Bringing out ESL voices through electronic writing
On page 165 of Casanave’s book, I found myself wondering why she felt that she needed to feel a sense of closeness or intimacy with the student Shuuichi in person to give full recognition to the voice he adopted when he communicated electronically. Personally, I do not view his “real world” shyness and formality as a detractor from his electronically transmitted voice of authority and educated debater. We have popular authors who write books for the masses and whose written voices would never match up with the idea you receive about that person when you meet them at a book signing. Voice, as we’ve discussed, is a very complex and multifaceted aspect of the writer. The way one writes is not always going to mimic the way one speaks, because these are two separate modes of communication and they tend to vary. Also, if we run with the idea that writing electronically allows students to develop another identity for themselves, why would we assume an automatic intimacy with a personality we have spent less than a year getting to know? On average, the amount of time an instructor gets to spend with a student, whether mainstream or non-mainstream is negligible. Sometimes, I think educators need to be more realistic in their goals and expectations of what they can accomplish with their student over a relatively brief period of time.
The case study debates over the benefits of electronic interactive writing versus that of the traditional classroom interaction seem to indicate that there is no way which is truly better than the other. Basically, it really depends on a number of variables including the members of the class and the teacher. Nothing works all the time for everyone, a concept we’ve also discussed. The key is to be flexible and open to the fact that what works with one class may stifle another and vice versa.
Students and Plagiarism
Whether they are mainstream American students, ESL students, or International students, students in general often have issues with the act of plagiarism. Plagiarism is one of those things that are talked about in hushed voices and usually only after a student has been punished or expelled over some act of plagiarism. Teachers rarely take the time to establish a comprehensive, working understanding of what constitutes plagiarism, why plagiarism is wrong and worthy of punishment, and why the punishments for plagiarism are so harsh. Everyone plagiarizes. There are very few new or novel arguments being made in the world that was not offered up by someone else in previous time. The whole concept of plagiarism largely rests on the ideas of intellectual property and copyrights. While students do need to learn proper ways of citation to join the conversations going on in the academic community and acknowledge the earlier contributions of other authors, they also need to learn what differentiates plagiarism from the rote memorization they were encouraged towards in earlier years of education.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Ramanthan and Atkinson: The Social Construction of Students Within and Outside the US
While reading the article Individualism, Academic Writing, and ESL Writers, I was struck by a sense of understanding for past experiences wherein the differences in underlying cultural expectations created a less than productive atmosphere between myself (a mainstream middle-class American) and my classmates (members of minority cultures valuing the collaborative achievement rather than individual achievement). In the whole of my academic career, the main goal has been to stand out as an individual for my individual diligence, intelligence, and talent. I can’t speak for everyone else, but my parents always made sure I knew that I needed to stand out and be progressive and successful as an individual with my success depending on own my individual achievements. Initially, the experience of having classmates who insisted that a collaborative achievement was much better than an individual achievement went entirely against the grain. It seemed illogical and irrational to me, because of the expectations that I had been raised with as well as the expectations that are implicit within the American educational system. Reading about these differences is a very good way to understand why approaches to teaching ESL writers with mainstream social concepts does not always work very productively.
After reading this article, I am very interested in reading more about communicative styles across cultures. I never put too much thought into what a cultural concept “voice” is before seriously considering the different ways in which we describe and use “voice” in American culture. One particularly striking point in this article is when the student Shen relates the way his American teachers would encourage him to “be himself” which in essence was encouraging him to develop a new self that would be able to reflect the social concepts of his American classroom. As an L2 writer coming from a country that does not require I gain any particular aptitude in another language, I have never truly been forced to recreate myself to reflect the social constructions of my adopted language. I cannot quite imagine what that must feel like.
