What+the+ESL+Research+Says

//Post information, resources, and materials re: research on teaching and learning English as a Second Language here.//

About Writing - A research-based, annotated list of principles, practical strategies, and resources for teaching writing to non-native speakers of English user:chericem1

Cooper, Marilyn. 2000. Really useful knowledge: A cultural studies agenda for writing centers. In Robert Barnett and Jacob Blumner (eds.) //The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Writing Center Theory and Practice//. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 335-349. http://136.165.114.52/wcj14.2/wcj14.2_Cooper.pdf

Writing centers are places where students can go to continue interesting conversations that began in class (p. 97), but they are also sites for research (p. 98). Writing consultants should create knowledge about writing in college, empower clients as writers, and keep clients focused on their own writing (p. 98). However, a product-based approach in which the focus is on clients' papers prevents consultants from eliciting what clients know about writing and impedes their ability to help clients build the knowledge they need about their own writing process in order to become more effective writers (p. 99). Questioning writers the decisions they have made and the meanings they are trying to express, and asking them to read aloud can be effective ways of helping clients to learn to become more autonomous writers. However, clients must come to understand that "control" over their writing comes not from subduing it, but from using language to construct "subject positions" that navigate between institutional demands and individual needs (pp. 101-102). The article offers a lengthy description of the differences between traditional and organic intellectuals, based on the ideas of Gramsci (pp. 104-105). It suggests that while writing consultants must constantly confront the constraints that institutional forces impose on writing, institutional pressure on them is limited and indirect as a result of the marginalized position of writing centers within the field of writing pedagogy (p. 106), thus positioning them to serve as radical intellectuals whose feedback to professors can change writing pedagogy and institutional domination (p. 103). The article concludes with 5 brief anecdotes that demonstrate these ideas in practice, followed by a series of recommendations for future action user:chericem1

Cumming, A., & So, S. 1996. [|Tutoring Second Language Text Revision: Does the Approach to Instruction or the Language of Communication Make a Difference?] //Journal of Second Language Writing// 5: 197-226. (Must be logged in to MSU's proxy server to have access)

This comprehensive and well-researched article suggests that one-on-one writing tutoring may be a particularly effective context in which cognitive apprenticeship between novices and experts can occur (p. 198). It explains that tutoring is a complex endeavor that consists of different types of relationships, phases of composing, levels of focus, and pedagogical expectations (pp. 198-199). It distinguishes between conferencing, peer conferencing, and tutoring, (p. 198) and explains that tutoring is a form of distributed cognition in which the roles of participants in the process vary depending on the context. Viewing tutoring in this way encourages researchers to focus their analyses on the cooperative aspects of it instead of positioning them to assume that teacher-student relationships and the practices that commonly accompany them underlie the interactions (p. 199). The quasi-experimental research examined error correction v. procedural facilitation, tutoring provided in the 1st language v. in the 2nd language, and students with different cultural and language backgrounds. user:chericem1

DiPardo, Anne. 2000. “Whispers of coming and going”: Lessons from Fannie. In Robert Barnett and Jacob Blumner (eds.) //The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Writing Center Theory and Practice//. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 350-367. http://136.165.114.52/wcj12.2/wcj12.2_DiPardo.pdf

Identity is a central issue that must be addressed when consulting with non-native speakers of English. This article tells the story of one Navajo student whose insecurity about her English interfered with her academic progress, suggests a link between education and poverty, and discusses the ways in which education can challenge personal and cultural identity. The article illustrates the need for consultants to talk less and listen more with "respectful curiosity," to be willing to revise their own understandings based on ever emerging cues from their clients, and to provide specific suggestions that offer concrete mechanisms that will help students to implement them. user:chericem1

Powers, Judith. (1993, Spring). [|Rethinking writing center conferencing strategies for the ESL writer]. //The Writing Center Journal, (13)//2, 39-48. In Robert Barnett and Jacob Blumner (Eds.) //The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Writing Center Theory and Practice//. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 368-375.

