and discriminatory those language policies that reject the human right to speak the language of one’s choice” (308).

“Taking a translingual approach goes against the grain of many of the assumptions of our field and, indeed, of dominant culture. At the same time, it is in close alignment with people’s everyday language practices” (313).

 “It seems that translingual writing has established itself as an intellectual movement” (Matsuda 478).

Following Horner et al’s article text is a list of teacher-scholars who “have seconded the project outlined,” and while Matsuda’s name appears on the list; in subsequent articles, he has questioned a translingual approach.  For Matsuda, translingual writing theory “refers to loosely related sets of ideas and practices that have been articulated by scholars”[2] and in his most recent article on the topic, he interrogates the movement’s tendency for “linguistic tourism,” stressing that for it to move from the current “rage among scholars,” that it needs to move beyond “intellectual curiosity” and that the field of writing studies as a whole needs to “recognize the problem and to engage with issues surrounding language differences more critically” (483). Matsuda recommends learning “more about language—its nature, structure, and function as well as users and uses” and to “develop a broader understanding of various conversations that are taking place—inside and outside the field” (483).

“I am happy to see the enthusiasm. At the same time, I am often puzzled by the zeal with which some scholars and teachers approach a concept that they do not fully understand. More problematically, some scholars seem to use translingual writing not for its intellectual value but for its valorized status” (Matsuda 479).

“Graduate programs in rhetoric and composition need to take more seriously, and be more ambitious in making use of, what is now all too often treated as a token second language requirement of its graduates” (Horner 308).

[1] Xiaoli Fu and Ken Hyland (2014) “Interaction in two journalistic genres: a study of interactional metadiscourse;” (2013) “Genre and Discourse Analysis in Language for Specific Purposes;”  (2011) “Genre in teaching and research: an approach to EAP writing instruction;” (2009)  “Genre analysis;” (2008) “Genre and academic writing in the disciplines;” (2002)  “6. Genre: language, context and literacy; (1992) “Genre Analysis: Just another fad?;” (1990) “A genre description of the argumentative essay.”

[2] The scholars Matsuda points to within his article as current voices in translingual scholarship are A. Suresh Canagarajah, Bruce Horner, Min-Zhan Lu, Jackie Jones Royster and John Trimbur, and Vershawn Ashanti Young. Matsuda acknowledges that while he has been “implicated in this movement,” he considers it to be a “work in progress” (478-479).

Paper #3: Objects of Study in Second-Language Learning ~ Portfolios & Student Identity

Tags

, , , , ,

Self-Identity

Identity

“Any discussion of ‘‘identity’’ in writing presents a slippery slope. Identity can be defined in terms of how we define ourselves, how others define us, and how we represent ourselves to others. In its singular usage, the term identity represents a monolithic, fixed category of ‘’being’’ (i.e., we are who we are because that is who we consistently are), a view that necessitates further philosophical encounters with Aristotle, Locke, Durkheim, Freud and Barthes, among other such eminent framers of western intellectual heritage. More concretely, however, identity can be seen as plural and dynamic—as an act of ‘‘doing’’ in the process of constructing social identity.” (Oullette 259)

Initially, as I thought about objects of study within second-language writing, I focused on students’ writing as the product of writing instruction and looked to portfolio assessment. However, after my interview with Dr. Kevin DePew[1], I realized I had missed the most important object of study of all in second-language writing, the students themselves. He pointed out that the writer was the primary object of study and that his/her writing was secondary. The goal, he emphasized, was to “help the writer communicate in English” as well as help him/her negotiate to the “expectations of the audience” and the forms that may take. In some instances, this is work to change the expectations of the audience, regarding the potential for language discrimination or language reduction.  He asked how, as writing instructors, can we help the writer, as well as be advocates for the writer? This was my aha moment in reframing my thoughts about objects of study withsocionic-identity-coverin second-language writing.

“The author’s explicit appearance in a text, or its absence, works to create a plausible academic identity and a voice with which to present an argument.  Creating such an identity, however is generally very difficult for second language students.” (Hyland 352)

While portfolio assessment is a popular way to provide feedback both in second-language and composition classrooms, Selami Aydin notes how studies examining portfolio assessment have been “mainly concerned with the decisions of language teachers rather than students’ perceptions” (195). However, she also points to prior research that shows how portfolios can “improve students’ self-confidence, help them learn actively…and motive students” (196). Descriptive words used throughout many of the articles on second-language writing reflect students’ emotional well-being, looking at ways to encourage their individual identities — who they are, as well as how they write.

