University of Canterbury :
Abstract: In this chapter, we discuss the teaching of writing for students with English-as-a-foreign-language. The focus of the discussion is on tertiary level education in Bangladesh and the teaching of students who are learning academic writing skills. However, some of the issues covered will be relevant to other levels of education in Bangladesh (e.g., the problems of focusing on grammar) and pertinent literature will be referred to as part of the critique of present practices and recommendations for the future: i.e., evidence that teaching writing as a process may be more successful than simply focusing on error detection. Writing is a learned skill that requires practice in composing, developing and analysing ideas – the process of writing needs to be learnt and strategies relevant to this process taught. This discussion is underpinned by a review of the relevant literature, as well as the authors’ own work in the field, both within and outside of Bangladesh. The chapter ends with recommendations for future practice and research that should further inform methods for teaching writing in order to maximize learning outcome.
Introduction: The focus of the discussion presented in this chapter is the teaching of English writing in Bangladeshi tertiary education institutions; that is, in a second language adult education context. The argument presented below calls for a change in the way English writing is typically taught in this context. The primary rationale for this is based on the experiences of the first author initially as a learner, then as an educator in Bangladesh tertiary institutions. These experiences include teaching English both at college and university level in Bangladesh for seven and a half years. This involved working mainly in private tertiary education institutions as a lecturer in a team of staff supporting first year students in acquiring academic writing skills in English. Experiences across several institutions, related to curricula and teaching methods, skills and reported backgrounds of students, and advice and comments of senior colleagues, have shaped much of the discussion. The first author also gained a B.A. (Hons) and an M.A. in English Literature from one of the public universities in Bangladesh and, therefore, has experience in both public and private tertiary education institutions. However, this more personal perspective is supported through a discussion of the research literature on second language writing, an area of research within which both authors work. This literature is also used to support the recommendations for change covered in the latter part of the chapter. Prior to these recommendations, the chapter presents a background to understand the way in which English is currently taught within Bangladesh and its focus on surface-level details in writing. It includes a brief outline of tertiary education development in Bangladesh to provide a potential explanation for why Bangladeshi tertiary instructors have concentrated on surface features.
Understanding the Phenomenology of Errors
English holds a paradoxical position in Bangladesh. It is denigrated due to its association with the British colonial regime in the Indian subcontinent, while at the same time being considered critical for intellectual enrichment, social well-being, and economic prosperity. Additionally, English is essential to undertake/complete education: all students in Bangladesh (at primary, secondary and higher secondary levels, as well as those undertaking tertiary courses) have to take English language classes or complete studies in English. The importance of English in education can also be seen in the practice of the government of Bangladesh, since independence in 1971, as well as some foreign organizations (e.g., the British Council), to formulate policies and principles in order to streamline the teaching and learning of English. Despite this, experts maintain that “no definitive or coordinated attempt has so far been taken” (Khan, 2002, p. 24) to ensure that English studies are more informed and effective in maximizing learning outcomes. English studies, therefore, remain an important area of exploration. Although the focus of the present discussion will be on tertiary-level practices, it is possible to argue that all levels of English education in Bangladesh will benefit from a consideration of the alternative perceptions discussed in this chapter.
At tertiary level, English studies in Bangladesh used to mean the study of British Literature until the 1990s, when there was a move to extend the curriculum to include such areas as English theory and Applied Linguistics. This extension did not lead to any qualitative change though, as the focus was still on analyzing and appreciating key texts b authors such as Shakespeare or Keats, or works by Krashen or Rod Ellis, for example. On the other hand, primary, secondary and higher secondary students had hardly any exposure to such. texts. At these education levels, the curriculum focussed on grammar and the rote-learning of vocabulary, with the aim being primarily to pass the school-level elms. This difference in emphasis between the tertiary and other three levels of education with regard to English has led to a poor transfer of skills from pre-tertiary to tertiary-level education. As such, tertiary students often report feeling overwhelmed and underprepared to undertake tertiary studies in English. Learners at the tertiary level are perplexed further when they discover that they have to produce a substantial amount of written artefacts in order to demonstrate their critical thinking skills. Based on the experience of the first author as a tertiary level lecturer, producing cohesive written essays, or other such artefacts, in a well formed coherent style is not in the repertoire of typical Bangladeshi students probably because they have not received any instruction on such writing skills either in their first language (their L1) or English (most often a second or additional language). Given the importance of English but the lack of writing preparation, poor English writing skill can be argued to be a major problem for student success in tertiary education in Bangladesh.
