This article continues the idea of my previous posts - about codeswitching and language transfer in the writing of bilinguals and heritage learners. It is based upon the experiment investigating formal and informal writing samples of students who possess three languages - Basque, Spanish and English. The authors'purpose has been to explain that although traditional teaching is turned towards monolinguals and native speakers' writing as a model, the perspective of bi- and multilingual writers is different. The authors - Cenoz and Gorter -explore the nature of transfer from one language into another, codemixing and codeswitching, and come to the conclusion that these three factors characterizing bilingual students are not to be treated as separate obstacles but rather as three parts of the one whole that benefits writing while enabling students to widely use resources of different languages. The authors use the term "translanguaging" denoting by it "combination of two or more languages in a systematic way within the same learning activity", and argue that translanguaging contributes to developing and strengthening writing in both languages. The authors propose a new approach to teaching writing to the bi- and multilinguals - "focus on multilingualism" that allows "looking at the different languages of the multilingual at the same time instead of separately". Cenoz and Gorter identify the relationships between languages as complex, yet beneficial for developing writing skills. According to their point of view, multilinguals use the same strategies when writing essay or informal social network posts, yet they incorporate in their writing the elements of three languages not because of limited lexical resources, but for conveying their communicative intent, which they think is better done in a particular language out of three that they possess. That means that multilinguals and bilinguals choose language resources in dependence on communicative purposes in their writing (

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 is quite a small article, but it presents a certain interest as it connects writing with other social practices. I guess this assumption is crucial for teaching because it presupposes writing in the classroom with real-life purposes. The article also mentions interculturality and constant interaction of two languages, which is important when teaching writing to ESL students. The author is concerned about the specifics of effective transfer of literacy skills in bilinguals and heritage speakers. According to Martinez, as a result of traditional teaching, bilingual students tend to write with "conformity to rhetorical traditions in the dominant language" ("backwards literacy"), which creates certain problems with style, thoughts expression, choice of words and sentence patterns (i.e., mechanical transfer of the dominant language features into L2 writing). Therefore, it is necessary to develop "forward literacy", which accepts a non-standard way of writing ("writers carve out their own transcultural paths of expression"). In other words, writing of a bilingual or heritage learner implies constant shifts (transfers) between languages and cultures, and using the multiple resources of both languages in order to create an original pattern. The instructor's task is: (1) to identify multiple literacies (i.e. writing practices) that students possess and / or should possess in their heritage language and their dominant language; (2) to teach the students how to shift without mixing two languages. E.g. in early works of Spanish heritage learners, English norms penetrate Spanish writing: estoy the acuerdo instead of estoy de acuerdo. The shift should concern rhetorical strategies, which reflect cultural and aesthetical values of the two languages worlds, but not grammar or writing vocabulary; (3) teaching writing in the context of multiple social practices and contents While teaching writing, it is important to distinguish between positive transfer of skills already acqu

This article describes the results of the four OLE (Optimal Learning Environment) approaches to teaching writing used at four different bilingual special education California schools. These approaches include: (1) interactive journal writing: teacher leads dialogue with the students by providing written responses to their daily journal entries. The teacher's responses serve as a model for writing as well; (2) Writers' Workshop - "students go through planning, drafting, editing, revising, final drafting, and publishing each time they produce a written product", i.e. their own class book; (3) expository writing as a process; (4) combination of brainstorm writing, model webbing or mapping the story they have just read, non-interactive journals. The authors emphasize the importance of engaging the learners into the informal creative writing process to increase the intrinsic motivation. They state that often in classes with bilingual students there is a high amount of pressure to speed the students' transition from writing in L1 to writing in L2, which triggers the students' anxiety and reluctance to write. The results of the 10-week experiment in different educational settings showed that OLE program activities significantly decrease stress and increase writing productivity. According to the article, OLE is based on "sociocultural learning theory", and makes use of task-based interactive creative activities. Students are supposed to collaborate while working at their writing (= communities of practice). Writing is considered as a continuous ever-changeable life process. It always implies dialogue (with the teacher, classmates or oneself - in case of non-interactive journals). Response The idea of interactive creative writing is beneficial both for heritage learners, and ESL learners, who often do not feel at ease while writing in L2. Having experienced difficulties in writing in the past, they tend to produce limited quantities of clichéd patterns that lack spo

http://www.international.ucla.edu/languages/heritagelanguages/journal/article.asp?parentid=16607


