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.