I can also see where peer review can become an area of some awkwardness. Largely, I would posit that most mainstream American students go into peer review with an individual perspective and individual goals. They know the group will read their work and judge them, the individual, based on whatever they have submitted for review. However, they also seem to maintain the attitude that it is first and foremost their own intellectual property and suggestions (however valid or helpful) are simply that, suggestions. Personally, I have noted times when I’ve had my written work reviewed by mainstream American classmates and non-mainstream classmates that I receive very different feedback. Although all of my classmates may offer suggestions for revision, my mainstream American classmates are often quick to assure me that it is ultimately my work and my decision while my non-mainstream classmates are more often either reluctant to consider critiquing my work at all or quick to assure me that their suggestion is more of a necessity for my work and should definitely be implemented. According to the authors, NNS writers have been shown to approach peer review from a perspective which is far more embracing of the groups’ opinion and far more concerned with not disrupting the social atmosphere of the group. Looking back on those peer review experiences makes the section of the article dedicated to peer reviewing and individualism rather fascinating.
After reading this article, I am very interested in reading more about communicative styles across cultures. I never put too much thought into what a cultural concept “voice” is before seriously considering the different ways in which we describe and use “voice” in American culture. One particularly striking point in this article is when the student Shen relates the way his American teachers would encourage him to “be himself” which in essence was encouraging him to develop a new self that would be able to reflect the social concepts of his American classroom. As an L2 writer coming from a country that does not require I gain any particular aptitude in another language, I have never truly been forced to recreate myself to reflect the social constructions of my adopted language. I cannot quite imagine what that must feel like.
I can also see where peer review can become an area of some awkwardness. Largely, I would posit that most mainstream American students go into peer review with an individual perspective and individual goals. They know the group will read their work and judge them, the individual, based on whatever they have submitted for review. However, they also seem to maintain the attitude that it is first and foremost their own intellectual property and suggestions (however valid or helpful) are simply that, suggestions. Personally, I have noted times when I’ve had my written work reviewed by mainstream American classmates and non-mainstream classmates that I receive very different feedback. Although all of my classmates may offer suggestions for revision, my mainstream American classmates are often quick to assure me that it is ultimately my work and my decision while my non-mainstream classmates are more often either reluctant to consider critiquing my work at all or quick to assure me that their suggestion is more of a necessity for my work and should definitely be implemented. According to the authors, NNS writers have been shown to approach peer review from a perspective which is far more embracing of the groups’ opinion and far more concerned with not disrupting the social atmosphere of the group. Looking back on those peer review experiences makes the section of the article dedicated to peer reviewing and individualism rather fascinating.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Contrastive Rhetoric
Contrastive Rhetoric: Reader vs. Writer Responsibility
While reading Casanave, one of the topics mentioned particularly stuck in my mind. As Casanave related John Hinds study of the differences between Japanese and English expository writing, I had a flashback to working in the Writing Center of my alma mater, Clarion University. We would often work with Asian students and Arabic students and find ourselves working to convince them to be more direct and explanatory in their writing. As American students, accustomed to a writing system that demands and expects the writer to lead the reader to new knowledge AND explain that new knowledge in such a way that a reader ignorant of the issue can fully understand the discussion, we were puzzled by the roundabout way those students were writing their essays. However, as Hinds explains, the burden of creating understanding is not on the writers in Japanese as it is in English. According to Hinds, contrastive rhetoric has a lot to do with the expectations of the reader. Now, Peter McCagg argues with Hind over whether or not Japanese puts more responsibility on the reader but I’m really not sure how I feel about his counterargument.
As we had been trained to do, we asked our Asian and Arabic students questions to help them develop their essays. At first, we did this because we thought they just had no idea what else to write. We were fascinated to learn, however, that the writing system in their L1 background made very different demands of them and that was why they were having a more difficult time producing essays agreeable to American essay expectations. So, I can see that it is important to have some awareness of pre-existing differences in writing expectations because that awareness allows educators to look further than the assumption that writing in an L2 is just difficult because of some cognitive inability to perform in the L2.
