The Future of L2 Writing

I thought that the discussion about ideology and critical thinking in Ch. 6 of Cassanave's book was interesting. I agree with the argument that all writing is social, political, and ideology. It seems patronizing and offensive to me to say that L2 students are "not ready" for critical thinking and that women are uncomfortable with it. That argument just serves to maintain a status quo which marginalizes minorities and women. Moreover, I don't think that EAP can be excused from social, political, and ideology issues. Critical thinking  is an expectation in many academic disciplines, so it is required for successful writing in that community. Critical thinking may be more of a Western concept (I'm not entirely convinced of this) but without it international students would have to accept all of the other Western ideas learned in a U.S. education without questioning them. I believe that we should lay out the opportunities of critical thinking to our students but let them decide what their specific learning goals are. Instruction needs to be more of a negotiation.

As for the future of L2 writing scholarship, I think that there is more than one pathway to becoming an L2 writing specialist. Studying in a PhD program under any of the scholars mentioned would be a great learning opportunity, but I don't think that it is necessary. There are many excellent practioners in all levels of education preparing themselves by searching out the research and strategies that will best meet the needs of the students before them. I believe that L1 and L2 scholars need to work more closely together to meet those student needs and to offer more heterogenous learning experiences. I don't think that the categorizations of students into language categories is particularly helpful. Rather, teachers should work together to change instruction so that it can meet the needs of diverse students in the same classroom in ways that students can learn from one another and develop the communication skills necessary for living in a global society.

Writing Centers

I thought Thonus' article was very interesting. I appreciated the transcripts of actual tutor/student conversations. Although I have never worked in a writing center, I thought that her suggestions would be very helpful for writing center tutors working with diverse groups of students. I also think that her suggestions would transfer well to other situations such as for general education teachers in K-12 classrooms who conduct writing conferences with their students. I agree that it is important to consider the specific needs of L2 writers in writing conference situations, but I question her grouping of all 1.5 generation students into one general category. I am always uncomfortable with monolithic categorizations of students, but I realize that there is a need to consider the needs of particular groups of students and to have some guidelines for appropriate instruction. Perhaps more careful language such as "many 1.5 generation students" would help teachers to remember that there is great variation in any given group of students. Matsuda & Cox alluded to this in their article when they warned that overgeneralization should be avoided. I think that their approach of balancing accommodationist and separatist stances allows for more flexibility in working with individual students rather than applying the same techniques to all L2 writers.

World Englishes and Code Meshing

I am absolutely fascinated by Canagrajah's article. He makes so many convincing arguments about the value of language diversity. It is also inspiring to think of the possibilities code meshing can open up for students so that they can resist and change dominant structures that might be holding them back or blocking their voice. However, I think that asking students to be subversive in their writing can also be risky. I think that it is great for teachers to offer a space in which students can code mesh and to hold up examples of successful instances of codemeshing. But this should be an invitation rather than a requirement because this sort of writing requires a lot of bravery. I think teachers have to acknowledge that within the best intentions of "giving" students a voice, there is the risk of rejection within the academic community.

I was also excited to see code meshing discussed in the context of an early childhood classroom because much of the research that I have read focuses on  code switching in a way that often deems children's home languages as inappropriate for school. The Michael-Luna article sent me searching for other work on codemeshing at the primary level, but I didn't find much else. According to Google Scholar, the article has only been cited once. I'm a little confused about why this issue isn't being picked up by literacy scholars to a greater extent. If anyone knows of any other work on code meshing, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

EFL Settings

I was most interested in Lei's article about writing strategies as a social process within the framework of activity theory. A point that consistently comes up in our readings about second language writing is that learning often occurs outside of the classroom. Many of the writing strategies that the students in this article used were implemented outside of the classroom and, most likely, without the teacher's knowledge. I'm wondering how teachers can capitalize on the varied strategies of home/social literacy practices rather than narrowly focusing on more traditional, academic based writing strategies. I'm also wondering how much teachers should attempt to learn about literacy practices that occur outside the classroom. I firmly believe that those literacy practices are valuable and should be considered by teachers, however, can our views into students' private writing practices become an encroachment at somepoint especially for adult learners?

