Volume 13, Number 1 (2004)
Special
Issue: Conceptualizing Discourse/Responding to Text
Guest Editors: Diane Belcher and Jun Liu
Conceptualizing Discourse/Responding
to Text (pp. 3-6)
DIANE BELCHER
Georgia State University, USA
JUN LIU
University of Arizona, USA
Anyone who has taught second
language writing will probably find themselves nodding in agreement
with Christine Casanave’s (2004) recent assertion
that "perhaps the most consuming of all dilemmas for L2 writing
teachers is how to best help their students improve their writing" (p.
64). Casanave elaborates on this observation by noting that this dilemma
is two-pronged, as we not only need to decide what we mean by improvement
but which of the many varied and often conflicting approaches to teaching
writing will actually be "paths to improvement" (p. 63). All
four articles in this special issue address various aspects of this dilemma.
The first two articles, by Ryuko Kubota and Al Lehner and by Wei Zhu,
consider the big-picture issue of how "good writing" has been
and is currently conceptualized by those of us in the TESOL profession
and others—across cultures (Kubota & Lehner, this issue) and
across disciplines (Zhu, this issue). The articles by Dana Ferris and
Lynn Goldstein, on the other hand, address the more immediately practical
but no less challenging issue of the role that teacher response to student
writing plays in actual improvement of writing and writers at both the
micro (Ferris, this issue) and macro (Goldstein, this issue) levels,
plays in actual improvement of writing and writers. As Ann Johns points
out in her response to all four articles, our field has been seeking
answers to these two vexing questions, i.e., how we should conceptualize
discourse and respond to text, for the past 40 years with little resulting
consensus. The contributors to this issue attempt to survey the progress
we have made so far and to push our thinking forward.
Toward Critical Contrastive Rhetoric (pp. 7-27)
RYUKO KUBOTA
University of North Carolina at Chapell Hill, USA
AL LEHNER
AKITA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, Japan
A traditional approach
to contrastive rhetoric has emphasized cultural difference in rhetorical
patterns among various languages. Despite
its laudable pedagogical intentions to raise teachers’ and students’ cultural
and rhetorical awareness in second language writing, traditional contrastive
rhetoric has perpetuated static binaries between English and other
languages and viewed students as culturally lacking. Various criticisms
that have challenged assumptions behind traditional contrastive rhetoric
as well as a critical scrutiny of pedagogical issues, including the
politics of explicit teaching of linguistic forms, indicate a need
for establishing alternative conceptual frameworks. Such frameworks
seek to critically understand politics of cultural difference and explore
situated pedagogy that challenges essentialism. By incorporating poststructuralist,
postcolonial, and postmodern critiques of language and culture, critical
contrastive rhetoric reconceptualizes cultural difference in rhetoric
from such perspectives as relations of power, discursive construction
of knowledge, colonial construction of cultural dichotomies, and rhetorical
plurality brought about by diaspora and cultural hybridity. When put
into practice, critical contrastive rhetoric affirms multiplicity of
languages, rhetorical forms, and students’ identities, while
problematizing the discursive construction of rhetoric and identities,
and thus allowing writing teachers to recognize the complex web of
rhetoric, culture, power, and discourse in responding to student writing.
Faculty Views on the Importance of Writing, the Nature of Academic
Writing, and
Teaching and Responding to Writing in the Disciplines (pp. 29-48)
WEI ZHU
University of South Florida, USA
This study examined faculty views on academic writing and writing
instruction. Data reported in this article came from ten qualitative
interviews with business and engineering faculty members. Transcripts
of the interviews were analyzed inductively and recursively, and two
views on academic writing and writing instruction were identified.
One view held that academic writing largely involved transferring general
writing skills, and writing instruction would be most effectively provided
by writing/language teachers. The other view recognized the unique
thought and communication processes entailed in academic writing and
the role of both content course faculty and writing instructors in
academic writing instruction. However, content course faculty and writing
instructors each assumed a different set of responsibilities. Implications
of the findings for academic writing research and instruction are discussed.
