L2 Writing Beyond English 9781788923132

Citation preview

L2 Writing Beyond English

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION Founding Editor: Viv Edwards, University of Reading, UK Series Editors: Phan Le Ha, University of Hawaii at Manoa, USA and Joel Windle, Monash University, Australia. Two decades of research and development in language and literacy education have yielded a broad, multidisciplinary focus. Yet education systems face constant economic and technological change, with attendant issues of identity and power, community and culture. This series will feature critical and interpretive, disciplinary and multidisciplinary perspectives on teaching and learning, language and literacy in new times. All books in this series are externally peer-reviewed. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION: 66

L2 Writing Beyond English Edited by Nur Yiğitoğlu and Melinda Reichelt

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Blue Ridge Summit

To my mother, Gülnaz Yiğitoğlu, for her love and support – NY To Jay, Alicia, Liz, Nellie and Rose, for their love and support – MR DOI https://doi.org/10.21832/YIGITO3125 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Names: Yigitoglu, Nur - editor. | Reichelt, Melinda, editor. Title: L2 Writing Beyond English/Edited by Nur Yigitoglu and Melinda Reichelt. Description: Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Multilingual Matters, [2019] | Series: New Perspectives on Language and Education: 66 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018052206| ISBN 9781788923125 (hbk : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781788923149 (epub) | ISBN 9781788923156 (kindle) Subjects: LCSH: Second language acquisition—Study and teaching. | Language and languages—Study and teaching. | Exposition (Rhetoric)—Study and teaching. | Rhetoric—Study and teaching. | Composition (Language arts)—Study and teaching. Classification: LCC P118.2 .L228 2019 | DDC 418.0071—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018052206 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-78892-312-5 (hbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK. USA: NBN, Blue Ridge Summit, PA, USA. Website: www.multilingual-matters.com Twitter: Multi_Ling_Mat Facebook: https​://ww​w.fac​ebook​.com/​multi​lingu​almat​ters Blog: www.c​hanne​lview​publi​catio​ns.wo​rdpre​ss.co​m Copyright © 2019 Nur Yiğitoğlu, Melinda Reichelt and the authors of individual chapters. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services Limited. Printed and bound in the UK by the CPI Books Group Ltd. Printed and bound in the US by Thomson-Shore, Inc.

Contents

Acknowledgementsvii Contributorsix Introduction: L2 Writing in Non-English Languages: Toward a Fuller Understanding of L2 Writing Nur Yiğitoğlu and Melinda Reichelt

xiii

Part 1: Curricular Issues 1 Writing Through the Senses: Bringing Life to College Spanish Writing Courses in the United States Adela Borrallo-Solís and Andrea Meador Smith

3

2 Highlighting Practices and Perspectives on Polish L2 Writing in Poland Dani Francuz Rose and Mateusz Gaze

21

3 Interpersonal Writing in the Advanced Undergraduate French Curriculum: A Multiliteracies Perspective Heather Willis Allen and Kate Paesani

42

4 Teaching Japanese L2 Writing Inside and Outside Japan: Implications for Global Approaches in L2 Writing Jim McKinley

60

5 Unique Challenges of Learning to Write in the Japanese Writing System Heath Rose

78

6 Feedback to Feed Forward: Giving Effective Feedback in Advanced Chinese Writing Ming Fang and Andie Wang

95

v

vi Contents

Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/ Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction 7 A Study of Recipes Written by Basque L2 Immersion Students: Any Evidence for Language Revitalization? Ibon Manterola

117

8 The Transition from the Foreign Language to the Study Abroad Classroom: Mediating Writer Culture Shock Lucile Duperron

135

9 Language Ideology, Language Policy and Writing in Korean as a Second Language Juyoung Song

155

Part 3: Affect and Student Attitudes Toward Pedagogical Practices 10 Writing Practices among Spanish Mixed Pairs: An Insight Regarding the Revision of Labor and Learners’ Perceptions on Collaboration Laura Valentín-Rivera 11 The Motivation of Heritage Learners vs. Foreign Language Learners in a University-level Spanish Composition Course Aroline E. Seibert Hanson

177

197

12 The Role of Learner Affect in L2 Japanese Writing Tutorials215 Mizuki Mazzotta and David L. Chiesa Conclusion236 Nur Yiğitoğlu and Melinda Reichelt Index239

Acknowledgements

In 2014, during the Gala Dinner at the Symposium on Second Language Writing, we talked about the idea of editing a collection of articles nonEnglish L2 writing. Since that time, it has been a long journey for us to finally come to this end product in 2019. We, as the editors of this volume, would like to express our gratitude for all the contributors who dedicated their time, energy and patience during the writing and editing process. We would like to thank the Multilingual Matters team, namely, Sarah Williams, Anna Roderick, Flo McClelland and Elinor Robertson, for all their help and support throughout this project. I, Nur, would like to thank my mother, Gülnaz Yiğitoğlu, who supported me with love and understanding and also my husband, Erchan Aptoula, who added inspiration, motivation and love to my life. I, Melinda, thank my family for all their support.

vii

Contributors

Heather Willis Allen is associate professor of French in the Department of French and Italian at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where she directs the elementary French program and oversees the professional development of graduate teaching assistants of French. Her research on foreign language teacher development, multiliteracies pedagogy and language-learning motivation has appeared in journals including the ADFL Bulletin, Foreign Language Annals, the French Review and the Modern Language Journal. She is co-author of Alliages Cultures: La Société Française en Transformation (2013) and A Multiliteracies Framework for Collegiate Foreign Language Teaching (2016). Adela Borrallo-Solís is an assistant professor of Spanish at Shenandoah University. She is a 19th-century Peninsular literature specialist, but has a great interest in pedagogical research as well. She has published and given numerous conference presentations on the writings of Benito Pérez Galdós, her primary research interest. She has also explored recent developments in Spanish film and television. Pedagogically, she aims to update the way certain courses are being perceived and taught in the USA. In her publications, she has focused not only on improving writing courses, but literary courses and civilization and culture classes as well. David L. Chiesa is the English Language Assessment and Testing Specialist for the Ministry of Public Education of the Republic of Uzbekistan. He holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics from Georgia State University. His research interests include language assessment and testing, language teacher cognition, second language writing, and language teacher education. Lucile Duperron is associate professor of French and francophone studies at Dickinson College. She holds a PhD in French and second language acquisition from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. A teacher scholar in the tradition of the liberal arts, she teaches at all levels

ix

x Contributors

of the curriculum, leads study abroad programs and has published on study abroad as a learning context. Ming Fang is the multilingual writing specialist in the Writing and Rhetoric Program at Florida International University in Miami, Florida. She teaches both freshman and upper division writing courses, provides training and support in multilingual writing pedagogy and also collaborates with faculty across disciplines to integrate writing tasks into their courses. Her research interests include second language writing, multilingual writing pedagogy, transnational writing program administration and writing across curriculum. Mateusz Gaze is a PhD candidate in the Department of Applied Linguistics and Culture at the University of Łódź, not far from his hometown of Łask, Poland. He has worked as a teacher of Polish as a foreign language since 2012, teaching a variety of levels in class groups dedicated to linguistics, humanities, economics and medicine. Currently, his dissertation and research center around pragmatic and cognitive media analyses. Aroline E. Seibert Hanson earned a dual title PhD in Spanish linguistics and language science at Pennsylvania State University in 2012. After a post-doctoral fellowship, she became an assistant professor of Spanish and linguistics at Arcadia University in 2013. Her research is in second language acquisition with a focus on motivation and language processing. Her most recent work has involved assessing motivation in heritage language learners, study abroad participants and community members involved in language revitalization efforts. Her work has been published in Language Learning, the Canadian Journal for Applied Linguistics and Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics. Ibon Manterola holds a PhD in linguistics from the Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea UPV/EHU. He is member of the ELEBILAB bilingualism research group and the UNESCO Chair of World Language Heritage, both at the UPV/EHU. Currently, he is an assistant professor in the Department of Linguistics and Basque Studies (UPV/EHU). The role of bilingual/multilingual education on the revitalization of Basque constitutes a major focus of interest in his research, which includes the following domains: child bilingualism, immersion education, language didactics and family language policy. Mizuki Mazzotta is a lecturer of Japanese in the Department of World Languages and Cultures at Georgia State University, where she coordinates the Japanese program. She holds a PhD in applied linguistics from Georgia State University. Her research interests include second language writing, second language acquisition, and second language learning motivation.

Contributors 

xi

Jim McKinley is an associate professor of applied linguistics and TESOL at UCL Institute of Education, University of London. His interests are research methods, second language writing and the internationalization of higher education, especially regarding EMI. He has published in journals such as the Journal of Second Language Writing, Applied Linguistics and Higher Education, and is an author and editor of several books on research methods in applied linguistics. Kate Paesani (PhD Indiana University) is director of the Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA) and affiliate associate professor in the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Minnesota. Her research focuses on literacy-based curriculum and instruction and foreign language teacher development, couched within the frameworks of multiliteracies pedagogy and sociocultural theory. Her work has appeared in journals such as Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, Foreign Language Annals, The French Review, L2 Journal and Reading in a Foreign Language, and she is co-author of the book A Multiliteracies Framework for Collegiate Foreign Language Teaching (Pearson, 2016). Melinda Reichelt is professor of English at the University of Toledo, where she directs the ESL writing program and teaches courses in TESOL and linguistics. She is a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Second Language Writing. She has published her work in various journals, including the Journal of Second Language Writing, World Englishes, Composition Studies, Issues in Writing, the ELT Journal, Modern Language Journal, the International Journal of English Studies, Foreign Language Annals and the WAC Journal. With Tony Cimasko, she co-edited a collection of chapters entitled Foreign Language Writing: Principles and Practices (Parlor Press, 2011). Dani Francuz Rose, originally from Chicago, Illinois, is an English language instructor at Kennesaw State University, just outside Atlanta, Georgia. She has been teaching English since 2012 and received her master’s degree in applied linguistics from Georgia State University in 2014. Dani recently completed a Fulbright grant at the University of Łódź in Poland where she taught integrated skills and academic writing courses, studied the Polish language and completed research on the education of Polish as a foreign language. Currently, Dani is preparing for a new position as an English language fellow at Anhui University in Hefei, China. Heath Rose is an associate professor of applied linguistics in the Department of Education at the University of Oxford. He is an active researcher of both English and Japanese language education, having published in Applied Linguistics, Language Policy, Modern Language Journal and Higher Education. His recent (co-)authored and co-edited books include The Japanese Writing System (Multilingual Matters, 2017), Doing

xii Contributors

Research in Applied Linguistics (Routledge, 2017), Introducing Global Englishes (Routledge, 2015) and Global Englishes for Language Teaching (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming). Andrea Meador Smith is an associate professor of Hispanic studies at Shenandoah University. She completed a PhD in Spanish at the University of Virginia, with a specialization in Latin American literature of the 19th and 20th centuries. Her research and writing address representations of race and gender in South American literature and film. She has taught Spanish courses at all levels for the University of Virginia, Shenandoah University and Semester at Sea. Juyoung Song is an associate professor in the TESOL programs at Murray State University, Kentucky. Her research interests include language teaching and learning in its sociocultural context, particularly issues regarding language ideology and identity. She co-edited Ethnolinguistic Diversity and Education: Language, Literacy and Culture (Routledge) and published numerous articles on bilingualism, second language learning and teacher education in such journals as TESOL Quarterly, TESOL Journal, The Modern Language Journal, Journal of Sociolinguistics and International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Laura Valentín-Rivera is an assistant professor of Spanish at Kansas State University. She holds a PhD in Spanish literature and language from Texas Tech University. Valentín-Rivera’s dissertation was directed by Dr Idoia Elola, her role model on multiple levels. Valentín-Rivera’s main research interests are Spanish heritage language learners’ literacy development and the effects of written feedback. In her free time, ValentínRivera enjoys traveling and engaging in physical activities, like Crossfit. Andie Wang is assistant professor of Chinese in the Department of East Asian Studies at Colby College, Maine. She teaches Chinese language courses at various levels and courses on second language acquisition. Her research interests include pedagogical approaches to teaching Chinese as a second language and culture, intercultural competence development on Chinese learners and teacher identity development in cross-cultural situations. Nur Yiğitoğlu is an assistant professor of applied linguistics at Bogazici University, Turkey. She teaches various courses on second language (L2) writing, L2 teaching methodologies, practice teaching and research methods at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Her current research focuses on the interface between L2 writing and L2 acquisition, genrebased approaches to teaching L2 writing and L2 writing teacher education.

Introduction L2 Writing in Non-English Languages: Toward a Fuller Understanding of L2 Writing Nur Yiğitoğlu and Melinda Reichelt

This book focuses on second language (L2) writing in non-English languages. Much of what we know about L2 writing is based on conclusions drawn from research on writing in the English language. However, as a great deal of L2 writing and writing instruction is undertaken in various languages other than English, it is necessary to look at L2 writing practices in non-English languages in order to have a more comprehensive understanding of L2 writing. A review of the published work in the area reveals that L2 writing in non-English languages is underrepresented in the field, with very few works addressing the issues that learners of non-English languages face in their L2 writing development. Although limited in number, previous studies of L2 writing in non-English languages have provided some insights into different aspects of teaching and learning non-English languages. Some such studies focused on the specific needs of learners in non-English classrooms, such as Yiğitoğlu and Reichelt (2012), who discuss the teaching of Turkish language writing in the USA; and RuizFunes (2015), who investigates, in a Spanish class, specific pedagogical issues such as the interplay between L2/foreign language (FL) writing and attention to linguistic form, which is affected by task complexity. Additionally, Cimasko and Reichelt (2011) include not only chapters on English as a foreign language (EFL) writing, but also chapters on writing in FL French (Schultz, 2011), Japanese (Hatasa, 2011), Spanish (Lefkowitz, 2011; Nas & van Esch, 2011) and German (Thorson, 2011). Although these studies have contributed to our knowledge about non-English languages, given that non-English L2 writing is being taught in many different contexts, more attention should be given to various aspects of non-English L2 writing. However, the focus in L2 writing research and pedagogical literature remains, for the most part, on writing in L2 English. For example, Ferris and Hedgcock (2014), in their volume Teaching L2 Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice, focus xiii

xiv  L2 Writing Beyond English

on L2 learners of English. In its first two editions (Ferris & Hedgcock, 1998, 2005), the volume was titled Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice. However, the authors note in the preface to the 2014 edition that they have changed the book’s title to include the broader term L2 because ‘[n]ot all L2 writers are developing their skills in English’. They continue, ‘we have accordingly changed references from “ESL” to “L2” (or in some cases we refer to student writers as “multilingual”) throughout the book’ (Ferris & Hedgcock, 2014: xiv). While this acknowledgment of non-English L2 writers is welcome, the volume still focuses on L2 writers of English. For example, in describing various types of L2 writers, Ferris and Hedgcock include international students studying English in English-dominant contexts, students studying EFL outside English-dominant contexts, resident immigrants in English-speaking countries and Generation 1.5 students in English-speaking countries; they do not include L2 writers of languages other than English. Nonetheless, the volume provides a useful overview of issues related to English as a second language (ESL) writing, ones that can inform teaching and research in writing in non-English L2s. The authors describe the development of the field of ESL writing, noting that its parent disciplines are composition studies and applied linguistics. They provide readers with an overview of trends in first language (L1) and ESL composition pedagogy, describing product approaches, process approaches and the ‘post-process era’ (Ferris & Hedgcock, 2014: 68). The authors also delineate relationships between reading and writing, discussing genre approaches to teaching ESL writing. Ferris and Hedgcock also discuss other salient issues in the field, including course design, instructional planning, response to student writing (including but not limited to error treatment) and classroom assessment of writing. The literature on L2 writing has also provided us with an understanding of issues related to L2 writing such as academic knowledge (Hyland, 2009) and disciplinary discourses (Hyland, 2004a); genre (Hyland, 2004b); metadiscourse (Hyland, 2005); disciplinary identities (Hyland, 2012); and curricular issues in L2 writing (Hinkel, 2015), as well as issues related to vocabulary and grammar in L2 writers’ texts (Hinkel, 2004). These works underline the complexity of academic writing in L2 writing and contribute to the understanding of L2 writing as a multifaceted process. As Hirvela et al. (2016: 59) argue, ‘…the recognition of the situated nature of learning, teaching and performing writing necessarily entails an equal recognition of the many purposes and values that writing may have for individuals and groups in diverse settings and communities of practice’. Work that focuses primarily on ESL writing can provide important insights for scholarship related to non-English L2 writing, given the fact that writers of all L2s face some similar challenges. However, writers of non-English L2s also face distinct challenges, often stemming from the fact that they are writing in a range of contexts and are not writing

Introduction 

xv

in the world’s most dominant language. Thus, in order to advance our understanding of L2 writing, to reach out to an international readership and to motivate scholars from various contexts to work on issues in writing in underrepresented languages, more scholarship on L2 writing in non-English languages is needed. The present edited collection highlights work on non-English L2 writing in languages and contexts that are underrepresented in the literature. The goal of this edited collection is, then, to bring breadth to the field of L2 writing by including chapters on a broad range of languages and contexts. The volume covers different languages such as Basque, Chinese, French, Japanese, Korean, Polish and Spanish. It also covers several underrepresented contexts, including but not limited to L2 writing in primary education in Basque immersion schools, L2 Polish writing in Poland and Chinese students’ L2 Korean writing in a Korean university setting. The chapters in the present collection explore various practices at different proficiency levels in teaching and learning to write in non-English languages in contexts such as an introductory-level Spanish writing course (Borrallo-Solís and Smith), an upper-level Spanish writing course (Seibert Hanson), an intermediate Spanish course (Valentín-Rivera) and an advanced Chinese writing course (Fang and Wang). Additionally, because writing as a pedagogical activity involves communication between instructors and students, non-English L2 writing studies in this volume also focus on these different agents: instructors (McKinley) and students (Mazzotta and Chiesa). Moreover, the volume focuses on various salient topics surrounding non-English L2 writing, including but not limited to heritage language learners (HLLs; Seibert Hanson, ValentínRivera), language revitalization in non-English L2 writing (Manterola), dominant ideologies surrounding non-English L2 writing (Song), challenges in teaching and learning non-English L2 writing (e.g. Rose) and innovative approaches to teaching non-English L2 writing (e.g. BorralloSolís and Smith; Allen and Paesani). Regarding research methodologies, the volume includes diverse modes of inquiry, including but not limited to pedagogical explorations (e.g. Rose), exploratory practices (e.g. Duperron), descriptive studies (e.g. Allen and Paesani; Borrallo-Solís and Smith; Rose and Gaze), mixed-method studies (e.g. Seibert Hanson), qualitative studies (e.g. Mazzotta and Chiesa; McKinley) and quantitative studies (e.g. Valentin-Rivíera). Overview of Chapters Part 1: Curricular Issues

