University of Canterbury :
(From previous issue)
Vocabulary size may be increased by literacy experience because rare words are more likely to be encountered in print than in oral language (Nagy & Anderson, 1984). The average person will encounter more complex syntactic structures in print than they would in speech, which again should lead to improved development of language skills. Exposure to different forms of language (including the written form) may also serve to increase metalinguistic skills (see Koda, 2007): i.e., to increase the individual’s ability to understand language in its basic, language non-specific form.
Hence, in bilingual/ second language contexts, there may be positive as well as negative effects. Under the right circumstances, learning of a second language may strengthen cognitive processing and cross-linguistic transfer of basic language skills: phonological knowledge of two sound systems may facilitate the development of first and second language skills (see discussions in Bialystok, McBride-Chang & Luk, 2005). However, errors can be caused by an overextension of an analogy learnt in a first language but applied incorrectly in the second. Indeed, both the potential positive and negative consequences of second language learning may depend on relationships/commonalities between the two languages (see Bialystok et al., 2005). Additionally, some English-as-a second-language learners may struggle with understanding relatively uncommon words in the second language that may be fairly familiar to their monolingual English peers – and weak vocabulary can be a barrier to comprehension and writing coherence. Weak language skills, such as poor vocabulary, may also be a factor in poor strategy use in writing – the search for appropriate words in writing production can reduce the time spent revising an essay and can also interfere with monitoring processes during writing (see Wong Su Cho et al., 2012).
Furthermore, although language may be biologically focused within certain parts of the brain that have developed to support language processing, it needs to be remembered that the skill of writing is learnt. Therefore, the individual has to be able to use the language systems of the brain to perform the language-based skill of writing. Furthermore, this will require integration with other skills: hand-eye coordination, for example – and practice will be needed to make these different aspects skilled. Writing instructors also need to be cognizant of the fact that unlike Ll writers, L2 writers begin to write in the language when they start to learn that language, both in ESL and EFL contexts. Learning a second language is generally contingent upon such factors as the exposure to the target language, the motivation to learn, and the typological similarities or differences between the Ll and the L2. These variables are not constant across L2 learning settings. Learning a second language can be a long process of development for many L2 learners. For example, Kellogg (2008) contends that “writing skills typically develop over a course of more than two decades as a child matures and learns the craft of composition through late adolescence and into early adulthood” (p.l). Students who start tertiary education in Bangladesh, typically, do not have “two decades of maturation, instruction, and training” (Kellogg, 2008, p.2). Additionally, Lenneberg (1967) claims that one’s propensity to learn a second language gradually declines with age; a phenomenon popularly known as the Critical Period Hypothesis. Basically, this view would propose that the earlier the exposure to a second language (12), the better the outcome of learning the L2. Most students in Bangladesh would have been expected to be primarily exposed to English as a language of learning from grade three, when they were about 8 years old. From then until their late teens, when they undertake tertiary education, exposure to English has been minimal. Therefore, the learning of English may be limited and, even if the strong view of the critical period position is incorrect, Bangladeshi adult students may have a great deal of work to do to acquire skills in English writing. Taking these factors into account, a pedagogical option with regard to L2 writing, which is based blandly on error identification, may not be the optimal way of supporting this learning process.
As well as the biological constraints to L2 writing ability, the emergence of technology, especially the Internet, may be an additional area of challenge that the informed tertiary educator will need to consider. Indeed, authors such as Prensky (2001) have claimed that technology has led to a division between teachers and students. Students, the digital natives, have spent a significant amount of time surrounded by computers, videogames, digital music players, video cams, cell phones, and all the other toys and tools of the digital age. On the other hand, teachers, even those who may be fascinated by many aspects of new technology, are the digital immigrants and “maintain their foot in the past” (Prensky, 2001, p. 2). This can lead to problems in the interactions between groups. As the use of, and need to, incorporate computers and other IT tools into education increases, so the authority of instructors may be severely compromised. The students may become the experts in use of the major tool of learning – and may access information from the Internet that contradicts or undermines the course tutor. The Internet can also refute the significance of a single language as the only means of communication as movement between languages become easier. Also, the grammar of the Internet often deviates from the norms of Standard English in written discourse by allowing the use of contractions, emoticons and fragments – and text messaging could be considered even worse in its abuse of standard language forms. Therefore, students whose main English (and L1) writing experience is via the Internet or texting may find ‘correct’ grammar highly unfamiliar, even unnatural. Writing instructors need to consider the experiential background of their students.