Graduate Students and Academic Writing

I related to these articles on a personal level. Even though I am a native speaker of English and I recognize the privilege that comes with that, I was raised within a community that speaks with a marked dialect (southern and poor). As a graduate student, I feel a lot of the cultural and linguistic insecurity that was highlighted in Braine’s article.  Specifically, I struggle (as I’m sure many graduate students do) with situating myself with my research especially within ethnographic research. It sometimes seems like too great of a risk to reveal viewpoints that may not be in line with the status quo of a department or with larger power structures. Occasionally, I feel in danger of “outing” myself as “the other”, and I imagine that L2 learners might experience similar worries.  

I think that this speaks to the hybridity of both L1 and L2 communities. Canagarajah argued that “difference has to be redefined in more complex terms” (p. 10).  I agree, and I wonder why educators remain so intent on sorting, separating, and labeling learners whether by language skills or by other indicators.  As Braine illustrated, labeling students as lacking in English proficiency and placing them in ESL courses can be demoralizing. Teachers may intend to “help” students through such placements but making these decisions for students based on the institution’s values serves to isolate and control. Through assessment, placement, and instruction, institutions are deciding who gets to count as a student, as a scholar, or even as a person. I strongly agree with Canagarajah that teachers need to move towards negotiating with students and towards recognizing differences as resources.

1st Year Writing

     What stood out most to me from this week’s readings was how the tacit nature of our understandings of language leads to hegemony and an imbalance of power in writing courses. Leki spoke of “the assumption of the power to define writing’ (p. 64). Matsuda argued that the ideology of unidirectional monolingualism that is inherent in composition courses works to separate and keep out those who do not speak a privileged form of English. He also argued that nonnative speakers and speakers of unprivileged forms of English are held accountable for skills that are not being taught. Harklau highlighted how teachers’ tacit understandings of immigration and bilingualism affect their instructional decisions, relationships with students, and contribute to the identities of 1.5 generation students. Harklau also pointed out that teachers are all susceptible to holding “common sense” notions which can negatively affect our students. How can teachers uncover their tacit understandings in order to work towards a more equitable learning environment?  What can teacher educators do to assist with this process? How can we increase communication and connections between K-12 schools and institutions of secondary education.

     Matsuda’s article also made me wonder about how American students are treated when they study as international students. Do other countries require language proficiency tests? Are American international students placed in remedial classes? Are remedial classes or writing classes even offered in foreign universities? I would be interested to know more about higher education in other countries.

K-12 Discussion

In Lam’s article, Almon constructed an identity as a competent writer in English within an internet environment. This web-based communication space reminded me of Gee’s (2001) conception of an “affinity space.”  An affinity group is devised of people who may be situated across a large space but share “allegiance to, access to, and participation in specific practices” (p. 105). According to Gee (2005), affinity spaces are defined by the following characteristics.

1.        Common endeavor, not race, class, gender or disability, is primary.

2.       Newbies and masters and everyone else share common space.

3.       Some portals (points of entry to a social semiotic space) are strong generators.

4.       Internal grammar is transformed by external grammar.

5.       Encourages intensive and extensive knowledge.

6.       Encourages individual and distributed knowledge.

7.       Encourages dispersed knowledge.

8.       Uses and honors tacit knowledge.

9.       Many different forms and routes to participation.

10.   Lots of different routes to status.

11.   Leadership is porous and leaders are resources.

Do any of these characteristics relate to Almon’s web experiences? How did these characteristics support Almon’s identity construction and development of English writing proficiency?

How do affinity spaces differ from common classroom practices and educational policies? How might some of these characteristics be adopted in the classroom and what consequences might that have for English language learners?