This section includes chapters on writing in Spanish, Polish, French, Japanese and Chinese. In the first chapter, Borrallo-Solís and Smith describe a universitylevel curriculum for an introductory Spanish FL writing course in the

xvi  L2 Writing Beyond English

USA that focuses on writing through the senses. The course is designed to address students’ negative perceptions of writing and their writing anxiety by fostering creativity, flexibility and interest. The course curriculum includes students creating written analyses of songs, descriptions of a favorite food, essays about a physical object that is significant to them, analyses of a picture or a photo and responses to and analyses of film. In the next chapter, Dani Francuz Rose and Mateusz Gaze report on writing instruction in another under-researched L2, Polish. Their chapter outlines pedagogical practices for teaching academic writing in Polish as an L2 at a language school that prepares students for study at a Polish university. Rose and Gaze outline the types and topics for writing that are assigned, and the approaches taken to writing instruction in this context. Allen and Paesani in the third chapter describe a literacy-based, advanced-level university French as an FL course in the USA. The course focuses on interpersonal communication during the reading and writing process as a means of motivating students, helping them better understand texts and preparing them to meet the expectations of their readers when they write. The curriculum includes four modules that address different authors and genres, including vignettes about cultural products or practices, ethnotexts and short stories. The course emphasizes individual and collaborative processes, with students working together to understand the content of the course through analysis of assigned reading, pre-writing, peer review, reflection on their own writing processes and reaction to their peers’ texts. What is special about this curriculum is its focus on the development of a classroom reading and writing community. McKinley focuses specifically on teaching rhetorical approaches in Japanese L2 writing by examining the L2 writing practices of four instructors of Japanese: two working in a university in Japan and two working in universities outside Japan. Data included the analysis of course descriptions and multiple interviews with the instructors. The analysis of several cases of university-level L2 writing instruction revealed some differences in teaching rhetorical approaches because of instructors’ educational backgrounds. Rose explores the challenges associated with learning Japanese as an L2 and an FL. The chapter first presents an overview of the Japanese language and presents L2 writing practices regarding teaching the Japanese writing system. Rose then illuminates some challenges of learning the Japanese writing systems and strategies for more efficient learning of Japanese writing. Rose concludes the chapter with some pedagogical implications such as sparking learners’ cultural curiosity in the writing system and raising students’ awareness regarding strategies that are salient to their own needs. Fang and Wang describe written corrective feedback practices in an advanced Chinese language course in the USA. As they focused on teacher feedback and student revisions, the data came from the final essay

Introduction 

xvii

writing task in the course. The feedback data analysis indicated a strong focus on error treatment, predominantly direct feedback, especially on grammar-related errors. Overall, the students’ revisions were successful but despite the direct feedback provided to them, students did not always simply take the correct form supplied by the teacher; instead, they made revisions that made sense to them. Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/ Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

This section includes chapters on writing in Basque, French and Korean. Ibon Manterola reports on a study of recipes written by 11-year-old students of Basque. Students came from Spanish-speaking homes and were enrolled in an L2 Basque immersion program in the Basque region of Spain. Students were asked to write recipes in Basque for a popular Basque sandwich, to be read by recently arrived 11-year-old immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria. The resulting recipes were analyzed for adherence to genre requirements as well as the presence of appropriate text organizers, with an eye toward evaluating the potential of recipe-writing toward the pedagogical goals of language revitalization in this context. Duperron’s chapter also focuses on writing in French as an L2, both as an L2 and an FL. She reports on the L2 French writing development of university students studying at their home institution in the USA as well as at a study abroad location in France. Her research focuses on the multilingual writing center at the US-based institution as well as a writing center at the study abroad university. Through observations and interviews with students, tutors and an instructor, Duperron investigates the writing development of the study abroad participants, focusing on their perceptions of their move from the FL French classroom in the USA to their study abroad site in France. The chapter by Juyoung Song explores the teaching and learning of writing in Korean as a second language (KSL) in South Korea (hereafter Korea), focusing on how language ideology and policy in a given context affect the learning of writing in KSL. Data included a survey of 154 KSL learners and interviews with 16 learners and teachers. The results indicated that various contextual factors affect learning and teaching KSL writing. For example, while students have positive attitudes toward the value of KSL writing, learners consider English writing and Korean speaking skills more important to their academic and future career than KSL writing. Similarly, while teachers expressed their perceptions with regard to the goal of the Korean language program to help students gain an ability to communicate rather than academic language proficiency, the program curriculum documents overall do not put much emphasis on Korean communication in writing.

xviii  L2 Writing Beyond English

Part 3: Affect and Student Attitudes Toward Pedagogical Practices

This section includes chapters on writing in Japanese and Spanish. In their chapters, both Valentín-Rivera and Seibert Hanson report on FL learners and HLLs of Spanish in US university classes. ValentínRivera investigates the effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on the roles played by intermediate Spanish FL learners and HLLs when they wrote three narratives together. She examines whether the type of corrective feedback students received impacted the roles that writers played in their collaborative efforts, and whether the roles they played changed over time. Valentín-Rivera also examines how the writers perceived paired writing and whether their writing performance correlated with their attitudes about collaborative writing. Seibert Hanson compares the motivation of Spanish FL learners and HLLs regarding learning to write in Spanish through analyzing student responses to questionnaires about motivation and through examining student freewriting about relevant personal experiences. Seibert Hanson compares the extrinsic motivation of HLLs with that of FL learners, examining change over time, and also compares the extrinsic motivation for writing of Spanish majors and non-majors, also investigating change over time. Additionally, Seibert Hanson explores ways of improving all students’ intrinsic motivation for writing. Mizuki Mazzotta and David L. Chisea looked at the role of learner affect in L2 Japanese writing tutorials. The chapter presents a case study of two American Japanese as a foreign language (JFL) learners to explore the impact of dialogic corrective feedback in writing on L2 Japanese learning by looking at changes in grammatical accuracy and the learners’ affective responses. Data included oral data sources from interviews and tutoring sessions as well as written documents from different drafts of participants’ writings, field notes, transcripts of interviews and stimulated recall sessions. Results revealed that affect plays a significant role in the L2 writing feedback process and thus it affords an optimal opportunity for the teacher/tutor to motivate the learners to continue studying Japanese. Because of the dominant role that English plays as a world language, writing in L2s other than English has received less attention. We hope that this collection of chapters will not only move beyond the research conducted in L2 writing in English, but also make non-English L2 writing more visible by drawing specific attention to global contexts and emphasizing under-researched areas of non-English L2 writing. References Cimasko, T. and Reichelt, M. (eds) (2011) Foreign Language Writing Instruction: Principles and Practices. Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.

Introduction 

xix

Ferris, D. and Hedgcock, J. (1998) Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice. Mahwah, NJ/London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ferris, D. and Hedgcock, J. (2005) Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice (2nd edn). Mahwah, NJ/London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ferris, D. and Hedgcock, J. (2014) Teaching L2 Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice (3rd edn). New York/London: Routledge. Hatasa, Y.A. (2011) L2 writing instruction in Japanese. In T. Cimasko and M. Reichelt (eds) Foreign Language Writing Instruction: Principles and Practices (pp. 98–117). Anderson, SC: Parlor Press. Hinkel, E. (2004) Teaching Academic ESL Writing: Practical Techniques in Vocabulary and Grammar. New York/London: Routledge. Hinkel, E. (2015) Effective Curriculum for Teaching L2 Writing: Principles and Techniques. New York/London: Routledge. Hirvela, A., Hyland, K. and Manchón, R. (2016) Dimensions in L2 writing theory and research. In R.M. Manchón and P.K. Matsuda (eds) Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing (pp. 45–64). Boston, MA/Berlin: DeGruyter. Hyland, K. (2004a) Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Hyland, K. (2004b) Genre and Second Language Writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Hyland, K. (2005) Metadiscourse. London: Continuum. Hyland, K. (2009) Academic Discourse. London: Continuum. Hyland, K. (2012) Disciplinary Identities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lefkowitz, N. (2011) The quest for grammatical accuracy: Writing instruction among foreign and heritage language educators. In T. Cimasko and M. Reichelt (eds) Foreign Language Writing Instruction: Principles and Practices (pp. 225–254). Anderson, SC: Parlor Press. Nas, M. and van Esch, K. (2011) Developing Spanish FL writing skills at a Netherlands university: In search of balance. In T. Cimasko and M. Reichelt (eds) Foreign Language Writing Instruction: Principles and Practices (pp. 201–224). Anderson, SC: Parlor Press. Ruiz-Funes, M. (2015) Exploring the potential of second/foreign language writing for language learning: The effects of task factors and learner variables. Journal of Second Language Writing 28, 1–19. Schultz, J.M. (2011) Foreign language writing in the era of globalization. In T. Cimasko and M. Reichelt (eds) Foreign Language Writing Instruction: Principles and Practices (pp. 65–82). Anderson, SC: Parlor Press. Thorson, H. (2011) Student perceptions of writing as a tool for increasing oral proficiency in German. In T. Cimasko and M. Reichelt (eds) Foreign Language Writing Instruction: Principles and Practices (pp. 255–284). Anderson, SC: Parlor Press. Yiğitoğlu, N. and Reichelt, M. (2012) Teaching Turkish and Turkish-language writing in the U.S.: A descriptive report. Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (1), 71–75.

1 Writing Through the Senses: Bringing Life to College Spanish Writing Courses in the United States Adela Borrallo-Solís and Andrea Meador Smith

A child who enters school today faces a 12- to 20-year apprenticeship in alienation […] We have lost the human ability to taste the feast of meaning that each event and object offers to our senses. Arnheim, 1972: 62

Composition Courses and Student Anxiety

When browsing through Spanish course offerings in higher education in the USA, we find a wide variety of classes dealing creatively with language, film, culture and literature. Spanish programs, as well as university curricula in other world languages, continue to develop innovative approaches to teaching language that resonate highly with our current students. However, one exception persists alongside those offerings: the dreaded writing classes. Among the courses required to major or minor in Spanish, those that focus on writing are usually the least popular with students. While faculty tend to attribute students’ aversion to writing to the overwhelming use of technologies that might make writing seem antiquated, much of this negative perception results from what we as faculty do inadvertently in these classes. Most major Spanish programs in the USA advertise writing courses with labels like ‘grammar’ and ‘composition’, terms that are neither meaningful nor enticing. Many of these conventional ‘grammar and composition’ courses evolved from outdated learning approaches that treated the creative process as mechanical and relatively unimaginative. To break this trend, we have reconsidered how we view writing in our Spanish program, moving away from the artificial, arbitrary and impersonal approaches found in numerous textbooks, to embrace instead the exploration of writing through the senses. In the first half of this chapter, Adela Borrallo-Solís explains the philosophy behind her recreation of our program’s introductory writing course to focus on the 3

4  Part 1: Curricular Issues

senses, as well as the course’s execution and its effects on our students. In the second half, Andrea Meador Smith explains how she promotes writing through the senses in her approach to teaching film and guiding student writing about film. As those who love writing are well aware, writing is more than simply transcribing thoughts onto a piece of paper. Rather, it is a process of exploration and self-discovery. In the words of noted second language (L2) scholar Yuh-show Cheng (2002: 647), ‘Writing is an emotional as well as cognitive activity, that is, we think and feel while we are writing’. However, this creative practice tends to be hindered by the negative perceptions many students have regarding writing. In the second half of the 20th century, scholars devoted significant attention to the growing, and at times overwhelming, anxiety that American students in a variety of disciplines experienced when tasked with writing assignments in their native language (as a starting point, see Bloom, 1980; Daly, 1978; Daly & Miller, 1975; Daly et al., 1988; Eulert, 1967; Faigley et al., 1981; Fleming, 1985; Petzel & Wenzel, 1993; among many others). Moreover, even students who are good writers in their native language may face anxiety and frustration when writing in an L2, because they expect to write well in another language, despite the reality that they are usually forced to write and communicate in a language of which they have an immature command (Cheng, 1998: 86). At the turn of the century, L2 writing anxiety had become so pervasive that Cheng (2004) developed a scale to measure this form of anxiety in L2 students in particular, which expanded on the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale proposed by Horwitz et al. (1986) two decades earlier. At the root of such high levels of anxiety lies a multitude of factors ranging from students’ unrealistic expectations about the writing process to the instructor’s obliviousness to the anxiety of their students, even at the upper levels (Ewald, 2007: 123). The students in Ewald’s (2007: 123) study on anxiety in upper-level courses identified concerns such as comparing themselves to the linguistic proficiency of their classmates, the instructor’s expectations, their own level of preparation, the classroom environment itself and their relationships with peers and with their instructor. Ewald’s (2007: 124) summary of the research on the negative physical and psychological effects of foreign language learning anxiety is especially pertinent to the current discussion and to our, the authors’, commitment to rethink the way we teach writing: ‘“freezing,” concentration difficulties, worry, dread, sweating, heart palpitations, lack of comprehension, errors, forgetfulness, overstudying, tension, frustration, communication apprehension, avoidance, absenteeism, and even a complete inability to perform’. In addition to factors like anxiety and individual pedagogical styles, research points toward another factor that can negatively influence student writing: the disconnect between body and mind. We, the authors,

Writing Through the Senses  5

are writing this chapter after a long day of work, at a time when our bodies are asking us to rest while our minds are telling us to write in order to meet a deadline. This dilemma that many teacher-scholars face when our schedules leave little time for the writing process is the same issue that our students confront on a daily basis. Ideally, both students and instructors would find the perfect moment of the day in which inspiration would take over and allow us to produce wonderful and moving compositions. Unfortunately, the stress of daily life, constant anxiety and conflicting schedules make this optimal situation unattainable for most of us on both sides of the classroom. Nevertheless, this detachment between body and mind is rarely taken into consideration when we confront the task of teaching writing. As Wenger (1982: 5) suggests, many faculty seldom inquire about the level of exhaustion of our students, and even if we do, we do not necessarily change the structure of a class or the tasks at hand in order to accommodate our bodily states, leading one to wonder how many times we misread student exhaustion for disengagement. Because of the little importance we tend to give to our own bodily needs when teaching, unless the course revolves explicitly around body performance such as theater, dance and physical education, by the time our students get to college they have learned how to disconnect their intellectual pursuits from their personal bodies (Wenger, 1982: 66). In order to restore communication between the body and the mind, Wenger created an illuminating English writing course in which the practice of yoga was utilized to promote mindfulness throughout the composition process. Reading her testimony challenged us to consider the importance of such connection in our writing courses, and inspired us to design a course that we titled ‘Writing through the Senses’. By reconsidering the process of writing through the exploration of our own sensorial perceptions, we hoped not only to lower the affective filter in our students, recognizing that they carry with them the necessary background knowledge to write effective essays, but also to promote curiosity, creativity, flexibility, excitement and awareness of ourselves and our surroundings, just as Wenger proposes. Writing through the senses

Inspired by intermodality theories that underscore the many ways our senses interact with each other, we determined that in our introductory writing course it would be beneficial to explore the use of the five senses during the writing process. As Christensen (2012) proposes: Beyond the five physical senses, however, several other senses affect our writing and deeply influence our intermodality, such as memory or the sense of what happened (which can be evoked from an old song, a smell of perfume, or a taste of food, for example), the sense of association (in

6  Part 1: Curricular Issues

which a place or object triggers a particular feeling or emotion), and the somatic sense or motor memory, in which our bodies ‘remember’ a movement, such as dance, riding a bike, or even the act of typing. Many other senses are tied to emotions, such as sense of pride, a sense of fear, or a sense of loss. We may experience a sense of self or a sense of peace, which are tied to our sentience (awareness of self), or that special kind of intuition often referred to as the sixth sense. (Christensen, 2012: 35)

Intuitively, one of the students who enrolled in Wenger’s (1982: 127) aforementioned course remarked that, after a whole semester focusing on connecting the body and the mind, his ideas ‘originate from what we see, what we hear, what we smell, what we taste, what we feel, with everything being alive and activated’. This metacognitive reflection made for a more enjoyable and productive writing process for this student, and we hoped that it would have similar effects in our courses. The difficulty that we faced when creating a writing course in which so much of the written production depended on student self-exploration was that many of the objectives conventionally attached to these courses would not be met. Traditional L2 composition courses tend to be structured around a common reading, grammar and vocabulary practice related to the reading, and an essay to synthesize the material. There is a predetermined shared topic that often requires that students use the recently studied vocabulary and grammar while practicing a specific writing style, be it description, narration, exposition, argumentation, etc. Yet, students in introductory writing courses confront many challenges that make this task unattainable. In universities with small language programs, writing and/or conversation courses are often the first ones taken by students who are interested in minoring or majoring in the language. Having a writing course as an entry class into a discipline was previously seen as an opportunity to review grammar and to practice writing skills that would be vital in upper-level courses. However, it is quite challenging to create a cohesive set of assignments and common expectations that will not alienate some of the students, especially when considering the attitude shift within higher education that treats an L2 as a beneficial skill to complement another discipline rather than a meaningful pursuit in its own right. Any faculty teaching writing in a university with a small language program will have to take into consideration not only the anxiety that comes with the instruction of writing but also the disparate language skills and interests of enrolled students. To my surprise, the first time I, Adela, taught a writing course at our current institution, the class was composed of 17 students whose level of Spanish ranged from novice-high to intermediate-high, including some who barely understood and others who engaged with me in relatively fluent conversations. In addition, none of them had chosen Spanish as their only focus of study. Most decided

Writing Through the Senses  7

to take the class either to receive a minor in the language or simply to earn extra credits, since studying the language was something they had enjoyed in high school. Their intended majors and career paths included theater, religion, business, biology, pharmacy, communication, education, criminal justice and psychology. This depth of interests added richness and livelihood to the group, but it also gave it less cohesion. In this promising but demanding environment, teaching writing through the exploration of the senses allowed students not only to improve their writing skills but also to develop an appreciation for writing and for their L2. Designing and Implementing Sensorial Writing Assignments

