One of the interesting issues to me in Casanave chapter 5 is that reading and writing courses need to be incorporated because “we cannot teach L2 students about audience or textual borrowing without involving them deeply in reading activities” (p. 185). It reminds me of when I was taught English reading and writing courses separately, which made me assume that these two skills are discrete. The first time I encountered the concept of audience and plagiarism was when I took an academic writing course in the US. But the teacher simply emphasized how important those concepts are in writing and we, especially international students, should be very careful not to borrow others’ ideas improperly. Then we had to write a paper with that in mind. If I had done reading activities that specifically focused on audience and how to borrow others’ ideas in a proper way in the academic discourse community, it would’ve been easier for me to understand and apply those in my writing.
Surely, reading benefits writing not only in these two aspects but also other aspects of writing. In addition, some international students have almost no previous literary background in English. American students read a lot of books in and outside school before they enter the classroom. If all of the reading experience in the target language is reading textbooks and grammar books, it’s not surprising that foreign students have difficulties in grasping concepts easily that are taken for granted by native English speakers.
Although how we define plagiarism considering cultural and historical factors is important, we researchers try to go beyond mere defining the concept and understanding how challenging it would be to international students. If you have many international students in your class, you need to spend much more time on writing and reading activities focusing on audience and how to not plagiarize than in class with American students. Once teachers understand that what Americans take for granted doesn’t come naturally and easily to students from different backgrounds, they will provide more examples from great literary works or articles, writing activities for practice, or feedback related proper citation, instead of saying how important it is at the beginning of the class and blame students upon their paper at the end of the semester.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
9-23-09-Voice
I found one of Atkinson’s (2001) question interesting because he showed how trying to teach individual voice, whatever its definition is, can disadvantage non-native English speaking or non-mainstream students: “Is voice really being taught in the L1-oriented composition classroom?” (p. 111)
Some students, I believe many of the mainstream students, are raised in households where individual voices are encouraged and children are naturally exposed to parents’ ways of communicating with others in various literacy practices. This early socialization can give them a headstart, compared to those who “suffered harsh educational consequences” (p.111) due to the lack of extensive exposure to “prior socialization” (p. 111).
Some children from relatively higher socio-economic background can access a lot of literate sources from birth. Their parents might use writing to express themselves for their jobs or at home regularly. Other children might not have any parents who read bedtime stories to them, or their parents might never read or write since they graduated from high school. These two groups of students obviously start on a different footing when they enter education system.
In this sense, literacy and socio-economic power is so intertwined that we cannot actually separate them. Mainstream American students, although not all, need to learn the things that they already learned at home. And the things that they already learned from home is not simply language, but a complex bundle of social and cultural assumptions and values, which minority or international students have no access to. If we cannot detach individual voice from the rest of the social-cultural sets of values, how we can teach it to students, even to L2 students? Or if ever possible to do so, how can teachers teach that in just a few semesters when mainstream students learn that for their entire lives?
Some students, I believe many of the mainstream students, are raised in households where individual voices are encouraged and children are naturally exposed to parents’ ways of communicating with others in various literacy practices. This early socialization can give them a headstart, compared to those who “suffered harsh educational consequences” (p.111) due to the lack of extensive exposure to “prior socialization” (p. 111).
Some children from relatively higher socio-economic background can access a lot of literate sources from birth. Their parents might use writing to express themselves for their jobs or at home regularly. Other children might not have any parents who read bedtime stories to them, or their parents might never read or write since they graduated from high school. These two groups of students obviously start on a different footing when they enter education system.
In this sense, literacy and socio-economic power is so intertwined that we cannot actually separate them. Mainstream American students, although not all, need to learn the things that they already learned at home. And the things that they already learned from home is not simply language, but a complex bundle of social and cultural assumptions and values, which minority or international students have no access to. If we cannot detach individual voice from the rest of the social-cultural sets of values, how we can teach it to students, even to L2 students? Or if ever possible to do so, how can teachers teach that in just a few semesters when mainstream students learn that for their entire lives?
