On Speaking-Writing Connection

Although the relationship between writing and speaking is reciprocal, we ought to be reminded that the existing of, first, oral language, then its representation in a written form tells us that writing by itself cannot train us to always express our meanings appropriately. However, the role that writing plays in second language learning is perhaps a unique one, allowing learners to sometimes reverse the truthfulness of this historical fact of human liteacry development.

Williams is quite right to suggest that at the stage when learners are not really sure about how to frame their thoughts into a partiuclar form, they tend to model the genres exposed to us through reading, then use them when they speak. I still remember how people looked at me when I used the formal Arabic forms for the first time during my stay in one of the Arab countries. Many said I sounded more like a TV presented or a preacher when I used those formal written forms. So, it is true that writing may support the development of proficiency but not necessarily the spoken genres.

The writing influence overall is more common in L2 than it is in L1 environemnt. This is because L1 users in fact tend to use their spoken form in their writing more than writing forms in their speaking. This is perhaps what makes speaking-writing connection even more meaningful to second language learners.

Reading to Write (Hirvella, Ch. 4)

Discussion Questions:

1. Hirvella maintains that the reason for choosing the direct or indirect model of reading could be determined by the distinction between conscious learning and subconscious acquisition. Can you think of other situations/reasons that can help writing teachers make such a decision? Can class time constrain possibly be of their concerns?

2. The direct and indirect models of reading elaborated in the chapter are often associated with Krashen’s notion of learning and acquisition. Do you agree that it can also be assumed that they are associated with accuracy and fluency? Can we suggest that the direct model with all its variety is closely linked to accuracy-oriented teaching in the sense that accurate or appropriate forms are learned explicitly? If not, in what ways are they different?

3. The direct model of reading in general refers to transforming our habit of reading for information (mainly an unconscious process) into reading for structures, forms, genres, etc. What are some potential difficulties, if any, that may be encountered by L2 readers that are different from those encountered by L1 readers during this process? How would they overcome such difficulties? Can you think of other strategies not outlined in the chapter that could help teachers implement these two models of reading in their classroom?

4. Do you think the concept of mining is helpful? Doesn’t it suggest that all the things students need from a text are readily there to be harnessed? Discuss this in light of Stuart Greene’s (1993) notion of “spectator role” and “participant’s role”.

Linking Reading and Writing through Reader-Response Theory

(Hirvella, Chapter 3)

Preliminary Discussion Questions (subject to minor changes)

1. To understand this reader-response theory better, based on your experience describe scenarios in which the author or text is the main focus of reading. Do you agree that negotiation of meaning and transactional elements are missing when we try to guess what an author intends to say or when we try to extract meaning purely from a text? Give real-life examples of how reader-response theory includes processes and elements different from those found in the author or text-oriented reading.

2. Hirvella places his reader-response theory within the realm of social constructivism, that reading is a socially constructed practice among readers, text, and author on the one hand, and between readers and the communities to which they belong on the other. Through the lens of reader-response theory, explain how learners’ background knowledge or reading skill gained in their L1 contexts is taken into account when learning to read and write in L2. Discuss how their L1 background knowledge and practices are really valued by the theory if, at the end of the day, their literacy development is still dictated by, dependent upon, or must conform to particular L2 conventions and discourses (p.54). Will there be any room for accepting the already established forms of L1 literacy practices as unique conventions in and of themselves?

3. L1 composition studies have already begun discussions on ideologies and injustices and as part of their commitment to developing post-process and post-modernist pedagogies, they have made radical changes to L1 writing instruction. Based on the assumption that reading parallels writing in many ways, discuss ways in which the L2 reading concerns voiced by the reader-response theory can also be expanded or modified to parallel the concerns developing in L1 context such as viewing reading as a practice fraught with ideologies and hidden agendas, more than simply cognitive-like activities (e.g., gap-filling, problem-solving, hypothesis testing, etc).