Despite living in a society in which we are constantly bombarded with visual stimuli, I, Adela, personally believe that the sense that impacts us the most is hearing. The varying elements attached to sound, such as pitch, inflection, tone, volume, accent or a lack of sound, can change our perception of our surroundings. My appreciation for sound has made music part of my pedagogical routine. In every class I teach, I play music in the background in the moments preceding the beginning of class. Based on the comments I have received in student evaluations, this habit sets the tone for an upbeat class and infuses them with energy, awakening their senses and alerting their bodies to engage with instruction. Because music has had such positive effects in my classes, I decided to start our writing course with a metacognitive activity that revolved around analyzing a song. In order to help students visualize the elements that constitute a successful creation, I started the first class meeting by establishing connections between a musical piece and writing, using the song ‘Pájaros de barro’ [Clay Birds] by Manolo García. I chose this song not only for its beautiful arrangement but also because it fosters the organic elements that we want our students to include in their compositions. I played the music video for students and asked what they thought of the song. Students reacted very positively to the music, so I asked them to reflect on why this song was so effective in provoking favorable reactions in them. Most answered with somewhat superficial statements that pointed toward the rhythm or the inclusion of a certain instrument as the most impactful element of the song. Once all students presented their arguments, I explained why this tune was not only one of my favorites but also one that always transported me to my childhood in Spain: the emotions that arise from the symbolism of lyrics that center on lost love and nostalgic spaces, the arrangement of music, the pauses and the intriguing opening notes make for an effective and meaningful musical composition. With our discussion in mind, I then asked students to consider why we started a writing class analyzing this specific song and what connections existed between the musical arrangement and the writing process. Their responses varied from comments that barely scratched the

8  Part 1: Curricular Issues

surface to remarks that depicted writing as a multidimensional structure that needed a certain flow and depth to be effective. Next, I explained the elements that make ‘Pájaros de barro’ so compelling and moving to the listener, the same elements that are indispensable to creating good writing. The song starts with the musicians clapping their hands to soft guitar notes that keep the listener intrigued. The first words of the song are symbolic and enigmatic for L2 students as well as those of us who have heard the piece dozens of times. The message of this song is conveyed not by the mere meaning of the individual words but instead by the association and choice of words. Manolo García, echoing the 17th-century Spanish poet Luis de Góngora, creates a space where he captures the imagination and emotions of the listener due to the beauty, delicacy and anomaly of his semantic combinations. As the song evolves, we succumb to an elegant flow of music with disparate yet harmonious parts. The last chords of this tune, which feature the guitar, clapping hands and accordion, bring us back to the mystery of the beginning of the piece where words disappeared, emphasizing the song’s nostalgic essence. After dissecting ‘Pájaros de barro’, students understand that a powerful composition is not a mechanical juxtaposition of sentences. On the contrary, an engaging essay needs a beginning that grabs the attention of the audience, a coherent structure with different sections that build upon the topic being explored and a thoughtful conclusion. As I mention constantly in my classes, the key to capturing attention and constructing an unforgettable piece, whether in music or in writing, is to avoid clichés, engage the senses and create spaces for the audience’s imagination and emotions. As preparation for future assignments, in this course I spend a few classes working on vocabulary related to the senses. The students complete activities in which they, divided in groups, brainstorm words that they associate with the senses. The group work that I incorporate throughout pre-writing exercises such as this one contributes to a sense of collaborative writing, which, as Shehadeh (2011: 297) points out, can be more effective than individual writing in fostering a positive, social classroom environment. At this early level, students have a limited sensorial vocabulary in Spanish and therefore request translation between a number of English and Spanish words. It is truly enjoyable to witness students’ reactions to sensory vocabulary – words such as aterciopelado [velvety] or esponjoso [spongy], just to give two examples – because their sense of pleasure is evident in the playful way they use or pronounce these words in class. I suspect that this satisfaction comes from the reconnection between the body and the mind, given that some students inevitably start licking their lips or enunciating savoring noises at the sound of adjectives related to taste. In addition to vocabulary expansion exercises, I spend the first few days conversing and doing short in-class writings about their habits and preferences for eating, listening to music, watching movies/shows, smelling, and feeling with their hands.

Writing Through the Senses  9

Once students have acquired enough sensorial vocabulary to function at an intermediate level, I tackle the first major assignment: a description of their favorite food. In order to lower anxiety, I show a brief example of an essay I wrote on the topic so that students have a clearer idea of my expectations, making sure that the brevity of my example leaves room for them to explore their own creativity. While this essay may seem to concentrate on the sense of gustation, I actually ask students to concentrate on smell in hopes that reflecting on aromas will trigger the application of different time frames, due to the connections that humans tend to establish between smells and memories. The first time I taught this course, I was amazed by the high quality of the essays I received on beloved foods (ranging from the popular Mac and Cheese to dishes with an international flair), even from students whose level of Spanish was not quite yet at the intermediate-mid level. Because the theme was so personal and carried such positive connotations, most students poured their energy and creativity into the assignment. As one can imagine, while the content and structure of most of the food compositions were delectable, the command of grammar left room for improvement. Contrary to the philosophy of most grammar and composition textbooks, I do not review specific grammatical points before starting a writing project. While many instructors maintain that students will write with more accuracy if the explanation of grammar precedes writing, years of experience have shown me that this is not necessarily the case. Many times, the grammar learned prior to a writing assignment is perfectly applied when doing exercises but not when put in context during the writing process. Therefore, my choice is to expose students to grammatical explanations in a more organic way. To do so, I select sentences with grammatical errors from their own compositions that I consider have the most negative impact on their writings, and I present them to the whole class for them to fix in pairs. Out of those sentences, students can correct approximately 70% on their own, but it is the other 30% that is the focus of our attention. Through a variety of exercises, I review the mechanics of the linguistic constructions in question, usually with an audience of attentive students who recognize their own writings as the source of the mistakes. Although this approach involves a less cohesive set of grammatical structures, in my experience it has a more positive impact on students because they do not view these exercises as artificial and purposeless busy work, but as a customized way to confront the elements that they still need to improve. The second major essay of the course revolves around the sense of touch. My goal in this assignment is to encourage students to employ different verb tenses, particularly the past tenses that take time to internalize in Spanish. In order to do so, I ask students to bring an object that they are particularly attached to – excluding technological devices – and we use those artifacts for different tasks that expand the students’

10  Part 1: Curricular Issues

vocabulary and reflection on the particular objects such as socks, scarfs, hats, blankets or pillows. They are then asked to write a longer paper, with intentionally vague and open-ended directions, with the object and their sense of touch in mind, and it is always interesting to see how this somewhat ignored sensory impression is linked to their memories and emotions. Many students compose a straightforward narration in the past to explain their connections to the object chosen, but the most inventive ones explore different avenues through which their creativity runs wild. Those who use the past tenses fulfill one of the expectations of traditional writing courses, in which the second essay of the semester usually revolves around past actions so that students can practice the preterit and imperfect tenses; those who choose not to dwell in the past still write valuable compositions in which originality reigns. I dedicate the third essay of the semester to exploring sight, using pictures as inspiration. A large body of research supports the notion that pictures activate the interconnectedness between verbal and non-verbal systems in the brain (Seaman, 1993: 58). In this essay, as in previous ones, I want students to access their creativity, thus instead of presenting them with a set of photos, I ask students to supply me with various pictures of their own choosing that meet certain requirements. All images need to contain a cross-cultural element and visual symbolism. Some of the pictures brought to the class ranged from photos taken during their national and international travels (several of these photos did include the cross-cultural element but lacked symbolism) to more abstract images of different communities in the USA and around the world. From the many pictures the students select, we vote collectively on the six or seven that spark their curiosity the most, such as the image we selected the first time I taught the course: what appeared to be a rundown street in New Orleans where a few locals lingered beside a beautiful antique door. Ultimately, each student chooses one image out of the short list as inspiration for this composition. In this exercise, I do not want students to reconstruct a pre-established visual schema, but rather I aim to stimulate their problem-solving and critical thinking skills. As Seaman (1993) proposes: This problem-solving process is particularly evident in demanding activities such as viewing a picture cross-culturally or writing in a second language. In both cases, the element of culture—with its associated conventions—is an important barrier. Photographs may depict culturally-unfamiliar situations that are difficult to decode […]. A writing assignment may be difficult because it asks students to generate content for which they have little or no background knowledge and second language resources […] Unless writers are skilled in the conventions of a different culture, they will find those conventions mystifying and will attempt to interpret them in terms of the schemata acquired form experiences in their native culture. (Seaman, 1993: 85–86)

Writing Through the Senses  11

Prior to the actual writing, our class tackles the pictures from several angles that problematize the events or images depicted, which creates a sense of dissonance that students must resolve through argumentation. The outcome of this assignment is as varied as the previous ones, but in similar fashion to the results of Seaman’s study, the less-skilled writers are more dependent on describing the pictures than the more sophisticated writers who not only ‘read’ the picture but also transform it into their own ways of looking at the world. As one can see by the writing sequence in this course, the object of ‘Writing through the Senses’ is to layer the exploration of the senses as a catalyst for mindful and enjoyable writing that inspires students to embrace and develop their writing skills as well as their physical selves and the world around them. Embracing writing is a lifelong process that needs to be practiced and re-evaluated constantly, and our ‘Writing through the Senses’ course is just the beginning of the sensorial assignments our students are exposed to throughout our program. Students interact with the sensory by means of community internships, interactive interdisciplinary seminars and courses on special topics like cinema, which we describe in detail below. Exploring the Senses Through Film

In 2015, Hispania released a special issue entitled ‘The Scholarship of Film and Film Studies’, in which VanPatten (2015: 391) reminded educators that, ‘In the twenty-first century, film ought to occupy a central spot in any language department’. The authors of the current study are fortunate to be part of a department that prioritizes film within its curriculum, from lower-division language courses to specialized upper-division courses on both Spanish and Latin American cinema. We also count ourselves privileged to be part of a forward-thinking faculty that has developed an interdisciplinary film studies program and has integrated film in meaningful ways throughout courses in the humanities and social sciences. In our Spanish curriculum in particular, incorporating film into all course levels has enabled us to address a wider range of ACTFL (2012) world-readiness standards, including interpretive communication, relating cultural practices and products to perspectives, acquiring information and diverse perspectives, making connections, comparing cultures and fostering lifelong learning. When exploring ways to promote writing through the senses, film proves to be a highly versatile and effective medium. Movies provide multiple layers of communicative input, from what characters say to how they say it to how they express themselves non-verbally; additionally, they require spectators to be active listeners who notice and interpret the use of diegetic and non-diegetic sound. Films also offer opportunities to analyze an array of artistic decisions – set decoration, costume design,

12  Part 1: Curricular Issues

makeup, lighting, color scheme, etc. – as well as cinematographic decisions – filmmaking techniques, lens filters, camera angles, etc. Furthermore, films often provoke a bodily reaction to the work of art as viewers gasp, laugh, cry or tense up with anticipation. In a 2007 report, the MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages advocated for language instruction that promotes both translingual and transcultural competence by means of a variety of media, including film: Literature, film, and other media are used to challenge students’ imaginations and to help them consider alternative ways of seeing, feeling, and understanding things. In the course of acquiring functional language abilities, students are taught critical language awareness, interpretation and translation, historical and political consciousness, social sensibility, and aesthetic perception. (MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages, 2007)

It is not surprising, then, that a sizeable body of existing research confirms that integrating film into language programs can lead to significant improvement in linguistic ability, cultural knowledge and media literacy. (For a small sampling, see studies on French courses: Herron et al., 2000, 2002; English as a second language [ESL] courses: Charlebois, 2008; Hayati & Mohmedi, 2011; Pally, 1998, 2000, 2001; Zoreda, 2006; and Spanish courses: Bueno, 2009; Hertel & Herrington, 2015; Stephens, 2001.) Film can be an especially useful medium within content-based instruction courses (CBI) designed to increase linguistic proficiency while focusing on specific subject matter. As Pally (1998, 2000, 2001) has shown, sustained CBI courses on film in the target language (here, ESL) contributed to increased engagement and, when film studies were integrated with writing instruction, to noticeable improvement in student literacy. With respect to Spanish courses in particular, Hertel and Harrington (2015) advocate for the inclusion of documentary film at all levels as a means to promote cultural and linguistic competence. Hertel and Harrington (2015: 550) point out that documentaries can be especially advantageous for language learners because of their wealth of unscripted and spontaneous speech, which ‘best resembles real life interactions and thus serves as a linguistic model from which learners can both learn and emulate’. They also argue that documentary film pushes students to grapple with complex issues, deepens their cultural knowledge and improves their transcultural competence (Hertel & Harrington, 2015: 550). For those unaccustomed to using film in the language classroom, the first step is choosing, with intention, the type of piece that is appropriate for a particular course or group of students. The primary questions to consider are: Will the film be shown in or out of class? Will the students be better served by a largometraje or cortometraje [feature-length

Writing Through the Senses  13

or short film], or a series of clips from a longer work? Should a film be chosen based on the country of origin, the thematic content, the reputation of the cast, the international status of the director or something else entirely? In the survey of Latin American cinema that I, Andrea, created for our program, students screen approximately 20 Spanish language films that span a variety of geographical settings, socio-historical contexts, regional dialects and varying levels of international acclaim. Students are responsible for viewing films outside of class, so that class time can be dedicated to in-depth analysis of the thematic content as well as the technical elements of the films. Since several days often pass between student screenings and class meeting times, still frames and short video clips are indispensable tools for enhancing class discussion and group assignments. The Argentine film industry’s exemplary history of producing works of art that are simultaneously well-crafted, visually stunning and thematically complex makes their national cinema an obvious choice for both novice and experienced instructors who would like to experiment with film as a means to improve student writing. In what follows, I, Andrea, share a range of assignments that have fostered communicative output in response to the following Argentine films: La historia oficial (The Official Story, Luis Puenzo, 1985), El secreto de sus ojos (The Secret in Their Eyes, Juan José Campanella, 2009), Wakolda (The German Doctor, Lucía Puenzo, 2013) and Relatos salvajes (Wild Tales, Damián Szifron, 2014). For each film, students respond – orally, in writing or both, depending on the assignment – to a series of questions designed to usher them beyond lower-order thinking skills like identification and comprehension. The questions challenge students to think critically by examining and evaluating various thematic and technical aspects of the film. In the process, students move toward higher-order thinking skills in the target language, gaining confidence in their ability to express themselves orally while preparing themselves for the course’s major writing assignments: movie reviews. Luis Puenzo’s drama La historia oficial, the first Latin American film to win the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film in 1986, continues to serve as a sort of gateway for incorporating film into Spanish courses or, as one instructor aptly dubs it, ‘a film you feel obliged to teach’ (Poppe, 2015). Tackling the historical and political content of La historia oficial, which is set in the 1980s during the Argentine military dictatorship, can be daunting for students and instructors alike, and its now dated cinematography can further impede student engagement. Having heard grumblings about the film being ‘old’ and ‘boring’, I chose to implement a short timed writing at the beginning of class, after the students viewed the film but before we discussed it as a group. I intentionally created a writing prompt that appealed to the senses, in hopes

14  Part 1: Curricular Issues

that a sensorial activity would foster a feeling of connection in somewhat reluctant viewers. The assignment was straightforward: with eyes closed, students listened to La historia oficial’s piano theme by composer Atilio Stampone, and then had 10  minutes to write a response to the music. Not surprisingly, some students struggled with the ambiguous nature of an assignment in which the only instructions were to respond to a song without lyrics. As someone who had seen the film numerous times and understood the significance of the theme song, however, I suspected that this tactic might enable students to tap into the story’s emotional heft and think about the film in new ways. The student responses were quite nuanced, especially when taking into consideration the drastically different levels of linguistic ability within the group. One student, for example, claimed that the song ‘Emits a feeling of sadness but still has a lot of vitality’, and pointed out that the listener’s mood determined whether the song came across as happy or sad. Another student, writing that the piano is an emotional instrument for her, also argued that the song could be interpreted in several ways since the high notes mark the ‘happy parts’ and the low notes ‘express the song’s sadness’. Keeping her eyes closed led one student to imagine ‘water striking the window’ and another to recall a situation in which ‘someone wants something they can’t have’. The quality and diversity of the responses to this timed writing were promising, and they led me to improve upon the activity for future courses. Following my initial experiment, I adapted the assignment to include pre-, mid- and post-viewing tasks that would utilize the senses in order to cultivate student engagement with the film and to enhance written communicative output: Before the Film Find the musical theme of La historia oficial, written by Argentine composer Atilio Stampone, which is available on YouTube. Listen to the entire song with your eyes closed. Then, for ten minutes, write a response to the song. What emotions does it provoke? What does it make you think about? During the Film Pay attention to the use of the musical theme throughout La historia oficial. In what scenes is it used? What effects does it produce in the viewer? After the Film Listen to the film’s musical theme again and, for ten minutes, write a response to what you heard. What did it make you think and feel? Is your reaction to the song different after watching the movie?

Writing Through the Senses  15

Juan José Campanella’s crime drama El secreto de sus ojos thrilled audiences around the world with its combination of skillful acting, beautiful camerawork and a plot that leaves viewers on the edge of their seats to the very end. Its international success resulted in Argentina’s second Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, the Goya for Best Hispano-American Film and even a Hollywood remake. Based on the novel La pregunta de sus ojos (The Question in Their Eyes, Eduardo Sacheri, 2005), Campanella’s film has become a favorite for Spanish students and instructors and, after five years of incorporating it into my courses, it continues to win my students’ vote for Best Film of the Semester. El secreto de sus ojos lends itself to a wide variety of sensorial exercises. For example, a course on Argentine literature could ask students to compare their visceral reactions, first as readers of Sacheri’s novel, and second as viewers of Campanella’s film. Speaking and writing prompts could invite responses to the musical score in any number of scenes. One assignment that worked especially well in my course was a timed writing prompt on the color red, a motif that appears in almost every scene of the movie. Students were asked simply to reflect on the color red and to write for 10 minutes. The majority of the students mentioned blood, violence and/or passion in their responses, but from there the comments varied significantly. One student explained the shades of red she liked and disliked, including the color of the shirt she wore to work at Target, because of which she will never have red paint in her house. Another described red as ‘a color of light and strength’ and claimed it was the best color of all because of its ability to express emotions and to liven up objects like glasses, shoes and walls. The most creative response came from a student who wrote her entry in the first person from the point of view of a deep red rose, pointing out that ‘Everyone loves my smell and the look of my petals but, above all, they love my color’. Along with the red color motif, the quality of cinematography and artistic direction makes El secreto de sus ojos an ideal film to dissect via still frames. To enhance class discussion, I select a series of frames that encompass a wide range of camera angles and compositions for students to analyze in small groups. Some of the frames include: an extreme long shot of protagonist Esposito (Ricardo Darín) in his apartment, with a red lamp in the foreground that attracts the viewer’s gaze; a close-up profile shot of judge Irene (Soledad Villamil) grabbing the face of a murder suspect, with her red fingernails in the foreground; a head shot of Irene wearing a bright red beret; a long shot of Esposito leaning against a red fencepost; and a medium frontal shot of Esposito in the foreground and his colleague Sandoval (Guillermo Francella) in the background, standing in front of a bookshelf bathed in red and gold tones. As in El secreto de sus ojos, the cinematography in Lucía Puenzo’s Wakolda stimulates the senses of the viewer and can lead to meaningful

16  Part 1: Curricular Issues

conversations about the film’s aesthetics. Throughout Wakolda, which imagines the relationship between an underdeveloped teenage girl and Nazi doctor Joseph Mengele, the camera lingers on a picturesque village outside of Bariloche and provides sweeping views of the Patagonian countryside. As a post-viewing activity, I have used still frames of panoramic shots of the landscape, asking students to describe the setting and consider its significance to the story’s development. I have also asked students to respond to close-ups and detail shots of the dolls made by the protagonist’s father. The latter, in fact, led to the creation of a previewing writing prompt in which students had 2 minutes to recall memories of their favorite – or least favorite – doll from childhood, followed by 10 minutes to write about the doll. Before the Film Think about your favorite doll. What did it look like? What was it made of (the hair, the limbs, etc.)? What did it smell like? What noises did it make? Why did you like this doll so much?

