Elena Lawrick, Ph.D. Reading Area Community College, Reading, PA Linda Henriksen, M.A. Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS Bridging the Disciplinary Divide in Teaching Composition to Multilingual Students 1
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Elena Lawrick, Ph.D.
Reading Area Community College, Reading, PA
Linda Henriksen, M.A.
Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
Bridging the Disciplinary
Divide in Teaching
Composition to
Multilingual Students
1
in search of best practices
for teaching composition to
multilingual students in U.S.
first-year writing courses.
2
o Motivation for our presentation
o 2 studies
o Comparison of curriculum options
oCourse descriptions
oTeaching practices
oWriting lab role
oFeedback & error correction
oStudent satisfaction & Instructor challenges
o Discussion
POINTS OF DISCUSSION
3
MOTIVATION FOR OUR PRESENTATION
o An ever-growing number of ESL undergraduate students
enrolled in U.S. colleges & universities calls for
the development of best practices in teaching
composition to multilingual students.
(CCCC Statement 2009; Matsuda, 1998; Silva, 1997, as well as
numerous others).
4
ESL
writing course
mainstream writing course
emphasizes ESL writing concerns
over teaching rhetoric
provides insufficient support for
ESL writing concerns
PLACEMENT PATHS FOR MATRICULATED ESL STUDENTS
5
teaching
English language
teaching
rhetoric & composition
NEED TO FIND THE BALANCE, I.E. TO DEVELOP PRACTICES SENSITIVE TO ESL CONCERNS
WHILE FULLY ENGAGING STUDENTS INTO LEARNING
RHETORIC & COMPOSITION.
6
MOTIVATION FOR OUR PRESENTATION
o Both approaches have valuable insights to offer.
o The sharing of these insights will contribute to developing
best practices in teaching composition to ESL students ,
i.e. creating an inclusive & supportive yet stimulating
learning environment for students in both composition
tracks.
4
8
SCHOLARSHIP HIGHLIGHTS
o ESL students may perform better in writing courses specifically
designed for ESL writers than in mainstream writing courses (Braine’s
study 1994).
o Mainstream writing instructors are often not trained to work with ESL
writers & therefore tend to perceive ESL as deficient (Ferris 2009: 5).
o Cultural, rhetorical, & linguistic differences are perceived as deficient:
“Even in 2005, we still see perceptions of deficiency in the discussion of
students with cultural and linguistic differences” (Baker 2008: 148).
“In the academic classroom in the U.S. where the writing emphasis is on
organization, thesis statements, and topic sentences, where does that leave
the ESL/multilingual writing student whose cultural writing background is
based on developing ideas with a different kind of “voice,” rather than logic?”
(Canagarajah 2005: xi).
9
10
P U R D U E U N I V E R S I T Y
o ESL Writing Program
o 13 sections of ENG 106-I
o self-placement by
recommendation of academic
advisor
o Online student survey during
Weeks 13-15
o 171 students
(88% response rate)
o Online instructor survey during
Weeks 13-15
o 13 instructors
(100% response rate)
S O U T H E A S T M I S S O U R I
S T A T E U N I V E R S I T Y
o Mainstream Writing Program
o 59 sections of FYW courses,
19 sections w/ ESL students
were identified
o students are placed by
placement test score
o Online student survey during Weeks 11-13
o 52 ESL students
(88.46% response rate)
o Online instructor survey during weeks 11-13
o 19 instructors
(68.42% response rate)
CASE STUDIES
11
12
ESL: COURSE DESCRIPTION
o Students: 15 students per section
o University admission based on TOEFL/SAT score
o Self-placed into ESL or mainstream first-year writing course (by recommendation of academic advisor)
o Instructors: NNES / NES advanced PhD students in SL / ESL Program
o training & at least 2 semesters of teaching mainstream first-year writing
o 1 semester training in teaching ESL composition + coursework in TESOL, and optional yet common coursework in SLW & world Englishes
o Introduction to academic writing approach. 5 essays:
o Narrative on Student’s English Language / Academic Literacy
o Sequenced Writing Project (SWP): Narrative addressing the topic for SWP, Literature Review, Interview Report, Argumentative Essay.
o Work on each essay is highly individualized process:
in-class instruction (lectures, group work) > Draft 1 + student-teacher conference on the content + suggested WL session > Peer Review > Draft 2 + student-teacher conference on the English usage + suggested WL session > in-class overview of the writing project > Draft 3 submitted for grading
13
ESL: TEACHING PRACTICES
Student-teacher
conference
In-class instruction:
lectures & activities
Session with a
Writing Lab
tutor
Group work: in-class activities
&/ student-
teacher
conferences
Peer review
THE COMBINATION OF :
14
ESL: PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHING PRACTICES (CONT’D)
TEACHERS / STUDENTS’
PERCEPTIONS OF
“MOST HELPFUL”
INSTRUCTIONAL MEANS
15
8%
In-class instruction
2%
Other
65 %
student-teacher
conference
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS
ESL: ROLE OF WRITING LAB
o Instructors:
o 100% encouraged students to work with a WL tutor on at least one essay
draft
o 67% believed that students regularly visit the WL; 33% did not think so
o Students:
o 69% found a WL session helpful; 31% did not.