When the first private university in Bangladesh begun its operations in 1993, it followed the worth American model of tertiary education, requiring all students, regardless of majors, to pass composition courses in order to qualify to earn a Bachelor’s degree. As far as the authors are aware (e.g., the first author has worked in several such institutions), all Bangladeshi private universities since 1993 have followed an identical policy as far as their English course requirements are concerned. While this has been a positive shift to streamline tertiary education in Bangladesh, the potential pitfalls en-route merit critical consideration. Writing is a learned skill, which requires conscious effort and practice in composing, developing and analysing ideas. As with other components of second language learning, students are faced with many challenges when writing in their second language. Because of these challenges, it can be argued that teaching writing in a second language should be considered as qualitatively different from teaching writing in a first language. It is critical that teachers have a strong background in, and knowledge about, the disciple of second language writing, which emerged in the 1980s (Hyland, 2003). Unfortunately, the experiences of the first author suggest that many of those who have been teaching English writing at the tertiary level in Bangladesh apparently do not seem to understand the principles involved in second language teaching. The assumption of many senior members of English language departments seems to be that any instructor who can speak English qualifies to teach English writing. Consequently, second language writing pedagogy is seriously flawed at the moment in Bangladesh. Although there are many contributing factors (instructional, cultural, and technological) to account for this apparently unproductive state of writing pedagogy in Bangladesh, Zamel (1985) seems to have an insightful observation when she claims that writing teachers overwhelmingly consider themselves as language teachers rather than writing teachers. While teaching writing and teaching a language are inter-related, they are distinct instructional areas. However, past experiences of the first author have indicated that the processes/skills involved in writing have not been considered in the pedagogical approaches characteristic of current practices in Bangladesh; indeed, they could be considered to run counter to those proposed by writing scholars.
For example, consider a typical English course (call it Introduction to Composition) in a private university in Bangladesh. (Note that this discussion is based on an actual course that was running in a private university in Bangladesh at the time of writing this chapter; however, anonymity has been ensured in the description of the course. Although this is an example from a specific course, it is chosen as it is representative of such courses across Bangladesh.) This is one of the courses that forms the basis of writing instruction at the university and, as such, all students, regardless of majors, have to pass the course to continue with tertiary education. Typically in such a course, students will be asked to produce different types of paragraphs (narrative, descriptive, process) at different phases of the semester. Paragraph areas always will be determined by the instructors. Consequently “writing is detached from the practical purposes and experiences of the writer” (Hyland, 2003, p. 7): students are asked to engage in an activity that has hardly any meaning or purpose for them. One of the potential consequences of this is that students will come away from the activity of writing disillusioned and discouraged. Even if the students have the potential to undertake this kind of activity, often they are not ready to accomplish the tasks set as each of the paragraphs belongs to a specific geme, which demands facility in different cognitive schemata and rhetorical patterns to demonstrate academically acceptable writing skills. The problem is, then, not with the students, but with the type of assessment activity that does not take account of students’ learning backgrounds. Nonetheless, students are the culprits and incriminating the students continues further when those assignments are submitted. Typically in Bangladesh, instructors focus on identifying every surface error in the students’ work. Indeed, from the first author’s personal experiences, junior instructors are taught to focus on this level in the written work of students. Hence, blobs of red ink obscure the original writings of the student, which composition scholars have described as bleeding the work. Some of the errors identified by the instructor may be difficult to interpret or meaningless to the student: cryptic codes such as sp may be found on or around misspelled words. However, this kind of pedagogical intervention may be counterproductive. The eclectic phonetic foundation and semantic heritage of English spelling means that many words have, what can be described as, inconsistent or arbitrary spelling forms. These inconsistencies are the reasons for iconic English speaking figures such as Samuel Johnson, Benjamin Franklin, Mark Twain and Theodore Roosevelt protesting the irregularities of English spelling (dictionary.com). Additionally, English is currently the most widely-spoken language on the planet, yet it is the only language among the top ten most spoken languages that lacks an official regulatory academy to approve spelling. Any pedagogical intervention aimed at disciplined spelling would seem to be poorly informed and may suffer due to a lack of development along with the language. Indeed, the potential for further development of such a language would seem to make it more productive to support strategies for self-identification of errors, or to recommend the use of a modern computerized spell-checker, rather than try to teach spelling via corrective ink on assignments.