It surprised me that so many students went to great lengths to describe how realistic or unrealistic their dolls were. One student lamented the ugliness of Cabbage Patch Dolls, claiming that ‘What I hated the most was that they didn’t seem like real babies’, but cherished her lifelike Baby Born ‘because I could give it food and drink... I remember that each time we went to the store I wanted to buy my baby clothes, food, and diapers’. Another loved taking an overstuffed cotton doll to the beach ‘because when I put her in the water she filled up, and when I took her out and squeezed her, the water came out as if she were urinating’. Asking students to reflect on their childhood dolls led to written responses that were rich with description and imagery, at the same time that it prepared them to discuss the protagonist’s father, a repairer of dolls striving to create an original doll with a mechanical heart. Since its release in 2014, Damián Szifron’s dark comedy Relatos salvajes has become my favorite film to watch and discuss with students. Relatos salvajes is a full-length feature that comprises six vignettes linked thematically by rage, revenge and what Szifron calls ‘the pleasure of losing control’ (my translation, quoted in Rodríguez, 2014). Between the spectacular cinematography by Javier Julia and the musical score by Grammy- and Oscar-winning Gustavo Santaolalla, Szifron’s film undoubtedly appeals to viewers’ senses of perception; moreover, the thrilling screenplay and masterful acting combine to appeal to some of the audience’s other ‘senses’, such as their sense of humor and sense of justice. In my courses, I have relied heavily on Relatos salvajes to explore the sense of sight. In fact, given the effectiveness of the visual storytelling,

Writing Through the Senses  17

any of the stand-alone relatos could be screened without sound. Two activities in particular have generated higher-level oral and written output from my students. In the first, prior to their viewing of the film, I ask students to examine the promotional materials (posters and DVD covers) from four different countries and compare how each represents the movie. Before the Film Examine the various posters for Relatos salvajes from Argentina, Spain, Belgium, and the US. How are they similar? How do they differ? How does each one represent the film we are about to see? Which do you prefer and why?

In the second, I draw from conversation questions that I created to accompany the film: the most thought-provoking question – and, in my experience, the one that leads to the most intriguing responses – requires students to decide which vignette they believe is the wildest or most savage and to explain their choice. To cultivate their critical analysis of visual imagery, a final component of the activity calls for students to select still frames that support their answer. After the Film In your opinion, which tale is the most savage? Defend your answer and choose still frames that reinforce the theme of savagery in the tale you chose.

In this cinema course, the formal writing assignments are a series of three film reviews of varying lengths. A majority of class time is organized around group discussion of conversation questions that culminate in both improved speaking skills and greater cultural understanding of various regions of Latin America. With respect to task-based learning, the entire course focuses on the ability to complete two primary tasks: first, to closely examine multiple aspects of a cultural text, and second, to write a concise yet informative review, a skill that can be translated to myriad disciplines and professional duties. The informal speaking and writing activities explained here make use of students’ senses of perception in order to develop their analytical skills and to train them to pay attention to details beyond a film’s plot and imagery. Since I have begun to foster the sensory, I have witnessed significant improvements in students’ ability to critically address films in their formal movie reviews. They are learning not only how to analyze their own sensorial reactions to specific artistic and cultural works, but also how to draw from these reactions in their analysis of a film’s relevance and/or resonance with its audience.

18  Part 1: Curricular Issues

Concluding Remarks

A growing body of research suggests that language anxiety may be even higher for advanced L2 learners than their beginning and intermediate counterparts (e.g. Ewald, 2007; Kitano, 2001; Marcos-Llinás & Garau, 2009). As Marcos-Llinás and Garau (2009: 103) argue, increased anxiety in advanced Spanish students likely stems from their desire to succeed in courses that they consider more relevant than mere graduation requirements, genuine interest in Spanish language and cultures, pressure to succeed in their major or minor and concern for their relationships with respected classmates and professors. To combat the anxiety often associated with Spanish composition courses, our program has opted to look at writing as a practice that can be improved through the continuous exploration of our senses and perceptions, rather than a skill to be conquered by means of a single gateway course on writing. In our Spanish major and minor, we have made a concerted effort not only to engage the senses in our introductory composition course but also to entwine sensorial exploration into other contentbased courses. This adjustment has translated into increased interest and enrollment, greater student motivation and more compelling written production. As faculty, we have reaped the benefits from this transition, since seeing happy faces and participatory students in our classrooms has made for a more rewarding pedagogical experience. As evidenced by the bibliographical sources below, many of the ideas presented in this chapter were inspired by projects done for writing courses in several different languages, including ESL. The ideas and activities included in this chapter could easily be adapted to writing courses in most world languages, and it is our hope that they will lead to positive and engaging writing experiences for faculty and students alike. References ACTFL (2012) World-readiness standards for learning languages. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. See https​://ww​w.act​fl.or​g/pub​licat​ions/​all/w​orld-​ readi​ness-​stand​ards-​learn​ing-l​angua​ges (accessed 9 September 2016). Arnheim, R. (1972) Eyes have they, but they see not. Psychology Today 6 (1), 55–58, 92–96. Bloom, L.Z. (1980) The Composing Processes of Anxious and Non-Anxious Writers: A Naturalistic Study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Washington, DC, 13–15 March 1980. Bueno, K.A. (2009) Got film? Is it a readily accessible window to the target language and culture for your students? Foreign Language Annals 42 (2), 318–339. Charlebois, J. (2008) Developing critical consciousness through film. TESL Canada Journal 26 (1), 124–132. Cheng, Y.S. (1998) Examination of two language anxiety constructs: Second language class anxiety and second language writing anxiety. PhD thesis, University of Texas, Austin. Cheng, Y.S. (2002) Factors associated with foreign language writing anxiety. Foreign Language Annals 35 (6), 647–656.

Writing Through the Senses  19

Cheng, Y.S. (2004) A measure of second language writing anxiety: Scale development and preliminary validation. Journal of Second Language Writing 13, 313–335. Christensen, M. (2012) Intermodality in teaching writing. PhD thesis, University of Nebraska. Daly, J. (1978) Writing apprehension and writing competency. Journal of Educational Research 72 (1), 10–14. Daly, J.A. and Miller, M.D. (1975) The empirical development of an instrument to measure writing apprehension. Research in Teaching of English 9, 242–249. Daly, J.A., Vangelisti, A. and Witte, S.P. (1988) Writing apprehension in the classroom context. In B.A. Raforth and D.L. Rubin (eds) The Social Construct of Written Communication (pp. 147–171). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Eulert, D. (1967) The relationship of personality factors to learning in college composition. College Composition and Communication 18, 62–66. Ewald, J.D. (2007) Foreign language learning anxiety in upper‐level classes: Involving students as researchers. Foreign Language Annals 40 (1), 122–142. Faigley, L., Daly, J.A. and Witte, S.P. (1981) The role of writing apprehension in writing performance and competence. Journal of Educational Research 71 (1), 17–20. Fleming, N.K. (1985) What teachers of composition need to know about writing apprehension. Unpublished master report, University of Texas, Austin. Hayati, A. and Mohmedi, F. (2011) The effect of films with and without subtitles on listening comprehension of EFL learners. British Journal of Educational Technology 42 (1), 181–192. Herron, C., Dubreil, S., Cole, S.P. and Corrie, C. (2000) Using instructional video to teach culture to beginning foreign language students. CALICO Journal 17 (3), 395–429. Herron, C., Corrie, C., Dubreil, S. and Cole, S.P. (2002) A classroom investigation: Can video improve intermediate-level French language students’ ability to learn about a foreign culture? Modern Language Journal 86 (1), 36–55. Hertel, T.J. and Harrington, S. (2015) Promoting cultural and linguistic competence with documentary film in Spanish. Hispania 98 (3), 549–569. Horwitz, E.K., Horwitz, M.B. and Cope, J. (1986) Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal 70 (2), 125–132. Kitano, K. (2001) Anxiety in the college Japanese language class. Modern Language Journal 85, 549–566. Marcos-Llinás, M. and Garau, M.J. (2009) Effects of language anxiety on three proficiency‐level courses of Spanish as a foreign language. Foreign Language Annals 42 (1), 94–111. MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages (2007) Foreign languages and higher education: New structures for a changed world. Modern Language Association. See https​:// ww​w.mla​.org/​Resou​rces/​Resea​rch/S​urvey​s-Rep​orts-​and-O​ther-​Docum​ents/​Teach​ ing-E​nroll​ments​-and-​Progr​ams/F​oreig​n-Lan​guage​s-and​-High​er-Ed​ucati​on-Ne​w-Str​ uctur​es-fo​r-a-C​hange​d-Wor​ld (accessed 9 September 2016). Pally, M. (1998) Film studies drive literacy development for ESL university students. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 41 (8), 620–628. Pally, M. (2000) Film and society: A course for analyzing readings, writing and critical thinking. In M. Pally (ed.) Sustained Content-Based Teaching in Academic ESL/EFL: A Practical Approach (pp. 158–178). Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. Pally, M. (2001) Skills development in ‘sustained’ content-based curricula: Case studies in analytical/critical thinking and academic writing. Language and Education 15 (4), 279–305. Petzel, T.P. and Wenzel, M.U. (1993) Development and Initial Evaluation of a Measure of Writing Anxiety. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Convention. Toronto, Canada, 20–24 August 1993.

20  Part 1: Curricular Issues

Poppe, N. (2015) Teaching La historia oficial. The Cine-Files, Issue 9. See http:​//www​.thec​inef​i les.​com/t​eachi​ng-la​-hist​oria-​ofici​al/ (accessed 10 September 2016). Rodríguez, J. (2014) Damián Szifrón contó en qué se inspiró para crear el filme ‘Relatos salvajes’. Vos: Cine, blog post 26 July. See http:​//vos​.lavo​z.com​.ar/c​ine/d​amian​-szif​ronc​onto-​en-qu​e-se-​inspi​ro-pa​ra-cr​ear-e​l-fil​me-re​latos​-salv​ajes (accessed 22 September 2016). Seaman, A. (1993) Visual literacy and second language fluency: The process of composing in a second language from as visual prompt. PhD thesis, University of Virginia. Shehadeh, A. (2011) Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (4), 286–305. Stephens, J.L. (2001) Teaching culture and improving language skills through a cinematic lens: A course on Spanish film in the undergraduate Spanish curriculum. ADFL Bulletin 33 (1), 22–25. VanPatten, B. (2015) Film and language acquisition. Hispania 98 (3), 391–393. Wenger, C.I. (1982) Yoga Minds, Writing Bodies: Contemplative Writing Pedagogy. Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse. Zoreda, M.L. (2006) Intercultural moments in teaching English through film. Reencuentro 47, 65–71.

2 Highlighting Practices and Perspectives on Polish L2 Writing in Poland Dani Francuz Rose and Mateusz Gaze

Introduction

When discussing trends in second language (L2) writing methods or even a broader topic within the field of applied linguistics, the theories and practices of studying/teaching Polish as a foreign language are not commonly mentioned. Research and analyses of English, of course, French, Spanish, Chinese and many other languages and language groups perhaps come to mind before Polish does. However, as in general linguistic research and observation, the inclusion of any and all features and situations can be of use to the field as a whole, which is the purpose of this chapter and, indeed, this volume. In this chapter, we aim to take a closer look at some of the practices and perspectives on Polish L2 writing in Poland by discussing some of the unique difficulties and differences of the language itself, sharing our experiences as teachers and learners in this context, bringing to notice and, at times, questioning some of the theoretical underpinnings and the social or institutional forces guiding the instructors’ choices, as well as encouraging further discussion and reflection on a topic that has considerable room for further exploration, and which can undoubtedly add to the further development of the L2 writing field. Overview of the Polish Language

Learning a second or even a third or fourth language is becoming remarkably common in today’s increasingly globalized world. Particularly in Europe, where the speaking of foreign languages is seen as an expectation rather than an additional skill, many international students and professionals are choosing to study the Polish language. Large numbers of people in Poland’s neighboring countries such as Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Germany are learning Polish in order to study at a Polish university, strengthen international ties with Polish businesses or find work in Poland or within Polish 21

22  Part 1: Curricular Issues

companies (Polish Education System, 2014). In the last century, there has been a steady increase in the number of people immigrating to Poland and adopting Polish as an L2 with considerable increases after the fall of communism and Poland’s acceptance into the European Union (Polish Education System, 2014). These increases, along with advances in research and technology, have undoubtedly altered the teaching of Polish as an L2 or foreign language. Notably, the teaching of Polish L2 writing has come into focus as an important area for development and innovation in the field. The Polish language is a West Slavic language spoken mainly in the central European country of Poland. Approximately 45  million people speak Polish as their first language (L1): 39 million in Poland and 5+ million in other countries such as Argentina, Australia, Belarus, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Lithuania, Ukraine, the UK and the USA (O Języku Polskim, 2014). It is the official language of Poland and a common L2 in many European countries. Due to many periods of emigration from Poland, especially after World War II, Polish international communities have sprung up in many cities across the world and are continuing to do so as the economy becomes more globalized (Urbańczyk & Kucała, 1991). This globalization has also had an effect on the number of people learning Polish as an L2 or foreign language. Their number is estimated at approximately 10,000 people worldwide. About one third of that number are studying in Polish universities and language schools in Poland (O Języku Polskim, 2014). As a Slavic language, Polish shares many similarities with languages such as Russian, Ukrainian, Croatian, Bulgarian, Czech and Slovak. It has a rich phonetic system including 34 consonants, 6 non-nasal vowels and 2 nasal vowels, a unique feature among the modern Slavic languages (Bielec, 1998). These phonemes are written using the Latin alphabet along with several diacritic marks in order to represent the large number of sounds present in the spoken language. In addition, Polish also boasts three main grammatical genders (masculine, feminine and neuter) and seven cases (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, locative, instrumental and vocative). It is a highly inflected language; thus, its word order remains fairly free (Bielec, 1998). Unlike many other Indo-European languages, Polish is a language with a small range of dialects (Urbańczyk & Kucała, 1991) (Table 2.1). Because the Polish language has many features that differ from English, there are some apparent differences in the teaching objectives of the two languages. For example, Polish has many inflections for its nouns, pronouns and adjectives. With the complexity of Polish cases, genders and quantifiers, a single word can have up to 108 forms (Bielec, 1998). While not every inflection is used with every word, their existence and importance require a different focus for teachers of Polish at a very early stage. The use of grammatical gender is another difference between

Highlighting Practices and Perspectives on Polish L2 Writing in Poland  23

Table 2.1  A taste of Polish cases Masculine Singular

Feminine Plural

(EN) ‘pretty (EN) cat’ ‘pretty cats’

Neuter

Singular

Plural

Singular

Plural

(EN) ‘pretty woman’

(EN) ‘pretty women’

(EN) ‘pretty child’

(EN) ‘pretty children’

Nominative

ładny kot

ładne koty ładna kobieta

ładne kobiety ładne dziecko

ładne dzieci

Accusative

ładnego kota

ładne koty ładną kobietę

ładne kobiety ładne dziecko

ładne dzieci

Genitive

ładnego kota

ładnych kotów

ładnej kobiety

ładnych kobiet

ładnego dziecka

ładnych dzieci

Dative

ładnemu kotu

ładnym kotom

ładnej kobiecie

ładnym kobietom

ładnemu dziecku

ładnym dzieciom

Locative

ładnym kocie

ładnych kotach

ładnej kobiecie

ładnych kobietach

ładnym dziecku

ładnych dzieciach

Instrumental ładnym kotem

ładnymi kotami

ładną kobietą

ładnymi kobietami

ładnym dzieckiem

ładnymi dziećmi

Vocative

ładny kocie ładne koty ładna kobieto

ładne kobiety ładne dziecko

ładne dzieci

Polish and English. Gender is an integral part of both the declension and conjugation processes in Polish. In order for students of Polish to use the language grammatically, they must understand the forms and functions of the gender system; whereas, in English classrooms, gender might rarely be mentioned. A third difference in the mastery of these two languages lies with the use of articles (a, an, the). These words do not exist in Polish; however, they are vital in English and can cause difficulty in the nativelike acquisition of English as a second language (ESL; Lehman, 2013). Therefore, this is another area where the focus and practice at any level will differ for students of these two languages. Other differences in the teaching of Polish L2 writing versus the teaching of English L2 writing have less to do with the different language features and targets and more to do with the cultures and societies of the teachers and students. In Polish classrooms, there is an expectation of high social distance between the teacher and the students; however, in ESL classrooms this distance is less apparent. In either case, this distance or lack thereof can affect the classroom atmosphere, the preferred methods and practices used and even the very language the students learn and use in class. Instruction and materials in the two contexts can also look different due to differences in both language and culture. While the teaching of international students remains the same across both ESL and Polish as an L2 contexts, the constant allusion to the societal norms of the respective cultures and the need to meet goals established by differing organizations have a direct effect on the teaching styles in the two contexts.