No less important in this context is the view, as expressed by Kramsch (1993) that language and learning are inextricably bound with culture. This can be considered to have direct bearing upon the artefacts of writing that students produce in an EFL context like Bangladesh: i.e., the learner’s experience of the Bangladesh culture will be a factor in their learning of the L2. This area of study (i.e., the juxtaposition of L1 and L2), which is known as contrastive rhetoric, began with the publication of an article by Robert Kaplan in 1966. Having analyzed 600 L2 student essays, Kaplan hypothesized that Oriental writers are indirect and non-linear, while Anglo-American writers are linear. Although broad generalizations, this may give an idea of how writing experience may vary across cultural groups. English is a staple of Anglo-American culture, which values direct and reasoned argument in academic discourse. This argument often is presented in a written form. In contrast, the concept of academic writing does not exist in the wider cultures of Bangladesh. Writing is regarded as a rare gift accessible only to a few individuals. This perception is anecdotally reinforced in that many of the great writers in the annals of Bengali Literature (such as Rabindranath Tagore, Kazi Nazrul Islam and Jibananda Das) were autodidacts who excelled only in creative (or philosophical) writing. In a culture such as this the skill of writing is not acquired by the majority of the population, and the concept of academic writing may not be culturally compatible. Against this backdrop, when students are inducted into the requirements of academic writing, there is going to be an amount of resistance and a need for cultural re-valuation, since they pass or fail in the course because of the written artefacts they produce. This tug of war between cultural disposition and academic obligation is likely to lead to difficulties that a focus on surface errors is hardly going to overcome. Writing instructors in Bangladesh must liberate themselves, as well as students, from this reductive realm of errors searching to optimize pedagogical outcome.
Teaching Writing beyond Errors
An error contingent writing pedagogy proceeds on the deterministic stance that writing can be distilled down to a set of technical system of rules that can be taught to students, and which lead to them becoming better writers. This stance toward teaching writing merits critical consideration especially in an EFL context like Bangladesh. When mainstream students in Bangladesh commence tertiary education, they have been exposed to English for some nine years, given that mainstream students start to learn English from grade three. Although the communicative approach to teaching English has gained wide currency in Bangladesh since the turn of the millennium, both at Secondary and Higher Secondary levels, the teaching of English still revolves around grammar. Had teaching grammar been really so central to knowing English, that exposure should have been enough to equip students with the writing skill since “numerous experiments establish that to achieve academic competence in a language one needs five to seven years or more” (Ernst-Slavit, Moore & Maloney, 2002). Given that tertiary students in Bangladesh cannot demonstrate minimal academic competence in writing despite exposure to English for more than nine years, teaching the same thing (i.e., grammar) is unlikely to yield different results. However. this focus continues. The typical course discussed above (Introduction to Composition) would be hardly about anything but grammar: the weekly schedule, for example, includes work on active and passive voice, simple, complex, and compound sentence, run-on, fragment, dangling and misplaced modifiers, parallelism, shift in tense, shift in point of view, missing referent, lack of pronoun agreement, sexism, and punctuations. How do instructors normally know whether students learn or not? They mark errors on students’ written discourses. What do instructors do to make sure that students learn despite errors? They give feedback.