Like spelling, punctuations (e.g., commas, periods, exclamation points) and mechanics (such as indentation, italics, abbreviations, etc) also do not escape the fault-finding eyes of the instructors. Clearly, both punctuation and mechanics have aesthetic and semantic value in easing the verbal transaction between writers and readers; and they can seriously obscure meaning when applied incorrectly. However, being fussy about punctuation and mechanics is simplistic. For example, Lindemann (1995) contends that the English graphic system has a long history of change with regard to alphabet letters, punctuation marks and mechanical customs. Therefore, “there is (now) nothing especially sacred about the system” (Lindemann, 1995, p. 17). When students transgress in any of these areas in their written artifacts, they do not violate any sacred code of the language that presents the instructor with a need to intervene. Writing instructors must realize that allowing students some leeway with their writing is not essentially a bad pedagogical option; after all, “writing is a messy business” (Lindemann, 1995, p. 24).
Despite the messy act of writing, instructors in Bangladesh hardly miss an opportunity to ‘tidy’ the students’ texts. They firmly believe that their energy and expertise are wellexploited in finding errors in grammar surfacing in the students’ artifacts, for good English is always grammatically correct English. Poor writing skill due to grammatical flaws can seriously disadvantage students en-route to their academic and professional development. So the pressure to fix students’ grammar is compelling. However, grammar cannot capture the whole spectrum of a language. Language encompasses social, perceptual, and cognitive nuances that a grammar-dependent pedagogy will poorly represent. The argument against focusing purely on grammar is not new. Even such figures as Chomsky (1975) have criticized the proponents of grammar-dependent pedagogy for trivializing human learning. The following observation by Richard Braddock, Richard Lloyd-J ones, and Lowell Schoer in 1963 (cited in Hartwell, 2003) with regard to the role of grammar to teaching writing is penetrating: “In view of the widespread agreement of research studies based upon many types of students and teachers, the conclusion can be stated in strong and unqualified term: the teaching of formal grammar has negligible or, because it usually displaces some instruction and practice in composition, even a harmful effect on improvement in writing.” (p. 205).
Despite the empirical evidence, the specter of grammar has loomed large in writing classrooms for the last seventy five years, both in English-as-a-Foreign-Language (EFL) and English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) contexts (Hartwell, 2003). Indeed, if knowledge about grammar were that magic bullet to provide someone with the facility in writing, then linguists would be the best writers – yet few would argue that they are. Writing is not all about rules and formulas and patterns. Writing is an inductive process of self-discovery by a recognized graphic system, which generates ideas and information either by cognition, or by emotion, or both, to communicate with a broader audience, or to clarify things to oneself, so as to serve a specific purpose of communication. Language is just one component of this complex continuum of writing. Fluency in writing might not always mean accuracy in syntactic structure, particularly when writing is accomplished in an EFL context like Bangladesh. Perhaps, the most compelling reason to move away from a grammar contingent pedagogy is that it provides students with the false perception that grammar is the gateway to writing, when it is not, for “there simply appears to be no correlation between writer’s study of language and his ability to write” (Mike Lister, cited in Hartwell, 2003).
Apologies for Errors: Numerous writing scholars, as well as writing teachers, have produced both anecdotal and empirical evidence to challenge the popular perception with regard to errors. Perhaps one of the most persuasive documents along this line was by Joseph M. Williams (1981) who, in a rigidly academic article appearing in one of the most prestigious referred journals (i.e. College Composition and Communication), deliberately inserted about 100 errors. These were not noticed initially even by canny readers. Williams hypothesized, therefore, that the discovery of error “is the result of a deliberate search” (p. 165). Readers focused on the interpretation of the meaning/message of the text may miss errors unless they lead to problems with this interpretation process. Hence, instructors who do not focus on the deliberate search for writing errors should be more likely to go beyond the surface of the students’ texts and focus on discovering meaning or well justified argument.
