Today's readings represent a wrap-up of sorts to our semester-long readings. So, I will first mention some thoughts on those readings and then do a wrap-up on some of my own thoughts that have emerged from the work done and lessons learned during this semester.
"All writing teachers are potentially, if not already, l2 writing instructors," writes Matsuda in his section of the article "On the Future of Second Language Writing." Matsuda makes an excellent point--and one that I fully get--when he notes that L2 writing does not just take place in the L2 composition classrooms on the collge campus. It can take place just as easily in any course or program that these students move on to. To say that only a certain number of individuals are "L2" instructors seems slightly off to me, unfortunately sort of like saying that a person does not teach a certain race or a person part of the country because he or she just does not understand that particular dialect of English used. Differences and diversity will always abound in the classrooms; all teachers must accept this at some point.
I am curious about the argument that not enough of the "best" teachers of L2 writing work in programs where PhD's are not offered. I do understand what is being said here to a point, but I also think that these influential people can affect the students in any educational context that they find themselves in. If their college has but a master's degree, perhaps they are influencing those bright students to then pursue a PhD that they had never thought about before--thus moving the L2 writing field ahead a little bit more in the process.
Yet, even the L2 students themselves could have a hand in moving the L2 writing field forward. In Casanave, Santos is quoted as writing, "Students first need to become proficient in conventional academic discourse in order to be able to challenge those conventions" (pg. 202). Whether one agrees with Santos' logic here is not the point. Rather, the important element is that those L2 students, the students often thought of as having the least amount of power in the political world that is language learning, can also have a hand in changing how people view second language writing.
As I wrote this blog, I began to consider my own views on second language writing, specifically on how they changed over this semester. At the beginning, I can only call my thoughts on that type of writing as completely "foreign," to say the least. The second language process was a complete mystery to me, as were the important components of grading, giving feedback, and so on. Although I do not want to give anything priority this semester, I think that one of the most important things this semester to come about was simply my greater awareness for the cultural and political aspects always involved in second language writing, that most people in the U.S. do privilege one dialect and consider it to be standard when that just is not so. Many more World Englishes exist that also deserve to be both recognized and implemented. I think that this awareness is something that all teachers regardless of the type of student that they teach should be aware of.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
English 344: Tuesday, April 19
The two readings for today were great--a good look back and summary of some of the topics learned and dicussed in this semester. I found Canagarajah's article "TESOL at Forty: What are the Issues?" especially neccessary for the field. As others say, the only way to truly know where you are going is to look back on where you have been. Here, I touch on a view issues that he raised in that article.
The concept of identity in learning a language is one of the most interesting topics brought up for me this semester. Canagarajah writes of this topic: "In the process of learning a new language, one is engaging in the construction of a new (of different) sense of self" (pg. 14). Before this semester, I had considered the fluidity of language to a point. I was aware of Old English, Middle English, and so on. I knew that Shakespeare wrote in early Modern English, despite the fact that the words were so different than how we speak today. Yet, I had never really about how learning a new language could have such implications on a learner's identity. If someone comes to the United States, English really is the gatekeeper for most of the success in this country, bringing with it various cultural practices. That person may be forced to not only learn the language but to try to become acclimated into all of the social implications that the language may bring. I can see where that could cause problems, even identity issues, for some.
The idea of World Englishes will be a concept written about and evolving even more over the next few years and subsequent decades, bringing with it questions about just what makes "standard" English. Within the expanding circle of countries that use English, the fact that these countries may be creating new English norms rather than looking at the norms and standards set by the inner circle countries will help in bringing about further change to the English landscape. Yet, it also brings up many more questions, especially for teachers of English: What does it mean to be competent in the English language? Which World English do you go by in setting this "standard," if there even is a standard? Just what do we mean by "correctness"? If some written aspect of English is culturally-based yet differs from your own "version" of English, simply calling it "wrong" is naive... and slightly ignorant.
Canagarajah closes out the discussion by writing that " the story of TESOl at 40 is inconclusive" (pg 27). Yet, one cannot expect the field to be conclusive in any way. Perhaps if it were conclusive, people would stop researching it and stop writing articles on it, leaving the field at a standstill. However, the world itself is a constantly evolving place, and calling TESOL inconclusive simply leaves the door open for the field to change as the world changes, for people to continue to figure out the place of English in globalization.