The collaborative, non-directive, Socratically-based techniques typically used in Writing Centers depend on shared cultural backgrounds and assumptions which are generally not present in consulting sessions with non-native speakers of English. The cultural patterns of rhetoric, structure, and writing that non-native speakers bring with them, in conjunction with behaviors that may resemble those of lazy, teacher-dependent, or timid writers, often cause writing consultants to resort to patterns of interaction that do not yield productive results for these clients. By emphasizing audience, asking questions that give clients opportunities to clarify meanings, explicitly teaching common structures in academic writing, and focusing on vocabulary development, writing consultants can better serve non-native English speaking clients user:chericem1

Powers, Judith, & Jane Nelson. (1995). [|L2 writers and the writing center: A national survey of writing center conferencing at graduate institutions]. //Journal of// //Second Language Writing, (4),// 113-31. user:chericem1

This article is based on the results of a 1992, 21-question survey of Writing Centers at graduate institutions across the U.S. The surveys were designed to learn more about demographics, formal coursework designed to develop writing skills, sessions with graduate students, sessions with second language writers, and general difficulties in working with graduate research writers (esp. second language writers). Findings include that the clientele of writing centers around the country is increasingly comprised of NNS (as many as 70% in close to 1/3 of the writing centers surveyed), but only 13% of the 75 institutions provide writing courses specifically for NNS. Writing centers offer NNS clients individualized, developmental help with specific writing issues while simultaneously providing cultural informants and liaisons, yet only 8 of 75 centers had staff with formal training in working with NNS writers and 28% of the centers offered no training of any kind (formal or informal). This problem is exacerbated by continuous staff turnover, the fact that NNS writers are less likely to understand and clearly convey the expectations of their disciplines and advisors to the WC staff, the tendency of NNS to ask for sentence-level help and for consultants to default to the sentence-level when working on highly technical, research-based writing. The article suggests that learning to consult with NNS is a hands-on, experiential endeavor that may require non-traditional forms of professional development. It concludes by identifying campus-wide initiatives that could improve the situation, along with 3 levels of developmental readiness for reform specific to writing centers: awareness of the need to adapt to NNS, development of effective teaching strategies, and the dissemination of those strategies. user:chericem1

Ritter, Jennifer. (2005). Recent developments in assisting ESL writers. In Ben Rafoth (Ed.) //A tutor’s guide: Helping writers one to one//. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 54-62.

This article discusses the importance of negotiated interactions in helping non-native English speakers to improve their proficiency in English. It suggests that consultants tend to be more corrective, more directive, and to shift more toward the role of informant in sessions with non-native speakers of English, and that clients' concerns with editing and sentence-level correctness often reinforce those tendencies (p. 55). The article encourages consultants to focus negotiations primarily on global errors that interfere with reading comprehension rather than local errors that are difficult for clients to master and for consultants to explain (pp. 55-56). A number of strategies are offered, including:
 * model corrections for the client (p. 59)
 * negotiate the agenda with the client (p. 57)
 * read the paper aloud for the client (to refocus attention from pronunciation back onto the writing), pausing when you come to sections that do not make sense (p. 57)
 * signal errors to the client using a mutually agreed upon convention (p. 57)
 * use questions to negotiate meaning and grammatical forms (p. 57) user:chericem1

Severino, Carol. (1993, Fall/Winter). [|The “doodles’ in context: Qualifying claims about contrastive rhetoric]. //The Writing Center Journal, (14),// 44-63.

A set of visual representations of rhetorical patterns that were devised by Kaplan have often been used to help consultants understand the writing of non-native English speakers:

Arabic - Zig zag English - Straight Line Oriental - Spiral Romance Languages & Russian - Line downward that branches in different directions

Although Kaplan has since qualified these patterns with the caveat that all written languages are organized according to similar patterns, but the frequency with which each culture uses a particular pattern varies, Severino worries that these commonly referenced drawings are actually skewed, oversimplified, and incomplete representations. She fears that they may lead to pedagogical stances that encourage conformity to patterns of writing that are culturally preferred in the U.S. over equally valid alternatives that represent a wider variety of international perspectives. (p. 45)
 * Entire discourses are better representations of cultural thought patterns than individual paragraphs, which may not have been intended as "units of thought" (p. 46).
 * The process an author uses for generating and connecting ideas is not necessarily represented by the manner in which the author choose to present those ideas (particularly after revisions have occurred) (p. 46).
 * Rhetorical patterns are also influenced by demographic factors, developmental factors, genre factors, language background, previous writing instruction, and regional differences (p. 46). Thus, it is important that these factors be clearly specified as part of contrastive rhetorical analyses.
 * Concentration on grammar or syntax may give the appearance that a writer relying on a cultural pattern of discourse when, in fact, the issue is really just one of a misplaced focus of attention (p. 47).
 * American Students - (Indrasutra)
 * Feel in control of events in their narratives (p. 48)
 * Physical events move the plot forward (p. 48)
 * Write to entertain (p. 48)
 * Thai Students - (Indrasutra)
 * Plot is moved forward by internal mental changes (p. 48)
 * A culture's literacy instruction has a complex influence on a culture's ways of thinking (p. 48)
 * Asking clients to describe their previous writing instruction and to define what makes writing good in their country is one way consultants can learn more about how to help their clients. Questions can serve as future writing prompts. A copy of the writing prompts for this assignment appears at the end of the article on page 61 (p. 49).
 * China
 * Citing authorities is preferable to expressing one's own opinion (p. 55)
 * Personal writing is often perceived as being easier, more "fluffy," and politically risky (p. 56)
 * Use lots of proverbs and sayings (p. 55)
 * Consulting is truly about negotiating form and meaning, and it is important to consider multiple alternative hypotheses that might reasonably explain a writer's struggles (such as a lack of vocabulary) rather than presuming that patterns are simply the result of cultural or political preferences (p. 57) user:chericem1

