Group items tagged

The authors discussed to common occurrence of teachers "bending over backwards" for their NNS (Non Native Speaking) students, especially when evaluating surface errors. The study in this article seemed well orchestrated. It presented a variety of English teachers with six compositions: two from native English speakers, two from Danish speakers, and two from speakers of Thai. These students however were not real and the "student profile" assigned to each composition was constantly rotated. The results found that NES (Native English Speakers) were judged more harshly because "they should know better". The northern European, the Danish, students were pretty neutral. The Asian, the Thai, students were given the most leniency. I found this article interesting because it gives insight to the impact that teachers' grading has on the development of ESL students' writing proficiency.

In this excerpt of Oliver's book, Oliver discusses much of what Rose discussed on "how writer's block comes to be" in our text--therefore, I will not go over those points. My main agenda is to see what sort of techniques Oliver uses in his work to suggest how to move past writer's block. On pages 165-168 Oliver discusses the first approaches to writer's block and then three ways that can resolve writer's block. To approach writer's block, Oliver puts the responsibility on the teachers to figure out if their students with writer's block use too rigid rules when composing, and if so, encourage students repeatedly that "Writing is rewriting" and that editing should be done after writing is complete. These notions Oliver states are very close to "better said than done" tasks, since teachers can repeat such things over and over until they are blue in the face but that doesn't mean the students will take those words to heart and change their composing habits. Oliver then moves on to his three "resolutions" to writers block, strongly putting responsibility on the teacher initially. Oliver offers that teachers should have a 10-15minute discussion with their students, using probing questions to prompt ideas for writing. In turn, the students should jot down notes of the ideas that come to their minds. The point of this is to tap into relevant knowledge for their paper assignments. This sort of prompt questioning can then be used by students on their own time, alone or with friends--the teachers just lay the foundation of understanding for their students on how probe questioning can be useful when composing (shift in responsibility of overcoming writer's block from teacher to student after the excercise is learned and understood). Next, Oliver offers the excercise of freewriting to help open the flow of ideas. He recommends that teachers should give their students 10-15 minutes of non-stop freewriting on their writing topics. Students should refrain from pausing or editi

I first encountered this article when taking 470 course, and this week I have looked it through thoroughly, as it seems to me that it contains some significant information concerning the nature of bilingual writing. Losey affirms that written codeswitching is significant for bilingual students as it provides opportunity for them to fully express themselves. According to the author, the writing identity of a bilingual is constructed by the constant correlation of the two language worlds; therefore, it is not only natural but also necessary for him / her to codeswitch in order to express his / her individuality. This idea correlates with the article "Heritage Language Literacy: Theory and Practice" by Chevalier, where the author considers that bilinguals do not possess the whole range of written registers because they codeswitch in the situation when monolinguals change their writing style. However, Losey does not see codeswitching as disadvantage like Chevalier does. His point of view is closer to another article "Writing back and forth: the interplay of form and situation in heritage learners' composition" that I reviewed during the previous week. The author of that article explains that the productive writing in bilingual schools implies shifts between two cultures and languages in order to create a new non-standard way of expressing one's thoughts. Losey goes even further. He does not only considers codeswitching possible in the classroom settings ("an unsurpassed opportunity for bilinguals", "a successful strategy for enhancing communication, promoting natural literacy acquisition in both languages, valuing students' cultural and linguistic backgrounds", though "its use in the classroom runs counter to linguistic and cultural norms and must be guided by an informed and sensitive instructor"), but, after analyzing writing patterns of the 47 personal letters exchanged between young individuals, he also determines the form and functions of the written codeswitching

This article was really interesting because it targeted exactly what I'm doing at the ESL resource center and gave me a lot of insight into what kinds of questions I should be asking students who come in, how I can better understand their writing and most importantly, how I can better help them with their writing. It discussed how as tutors, we should maximize our resources and skills to better help these students. In the ESL resource center, we have such a good mix of backgrounds, that it really helps accomodate the students as we better understand them. This article emphasized pointing out the differences between HOC (Higher Order Content) vs LOC (Lower Order Content) something I have definitely come across in my internship: students coming in focusing solely on grammar, or pronunciation, or content (a rare one.)

