Tag Archives: TESL

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

30 Tuesday Sep 2014

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

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

Sample page from Lado’s textbook

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Works Cited & Further Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terms:

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

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

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

Notes:

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

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

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

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

15 Monday Sep 2014

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

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Works Cited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Further Reading on the History

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

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

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

About the Field

Journals:

Journal of Second Language Writing

TESL-EJ

TESOL Quarterly

 

Associations:

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

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

American Association for Applied Linguistics

More…

TESOL’s Second Language Writing Interest Section

Symposium on Second Language Writing 2014

OWL @ Purdue – ESL Teacher Resources

~ ~

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

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

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