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
intercultural rhetoric
Kaplan’s article (1966) is significant in that he viewed the struggles second of language learners as cultural differences instead of “cognitive deficit” (Casanave, 2003, p. 29). It cannot be denied that his argument had a huge impact on second language teachers when many teachers couldn’t understand why their foreign students were so poor at writing unlike their native peers.
Nonetheless, it can’t also be denied that his analysis could have improved in some way. As Kubota (1998, as cited in Casanave, 2003) points out, more evidence is needed to argue that there are “culturally unique patterns” (Casanave, 2003, p. 36). I felt uneasy when I read Kaplan’s example and analysis of Korean student’s essay which was written in English, a language that he/she didn’t have a good command of.
In addition to the fact that L1 patterns was analyzed based on writing in L2, there was a strong possibility that other factors came into play or several factors interacted with each other in the piece, let alone the low L2 proficiency. The student might not have had enough enthusiasm to invest all his/her energy. He/she might not have had enough knowledge about that topic. Or the writing task might not have been that important so he/she didn’t try his best.
To Americans, the word Korean may bring a single image. To me, one of the Koreans, the word in my head is too complicated and multifaceted because every Korean looks different to me. Each of them has their own set of small cultures. In this sense, I strongly agree with Connor (2004)’s claim that small cultures as well as national and ethnic cultures need be taken into account, and social and political contexts need to be investigated by appropriate research methods such as interviews with writers and readers or focus groups.
Of course, in order to do that, we need more complex and multiple methods, which are obviously harder and more complicated to collect and analyze than simply with written texts. However, as Atkinson (2008) argues, how can researchers explain “a highly complex phenomenon” with simple tools?
Nonetheless, it can’t also be denied that his analysis could have improved in some way. As Kubota (1998, as cited in Casanave, 2003) points out, more evidence is needed to argue that there are “culturally unique patterns” (Casanave, 2003, p. 36). I felt uneasy when I read Kaplan’s example and analysis of Korean student’s essay which was written in English, a language that he/she didn’t have a good command of.
In addition to the fact that L1 patterns was analyzed based on writing in L2, there was a strong possibility that other factors came into play or several factors interacted with each other in the piece, let alone the low L2 proficiency. The student might not have had enough enthusiasm to invest all his/her energy. He/she might not have had enough knowledge about that topic. Or the writing task might not have been that important so he/she didn’t try his best.
To Americans, the word Korean may bring a single image. To me, one of the Koreans, the word in my head is too complicated and multifaceted because every Korean looks different to me. Each of them has their own set of small cultures. In this sense, I strongly agree with Connor (2004)’s claim that small cultures as well as national and ethnic cultures need be taken into account, and social and political contexts need to be investigated by appropriate research methods such as interviews with writers and readers or focus groups.
Of course, in order to do that, we need more complex and multiple methods, which are obviously harder and more complicated to collect and analyze than simply with written texts. However, as Atkinson (2008) argues, how can researchers explain “a highly complex phenomenon” with simple tools?
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
reflection-9-9-09/ process and post-process approaches
Process approach to writing has played a significant role in helping students grow as writers although there are some objections to the approach. I agree with Atkinson (2003) and Matsuda (2003)’s idea that post-process does not mean total rejection of process focused practices, rather it is “a paradigm expansion” (Atkinson, 2003) and “the recognition of the multiplicity of L2 writing theories and pedagogies” (Matsuda, 2003). A closer look at situated and contextualized aspects of writing will lead to clearer understanding of the multiplicity of L2 writing.
One of the interesting points from Atkinson article is the way in which “non-mainstream writers might be disadvantaged by an L1-oriented process writing pedagogy” (Atkinson, 2003, p. 8). Practitioners and researchers need to acknowledge that “student-centered and the non-transparent” process pedagogies (Atkinson, 2003, p.9) might benefit mainstream students who have been exposed to a range of mainstream literacy practices and literate sources from birth. Obviously, those from low socio-economic background or different cultures have divergent set of life experiences from mainstream students in the West, which would shape their literacy behaviors in different ways.
But, process and post-process pedagogies in writing classrooms are not mutually exclusive. That teachers recognize process writing practices may not address social and cultural aspects of literacy doesn’t necessarily mean that they should not encourage their students to write multiple drafts and to discover their voices in writing.
