What talking about improvement requires

I agree with Casanave that any talk about improvement inevitably leads to making decisions about their teaching philosophies, assessment, and measurement. Due to the complexity of the criteria governing these decisions, many teachers choose to base their version of improvement on an easy and simple method, counting errors. In many non-US L2 writing contexts, as implied by Matsuda (2003), it is not that teachers blindly value error count; it is simply because they are not on the same page with teachers who follow the discussion in the field. Because of this disconnect, their students too become so used to this environment that they cannot imagine improvement without having their errors pointed out to them.

There are a number of possible solutions to this controversy. First, any attempt to change teachers’ beliefs, practices, and philosophies, requires a radical revision to the system under which these teachers teach (e.g., types of assignment given, criteria for assessment, etc). This can go as far as making changes to international test systems such as TOEFL and IELTS, the systems that have helped maintain the status quo and determine the way teachers teach especially in EFL countries. Second, establishing new strategies for gate-keeping (if this is important) that will be influenced by this radical change in the system should follow. We know that tests such as the ones mentioned above are there for gate-keeping purposes, unless schools and colleges walk hand in hand and change their policies in relation to their admission requirements, little can be said about bringing changes to teacher’s practices. Teachers and students will keep counting errors and will always be trapped in explicit grammar instruction.

Bilingualism & Literacy

In many of our readings today, there is a portrayal of how the so called standard English has been used in various K-12 educational settings to assess actions appropriate for ESL students. These students’ conformity to this vaguely held belief (standard) often forces researchers to find what they believe are practical solutions to the ‘ever-lasting system’ that is resistant to any challenge. This often results in limited recommendations such as those dealing with strategies ought to be employed during transitional processes or finding supportive educational elements of survival in the face of the mainstream student community. Rarely does it lead to forcible changes to the system itself under which the notion of standard is preserved.

I see that it is imperative that bilingual studies direct their research more toward attacking the status quo or the staying power of tacitly viewed literacy. As there is a tendency that each individual is affected by the dominant form of literacy, he or she would tend to adhere to what they think is an unchallenged or given view of intellectuality, sense of academic, and standardization and which prevents them from venturing outside this box of thinking. Therefore, emphasizing on the relationship between bilingualism and literacy development from a postmodernist or poststructuralist perspective to educators and decision makers may save some efforts of needing to fix every bit and piece of the breakdown.

So much as we want to fix some problems residing ‘in’ students as portrayed in the labeling of Spanish speaking students, teachers should not receive any less of our attention. We should emphasize the need for more research into teachers’, educators’, and decision makers’ interpretations of literacy and bilingualism as frequently as how researchers emphasize the need for more research into bilingual students’ experiences. The research that looks into the representation of ESL students’ identity is a good example of this kind of effort that directly links between educators’ role in forming this representation and its repercussion in ESL the students community. Although research into students’ performance is important, perhaps when paralleled with research into educators’ intellectual repertoire, more insight and, in turn, more effective actions may be revealed that can smoothly and justly position ELS students in relation to their native speaking peers.

First Year Composition of L2 Students

Mike rose (1985) in his language of exclusion points out that the problem with first year college composition or with composition classes in general is that there is a serious misconception among academics who often perceive writing as a set of quantified rules that can be dealt with by assigning students to certain remedial classes. To Rose, writing does not develop in isolation and to master it, students need to situate it in its natural environment and not in writing classes.

What we see happening to L2 writers as described by Leki is just another layer of this misconception. To bring some objectivity into the argument involves a number of urgent actions. First, there should be a shift in consensus among instructors or professors that each class whatever class it is, if it requires students to write, then each piece of writing students produce should be seen as a step toward the full or acceptable level of mastery of writing, not an end product. Second, instructors need to deconstruct their well-established view of what literacy or academic discourse means to them as professional educators. Third, the instructors need to realize that writing competence cannot be and will never be acquired by any temporary writing class. Forth, any implication for this perception shift should be dealt with accordingly.

If what I have said above applies to first year composition in general, resolving first year L2 composition problems requires even a higher level of reflection. The right question perhaps for composition instructors, teachers, and professors to answer is whether or not they are ready to lose partly or wholly what has been so precious for their department: their solitary and remedial composition classes.

A Glance at Canagarajah's Chapter

Echoing postmodernist movements in composition studies in general which call for pedagogies that are more tolerant and accepting to deviations and alternatives, Canagarajah (2002) too sees the need to address the discomfort experienced by ESOL students in their English classroom as a result of how they are positioned by power, ideology, identity and culture. In this chapter Canagarajah specifically elaborate on what critical academic writing means to multilingual students in ESOL contexts. Upon discussing a number of existing perspectives he then moves on to suggest the perspectives from which he believes ESOL students’ disadvantages can be seen and addressed.

Caragarajah speaks of the decisions (including my self when teaching in ESL contexts) that teachers have to make when choosing the kind of instruction appropriate for their ESL class. Teachers have to consider various aspects such as background knowledge, cultural values, intecultural rhetorical styles, socioeconomic factors, and many others if they want their teaching to be 'critical enough' that no student, as the result, is disadvanted.

While I agree with this postmodernist view and with Canagarajah's main points, I had trouble following the threads of his discussions; constantly wondering whether he is talking about critical academic writing per se or it is more about critical teaching of academic writing. Most of the time, he seems to be speaking to teachers and rarely students - which confirms my doubt that this is not even about academic writing at all, but more about pedagogies (at least up to this point in the book). In addition, Canagarajah seems to assume that composition as a field has already made up their mind that 'writing as social' is the most prevalent perspective ignoring that debate for and against other perspectives is still out there (e.g. Elbow's individual/free writing). What Canagarajah could have done better is explain briefly or in length why he chose one perspective over another that he think suites ESOL contexts.

Overall, I believe the ideas are interesting and do help teachers especially 'native speaking teachers' to understand what really goes on beneath the still water of ESOL.