Toward Critical and Socio-cultural

approaches as new theoretical implications to L2 writing teaching

presented by Maria Prikhodko

What are new implications for possible educational shift?Implications Author Procedures to be accomplished New approaches

and principles in teaching 2L writing

How to make composition programs more equitable to ESL students?

Silva (1997)

ESL writers should be:- understood;-appropriately instructed;-suitably placed;- equitably assessed;

Ethical principle

How to negotiate tacit cultural assumptions of ESL individuals within composition pedagogy?

Ramanathan and Atkinson (1999)

ESL writers should be distinguished by: voice, peer reviewing strategies, critical thinking strategies and textual ownership

Invisible pedagogy understanding individuals-in-context

How to accommodate new pedagogical approaches considering cultural and linguistic differences?

Canagarajah

(2002)

The following domains should be critically revised:- content (process of writing);- approach;- subject (multilingual writer);- medium (E. as a lingua franca);- ideological stance.

Negotiation model with seeing difference-as resource

Applying an ethical approach in composition classroom ESL writers should be (Silva, 1997):

How to make composition programs more equitable to ESL students?

understood -at the discourse level (less ability to revise to “sound” right)-at the linguistic level (a simpler style, less subordination, shorter words, etc. (Silva, 1997))-at the demographic level (distinguishing heterogeneous groups)

suitably placedIn a learning

context through

- an equal enrollment: mainstream comp. classes, basic writing classes, etc.(Silva,1994);

- valuable prior experience with ESL writers (open-minded, tolerant, empathetic);

- a reflective adoption of curricula, materials and practices;- consciousness of probable gaps in knowledge.

appropriately instructed by

- meeting expectations by bringing relevant information about rhetorical, linguistic, conventional and strategic issues in order to address the 2L writing nature (David, Gordon & Polland, 1995)

- treating ESL writers as unique individuals with their own agendaobjectively

assessed by - providing writing prompts (Kroll & Reid, 1994)- viewing rhetorical differences as manifestations of cultural

differences (Leki, 1991; Crabe & Kaplan, 1989)

Interdependence between “ideologies of the individual” and focal principles in writing pedagogy (Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999)

Western perception of individuals Non-western perception of individuals with the right to voice and as a part of larger communities judgment focusing on discovery focusing on interdependent learning (Heath, 1991) and mastery (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996)

Lack of social training in expertise has resulted in inappropriate assessment (in process writing (ex. Scollon, 1991), in peer review (ex. Carson & Nelson, 1998), in

critical thinking (ex. Atkinson, 1997)

?

The authors articulated 4 “invisible” principles to relate ESL position practice to

composition curricula

1. “Voice” as an individual

metaphorical signature

2. Peer reviewing

4.Textual ownership

3.Critical thinking

How to address those idiosyncratic features in 2L writing context?

1. Voice in its most influential version was defined in terms of the notion “heteroglossia” (Bakhtin, 1986) where any language has a heterogeneous nature (Sue, 1997, p.18)

in expressing “inner self” by ESL writers:• “interdependence”/”independence” (Markus & Kitayama, 1991)• inhibited linguistic socialization (Scollon &

Scollon, 1991; Clancy, 1986)

in defining and evaluating “good writing” :• misconception: “good writing” is not equal

to unique perspective on life (Li, 1996, p.18)

in applying language strategies to be able to hear those voices:• memorization & imitations vs. personal

perceiving and paraphrasing (Ho, 1998)

in investigating ESL desire to assimilate to a new culture by creating a “new self” (Shen, 1989)

Assu

me

cros

s-cu

ltura

l diff

eren

ce

2. Peer reviewing(Koch,1982; Hedgcock & Lefkowiz,1992; Mittan,1989)

3. Critical thinking(Atkinson, 1997; Gee, 1990)

4. Textual ownership (Kroll, 1988; Pennycock, 1994b; Deckert, 1993)

How to address those idiosyncratic features in 2L writing context?

- assuming that cultures differently frame critical viewing that, eventually, cause social problems (Atkinson & Ramanathan, 1995; Atkinson, 1997; Heath,1983; Fox, 1994; Li, 1996);

- thoroughly choosing composition textbooks (as they could be canonized acc. to western perspective thus necessitating critical skills (Ramanathan & Kaplan, 1996b; Atkinson, 1997)

-colliding of social/power distance and assessment methods in teaching writing:• Interdependence (Carson & Nelson, 1996; Allaei &

Connor,1990)/independence (Berlin,1987; Elbow,1973)

• Social hierarchies (Chao, 1994; Nakane, 1970; Roland, 1998 and others)

- considering conceptual complexities of plagiarism• culturally specified perception of expressing

individuality (Ballard & Clanchy, 1991; Fox, 1994)

Accommodating new pedagogical assumptions through critical understanding

(Canagarajan, 2002)

Content and practice (writing)

Ideology

Medium (E. as a lingua franca)

Approach (+attitude)

Subject (ESL individual)

How does critical perspective redefine writing (as content and practice)? (Canagarajah,2002)

theory thinking pedagogyCritical ethnography linguistics discourse

“Critical” develops an attitude that makes us see the hidden components and subtle ramification