24  Part 1: Curricular Issues

Of all the challenges a Polish language student faces, developing writing skills is one of the most important. Particularly because the majority of students choosing to learn Polish as an L2 will either be studying in their new language long term or working directly with it as a teacher, translator, etc. Looking at the writing skills that are taught in Poland, there is a clear focus on academic writing (Wójcikiewicz, 1993). The aim of most foreign language programs in Poland is to prepare students to study in Polish universities. Therefore, they will need academic writing skills above all in order to pass the entrance exams as well as to succeed in their academic studies. Due to some of the features of Polish, including the use of cases and honorifics, the difference between informal and formal writing is quite evident (Awdiejew et al., 1992). While in English classrooms the emphasis is also placed on the difference between formal and informal writing, the features that separate the two are not as numerous or as distinct as with Polish (Duszak, 1997; Lehman, 2013). Polish L2 Writing Study and Practices

Writing plays an extremely important role in learning Polish as an L2. Many learners of Polish have goals in mind such as studying in Poland, obtaining various degrees at Polish universities or advancing or starting their careers in a globalized society. Before these goals can be realized, they must first prove their competency in the language. The requirements for international students to enter a Polish university can vary; however, generally they must complete over 500  hours of language study and pass a Polish competency test in the field of their future study (Journal of Laws of the Republic of Poland, 2015). To complete these stringent requirements, students are given one academic year devoted solely to the study of the Polish language. This chapter focuses on the L2 writing situation in Poland from the view of the international student population at Studium Języka Polskiego dla Cudzoziemców (School of Polish for Foreigners), abbreviated SJPdC, which is a part of the University of Łódź (UŁ). This institution was chosen as the focal point of the chapter due to its prominence and long history as a Polish language center as well as the authors’ affiliation with and knowledge of its programs and practices. Mateusz Gaze is a native Pole with an MA in interdisciplinary studies in humanities, specializing in Polish philology. He has been a Polish language instructor at SJPdC since 2012. Dani Francuz Rose received her MA in applied linguistics from Georgia State University and has been an ESL instructor since 2012. She taught English at UŁ from 2015 to 2016 while attending SJPdC as a student of Polish herself. SJPdC at UŁ is the oldest of its kind in Poland and educates a vast number of international students each year. Each of Poland’s state universities has a similar, adjacent language school (like SJPdC). The largest and most renowned are located in Łódź, Warszawa, Kraków, Wrocław,

Highlighting Practices and Perspectives on Polish L2 Writing in Poland  25

Lublin and Poznań (Academic Schools in Poland, 2014). At any given time, more than 300 students are enrolled at SJPdC. They begin their first semester in October and finish in January; the second semester then spans from February to June. After the first two semesters, the students are eligible to take the exit exams. These can last the entire summer semester (June–September) and are meant to gauge the students’ level of proficiency (Council of Europe, 2004). The students studying at SJPdC are most commonly from the countries of Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, Turkey, Syria, Vietnam and China, among others. They will be living and studying in Poland for a significant amount of time, and thus will need both academic and practical Polish; however, a special emphasis is placed on the academic Polish they will need in order to be successful in their university studies. Although there are no separate writing courses in the programs at SJPdC, academic writing is one of the most challenging aspects of their studies. The academic writing style of Polish is quite complex, even for native speakers, and to master its complexities, students and teachers must devote a great amount of time and focus on the subject (Awdiejew et al., 1992). Placement Processes

As might be expected, not all students arriving in Poland share the same level of Polish competency. Those from a Slavic language background already have some knowledge of the complex case and gender systems present in Polish. Therefore, when the students arrive, they are classified into groups roughly based on native language similarity. Those with a Slavic language background form the intermediate groups, and those with no existing Polish knowledge form the basic level (or ‘International Group’). This initial separation is meant to group the students into two approximate proficiency levels: beginners and intermediates, mostly by taking their L1 into account. However, this system is not without outliers. Occasionally, students from non-Slavic L1s will be in the intermediate group because they have already taken the courses set for the International Group, but have not passed their exit exams. In this case, their level will be too high to go back in the group with students who are just arriving and have little-to-no knowledge of Polish, but they also cannot begin their field studies until they demonstrate a high enough level of Polish by passing the exit exams. There are also cases of students coming to Poland who have studied Polish as a foreign language in another country or at another school in Poland. These students might also have a non-Slavic L1, but they will be placed into the intermediate groups as a way of differentiating their initial, slightly higher proficiency level due to prior Polish language study. In Poland, universities utilize the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) scale for language ability (Journal of Laws of the

26  Part 1: Curricular Issues

Republic of Poland, 2015). This scale ranges from A1 (basic) to C2 (native). The basic-level students are thus placed at A1 and the intermediate students at B1 (Council of Europe, 2004). To complete the program and be eligible for the university entrance exams, students must be (at a minimum) B2 level. Both groups are given 10 months of language study, which generally allows the majority of Slavic students to reach C1 level and the International Group somewhere between B1 and B2. It is interesting to note that their initial placement into these groups is not based on a similar entrance exam, but rather a combination of their L1 background and their means of entry into the program. The similarity of their native language, as previously mentioned, plays the largest role in group placement; however, there is also some separation based on how they entered the program. Those who have earned the right to study at UŁ through a government or educational program are generally required to complete a proficiency test in order to be awarded the opportunity to study in Poland. They often begin in the intermediate groups. Students who have immigrated on their own to Poland, and wish to pay and complete the program without additional support are often placed into the beginning groups. Curricular Choices

Regardless of group placement, all students will spend the first semester (approximately 300  hours) on general language study, with a focus on conversation and inflections. Although all skill areas are taught and practiced, early in their studies a special emphasis is placed on grammar. Due to the highly inflected nature of the language, the need to focus on grammar is essential (Ruszer, 2011). The second semester (200  hours) is devoted to the teaching of specialized language, during which the students become familiar with professional lexicon and phraseology, the principles of word formation and syntax constraints. This semester begins readying the students for subject-specific university study. In addition to their language classes, during the second semester, they also take core subject classes (such as biology, history, etc.), which are taught in Polish. The aim is again to prepare them for their future studies in Polish universities. There is not a large difference in the overall curriculum for the two groups. The types of activities and semester focuses, as mentioned above, remain the same and are largely at the discretion of each individual instructor. What does differ is the length of the assignments and the complexity of the language expected. Students in the International Group are beginning at level zero, thus they will have a much smaller lexicon, which the teacher will attempt to build quickly in class in addition to covering the complex inflections and other grammatical rules. In regard to their writing, the beginning-level students start out using very basic words and sentence structures and are not expected to write

Highlighting Practices and Perspectives on Polish L2 Writing in Poland  27

much beyond a paragraph during the first few months. In the intermediate groups, students will complete activities similar to those completed by the basic group, but they will be expected to include more complex sentence structures and higher-level vocabulary. For example, if they are asked to write a paragraph about themselves, rather than beginning with simple sentences about their family members, they would use more abstract vocabulary and would be expected to produce more language in general. The institution recognizes that the end goal is the same for the two groups, so the courses are intentionally modeled in the same way. Little emphasis is put on the L1 after the initial grouping. Language classes at SJPdC are not separated by skill groups. Instead of students having a speaking class with one teacher and a writing class with another, there are typically two classes with two teachers that cover all skill areas (speaking, listening, reading, writing and grammar) jointly. The material can be divided among the two teachers in a variety of ways. At the beginning of the semester, they can divide the topics and materials evenly, in an equal division of labor, or one can act as an ‘auxiliary teacher’ (or teacher assistant), who is responsible for covering any materials that the other teacher did not have time to cover. Either way, the two teachers work closely together throughout the semester ensuring little repetition for the students. The program chooses to organize classes this way for a variety of reasons. Consideration for traditional class groups, a small teacher to student ratio and a lack of skill-based texts all play a role in shaping this decision. Traditional class groups in Poland refer to the typical set-up of one teacher, one group of students for the entirety of their studies. This can be seen in the Polish education system from primary school through high school, and is only changed once a major has been chosen at university (Polish Education System, 2014). SJPdC has a bit of a hybrid of the two systems in that their basic language study occurs in one group, but it is with two teachers who share the material. In this particular program there are approximately 30 Polish language teachers and 10 core subject teachers, a rather low number for the 300+ students. Typically, the teachers are native Poles and have backgrounds in either Polish philology or other modern languages; however, occasionally, they can also be students completing their postgraduate studies at UŁ. The language students are split among the teachers based on the teachers’ specializations, grammar and basic language study, advanced vocabulary, medical Polish, etc. Teacher preferences may also play a role in matching teachers and student groups. At SJPdC, Polish language teachers are expected to teach between one and four courses each semester depending on the size of the class, the role of the teacher (main or auxiliary), among other variables. To split the courses into skill-based classes would increase the number of courses and teachers needed, which might not be possible or preferable for the teachers in question. Another reason cited for not splitting the groups into the

28  Part 1: Curricular Issues

various skill areas is the fact that the majority of textbooks written for Polish language study do not split the instruction or practice into skills, rather they work to integrate the grammar fundamentals with each of the four core skills in mixed-skill activities (Rifkin, 2000). At the start of a student’s first semester, no matter in which group they are placed, the teacher will begin with the alphabet. The Polish alphabet has many differences with even the most closely related languages, such as Czech and Slovak (O Języku Polskim, 2014). It is very important for students with L1s that also utilize the Latin script to differentiate their alphabet from the Polish alphabet, and for students with L1s that use a different alphabet to realize which sounds correspond to those found in Polish. In both groups, there is typically a mix of students whose L1s use the Latin script and those whose L1s do not. Little attention is paid to this difference, as all students will be given time to practice the orthography and almost all already have a basic level of familiarity with the Latin script. It is, in fact, more common for English influence to appear at this stage than other L1 transfer. For example, a student from a non-Latin alphabet might incorrectly write ‘chuję się’ instead of ‘czuję się’ due to the strong influence of the English digraphs ‘ch’ and ‘sh’, which are also present in Polish, but represented as ‘cz’ and ‘sz’, respectively. Mastery of the Polish alphabet is such a crucial step because Polish is an incredibly phonetic language, and once the phoneme–grapheme relations are mastered, spelling virtually becomes automatic (Bielec, 1998). The emphasis placed on the alphabet at the beginning of the course is not only to ensure a strong foundation for proper pronunciation and spelling, but also to show the orthographic variety that is often seen in Polish. It is often at this point, and then perhaps for the duration of the semester, that a teacher will introduce and use Polish cursive in class. Cursive is still widely used in Poland and is unique among Latin alphabet-based cursives because of the constant use of digraphs and trigraphs (Urbańczyk & Kucała, 1991). These letter combinations are often written differently than when they appear alone. In addition to certain digraphs and trigraphs, several individual graphemes, for example the letters ‘r’ and ‘z’, differ in Polish cursive as well. Students are not required to write in this way; however, the constant exposure via teacher usage, public signage and handwritten documents and forms requires students to have receptive abilities in regard to this style of Polish writing. It is common for some students to replicate this style of cursive in their writing assignments, which can potentially lead to additional misunderstandings, particularly if they combine features of the cursive style of their L1s. Writing Tasks and Focuses

After the language basics are covered, the writing tasks of the first semester usually begin with short, personal paragraphs. At this point,

Highlighting Practices and Perspectives on Polish L2 Writing in Poland  29

the instructors are still gauging the true proficiency level of each student and the group as a whole. Some choose to give their own proficiency exam at the beginning of the semester and others choose to use writing samples as a way of differentiating levels. During the initial few weeks, some students might be required to change groups based on the information gathered by the teachers. For this reason, many of the earliest writing assignments do not have teacher-imposed content; rather, the student chooses what they feel comfortable writing about in order to practice simple descriptions or explanations and show what language features and vocabulary they have at their disposal. Some examples of student-chosen topics for the A1–A2 level include ‘my city’, ‘my family’, ‘pros and cons of studying in Poland’, etc. For these assignments, teachers will look for and grade on correct conjugations and declensions, use of vocabulary and logical meaning. The focus, however, is on the forms and vocabulary that have been taught in class thus far, other errors typically remain unmarked. The goal of these writings is typically to bring attention to gaps in the students’ communication needs and their current language abilities. The instructor will use the errors found in student writing (as well as errors seen throughout years of experience) to guide the supplemental instruction of the course. After approximately six weeks, the grading intensifies, and each linguistic error receives a 0.5 point deduction. In the second semester, the writing focuses more on composition and style. Students are required to analyze texts from different subject areas and use precise syntactic structures and vocabulary based on those subjects in their essay writing. In the language classes, each student, regardless of what subject they will study in the future, must practice writing about a variety of core subjects. At SJPdC, these subjects might include history, geography, mathematics, physics, Polish, biology, chemistry, among others. Some examples of writing topics for these specialized subjects are ‘comparison of inflation in Poland and in your country’, ‘alternative energy sources’ and ‘legal and ethical issues of abortion’. The focus on content-based instruction is quite evident in this program and many others like it across Poland (Miodunka & Reed, 1985). University instruction in Poland is viewed as traditional and teacher centered; therefore, Polish language teachers work quickly to familiarize students with the academic texts and essay writing, which they will need to master before their academic studies begin. This focus leads to a strong emphasis on a student’s academic field of choice early on in the program, which often leaves gaps in their general use of the language; however, the student’s main purpose for studying at SJPdC is typically quite narrow: to receive their degree, and due to government programs (and the money they provide), speed is also a requirement if they want to maintain their program funding (Academic Schools in Poland, 2014).

30  Part 1: Curricular Issues

In a typical Polish language class, there is a lot of material to cover and not nearly enough time to adequately practice each aspect. Over the course of eight months, 500  hours means that many skills are left to be practiced at home. Although writing is an extremely important skill, especially for students wishing to continue higher education in Polish, it also most easily lends itself to at-home practice (Walczak, 2011). Therefore, in many Polish language programs, writing skills are most commonly practiced as part of a student’s homework. Students are regularly asked to prepare written reports based on topics discussed in class. These reports are meant to practice vocabulary and structures learned in class as well as strengthen the ability to express an opinion or deliver new information. In practice, the teacher will first give a lesson about a universal topic (an example might be inflation in healthcare systems, armed conflicts, benefits of music, etc.). The students will then discuss the topic and how it relates to the population and culture in Poland. Then, at home, the students will prepare a text discussing the topic and how it relates to their home country. During this process, the teacher will also present the language and grammar skills the students will need for the exercise. Although many written assignments are given as homework, due to the integrated skills nature of the classes, writing practice often occurs in conjunction with the practice of other skill areas. The idea is to never isolate one skill (if that’s even possible!). Grammar lessons in class, for example, are often reinforced through writing. Another common activity is to have the students write a report on a discussion or debate they have just finished. Students of Polish are apt to write down more than just what is required in writing-focused assignments though, in part due to the mental strain incurred by the processes of declining and conjugating most of the words in any given sentence (Walczak, 2011). This is not to mention the initial word choices that are made or the short-term memory that is used as well. For this reason, students often pre-write responses even for tasks that do not require writing. Writing gives students a little more time, and generally, they prefer to have that extra time, whether it is at home or in class. When students have trouble speaking, teachers of Polish often like to use writing as a ‘training to speak’ exercise. Another aspect somewhat newly addressed in the teaching of writing skills in Poland is genre (Duszak, 1998). Typically, a genre model is presented to students followed by a lesson and practice devoted to the model in question. For example, students will read a text (perhaps a CV, a formal email, etc.), discuss the components and the function of the text, and then at home, they will prepare their own similar text. This is an important part of their writing practice because in Polish (as with other languages), each genre uses a specific language and a specific style (Duszak, 1998). Each year, new teachers or those who partake in conferences and other means of continuing their education are learning

Highlighting Practices and Perspectives on Polish L2 Writing in Poland  31

Table 2.2  Informal vs. formal Polish Informal

Formal

Translation

Proszę, wyślij mi Please, send me notatk a note

Translation

Czy mógłbym prosić o wysłanie notatek

If I could ask you to Mood send the note

Difference in

Cześć Monika

Hi Monika

Szanowny Panie Profesorze

Dear Professor

Do zobaczenia

See you later

Z wyrazami szacunku Yours sincerely

Honorific/case Word choice

new genres (along with new methods of teaching them), which can then be taught to learners of Polish. In particular, certain features of formal Polish, such as the use of honorifics with the vocative case and the use of the subjunctive mood, can be challenging to non-native speakers. Unfortunately, if a student is not able to identify or use these structures, their writing might be ambiguous or difficult to understand (Lehman, 2013). See Table 2.2 for an example of some of the differences found in the formal and informal forms of Polish. Views, Materials and Assessments

There are, of course, some difficulties in observing and generalizing the practices in Polish language classrooms. Without formal curricula or shared views on teaching practices among instructors and administrators, there is considerable variation in the classroom methodologies present. There is also an interesting anomaly in the Polish view of applied linguistics, which perhaps contributes to the variety of teacher views and lack of formal research into the teaching of Polish as a foreign language. The divide that many professionals have made between linguistics and applied linguistics has not fully made its way into the general Polish viewpoint. Linguistics is still seen as ‘pure’, encompassing the description of a language’s features and the internal processes of learning a language. However, a sub-field, referred to as glottodidactics, has recently emerged in Poland to help describe and explain the processes of teaching languages (Róg, 2014). Although the idea itself is not a new one, the inclusion of this focus as its own sub-field is relatively new and has yet to be fully accepted by the Polish university system or research bodies, which might be why many teachers do not emphasize the importance of teaching methodologies in regard to learning a language (Róg, 2014). Another apparent difference between the practices at Polish language institutes like SJPdC and other language institutes around the world lies in the belief and use of the communicative approach. While this theory is fairly well known in Poland, it does not currently form the basis of any curricular decisions for programs that focus on students learning the language in order to study at a Polish university. The communicative approach, based on communication being the most integral part of language learning, is not seen as a good fit for a program aimed at acquiring

32  Part 1: Curricular Issues

the academic reading and writing skills needed in order to pass the exit exam and study successfully in a Polish university (Miodunka & Reed, 1985; Rifkin, 2000). Therefore, many of the related views and practices that have emanated from the communicative approach and subsequent research have not had much influence on the typical Polish language teacher or classroom. The materials used by the Polish language teachers at SJPdC for teaching writing vary greatly. Some teachers choose to use a ‘general Polish’ textbook of their liking. Others prefer to make their own materials or use lessons and activities found online. The copyright laws are much more lenient in Poland; thus, downloading, copying and sharing is very common. The core subject teachers have more difficulty finding materials to use because there are very few resources on the learning of technical language in Polish. These teachers generally make their own materials. From the perspective of the students, very few materials are needed. The teacher generally provides any and all presentation materials in the form of worksheets; however, depending on the teacher, students may be required to buy a textbook that the teacher has chosen. It is also suggested for them to invest in a Polish dictionary for their convenience. Writing assessment in this particular program is based not only on the in-class assignments and homework described above, but also on teachercreated exams. These exams take place throughout the semester and are meant to test students’ uptake of new material and language progress in general. They cover a variety of skills in order to ensure improvement in all areas, and are typically shorter and more difficult than the exit exam they will have to pass in order to successfully graduate from the program. An example of the type of writing exercises that might appear on one of these exams would be a short composition on a topic such as ‘unemployment issues’ or ‘money and its function’. The tests given during the course of the semester are generally made and graded by the instructors themselves. Students may then use them to guide their future studies for the exit exam because the question types are typically very similar. The exit exam that students take after eight months of study, along with all the other requirements and regulations regarding language study, is determined by the minster of science and higher education. According to the Journal of Laws of the Republic of Poland (2015), foreign language programs in Poland must assess language proficiency using the CEFR. The breakdown of graded elements and values for written Polish is shown in Table 2.3. In order to pass, a student must obtain 60% or higher, which translates as 27+ points. Generally, each mistake receives a 0.5 point deduction. These exams are given during the summer semester after students have completed and passed both the language and core subject courses. The CEFR tests are audited by the Association of Language Testers in Europe (Council of Europe, 2004). At SJPdC, each year approximately

Highlighting Practices and Perspectives on Polish L2 Writing in Poland  33

Table 2.3  CEFR writing assessment Element

Features

Value

Content and composition Logical order, use of the tripartite division, on topic, is of the required length, original and interesting

10

Vocabulary and style

Variety of vocabulary, suitable vocabulary, appropriate register and clear and unique style

10

Grammar

Correct morphology (inflections) and syntax, proper use of prepositions, conjunctions, etc.

