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.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Some Thoughts on Ramanathan-Atkinson's Article
The views of voice expressed in the literature seem to be based extensively on the examination of individualism versus collectivism. Admitting to the existance of these cultural differences, they (p. 51) believe that teaching writing to L2 speakers may end up looking like trying to install incompatible software to certain hardware. However, in so doing, they may have been so quick to draw a conclusion from these cultural phenomena as if individualism does not exist in its entirity in Asian cultures. Individualism may still be held alongside collectivism depending on the type of situations at hand. Overgenralization derived from studies on only how students from those cultures write or perform may lead to oversimplication of the whole issue. Any idea folks?
Ramanathan and Atkinson's problematization of voice may be a case in point, however, his methods of arriving at certain conclusions about certain cultures may also be seen as aligning itself so much with the "deficit theory"-like views (as we've seen in Kaplan's doodle (check your spelling fikri!) article) that certain cultures express themselves this way or that way. Again, what do you folks think?
I find it very reductive that the term process (as in Scollon's view used to support their argument) strictly translates to words such as individualism, rationalism. and autonomicity, as if that is the only direction toward which the movement from the product approach was headed. Can't other cultures too think rationally?
While I do believe that there is a lot to be done with regard to voice in L2 writing, basing the studies of voice on very limited research findings or on issues featuring the 'others' cultures' as being at lower, higher, better, worse thinking order as the terms individualism and collectivism suggest or imply may make us miss the forest. Individualim might not be the only culprit that accounts for all differences in expression across various cultures.
Ramanathan and Atkinson's problematization of voice may be a case in point, however, his methods of arriving at certain conclusions about certain cultures may also be seen as aligning itself so much with the "deficit theory"-like views (as we've seen in Kaplan's doodle (check your spelling fikri!) article) that certain cultures express themselves this way or that way. Again, what do you folks think?
I find it very reductive that the term process (as in Scollon's view used to support their argument) strictly translates to words such as individualism, rationalism. and autonomicity, as if that is the only direction toward which the movement from the product approach was headed. Can't other cultures too think rationally?
While I do believe that there is a lot to be done with regard to voice in L2 writing, basing the studies of voice on very limited research findings or on issues featuring the 'others' cultures' as being at lower, higher, better, worse thinking order as the terms individualism and collectivism suggest or imply may make us miss the forest. Individualim might not be the only culprit that accounts for all differences in expression across various cultures.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
On Matsuda-Atkitson's Little Chit Chat
Matsuda and Atkinson's platonic conversation sort of fills in many ways the gaps I sensed in Kaplan's article. They make me appreciate Kaplan' ideas even more for what he has come up with more than 40 years ago. Although many scholars seem to be poking at him, they have at the same time given so much credit to what he has built. However, with no intention of being disrespectful to Kaplan’s early enlightening contribution to multicultural rhetoric, Matsuda’s argument is justified saying that Kaplan’s 1966 article has received so much attention that people forget the fact that in order to have a solid and comprehensive CR theoretical ground, things do not have to revolve around Kaplan's article.
Reading Kaplan's is one thing, reading Matsuda and Atkinson's is another. I am still left with burning curiosity in my mind as to where we are headed. Matsuda proposes two major shifts in the way we look at CR. First, since CR does not provide satisfactory conditions for it to be a distinct field, we need to move away from the already accepted view of what the currently understood CR holds. This can be done either by abandoning the term or finding a safe spot somewhere between CR and comparative rhetoric. This is a combination of multiple foci: textual features, humanity, and others. Second, a more radical approach of post-modernism, dissolving (Atkinson's term) the whole thing and let other well-established fields adopt and develop its pieces is at least not beyond reach.
Either way, I too believe that CR is a dynamic concept that should not take orders from any one. If revolutionary steps are necessary in order to make changes in people's lives and in the way the world operates then be it. If we accept that there are multiple literacies, then why can’t there be multiple rhetorical traditions or dimensions? Reducing CR to including only its textual features is, I believe, obscuring the visibility of the whole forest of rhetoric and misleading to teaching and research.
Reading Kaplan's is one thing, reading Matsuda and Atkinson's is another. I am still left with burning curiosity in my mind as to where we are headed. Matsuda proposes two major shifts in the way we look at CR. First, since CR does not provide satisfactory conditions for it to be a distinct field, we need to move away from the already accepted view of what the currently understood CR holds. This can be done either by abandoning the term or finding a safe spot somewhere between CR and comparative rhetoric. This is a combination of multiple foci: textual features, humanity, and others. Second, a more radical approach of post-modernism, dissolving (Atkinson's term) the whole thing and let other well-established fields adopt and develop its pieces is at least not beyond reach.
