Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)

!"#$%'$%()*+#,-&*$.&"$#/0#'12#3-($&-456$%/-7489#,/":#1(+;*1/6-)&9#,'1!2#/+?#@A=#B/?#C#716..&-=#ADDE8=#FF?#@GDH@I@J6K+(4%&L#K:9#,&*)%&-4#/0#'"M+(4%#$/#1F&*N&-4#/0#!$%&-#2*"M6*M&4=#O")?#7,'1!281$*K+PQ29#http://www.jstor.org/stable/35880525))&44&L9#CDRASRCSSD#C@9CA

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tesol.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tesolhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3588052?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

On the Ethical Treatment of ESL Writers

TONY SILVA Purdue University

E As ever-increasing numbers of nonnative speakers of English enroll in Ist-year writing classes in colleges and universities in North America, questions about how to deal with these students have become more frequent, important, and urgent. In an attempt to address some of these questions, researchers who focus on L2 writing have generated a fairly large body of scholarship and commentary on a great number of relevant theoretical and practical issues. However, I believe that one area that needs further exploration is the matter of the ethics (that is, a system or code of conduct) employed in the treatment of ESL writers. Therefore, I would like to present my thinking on this issue, which is based on the notion of respect, for it is my belief that an instructional program that does not respect its students is primed for failure and almost certain to engender resentment. In this article, I draw on my understanding of the existing L2 writing research as well as my own experience in teaching ESL writers and administering ESL writing programs. My aim is not to preach or to attempt to reveal any transcen- dent truths but to provoke thought and discussion.1

In my view, there are four basic ways in which ESL writers need to be respected: they need to be (a) understood, (b) placed in suitable learning contexts, (c) provided with appropriate instruction, and (d) evaluated fairly.

UNDERSTAND ESL WRITERS

First, those who would deal with ESL writers need to recognize that these writers may be very different from their native English-speaking (NES) peers in important ways. ESL writers come, of course, from many different cultures, rhetorical traditions, and linguistic backgrounds and may bring with them distinct strategies for learning and writing.

The results of the relevant research suggest that, in general, ESL writing is distinct from and often simpler and less effective (in the eyes of NES judges) than that of their NES peers. ESL writers' composing processes seem constrained in some salient ways. Because they are not writing in their native language, they may plan less, write with more difficulty owing to a lack of lexical resources, reread what they write less,

Although I draw upon the work of others in this paper, the position I present is my own; that is, I am not trying to imply that the people I cite necessarily agree with my views.

THE FORUM 359

and exhibit less ability to revise in an intuitive manner-on the basis of what "sounds" right.

At the discourse level, ESL writers' texts often do not meet the expectations of NES readers. Their texts frequently exhibit distinct patterns of exposition, argumentation, and narration; their orientation of readers has been deemed by some to be less appropriate and acceptable, and they sometimes manifest a distinct pattern and less facility in their use of certain cohesive devices.

In terms of lower level linguistic concerns, ESL writers' texts typically exhibit a style of writing that is simpler than that of NES writers. ESL writers' sentences often include more coordination, less subordination, less noun modification, and fewer passives. As language learners, ESL writers usually use shorter words and less specific words and generally manifest less lexical variety and sophistication. (See Silva, in press, for a fuller account of this research and its findings.)

It is important to note that ESL writers may also be very different from one another; that is, ESL writers comprise a very heterogeneous popula- tion. For example, there are international students (in a country to study and then return home), immigrants (in a country to stay), and resident bilinguals (who were in a country all the time). Recognizing these differences and understanding their nature and implications for writing instruction is, in my view, the basis for the ethical treatment of ESL writers.

PROVIDE SUITABLE LEARNING CONTEXTS

Second, those who would deal with ESL writers need to recognize that these differences may call for special instructional contexts. First, I believe it is necessary to offer ESL writers as many placement options as possible. According to their abilities and preferences, they should be given the choice of enrolling in mainstream composition classes, basic writing classes, sheltered ESL classes, or classes designed to accommo- date both native and nonnative speakers of English. (See Silva, 1994, for a further discussion of placement issues.) Regardless of which placement option is chosen, it is crucial for teachers to be knowledgeable about and have experience in working with ESL writers. (An open mind, a tolerance of difference, and an interest in other cultures is necessary but by no means sufficient here.) It is likewise essential to consider that curricula, materials, and practices that are successful with NES writers may not necessarily be successful with their ESL peers, that the unreflec- tive adoption of mainstream composition materials may seriously disad- vantage ESL writers by assuming knowledge that they do not possess (Who is your favorite character on television and why?) or expecting a familiarity or proficiency with rhetorical notions (reader-based writing,

TESOL QUARTERLY 360

directness), linguistic notions (syntactic and lexical variety), conven- tional notions (citation and quotation), and strategic notions (drafting and revising) that they may not share with their NES teachers and peers.

Teachers must also recognize that working with ESL writers may require more time and effort than working with native English speakers. In my view, these additional requirements need to be met by requiring fewer writing assignments or, preferably, enrolling fewer students in classes. The courses ESL writers take must also be credit bearing and fulfill requirements, like foreign language classes for NES students.

PROVIDE APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTION

Third, those who deal with ESL writers must provide appropriate instruction, which, in my view, should explicitly recognize students as intelligent human beings and unique individuals with their own views and agendas and their own interesting stories to tell, not as blank slates for teachers to inscribe their opinions on nor as buckets to be filled with their teachers' worldly wisdom. Furthermore, ESL writers should not be subjected to bait-and-switch scams. If they enroll in courses with titles like Introductory Writing or Freshman Composition, I believe it is certainly reasonable for them to expect and to get courses that focus primarily if not exclusively on writing, as opposed to such interesting and important yet inappropriate topics such as peace education, conflict resolution, environmental concerns, political issues, particular ideologies, literature, critical thinking, cultural studies, or some other cause celebre du jour, and use writing merely as an add-on or reinforcement activity. I am not suggesting here that teachers conceal their personal interests or political views from their students-this is unrealistic and perhaps impossible; I am suggesting that these interests and views should neither control nor become the curriculum.