Summary
The author of this article proposes the 4-staged pedagogical model for teaching writing to heritage learners with no or limited writing proficiency. This model is designed to teach students the variety of written discourses (as defined by the author: registers - "a cover term incorporating style and genre, and referring to socially conditioned written language use") in their native language. The model combines reading and writing assignments for each stage (from "simpler, less formal conversational discourse" to advanced writing modes involving analysis, synthesis and persuasion). The learners are supposed to implement their more extensive knowledge of written discourse types in English in practice of writing in their native language, i.e. to develop metalinguistic and cross-cultural awareness.
Chevalier determines literacy as "ability to use reading and writing skills in socially appropriate situations, within appropriate registers". According to her, bilingual learners do not possess the full variety of complex written registers in their native language. The author sees the reasons for this in the native speakers' speaking habits: in case when monolinguals need to switch to another register, bilinguals switch to another language. Therefore, "the ability to switch languages allows bilinguals to restrict use of each language to familiar domains". What happens is the simplification of the language use, which is reflected in the poor ability to write, i.e. heritage learners write as they tend to speak, transferring their oral speech into written form (conversational discourse).
Thus, the way towards teaching writing to the heritage learners would be to "expand the functional range of the home-based language". It can be done by following: (1) teaching writing strategies; (2) "developing a metalinguistic awareness of written discourse types and genres"; (3) introducing the rules of rhetoric, syntax, morphology, orthography, etc. in the native language.
Besides conversational discourse, the author identifies five other writing modes (from personal to more abstract ones): description, narration, evaluation, explanation and argument, as being "the broad basic categories characterizing most written forms".
For each of the above-mentioned modes Chevalier enumerates possible writing processes and types. E.g., for teaching narrative writing, students are supposed to develop the skills of "sequencing the actions in time and space" and "recounting". They will do it, first, by reading examples of narratives such as family histories, stories, fairy tales, and second, by practicing writing their own stories, personal narratives, etc.
It is crucial for Chevalier that students are given an appropriate model for writing, i.e. "a set of preliminary written texts assigned for reading and analysis". When reading and doing pre- and post-reading exercises, students are to investigate not only the content, but also the form of the text searching for genre markers, and its function.
After reading, students are supposed to do elements of writing in groups or individually, under the teacher's guidance. And the final step would be an independent written work positively influenced by previous readings, discussions and group writing exercises.

Response
Chevalier raises an interesting question about the interdependency of two languages in forming writing habits in bilinguals. In her opinion, code switching can prevent learners from mastering their native language writing, as well, as it limits opportunities for writing in English. However, if this point of view is correct, then why do many monolinguals experience approximately the same amount of difficulties in writing? At the same time, the author mentions the variety of written registers such as narrative, description, evaluation, etc., which are common for all languages. It seems that Chevalier wants heritage learners to develop a universal formula of writing strategies for each register, and that would enable them become more proficient writers. After the learner masters styles and genres specifics, he / she can work upon the improvement of grammar (morphology, syntax, etc.) of the native language .
Basing on my experience with heritage learners, I can say that the situation has been quite contrary so far. Bilinguals, who come to my classes to study their native language, know about the style differences, and can identify text genres as well as to use them in their writing. However, when it comes to grammar and rhetoric, they are at loss. They do not have enough knowledge about how to construct their written passages so that to attract the audience. Therefore, it might be useful to concentrate upon teaching syntax and rhetoric rules first, and then, implement them in dependence on certain registers. It can also be useful to introduce the element of comparison of written passages in English and the students' native language into the 4-staged instructional model proposed by Chevalier.