What is important is for teachers to be sensitive to specific educational settings and students’ characteristics so that they can make “principled and informed decisions” (Casanave, 2004, p. 16) in the classroom. As in an example of implementing Elbow’s version of process writing in a Taiwanese university (Atkinson, 2003), it may result in a damaging effect to put an approach into practice without taking into account educational contexts and students’ expectations and needs.
One of the interesting points from Atkinson article is the way in which “non-mainstream writers might be disadvantaged by an L1-oriented process writing pedagogy” (Atkinson, 2003, p. 8). Practitioners and researchers need to acknowledge that “student-centered and the non-transparent” process pedagogies (Atkinson, 2003, p.9) might benefit mainstream students who have been exposed to a range of mainstream literacy practices and literate sources from birth. Obviously, those from low socio-economic background or different cultures have divergent set of life experiences from mainstream students in the West, which would shape their literacy behaviors in different ways.
But, process and post-process pedagogies in writing classrooms are not mutually exclusive. That teachers recognize process writing practices may not address social and cultural aspects of literacy doesn’t necessarily mean that they should not encourage their students to write multiple drafts and to discover their voices in writing.
What is important is for teachers to be sensitive to specific educational settings and students’ characteristics so that they can make “principled and informed decisions” (Casanave, 2004, p. 16) in the classroom. As in an example of implementing Elbow’s version of process writing in a Taiwanese university (Atkinson, 2003), it may result in a damaging effect to put an approach into practice without taking into account educational contexts and students’ expectations and needs.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
autobiography
One of the biggest challenges in my acquiring English academic writing was when I took a major course titled Research Practice in Academic Writing and English Language Learners. That was my second semester in the US. Writing a critical review of a research article for that course was practically my first time to write an academic paper at a graduate school in the US. I guess my challenges were two-fold: on the one hand, I was not familiar with what an academic paper is supposed to be like, and on the other hand, I felt that my command of English was not strong enough to reveal my voice. Not surprisingly, I got a bad grade on that critical review with brutal comments that actually hurt my feelings.
But at the end of the semester, I became confident about writing and enjoyed the delights of accomplishments because those brutal comments were the start of my learning, although I realized that after I finished the class. What turned hurting-emotions feedback into a constructive learning advice was the professor’s continued dedication throughout the semester. In the beginning I revised my drafts multiple times because I appreciated the teacher’s time and energy that she put into my work. I knew that it was pretty hard for her to give the sheer amount of feedback to each of the multiple drafts for one paper. Whenever I revised my draft, she allowed me to send it to her via email and sent each draft with her written feedback. Thanks to her, I was able to get a sense of how logical can be considered ‘logical,’ how developed can be counted as ‘fully developed,’ when I need citation, and how I can support my ideas and so on.
Working a piece of paper in a multiple-draft setting like that was a process of learning of what an academic paper is like in a given discourse community. Through a series of getting feedback and responding to them, I interacted with the teacher, who represented the academic discourse community. The more familiar I became, the more confident I felt when I voiced while writing.
But at the end of the semester, I became confident about writing and enjoyed the delights of accomplishments because those brutal comments were the start of my learning, although I realized that after I finished the class. What turned hurting-emotions feedback into a constructive learning advice was the professor’s continued dedication throughout the semester. In the beginning I revised my drafts multiple times because I appreciated the teacher’s time and energy that she put into my work. I knew that it was pretty hard for her to give the sheer amount of feedback to each of the multiple drafts for one paper. Whenever I revised my draft, she allowed me to send it to her via email and sent each draft with her written feedback. Thanks to her, I was able to get a sense of how logical can be considered ‘logical,’ how developed can be counted as ‘fully developed,’ when I need citation, and how I can support my ideas and so on.
Working a piece of paper in a multiple-draft setting like that was a process of learning of what an academic paper is like in a given discourse community. Through a series of getting feedback and responding to them, I interacted with the teacher, who represented the academic discourse community. The more familiar I became, the more confident I felt when I voiced while writing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)