The concept of identity in learning a language is one of the most interesting topics brought up for me this semester. Canagarajah writes of this topic: "In the process of learning a new language, one is engaging in the construction of a new (of different) sense of self" (pg. 14). Before this semester, I had considered the fluidity of language to a point. I was aware of Old English, Middle English, and so on. I knew that Shakespeare wrote in early Modern English, despite the fact that the words were so different than how we speak today. Yet, I had never really about how learning a new language could have such implications on a learner's identity. If someone comes to the United States, English really is the gatekeeper for most of the success in this country, bringing with it various cultural practices. That person may be forced to not only learn the language but to try to become acclimated into all of the social implications that the language may bring. I can see where that could cause problems, even identity issues, for some.
The idea of World Englishes will be a concept written about and evolving even more over the next few years and subsequent decades, bringing with it questions about just what makes "standard" English. Within the expanding circle of countries that use English, the fact that these countries may be creating new English norms rather than looking at the norms and standards set by the inner circle countries will help in bringing about further change to the English landscape. Yet, it also brings up many more questions, especially for teachers of English: What does it mean to be competent in the English language? Which World English do you go by in setting this "standard," if there even is a standard? Just what do we mean by "correctness"? If some written aspect of English is culturally-based yet differs from your own "version" of English, simply calling it "wrong" is naive... and slightly ignorant.
Canagarajah closes out the discussion by writing that " the story of TESOl at 40 is inconclusive" (pg 27). Yet, one cannot expect the field to be conclusive in any way. Perhaps if it were conclusive, people would stop researching it and stop writing articles on it, leaving the field at a standstill. However, the world itself is a constantly evolving place, and calling TESOL inconclusive simply leaves the door open for the field to change as the world changes, for people to continue to figure out the place of English in globalization.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
English 495: Tuesday, April 19
I found this readings particularly interesting this week, perhaps because the articles appear to parallel some of the issues that I am working on in relation to my paper for this class. I am considering how to better educate preservice teachers to work with ESL writers. However, many of the same things that I have considered within this also appear to arise when discussing faculty members involved in WAC. "Train all faculty, including WAC faculty in the disciplines, in appropriate pedagogical techniques for reaching MLLs," writes Hall. He notes that the job of teaching writing to these second language learners is neither fully the job of either the WAC instructor or the ESL instructor. Rather, it is the job of both to help work with these students. In my paper, I echo this collaboration with mainstream and ESL teachers at the secondary level. Really, collaboration amongst faculty members is essential at any level regardless of what types of students they are educating. It almost seems like common sense to me, although a sense that rarely gets acted upon it seems
The metaphor of writing in the disciplines as a second language is something new to me, and I am not sure exactly how much I agree with it. Yes, I'm sure I would find it hard at first to write up some scientific report, being unfamiliar with form, etc. Yet, I just can see how this can be equated to a foreign language at all. Sure, some structure or terminology may be different, but the words are not foreign. Now if one would have me write that scientific report in, say, German, then that would be a completely different, and extremely troublesome, story.
I like that fact that Hall mentioned that MLLs may actually have some advantages over monolingual speakers in WAC programs. They have already had to adapt to new genres, to new languages, so that linguistic adaptability is inevitable. Perhaps that's why I had so much trouble with academic writing once I returned to school after wrtiting only journalistic scripts for so long. I better get back to those Spanish lessons...
The metaphor of writing in the disciplines as a second language is something new to me, and I am not sure exactly how much I agree with it. Yes, I'm sure I would find it hard at first to write up some scientific report, being unfamiliar with form, etc. Yet, I just can see how this can be equated to a foreign language at all. Sure, some structure or terminology may be different, but the words are not foreign. Now if one would have me write that scientific report in, say, German, then that would be a completely different, and extremely troublesome, story.
I like that fact that Hall mentioned that MLLs may actually have some advantages over monolingual speakers in WAC programs. They have already had to adapt to new genres, to new languages, so that linguistic adaptability is inevitable. Perhaps that's why I had so much trouble with academic writing once I returned to school after wrtiting only journalistic scripts for so long. I better get back to those Spanish lessons...
Sunday, April 10, 2011
English 495: Tuesday, April 12
In case you were curious, here's the discussion questions that we'll be starting with for Tuesday's discussion.
Working with ESL Writing in the Writing Center
1. Min-Zhan Lu’s framework of describing three stances that readers can take when responding to ESL writing:
a. Assimilationist: The goal is to help the ESL writer write linear, thesis-statement and topic-sentence driven, error-free, and idiomatic English as soon as possible; encouraging writer to assimilate into the dominant culture; differences=deficiencies
b. Accommodationist: May try to teach the NES norm; goal is to help the writer learn new discourse patterns without completely losing the old so that the writer can maintain both L1 and L2 linguistic and cultural identities; differences=differences, but explain that some may see those differences as deficiencies
c. Separatist: The goal is to support the writer in maintaining separate linguistic and cultural identities; advocate for NES to read ESL texts generously; overlooks and preserves difference
i. Which stance do we choose when working with ESL writing (very likely, not the first)? Is it a combination of them? Does the assignment make a difference when taking one of the stances?
ii. Without any training, many tutors will likely inadvertently become an assimilationist. How can we avoid someone using this stance in a Writing Center?
iii. What if you know that one professor clearly takes an assimilationist stance to grading writing assignments? Do you go against your viewpoint to ensure that the student gets a better grade? How do you deal with this?
