Second Language (L2) Writing Pedagogy is a diverse field of study with many perspectives. Some approach it from a Composition education perspective. Others see it as an extension of Second Language (SL) or Foreign Language (FL) instruction. English may or may not be the second or foreign language that the proponent is teaching. In the case of one of my colleagues, Damien, his focus is French FL instruction. Some of us are Linguists and some come from the English writing programs. Regardless of our perspective or approach, we all see the value in incorporating Second Language writing in both Composition and FL/SL curriculums. Writing is an essential element in language development and perhaps the hardest facet to teach to L2 students.
There are numerous areas of debate within the discipline. Error correction is a hot topic that stirs up lots of questions. Is it good or bad? Truscott does not see the value of grammar correction in L2 writing. Students can succeed in writing without being corrected for every little grammar error they make. In fact, too much grammar error correction can make L2 writers impotent out of fear of mistakes, anxious about writing and take focus away from developing content rich writing (Truscott 1996). In her “Dialogue,” Chandler disagrees with Truscott’s ascertain that grammar error correction does not benefit the student’s writing development. Her study results indicated a marked improvement in grammar and spelling accuracy in those students that received various kinds of error feedback, including grammar correction (Chandler 2009).
How much and what kinds of error feedback are most helpful to the student? Chandler found that a combination of direct and indirect (indicating type of error with a code or underlining errors) error correction was helpful in her study (Chandler 2009). Ferris found indirect feedback was beneficial for higher level L2 proficient students because it “engages students in cognitive problem solving as they attempt to self-edit based upon the feedback they have received” (Ferris 2004). Ferris also advocated student revision/editing after error feedback and the student “maintenance of error charts” to track problem areas and improvement (Ferris 2004). Bitchener also found that in addition to “written corrective feedback” the “focused approach to the treatment of recurrent linguistic errors” could be addressed through increasing levels from “plenary mini-lessons [to] small group meta-linguistic sessions [to] one-to-one conferences” (Bitchener 2008). Nakamaru points out that not all errors by L2 writers are grammatical, some are lexical. Not all writing centers address this issue appropriately (Nakamaru 2010). It should be noted that, with written feedback for L2 writers, direct and unambiguous, feedback is usually best as it avoids confusion for the student. As summarized by my colleague Sharon in her review of Hyland and Hiland (2001), “Teachers, they insist, must balance their concern for student egos with honest, reflective responses that include suggestions for improvement” (Sharon, Blog Post, Jan. 2, 2012).
Does too much error correction inhibit creative writing and development of personal voice in the language? My colleague, Anna-Liisa, strongly argues that it does and she supports this with her blog article choices (Lee 2003, Lee 2005). In response to Lee 2003, she states “as ESL composition teachers, I think we should evaluate our error feedback strategies and see whether they inhibit students’ development by forcing them to focus on what we want instead of their own purpose for writing” (Anna-Liisa, Blog Post, Feb. 29 2012) My experience, while teaching business professional EFL students in Prague,
taught me how much certain cultures value and expect error correction, especially grammatical correction. Thus focusing only on content will not necessarily meet the expectations or needs of all L2 writers. The secret is finding the right balance between providing enough feedback to help refine the students’ writing skills and nurturing an encouraging environment for creativity and expressive growth. I think that given his particular EFL environment in the Ukraine, Tarnopolsky seemed to find a reasonable balance in his group’s second creative writing class experiment (Tarnoplosky 2000). There was a heavy reliance on peer review and insight and group work. “Silly” writing was encouraged and cleverly hid opportunities for self-error correction.
Does peer review help or hinder? For Tarnopolsky, the answer appears to be yes. Bitchener, among others, has also advocated peer review along with selective follow up as a way to potentially reduce teacher workload while still assuring that students get the feedback they need and crave in order to gain confidence and proficiency in writing (Bitchener 2008 and Ferris 2005).
Other issues that plague L2 writing are the same types of issues that plague EFL and ESL language instruction in general, such as the assumption that so-called native speakers have the monopoly on spoken and written English. Many purport that English is in fact a Lingua Franca and is used as a language of trade and industry throughout the world, even in countries where it is not an official language, an Inner Circle country (Kachru 1985), or a former English speaking colony. English as a Lingua Franca may range from formally educated EFL speakers and writers to pigeon or creole dialects (Canagarajah 2006). English has ceased to be the sole domain of inner circle countries like Great Britain, Canada, the US, Australia and New Zealand. It is in fact undergoing the same type of changes and evolution that Latin experienced in the rise of the modern Romance languages in the former Roman territories and around the so called “Known World” of early Medieval Europe.
My colleague Aaron advocates for a codified written World English (WE) that would enable EFL and WE writers to submit and publish in academic journals without the stigma they currently experience by not using the Inner Circle imposed “standard” written English (SWE) in their articles or research (Aaron, Blog Post, Feb 22, 2012). I tend to agree with him that such a standard, while potentially constraining, would enable non-native/EFL/WE speakers to gain voice and authority in the world-wide academic and professional community.
Also of interest to L2 writing instructors is how adaptive rhetoric is to the needs of students. In both Mao’s article (2005) and Jin’s “Learn Chinese” music video that we watched on YouTube, we see how the Chinese ESL community moves towards developing its own rhetoric, or specialized voice, in English to express itself while maintaining its own unique identity. This adaptive rhetoric is what the best ESL and EFL teachers should seek to nourish within the context of writing exercises. It is something that seems to be particularly dear to my colleagues Anna-Liisa, Callie and Nathan as evidenced both by the articles chosen for their respective blogs and by comments made during class discussions. In our efforts to develop the best and most successful teaching practices, we must find the careful balance of error correction with rhetoric development thereby assisting our students in giving power to their voice so that it may be heard more clearly by the English speaking community as a whole.
As many of the authors we have read this semester for both assigned readings and our own personal research have said, more studies and review are needed. Second language writing instruction is ever evolving, always adapting to the needs of our students for both correction and guidance. As an EFL teacher, one must modify instruction and methods to the local needs of your students while keeping in an eye on world developments in the field and language. Very little in this profession is concrete and unchanging. Even grammar and spelling evolves over time.