20

Spelling and punctuation Correct spelling and punctuation – with a focus on errors that change the meaning or inhibit comprehension

5

85% of students pass their language-based exams on their first try. However, usually only 50% pass their subject-based exams, meaning only about half of each year’s enrolled students will be eligible to take a university entrance exam for the following semester. The remaining students are then encouraged to continue their studies for another year at SJPdC, or instead they might choose to study at a private institution. A clear emphasis is placed on exams and the skills tested in the exams due mainly to the extreme importance of both the program exit exam and the general university entrance exam. Passing these exams is of the utmost importance to students and teachers because it is the only way to gain entrance to a university program in Poland, which is the sole goal of the majority who choose to study at an institute like SJPdC. For this reason, the in-class grading can often be rather specific and meticulous as a way to train students to pay attention to the categories and details of importance specified by the Polish Education Board and the Council of Europe. For in-class writing, this means that students will receive a considerable amount of feedback in the form of marks and comments directly related to the categories listed above. Unfortunately, due to the pace of the program and the differing proficiency levels of students, the number of students who successfully pass the exams on their first attempt is considerably low. Poland has a large number of Polish language programs, many connected with public universities; however, some are not. There are also a variety of international programs that work in conjunction with language programs such as the one at SJPdC. These programs include Erasmus, Mobility Direct and other student exchange programs, which can alter the needs of students learning Polish as a foreign language. These students come from a variety of education, language and cultural backgrounds and can be present in the program anywhere from one semester to two years. This variety and inconsistency, coupled with the constant changes in policy have led to some irregularities among programs across the country. Although the exit exam and the number of hours a student must study are generally consistent, other variables such as teacher

34  Part 1: Curricular Issues

qualifications, materials used and placement guidelines may differ. This is not a phenomenon specifically linked with language programs; however, it is of note for readers interested in the L2 writing situation in Poland overall. Changes are frequently made within programs, and can differ depending on the needs of a certain group. It is also important to remember that even though the regulations are in place, that doesn’t always ensure that they are strictly followed. Aside from the inconsistencies in materials and regulations throughout the country’s programs, there is also a visible divide among the teachers themselves. Due to the vast changes that have occurred in Poland over the last few decades, the way teachers are trained is very different from the way they were trained in the past (Miodunka & Reed, 1985). This can be seen both by the teachers and by the students. There seem to be two prominent mindsets of Polish language teachers: traditionalists and innovators. Typically, it is thought that the traditionalists were trained prior to 1989, and that the innovators were trained after that critical year, when the Soviet Union lost its influence over Poland and other Eastern European countries. The differences can be seen in the methods and attitudes of the two groups. Some believe that the ‘traditionalists’ rely on what they have done in the past, for example, using older materials, employing teacher-centered instruction and avoiding long written assignments (and therefore a lot of grading); on the other hand, teachers who are deemed ‘innovators’ are more likely to attend conferences, read the most recent, relevant research and frequently update their materials. However, this divide does not accurately categorize everyone, and may in fact be more of a perception than a truth. Nonetheless, it is prominent enough in the field to be discussed when describing the teachers of Polish as an L2. Along with the emergence of this division, other changes have been happening within the realm of L2 writing in Polish. Two of the most significant and salient changes have been in the standardization of assessment and in the teaching of different genres. The use of the CEFR as a testing standard across the country is a somewhat new phenomenon. After Poland joined the EU in 2004, the CEFR was introduced to foreign language programs throughout the country (Council of Europe, 2004). However, as with most government initiatives, the change was gradual and at times resisted. Now, after more than a decade, the CEFR is recognized by Poland’s universities and most private institutions as well. It allows not only for a more consistent measure of student proficiency, but also the use of a well-researched method of assessment. Students from different language programs across the country should be able to attend any university in Poland with little or no language-based difficulty after passing the CEFR exit exam. There are, however, still some inconsistencies with initial student placement and student acceptance rates upon completing the program.

Highlighting Practices and Perspectives on Polish L2 Writing in Poland  35

Another ongoing change in the field of teaching Polish as an L2 or foreign language is the teaching and use of many different genres, particularly when practicing writing skills. Although this change has also been a little slow to catch on, in many programs it has had a tremendous effect on both students and teachers. By focusing on genres, teachers can more easily balance their teaching of both informal and formal (academic) language (Golebiowski, 2009). In the past, there has been a tendency when teaching Polish as a foreign language to concentrate on the teaching and practicing of academic writing skills. While it is true that the university entrance exams are more academic centered, the students will be living and potentially working in Poland as well. This calls for the use of both formal and informal writing. The teaching of genres also has the potential to draw the students’ attention to the different styles and registers used in Polish earlier in their studies, which gives them more time to adjust and develop their own skills in this area (Golebiowski, 2009). Pedagogical Implications and Applications

Looking at Polish L2 writing, specifically the features of this less commonly taught (and even less commonly researched) language as well as the methodologies used, it is clear that many pedagogical implications and applications can be drawn about other, similar sub-contexts, as well as the field as a whole. Teachers of other Slavic languages, teachers of languages that differ from English, as well as teachers of English as an L2 or foreign language may all benefit from a discussion of the Polish L2 writing practices mentioned in this chapter. Teachers of other Slavic languages can gain a great deal of knowledge and insight from analyzing the Polish L2 writing situation. Not only do they deal with similarly structured languages, but they most likely also have similar student populations. All Slavic languages use case systems and grammatical gender; thus, they also have many inflections that need to be taught to their students early on in the course of their studies (Rifkin, 2000). Identifying new ways to integrate important grammatical aspects (such as inflections) into authentic writing activities would surely be beneficial for any teacher. It might also be useful for Slavic language programs in other areas to consider the way that students are divided into their respective groups upon entry into a language program like SJPdC. Using the students’ prior language as a placement tool might be an efficient alternative to other methods; however, finding consistency within this process might be necessary for more accurate, efficient groupings. Recently, several other Slavic language-speaking countries have joined the EU, and several others are looking to join in the future (Council of Europe, 2004). This might be another point of interest for language teachers and program directors who are dealing with new or upcoming changes in policy. Looking at how Polish language programs have dealt

36  Part 1: Curricular Issues

with the relevant changes might lead to quicker adaption or more efficient transition methods for other nations/institutions. Currently, research in the field of L2 writing is heavily focused on English contexts. While that is a great place to start, there are many languages (Polish included) that have features not present in English; therefore, research into other L2 writing contexts is not only desired, but truly needed. By bringing to light some of the differences in English L2 writing and Polish L2 writing, teachers of other languages can begin to shed light on the differences they notice within their own situations. Expanding the research of the L2 writing context in Poland also increases the possibility of exposing new ideas and potentially shared concerns with a larger audience. By describing and analyzing a different writing context, original methods and new challenges, other language teachers and researchers might be encouraged to delve into the context in which they are most familiar, one that (like Polish) might not have much exposure otherwise. Teachers of ESL as well as teachers of English as a foreign language can also benefit from a discussion of Polish L2 writing. As many features of Polish differ from English, it is likely that teachers of Polish have different goals and methods in mind for their lessons than teachers of English. This along with the different cultural, social and practical issues that are faced by teachers of these two languages, allows fresh perspectives to emerge on both sides. Looking at a similar problem (such as the teaching of a foreign language) through the experiences of another can be beneficial in sparking creativity and progress in either group. Just as Polish language teachers have used materials from English L2 writing contexts, English teachers can also adopt and use materials and methods discussed here. It is possible that other groups may also benefit from gaining more information about Polish L2 writing in Poland. Teachers of Polish in English-speaking countries such as the UK or the USA might benefit from the experience of Polish teachers in Poland. Being in a different setting invariably changes the aspects of classroom practices; however, teaching the same language also means shared experiences. The teachers of Polish in an English-speaking country might benefit from both Polish and English L2 writing research. Similarly, teachers of Polish in other foreign countries, such as Argentina, Brazil and Germany, may gain insight into the teaching of Polish L2 writing from where it began, in Poland. Discussing the methods and practices in each of these contexts would increase the overall understanding of Polish L2 writing, which would be extremely beneficial as worldwide immigration accelerates. It must also be mentioned, however, that there might be some aspects of teaching Polish as a foreign language that apply best (and perhaps only) to this specific context. That is not to say that discussing these aspects would not be of use to other language teachers, but as every language is different, every methodology also differs, which implies that not

Highlighting Practices and Perspectives on Polish L2 Writing in Poland  37

every aspect of every method will apply universally. In the case of Polish L2 writing, a few practices stand out as being particularly well-suited for the context in which they were described. For example, the early integration and mastery of certain inflections, the amount of inflections emphasized in the earliest stages of learning and the idea of writing in order to speak are all very heavily based on the learning of Polish language features. While these techniques have their merits and their place in the Polish context, they might be the very opposite of what a teacher of English (or another language) would need to focus on. However, adaptations and adjustments might be made in order to modify these Polish-oriented methods into something more universal. As many teachers of a non-English language know, a large portion of the methods and practices used on a daily basis all around the world stem in some way from the resources, materials and research based on the English context. This is true of Polish L2 writing in Poland; however, this is also likely to change. By sharing ideas and discussing differences, the community is furthering our knowledge as a whole and shedding light on issues that might not have been known previously. Recently, there has been a push to include glottodidactics, the study of teaching methodologies, as a separate branch of linguistics taught in Polish universities as well as to increase the number of national and international linguistic conferences being held in Poland. Recurring conferences include ‘Innovation in Language Teaching’, ‘Nowoczesność, Innowacyjność i Kreatywność w Edukacji Językowej’ (Modernity, Innovation, and Creativity in Language Education) and ‘Międzynarodowa Konferencja Online Nowy Wymiar Filologii’ (International Conference Online: New Dimensions in Philology). These changes and conferences are taking place at various universities around the country and are gaining popularity with instructors and administrators each year. Teaching competence has only become a key issue in Poland in the last 15 years; therefore, materials and conferences related to this topic have only just started to emerge in the Polish language. However, it is important to continue having these discussions and making connections between different contexts, as that is one of the best ways to develop the field of L2 writing. Research Implications

In addition to the numerous pedagogical implications, there are also many research implications associated with the L2 writing situation in Poland. As Poland’s economy continues to develop, so does its education sector. Many teachers and students in Poland feel that the curriculum and the methods used in language programs across the country are somewhat behind other parts of the world. In some ways this can be explained by looking at the history of Poland, and noting that it has only had a few decades to bounce back from being under the control of the Soviet Union,

38  Part 1: Curricular Issues

in addition to being admitted into the European Union only 12 years ago; both of which brought about many changes in policy as well as in society. These changes have been occurring in every part of Poland, including the field of Polish as a foreign language, and they, along with their effects, are likely to be explored in further research for years to come. One area of future study might include the use of needs analyses in the teaching of Polish as a foreign language, principally in the field of writing. Research from English L2 writing contexts has explored the value of such implements; however, in Poland the idea has not taken root. The lack of enthusiasm for this particular process may hark back to the population’s general preference for traditional teacher-centered classrooms, or perhaps the distance that exists between teachers and students in Poland. However, the benefits of introducing the use of needs analyses into Polish language classrooms might outweigh the unease of potential participants. Research might, in the future, be conducted on the implementation of such a process and the effects it has on the attitudes of both the teachers and students as well as the overall proficiency levels reached. Needs analyses have been readily accepted by many teachers in other contexts as being relatively unobtrusive, while still proving advantageous. It would be interesting not only to test their usefulness in the Polish L2 writing context, but also to look at why they have not been so easily accepted. Another study that could develop the overall knowledge of Polish as a foreign language would be a longitudinal study of students’ progress in written Polish, long term. Many students study Polish for many years, complete degrees in Polish and potentially stay in the country to work in their field, but little has been noted about their level of language proficiency over time. The only formal test of their proficiency comes before they begin their university studies. In many cases, this is less than a year into their study of Polish. It would be beneficial to look at the development and evolution of their language proficiency over time. A study of this nature could begin with a test of their proficiency when they start a language program, another when they finish the language program, a third after the first year of university study and a final test upon graduation. Or it might be more telling to interval the tests based solely on time spent in Poland; a test given upon entry, one after a year in the country, another after two years and so on. Language is learned over time, and with the complexities of Polish grammar, it would be interesting to see what happens to proficiency over time, especially in writing. A third possible area for future study could look into student creativity in Polish L2 writing. With such a heavy focus on grammar and such rigorous testing throughout the learning process, it is often a complaint of Polish language teachers that students lack creativity in their writing. It would be interesting to research different teaching methods or specific writing activities for levels of creativity in student writing. This could be

Highlighting Practices and Perspectives on Polish L2 Writing in Poland  39

done in a multitude of ways as creativity requires a more subjective measure. One idea would be to compare the similarity of a particular group’s pieces of writing. This might include vocabulary and phrases used, structures attempted, order of topics, etc. Using different writing activities for comparison would also be useful and would give teachers information on how effective the exercises are not only for language practice, but also for student creativity and inventiveness. Finally, another research implication to consider is the general lack of research present in the Polish L2 writing context. This seems obvious as it has been mentioned previously in this chapter, and in many ways is the purpose of this text; however, the fact remains that there are very few descriptions of or research studies on the teaching and learning of Polish as an L2, let alone Polish L2 writing. This might change with the evergrowing acceptance of glottodidactics as a field in its own right; however, even without the explicit support of universities and institutions, it would be extremely beneficial to those in this and adjacent fields to partake in or conduct research of this kind. Teachers, scientists, students, anyone who is interested, see a need or have a question: the right research can lead to amazing possibilities. Conclusion

The Polish L2 writing context is complicated, exciting and everchanging. As a Slavic language, Polish has many features that differ from English; thus, language aims and objectives, teacher instruction and the role writing plays in the classroom all differ as well. In this chapter, there was a focus on international students entering Poland with study and work-related goals. These students study both informal and formal Polish; however, due to the high-stakes entrance exams they must take and the nature of university study in Poland, academic writing is perhaps the most essential piece of their language training. Various features of student placement, student grouping and course aims in language institutes like SJPdC were discussed with an emphasis on the changing policies and standardization processes occurring at the university level. These changes have yet to be seen in the language program curricular choices or teacher practices, which is causing inconsistencies in student placement and student ability to pass the newly set entrance exams upon completion of the program. Polish writing, especially in the academic registers, is extremely complex (Duszak, 1998; Wójcikiewicz, 1993). There are a number of features embedded in the language that must be taught in order for students to communicate effectively in their writing. In order to best address these features, Polish teachers tend to emphasize a focus on inflections and other complex grammar features early on in the program, which, among other reasons, has led to a program not based on specific skills but rather

40  Part 1: Curricular Issues

the consistent integration of grammar and its relation to the necessary exams. In class, writing is used mainly as a tool to reinforce grammar as well as to aid fluid speaking. Activities that focus on writing practice are often given as homework due to the fast-paced nature of the program and the amount of material that needs to be covered. However, the recent emergence of the teaching of genre in regard to academic writing has made its way into the classrooms of SJPdC, and with the momentum that it’s currently gaining, it could bring about changes in the structure and focus of the individual classes and the program as a whole. In this chapter, there was also a focus on the observation and discussion of teacher perspectives and individual teacher practices. It was mentioned that teachers in Poland often piece together their own materials from various textbooks and online sources in order to address their students’ specific needs based on intuition or self-made materials. In addition, they are often left to make their own curricular decisions for the specific courses they teach with the exit and entrance exams. Differing viewpoints were also mentioned in the form of diverging attitudes toward the inclusion of glottodidactics as a separate field of linguistics as well as how language teachers should be trained, with a direct correlation to the current difference between modern methods and those used prior to the dissolving of the Soviet Union. Finally, cultural differences between English contexts and Polish contexts were cited as another catalyst for different practices and perspectives. Strong ties to traditional classroom dynamics have set some teachers against more popular methods of English teaching that have been rising in the field on a global scale. The implications of a discussion on Polish L2 writing (and the teaching of Polish as an L2 or foreign language in general) are numerous. Languages other than English are being taught all over the world, and the more that is known about these contexts, teachers, practices, etc., the more the field of L2 writing can develop as a whole. Teachers of other Slavic languages, teachers of L2 languages other than English, ESL and EFL teachers, and many others can benefit from looking at the situation in Poland. Highlighting differences between different contexts may bring about new ideas, methods and solutions, and looking at other lesserknown contexts may inspire additions to the constantly growing field. There is still plenty to add to this discussion, which like most subjects, will continue to grow and develop along with those who are interested in it. References Academic Schools in Poland (2014) See http://www.studyinpoland.pl/en/index.php/component/content/article?id=16 (accessed 15 July 2016). Awdiejew, U., Dąmbska, E.G. and Lipińska, E. (1992) Jak to Napisać? Ćwiczenia Redakcyjno-Stylistyczne dla Studentów Polonijnych. Kraków: Uniwersytet Jagielloński. Bielec, D. (1998) Polish: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge.

Highlighting Practices and Perspectives on Polish L2 Writing in Poland  41

Council of Europe (2004) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duszak, A. (1997) Cross-cultural academic communication: A discourse-community view. Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 104, 11–40. Duszak, A. (1998) Academic writing in English and Polish: Comparing and subverting genres. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 8 (2), 191–213. Golebiowski, Z. (2009) Rhetorical approaches to scientific writing: An English-Polish contrastive study. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 18 (1), 67–102. Journal of Laws of the Republic of Poland (2015) See https://www.mgm.gov.pl/images/ gospodarka-morska/Ustawa_o_pracy_na_morzu_eng.pdf Lehman, I.M. (2013) Rhetorical approaches to academic writing: The case of Polish and Anglo-American academic writing. See http://www.retoryka.edu.pl/files/far2_2013_ art5.pdf (accessed 2 November 2016). Miodunka, W. and Reed, J. (1985) Recent changes in methods of teaching Polish as a foreign language. The Polish Review 30 (4), 397–404. O Języku Polskim (2014) See http://www.certyfikatpolski.pl/pl/ojezykupolskim (accessed 30 March 2016). Polish Education System (2014) See http://www.studyinpoland.pl/en/index.php/educationin-poland/9-polish-education-system (accessed 30 March 2016). Rifkin, B. (ed.) (2000) The Learning and Teaching of Slavic Languages and Cultures. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers. Róg, T. (2014) The shaping of applied linguistics and the emergence of glottodidactics. Applied Linguistics 9, 117–131. Ruszer, A. (2011) Oswoić Tekst. Kraków: Universitas. Urbańczyk, S. and Kucała, M. (1991) Encyklopedia języka polskiego. Wrocław: Zakł. Nar. im. Ossolińskich. Walczak, B. (2011) Język Polski na Zachodzie. Współczesny język polski [Polish in the West]. In J. Bartmińskiego (ed.) Współczesny język polski [Contemporary Polish] (pp. 563–574). Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS. Wójcikiewicz, M. (1993) Piszę, więc Jestem. Podręcznik Kompozycji i Redakcji Tekstów. Kraków: Uniwersytet Jagielloński.

