Adapting, Theoretically

DePalma, Michael-John, and Jeffrey M. Ringer. “Toward a Theory of Adaptive Transfer: Expanding Disciplinary Discussions of ‘Transfer’ in Second-Language Writing and Composition Studies.” Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (2011): 134-47. Print.

Discussions about the possibilities of writing/rhetorical skills to transfer from one context to another are common in both L2 and WAC contexts. DePalma and Ringer argue in this article that the discussions about transfer, as they are commonly framed, focus too narrowly on students’ abilities to reuse what they have learned about writing. Instead, they offer “adaptive transfer” as a theory that broadens the scope of transfer discussions to include how students alter those writing practices to fit new and different contexts.

In developing this theory and its potential applicability, the authors first trace earlier discussions of transfer in both L2 and FYC contexts, highlighting the limitations of these discussions. They note a lack of consensus about even the possibility of transfer, citing studies that show both its possibility and its impossibility. What causes this inconsistency is a matter of definition. Often, in writing contexts, transfer is deemed as occurring when “a writing skill taught in one context is consistently [. . . ] manifested as students move into other settings” (137, emphasis in original). This limited view of transfer limits the role of the author and suggests a great deal of stability in rhetorical situations across various contexts.

Because of the narrow views of transfer in English studies and related fields, DePalma and Ringer look to experimental psychology and education to add some greater depth to transfer. In these fields, they find views that emphasized adaptation and alteration. This leads them to a different way of thinking about transfer that they call adaptive transfer, or “the conscious or intuitive process of applying or reshaping learned writing knowledge in new and potentially unfamiliar writing situations” (141). Because it focuses on the dynamic ways in which writers reuse and reshape various writing skills/strategies, adaptive transfer allows instructors and researchers to consider how writers are trying to use and/or change their previous knowledge and experiences in new situations rather than focusing more so on what skills they fail to apply “consistently.”

They see a number of benefits in this theory, ranging from FYC curricular decisions to genre instruction. I also see some potential for the ideas presented here to be useful tools in helping writing instructors work with faculty from other disciplines to develop L2 writing strategies that allow for generic and rhetorical flexibility, negotiation of meaning, and attention to individual needs regarding writing. While I am not entirely sure how “new” their theory is (I see a few echoes of Bartholomae’s “Inventing the University” as well as the New London Group’s multiliteracies pedagogy here), I do agree that it may indeed make us reconsider previous notions of transfer.

Using Genre Models to Improve Process Pedagogy

Hyland, Ken. “Genre-based Pedagogies: A Social Response to Process.” Journal of Second Language Writing 12.1 (2003): 17-29. Print.

Since their development in the 1970s and 1980s, process pedagogies have been central to composition classrooms, especially first-year composition. Many (if not most) composition instructors, myself included, rely on some versions of process theory in their classrooms. Hyland’s article argues that the reliance on process pedagogies may actually be constraining the development of L2 writers. He bases this claim on what he sees as five deficiencies of process-based pedagogies, especially in relation to L2 writers.

• Process pedagogies remove writing tasks from their context and emphasize “the writer as an isolated individual struggling to express personal meanings” (18). Discussing matters of process, he says, may lead us to how writers do what they do, but not why.
• The role of the teacher is less active until the feedback stage. And while teachers may give excellent feedback on rhetorical matters, this suggests to students that these matters are related to revising/editing as opposed to initial construction of a text.
• Process pedagogies teach implicitly and favor those who already understand the conventions of the discourse they are “learning,” typically white, middle-class L1 students.
• Culturally-specific knowledge is valued by process pedagogies, especially that knowledge related to voice, critical thinking, peer review, and notions of plagiarism. Hyland cites Ramanathan and Atkinson regarding these concerns (see my blog posting on their article).
• Focusing on process can isolate students from the social and political power inherent in the discourses they are learning, as process focuses almost solely on the individual’s growth.