o Frequently indicated assistance with:
o The use of English (sentence structure, grammar, mechanics, punctuation)
o Brainstorming & planning
o Organization, the thesis statement & conclusion
Some quotes from students >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
16
ESL: ROLE OF WRITING LAB
SOME QUOTES FROM STUDENTS:
o They do not correct anything for me; however, they do think and talk with me. From
this process, I can have one more chance to revise my work.
o I would like them [tutors] to direct me in the way I want to write my essay. They
should provide their own ideas regarding how to write the essay [contradiction?].
o I hope that the tutors would not be afraid of giving more suggestions on improving
our essays. As I can personally see that some tutors do not dare to point out the
whole picture to a student when it comes to improving the students’ writing skills. It
might be that the tutor does not want to make the student feel offended.
o Full identification of Grammatical errors and follow up on it.
o More time…
o Honestly, I think writing lab session is too short and I am not able to get enough time
to discuss everything in half an hour. Otherwise, it helps to get a third person
perspective from the WL instructor.
17
ESL: INSTRUCTOR’S FEEDBACK
18
INSTRUCTOR’S FEEDBACK ON EACH OF 2 DRAFTS:
85% of instructors
utilized the MS Word Commenting Feature
15% of instructors made handwritten notes
10-20 min.
one-on-one oral feedback
on the draft.
INSTRUCTOR’S
WRITTEN COMMENTS
STUDENT-INSTRUCTOR
CONFERENCE
ESL: WRITTEN FEEDBACK CORRECTION
19
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE FORMAT OF INSTRUCTOR’ S WRITTEN
COMMENTS AS “MOST HELPFUL” IN THE DRAFT REVISION PROCESS
Corrected errors + explanatory notes in a comment balloon
A summarizing paragraph + explanatory notes in a comment balloon
Highlighted incorrect words &/ places that need editing
Highlighted incorrect words + an error type (e.g., sp.)
in a comment balloon
A summarizing paragraph
No written comments; just verbal feedback during a student-teacher conference
65%
62%
58%
49%
2%
38%
ESL: STUDENT COURSE SATISFACTION
o Overall felt more confident in their ability to write academic essays (91%)
o Believed that the ESL writing course:
o introduced them to the resources available for writers on campus (83%)
o Helped develop their ability to identify issues and make necessary revisions related to organization, content, & language use in their essay (86%)
o Self-assessed their improvement in the following areas :
dramatic – moderate -
o Organization 36% - 60% -
o Sentence structure 22% - 72% -
o Word Choices 19% - 67% -
o Punctuation 29% - 62% -
o Grammar 20% - 74% -
o Conventions of academic writing 43% - 53% -
o Ability to find, evaluate, and integrate sources (aver.) 37% - 59% -
20
ESL: INSTRUCTOR CHALLENGES
o The study did not directly investigate this aspect, yet
o NO frustration was expressed / sensed
o Instructors volunteer to articulate any challenges
o Possibly, because …
21
83%
Indicated that they were familiar w/ research into L/C-1 rhetorical
& textual influences in student writing
100% 45%
Indicated that it helped them
understand why students
make “incorrect” rhetorical &
language usages
Indicated that it helped them
explain to students why certain
language usages may be
perceived as “incorrect” or
awkward
22
MAINSTREAM: COURSE DESCRIPTION
o Students: 30 students per section (both NES & ESL)
o Essay placement test rated by university certified essay raters
o Instructors: NES Lecturers & M.A. students in the English Department
o No formal training in SL writing
o Training in teaching mainstream composition for graduate instructors
o Approach: focus on the process of effective written expression
o 5 essays: Observing Essay, Remembering Essay, Investigating Essay,
Evaluating Essay, Arguing Essay (research-based)
o Work on each essay is organized as:
in-class instruction (lectures, activities, group work) > Draft 1 > Peer Review >
Draft 2 > Instructor’s written comments (with optional student-teacher
conference on Arguing Essay Draft 2)> Draft 3 submitted for grading
23
MAINSTREAM: TEACHING PRACTICES
In-class instruction:
Lectures, activities,
& group work
Session with a
Writing Lab
tutor
Peer review
THE COMBINATION OF :
24
Student-teacher
conference on
Arguing Essay
(optional)
Quizzes &
textbook
MAINSTREAM: PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHING PRACTICES
25
HOW WERE THE ESL STUDENTS’ NEEDS ACCOMMODATED IN A
MAINSTREAM COURSE? PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHERS & ESL STUDENTS
Teachers ESL students
Refers ESL students to the Writing Lab 85% 62%
Focuses on grammar issues 62% 54%
Spends extra time helping ESL students
after/outside of class
54% 46%
Other 39% -
Does not treat ESL students differently
from native English speaking students
15% 20%
Some quotes from teachers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
MAINSTREAM: TEACHERS ABOUT THEIR PRACTICES
TEACHERS ABOUT THEIR PRACTICES TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ESL
STUDENTS
“Of course, I'm willing to answer questions and work with them individually if
they want. And I have. But in general, I've simply let them do their thing. Holding
their hand the whole time isn't going to give them the experience they need to
do this kind of thing on their own later, which is what I am supposedly
teaching.”