This re-focus of writing instructors may be particularly important when dealing with new students who have just arrived at university. While such new students often are excited about this new transition in their lives, it does not take long for them to discover that it is a culture apart; that there are new expectancies for success in that environment. Uncertainties and anxieties may result while they try to grasp and acquire the social and intellectual capital characterizing university education. The predicament of the reorientation of the student new to the university has been poignantly captured in Bartholomae’s (2003) ‘Inventing the University’: “The student has to learn to speak our language, to speak as we do, to try on the peculiar ways of knowing, selecting, evaluating, reporting, concluding, and arguing that define the discourse of our community.” (p.623). As a result, students feel physically displaced and intellectually dispossessed, which may lead to be increased frustration, and decreased confidence. Courses that do not focus on supporting this change in discourse may be doing their students a double disservice. Courses designed purely for error identification and summative (over) assessment have the potential to impact negatively on the learning of the rules of the university.
Even when the new student has ‘invented’ their view of the university, writing in a second language can still provide challenges, and the writing teacher needs to be aware these potential difficulties. Some of these may be based on the individual’s experience of the second language – and the way in which a language and writing is produced. Research on children learning to read and write in two orthographies has confirmed the complex relationship between language skills and literacy learning. Indeed, the evidence indicates that there is a reciprocal relationship between language and literacy (Perfetti, Beck, Bell & Hughes, 1987). Language skills, such as an awareness of sounds within words (phonemic awareness), have been found to be good predictors of children’s future literacy levels across a large range of languages (see Everatt et al., 2010). However, there is evidence that this sound awareness skill is itself a consequence of literacy learning: the development of phonemic awareness (i.e., recognising sounds at the level of the phoneme) comes with increased linguistic experience and formal reading instruction, Such a relationship may well cross languages in contexts where individuals are expected to learn more than one language. In a longitudinal study by Sparks and colleagues (Sparks, Patton, Ganschow & Humbach, 2009), L1 literacy skills in elementary school predicted L2 language levels in later schooling and adulthood consistent with literacy skills in one language influencing language competence in another. Greater exposure to print can lead to improvements in vocabulary, general knowledge and other skills assessed in commonly used language tests.
(To be continued)
Abstract: In this chapter, we discuss the teaching of writing for students with English-as-a-foreign-language. The focus of the discussion is on tertiary level education in Bangladesh and the teaching of students who are learning academic writing skills. However, some of the issues covered will be relevant to other levels of education in Bangladesh (e.g., the problems of focusing on grammar) and pertinent literature will be referred to as part of the critique of present practices and recommendations for the future: i.e., evidence that teaching writing as a process may be more successful than simply focusing on error detection. Writing is a learned skill that requires practice in composing, developing and analysing ideas – the process of writing needs to be learnt and strategies relevant to this process taught. This discussion is underpinned by a review of the relevant literature, as well as the authors’ own work in the field, both within and outside of Bangladesh. The chapter ends with recommendations for future practice and research that should further inform methods for teaching writing in order to maximize learning outcome.
Introduction: The focus of the discussion presented in this chapter is the teaching of English writing in Bangladeshi tertiary education institutions; that is, in a second language adult education context. The argument presented below calls for a change in the way English writing is typically taught in this context. The primary rationale for this is based on the experiences of the first author initially as a learner, then as an educator in Bangladesh tertiary institutions. These experiences include teaching English both at college and university level in Bangladesh for seven and a half years. This involved working mainly in private tertiary education institutions as a lecturer in a team of staff supporting first year students in acquiring academic writing skills in English. Experiences across several institutions, related to curricula and teaching methods, skills and reported backgrounds of students, and advice and comments of senior colleagues, have shaped much of the discussion. The first author also gained a B.A. (Hons) and an M.A. in English Literature from one of the public universities in Bangladesh and, therefore, has experience in both public and private tertiary education institutions. However, this more personal perspective is supported through a discussion of the research literature on second language writing, an area of research within which both authors work. This literature is also used to support the recommendations for change covered in the latter part of the chapter. Prior to these recommendations, the chapter presents a background to understand the way in which English is currently taught within Bangladesh and its focus on surface-level details in writing. It includes a brief outline of tertiary education development in Bangladesh to provide a potential explanation for why Bangladeshi tertiary instructors have concentrated on surface features.