An interesting thing to note though is that American students often exhibit similar problems being direct with their writing and creating an understanding for the reader that does not rely primarily on the readers own ability to piece knowledge together. College freshman in the US are often reminded time and again about the importance of providing pertinent information, using transitional sentences, and not assuming that the reader has any prior knowledge of the subject being discussed.
While reading Casanave, one of the topics mentioned particularly stuck in my mind. As Casanave related John Hinds study of the differences between Japanese and English expository writing, I had a flashback to working in the Writing Center of my alma mater, Clarion University. We would often work with Asian students and Arabic students and find ourselves working to convince them to be more direct and explanatory in their writing. As American students, accustomed to a writing system that demands and expects the writer to lead the reader to new knowledge AND explain that new knowledge in such a way that a reader ignorant of the issue can fully understand the discussion, we were puzzled by the roundabout way those students were writing their essays. However, as Hinds explains, the burden of creating understanding is not on the writers in Japanese as it is in English. According to Hinds, contrastive rhetoric has a lot to do with the expectations of the reader. Now, Peter McCagg argues with Hind over whether or not Japanese puts more responsibility on the reader but I’m really not sure how I feel about his counterargument.
As we had been trained to do, we asked our Asian and Arabic students questions to help them develop their essays. At first, we did this because we thought they just had no idea what else to write. We were fascinated to learn, however, that the writing system in their L1 background made very different demands of them and that was why they were having a more difficult time producing essays agreeable to American essay expectations. So, I can see that it is important to have some awareness of pre-existing differences in writing expectations because that awareness allows educators to look further than the assumption that writing in an L2 is just difficult because of some cognitive inability to perform in the L2.
An interesting thing to note though is that American students often exhibit similar problems being direct with their writing and creating an understanding for the reader that does not rely primarily on the readers own ability to piece knowledge together. College freshman in the US are often reminded time and again about the importance of providing pertinent information, using transitional sentences, and not assuming that the reader has any prior knowledge of the subject being discussed.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Philadelphia Reads
My Literacy Narrative
The story of my literacy began when I was a baby. My mother and father were both college-educated which is something I believe affected my literacy as I grew and developed. My mother and father, as well as my two older sisters, would speak to me when I was a baby. They did not speak in “baby-talk”, but in fully expressed sentences. As I grew older, my mother would gently but promptly correct my syntax when I spoke to her. She worked across the street from our city’s largest public library and would often take me there to pick out children’s books. She made sure that I had a children’s library card, which I thought was the most magical thing ever as a child. I found out exactly how many books I could take out of the library at once, and I always took out the maximum number of books.
My mother encouraged my reading literacy by taking time to sit and read her own books quietly while I read my own book quietly. She entered me in reading challenges, offered by the library, which rewarded frequent readers with prizes. When I began attending middle school, my mother would allow me to type up fictional stories of my own creation and read them to her. My written literacy came both from my parents and from my Granny. I remember my Granny making me sit and practice writing in print and cursive. She would also work to correct my speaking errors and expand my spoken vocabulary.
My father influenced my spoken literacy considerably because he often spoke to me in his ‘legal’ voice. He was a district attorney for Philadelphia and later for Norfolk Virginia. Between my mother and father I learned a good deal about the difference between expressive speech and speech geared more towards argument making.
When I was in school, I drew largely on lessons in literacy that I had already learned from my parents. School was more of a reinforcement tool than the primary tool of my literacy education. Sometimes I think that this is the reason many children have such a difficult time learning to read and write expansively, they lack a foundation in spoken and written literacy from their family.
Another influence on my spoken and written literacy would have to be the neighborhoods I grew up in and the schools I attended. I have always been a part of a multicultural community and I think the literacy that develops in multicultural communities is very encouraging towards learning second language literacies. I found myself with Russian, Hispanic, Asian, and Italian classmates and I wanted to be multiliterate, though I had no idea what multi-literacy meant back then. As I moved up through school levels, I began to experience foreign languages like Spanish in middle school and French in the high school choir.