What Hyland argues for is a genre-based approach to teaching writing for the benefit of L2 (and really all) students. Such approaches put language use in its social context by examining how discourse communities develop and use genres, exploring their rhetorical features, and analyzing their social and political nature. By considering language in these social contexts, instructors need not eliminate process elements of their pedagogies; rather, Hyland tells us, adding genre-based approaches allow us to provide more realistic writing instruction.

I found Hyland’s arguments about the value of genre-based approaches to writing instruction quite compelling. Genre models rely on scaffolding, the social contexts of writing, and the role of rhetoric—all of which I value in my own classes. I did have two minor quibbles with Hyland. First, I felt some of his characterizations of process pedagogies, while not wholly inaccurate, were perhaps a bit broad. Most process practices, as he explained them, seemed to fall into the individualistic, voice-oriented models, which is maybe a little reductivist. My second concern was that he might have addressed more specifically the significance of genre models for L2 students. This was implied, of course, but some more specific thoughts on this would have solidified his claims all the more. Otherwise, his article helped me think about how I use process in my classroom and how genre theory might make those practices more valuable for my students.

Bridges Too Few

Phillips, Talinn, Candace Stewart, and Robert D. Stewart. “Geography Lessons, Bridge-Building, and Second Language Writers.” WPA 30.1-2 (2006). 83-100. Print.

Talinn, Stewart, and Stewart rely on the metaphor of bridge-building to examine what faculty with limited power over the curriculum in their departments can do to improve instruction of L2 students. In their metaphor, L2 students need numerous bridges in their education, whether to “mainstream” writing courses or courses in other departments across the campus. They recognize, though, that building such bridges, while quite necessary, requires a number of resources that may not be available to all programs and those who may wish to build those bridges may not have the institutional clout to do so. The authors discuss their efforts to create these bridges in spite of such constraints. They note the local nature of their efforts; however, their struggles with lacking resources and power from the institution are a familiar fact of life for many faculty, and their solutions provide some starting points for faculty in similar positions.

The authors all worked in various capacities in their institution’s writing center. For them, this provided a natural locus to begin their bridge building. While separate from the English department, this writing center had a relationship of sorts with the department though that relationship was an “uneven” one, to use their term (91). They also note the interdisciplinary nature of the work in the writing center and its ability “to help move second language writing out of the disciplinary and institutional margins” (89). They recommend using composition pedagogies within the writing center to begin some bridge-building with the English department, making new (and future) faculty aware of the needs and concerns of L2 students, and conducting workshops that include faculty from across the campus.

Overall, their recommendations seemed useful (if occasionally a bit obvious). I did take issue with some elements of one of their examples. In this, they noted the success of one of the writing center’s tutees. This student received competent tutoring twice a week for eleven weeks and was receiving considerable support for her efforts in her class. While certainly a positive and admirable example, it may not be an especially representative one. It did, however, show how the bridge between the writing center and the classroom was an essential part of this student’s success. I did find the workshop they conducted with faculty across campus a potentially useful tool, although they did note its success was partially because of a strong WAC program at their institution, something not all institutions have. This workshop was small but its agenda of addressing faculty experiences and providing them with various strategies seemed an effective way to begin the conversation with faculty in various departments about the needs of L2 students. Certainly, the more faculty know about these needs, the more bridges we can build for our students, giving them greater opportunities for success in writing and communication in other classes.

Instructional Re-Design

Preto-Bay, Ana Maria, and Kristine Hansen. “Preparing for the Tipping Point: Designing Writing Programs to Meet the Needs of the Changing Population.” WPA 30.1-2 (2006): 37-57. Print.

In this article from a special edition of WPA dedicated to L2 matters, Preto-Bay and Hansen argue that the demographics of colleges and universities have changed enough to warrant if not systemic change at least a careful reconsideration of composition curriculum and pedagogical practices. To illustrate the change in student populations, they discuss the inadequacy of terminology for students of diverse backgrounds. They examine “international” and “multicultural” labels that fail to accurately describe students of various socioeconomic backgrounds, immigrants whose families have been in the country for various amounts of time, and refugees whose educational backgrounds may be significantly different than those of the students typically labeled “international.” And, as they note, these increasingly diverse populations are not isolated to particular parts of the country, making addressing the changing demographics a concern for faculty in English departments across the country.