Feedback is a complex and controversial area as far as teaching writing is concerned. The concept of feedback defies any straightforward definition for two reasons: for one, there are different types of feedback (direct and indirect feedback, implicit and explicit feedback, and comprehensive and selective feedback). Secondly, writing instructors perceive and respond to these categories differently across cultures. Feedback is varied, and its application is idiosyncratic. As is, “the research literature has not been unequivocally positive about its role in writing development” (Hyland & Hyland, 2006, p.83). While theoretically it is maintained that feedback is crucial for encouraging and consolidating learning, empirical evidence suggest that feedback given by writing teachers “is incomplete, idiosyncratic, erratic, and inaccurate” (Ferris, 2002, p. 11). Truscott (1996) even claims that feedback is ineffective and should be abolished. It is not necessary that all writing teachers have to concur with Truscott; however, if they can maintain an objective attitude as they engage in feedback, they will discover the shortcomings with the system of feedback that focuses on simple error correction.
For example, even if some students adopt the corrections suggested by instructors, it might not mean that they have come to appreciate the rationale of these errors. All it might mean is that they have simply transcribed it from the first assignment into next one. This is a short-term gain that is unlikely to lead to long-term benefits to writing skill. Ferris (2002) has problematized the phenomenon further. She has classified error into two categories: treatable and untreatable. Some of the errors (e.g., article, pronoun etc) occur in a patterned, rule-governed way, and students can be directed to a grammar book to fix those. Word choice and sentence structure errors are idiosyncratic, and students cannot consult any grammar book to fix those. She calls these un treatable errors. With regard to the untreatable errors, teachers are left on a limb, in that the typical error identification system cannot correct these. Hence, any pedagogical approach, that is focused on error and correction feedback will be only partially effective to teach writing. Writing instructors, therefore, must shift into an alternative paradigm. Teaching writing as a process is that alternative paradigm.
Although this process approach to teaching writing re-defines some of the fundaments (i.e., error identification, correction feedback) of the traditional approach to teaching writing (i.e., teaching writing as a product), it is not new. Victor Villanueva in the introduction of the book edited by him, Cross-talk in Comp Theory: A Reader has clarified the origin of the process approach to teaching writing especially in the U.S., which has been responsible for formulating and popularizing it both in EFL and ESL contexts. In 1966 in Dartmouth Conference about fifty teachers of English from England and from the United States met to discuss common problems.
(To be continued)
(From previous issue)
Vocabulary size may be increased by literacy experience because rare words are more likely to be encountered in print than in oral language (Nagy & Anderson, 1984). The average person will encounter more complex syntactic structures in print than they would in speech, which again should lead to improved development of language skills. Exposure to different forms of language (including the written form) may also serve to increase metalinguistic skills (see Koda, 2007): i.e., to increase the individual’s ability to understand language in its basic, language non-specific form.
Hence, in bilingual/ second language contexts, there may be positive as well as negative effects. Under the right circumstances, learning of a second language may strengthen cognitive processing and cross-linguistic transfer of basic language skills: phonological knowledge of two sound systems may facilitate the development of first and second language skills (see discussions in Bialystok, McBride-Chang & Luk, 2005). However, errors can be caused by an overextension of an analogy learnt in a first language but applied incorrectly in the second. Indeed, both the potential positive and negative consequences of second language learning may depend on relationships/commonalities between the two languages (see Bialystok et al., 2005). Additionally, some English-as-a second-language learners may struggle with understanding relatively uncommon words in the second language that may be fairly familiar to their monolingual English peers – and weak vocabulary can be a barrier to comprehension and writing coherence. Weak language skills, such as poor vocabulary, may also be a factor in poor strategy use in writing – the search for appropriate words in writing production can reduce the time spent revising an essay and can also interfere with monitoring processes during writing (see Wong Su Cho et al., 2012).