My high school established a four year language requirement so I took German for four years and I excelled in the language. I used it in school and I used it at home. Even though my mother could not understand the German language, she would listen to me when I spoke it to her. She praised and encouraged me, and she was a very big positive influence on my desire to learn and become proficient in other languages. In college, I tested into a high level of German and I continued to learn German. I even had a literature class in German dedicated to the story of Faust. In addition to German, I took an interest in Russian language because it was equally challenging to learn and I enjoy a challenge. I savored the process of learning to read, write, and speak in these strange new languages. My literacy is constantly evolving and growing through different experiences and interactions.
The story of my literacy began when I was a baby. My mother and father were both college-educated which is something I believe affected my literacy as I grew and developed. My mother and father, as well as my two older sisters, would speak to me when I was a baby. They did not speak in “baby-talk”, but in fully expressed sentences. As I grew older, my mother would gently but promptly correct my syntax when I spoke to her. She worked across the street from our city’s largest public library and would often take me there to pick out children’s books. She made sure that I had a children’s library card, which I thought was the most magical thing ever as a child. I found out exactly how many books I could take out of the library at once, and I always took out the maximum number of books.
My mother encouraged my reading literacy by taking time to sit and read her own books quietly while I read my own book quietly. She entered me in reading challenges, offered by the library, which rewarded frequent readers with prizes. When I began attending middle school, my mother would allow me to type up fictional stories of my own creation and read them to her. My written literacy came both from my parents and from my Granny. I remember my Granny making me sit and practice writing in print and cursive. She would also work to correct my speaking errors and expand my spoken vocabulary.
My father influenced my spoken literacy considerably because he often spoke to me in his ‘legal’ voice. He was a district attorney for Philadelphia and later for Norfolk Virginia. Between my mother and father I learned a good deal about the difference between expressive speech and speech geared more towards argument making.
When I was in school, I drew largely on lessons in literacy that I had already learned from my parents. School was more of a reinforcement tool than the primary tool of my literacy education. Sometimes I think that this is the reason many children have such a difficult time learning to read and write expansively, they lack a foundation in spoken and written literacy from their family.
Another influence on my spoken and written literacy would have to be the neighborhoods I grew up in and the schools I attended. I have always been a part of a multicultural community and I think the literacy that develops in multicultural communities is very encouraging towards learning second language literacies. I found myself with Russian, Hispanic, Asian, and Italian classmates and I wanted to be multiliterate, though I had no idea what multi-literacy meant back then. As I moved up through school levels, I began to experience foreign languages like Spanish in middle school and French in the high school choir.
My high school established a four year language requirement so I took German for four years and I excelled in the language. I used it in school and I used it at home. Even though my mother could not understand the German language, she would listen to me when I spoke it to her. She praised and encouraged me, and she was a very big positive influence on my desire to learn and become proficient in other languages. In college, I tested into a high level of German and I continued to learn German. I even had a literature class in German dedicated to the story of Faust. In addition to German, I took an interest in Russian language because it was equally challenging to learn and I enjoy a challenge. I savored the process of learning to read, write, and speak in these strange new languages. My literacy is constantly evolving and growing through different experiences and interactions.
Controversies In Second Language Writing
The Intangible Internal Factors of the L2 Teacher
Casanave speaks a lot about the impact that the second language teacher’s background and ingrained personal beliefs have on their classroom. The teaching style used may or may not be in sync with the teacher’s professed teaching philosophy. This is something that carries a great deal of importance for the students and the second language teacher. Students pay attention to explicit expectations from their teachers and when they begin to sense implicit expectations that do not mirror the expectations they have been given through explicit instruction they can become confused and discouraged. On the same token, the teacher who may not realize that there is a discrepancy between their self professed teaching philosophy and the actual acts of their classroom teaching might also become confused about why the interactions with her students are not as productive as she might have expected.
