Based on my classmates’ blog postings, I think I can comfortably say that the field of second-language writing is in a state of flux. What I see occurring here, based on these discussions, is that the field is pushing and challenging conventional thinking and attempting to further develop its own practical and theoretical soundness. This suggests the field is healthy and growing--and seeking a stronger place for itself in the academy.
One of the first challenges of note to the field’s conventional wisdom is in how the field views students. Aaron’s third blog entry points to the challenge to the native speaker (NS)/non-native speaker (NNS) dichotomy that Canagarajah raises, arguing that the binary’s roots are in monolingualism and that privileging “native” speaking and speakers disadvantages L2 students. In addition Callie’s first blog entry on Song’s article discusses the globalization of English that is occurring and recognizes the loss of diversity signaled by the NS/NNS binary. These highlight discussions in the field concerning its commonplace definitions, challenging us to consider the consequences of the terms we use.
Furthermore, a number of the blogs address articles that ask to reconsider how we assess L2 writing practices. Anna-Liisa’s entire blog covers this quite well, but perhaps her second entry the focuses on the response patterns of teachers is particularly relevant. Based on the discussions in this article, Anna-Liisa asserts that teachers must have a strong sense of their reasons for assessing as they do. She furthers this line of thinking in her third blog entry by examining an article on students’ perceptions of feedback, especially error correction. As she notes, this article stresses the need to consider students’ needs. In sum, as teachers, not only do we need to have theoretical and practical reasons for assessing our students’ work as we do; we also need to consider our students’ need in that feedback.
Sharon’s blog also addresses issues of feedback and error correction. She, too, examines the importance of student perceptions. In her third entry, she covered the importance of aligning the goals of the curriculum with the goal of the feedback. As the article noted, curricula often rest on high-order, complex issues; typical feedback, conversely, often focuses on superficial matters. The solution, much as presented by Anna-Liisa, is to discover the individual needs of students and tailor feedback to those needs. But Sharon’s first blog entry points to the problems of simply carrying L1 feedback practices over into L2 contexts. Combining praises with critiques and hedging (common in L1 feedback) may only leave our L2 students wondering what we want of them. Therefore, we must consider in different terms what it is to be clear in our feedback.
While the field is challenging its more traditional views and practices, it is also working toward extending its scope and building upon its foundations. A key part of this is bringing L2 writing and its instruction closer to other disciplines, and perhaps the best place to begin is strengthening the relationship between L1 and L2. As Matsuda notes, a “a division of labor” has long existed between the two, and this division keeps the fields at arm’s length from one another--close but not connected (701). Aaron’s second blog entry notes that even the language used in the respective fields can serve to isolate the disciplines. Abandoning such terms and other separatist practices may better allow these fields to influence and be influenced by each other. In my blog postings, I also attempted to explore the need to unite L2 concepts with other disciplines more fully, particularly in my WAC entries. One example of this is my entry on Phillips, Stewart, and Stewart’s article, which highlighted the role L2 faculty can play in encouraging faculty across the university to approach L2 writing more conscientiously by raising awareness and conducting workshops.
Another area of expansion has been in the use of genre. Genre models of writing instruction have been growing in popularity in writing courses of all stripes, including L2 writing courses. Courses relying on genre models emphasize authentic writing situations and texts with the goal of providing students with meaningful and applicable instruction. As Naing notes in his fourth blog entry, through his discussion of Miller’s article, how texts are constructed has, in the past, received less attention than some of the more superficial matters. His entry examines how shifting the focus to genre and to how texts are constructed may be more beneficial to our students than focusing on the minutiae of sentence-level matters. Callie also examined genre in her fifth blog post. Though she had some concerns with the article, she noted that it did provide some useful discussions on the benefits of the genre approach: creating authentic texts, developing an understanding of discourse, communities, and maintaining the process approach in conjunction with genre.
Finally, the field’s concerns are moving beyond the classroom and into addressing political concerns that can marginalize L2 learners and instructors. The concerns about the politics and power differentials often arose in the contexts of the effects of valuing English as a lingua franca. Damien’s fifth blog entry discussed the influence of English on Spanish writing. As he notes, placing a higher value on a particular language is a political issue, as this threatens other languages. We should remember the political implications of how and why we teach English as this cannot but affect our students. In her fourth blog post, Cathryn addresses this issue in the context of the Polish education system. There, English has a privileged place and it also seems to threaten local languages. However, the article she reviewed here notes that some “Europeanizing” of English was also occurring, demonstrating a more bidirectional interaction of language. The implications here are that, as we consider our own classroom practices, we must consider such political implications if we are to create an equitable environment for our students.
These entries all point to a field that is attempting to negotiate its own position in ways that advance its disciplinary and institutional status. In other words, this highlights a field that is seeking to strengthen its legitimacy. And as it does so, it must work to transport its knowledge throughout the institution, for the students L2 education serves will still encounter linguistic struggles in other classes and disciplines. Thus, preparing faculty in English departments and departments across the university will be essential for ensuring success for L2 students. This has been the focus of my work in the blogs—as it has been for others (for example, Callie’s first blog and Damien’s fourth blog). It is vital for the field to question itself and develop itself theoretically and practically. But it must not do so in isolation if it hopes for this knowledge to be meaningful for L2 students. As I hope my blog entries have suggested, those involved in L2 education must diligently develop the knowledge of their colleagues to change the institutional culture to one that is more conscious of the needs of L2 students.
Work Cited
Matsuda, Paul Kei. “Composition Studies and ESL Writing: A Disciplinary Division of Labor.” CCC 50.4 (1999): 699-721. Print.