Either way, I too believe that CR is a dynamic concept that should not take orders from any one. If revolutionary steps are necessary in order to make changes in people's lives and in the way the world operates then be it. If we accept that there are multiple literacies, then why can’t there be multiple rhetorical traditions or dimensions? Reducing CR to including only its textual features is, I believe, obscuring the visibility of the whole forest of rhetoric and misleading to teaching and research.
A Little Note on Kaplan's Article
Kaplan's article presents one of the earliest views on contrastive rhetoric. He argues that thought processes or patterns of logical thinking play a pivotal role in shaping the rhetorical tradition of a culture. He contends that by understanding the thought patterns of other cultures or of other language users, English writing teachers will have a better chance of success. Although I agree with Kaplan on many issues raised in the article, he did leave me wonder about a few things.
First, I wonder if Kaplan is a little shortsighted in judging how literacy in general develops. In his view, it seems it is only one-way street where our rhetorical skill is shaped only by the way we think or by the way our culture views certain things. Many current literacy studies have gathered much evidence convincing enough to suggest that literacy, or in this particular case, rhetorical skill, is also affected by the already existing rhetorical forms. In other words, rhetoric is not only shaped by our logical thinking but our logical thinking might have already been affected by rhetoric from the very beginning.
The implication of this is that in order to teach English writing to students from other cultures, not only do we need to emphasize to them that they need to think differently or to think in the English context but also to emphasize to them that the form of writing that they are already used to in their own language may have influenced the way they think now. It would be in their interest that they are able to distance themselves from all forms of writing they have been exposed to that might have shaped their thinking patterns. In other words, Kaplan’s campaign would have been more successful if he also emphasized the deconstruction of the already established pattern of logic in students’ mind.
Kaplan's call for studying contrastive rhetoric might be seen as opinionated, which is another potential source of disagreement and the one that does not reflect the current view of literacy or contrastive rhetoric. Kaplan seems to have assumed or advocated that English has one fixed form of rhetoric or what is called Aristotle’s version of rhetoric. This assumption, if proven, dismisses the role of other forms of rhetoric such as those found in creative writing. Kaplan's intention in the article might then be judged as to teach that one form of rhetoric with no deviation allowed.
In contrast, the current view of literacy (as in multiple literacy theory) and contrastive rhetoric recognizes the role other rhetorical forms and those from other cultures play in English writing. This to some extent makes Kaplan’s agenda politically problematic in that he encourages teachers to teach the student how to be aware of the existing variety only for the sake of not falling into that "variety trap". Doing so, Kaplan has (maybe) created a list of do's and don’ts in contrastive rhetoric instead of asking teachers and students to recognize such differences as their writing assets.
Questions to ponder: what is the true contrastive rhetoric conventional position on this dilemma? Are we to recognizing alternative rhetorical forms in order to avoid them or to find space for them in English writing?
First, I wonder if Kaplan is a little shortsighted in judging how literacy in general develops. In his view, it seems it is only one-way street where our rhetorical skill is shaped only by the way we think or by the way our culture views certain things. Many current literacy studies have gathered much evidence convincing enough to suggest that literacy, or in this particular case, rhetorical skill, is also affected by the already existing rhetorical forms. In other words, rhetoric is not only shaped by our logical thinking but our logical thinking might have already been affected by rhetoric from the very beginning.
The implication of this is that in order to teach English writing to students from other cultures, not only do we need to emphasize to them that they need to think differently or to think in the English context but also to emphasize to them that the form of writing that they are already used to in their own language may have influenced the way they think now. It would be in their interest that they are able to distance themselves from all forms of writing they have been exposed to that might have shaped their thinking patterns. In other words, Kaplan’s campaign would have been more successful if he also emphasized the deconstruction of the already established pattern of logic in students’ mind.
Kaplan's call for studying contrastive rhetoric might be seen as opinionated, which is another potential source of disagreement and the one that does not reflect the current view of literacy or contrastive rhetoric. Kaplan seems to have assumed or advocated that English has one fixed form of rhetoric or what is called Aristotle’s version of rhetoric. This assumption, if proven, dismisses the role of other forms of rhetoric such as those found in creative writing. Kaplan's intention in the article might then be judged as to teach that one form of rhetoric with no deviation allowed.
In contrast, the current view of literacy (as in multiple literacy theory) and contrastive rhetoric recognizes the role other rhetorical forms and those from other cultures play in English writing. This to some extent makes Kaplan’s agenda politically problematic in that he encourages teachers to teach the student how to be aware of the existing variety only for the sake of not falling into that "variety trap". Doing so, Kaplan has (maybe) created a list of do's and don’ts in contrastive rhetoric instead of asking teachers and students to recognize such differences as their writing assets.
Questions to ponder: what is the true contrastive rhetoric conventional position on this dilemma? Are we to recognizing alternative rhetorical forms in order to avoid them or to find space for them in English writing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)