But then what are teachers to teach? Some would say that writing courses are merely skill-building courses that have no inherent content, that composition teachers need to bring in content from some other discipline or link their class with a content course to have something to teach. I respectfully disagree. I feel that there is an abundance of information about writing that teachers can and should share with ESL writers. Much can and needs to be said about rhetorical, linguistic, conventional, and strategic issues and about the distinct nature of writing in an L2 and its implications for these issues. (See David, Gordon, & Pollard, 1995, for a similar argument in the context of mainstream writing instruction.)

But then what are students to write about? It seems to me most reasonable and motivating to have students (individually or as a group) choose their own topics, those in which they have a sincere interest and

THE FORUM 361

some intellectual and emotional investment. In my experience, asking ESL writers to write on topics of their own choice often results in texts that are well informed, skillfully crafted, very persuasive, and incredibly moving-I am thinking, in particular, of a piece on the public's lack of understanding of and often inappropriate response to those afflicted with autism, a paper written by a young Chinese woman majoring in psychology who had helped raise her autistic younger brother. In short, I suggest that students be given control of the why and what of writing and that teachers focus on the how, where, and when, on facilitating rather than controlling student writing. (See Leki, 1991/1992, for a description of an innovative introductory writing curriculum that accom- modates such student choice.)

EVALUATE FAIRLY

Fourth, those who deal with ESL writers must evaluate their writing fairly, in both mass and classroom testing contexts. They need to understand that second language acquisition is a slow and gradual process and that expecting ESL students' writing to be indistinguishable in terms of grammar from that of their NES counterparts is naive and unrealistic. Teachers also need to recognize that ESL writers' rhetorical differences may be manifestations of their cultural backgrounds and not cognitive or educational deficiencies. (For particularly cogent overviews of contrastive rhetoric research see Connor, 1996; Grabe & Kaplan, 1989; Leki, 1991.) Testers need to provide writing prompts and contexts that do not disadvantage ESL students. (See Kroll & Reid, 1994; Reid & Kroll, 1995, for a lucid and comprehensive discussion of this issue.) Finally, it is important to understand that acceptable performance in one's classes (including writing classes) means more than the results of any writing test, no matter how well constructed.

In summary, to show ESL writers the respect they are due, to treat them ethically, it is necessary to (a) understand how they are different from their NES counterparts and from each other and to try to accommodate these differences; (b) provide them with instructional options and ESL-friendly teachers, curricula, and materials; (c) offer instructional programs that focus on writing and students' interests; and (d) judge students' writing in an informed and equitable manner. To do less is to work against the retention and success of nonnative speakers of English in institutions of higher learning.

REFERENCES

Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.

TESOL QUARTERLY 362

David, D., Gordon, B., & Pollard, R. (1995). Seeking common ground: Guiding assumptions for writing courses. College Composition and Communication, 46, 522- 532.

Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1989). Writing in a second language: Contrastive rhetoric. In D. Johnson & D. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 263-283). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Kroll, B., & Reid, J. (1994). Guidelines for designing writing prompts: Clarifications, caveats, and cautions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 231-255.

Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 123-143.

Leki, I. (1991/1992). Building expertise through sequenced writing assignments. TESOLJoural, 1(2), 19-23.

Reid, J., & Kroll, B. (1995). Designing and assessing effective classroom writing assignments for NES and ESL students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 17- 41.

Silva, T. (1994). An examination of writing'program administrators' options for the placement of ESL students in first year writing classes. Writing Program Administra- tion, 18, 37-43.

Silva, T. (in press). Differences in ESL and native English speaker writing: The research and its implications. InJ. Butler,J. Guerra, & C. Severino (Eds.), Writing in multicultural settings. New York: Modern Language Association.

THE FORUM 363

Article Contentsp. 359p. 360p. 361p. 362p. 363

Issue Table of ContentsTESOL Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Summer, 1997), pp. 209-397Front Matter [pp. 209 - 386]Editor's Note [p. 213]In This Issue [pp. 213 - 214]Behind Classroom Code Switching: Layering and Language Choice in L2 Learner Interaction [pp. 217 - 235]"It's Not the English Thing": Bringing Reading Research into the ESL Classroom [pp. 237 - 261]Second Language Acquisition of Spoken and Written English: Acquiring the Skeptron [pp. 263 - 287]The Past Tense and Temporal Verb Meanings in a Contextual Frame [pp. 289 - 313]The Influence of Teacher Commentary on Student Revision [pp. 315 - 339]The ForumToward a Model of Transculturation [pp. 341 - 352]Contrastive Rhetoric, Contrastive Poetics, or Perhaps Something Else? [pp. 352 - 358]On the Ethical Treatment of ESL Writers [pp. 359 - 363]

Teaching Issues: Standards for Teacher-ResearchDeveloping Standards for Teacher-Research in TESOL [pp. 365 - 367]Quality and Sustainability in Teacher-Research [pp. 368 - 370]

Reviewsuntitled [pp. 371 - 372]untitled [pp. 372 - 374]untitled [pp. 374 - 375]untitled [pp. 375 - 377]untitled [pp. 377 - 378]untitled [pp. 378 - 379]untitled [pp. 380 - 381]untitled [pp. 381 - 382]untitled [pp. 383 - 384]untitled [pp. 384 - 385]

Book Notices [pp. 387 - 390]Back Matter [pp. 391 - 397]