Approaches to Teaching Second Language Writing Brian PALTRIDGE, The University of Sydney

Transcription

1 Approaches to Teaching Second Language Writing Brian PALTRIDGE, The University of Sydney This paper presents a discussion of developments in the teaching of writing. This includes a discussion of genre-based approaches, critical perspectives, and academic literacies perspectives on teaching second language writing. The underlying philosophies of each of these approaches as well as implications for the classroom is discussed. A proposal for teaching writing based on the drawing together of a number of these perspectives is then presented. Introduction Earliest work in the teaching of writing was based on the notion of controlled, or guided, composition. This was the predominant approach from the mid 1940s to the mid 1960s. In the mid 1960s, however, teachers began to feel that controlled composition was not enough. This led to a focus on rhetorical functions which took textual manipulation beyond the sentence level to the discourse level, and focussed on teaching types of texts such as descriptions, narratives, definitions, exemplification, classification, comparison and contrast, cause and effect, and generalisations. The process approach of the 1970s that followed mirrored a similar development in first language writing instruction. The process approach was not, however, universally accepted by teachers with writers such as Reid (1984a, 1984b) arguing that it did not address issues such as the requirements of particular writing tasks, the development of schemata for producing written discourse, and variation in individual writing situations. Others, such as Horowitz (1986), questioned whether the process approach realistically prepared students for the demands of writing in particular settings. This led to a focus on examining what is expected of students in academic and professional settings and the kinds of genres they need to have control of to succeed in these settings. The genre approach The 'genre approach' to teaching writing has taken place in different ways in different parts of the world. It has also had different underlying goals as well as focused on different teaching situations. In Britain and the United States, for example, teachers have been mostly concerned with teaching international students in English medium universities. Genre-based classrooms in Australia, on the other hand, have had a rather different ideological focus. This, in part, draws from the underlying concern in Australian genre work with empowering underprivileged members of the community and providing them with necessary resources for success. The genre approach to teaching writing focuses, as the terms suggests, on teaching particular genres that students need control of in order to succeed in particular settings. This might include a focus on language and discourse features of the texts, as well as the context in which the text is produced. Approach, design and procedure A helpful way of summarizing a genre-based approach is through Richards and Rodgers notions of 'approach', 'design' and 'procedure' (Richards and Rodgers 1986). 'Approach' refers to the theory of language and language learning which underlies the particular approach or methodology. 'Design' includes the objectives, organization, and content of the particular syllabus type, kinds of teaching and learning activities, teacher and learner roles, and the role of instructional materials. 'Procedure' describes the actual classroom techniques and practices that might be employed within the particular method or approach. The view of language that underlies a genre-based approach is that language is functional; that is, it is through language that we 'get things done' and we achieve certain goals. Another

2 important aspect of this view is the position that language occurs in particular cultural and social contexts and can only be understood in relation to these contexts. Speakers and writers, thus, use particular genres in order to fulfil certain social functions and to achieve certain goals within particular social and cultural contexts. Language, then, in a genre perspective, is both purposeful and inseparable from the social and cultural context in which it occurs. The goals and objectives of genre-based approach are to enable learners to use genres which are important for them to be able to participate in, and have access to. A genrebased syllabus will, then, be made up of a list of genres learners need to acquire, including relevant discourse and language level features and contextual information in relation to them. The starting point of the syllabus, however, is the genre, or whole text, even though lower levels aspects of language are focused on as well in the course of the program. A process approach to genre-based teaching Drawing together genre and process approaches, Flowerdew (1993) and Badger and White (2000) argue for a procedure which focuses on the process of learning about, and acquiring genres, rather than one which focuses solely on the end product, or specific variety of genre. Flowerdew (1993) and Johns (1997) argues that we cannot hope to predict the range of genres our students will, in time, need to be able to participate in. In their view, we need to help our learners see how they can go about discovering how genres differ from one another, how the same genre may vary, as well as what the particular expectations of the writing they are engaged in might actually be. Audience and second language writing Johns (1993) discusses the importance of audience in the teaching of second language writing. She discusses the expert, 'all-powerful reader' of students' texts who can either accept or reject students' writing as coherent and consistent with the conventions of the target discourse community, or not (Johns 1990). In her view knowledge of this audience's attitudes, beliefs, and expectations is not only possible but essential for students writing in a second language. Critical perspectives on second language writing One further and important development in the teaching of writing is what is sometimes called a critical perspective on second language writing. A critical perspective on teaching writing, among other things, explores issues such as ideology, and identity, and how these are reflected in texts. This perspective goes beyond description and explanation of texts to 'deconstructing' and, at times, even 'challenging' texts. Classroom tasks aim to unpack ideologies, relationships, and identities as a way of helping students make choices in their writing that reflect who they are, and who they want to be. An academic literacies perspective on second language writing Linked, in some ways to a critical perspective on teaching writing is the academic literacies perspective on teaching writing. An academic literacies perspective, in the plural sense, sees learning to write as learning to acquire a repertoire of linguistic practices which are based on complex sets of discourses, identities, and values (Lea, 1994; Lea & Street, 1998; 1999; Starfield, 2004). Here, students learn to switch practices between one setting and another, learning to understand, as they go, why they are doing this, and what each position implies. As Johns (1997) and Samraj (2004) have observed, there is, sadly, no such thing as the onesize-fits-all academic essay that can be written in all areas of study. As Zamel and Spack, further, have argued, it is no longer possible to assume that there is one type of literacy in the academy (1998: ix) and that there is one culture in the university whose norms and practices simply have to be learnt in order for our students to have access to academic institutions.