More concerning than the inadequacies of some labels for them are pedagogical inadequacies. For Preto-Bay and Hansen, “[o]ne or two ESL specialists on any given college campus can no longer answer all the questions that puzzle mainstream composition teachers, not only about those we have traditionally labeled L2 students […] but also about the increasing numbers of other culturally and linguistically diverse students” (40). Instead, the entire curriculum must change to meet the needs of these students. They use systems theory to explain that if a key element of a system (the student population of an educational system, for example) changes, the system must change to address that change. To address these changes, they argue for education of new teachers to include significant attention to linguistic and cultural diversity, new textbooks and resources that highlight effective pedagogical practices for such diversity, for a more rhetorically and communication oriented pedagogy (as opposed to cultural studies or expressivist approaches for example), and for local considerations about the best place to locate the writing program—whether the writing program is best suited as a part of the English department or in its own department, depending on its ability to control its own interests.

In many ways, Preto-Bay and Hansen’s article is quite sweeping in its scope, covering a number of complex pedagogical and political issues relatively quickly. However, given their call for significant systemic change in composition curriculum, such broad strokes are necessary to lay the foundation for those changes, to illustrate the breadth and depth of such changes. Of course, the feasibility of such changes is the main limitation here. Such changes would require significant investments of time and money that some departments may not be able to afford. But, we must also consider this in terms of our students: if these changes will truly benefit them, shouldn’t we make those investments?

Strangers in a Strange Land

Zamel, Vivian. “Strangers in Academia: The Experiences of Faculty and ESL Students Across the Curriculum.” CCC 46.4 (1995): 506-21. Rpt. in Writing Across the Curriculum: A Critical Sourcebook. Ed. Terry Myers Zawacki and Paul M. Rogers. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2012. 246-60. Print.

As the title makes clear, this article’s focus is on both student and instructor perspectives of ESL matters, which, as Zamel argues, is especially useful given greater interest ( some may claim “concern would be a better term in some situations) in matters related to ESL students. As part of developing faculty workshops, Zamel surveyed faculty regarding their experiences with ESL students. What she found was that the main concerns of faculty across the university indicated a deficit view of ESL students, claiming they were “problems” to be “fixed.” She argues that we need to move beyond this deficit view at all levels and in every department in the university to provide more meaningful education to not only ESL students but to all students.

To illustrate the concerns she has, Zamel brings in feedback from both teachers and students. She begins with examples of feedback from two teachers to illustrate the divergent views of ESL students and their needs. The first response challenges the myth that language skills equal abilities to achieve academically, argues for attention to content instead of superficial matters, and relates significant student success in one instance. The second response highlights the deficit model of language, a view focuses on superficial elements of writing, adheres to a belief in the gatekeeping system, and claims language instruction to be someone else’s responsibility thereby separating language skills from course content.

Zamel also addresses student concerns in these matters. Many of the ESL student responses she received discuss classes that made them feel marginal and deficient. These students want recognition for the hard work they put in to learning both content and English, want instructors to view them as capable and intelligent, and want instructors to meet them halfway by working with them in terms of language and reevaluating their classroom practices. Instructors, then, must recognize the need to question their classroom and evaluative practices, which, as Zamel correctly observes, would benefit all students, not only the ESL students.

While this article may have some years on it, it is not dated, for both problematic and promising reasons. Although greater awareness and moves toward focus on student success may be changing faculty views of ESL students, some faculty, unfortunately, may still adhere to variations of the deficit models. In response, Zamel suggests we turn such problematic views into opportunities through educating our colleagues; evaluating our pedagogies through the eyes of our students, including (and perhaps especially) ESL students; and working together to develop practices that improve learning for everyone involved.