Understanding the Phenomenology of Errors
English holds a paradoxical position in Bangladesh. It is denigrated due to its association with the British colonial regime in the Indian subcontinent, while at the same time being considered critical for intellectual enrichment, social well-being, and economic prosperity. Additionally, English is essential to undertake/complete education: all students in Bangladesh (at primary, secondary and higher secondary levels, as well as those undertaking tertiary courses) have to take English language classes or complete studies in English. The importance of English in education can also be seen in the practice of the government of Bangladesh, since independence in 1971, as well as some foreign organizations (e.g., the British Council), to formulate policies and principles in order to streamline the teaching and learning of English. Despite this, experts maintain that “no definitive or coordinated attempt has so far been taken” (Khan, 2002, p. 24) to ensure that English studies are more informed and effective in maximizing learning outcomes. English studies, therefore, remain an important area of exploration. Although the focus of the present discussion will be on tertiary-level practices, it is possible to argue that all levels of English education in Bangladesh will benefit from a consideration of the alternative perceptions discussed in this chapter.
At tertiary level, English studies in Bangladesh used to mean the study of British Literature until the 1990s, when there was a move to extend the curriculum to include such areas as English theory and Applied Linguistics. This extension did not lead to any qualitative change though, as the focus was still on analyzing and appreciating key texts b authors such as Shakespeare or Keats, or works by Krashen or Rod Ellis, for example. On the other hand, primary, secondary and higher secondary students had hardly any exposure to such. texts. At these education levels, the curriculum focussed on grammar and the rote-learning of vocabulary, with the aim being primarily to pass the school-level elms. This difference in emphasis between the tertiary and other three levels of education with regard to English has led to a poor transfer of skills from pre-tertiary to tertiary-level education. As such, tertiary students often report feeling overwhelmed and underprepared to undertake tertiary studies in English. Learners at the tertiary level are perplexed further when they discover that they have to produce a substantial amount of written artefacts in order to demonstrate their critical thinking skills. Based on the experience of the first author as a tertiary level lecturer, producing cohesive written essays, or other such artefacts, in a well formed coherent style is not in the repertoire of typical Bangladeshi students probably because they have not received any instruction on such writing skills either in their first language (their L1) or English (most often a second or additional language). Given the importance of English but the lack of writing preparation, poor English writing skill can be argued to be a major problem for student success in tertiary education in Bangladesh.
When the first private university in Bangladesh begun its operations in 1993, it followed the worth American model of tertiary education, requiring all students, regardless of majors, to pass composition courses in order to qualify to earn a Bachelor’s degree. As far as the authors are aware (e.g., the first author has worked in several such institutions), all Bangladeshi private universities since 1993 have followed an identical policy as far as their English course requirements are concerned. While this has been a positive shift to streamline tertiary education in Bangladesh, the potential pitfalls en-route merit critical consideration. Writing is a learned skill, which requires conscious effort and practice in composing, developing and analysing ideas. As with other components of second language learning, students are faced with many challenges when writing in their second language. Because of these challenges, it can be argued that teaching writing in a second language should be considered as qualitatively different from teaching writing in a first language. It is critical that teachers have a strong background in, and knowledge about, the disciple of second language writing, which emerged in the 1980s (Hyland, 2003). Unfortunately, the experiences of the first author suggest that many of those who have been teaching English writing at the tertiary level in Bangladesh apparently do not seem to understand the principles involved in second language teaching. The assumption of many senior members of English language departments seems to be that any instructor who can speak English qualifies to teach English writing. Consequently, second language writing pedagogy is seriously flawed at the moment in Bangladesh. Although there are many contributing factors (instructional, cultural, and technological) to account for this apparently unproductive state of writing pedagogy in Bangladesh, Zamel (1985) seems to have an insightful observation when she claims that writing teachers overwhelmingly consider themselves as language teachers rather than writing teachers. While teaching writing and teaching a language are inter-related, they are distinct instructional areas. However, past experiences of the first author have indicated that the processes/skills involved in writing have not been considered in the pedagogical approaches characteristic of current practices in Bangladesh; indeed, they could be considered to run counter to those proposed by writing scholars.