Scriptorium monk at work

“Understanding of the ways learners give the symbolic meaning to themselves, to their perceptions, reactions, and thoughts that orient their relationship to others provides teachers with critical perspectives of viewing language learners not as L2 learners but as multilingual subjects.” (Kramsch, 18) [6]

One of the major questions in second-language writing is how to provide useful and constructive corrective feedback to students (paper #2). Recognizing how different forms of interaction and feedback affect students’ formation of their writing identity is essential if the goal is encouraging learning and students’ multi-literate capabilities, over viewing their writing as needing to be fixed. Throughout  the relatively short history of second-language writing, moving the focus away from debating grammar (examined in Paper #2) gave room for research to addressed second-language students as individuals, whose perceptions, reactions to feedback and identities were worthy of study.

Xuemei Li points to four “strands of studies” within second-language writing research, with a focus on students’ identities as the fourth strand, noting that they have become integrated only in recent research.[2]  She posits that “research on writing processes has mostly focused on the strategies of writing and learning to write. Writing processes where we can see the evolution of the writer’s identity and beliefs have been less adequately addressed.” Her research examines the “relationship of culture, identity, and beliefs with regard to the writing process” as a way to understand how a learner “reshapes” and “reconstructs” his/her identity “in terms of education and writing” (41). Fan Shen describes how he reconciled his Chinese and English identities in “Identities and Beliefs in ESL Writing: From Product to Processes,” the article that Li views as initiating the discussion for fourth strand research (46). Shen writes that his writing in English was helped through “becoming aware of the process of redefinition” of his identities (94).

Thai storytelling with puppets

Thai storytelling with puppets

“the process by which a non-native speaker learns to write academic text in English at a Western university involves creating a new identity that meets the expectations of the professors or teachers representing the discipline of which the student is becoming a new member. Writer identity in the text inevitably references the author’s cultural heritage, as well as his or her understanding of the ideologies in the host culture” (Shen as cited in Li 46)

 Using social networking sites as a way of exploring how multilingual writers create their “multiple identities” as writers, Hsin-I Chen of Tunghai University argues that better understanding of these practices can inform pedagogy in the classroom by assisting instructors with discovering the “learners’ language learning journey.”[3] Chen points to Lam’s literacy research as it places literary practices within a broader “social process in which language learners/users actively participate, enacting particular social roles and negotiating their situated identities”[4] and stresses that the “identity of the language learner indicates the ways in which language learners understand their relationship to the target language and to the social world” (143).

Viewing identity more broadly within composition studies, Mark Oullette, discusses how plagiarism has been recognized by scholars as “part of literacy practices governing identity construction” in “Weaving Strands of Writer Identity: Self as Author and the NNES Plagiarist” (255). Problematic in non-native speakers however is the established view of plagiarism as a “binary” – asserting that students plagiarize either because of “an absence of ethics or an ignorance of citation conventions” (Howard 788). As second-language students are negotiating identity as they write in English, positioning plagiarism as a breach of ethics is yet another instance in which second-language learners can be challenged. “For NNES writers, [this can] situate them in a double bind, challenged by their developing linguistic proficiency and differing cultural ideologies” (Oullette 256).

Rethinking how plagiarism is taught is certainly a bigger topic outside the scope of this paper and of just second-language writing, but as a hotbed issue within writing studies, it does raise concerns and questions both through the historical ethical binary, as well as application in a digital age of mashups and collaboration. Oullette asks for NNES in a writing classroom, “whether such an ethical discourse provides for a learning environment sensitive to the principles academic communities espouse” (269).

Why is identity as an object of study important within second-language learning? Chen asserts that it is students’ development of identity within their multilingual discourse that helps “foster their personal growth as multilingual subjects, and engages their real life practices and purposes” (163). She sees further study of online literacy practices necessary, as “these practices provide insights into how [students] present themselves in relation to others in Internet-based discourses and how they engage online, linguistically, socially, culturally, and historically” (164).

As objects of study, recognizing the differences in students’ cultural and social backgrounds and how these are reflected in their writing in English can be of benefit, as Shen stresses that “the process of learning to write in English is in fact a process of creating and defining a new identity and balancing it with the old identity” (101). Not only acknowledging, but appreciating these differences is essential in helping the student navigate his/her multilingual identities and I wonder how thinking more about identity could impact all writing classrooms, as there continues to be more diversity across higher education.[5]

old-map “In the contexts of global English language learning, the ability to use Standard Written English usually symbolizes affluence, good education, and high social class—important social capital (Bourdieu). As a result, in these contexts language learners desire to acquire such a powerful discourse. This desire to belong to an imagined community (Norton) of prestige usually encourages L2 students to invest in forms of writing in a second language that reconstruct their identities in the pursuit of symbolic value in U.S. classrooms.” (Liu & Tannacito 355)

**šš

Works Cited & Further Reading

Aydin, Selami. “EFL Writers’ Attitudes and Perceptions toward F-Portfolio Use.” TechTrends 28.2 (2014): 59-77.