Writing is understood then:

• as situated (not autonomous) – by reconstructing reality;

• as social (not individualistic) – by presenting text as a mediated continuum; • as material (not cognitive) – by negotiating of various instruments;• as ideological (not formal) – being informed by conventions and values• as historical (not spatial) - being shaped by struggles during its construction

The shift from writing as an OBJECT to writing as an ACTIVITY

How has this new perspective affected the educational settings?1. Individuals:

• ESL learners and EFL learners (purposes of English learning);• ESOL students and L1 learners (not seeing linguistic and grammatical

difference as the main gap);• Advanced L2 leaners and L1 learners;• Novice L2 learners and expert L2 learners

As te

ache

rs w

e sh

ould

not

con

side

r DIF

FERE

NCE

per

se

but c

hang

e ou

r atti

tude

tow

ard

it (S

ilva,

199

3, p

. 217

)

2. Medium (E. as a lingua franca)

3. Examine one’s ideological stance whether it addresses the interests of equality and justice + it remains open to the potential of gaining meta-awareness

• Separatist orientation Universalist orientation L. as a resource (E. conditions ESL thinking) (E. as a neutral medium) (reflexive usage)

How has this new perspective affected the educational settings?

4. Approach (+attitude)

• Normative approach relativistic approach(L1 writing is treated (taking students’ ownas the norm of reference) frames of reference seriously)

• Difference-as-deficit Difference-as-resource(ESL students are imposed (their first language and culturalto train the explicit forms of background as a source to master skills Logic and reasoning (Fox, 1994)) and feel confidence)

• Conversion model Negotiation model (creatively (surpassing students) merging conflicting discourses)

As te

ache

rs w

e sh

ould

not

con

side

r DIF

FERE

NCE

per

se

but c

hang

e ou

r atti

tude

tow

ard

it (S

ilva,

199

3, p

. 217

)

ConclusionSilva (1997) proposed in the article “On the Ethical Treatment of ESL Writers”:

a set of actions that would facilitate ESL writers to be considered equitable and legitimate in composition programs. In its turn, those steps and procedures would serve as helpful hints that inform educators about unique peculiarities of ESL writers as cultural beings.

Ramanathan and Atkinson (1999) suggested in the article “Individualism, Academic Writing, and ESL Writers”:

how could 4 hidden ideological principles of writing pedagogy be interpreted in terms of being visible and considerable for teachers and any educational system as a whole.

Canagarajah (2002) laid out in the article “Understanding Critical Writing”:

his new framework that could shift pedagogical perceptions to ESL teaching. According to the scholars, difference-as-resource framed in a negotiation model would lead L2 students to utilize their linguistic and cultural background as a informative device to culturally harmonized environment.

Consciously considering composition class as a pluralistic dynamic zone full of linguistic and cross-cultural idiosyncrasies.

References1. Atkinson, D. (2000). On Peter Elbow’s response to ‘Individualism, Academic Writing, and ESL Writers’ by Via Ramanathan & Dwight

Atkinson. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(1), 71-762. Atkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 71-94.3. Silva, T. (1997). On the ethical treatment of ESL writers. TESOL Quartely, 31(2), 359-363.4. Ramanathan,V., Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 45-755. Canagarajah, A.S.(2002). Understanding critical writing. Critical Academic Writing and Multilingual Students. Ann Arbor: University of

Michigan Press, 1-226. Pennycock, A.(1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. London: Longman7. Silva,T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly,

27(4), 657-678. 8. Fox,H.(1994). Listening to the world: Cultural issues in academic writing. Urbana, III.: National Council of Teachers of English.9. Allaei, S.K., Connor,U. (1990). Exploring the dynamics of cross-cultural collaboration in writing classsrooms. The Writing Instructor, 10,19-

2810. Ramanathan,V., Atkinson,D.(1999). Ethnographical approaches and methods in L2 writing research: A critical guide and review. Applied

Linguistics, 20(1), 44-70.11. Ho,I.(1998).Relationships between motivation/attitude, effort, English proficiency, and sociocultural educational factors and Taiwan

technological university/institute students’ English learning strategy use. Unpublished dissertation, Auburn University.12. Koch,R.(1982). Syllogisms and superstitions: The current state of responding to writing. Language Arts, 9, 464-471.13. Kroll, B. (1998). How college freshmen view plagiarism. Written Communication, 5, 203-221.14. David,D., Gordon, B., & Pollard, R. (1995). Seeking common ground: Guiding assumptions for writing courses. College Composition and

Communication, 46, 522-532.15. Grabe, W., Kaplan, R. (1989). Writing in a second language: Contrastive rhetoric. In D. Johnson & D. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing:

Empowering ESL students, 263 – 283. White Plains, NY: Longman.16. Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 123-143.17. Heath, S.B. (1991). The sense of being literate: Historical and cross-cultural features. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mothental, &P.D.

Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research,2,3-25, NY: Longman.18. Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Cultures and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98,

224-253.19. Cortazzi, M., Jin, L.(1996). Cultures of learning: Language classrooms in China. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom

(169-206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.20. Deckert, G. (1993). Perspectives on plagiarism from ESL students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing,2,131-148.