For example, consider a typical English course (call it Introduction to Composition) in a private university in Bangladesh. (Note that this discussion is based on an actual course that was running in a private university in Bangladesh at the time of writing this chapter; however, anonymity has been ensured in the description of the course. Although this is an example from a specific course, it is chosen as it is representative of such courses across Bangladesh.) This is one of the courses that forms the basis of writing instruction at the university and, as such, all students, regardless of majors, have to pass the course to continue with tertiary education. Typically in such a course, students will be asked to produce different types of paragraphs (narrative, descriptive, process) at different phases of the semester. Paragraph areas always will be determined by the instructors. Consequently “writing is detached from the practical purposes and experiences of the writer” (Hyland, 2003, p. 7): students are asked to engage in an activity that has hardly any meaning or purpose for them. One of the potential consequences of this is that students will come away from the activity of writing disillusioned and discouraged. Even if the students have the potential to undertake this kind of activity, often they are not ready to accomplish the tasks set as each of the paragraphs belongs to a specific geme, which demands facility in different cognitive schemata and rhetorical patterns to demonstrate academically acceptable writing skills. The problem is, then, not with the students, but with the type of assessment activity that does not take account of students’ learning backgrounds. Nonetheless, students are the culprits and incriminating the students continues further when those assignments are submitted. Typically in Bangladesh, instructors focus on identifying every surface error in the students’ work. Indeed, from the first author’s personal experiences, junior instructors are taught to focus on this level in the written work of students. Hence, blobs of red ink obscure the original writings of the student, which composition scholars have described as bleeding the work. Some of the errors identified by the instructor may be difficult to interpret or meaningless to the student: cryptic codes such as sp may be found on or around misspelled words. However, this kind of pedagogical intervention may be counterproductive. The eclectic phonetic foundation and semantic heritage of English spelling means that many words have, what can be described as, inconsistent or arbitrary spelling forms. These inconsistencies are the reasons for iconic English speaking figures such as Samuel Johnson, Benjamin Franklin, Mark Twain and Theodore Roosevelt protesting the irregularities of English spelling (dictionary.com). Additionally, English is currently the most widely-spoken language on the planet, yet it is the only language among the top ten most spoken languages that lacks an official regulatory academy to approve spelling. Any pedagogical intervention aimed at disciplined spelling would seem to be poorly informed and may suffer due to a lack of development along with the language. Indeed, the potential for further development of such a language would seem to make it more productive to support strategies for self-identification of errors, or to recommend the use of a modern computerized spell-checker, rather than try to teach spelling via corrective ink on assignments.
Like spelling, punctuations (e.g., commas, periods, exclamation points) and mechanics (such as indentation, italics, abbreviations, etc) also do not escape the fault-finding eyes of the instructors. Clearly, both punctuation and mechanics have aesthetic and semantic value in easing the verbal transaction between writers and readers; and they can seriously obscure meaning when applied incorrectly. However, being fussy about punctuation and mechanics is simplistic. For example, Lindemann (1995) contends that the English graphic system has a long history of change with regard to alphabet letters, punctuation marks and mechanical customs. Therefore, “there is (now) nothing especially sacred about the system” (Lindemann, 1995, p. 17). When students transgress in any of these areas in their written artifacts, they do not violate any sacred code of the language that presents the instructor with a need to intervene. Writing instructors must realize that allowing students some leeway with their writing is not essentially a bad pedagogical option; after all, “writing is a messy business” (Lindemann, 1995, p. 24).
Despite the messy act of writing, instructors in Bangladesh hardly miss an opportunity to ‘tidy’ the students’ texts. They firmly believe that their energy and expertise are wellexploited in finding errors in grammar surfacing in the students’ artifacts, for good English is always grammatically correct English. Poor writing skill due to grammatical flaws can seriously disadvantage students en-route to their academic and professional development. So the pressure to fix students’ grammar is compelling. However, grammar cannot capture the whole spectrum of a language. Language encompasses social, perceptual, and cognitive nuances that a grammar-dependent pedagogy will poorly represent. The argument against focusing purely on grammar is not new. Even such figures as Chomsky (1975) have criticized the proponents of grammar-dependent pedagogy for trivializing human learning. The following observation by Richard Braddock, Richard Lloyd-J ones, and Lowell Schoer in 1963 (cited in Hartwell, 2003) with regard to the role of grammar to teaching writing is penetrating: “In view of the widespread agreement of research studies based upon many types of students and teachers, the conclusion can be stated in strong and unqualified term: the teaching of formal grammar has negligible or, because it usually displaces some instruction and practice in composition, even a harmful effect on improvement in writing.” (p. 205).