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
...?) (pp. 49-62)
DANA R. FERRIS
California State University Sacramento, USA
The efficacy of teacher
error/grammar correction in second language writing classes has been
the subject of much controversy, including
a published debate in an earlier volume of this journal [J. Second
Language Writing 8 (1999) 1; J. Second Language Writing 8 (1999) 111].
In this paper, the state-of-the-art in error correction research in
L2 writing is described ("Where are we?"), directions for
future research are outlined ("Where do we go from here?")
and implications for current L2 composition pedagogy are suggested
("What do we do in the meantime?"). The primary thesis of
the paper is that, despite the published debate and several decades
of research activity in this area, we are virtually at Square One,
as the existing research base is incomplete and inconsistent, and it
would certainly be premature to formulate any conclusions about this
topic. Thus, findings from previous research on this controversial
yet ubiquitous pedagogical issue are recast as "predictions" about
what future research might discover, rather than "conclusions" about
what the previous research shows us.
Questions and Answers about Teacher Written Commentary and Student
Revision:
Teachers and Students Working Together (pp. 63-80)
LYNN M. GOLDSTEIN
The Monterey Institute of International Studies, USA
Teachers and students agree
that despite the time-consuming nature of providing written commentary
and revising using this commentary,
teacher feedback is both desirable and helpful. Nonetheless, teachers
express concerns about how to provide commentary in ways that their
students can effectively use to revise their texts and to learn for
future texts. This paper addresses these concerns by helping teachers
identify the issues to which they need to attend and by sharing effective
practices they can use in providing written commentary to rhetorical
and content issues in their students’ writing. The paper first
addresses the role of the context within which commentary and revision
take place, delineating the issues that teachers need to be aware of
and the questions they can ask about context to help guide decisions
about commentary. The paper next addresses the process of communication
between teachers and students, describing ways of providing such communication
that will enhance the effectiveness of the teacher’s commentary
and the students’ revisions. The final sections discuss the shape
of teacher commentary, with recommendations for what factors teachers
can consider in deciding what to comment on as well as recommendations
for the forms that effective commentary take.
Searching for Answers: A Response (pp. 81-85)
ANN JOHNS
San Diego State University, USA
This special issue of
JSLW addresses questions for which the profession has yet to find
adequate answers, issues that have complicated the
research and teaching of literacies to linguistically and culturally
diverse students for more than 40 years. What began in the 1960s as
fairly simple answers to questions about error, teacher response, and
linguistic and cultural variation, initially offered by a few publications
such as Robert Bander’s American English Rhetoric (1971) and
Kaplan’s (1966) "doodles" article, have mushroomed
into a rich literature that asks, among other things, whether one can
generalize about a language (Zhu, this issue); whether teachers should
be empowering students to resist cultural, linguistic, and discursive
hegemonies (Kubota and Lehner, this issue); whether, and how, errors
should be addressed in second language composition classes (Ferris,
this issue); and what factors should motivate teacher and student responses
to texts in these classes (Goldstein, this issue).
Volume
13, Number 2 (2004)
"The Choice Made from No Choice":
English Writing Instruction in a Chinese University (pp. 97-110)
XIAOYE YOU
Purdue University, USA
Approaches to writing instruction developed in North America have
gradually made their presence felt in other parts of the world during
recent years. A curricular evaluation of the local needs, instruction,
assessments, teacher preparation, and other pedagogical factors is
crucial for the successful transmission and integration of those approaches
into the new contexts. Set against the background of recent, exuberant
scholarly discussions of the issue of transplanting Western writing
pedagogies, this article presents an observational report of a typical
college English curriculum for non-majors in China, with a focus on
its writing component. The study has found that English writing is
taught under the guidance of a nationally unified syllabus and examination
system. Rather than assisting their students to develop thoughts in
writing, teachers in this system are predominantly concerned about
the teaching of correct form and test-taking skills. Because of their
relatively low economic status in China, English teachers have to work
extra hours and have little time to spend on individual students or
on furthering their professional training. However, signs of recent
Western writing pedagogies, such as pre-writing and multiple-drafting
activities, are identified in classrooms and textbook publishing, which
indicate the possibility of successful adaptations of the recent Western
writing pedagogies in the Chinese context.