Lam conducted the research for this article in 1997. Since then the internet has increasingly become part of our everyday lives. What implications does the prevalence of technology have for teaching English language learners in the 21^st century? Is there still a “digital divide”?

Gee, J.P. (2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. In W.G. Secada (Ed.), Review of  research in education (pp. 99-125). Washington D.C.: American  Educational Research Association.

Gee, J.P. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: From the Age of Mythology to today’s schools. In. D. Barton & K. Tusting Beyond communities of practice: Language, power and social context (pp. 214-232). New York: Cambridge Press.

Questions related to Fu and Matoush article

How do teachers make room for bilingualism and biliteracy in current educational contexts in which teachers and students are under close surveillance to ensure the dominance of English in instruction?

What can be done to improve the current educational policies in ways that are more conducive to bilingualism and biliteracy? What can individual teachers do to resist monoglossic ideologies?

What about multilingual environments or schools without bilingual teachers? How can teachers assess the content of writing if they do not understand the student’s first language?

Book Review

I am reading the following book for my book review.

Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of langauge tests. London:  

     Pearson.

I have only read the introduction and preface and skimmed the rest so far.

Genre Approach

     Since I am situated within the curriculum and instruction department rather than the English department, I have little background knowledge about the genre approach. My experience with writing pedagogy comes from implementing writing workshop in my classroom and helping other teachers to do so. Although I had no formal knowledge of the genre approach, I feel that I implemented some of the tenets into my writing instruction. We organized units around various genres, discussed the purpose behind author’s choices, designed instruction to encompass the social nature of writing, and sometimes incorporated critical literacy skills. My point in sharing this information is to illustrate that how we label our instruction does not necessarily reflect what is actually happening in the classroom. Teachers implement writing workshop in many different ways. Some teachers may be working under a more typical process approach. Others may be going beyond process writing or may still be operating under more traditional perspectives. Discussions of which method is best may guide teachers to be more reflective and purposeful about their teaching practices, but I think what matters most is considering the individual needs of students and going forward from there. However, I think it is very challenging to teach in this way, and I have many lingering questions. For instance, how do teachers decide which method is best for their students? Surely, it begins with knowing students well, but at what point does deciding a method for the students become paternalistic or hegemonic? Should students be included in methodological decisions? Within the genre approach, how do we decide which genres to teach? How do we ensure authentic opportunities for writing? Does the teaching of writing and of specific genre traits automatically decontextualize writing and render it inauthentic?

In Your Own Words

I agree with Pennycook that a dogmatic focus on plagiarism is arrogant and hypocritical. I think that many teachers see policing against plagiarism as a way of maintaining their authority as a teacher. They might see a student’s plagiarism as an insult to the teacher’s intelligence or as a blatant act of resistance and defiance. From this perspective plagiarism is a crime and the teacher’s job is to issue, as Pennycook states, “threats, warnings, and admonitions.” From this perspective, teachers are likely to view students who borrow from texts as incompetent and deficient. I imagine that these assumptions would be made even more readily for students who speak English as a second language or other traditionally marginalized groups of students and would work to maintain the status quo and keep the “guardians of truth” in power.

I’ll admit that I have found myself working from this perspective of plagiarism as crime before, but I’ve come to recognize that it is much more beneficial to give students the benefit of the doubt. In the classes that I teach online, I serve a mostly nontraditional group of students with a wide variety of cultural backgrounds and educational experiences. I truly believe that most of the students who “plagiarize” do not understand how to properly cite sources or think that it is only necessary to cite direct quotations. They may have great difficulty paraphrasing and summarizing. Therefore, when I “catch” students cutting and pasting from the internet or other sources into their academic papers, I invite them to explain themselves, offer advice for citing according to academic standards, and allow them to redo their work. I feel that this approach allows me to understand my students better and to improve my explanations of class policies. It allows the students to learn from the experience and to maintain a position of respect and dignity.