2. When working with ESL students, what should the goal be? To help them become better writers? To help them do better on one particular assignment? Something else entirely? A combination of the two…?
3. Tony Silva: “When does different become incorrect or inappropriate? And what is good enough?” (Matsuda 43)
i. How do you know when something is not “cultural,” but just plain wrong?
ii. If something different is culturally-based for the student, when, if ever, does it become wrong?
iii. How do you know when an ESL writer’s work is really “good enough”? Do you base it on their current skill level? On the grade they want to get in the class? Or what else?
4. Thonus’s Five General Principles for Working with Generation 1. 5 students:
a. Teach the Metalanguage (specialized language to talk about writing) and Sociopragmatic Conventions (understanding the roles and responsibilities the tutor and tutee must assume) of Writing
b. Affirm the Student’s Cultural and Linguistic Heritage
c. Balance Grammar Correction with Rhetorical Concerns
d. Offer Explicit Direction
e. Avoid Appealing to (NS) Intuition
i. Which of Lu’s three stances mentioned in the first question does b. Affirm the Student’s Cultural and Linguistic Heritage relate to? Does that mean to take a separatist or accommodationist stance? Or both?
ii. Could these five principles also be used for ESL users in general—or even for “native speakers”? What changes could be made for those?
5. You get to implement a workshop and create specific guidelines for the tutors at the Writing Center in order to better work with ESL students.
i. What would this workshop or the guidelines look like?
ii. What concepts would you be sure to include so that tutors are aware of them?
iii. How would these be different when working with either a generation 1.5 student or an international student? Would they?
6. And just some things I was curious about…
i. How are tutors normally told to handle helping students with their writing?
ii. How long are the sessions with students normally?
iii. What kind of training is usually involved to become a tutor? Is anything ESL-specific?
English 344: Tuesday, April 12
I found the discussion on the six proposals for classroom teaching quite interesting. As far as the foreign language setting goes, a few of them (Get it right from the beginning, teach what is teachable to a certain extent) seemed to bring back memories of my own foreign language experience in high school. Unfortunately, I cannot say that was too successful. I do see positives and negatives for each teaching practice, as one will when examining any such practice. Once again, I will advocate that, with learning a foreign language, there is no better tool that the social interaction of being emersed in its home language context through studying abroad, etc. So instead of continuing on discussing the teaching of foreign language, I want to instead examine a few of these proposals through the lens of the ESL student in the United States, a student who is already immersed in the context (unless hidden in ESL classroom throughout the entirety of education, which is a completely different issue).
Many school districts simply do not have the means or the funding to give the ESL students the language enrichment that the need, so proposal number four, two for one, often becomes the de facto teaching method without any discussion of the matter. When ESL students are mainstreamed into content-area classrooms, that teacher must wear two hats-that of the language and of the content teacher--regardless of training in the matter. The book notes that students often need several years of language instruction before being able to learn from this method. That is all well and good, but oftentimes students don't have a choice in the matter. Thus, when it comes to ESL students in mainstream contexts, this is the model that all teachers should learn about and work with in order to effectively teach their ESL students both content and language.
I also find the "Teach what is teachable" proposal an interesting one in relation to ESL students. The labeling of the stages of a language itself appear to be problematic in that 1. this maintains that there are strict divisions in the levels of ability rather than a fluid continuum, 2. students can, thus, easily fit into said divisions, and 3. this assumes the easy labeling of divisions to be being with (meaning, when does a students move up in a stage? when they use the structure occasionally? when they are experts at using the structure? when they can simply understand it?). Teaching a classroom of mainstream students, including ESL students, using this method would be interesting. I wonder just how one would attempt to hit that next level of learning for every students, although that key word "differentiation" would clearly up come into play here. Finally, I am curious how the L1 would come into play with this proposal. Would its affects on the L2 simply disappear when one reached a certain stage? Would this be a problem even in the upper stages of language learning?