—. “EFL Writers’ Perceptions of Portfolio Keeping.” Assessing Writing 15.3 (2010): 194-203.

Chen, Hsin I. “Identity Practices of Multilingual Writers in Social Networking Spaces.” Language, Learning & Technology 17.2 (2013): 143-70.

DePew, Kevin E., & Miller-Cochran, Susan K. (2010). “Social Networking in a Second Language: Engaging Multiple Literate Practices through Identity Composition.”  Reinventing Identities in Second Language Writing. Eds. Michelle Cox, Jay Jordan, Christina Ortmeier-Hooper, & Gwen Gray Schwartz. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 2010: 273–295.

Hyland, Ken. “Options of Identity in Academic Writing.” ELT Journal 56.4 (2002): 351-358.

Lam, Ricky. “Promoting Self-regulated Learning through Portfolio Assessment: Testimony and Recommendations.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (2013): 1-16. Web.

Li, Xuemi. “Identities and Beliefs in ESL Writing: From Product to Processes.” TESL Canada Journal/Flevue TESL du Canada 25.1 (2007): 41-64.

Liu, Pei-Hsun Emma, and Dan J. Tannacito. “Resistance by L2 Writers: The Role of Racial and Language Ideology in Imagined Community and Identity Investment.” Journal of Second Language Writing 22.4 (2013): 355-73.

Ortmeier-Hooper, Christina. “English May Be My Second Language, but I’m not ‘ESL’.” College Composition and Communication 59.3 (2008): 389-419.

Ouellette, Mark A. “Weaving Strands of Writer Identity: Self as Author and the NNES ‘Plagiarist’.” Journal of Second Language Writing 17.4 (2008): 255-73.

Shen, Fan. “The Classroom and the Wider Culture: Identity as a Key to Learning English Composition.” College Composition and Communication 40.4 (1989): 459-466.

Romova, Zina, and Martin Andrew. “Teaching and Assessing Academic Writing via the Portfolio: Benefits for Learners of English as an Additional Language.” Assessing Writing 16.2 (2011): 111-22.

Ruecker, Todd. “Challenging the Native and Nonnative English Speaker Hierarchy in ELT: New Directions from Race Theory.” Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 8.4 (2011): 400-22.

**

Notes

[1] Interview, September 24, 2014, Dr. Kevin E. DePew, Associate Professor of English, Old Dominion University.

[2] The four strands, according to Li are 1) Studies on comparative rhetoric; 2) Studies of the writing processes and strategies of ESL writers; 3) Studies of beliefs about language learning, education and writing; and 4) Studies involving the notion of identities in ESL writing.

[3] Chen cites numerous other scholars who have written on second-language students’ formation of identity in face-to-face communities but notes that how students form their identity in online communities has not been as widely explored as of yet: Pavlenko & Norton (2007), Norton (2000), Kramsch (2000), Greenhow & Robelia (2009), DePew & Miller-Cochran (2010)

[4] Wan Shun Eva Lam. “Second Language Literacy and the Design of the Self: A Case Study of a Teenager Writing on the Internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (2000): 457–483.

[5] Christina Ortmeier-Hooper’s article “English May Be My Second Language, but I’m not ESL” addresses the resident ESL student, often identified as “Generation 1.5” – those students who had some U.S. secondary schooling, but speak a second language at home. She posits that all of the terms, “ESL,” “ELL” and “Generation 1.5” are “fraught with all kinds of complications for resident students and for us as compositionists” (390).  She draws from the work of Robert Brooke and identity negotiation; Erving Goffman and theories on performance and social identity; as well as Linda Harklau and her case studies involving Generation 1.5 students and their “ambivalent identities as immigrants.”

[6] Claire Kramsch. The Multilingual Subject. What Language Learners Say about Their Experience and Why it Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

PAB Posts #5-6: Portfolio Assessment and Student Identity ~ Objects of Study (OoS) in Second-Language Writing

Tags

, , , , , , ,

world map

World Map

Selami Aydin, of Balikesir University, Turkey, Zina Romova, of Unitec, Auckland, New Zealand, and Martin Andrew, Victoria University, New Zealand teach English as a second-language at their respective universities and have written on portfolio use in second-language writing classes. Aydin’s focus in both of her articles selected for this week is on students’ attitudes and reactions to portfolios, balanced against their use as a means of assessment. Of interest is that these authors are writing on students outside of the U.S., providing an opportunity to compare pedagogical practices in a broader setting than just U.S. institutions.