I believe that the key is to listen to students in an effort to learn their intentions and understandings. I like Pennycook’s idea of a “fascination response.” Rather than responding defensively to students, teachers can respond with openness and curiosity in an effort to understand cultural and individual differences. It is also helpful to acknowledge the challenges in what we are asking students to do. For example, the students that Pennycook interviewed explained how difficult it was for them to “use their own words” in a language for which they felt no ownership. I think that it is important to be explicit about what we mean by such phrases and rules. 

Voice and Identity

I have been exploring identity as a research topic for several purposes, so I am very interested in different conceptualizations of identity. I hadn't really thought of identity in terms of voice, and after reading the articles, I am still not inclined to closely associate the two concepts. It seems to me that voice is more closely associated with positioning. When Hervela & Belcher discussed voice as identity, they seemed to be characterizing identity as a thing which can be owned and traded in. When they talked about voicing and conceptualized voice as social, they were speaking in terms of positioning. For example, the graduate students' voices as writers depended on others' perceptions of them. They were dealing with issues of voice and identity because their positions in U.S. academia differed so greatly from their positions in their home countries.

I also took issue with Hervela &  Belcher's claim that the graduate students had to learn to write in "an English voice." There is clearly no unified English voice. There is a  mulitiplicity of voices depending on a wide variety of identities and positions which can exist within any individual and shift based on social contexts. I thought that Prior addressed this mulitplicity of voices well in his article. I liked his idea of learning as a "process of becoming." I think that teachers and students can benefit from seeing learning as change. I think the problems arise when teachers try to micromanage the learning process. The "process of becoming" should be a negotiation between teacher and student, and students should have the ultimate ownership of their own learning. Furthermore, students should be let in on the process of coming to a voice. They could examine their own writing and try to identify the origin of certain phrases. This sort of metacognitive practice could help students to gain a deeper understanding of genre characteristics and to make specific choices about the development of their voice. It could give teachers a tool for hearing the individual voices of their students and help them to avoid ascribing voice.

Writing Across Borders

     I liked what Tony Silva said about writing with an accent. It makes a lot of sense to me that we shouldn’t expect writers to write without an accent anymore than we would expect them to speak without an accent. I also agree that fair isn’t equal and that international students may need some accommodations such as adequate time for response and a focus on meaning over grammar. I have no trouble conceptualizing how such accommodations could be done in a K-12 setting or in an L2 classroom.  It is more difficult for me to attend to the needs of L2 students in content area classes at the university level especially in the classes that I teach online.  In the online setting, I never meet my students face to face. They offer short introductions of themselves, but I often have no definite information about their age, gender, ethnicity, native language, or other demographic data. I might suspect that a student speaks English as a second language based on writing that seems accented.  I can make some guesses about their language of origin based on their name and their introductions, but I am not allowed to ask a student about their language status or to refer them to ESL services unless they self identify. Since I am expected to grade papers with provided rubrics which include grammar, mechanics, organization, word choice, etc., I am often conflicted when grading papers that seem accented. How am I supposed to accommodate for L2 students when I don’t know for sure which students are nonnative speakers? Do I stick to the rubric for every student? Do I disregard the rubric so that I can focus on meaning for all students?  The situation makes me question the value of rubrics, but the real issue is that I don’t have the opportunity to get to know my students well. I imagine that this is also a big challenge for instructors who teach general education courses with extremely high class sizes. I’m left wondering what can be done to prepare content area teachers to address the needs of international students.

Project Ideas

I have a couple of ideas for the project for this course. First, I am interested in taking a critical look at literacy assessment. In the Casanave (2003) article that we read, she proposed examining writing as a sociopolitical artifact. I thought that I might take a close look at an assessment and ask questions such as:

1. Who was it designed for and for what purposes?
2. How does it influence ELL's  in a K-12 setting?
3. What sorts of identities does the test ascribe to students?

One assessment I might examine is the ACCESS which is a test of English proficiency that many states use in order to comply with NCLB requirements for ELL's.