3 Students as researchers Johns (1997) and Canagarajah (2002) recognize the difficulty this presents for our students by suggesting that we train our students to 'act as researchers' (Johns, 1997) as a way of helping them write texts that consider the institutional and audience expectations of their particular fields of study. Students can be trained, they argue, to unpack the knowledge and skills that are necessary for membership of their particular academic community. We should give them, they argue, the skills to ask questions of the texts they are required to produce, of the context the texts are located in, and the people who will be reading (and evaluating) their texts. Students may then decide to produce a text that fits in with these expectations, or they may write a text which challenges, or indeed resists, what is expected of them. An ethnography of writing Grabe and Kaplan s (1996) notion of an ethnography of writing, I have found, provides a useful way of drawing a number of these perspectives together. In the case of teaching academic writing, students can be asked to undertake an analysis of the social and cultural context in which the text they are writing occurs, and consider how the various components of the situation in which they are writing impacts upon what they write and how they write it. The analysis might include a discussion of: * The setting of the text - For example, is the text written in a high school, or a first year university course? Is it undergraduate or postgraduate? * The purpose of the text - Is the purpose to display knowledge and understanding in a particular area, to demonstrate particular skills, to convince the reader, to argue a case, and at more advanced levels, to critique, and break new ground? * The content of the text - For example, what points of view and claims are acceptable in the students area of study, and what points of view and claims are not, and why? What are they expected to say, and what are they not expected to say? * The intended audience for the text, their role and purpose in reading the text including how they will react to the text, and the criteria they will use for assessing the text. * The relationship between the reader and writer of the text and how this impacts about what they say and how they say it. This is often one of the most difficult things for second language students in that they often have to write to tell someone something they already know (or know better than they do). * General expectations and conventions for the text, as well as particular expectations, conventions and requirements of the student s field of study - For example, how are they expected to reference in their area of study, how should they use source texts, how should they quote, how should they paraphrase (versus plagiarize), the level of critical analysis required (or not required) of them, the level of originality expected of them, and the amount of negotiation that is possible (or not) in terms of assessment requirements (see e.g. Benesch 1999). * The background knowledge, values, and understandings it is assumed they will share with their readers, including what s important to their readers and what s not. * The relationship the text has with other genres (such as lectures, set texts, journal articles, research reports etc) and how they will be used to support an argument. The teaching, thus, moves 'beyond the text' (Freedman, 1989) to explore the context in which the texts are produced as well as reasons for the linguistic choices that the students are making. It is important to remember that the reasons for the linguistic choices we make are nearly always outside the text. Just looking at texts alone might give our students a description of a particular genre, but not an explanation or understanding of why it is as it is.

4 References Canagarajah, A.S. (2002). Critical academic writing and multilingual students. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Badger, R. & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal. 54, Benesch, S. (1999). Rights analysis: Studying power relations in an academic setting. English for Specific Purposes Flowerdew, J. (1993). An educational, or process, approach to the teaching of professional genres. ELT Journal, 47, Freedman, A. (1999). Beyond the text: Towards understanding the teaching and learning of genres. TESOL Quarterly, 33, Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. An applied linguistic perspective. London: Longman. Horowitz, D. (1986). What professors actually require: academic tasks for the ESL classroom. TESOL quarterly, 20, 3, Johns, A.M. (1990). L1 composition theories: implications for developing theories of L2 composition. In B. Kroll (ed.) Second language writing research: insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Johns, A.M. (1993) Written argumentation for real audiences: suggestions for teacher research and classroom practice. TESOL quarterly, 27, Johns, A.M. (1997). Text, role and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lea, M.R (1994). I thought I could write until I came here : Student writing in higher education. In G. Gibbs (ed.). Improving student learning: Theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development. Lea, M.R. & Street, B. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education. 23, Lea, M.R. & Street, B. (1999). Writing as academic literacies: understanding textual practices in higher education. In C.N. Candlin & K. Hyland (eds.) Writing: texts, processes and practices. London: Longman. Paltridge, B. (2000). Genre knowledge and the language learning classroom. EA Journal. 18, Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre and the language learning classroom. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Paltridge, B. (2002). Academic literacies and changing university communities. Revista canaria de estudios Ingleses. 44: Available: Paltridge, B. (2003). Teaching thesis and dissertation writing. Hong Kong journal of applied linguistics. 8, 2. Pennycook, A. (1997). Critical applied linguistics and education. In R. Wodak & D. Corson (eds.) Encyclopedia of language and education. Volume 1. Dordrecht: Kluwer,

5 Reid, J. (1984a). The radical outliner and the radical brainstormer: A perspective on composing processes. TESOL quarterly, 18, Reid, J. (1984b). Comments on Vivian Zamel's "The composing process of advanced ESL students: Six case studies". TESOL quarterly, 18, Reid, J. (2001). Writing. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds). The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J.C. and T. Rodgers. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. A description and analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Samraj, B. (2004). Discourse features of the student-produced academic research paper: variations across disciplinary courses. Journal of English for academic purposes, 3, 1, Starfield, S. (2004). Recent research into student academic writing. In J. Cummins and C. Davison (eds.) Kluwer handbook of English language teaching. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Swales, J.M. & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: essential tasks and skills. Second edition. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Zamel, V. &. Spack, R. (1998). Preface. In V. Zamel & R. Spack. (eds.) Negotiating academic literacies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, ix-xviii. Bio Brian Paltridge is Associate Professor of TESOL and Associate Dean (Graduate Studies) in the Faculty of Education at the University of Sydney. He is author of Genre, Frames and Writing in Research Settings (1997), Making Sense of Discourse Analysis (2000), and Genre and the Language Learning Classroom (2001). His areas of interest include second language writing, discourse analysis, academic literacies, and thesis and dissertation writing. He is member of the editorial boards for the journals English for Specific Purposes and the Journal of English for Academic Purposes.