ESL Literacy: Language Practice or Social Practice? (pp.
111-132)
PAT CURRIE
ELLEN CRAY
Carleton University, Canada
This paper examines literacy
policy and practice in six Language Instruction for Newcomers to
Canada (LINC) classrooms. The study focused on three
questions: (1) What literacy practices did these newcomers participate
in their new country? (2) How did their teachers understand the role
of writing in their learners’ lives? (3) What and why did their
learners write in their LINC classes? Our results indicate that while
the LINC learners had a broad and varied understanding of the role
of writing in their lives, both they and their teachers viewed writing
in LINC classes as a vehicle for the development of linguistic accuracy
rather than as a socially situated practice.
Disciplinary Interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 Postgraduate
Writing (pp. 133-151)
KEN HYLAND
University of London
Metadiscourse is self-reflective linguistic expressions referring
to the evolving text, to the writer, and to the imagined readers of
that text. It is based on a view of writing as a social engagement
and, in academic contexts, reveals the ways writers project themselves
into their discourse to signal their attitudes and commitments. In
this paper, I explore how advanced second language writers deploy these
resources in a high stakes research genre. The paper examines the purposes
and distributions of metadiscourse in a corpus of 240 doctoral and
masters dissertations totalling four million words written by Hong
Kong students. The paper proposes a model of metadiscourse as the interpersonal
resources required to present propositional material appropriately
in different disciplinary and genre contexts. The analysis suggests
how academic writers use language to offer a credible representation
of themselves and their work in different fields, and thus how metadiscourse
can be seen as a means of uncovering something of the rhetorical and
social distinctiveness of disciplinary communities.
Volume
13, Number 3 (2004)
The Writing Center and Second Language Writers (pp.
165-172)
JESSICA WILLIAMS
University of Illinois at Chicago, USA
CAROL SEVERINO
University of Iowa, USA
In this introduction to the special issue on the writing center and
second language writers, the special issue editors provide a review
of research that investigate second-language writing issues in the
writing center, and discuss future research directions.
Tutoring and Revision: Second Language Writers in
the Writing Center (pp. 173-201)
JESSICA WILLIAMS
University of Illinois at Chicago, USA
There is little research to link what happens during writing center
(WC) sessions to how student writers revise their subsequent drafts.
This gap in the literature is particularly evident concerning second
language (L2) writers who come to the WC for assistance. This study
is an effort to fill this gap, exploring the connection between WC
interaction and revision by L2 writers. Findings suggest a clear connection
between the two, especially as regards small-scale revision of sentence-level
problems. They also point to the higher level of uptake of all tutor
advice when suggestions are direct, when learners actively participate
in the conversation, and when they write down their plans during the
session. Also effective in stimulating revision are scaffolding moves
by the tutor, including marking of critical features in the text, simplification
of the task, goal-orientation, and modeling. In spite of the considerable
revision done by all of the writers in this study, second drafts did
not receive consistently higher holistic evaluations.
Novice Tutors and Their ESL Tutees: Three Case Studies of Tutor
Roles and Perceptions of Tutorial Success (pp. 203-225)
SARA CUSHING WEIGLE
GAYLE L. NELSON
Georgia State University, USA
This article presents case
studies of three tutor/tutee dyads, focusing on the negotiation of
tutor roles over a semester as part of a course
requirement for MATESOL candidates. Tutors were enrolled in the course "Issues
in Second Language Writing," and tutees were ESL student volunteers.
Data came from on-line discussions from the course, videotapes of tutoring
sessions, tutors’ and tutees’ retrospective interviews,
and the tutors’ final reflective papers for the course. Results
indicate that the dyads negotiated relationships that differed from
each other but were viewed as successful by those involved. For each
dyad, different factors emerged as influential in negotiating the tutor’s
role, including tutors’ and tutees’ beliefs about writing,
tutees’ language proficiency, affective factors, and aspects
of the tutorial setting.