Despite the empirical evidence, the specter of grammar has loomed large in writing classrooms for the last seventy five years, both in English-as-a-Foreign-Language (EFL) and English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) contexts (Hartwell, 2003). Indeed, if knowledge about grammar were that magic bullet to provide someone with the facility in writing, then linguists would be the best writers – yet few would argue that they are. Writing is not all about rules and formulas and patterns. Writing is an inductive process of self-discovery by a recognized graphic system, which generates ideas and information either by cognition, or by emotion, or both, to communicate with a broader audience, or to clarify things to oneself, so as to serve a specific purpose of communication. Language is just one component of this complex continuum of writing. Fluency in writing might not always mean accuracy in syntactic structure, particularly when writing is accomplished in an EFL context like Bangladesh. Perhaps, the most compelling reason to move away from a grammar contingent pedagogy is that it provides students with the false perception that grammar is the gateway to writing, when it is not, for “there simply appears to be no correlation between writer’s study of language and his ability to write” (Mike Lister, cited in Hartwell, 2003).
Apologies for Errors: Numerous writing scholars, as well as writing teachers, have produced both anecdotal and empirical evidence to challenge the popular perception with regard to errors. Perhaps one of the most persuasive documents along this line was by Joseph M. Williams (1981) who, in a rigidly academic article appearing in one of the most prestigious referred journals (i.e. College Composition and Communication), deliberately inserted about 100 errors. These were not noticed initially even by canny readers. Williams hypothesized, therefore, that the discovery of error “is the result of a deliberate search” (p. 165). Readers focused on the interpretation of the meaning/message of the text may miss errors unless they lead to problems with this interpretation process. Hence, instructors who do not focus on the deliberate search for writing errors should be more likely to go beyond the surface of the students’ texts and focus on discovering meaning or well justified argument.
This re-focus of writing instructors may be particularly important when dealing with new students who have just arrived at university. While such new students often are excited about this new transition in their lives, it does not take long for them to discover that it is a culture apart; that there are new expectancies for success in that environment. Uncertainties and anxieties may result while they try to grasp and acquire the social and intellectual capital characterizing university education. The predicament of the reorientation of the student new to the university has been poignantly captured in Bartholomae’s (2003) ‘Inventing the University’: “The student has to learn to speak our language, to speak as we do, to try on the peculiar ways of knowing, selecting, evaluating, reporting, concluding, and arguing that define the discourse of our community.” (p.623). As a result, students feel physically displaced and intellectually dispossessed, which may lead to be increased frustration, and decreased confidence. Courses that do not focus on supporting this change in discourse may be doing their students a double disservice. Courses designed purely for error identification and summative (over) assessment have the potential to impact negatively on the learning of the rules of the university.
Even when the new student has ‘invented’ their view of the university, writing in a second language can still provide challenges, and the writing teacher needs to be aware these potential difficulties. Some of these may be based on the individual’s experience of the second language – and the way in which a language and writing is produced. Research on children learning to read and write in two orthographies has confirmed the complex relationship between language skills and literacy learning. Indeed, the evidence indicates that there is a reciprocal relationship between language and literacy (Perfetti, Beck, Bell & Hughes, 1987). Language skills, such as an awareness of sounds within words (phonemic awareness), have been found to be good predictors of children’s future literacy levels across a large range of languages (see Everatt et al., 2010). However, there is evidence that this sound awareness skill is itself a consequence of literacy learning: the development of phonemic awareness (i.e., recognising sounds at the level of the phoneme) comes with increased linguistic experience and formal reading instruction, Such a relationship may well cross languages in contexts where individuals are expected to learn more than one language. In a longitudinal study by Sparks and colleagues (Sparks, Patton, Ganschow & Humbach, 2009), L1 literacy skills in elementary school predicted L2 language levels in later schooling and adulthood consistent with literacy skills in one language influencing language competence in another. Greater exposure to print can lead to improvements in vocabulary, general knowledge and other skills assessed in commonly used language tests.
(To be continued)