Many school districts simply do not have the means or the funding to give the ESL students the language enrichment that the need, so proposal number four, two for one, often becomes the de facto teaching method without any discussion of the matter. When ESL students are mainstreamed into content-area classrooms, that teacher must wear two hats-that of the language and of the content teacher--regardless of training in the matter. The book notes that students often need several years of language instruction before being able to learn from this method. That is all well and good, but oftentimes students don't have a choice in the matter. Thus, when it comes to ESL students in mainstream contexts, this is the model that all teachers should learn about and work with in order to effectively teach their ESL students both content and language.
I also find the "Teach what is teachable" proposal an interesting one in relation to ESL students. The labeling of the stages of a language itself appear to be problematic in that 1. this maintains that there are strict divisions in the levels of ability rather than a fluid continuum, 2. students can, thus, easily fit into said divisions, and 3. this assumes the easy labeling of divisions to be being with (meaning, when does a students move up in a stage? when they use the structure occasionally? when they are experts at using the structure? when they can simply understand it?). Teaching a classroom of mainstream students, including ESL students, using this method would be interesting. I wonder just how one would attempt to hit that next level of learning for every students, although that key word "differentiation" would clearly up come into play here. Finally, I am curious how the L1 would come into play with this proposal. Would its affects on the L2 simply disappear when one reached a certain stage? Would this be a problem even in the upper stages of language learning?
Friday, April 1, 2011
English 344: Tuesday, April 5
I read Firth and Wagner's article "On Discourse, Communication, and (Some) Fundamental Concepts in SLA Research, partly because I am interested in the social aspects of language and partly because I have recently read David Block;s "The Rise of Identity in SLA Research, Post Firth and Wagner (1997)," an article that looks at the changes in SLA research in the ten years between the first article's publication the second's publication.
Although only 14 years ago, I was surprised at some of the assumptions that some lines of SLA research had regarding native and nonspeakers along with aspects of L2 communication. From the underlying claims that native speakers are omniscient figures to the mindset that encounters between NS and NNS are always problematic, the article surprised me at what some researchers were basing their research--and thoughts--on. I also found it interesting that communication in one strand of research--communicative success--was viewed as transferring thoughts from one person's mind to another, with seemingly no mention of the social aspects involved with this. As the authors note at another point, "For SLA, the learner identity is the researcher's take-for-granted resource," and many merely focus on the foreign learner's linguistic definiciencies (a pessimistic way to go about doing research if one asks me).
Luckily, much about SLA research appeared to change since the publication of Firth and Wagner's article, according to Block. The author wrote that there had been an increase in publications since that first publication based on assumptions that L2 learning and identity were interrelated. He mentioned numerous areas of research that has since expanded: How information technology mediates lives, the relationship between social practices and communities of practice, how different power relations affect individuals, etc., etc. This makes me wonder at the power of research: Was Firth and Wagner's article the catalyst of this push for more social research? Did they simply write the the right article at the right time, as that scale was about to become more even in relation to social class and cognitive ability?
Finally, I am also interested in one area that Block says needs more research, that of identity and social class. Unfortunately, social class and L2 learners are often interconnected in this country, so I feel this issue is extremely important. Has there been an influx in research on this in the past four years since Block's publication? What is, once again, the power of one research article??
Although only 14 years ago, I was surprised at some of the assumptions that some lines of SLA research had regarding native and nonspeakers along with aspects of L2 communication. From the underlying claims that native speakers are omniscient figures to the mindset that encounters between NS and NNS are always problematic, the article surprised me at what some researchers were basing their research--and thoughts--on. I also found it interesting that communication in one strand of research--communicative success--was viewed as transferring thoughts from one person's mind to another, with seemingly no mention of the social aspects involved with this. As the authors note at another point, "For SLA, the learner identity is the researcher's take-for-granted resource," and many merely focus on the foreign learner's linguistic definiciencies (a pessimistic way to go about doing research if one asks me).
Luckily, much about SLA research appeared to change since the publication of Firth and Wagner's article, according to Block. The author wrote that there had been an increase in publications since that first publication based on assumptions that L2 learning and identity were interrelated. He mentioned numerous areas of research that has since expanded: How information technology mediates lives, the relationship between social practices and communities of practice, how different power relations affect individuals, etc., etc. This makes me wonder at the power of research: Was Firth and Wagner's article the catalyst of this push for more social research? Did they simply write the the right article at the right time, as that scale was about to become more even in relation to social class and cognitive ability?
Finally, I am also interested in one area that Block says needs more research, that of identity and social class. Unfortunately, social class and L2 learners are often interconnected in this country, so I feel this issue is extremely important. Has there been an influx in research on this in the past four years since Block's publication? What is, once again, the power of one research article??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)