Our individual personalities, our memories of our own educational upbringing, and various other variables related to our innate individuality all manage to materialize some way in our classrooms as we teach. According to Casanave, “whether we realize it or not at the time, these intangible internal factors influence decisions we make in the classroom” (11). Casanave posits that we bring our own experiences with second language learning into the classroom and this affects the way we believe our students should be taught and the way we decide our moral obligation to our students when teaching them. She talks about the way teachers can sometimes question their own teaching decisions as they wonder whether or not to make students do assignments that they did not enjoy when they were students. Many of the teaching decisions made involving class structure, materials used, and the enforcement of certain policies often depend upon the personal reaction of the teacher.
For example, in a recent Reflective Practice meeting titled, “If your course were a video game…” there were some very heated views on how engaging or entertaining a course should be. There were some teachers who were very excited about seeing in which ways they could make their class like a video game. By that, I mean challenging, engaging, rewarding, and a pleasurable experience that compels students to interactive in a positive and productive manner. To do this, some teachers were willing to consider giving bonus points, prizes, flexible options for writing and revision. Others, however, were somewhat outraged at the concept of “catering” to students with rewards and incentives beyond the negative punishments that would accompany a lack of participation and attendance. I would not go so far as to say that either group is inherently right or wrong in their views towards what proper teaching and learning should consist of, but I would say that their own feelings on learning and personal experiences with being taught might be a very real factor in their reactions.
I was fascinated by this chapter because it was so unerringly on point with a lot of issues I’ve been noticing when I observe teachers teaching or students learning or students discussing the way they are being taught. I can ever see the same kinds of thoughtful negotiations concerning teaching philosphy taking place during our graduate classes as we struggle to understand each others viewpoints and priorities even when they do not meet our own expectations and beliefs.
Casanave speaks a lot about the impact that the second language teacher’s background and ingrained personal beliefs have on their classroom. The teaching style used may or may not be in sync with the teacher’s professed teaching philosophy. This is something that carries a great deal of importance for the students and the second language teacher. Students pay attention to explicit expectations from their teachers and when they begin to sense implicit expectations that do not mirror the expectations they have been given through explicit instruction they can become confused and discouraged. On the same token, the teacher who may not realize that there is a discrepancy between their self professed teaching philosophy and the actual acts of their classroom teaching might also become confused about why the interactions with her students are not as productive as she might have expected.
Our individual personalities, our memories of our own educational upbringing, and various other variables related to our innate individuality all manage to materialize some way in our classrooms as we teach. According to Casanave, “whether we realize it or not at the time, these intangible internal factors influence decisions we make in the classroom” (11). Casanave posits that we bring our own experiences with second language learning into the classroom and this affects the way we believe our students should be taught and the way we decide our moral obligation to our students when teaching them. She talks about the way teachers can sometimes question their own teaching decisions as they wonder whether or not to make students do assignments that they did not enjoy when they were students. Many of the teaching decisions made involving class structure, materials used, and the enforcement of certain policies often depend upon the personal reaction of the teacher.
For example, in a recent Reflective Practice meeting titled, “If your course were a video game…” there were some very heated views on how engaging or entertaining a course should be. There were some teachers who were very excited about seeing in which ways they could make their class like a video game. By that, I mean challenging, engaging, rewarding, and a pleasurable experience that compels students to interactive in a positive and productive manner. To do this, some teachers were willing to consider giving bonus points, prizes, flexible options for writing and revision. Others, however, were somewhat outraged at the concept of “catering” to students with rewards and incentives beyond the negative punishments that would accompany a lack of participation and attendance. I would not go so far as to say that either group is inherently right or wrong in their views towards what proper teaching and learning should consist of, but I would say that their own feelings on learning and personal experiences with being taught might be a very real factor in their reactions.
I was fascinated by this chapter because it was so unerringly on point with a lot of issues I’ve been noticing when I observe teachers teaching or students learning or students discussing the way they are being taught. I can ever see the same kinds of thoughtful negotiations concerning teaching philosphy taking place during our graduate classes as we struggle to understand each others viewpoints and priorities even when they do not meet our own expectations and beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