3 Interpersonal Writing in the Advanced Undergraduate French Curriculum: A Multiliteracies Perspective Heather Willis Allen and Kate Paesani

Introduction

Recent scholarship on US collegiate foreign language (FL) programs advocates creating holistic curricula that merge language study with textual content and implementing instructional approaches that encourage students to interpret, analyze and transform textual content in meaningful ways (e.g. Byrnes et al., 2010; MLA, 2007; Paesani et al., 2016; Swaffar & Arens, 2005). A common goal for holistic curricula and instruction is developing students’ FL literacy, or ‘dynamic, culturally and historically situated practices of using and interpreting diverse written and spoken texts to fulfill particular social purposes’ (Kern, 2000: 6). Because realizing advanced-level FL competencies ‘requires familiarization with new frames of interpretation, new genres, and new ways of thinking in and about the FL, literacy is an appropriate organizing principle for designing curricula’ and instruction (Paesani & Allen, 2012: 66). Of interest in scholarship that foregrounds FL literacy is the overlapping nature of language modalities, interactions between these modalities and textbased features, and linguistic, cognitive and sociocultural dimensions of language. In spite of this movement toward an integrated, literacy-based approach to FL teaching and learning in US institutions of higher education, very little scholarship has effectively examined how oral and written modes of communication inform and overlap with one another. This research gap is reflected in the much-lamented bifurcation between lower-level language courses and upper-level content courses characteristic of many FL programs. Indeed, lower-level courses tend to prioritize students’ ability to communicate interpersonally to establish 42

Interpersonal Writing in the Advanced Undergraduate French Curriculum  43

relationships and carry out daily survival tasks, whereas upper-level courses tend to develop students’ interpretive and presentational communication through understanding and analysis of literary-cultural content. This bifurcation of both content and language modalities has unfortunate consequences for FL students: A number of empirical studies show that when students do not engage in extended discourse and negotiation of meaning about literary-cultural content, their ability to reach advanced-level language competencies is compromised (e.g. Darhower, 2014; Donato & Brooks, 2004; Mantero, 2002; Polio & Zyzik, 2009; Zyzik & Polio, 2008). Moreover, this division does not reflect the goals of undergraduate FL students, who place equally high priority on interpretive and interpersonal communication, regardless of their level in the FL curriculum (Magnan et al., 2012). The lack of explicit attention to interpersonal communication in upper-level collegiate FL courses may be due to the narrow definitions of this concept. Several scholars have suggested that the notion of communicative competence, for instance, has been reduced to interactive, functional, oral language use for transactional and self-referential purposes (Byrnes, 2006; Kern, 2000, 2003; Swaffar, 2006). In addition, the WorldReadiness Standards defines interpersonal communication similarly, as the ability to ‘interact and negotiate meaning in spoken, signed, or written conversations to share information, reactions, feelings, and opinions’ (The National Standards Collaborative Board, 2015). Neither of these definitions addresses the content about which students should communicate, the sociocultural contexts in which interpersonal communication takes place or how learners might explore cultural differences, reason critically and move beyond self-referential thinking (Swaffar, 2006). As such, there is a disconnect between upper-level courses, where communication is typically anchored in literary-cultural content, and how students are taught to communicate interpersonally in lower-level courses. To overcome this disconnect, we must expand our conceptualization of interpersonal communication to take into account the ways in which language modalities overlap and contribute to students’ ability to communicate in a range of contexts about different kinds of content. We therefore posit a literacy-based definition of interpersonal communication as a social activity involving ‘relationships, shared assumptions, and conventions as well as individual personal acts involving imagination, creativity, and emotions’ (Kern, 2000: 111) through interaction with textual content. This definition prioritizes students’ ability to interpret and create texts across levels of the undergraduate FL curriculum, and reflects the idea that meaning making is increasingly multimodal. In this chapter, we look specifically at interpersonal communication in relation to presentational writing and how discussions about the content of writing, the writing process and what it means to be an author can contribute to students’ advanced language competencies. From a literacy

44  Part 1: Curricular Issues

standpoint, ‘writing is not seen as a stand-alone activity, but rather as a means of communication interwoven with both reading and speaking, as existing texts serve as a point of departure for new meaning making through or about writing’ (Paesani et al., 2016: 182). This interweaving is important given that students value interpretive and interpersonal communication more highly than the presentational mode (Magnan et al., 2012); bringing these modalities together thus has the potential to increase students’ interest in FL writing. Interpersonal communication related to writing involves both individual agency and knowledge of textual discourse norms that inform how meaning is shaped in specific communicative contexts. In addition, this kind of communication allows student authors to interact with their readers and helps bridge the gap between talking about an idea and writing about it. In so doing, authors learn to prepare for ‘reader expectations, [and] shape their texts to meet these expectations effectively’ (Ferris & Hedgcock, 2014: 70). The literacy-based approach to interpersonal communication and writing development we present in this chapter includes activities such as collaborative textual analysis, peer review and instructor writing conferences, and focuses on students’ ability to write for different purposes using different genre conventions. This approach is consistent with writing instruction in a first language and English as a second language (ESL) contexts, which have ‘emphasized content over linguistic precision, engaged students in collaborative interaction, and focused on the entire writing process rather than concentrating exclusively on the final product’ (Reichelt et al., 2012: 28). In North American contexts, the FL profession has been slow to adopt approaches to writing grounded in such literacy-based concepts (Reichelt et  al., 2012), yet notable exceptions do exist: the Department of German at Georgetown University has used writing as a measure of language development for its genre-based curriculum (e.g. Byrnes et al., 2010); the German Studies Department at Emory University has similarly articulated writing across the curriculum from a genre-based perspective (Maxim et  al., 2013); and a handful of course-level proposals have posited literacy-based writing development in French (e.g. Allen, 2009; Allen & Paesani, 2017; Paesani, 2015, 2016; Schultz, 2011). The recent publication of a volume on literacy-based instruction in FLs including French, Italian, Japanese, Korean and Spanish, however, suggests that the approach is gaining traction in collegiate contexts and influencing how FL programs think about how students communicate in relation to textual content (Kumagai et al., 2015). Our chapter contributes to this growing body of research by exploring notions of literacy, interpersonal communication and writing through the lens of the multiliteracies framework (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; Kern, 2000; New London Group, 1996) and proposing a pedagogical approach for implementing interpersonal tasks around writing in the advanced undergraduate FL curriculum. After defining multiliteracies concepts and

Interpersonal Writing in the Advanced Undergraduate French Curriculum  45

summarizing relevant empirical research, we provide a model for incorporating interpersonal communication into an advanced French writing course in a US university. To exemplify the multiliteracies pedagogy used to implement this model, we describe a creative writing module from the course and focus on several elements that facilitate interpersonal communication through the exploration of language, conventions and genre features. In addition, student data illustrate reactions to this model and interpersonal communication activities centered around writing. We conclude by exploring the implications of this approach on interpersonal communication, writing and literacy development in relation to collegiate FL curricula and instructional practices. Interpersonal Communication, Writing and the Multiliteracies Framework

From a literacy perspective, interpersonal communication centered around writing is an individual and social act involving engagement in creative, imaginative tasks; collaborative interactions about the writing process and products; attention to the conventions and rhetorical moves of specific genres based on model texts; competence in writing for specific purposes and audiences; and awareness of what is engaging, meaningful and interesting about one’s writing. This perspective reflects Ferris and Hedgcock’s (2014: 70) conceptualization of FL writing as ‘an inherently social, transactional process that entails mediational activity involving writer, reader, text, and contexts for writing’, as well as an individual process that ‘enable[s] learners to acquire skills, develop strategies, and master… formal conventions for constructing (and consuming) written, oral, and multimodal messages’ (Ferris & Hedgcock, 2014: 80). Interpersonal communication around writing, then, is multifaceted: It involves relationships between readers and writers; students and instructors; a text and the resources characterizing it; forms and the meanings they express; and various language modalities. The multiliteracies framework (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; Kern, 2000; New London Group, 1996) presents a pedagogy that puts into practice this view of interpersonal communication and writing. An important learning goal within this framework is meaning design, or the process of discovering form-meaning connections through textual interpretation and creation. Meaning design involves interpretive, interpersonal and presentational communication about and through the various resources (e.g. grammar, vocabulary, conventions) that characterize texts of different genres, as well as attention to social and cultural knowledge and experiences. As students engage with these resources, they understand how language forms are used to express meaning in texts and how to apply these resources as they use language to express meaning in new and creative ways.

46  Part 1: Curricular Issues

The multiliteracies pedagogy that facilitates student engagement in the act of meaning design includes the four pedagogical acts of situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing and transformed practice (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; New London Group, 1996). These pedagogical acts, or knowledge processes, provide a means to classify the range of activity types representing the ‘things you do to know’ (Kalantzis et al., 2016: 67). Situated practice, or experiencing, involves spontaneous, immersive, experiential learning without conscious reflection. Because situated practice activities such as brainstorming or note-taking encourage learners to express their thoughts, opinions and feelings, they are similar to activities common in lower-level language courses focused on oral interpersonal communication. Overt instruction, or conceptualizing, is where students explicitly develop skills and knowledge necessary for competent participation in communication. In activities such as peer editing or linking language forms to their textual meanings, students unpack texts to examine form-meaning connections, textual organization and genre conventions. Through critical framing, or analyzing, learners relate textual meaning to social, cultural, historical or ideological contexts and purposes and question the meaning, importance and consequences of what they learn. Activity types include reflecting on the writing process and instructional conversations. Finally, transformed practice entails applying understandings and skills developed through engagement with texts to produce language in new and creative ways. Creative writing and reading roundtables are examples of transformed practice centered around writing and interpersonal communication. It is important to note that the four pedagogical acts are neither hierarchical nor sequential; they should be implemented to best meet learning goals and students’ needs and to maintain balance among each activity type. As Kalantzis et  al. (2016: 80) underscored, ‘in this conception, pedagogy is a careful process of choosing a suitable mix of ways of knowing and purposeful weaving between these different kinds of knowing’. Another key concept related to the multiliteracies perspective on writing and interpersonal communication is genre, defined as ‘an oral or written rhetorical practice that structures culturally embedded communicative situations in a highly predictable fashion, thereby creating horizons of expectations for its community of users’ (Swaffar & Arens, 2005: 99). Although genres are socioculturally determined, they reflect expectations for language, style and conventions that allow FL learners to make connections between patterns of discourse that may be new to them and others they have experienced previously. Designing text-based activities grounded in the four pedagogical acts taps into these patterns, expectations and experiences, and encourages ‘a discovery approach to genres in which students first become aware of the importance of genres in communication, and then are taught how to identify the characteristic features of genres by themselves’ (Kern, 2000: 199). As they engage in

Interpersonal Writing in the Advanced Undergraduate French Curriculum  47

interpersonal communication about writing, learners analyze genre patterns, gain awareness of features that characterize them, learn to read like writers and become apprentices to the writing process (Ferris & Hedgcock, 2014; Kern, 2000). A body of research on FL and ESL writing suggests that focused instruction is essential for developing students’ language awareness, genre sensitivity and textual interpretation and creation abilities (e.g. Lally, 2000; Ma & Wen, 1999; Roca de Larios et  al., 2008). Activities reflective of the four pedagogical acts of multiliteracies pedagogy such as collaborative discussions, planning for writing, peer review, student–instructor writing conferences and reflection and self-evaluation can contribute to these abilities. For instance, collaborative, whole-class discussion about textual content and the writing process can improve the quality and content of students’ oral interpersonal exchanges and their presentational writing (e.g. Hyland, 2008; Todhunter, 2007; Toth, 2011). Likewise, peer response to writing is not only useful in improving the quality of students’ writing, but it also helps ‘both parties gain insights into the act of writing and what constitutes successful achievement in a particular genre or contexts’ and provides awareness of ‘the challenges faced by peers, and the different moves and strategies used to bring performance closer to what is expected’ (Hawe & Dixon, 2014: 69). Research investigating student–instructor writing conferences shows that when students actively participate and engage in negotiation with their instructor, revisions to their drafts are more meaningful and successful, even at the sentence level (Goldstein & Conrad, 1990; Pathey-Chavez & Ferris, 1997). Finally, empirical studies reveal that student reflection about writing and the writing process is key to transferring writing skills to other subject areas (Downs & Wardle, 2007); that students gain awareness of their decision-making and key genre features (Li, 2007); and that they can better explain how writing has enhanced their literacy skills and learning (Hirvela & Sweetland, 2005; Yancey, 2004). In what follows, we apply these ideas about interpersonal communication, writing and the multiliteracies framework and present an instructional model for an advanced French US university writing course that encourages students to explore the language, conventions and genre features of texts. We first describe the course context and targeted learning outcomes. We then present the pedagogical sequence for a module focused on the ethnotext genre and detail three examples of writingfocused interpersonal communication. We close the chapter with implications and suggestions for future research. A Model for Incorporating Interpersonal Communication in an Advanced French Writing Course

The advanced French writing course is a third-year undergraduate offering at a large public Midwestern US university that typically attracts

48  Part 1: Curricular Issues

students majoring in French or pursing a certificate in French, as well as students wishing to continue advanced French study in a course with a strong focus on language development and use. The course is taught once every three semesters by a specialist in either French literature or applied linguistics and enrolls up to 15 students. Though many students begin the course assuming that it will develop their French writing skills and review complex grammatical constructs, the first paragraph of the syllabus elaborates the course description differently: This course departs from the premise that reading, writing, and speaking are not just linguistic skills but complementary communicative acts… Because the way we read influences the way we write, we will approach the study of reading and writing several types of French texts together. Likewise, collaborating in small groups and as a larger cohort using spoken French will be an important mechanism to feed the creative writing process. In this course, stylistic and grammatical elements of several written genres will be analyzed in terms of why certain linguistic devices are used in particular genres and what effects they have on textual meaning. After analyzing and gaining familiarity with these features, you will use them as tools in creating your own French texts.

From the outset, students are disabused of the notion that they have left behind the textual analysis activities familiar to them from literary and cultural studies courses. Rather, interpretive communication is framed differently as students first read model texts and analyze their language and style prior to creating their own texts of the same genre. Consistent with literacy-based pedagogy, grammar is presented as a resource for meaning making, and emphasis is on building understandings of formmeaning connections within certain textual genres. The syllabus also lays out various roles for interpersonal communication including smalland whole-group collaborative activities to feed the writing process and feedback activities to provide reader’ perspectives on peers’ written texts. There is an intentional effort in the course description to use the pronoun ‘we’ to stress that although students will individually create, submit, revise and present several components of a digital writing portfolio, the instructor and students together represent a writing community in which active contributions by each member are essential to facilitate the learning experience of the group and their development as writers of French texts. The course learning outcomes develop students’ ability to: (1) gain experience writing in French by creating texts of various genres; (2) demonstrate a growing understanding of form-meaning relationships in text, or what textual meanings emerge from particular linguistic or stylistic choices an author makes; (3) demonstrate the capacity to communicate in oral French in advanced ways;

Interpersonal Writing in the Advanced Undergraduate French Curriculum  49

(4) become familiar with locating print and online resources and using them effectively to produce engaging, accurate written French texts; (5) actively participate in a writing community through collaborative activities with their peers and the instructor; (6) gain awareness of the process of advanced FL learning and their identity as a developing language learner and writer through goal setting and reflections. These learning outcomes are addressed over four course modules, each focused on a different textual genre and author: short vignettes about cultural products or practices from Philippe Delerm’s (1997) La première gorgée de bière [We Could Almost Eat Outside]; ethnotexts on scenes of suburban Parisian life from Annie Ernaux’s (1993) Journal du dehors [Exteriors]; prose and verse versions of Charles Baudelaire’s (1961) ‘Invitation au voyage’ [‘Invitation to the voyage’]; and short stories about interpersonal relationships and contemporary life in France from Anna Gavalda’s (1999) Je voudrais que quelqu’un m’attende quelque part [I Wish Someone Were Waiting for Me Somewhere]. (See Allen and Paesani [2017] and Allen [2009] for descriptions of the third and fourth modules, respectively.) The course moves from genres more straightforward in their expression and organization in the first and second modules to genres more complex to understand and create in the last two modules. Graded assignments include formative assessments of textual analyses (two per module), blog reflections on the writing process based on the four genres studied (two per module), preparation and participation in each class session and writing conference (once per module) and completion of a digital writing portfolio, the major summative assessment evaluated once at mid-semester and once at the term’s end. The cycle of instructional activities and assessments for each module is roughly identical except the final module of the course, during which students write short stories, a task requiring additional time, peer review and student–instructor writing conferences. The second module of the course on Ernaux’s (1993) Journal du dehors [Exteriors], whose content is summarized in Table 3.1, represents the typical cycle of activities and assessments. This sequence requires three weeks to complete for a course meeting three hours per week. The culminating transformed practice activities of Module  2 entail students writing and presenting orally an ethnotext following Ernaux’s style based on an observation of what is happening at a given time in a public space. This genre has been described as involving ‘stylistic and syntactical simplicity and a mixing of genres where diary, biography and autobiography, description, and narration are joined and fictionality is restricted to its sense of construction’ (Veivo, 2004: 292). These brief texts blend observation and commentary on everyday life anchored in a public space. The excerpts from Journal du dehors [Exteriors] to be

50  Part 1: Curricular Issues

Table 3.1  Module 2 instructional sequence Step Objectives

Activities

Pedagogical acts

1

Building understanding of the author and cultural context

In class, students read and view texts about Annie Ernaux’s biography, literary production and cultural context, and participate in small-group jigsaw activities; an instructional conversation follows to facilitate understanding of the setting of Ernaux’s text, Cergy-Pontoise in the 1990s

Situated practice, critical framing

2

Establishing At home, students read excerpts from Ernaux’s Situated practice, comprehension of text and complete a reading matrix to critical framing thematic content demonstrate understanding of the author’s aims from the preface and themes observed; in class, they compare understandings of the excerpts and jointly construct a definition of an ‘ethnotext’ and whether it is fiction or nonfiction