Furthermore, although language may be biologically focused within certain parts of the brain that have developed to support language processing, it needs to be remembered that the skill of writing is learnt. Therefore, the individual has to be able to use the language systems of the brain to perform the language-based skill of writing. Furthermore, this will require integration with other skills: hand-eye coordination, for example – and practice will be needed to make these different aspects skilled. Writing instructors also need to be cognizant of the fact that unlike Ll writers, L2 writers begin to write in the language when they start to learn that language, both in ESL and EFL contexts. Learning a second language is generally contingent upon such factors as the exposure to the target language, the motivation to learn, and the typological similarities or differences between the Ll and the L2. These variables are not constant across L2 learning settings. Learning a second language can be a long process of development for many L2 learners. For example, Kellogg (2008) contends that “writing skills typically develop over a course of more than two decades as a child matures and learns the craft of composition through late adolescence and into early adulthood” (p.l). Students who start tertiary education in Bangladesh, typically, do not have “two decades of maturation, instruction, and training” (Kellogg, 2008, p.2). Additionally, Lenneberg (1967) claims that one’s propensity to learn a second language gradually declines with age; a phenomenon popularly known as the Critical Period Hypothesis. Basically, this view would propose that the earlier the exposure to a second language (12), the better the outcome of learning the L2. Most students in Bangladesh would have been expected to be primarily exposed to English as a language of learning from grade three, when they were about 8 years old. From then until their late teens, when they undertake tertiary education, exposure to English has been minimal. Therefore, the learning of English may be limited and, even if the strong view of the critical period position is incorrect, Bangladeshi adult students may have a great deal of work to do to acquire skills in English writing. Taking these factors into account, a pedagogical option with regard to L2 writing, which is based blandly on error identification, may not be the optimal way of supporting this learning process.
As well as the biological constraints to L2 writing ability, the emergence of technology, especially the Internet, may be an additional area of challenge that the informed tertiary educator will need to consider. Indeed, authors such as Prensky (2001) have claimed that technology has led to a division between teachers and students. Students, the digital natives, have spent a significant amount of time surrounded by computers, videogames, digital music players, video cams, cell phones, and all the other toys and tools of the digital age. On the other hand, teachers, even those who may be fascinated by many aspects of new technology, are the digital immigrants and “maintain their foot in the past” (Prensky, 2001, p. 2). This can lead to problems in the interactions between groups. As the use of, and need to, incorporate computers and other IT tools into education increases, so the authority of instructors may be severely compromised. The students may become the experts in use of the major tool of learning – and may access information from the Internet that contradicts or undermines the course tutor. The Internet can also refute the significance of a single language as the only means of communication as movement between languages become easier. Also, the grammar of the Internet often deviates from the norms of Standard English in written discourse by allowing the use of contractions, emoticons and fragments – and text messaging could be considered even worse in its abuse of standard language forms. Therefore, students whose main English (and L1) writing experience is via the Internet or texting may find ‘correct’ grammar highly unfamiliar, even unnatural. Writing instructors need to consider the experiential background of their students.
No less important in this context is the view, as expressed by Kramsch (1993) that language and learning are inextricably bound with culture. This can be considered to have direct bearing upon the artefacts of writing that students produce in an EFL context like Bangladesh: i.e., the learner’s experience of the Bangladesh culture will be a factor in their learning of the L2. This area of study (i.e., the juxtaposition of L1 and L2), which is known as contrastive rhetoric, began with the publication of an article by Robert Kaplan in 1966. Having analyzed 600 L2 student essays, Kaplan hypothesized that Oriental writers are indirect and non-linear, while Anglo-American writers are linear. Although broad generalizations, this may give an idea of how writing experience may vary across cultural groups. English is a staple of Anglo-American culture, which values direct and reasoned argument in academic discourse. This argument often is presented in a written form. In contrast, the concept of academic writing does not exist in the wider cultures of Bangladesh. Writing is regarded as a rare gift accessible only to a few individuals. This perception is anecdotally reinforced in that many of the great writers in the annals of Bengali Literature (such as Rabindranath Tagore, Kazi Nazrul Islam and Jibananda Das) were autodidacts who excelled only in creative (or philosophical) writing. In a culture such as this the skill of writing is not acquired by the majority of the population, and the concept of academic writing may not be culturally compatible. Against this backdrop, when students are inducted into the requirements of academic writing, there is going to be an amount of resistance and a need for cultural re-valuation, since they pass or fail in the course because of the written artefacts they produce. This tug of war between cultural disposition and academic obligation is likely to lead to difficulties that a focus on surface errors is hardly going to overcome. Writing instructors in Bangladesh must liberate themselves, as well as students, from this reductive realm of errors searching to optimize pedagogical outcome.