What Are the Differences? Tutor Interactions with First- and
Second-Language Writers (pp. 227-242)
TERESE THONUS
California State University, Fresno, USA
This paper reports on a decade of research into the nature of interactions
between writing center tutors and native speaker (NS) and non-native
speaker (NNS) tutees. It explores and describes the structure of this
interaction and the behaviors of NNS tutees, and of tutors when interacting
with both NS and NNS tutees. It characterizes writing center tutorials
with NNSs as a balancing act among potentially conflicting forces.
Finally, it suggests applications of these insights to tutor preparation
and practice.
Volume
13, Number 4 (2004)
ESL Student Attitudes
Toward Corpus Use in L2 Writing (pp. 257-283)
HYUNSOOK YOON
ALAN HIRVELA
The Ohio State University, USA
In recent years, there has been growing interest in the use of corpora
in L2 writing instruction. Many studies have argued for corpus use
from a teacher’s perspective, that is, in terms of how teachers
can develop instructional materials and activities involving a corpus-based
orientation. In contrast, relatively little attention has been paid
to investigations of learners’ actual use of corpora and their
attitudes toward such use in the L2 writing classroom. This paper describes
a study of corpus use in two ESL academic writing courses. Specifically,
the study examined students’ corpus use behavior and their perceptions
of the strengths and weaknesses of corpora as a second language writing
tool. The study’s qualitative and quantitative data indicate
that, overall, the students perceived the corpus approach as beneficial
to the development of L2 writing skill and increased confidence toward
L2 writing.
Error Correction in L2 Secondary Writing Classrooms: The Case
of Hong Kong (pp. 285-312).
ICY LEE
Hong Kong Baptist University, China
Error correction research has focused mostly on whether teachers should
correct errors in student writing and how they should go about it.
Much less has been done to ascertain L2 writing teachers’ perceptions
and practices as well as students’ beliefs and attitudes regarding
error feedback. The present investigation seeks to explore the existing
error correction practices in the Hong Kong secondary writing classroom
from both the teacher and student perspectives. Data were gathered
from three main sources: (1) a teacher survey comprising a questionnaire
and follow-up interviews, (2) a teacher error correction task, and
(3) a student survey made up of a questionnaire and follow-up interviews.
The results revealed that both teachers and students preferred comprehensive
error feedback, the teachers used a limited range of error feedback
strategies, and only about half of the teacher corrections of student
errors were accurate. The study also showed that the students were
reliant on teachers in error correction, and that the teachers were
not much aware of the long-term significance of error feedback. Possible
implications pertaining to ways to improve current error correction
practices were discussed.
A Measure of Second Language Writing Aanxiety: Scale Development
and Preliminary Validation (pp. 313-335)
Y.-S. CHENG
National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan
Evidence has been accumulating that shows the promise of multidimensional
conceptualizations of anxiety in investigating the effects of anxiety
on different aspects of human behavior and intellectual performance.
In view of the lack of an L2 writing anxiety scale explicitly developed
from a multidimensional perspective, this study aims to develop and
evaluate a self-report L2 writing anxiety measure that conforms to
a three-dimensional conceptualization of anxiety. Sixty-five EFL learners’ reports
of L2 writing anxiety were drawn upon to generate an initial pool of
scale items. A pilot test was conducted on the initial pool of items
to help establish a preliminary version of L2 writing anxiety scale
for further refinement and evaluation in the formal study. A sample
of 421 EFL majors enrolled in seven different colleges in Taiwan participated
in the formal study. Exploratory factor analysis was employed to determine
the final make-up of the Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory
(SLWAI) that consists of three subscales: Somatic Anxiety, Cognitive
Anxiety, and Avoidance Behavior. In addition to reliability coefficients,
the validity of the SLWAI total scale and subscales was assessed by
means of correlation and factor analysis. The results suggest that
both the total scale and the individual subscales of the SLWAI have
good reliability and adequate validity.
|