I'm also very interested in the concept of identity, so another option for the project is to do a literature review on that topic. I would be particularly interested in research methodology and seeing how researchers of second language writing have conceptualized identity, what methods they have used, and what implications there are for future identitity studies.

Fair Assessments

     I found Casanave’s discussion of the fairness of assessment particularly interesting.  As a K-12 educator, discussions of assessment inevitably lead me to think about the consequences of the No Child Left Behind Act and its heavy emphasis on high-stakes testing. The stakes are high for all students and teachers, but English language learners have been especially affected by policies that are essentially unfair. ELL’s are required to take English proficiency exams yearly, are often required to take tests of content knowledge in English, and are not always provided with the appropriate accommodations for testing. For example, Wright & Choi (2006) examined the effects of  high-stakes testing  on 3^rd grade English language learners in 59 schools across Arizona. They interviewed teachers who reported observing a number of disturbing behaviors during test taking including leaving entire sections of the test blank, crying, and vomiting.  The teachers also reported that ESL instruction was largely replaced with test prep curriculum beyond the students’ linguistic proficiencies.

     Such findings are upsetting and make me wonder what teachers can do to change policy.  Casanave stated that teachers often have little control over assessment decisions that are made outside of their classroom. That is certainly true, but I think that teachers have a responsibility to work towards change in unfair assessment practices and to carefully examine the ethical dilemmas of assessment. I wish that I had a better idea of how to go about doing that. It is a difficult challenge especially in an educational policy environment that largely ignores the voice and expertise of teachers and researchers. One thing that made sense to me was the idea of local contexts which Casanave discussed on pg. 123. Right now assessments for K-12 students are most often designed at the state level, and we’re moving towards more of a nationalized system. What can we do in order to return some control to local schools so that they can design assessments appropriate for the specific needs of their students? I also wonder about diversity. Are the groups who design and score state’s writing assessments diverse to ensure that the interests of all students are served?

     Even if teachers can find effective ways to improve assessment practices, changes won’t be made over night. In the meantime, they can find ways to reduce stress and anxiety in their own classrooms. There were many excellent suggestions in this week’s readings for providing “better conditions for success” (Ferris, 2008, p. 98). I like the ideas of projects and portfolio assessments. I think that providing meaningful contexts and looking at growth over time are powerful strategies for promoting fluency and accuracy as well as confidence. Additionally, I have found it helpful in my work with L1 writers to allow frequent opportunities for self assessment and student goal-setting. Students should have ownership in their writing and that might include opportunities for them to examine and question assessments in the classroom and other contexts.

Wright, W., & Choi, D. (2006). The Impact of Language and High-Stakes Testing Policies on Elementary School English Language Learners in Arizona. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(13), 1-75

    

Thoughts on Post-process

As a public school teacher, I implemented a process approach to writing instruction. I used and loved writing workshop methods in my 2^nd grade classroom and helped other teachers implement the practice. Process writing allowed students to work at their own level and pace. It gave students an opportunity to express themselves in their own voice about topics that were meaningful to them. It gave me the freedom to meet the individual needs of students. Rather than teaching the same discrete skills to the whole class at the same time, I could pull up a chair beside a student and help them discover their goals as writers.  Most of my students embraced writing, and many of them even chose to take their writing journals to recess. It was one of my favorite times of day because I felt that students truly connected to their writing and to each other as a result of writing workshop.

Despite my successful experiences with writing workshop, I completely agree with a couple of points about the limitations of process writing. First, I think that it has often been oversimplified in practice. Matsuda mentioned Donald Graves’ “shock and dismay” at overhearing two teachers discuss “the three-step and the four-step Graves writing process.”  This incident seems familiar to me. I have seen entirely too many writing process posters hanging on classroom walls. It is also common for basal reading series to have a writing lesson plan that lists out a step in the writing process for each day of the week. (i.e. Day one: prewrite; Day two: draft; Day three: revise; Day four: edit; Day five: Publish). These oversimplifications sterilize the writing process and do not resemble authentic writing processes.