Portfolio

Portfolio

Aydin points out that while portfolio use has been studied and determined that they “make considerable contributions to foreign language writing,” that rarely have students’ perceptions been studied or addressed, despite that “use of portfolios creates an interactive assessment process that involves both teachers and students and forges a partnership in the learning process” (195). Asking 39 EFL first-year teaching students in the English Language Teaching Department (ELT) at Balikesir University, Turkey, she discovered that while the portfolio ”contributes considerably to vocabulary and grammar knowledge, reading, research, and writing skills” and that students recognize this, they also “complain that portfolio keeping is boring, tiring, and takes too much time.” Students also felt that checklists, as a part of portfolio-keeping were confusing, and that it was “difficult to study with a peer,” but they did not “experience anxiety” as part of the process (198-200). Concluding that while beneficial, there is also room for improvement in informing teachers “about motivational issues and autonomous learning” as a method to solve some of the problems; she further expanded her examination in her second article, by studying Facebook portfolios, noting, “in general, existing research reveals primarily positive effects of Facebook on educational activities, and research on portfolio keeping in EFL writing shows both benefits and problem areas” (60).

Facebook Portfolio App

Facebook Portfolio App

How can the two areas of portfolios and social media be combined for better student engagement while maintaining the benefits of portfolios’ learning elements? By using e-portfolios within Facebook, she attempted to see if this could alleviate problems of understanding of directions, or of students being bored, since “Facebook is a social network that, for many, is commonly used in daily life” and offers a “fresh environment for portfolio keeping in the writing process” (60). Citing numerous studies[1], she offers that there is value in using Facebook as a learning tool “about different cultures and languages” as well as for improving reading and writing in foreign languages. What she sees as lacking in the research to date is anything related to Facebook as a “portfolio tool” (61).

Students responding to this study felt “comfortable and excited with the idea of using Facebook as a tool for writing in English” and thought it had “considerable effect on the way they write in English” (67). They again demonstrated improvements in language, writing and reading. But, as in her earlier study, they still felt the portfolios were “boring, time-consuming and tiring” and that feedback was difficult to give, as well as revising and drafting (68). Students with computers responded with more satisfaction than student without computers, while overall those who were more familiar with Facebook faced increased fear of “negative evaluation from their peers” (70).

Interesting in this study, was that Aydin found that her male students felt “more comfortable with F-Portfolios” while female students exhibited more “fear of negative evaluations” (70). That in itself would be worthy of further exploration, as students perhaps recognized the breadth of social media’s visibility and gendered reactions to feedback in a web space vs. a written portfolio seen by only their class. While F-Portfolios were useful in writing instruction for improving vocabulary, reading, and writing skills, Aydin recognizes that this is still not a “tool that presents solutions to all problems encountered during the portfolio keeping process” (71).

While Romova and Andrew’s article, addresses basically the same pedagogical impact of portfolios, they also identify how students’ identities are “negotiated in text formation,” citing additional scholarship[2] on language use within “situated context and community” and “notions of imagined community”– all of which leads to students “affective roles of investment and belongingness in generating writing characteristic[s] of discourse communities” [my emphases] (114). They discuss students’ reactions to writing, research and citing conventions in Western academic writing, seeing vast differences in how students’ first-language knowledge is often at odds with academic English, noting that “academic literacy factors can be enhanced by increasing learner awareness of cross-cultural contrasts” (117).

oracle bone inscription

Oracle Bone Inscription – Jiaguwen refers to animal’s shell and bone writing, they form one of the most ancient written languages in Chinese history.

As Romova and Andrew provide insight into students’ reflective practices, they observe that the portfolios provide “a retrospectively and holistically reflective function” as a way students came to know themselves (119). I selected this article because of Romova and Andrew’s attention to student identity in the process of portfolio creation and feedback as I am interested in exploring how the students’ themselves are an object of study within second-language writing. In my interview with Dr. Kevin DePew, he discussed the importance of seeing the student as a recognized object of study and I plan to further research how students’ identities are established and exhibited through their writing and in response to feedback. I will expand on students’ identity and feedback via portfolios and other means as objects of study within second-language writing studies in Paper #3.

 Works Cited:

Aydin, Selami. “EFL Writers’ Attitudes and Perceptions toward F-Portfolio Use.” TechTrends 28.2 (2014): 59-77.

. “EFL Writers’ Perceptions of Portfolio Keeping.” Assessing Writing 15.3 (2010): 194-203.

Romova, Zina, and Martin Andrew. “Teaching and Assessing Academic Writing via the Portfolio: Benefits for Learners of English as an Additional Language.” Assessing Writing 16.2 (2011): 111-22.

Notes:

[1] Just to name a few, Aydin (2012); Boon & Sinclair (2009); Bowers-Campbell (2008); Mills (2011); West, Lewis & Currie (2009); DePew (2011) and Dippold (2009).

[2] Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger 1998; Swales, 1988; Flowerdew, 2000; and Johns, 1995, 1997

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

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

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

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

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

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.”