Severino, Carol. (1993). [|ESL and native English speaking writers and pedagogies: The issue of difference - A review essay]. //The Writing Center Journal, (13),// 2.

This book review emphasizes that "process pedagogies" are culture-specific, not universal, in their effectiveness, and encourages readers to adopt a stance toward non-native writers of English that takes the cultural perspectives behind those differences into account. The article also briefly discusses issues related to speakers of Standard English as a Second Dialect.

Tips include:


 * Be aware of common sentence-level error patterns (Severino, p. 67).
 * Be sensitive to assignments that may produce cultural dissonance for clients whose culture does not value equality or individualism to the degree that U.S. culture does (Severino, p. 68).
 * Don't ask non-native speakers to defend culturally controversial arguments or to publicly disagree with one another (Severino, p. 67).
 * Follow the client (Severino, p. 65).
 * Give non-native speakers lots of practice with grammar, rhetoric, vocabulary, etc. (Severino, p. 67).
 * Provide non-native speakers opportunities to inform readers about their culture(s) through their writing (Severino, p. 68).
 * Trust your own writing experience (Severino, p. 64).
 * What appears to be plagiarism to native speaker instructor is often an expression of admiration for good writing in other cultures (Severino, p. 68). user:chericem1

Severino, Carol. 2005. Crossing cultures with internal ESL writers: The tutor as contact zone contact person. In Ben Rafoth (ed.) //A Tutor’s Guide: Helping Writers one to// //one//. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 41-53.

This article argues that multicultural reading and composition courses tend to base their curricula on U.S. issues and "hyphenated" (p. 41) cultures rather than on international issues viewed from the perspective of many different cultures. It provides a wealth of concrete examples regarding the ways in which this curricular stance presents challenges for non-native speakers of English. It also explores the ways that the Writing Center becomes a "contact zone" in which multiple cultures and perspectives conjoin, collide, and converge, and suggests how consultants might engage with clients in this challenging zone by becoming cultural co-informants, co-mediators, and co-translators (p. 48).


 * Cultural Co-Informant - (When writing assignments are based on reading)**
 * Allow clients to write autoethnographic texts (p. 48).
 * Collaborate to create glossaries of cultural people, references, and terms from the readings that are unfamiliar (p. 43-44).
 * Explain cultural issues and controversies to the client (p. 42) and ask clients about analogous situations from their own countries (p. 44).
 * Read the first few pages of essays that are to serve as the bases for composition assignments together rhetorically, identifying assertions and supporting details. Ask clients to continue this on their own, noting questions about confusing places in the text (p. 43).
 * Take advantage of electronic resources such as Google, etc., to collaboratively inform one another regarding cultural phenomena (p. 44).


 * Rhetorical Informant - Focus on Discourse & Style**
 * Inquire as to the reasons for particular stylistic formats (such as inductive presentation of ideas) and then, recognizing the place for "various World Englishes" (p. 47), help clients make informed choices about whether to keep or transform them (p. 47).
 * Negotiate word meanings and forms through clarifying questions, drawing, explanations, etc. (p. 47).
 * Remind clients of "count" v. "non-count" (p. 48) nouns (p. 48).
 * Teach academic genres and conventions (such as the argumentative nature of a dissertation) (p. 46) user:chericem1

Severino, Carol. 1993. [|ESL and Native English Speaking Writers and Pedagogies: The Issue of Difference - A Review Essay]. The Writing Center Journal, 13:2.

