Chapter 6: Politics and Ideologies

Leading Questions from the chapter:

•What aspects of L2 writing instruction, if any, might be considered political or ideological?

The reading material chosen- are we reading texts of the dominant society or are we integrating a variety of texts from both dominant and minority literature?

The media tools used- are we using media that are generally accessible only to the dominant society and if so, how might these disadvantage L2 writers attempting to produce their own texts through these unfamiliar media?

“All forms of ESL instruction are ideological, whether or not educators are conscious of the political implications of their instructional choices.” (Benesch, 1993)

•To what extent do L2 writing teachers have an obligation to help their students learn to follow existing writing conventions or to question, critique, and change those conventions?

View of Inseparability- We have a duty to make students aware of the ways that English is a power language and obligate them to question, resist, and challenge the status quo

Accomodationalist view- We must teach our L2 students how to use and appropriate English language proficiency as a means of survival in the dominating and subjugating English society. Avoid political agendas in the classroom.

“A prime example of what I consider extreme in critical theory and pedagogy is the premise that everything is political and ideological.” (Santos, 2001)

What will be the role of Internet technology in L2 writing classes in the coming years? In what ways will Internet technology affect the “digital divide”?

We have come to reconceptualize our definition of literacy- our L2 students will need to be made aware and capable of developing this expanded literacy skill set if they are to be competitive with L1 learners

We have come to reconceptualize our understanding of how students learn to be literate. These new components of visual literacy and digital media require new methods of teaching and an awareness of new ways of learning

“No technology is neutral or value free.” (Murray, 2000b)

As teachers, we need to consider the arguments posed in this chapter in relation to our own local contexts and teaching purposes.

Pragmatic orientation vs. Critical orientation

What kind of help do we believe students need? Let’s discuss these arguments

•English language learning cannot be separated from culture and ideology

•It is erroneous to assert that education and human relations are purely political

•Due to historical reasons, L1 composition is more ideological while L2 composition is more pragmatic

•L2 pedagogy is just as politically charged as L1, but it is not as openly discussed

•It is important to ask ourselves not only what we want our students to learn, but why we want them to learn it. “What is gained by asking students to master the social practices of Western academic discourse that support a particular orientation toward knowledge?” (McKay, 1993, p.76 qtd. In Casanave 201).



Casanave, C. (2004). Controversies in second language writing: Dilemmas and decisions in research and instruction. Ann Harbor: The University of Michigan Press, 195-235.

Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to truscott. Hamp-Lyons, L. (1995). Rating nonnative writing

Ferris makes a good argument for further research into the effectiveness and appropriateness of using error correction in the teaching of writing and particularly in the teaching of writing to L2 students. After reading her article, I would like to pose a few questions for thought to everyone.

1)Why is it important that teachers correct student grammar in their texts?

2)If you do not consider error correction to be an important aspect of teaching writing, why do you feel this way?

3) Is it possible that there would be no ill effects if teachers simply ceased to perform acts of error correction with their students?

4) At what point did you become aware of the value or detriment of error correction in your own educational experience?


Hamp-Lyons made an interesting argument about the value (or lack therof) of holistic scoring. She argued that conventional methods of holistic scoring do not support fully comprehensive and accurate assessments of student writing capabilities.

When you score student writing, what elements are you actually evaluating?

What biases might you bring to your analyis of a student's text that might differ from those of another teacher reading and evaluating the same text?

I have had instances where I have receieved completely opposite reviews on the exact same text from different professors, have you? If so, how did you come to an understanding about how two people could have such disparate views on the same text?