Cultural Biases of Common FYC Practices

Ramanathan, Vai, and Dwight Atkinson. “Individualism, Academic Writing, and ESL Writers.” Journal of Second Language Writing 8.1 (1999): 45-75. Print.

The authors of this article remind us how easily we take for granted certain pedagogical approaches and practices and that those practices may conflict with the backgrounds and culture of some of our students. Ramanathan and Atkinson argue here that many of the core practices of composition classes (especially required FYC courses) rely on a culturally-specific individualist mentality that may be problematic for those students whose home cultures are more communal. As a result, these students may struggle to meet the goals of the course effectively.

Ramanathan and Atkinson focus on four common composition pedagogical practices that are underwritten by individualism. They first address voice--and at some length, which was perhaps more appropriate at the time. (While voice is still a common point of focus in composition instruction today, the social turn in composition studies has certainly curtailed expressivist practices.) While maybe slightly dated now, this section does offer two interesting perspectives on the consequences of seeking one’s “authentic.” First, this may conflict with notions of the individual as part of and subservient to the goals of a community common in more communally-oriented societies (e.g., China). Second, this practice can make these students feel that they need to craft a different “self” as a way to meet the instructor’s expectations about “authentic” voice.

Perhaps of greater interest are what the authors identified as potentially problematic ideas and practices that appear on many FYC syllabi (including mine): peer review, critical thinking, and authorship issues (i.e., plagiarism). Each of these, the authors contend, has roots in Western individualistic culture. Peer review requires one to challenge the work of another; some students (Chinese students, in the authors’ examples) found this practice potentially harmful to the coherence of the peer review group and/or felt they were not in the position to judge their work. Critical thinking also relies on cultural frameworks that these students may not possess, and critical thinking’s emphasis on challenge may upset some students’ views on the need for harmony and consensus. Finally, the authors point to the Western perceptions of authorship and creativity as unfamiliar to students whose cultures value “how much [students] have internalized of the transmittable traditions of their culture” (63). Thus, plagiarism (as Westerners would define it—though the authors argue Westerners have trouble with this too [62-63]) is not viewed as necessarily wrong.

As the authors note throughout, the important matter here is not that we should make sweeping generalizations about individuals based on their particular culture. However, we should be cognizant that the practices and objectives of our classrooms, especially the more common practices, have particular cultural biases, ones that may negatively affect students who are not “insiders” in that culture. Therefore, we should examine those practices common to FYC in relation to the actual students that are in our classes in an attempt to determine which practices may be of most benefit to our students.

Introductory Post

Hello everyone, and welcome to my blog. As you can see, I have interests in a variety of pedagogy matters and am looking forward to adding a section on L2 matters.

My name is Nathan Serfling. I am currently a third-year part-time PhD student at Old Dominion University, where my emphases are rhetoric and writing studies, and writing pedagogy. I have special interests in online writing instruction, rhetorical theory and writing pedagogy, and faculty development and other administrative matters. I am also a full-time instructor at South Dakota State University (SDSU). There, I teach Composition I and Composition II, as well as the occasional Introduction to Literature.

SDSU is a mid-sized (about 12,000-13,000 students) Division I school. However, the population is relatively homogenous—mostly middle-class, white students from South Dakota and the surrounding states. My experiences with multilingual students have been relatively limited as a result. I have had only a handful of multilingual students over the years. While I did have more interactions with multilingual students as a tutor in our university’s writing center, even these were experiences were few and limited in scope. As SDSU continues to grow, though, we are attracting a much more diverse student population, and I anticipate that my limited experiences will multiply quickly.

This brings me to the focus of my blog in this section. My home department is small and consists of mostly literature faculty. These faculty teach some sections of Composition II, and GTAs, adjuncts, and full-time instructional staff teach the bulk of Composition I and Composition II courses. I am hoping to use my readings here to explore issues of faculty development (both within departments and across the university) regarding L2 pedagogy with the ultimate goal of extending the pedagogical skills and practices of my colleagues.