This article challenges the idea that there is a binary distinction between academic writing and an author's identity. He argues that identity is always present in writing and that it is impossible to separate one from the other. As such, it is important for teachers to help students understand the role that identity plays in academic writing. For example, students must understand that the presence of identity is not tied to the presence of the pronoun "I." Instead, he advises teachers to show students that identity in academic writing involves connecting passion, point of view, and experience with research, evidence, and analysis. He finishes by pointing out that researchers dedicate their lives to their fields because of their identities, not in spite of them. In the same way, students must find a field of study that fits their own interests, so that they can produce meaningful writing.

apparently the link I provided is wrong. This should be the correct link. Sorry for the error. http://ehis.ebscohost.com.mantis.csuchico.edu/eds/detail?vid=8&hid=23&sid=cd495c58-13e5-4797-b3c8-a7e279a3685e%40sessionmgr11&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#db=aph&AN=20913663

Kimberly De Vries writes about the differences in writing between Chinese students and American students and the expectations of Western academic institutions. She compares Western writing to "mathematical plainness" and argues that there is a cultural bias that exists. De Vries writes, "My experience with American writing practice has led me to conclude that in America, clarity depends not so much on using a particular form, but rather using the form expected by the reader. Thus clarity is entirely dependent on cultural expectations..." (1). This article was interesting to me because I have several Asian students in my workshop. I'm trying to understand the motives behind some of the errors they make while writing. It's difficult because much of the research deals with wether they're using their L1 to help organize their thoughts and simply translating them into L2 (which usually results in a complete lack of clarity. In fact, at times I didn't know what whole sentences meant) or writing by using L2 only. De Vries also relies on research by Robert Kaplan who has documented the effects of culture on writing practices. De Vries writes, "Kaplan contended that writing teachers needed to understand that culture produces different styles of argument, rather than flawed thinking. If we are not looking for it, we may miss an unfamiliar pattern of argument just as we may miss an unfamiliar sound in a foreign language" (3). De Vries believes that American scholars value a certain "style" of academic writing -- a style that represents only a small part of all the writing that goes on in the world today. "As this work goes on, we now begin to see that many characteristics of 'good' writing that were once perceived as universally true, are actually very much influenced by culture" (6).

Franci Washburn argues the importance of a student using the ellipsis correctly. However, the focus isn't just on this seemingly simple and low-priority aspect of writing, she focuses on the fact that students who use the ellipsis correctly tend to be paying attention to the smaller details in writing and are more apt to be critical thinkers. She uses this example for noting the huge importance of paying attention to small details "Often, it isn't a major, glaring error that loses an investor a million dollars in the stock market but rather the failure to read the fine print on a stock prospectus . . . " She's right! It is incredibly important to pay attention to details or read the fine print; this seems to be a skill that is becoming more and more rare. Even though this is a short article, it had a pretty big impact on me. I've always been baffled when instructors tell their students that grammar doesn't matter (yes, even English professors have said this). I think that paying attention to grammar and punctuation helps a student to learn to look at details. However, having said this, I do believe that when revising a first or second draft of a paper the correction of grammar and punctuation should be held off because the content of the paper and the expression of thoughts and ideas are what should be focused on.

This 2010 article details the findings of a research project by Bitchener and Knoch wherein they studied the effects of corrective feedback for L2 writers. Specifically, they studied how advanced level ESL students in a university level writing class in the US improved or did not improve their accuracy with respect to the use of definite and indefinite articles as a result of different kinds of corrective feedback. The 10 week study seems to show that the accuracy of students who received explicit, meta-linguistic forms of corrective feedback improved considerably over the 10 week study. Those who did not receive corrective feedback, or who only received implicit correction in the form of circled errors with no accompanying explanation, did not demonstrate such an increase in accuracy.