Teaching Writing beyond Errors
An error contingent writing pedagogy proceeds on the deterministic stance that writing can be distilled down to a set of technical system of rules that can be taught to students, and which lead to them becoming better writers. This stance toward teaching writing merits critical consideration especially in an EFL context like Bangladesh. When mainstream students in Bangladesh commence tertiary education, they have been exposed to English for some nine years, given that mainstream students start to learn English from grade three. Although the communicative approach to teaching English has gained wide currency in Bangladesh since the turn of the millennium, both at Secondary and Higher Secondary levels, the teaching of English still revolves around grammar. Had teaching grammar been really so central to knowing English, that exposure should have been enough to equip students with the writing skill since “numerous experiments establish that to achieve academic competence in a language one needs five to seven years or more” (Ernst-Slavit, Moore & Maloney, 2002). Given that tertiary students in Bangladesh cannot demonstrate minimal academic competence in writing despite exposure to English for more than nine years, teaching the same thing (i.e., grammar) is unlikely to yield different results. However. this focus continues. The typical course discussed above (Introduction to Composition) would be hardly about anything but grammar: the weekly schedule, for example, includes work on active and passive voice, simple, complex, and compound sentence, run-on, fragment, dangling and misplaced modifiers, parallelism, shift in tense, shift in point of view, missing referent, lack of pronoun agreement, sexism, and punctuations. How do instructors normally know whether students learn or not? They mark errors on students’ written discourses. What do instructors do to make sure that students learn despite errors? They give feedback.
Feedback is a complex and controversial area as far as teaching writing is concerned. The concept of feedback defies any straightforward definition for two reasons: for one, there are different types of feedback (direct and indirect feedback, implicit and explicit feedback, and comprehensive and selective feedback). Secondly, writing instructors perceive and respond to these categories differently across cultures. Feedback is varied, and its application is idiosyncratic. As is, “the research literature has not been unequivocally positive about its role in writing development” (Hyland & Hyland, 2006, p.83). While theoretically it is maintained that feedback is crucial for encouraging and consolidating learning, empirical evidence suggest that feedback given by writing teachers “is incomplete, idiosyncratic, erratic, and inaccurate” (Ferris, 2002, p. 11). Truscott (1996) even claims that feedback is ineffective and should be abolished. It is not necessary that all writing teachers have to concur with Truscott; however, if they can maintain an objective attitude as they engage in feedback, they will discover the shortcomings with the system of feedback that focuses on simple error correction.
For example, even if some students adopt the corrections suggested by instructors, it might not mean that they have come to appreciate the rationale of these errors. All it might mean is that they have simply transcribed it from the first assignment into next one. This is a short-term gain that is unlikely to lead to long-term benefits to writing skill. Ferris (2002) has problematized the phenomenon further. She has classified error into two categories: treatable and untreatable. Some of the errors (e.g., article, pronoun etc) occur in a patterned, rule-governed way, and students can be directed to a grammar book to fix those. Word choice and sentence structure errors are idiosyncratic, and students cannot consult any grammar book to fix those. She calls these un treatable errors. With regard to the untreatable errors, teachers are left on a limb, in that the typical error identification system cannot correct these. Hence, any pedagogical approach, that is focused on error and correction feedback will be only partially effective to teach writing. Writing instructors, therefore, must shift into an alternative paradigm. Teaching writing as a process is that alternative paradigm.
Although this process approach to teaching writing re-defines some of the fundaments (i.e., error identification, correction feedback) of the traditional approach to teaching writing (i.e., teaching writing as a product), it is not new. Victor Villanueva in the introduction of the book edited by him, Cross-talk in Comp Theory: A Reader has clarified the origin of the process approach to teaching writing especially in the U.S., which has been responsible for formulating and popularizing it both in EFL and ESL contexts. In 1966 in Dartmouth Conference about fifty teachers of English from England and from the United States met to discuss common problems.
(To be continued)