I also agree that it is important to acknowledge the sociopolitical aspects of writing and writing instruction. This point makes me think about the discussions that I have had with my undergraduate students in the education department about codeswitching. I take issue with the argument that teachers can teach kids to codeswitch by explaining to them when and where it is appropriate to use their home language as opposed to standard English.  I think that it is disrespectful and counterproductive to tell students that their language is inappropriate in school or anywhere else without also discussing why it is considered inappropriate. When we explore the reasons for conceptions of appropriateness and inappropriateness, we infuse the conversation with issues of power. These discussions can help students choose how they want to communicate. 

Literacy Biography

     I’ll begin by discussing my development as an L1 writer before discussing my limited experience as an L2 writer. Writing did not play a prominent role in my K-12 education. My earliest writing experiences involved short, formulaic exercises that focused more on penmanship and grammar than communication or expression. In middle school and high school, I completed the standard assignments such as five paragraph essays and research papers with ease but with little attention to my personal writing style or my growth as a writer. I responded more positively to creative writing assignments, and I experimented with short fiction and poetry on my own. Through creative writing, I began to see myself as a writer and to be metacognative about my writing processes.

     In undergraduate school, most of my core classes required essay writing. I rarely received specific feedback, so I continued to write without much thought to my processes. I rarely revised or consulted references. I simply wrote down my thoughts and turned them in. The courses that I took as an elementary education major rarely included writing exercises except for lesson plans or the occasional essay about educational philosophy, so I did not consider writing to be a primary part of my professionalism. When I entered the Masters in Reading program at ISU, I was unpleasantly surprised by the amount of writing required. As an undergraduate, the papers I wrote were almost always short, and I struggled to write papers that met the page requirements required for masters classes. I still received little feedback about my writing, so I continued to write without much revision. When I submitted my first article for publication, I was asked to revise it. This was the first experience in which I received useful criticism about my writing in a way which would allow me to improve as a writer, and it was the first time that I saw writing as a crucial part of my career.

     As a doctoral student, I have become more aware of my writing, and it has become more of a source of anxiety. I feel more affected at this level of study by my working class background. I am the first person in my family to attend college, and I sometimes worry that I do not have sufficient vocabulary. In order to improve my academic vocabulary and writing, I pay careful attention to the word choices, sentence structure, and organization in scholarly writing.

     I also have some experience as an L2 writer. I began studying Spanish in high school in order to fulfill the foreign language requirement for admission to college. I had no interest at the time in foreign language, but I quickly fell in love with the idea of understanding the world in a new way. After I graduated from high school, I spent the summer volunteering in a predominantly Latino community in Houston, Texas. I worked with preschoolers who spoke Spanish. I loved the experience and continued similar work when I returned home to Oklahoma City. I wanted to be able to communicate better with the children, so I completed a minor in Spanish.

     My minor included classes in Spanish Literature which required me to read, write, and speak only in Spanish. It was much easier for me to read and write than to speak and listen. I enjoyed reading in Spanish, but I found L2 writing difficult. I could write reasonably well and communicate basic ideas, but the final product always felt stilted and incomplete to me because I did not have sufficient vocabulary and grammar skills to fully express my thoughts. I felt emotionally disconnected from the writing. I did most of my writing by thinking in English and then translating to Spanish. I used English/Spanish dictionaries when necessary, but I preferred to just find another way to say something if I didn’t know the exact translation. Overall, I felt like my Spanish classes were useful but disconnected from the sorts of authentic experiences that might have allowed me to become more fully bilingual. I never became comfortable speaking in Spanish, and eventually abandoned my study of the language. My experience with Spanish taught me that second language acquisition can be a challenging endeavor. Consequently, I have a great respect for those who have achieved multilingualism and a compassion for students who may be struggling with the acquisition of English.