“While I do cover various grammar lessons in class, I focus more on the
structure and organization needed for a coherent essay. If they still need major
grammatical help, they should seek help on a one-on-one level, which is more
than I can teach during class time and conferences.”
26
MAINSTREAM: WRITING LAB & OTHER RESOURCES
27
78%
Writing Lab
39%
Teacher
37%
Friend
4%
Classmate
4%
Tutor
STUDENTS’
PERCEPTIONS OF
THEIR USE OF
CAMPUS
RESOURCES FOR
WRITERS
MAINSTREAM: INSTRUCTORS’ FEEDBACK
28
Referred to the Writing Lab
Identified error patterns
Other (e.g., “pointed things out, explained)
Corrected all grammar issues
Provide the same feedback as to native English speaking students
23%
69%
INSTRUCTORS’ PERCEPTIONS ABOUT THE FORMAT OF THEIR FEEDBACK ON ESL
STUDENTS’ ESSAYS:
8%
54%
78%
MAINSTREAM: INSTRUCTORS’ FEEDBACK
29
INSTRUCTORS’ FEEDBACK ON EACH OF 2 DRAFTS:
Essays 1-4
Combination of MS Word Commenting Feature
& handwritten notes
Essays 1-4:
Upon request of instructor
or student
Essay 5:
10-20 min.
one-on-one oral feedback
on the draft.
INSTRUCTORS’
WRITTEN COMMENTS
STUDENT-INSTRUCTOR
CONFERENCE
MAINSTREAM: ESL STUDENTS’ COURSE SATISFACTION
o Overall, ESL students were satisfied with their experience in the mainstream
first-year writing course (87%)
o Believed that they were successful in learning (75%)
o Would say that they succeeded in achieving good grades (67.5%)
o Knew where to receive help with writing (WL, of course!) (95%)
However,
o If given a choice, would have taken an ESL track of a first-year writing course
(52%)
o Overall, expressed the need for the university to offer an ESL section of a first-
year writing course (61%)
30
MAINSTREAM: INSTRUCTORS’ CHALLENGES
o Communication with ESL students
“My biggest problem is that they don't necessarily talk to me when they're
confused or have problems... “
o Understanding ESL students
“I felt at a loss. It was hard to find a base of general understanding with them.”
“Adapting for cultural differences in assignment comprehension and writing
techniques.”
o Training in teaching ESL composition (69% had no training)
“I am not trained in this area. I don't understand the problems they have nor
how to help them. It is unfair to them and to me and a class would help them
bring their skills up to where they need to be.”
“My last course in ESL teaching was in 1984. I feel like I need a refresher
course”.
31
More focus on rhetoric
in ESL writing courses
ESL-sensitive practices in
mainstream writing courses
OUR OBJECTIVE WAS TO SEARCH FOR THE
BALANCE, i.e., TO DEVELOP PRACTICES SENSITIVE TO ESL CONCERNS
WHILE FULLY ENGAGING STUDENTS INTO LEARNING
RHETORIC & COMPOSITION.
32
WHAT EMERGED FROM 2 STUDIES?
4 POINTS OF BALANCE EMERGED FROM 2 STUDIES
o HOW INDIVIDUALIZED SHOULD INSTRUCTION BE?
ESL: Extremely individualized Mainstream: Very insufficiently individualized
Include student-teacher conferences on each essay +/ use automated feedback
o TEXTBOOK
ESL: No textbook (course pack) Mainstream: heavily relied on the textbook
Textbook + handouts+ interactive online learning systems
o THE WRITING LAB
ESL: Utilized as an additional resource Mainstream: utilized as a substitute for 1-on-1 help from the teacher
Have ESL-trained WL tutors , develop ESL-sensitive WL practices, & maintain a tight collaboration between the Writing Program and the Writing Lab
o TEACHERS’ TRAINING IN SLW-RELATED ISSUES
ESL: A lot of training Mainstream: Little – to - no training
Ongoing training in L/C1 influences & current realities of teaching composition worldwide
33
DISCUSSION
o Teacher training:
o What kind of professional development for writing instructors does
your institution provide and/or should provide?
o Is it important for mainstream FYW instructors to get training in
L1/C1 influences in student writing? What other aspects of training
appear to be instrumental in FYW programs?
o Instructor feedback:
o How helpful is feedback centered on error correction to ESL student-
writers? How much correction is enough? And how much “freedom to
make mistakes” should instructors allow?
o How should writing instructors treat the influences of L/C-1 in student
writing? Some possibilities include:
o zero tolerance / encouraging / educating
34
Related Documents
![NP TESOL [PP at [NP Central]]] TESOL CentralGraduate-level Official Certificate Program in TESOL 17 Undergraduate Minors in TESOL and Linguistics 18 English Proficiency Form (for use](https://static.cupdf.com/doc/110x72/5f71e37c2bcd3c1caa769faa/np-tesol-pp-at-np-central-tesol-central-graduate-level-official-certificate.jpg)