This book review emphasizes that although both native English-speaking writers and non-native English-speaking writers tend to censor personal information and over-monitor issues of structure, the writers, their processes, and their products are culturally and linguistically different (p. 64-65). Thus, "process pedagogies" are culture-specific, not universal, in their effectiveness. Consequently, the article encourages readers to adopt a stance toward NNS writers that takes the perspectives behind those differences into account. The article also briefly discusses issues related to speakers of Standard English as a Second Dialect.

Culturally-specific commonalities include:

Arabic:
 * Coordination rather than subordination in clauses

Chinese:
 * historical & literary referents
 * proverbs & metaphors
 * may be uncomfortable writing about the self

Japanese:
 * indirect language
 * may be uncomfortable writing about the self
 * may not state main points at the beginning of the writing (in a thesis statement or topic sentence)
 * recursive exploration of a "baseline theme"
 * specific-to-general organization

Spanish:
 * ornamental language

Tips include:


 * Be aware of common sentence-level error patterns (Severino, p. 67).
 * Be sensitive to assignments that may produce cultural dissonance for clients whose culture does not value equality or individualism to the degree that U.S. culture does (Severino, p. 68).
 * Don't ask NNS to defend culturally controversial arguments or to publicly disagree with one another (Severino, p. 67).
 * Follow the client (Severino, p. 65).
 * Give NNS lots of practice with grammar, rhetoric, vocabulary, etc. (Severino, p. 67).
 * Provide NNS opportunities to inform readers about their culture(s) through their writing (Severino, p. 68).
 * Trust your own writing experience (Severino, p. 64).
 * What appears to be plagiarism to NS instructor is often an expression of admiration for good writing in other cultures (Severino, p. 68). user:chericem1

Severino, Carol. 2005. Crossing cultures with international ESL writers: The tutor as contact zone contact person. In Ben Rafoth (ed.) //A Tutor’s Guide: Helping Writers one to one//. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 41-53.

This article argues that multicultural reading and composition courses tend to base their curricula on U.S. issues and "hyphenated" (p. 41) cultures rather than on international issues viewed from the perspective of many different cultures. It provides a wealth of concrete examples regarding the ways in which this curricular stance presents challenges for non-native speakers of English. It also explores the ways that the Writing Center becomes a "contact zone" in which multiple cultures and perspectives conjoin, collide, and converge, and suggests how consultants might engage with clients in this challenging zone by becoming cultural co-informants, co-mediators, and co-translators (p. 48).


 * Cultural Co-Informant - (When writing assignments are based on reading)**
 * Allow clients to write autoethnographic texts (p. 48).
 * Collaborate to create glossaries of cultural people, references, and terms from the readings that are unfamiliar (p. 43-44).
 * Explain cultural issues and controversies to the client (p. 42) and ask clients about analogous situations from their own countries (p. 44).
 * Read the first few pages of essays that are to serve as the bases for composition assignments together rhetorically, identifying assertions and supporting details. Ask clients to continue this on their own, noting questions about confusing places in the text (p. 43).
 * Take advantage of electronic resources such as Google, etc., to collaboratively inform one another regarding cultural phenomena (p. 44).


 * Rhetorical Informant - Focus on Discourse & Style**
 * Inquire as to the reasons for particular stylistic formats (such as inductive presentation of ideas) and then, recognizing the place for "various World Englishes" (p. 47), help clients make informed choices about whether to keep or transform them (p. 47).
 * Negotiate word meanings and forms through clarifying questions, drawing, explanations, etc. (p. 47).
 * Remind clients of "count" v. "non-count" (p. 48) nouns (p. 48).
 * Teach academic genres and conventions (such as the argumentative nature of a dissertation) (p. 46). user:chericem1

Thonus, Terese. 1993. Tutors as Teachers: Assisting ESL/EFL Students in the Writing Center. //Writing Center Journal// 13: 13-26. http://136.165.114.52/wcj13.2/WCJ13.2_Thonus.pdf user:chericem1

Vann, Robert J., Daisy E. Meyer, & Frederick O. Lorenz. 1984. Error Gravity: A Study of Faculty Opinion of ESL Errors. //TESOL Quarterly// 18: 427-40. http://www.jstor.org/view/00398322/ap060071/06a00050/0

According to one study, sentence and discourse level errors were generally perceived by professors as more serious than those at the local level (i.e., articles). While academic rank or amount of contact with non-native speaking writers of English did not seem to influence these perceptions, older professors and professors of physical science and mathematics were less tolerant of errors than those from the social sciences, education, the humanities, and the biological sciences (Vann, et. al, 1984) user:chericem1

Back to English-ESL