3

Analyzing At home, students reread two additional Overt instruction, linguistic and excerpts and complete a reading matrix to critical framing schematic content demonstrate understanding of the author’s linguistic and stylistic choices, similarities and differences in the two excerpts, and the rationale for using the first person singular je ‘I’; in class, they compare and discuss these elements in small groups, using their text matrices, and reflect on the effect of linguistic and stylistic choices on textual meaning

4

Identifying places to observe; conducting observations

Students select two public places (e.g. café, Situated practice gym, library) to observe and spend time in each, taking notes and later refining their observations in French

5

Pre-writing

In class, students offer hypotheses as to how Critical framing, Ernaux transformed observations of public places overt instruction into short ethnotexts, then they complete a prewriting activity to brainstorm a semantic field and other linguistic and schematic choices for their two texts

6

Drafting two short Students draft two 250- to 300-word texts and texts; reflecting on post them to the course website the first drafts

Transformed practice

7

Peer reviewing

At home, students complete a peer review form about the texts they drafted; in class, they read colleagues’ texts and use the completed forms to share feedback and provide suggestions for further refinement

Critical framing, situated practice

8

Participating in writing conferences; selecting one text for further revision

Prior to individual 15–20 minute student– Critical framing, instructor writing conferences, students upload a situated practice, blog reflection that provides perceptions of their overt instruction first drafts of the ethnotexts, accomplishments during the peer review session and priorities for the writing conference; during the conference, they decide which text to continue revising

9

Completing a final draft; reflecting on the process and product

Students further refine one of the two texts based on peer review comments and instructor feedback; they post the revised text to the course website and upload a blog reflection describing how their text has evolved and what participation in this module taught them about writing in French

10

Participating in a roundtable

Each student reads their text aloud to colleagues Transformed and the instructor and commentary is made on practice, critical each text framing

Situated practice, critical framing

Interpersonal Writing in the Advanced Undergraduate French Curriculum  51

read and analyzed include the short ‘Avant-Propos’ [‘Preface’] wherein the author describes the book’s aims and geographic backdrop, and 10 one- to two-page excerpts set in a variety of public spaces: a train, a supermarket, a train station, a department store, an ATM machine, a butcher shop and a hair salon. The course module progresses from introduction to and analysis of model texts to pre-writing activities to writing and feedback activities and finally to a presentation of students’ own texts. Extended time is allotted for the interpretation of the texts’ recurrent themes and problem-solving activities to discover how linguistic resources, rhetorical devices and organizational patterns contribute to the meanings emerging in Ernaux’s texts. Incorporating interpersonal communication into the course serves as an important means for realizing the literacy-based notion highlighted earlier that reading, writing and speaking are not only linguistic skills but also individual and collaborative cognitive and social processes. In various steps of the module, interpersonal communication is a vehicle for accomplishing several literacy-oriented aims: to provide students with opportunities to jointly engage in meaning design as their understandings of the thematic, linguistic and schematic content of model texts emerge (Steps 1–3); to puzzle through germinating ideas in the pre-writing stage (Step 5); to share perceptions of their first drafts and discuss ideas with colleagues and the instructor on how to refine their texts (Steps 7 and 8); to reflect critically on the writing and revision process (Steps  6 and 9); and to react to classmates’ finalized texts (Step 10). For many students, these uses for interpersonal communication were initially unfamiliar and challenging, as they were accustomed to engaging in writing individually, at home, without input from peers or the instructor beyond feedback on written texts. Being confronted with feedback from the readers of their texts and, conversely, providing that feedback to others was a new experience at the term’s start that became more familiar and comfortable as the semester progressed. In the next section, we describe three forms of interpersonal communication used in the course – peer review, writing conferences and reflection and self-evaluation – that provide opportunities for individual and collaborative speaking and writing, both staged and spontaneous. In addition, we provide data from the spring 2012 offering of the course to illustrate how learners reacted to the interpersonal communication activities in this pedagogical model. Student-to-student interpersonal communication: Peer review

After analyzing several ethnotexts to build an understanding of their themes, organization and style, students generated drafts of two texts based on observations of public spaces that included a library, the farmer’s market, a computer lab, the gym, a karate studio, several cafés,

52  Part 1: Curricular Issues

the waiting room of a doctor’s office, a university lecture hall, a restaurant and a mall. To prepare for in-class peer review, students completed written self-evaluation forms at home to document how they constructed their ethnotexts and what strengths and weaknesses they perceived in each. As the peer review session began, students exchanged drafts with a classmate and spent approximately 15 minutes completing a peer review form for their written work. Although students were instructed to note any form-focused errors, correction was not the primary focus of the peer review. Rather, the emphasis was on students’ perceptions of textual content, organization and linguistic and stylistic techniques. Open-ended prompts in the peer review form required students to formulate their own questions about classmates’ texts and to identify what they considered the texts’ strong and weak point, based on their understanding of how to construct an ethnotext. Once students completed the peer review form, they exchanged feedback for approximately 20 minutes, asking and responding to questions about their texts, and discussing parts that each person viewed as the most interesting and most problematic. The peer review form scaffolded this interpersonal exchange and kept students on track to discuss linguistic, schematic and organizational aspects of the texts in a timely fashion. At the end of these conversations, each student explained to his/her partner which of the two texts should be further revised and which one should be set aside. During the final 10 minutes of class, the instructor invited comments from any student who had unresolved problems with one of their texts; this discussion provided an additional opportunity to receive peer feedback from the entire writing community. Blog reflections provide evidence that peer review was a valuable means for students to experience a readerly perspective on their texts through small-group interpersonal communication. For example, Student  A wrote that in speaking with her partner she learned that ‘the beginning of the first date text is confusing… I also learned that there were some idiomatic expressions that don’t work in French’. Similarly, Student B gained awareness of how she might ‘end the second text in a less cheesy way and… clarif[y] parts that I had difficulties describing’. Student  J realized through peer review that she needed to ‘connect the first and second paragraphs in a better way and add more adjectives/ descriptions’. Collaborating with a partner during peer review also allowed students to see where their work fell short of the textual models. For example, Student E’s partner suggested that she ‘should include in the karate text what my relationship to th … class was. I thought that that was a great addition, and maybe what I feel is missing from that essay’. The most frequently referenced elements of writing in the blog reflections were the need for a richer description of the public space and people in it, meaning-based clarifications based on word choice and organizational

Interpersonal Writing in the Advanced Undergraduate French Curriculum  53

suggestions. A common thread in several responses was that students, as writers, were aware of the deficits or weaknesses in their texts but through interpersonal communication during peer review, they were able to move into problem-solving mode to further refine their work. This notion was captured in Student G’s end-of-semester reflection: The first time I worked with [B] I was terrified of my work being critiqued and judged, but in the end I realized how my peers’ compliments were really helpful. Often as the writer you can’t quite see what it’s like for the reader and so it’s very helpful to get that perspective and those people’s ideas. Student-to-instructor interpersonal communication: Writing conferences

Following peer review, students completed a three-part blog reflection whose final section addressed priorities for the upcoming individual writing conference with their instructor. The focus of the conference was thus determined in large part by students’ perceived needs as they grappled with the process of writing an ethnotext. What stood out most clearly in many of these reflections was the challenge of coherently weaving together a description of a public space and the people in it with commentary or interpretation. As Student E explained, ‘I thought it was very difficult to try and emulate Ernaux. It was hard to avoid having a plot and choosing which details to zoom in on’. Similarly, Student G was at a loss as to how to convey her intended message about alienation in a text about a university lecture hall: ‘I want to find a better direction for my second text. It was the one I was the most passionate about, but I wasn’t as specific as I could’ve been or didn’t focus or zoom in on one individual person’. Another common challenge that surfaced in several reflections was using technical vocabulary accurately. For example, Student B had ‘a hard time selecting the correct computer terms, since they were all unfamiliar to me’, and Student  G reported a similar struggle to find French equivalents for terms that related to the doctor’s office. Finally, three students mentioned a desire to use more figures de style [rhetorical devices] in their texts. The instructor used each student’s blog reflections as the starting point for structuring writing conferences. These conferences lasted approximately 20  minutes, took place in the instructor’s office and replaced one normal 50-minute class. Students took the lead in deciding whether they preferred to conduct these discussions in French or in English; the majority of the students opted for French, thus making the conferences an important place for interpersonal communication about writing. During the first few minutes of each conference, the instructor prompted the student to describe where he/she was in the process of

54  Part 1: Curricular Issues

constructing the ethnotexts and what challenges had occurred. Suggestions were offered in response to students’ questions and, when appropriate, they were directed to consult resources such as the model texts, online bilingual dictionaries or course handouts. Only after students’ questions about their texts had been addressed did the instructor make suggestions related to content, organization and expression of ideas, and present her written feedback, including comments and a correction code to indicate lexico-grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors. The last step in each writing conference was to collaboratively decide which ethnotext the student would continue refining prior to reading it aloud during the roundtable. Given that students had already discussed this choice during peer review, this selection was typically simple and did not involve much reflection. Rather, it was above all an opportunity for the instructor to validate noteworthy elements of each student’s text. Individual interpersonal communication: Reflection and self-evaluation

Written reflection and self-evaluation were ongoing components of the advanced French writing class as students completed two blog entries in each module of the course. This writing represents a form of interpersonal communication because initial blog entries included students’ thoughts, assumptions and opinions to which the instructor responded orally in the writing conference that immediately followed. For the later blog posting, the instructor responded to each student in writing, adding a second layer of interpersonal communication to this part of the course. The prompts for each blog posting targeted several aims, including: reflecting on the writing process; identifying strengths and weaknesses in the texts students were drafting and revising; describing what they learned through peer review; establishing priorities for topics to discuss in each writing conference; explaining how their texts evolved from first to final drafts; and expressing what they had learned through participation in the module. In a sense, these reflections served as a diary in which students positioned themselves in relation to their work and acknowledged the challenges associated with writing in an FL and with attempting to imitate techniques used by the author studied. For the instructor, reading students’ reflections and self-evaluations was a valuable means for learning what aspects of the writing process were most difficult for students, which helped her to explicitly address their challenges in class and in writing conferences. Students’ reflections and self-evaluations from Module  2 provide evidence of accomplishments and challenges associated with crafting an ethnotext. Several blog entries make reference to a heightened awareness

Interpersonal Writing in the Advanced Undergraduate French Curriculum  55

of audience, i.e. that a text should incite a reaction from its readers. For example, in relation to her ethnotext about the farmer’s market, Student B wrote that in the final version she ‘added more questions and commentary and took out a few excessive details. I feel that the reader can use the [rhetorical] questions to focus on the moral and underlying theme of the story’. In this case, Student B identified a means of weaving commentary into her text using a specific rhetorical device and explained the intended impact of this stylistic technique – which she had observed in several of the Ernaux model texts – on the reader. Student  E’s blog entry also made reference to ‘the power of zooming in on certain details to make a desired impression on a reader’, which she felt she had done successfully in her karate class text. Conversely, Student E wrote about a less successful attempt to use rhetorical questions in her other text, set at the university gym: I am really not satisfied that I didn’t put in a fitting interrogation oratoire somewhere in the first three paragraphs of the [gym] text as we discussed. I tried a lot, and all of them just made the essay sound overly negative and childish... I think Ernaux’s worked because she was commenting on something rustic and classic in her butcher [shop] essay, and my topic was very different from that.

Though ultimately unsuccessful in weaving this stylistic device into her text, Student  E’s comments reveal that the experience of having tried to do so led to her comparing her text with one of the model texts and reflecting on why that technique did not fit well with her text. A second category of responses at the end of Module  2 conveyed insights into what students learned about composing ethnotexts. Student G realized that ‘ethnotexts, or at least Ernaux’s, are really fiction. She sets the scene, but from there, I think she really has free reign and makes commentary as she wishes’. Similarly, while writing about the role of observation versus interpretation in her own texts, Student  M learned that ‘observations of society are never completely impartial’. In her blog entry, Student E stated ‘I loved learning about the style of writing that attempts to emulate a photograph and how the writing adds the extra layer of being able to describe the thoughts and perceptions likely going on in the scene’. In these comments, Student E implicitly references Ernaux’s (1993: 9) preface, in which she ‘tried to practice a sort of photographic writing of the real… but, in the end, I put much more of myself in these texts than previously planned’. All of these comments suggest that through the processes of analyzing model texts, conducting observations of public spaces and crafting their own ethnotexts, students not only gained experience in writing for communicative purposes, but also came to new understandings about the larger nature of writing in this genre.

56  Part 1: Curricular Issues

Implications and Future Directions

The preceding model exemplifies how interpersonal communication, both written and oral, can be incorporated into a university-level FL writing course. Interpersonal communication is instantiated throughout the instructional sequence as a multifaceted individual and social act, as evidenced by some activities more private in nature (e.g. written reflections, self-evaluation) and others more collaborative (e.g. peer review, writing conferences). All three forms of interpersonal communication described above were multimodal, blending writing, speaking and listening between and among members of the writing community. These overlapping uses of different linguistic modalities underscore that literacy is not just about written texts or about reading and writing (Paesani et al., 2016). In fact, a recurrent sentiment in students’ reflections was a growing awareness of multimodality, as seen in Student G’s blog reflection: In depth study of the four authors and their writing was pertinent to the success I had. It helped me develop a better understanding of the style I was going to be imitating and also allowed me to learn about different linguistic and stylistic techniques… Reading those different pieces of literature allowed me to be the reader and not just the writer, and learn how the writer pulls the reader in and connects with the reader. I don’t think I could’ve gotten that same experience from just writing and not studying the authors and their work.

We previously stated that multiliteracies pedagogy emphasizes learner engagement in meaning design entailing interpretive, interpersonal and presentational communication about and through various resources that characterize texts of different genres. The instructional sequence described herein presents a compelling model for bridging the gap between reading-focused interpretive communication activities that sensitize learners to linguistic and schematic resources in model texts and writing-focused presentational communication activities that require students to create their own texts. It is often this wide gap between authentic texts written by accomplished natives of the language studied and students’ still-limited linguistic capacities that can cause cognitive and linguistic overload, demotivation and the use of unproductive writing aids such as translation tools. But by bringing writing activities into the classroom and engaging learners in interpersonal communication activities around writing, they have multiple opportunities both to discuss the rhetorical moves used in specific genres of writing and to position themselves and their own authorly choices vis-à-vis those in model texts. In this regard, interpersonal communication activities play an important role in avoiding the tendency to treat genre-based writing as static, prescriptive recipes (Kern, 2000). In addition, deliberately spiraling interpersonal

Interpersonal Writing in the Advanced Undergraduate French Curriculum  57

communication activities throughout this instructional module helps address students’ different views of the three modes of communication: Their prioritization of the interpretive and interpersonal modes over the presentational mode suggests that they may feel ‘that understanding is a prerequisite for expression’ (Magnan et al., 2012: 179) and ‘stresses the importance of spontaneity in communication in terms of learning goals’ (Magnan et al., 2012: 180). Although our literacy-based instructional model deals with the uses of interpersonal communication in an advanced undergraduate French writing course, it is applicable across many contexts and FLs, particularly those wherein literary analysis and academic writing are introduced early in the curricular trajectory. In addition to its implementation in courses such as advanced writing, this model is also relevant for what are typically called ‘content’ courses in literature and cultural studies, and the steps within the model can be adapted for one’s instructional objectives and assessment components. Indeed, the interweaving of language and content throughout the model provides an important example of how we can critically engage students with the language, conventions and cultural content that characterize texts while simultaneously developing their communicative abilities. Conclusion

This chapter details an approach to an advanced French writing course grounded in principles from the multiliteracies framework and centered around interpersonal communication. Throughout, we have demonstrated how interpersonal communication overlaps with and complements other language modalities and engages students in textual interpretation and creation. In addition, illustrative data show that interpersonal communication around writing can help students gain new understandings into the importance of audience when writing; understand and apply genre and stylistic features from model texts; and become critical readers and writers of their own and others’ work. This chapter thus responds to calls for change in FL departments by systematically interweaving language, content, writing and interpersonal communication through a literacy-based instructional approach that moves students beyond the oral, functional language use typical of bifurcated FL programs. References Allen, H.W. (2009) A literacy-based approach to the advanced French writing course. The French Review 83 (2), 368–387. Allen, H.W. and Paesani, K. (2017) ‘L’invitation au voyage’: A multiliteracies approach to teaching genre in an advanced writing course. In C. Krueger (ed.) Approaches to Teaching Baudelaire’s Prose Poems (pp. 139–149). New York: Modern Language Association.

58  Part 1: Curricular Issues

Baudelaire, C. (1961) Oeuvres complètes. Paris: Gallimard. Byrnes, H. (ed.) (2006) Perspectives. Modern Language Journal 90, 244–266. Byrnes, H., Maxim, H.H. and Norris, J. (2010) Realizing advanced foreign language writing development in collegiate education: Curricular design, pedagogy, assessment. Modern Language Journal 94 (Supplement), 1–221. Cope, B. and Kalantzis, M. (2009) ‘Multiliteracies’: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies 4 (3), 164–194. Darhower, M.A. (2014) Literary discussions and advanced-superior speaking functions in the undergraduate language program. Hispania 97, 396–412. Delerm, P. (1997) La première gorgée de bière et autres plaisirs minuscules. Paris: Gallimard. Donato, R. and Brooks, F.B. (2004) Literary discussions and advanced speaking functions: Researching the (dis)connection. Foreign Language Annals 37, 183–199. Downs, D. and Wardle, E. (2007) Teaching about writing, righting misconceptions: (Re)envisioning ‘First-Year Composition’ as ‘Introduction to Writing Studies’. ­College Composition and Communication 58, 552–584. Ernaux, A. (1995) Journal du dehors. Paris: Gallimard. Ferris, D.R. and Hedgcock, J.S. (2014) Teaching L2 Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice. New York: Routledge. Gavalda, A. (1999) Je voudrais que quelqu’un m’attende quelque part. Paris: Le Dilettante. Goldstein, L. and Conrad, S. (1990) Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly 24, 443–460. Hawe, E.M. and Dixon, H.R. (2014) Building students’ evaluative and productive expertise in the writing classroom. Assessing Writing 19, 66–79. Hirvela, A. and Sweetland, Y.L. (2005) Two case studies of L2 writers’ experiences across learner-directed portfolio contexts. Assessing Writing 10, 192–213. Hyland, K. (2008) Scaffolding during the writing process: The role of informal peer interaction in writing workshops. In D. Belcher and A. Hirvela (eds) The Oral-Literate Connection: Perspectives on L2 Speaking, Writing, and Other Media Interactions (pp. 168–190). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., Chan, E. and Dalley-Trim, L. (2016) Literacies (2nd edn). Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Kern, R. (2000) Literacy and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kern, R. (2003) Literacy as a new organizing principle for foreign language education. In P.C. Patrikis (ed.) Reading Between the Lines: Perspectives on Foreign Language Literacy (pp. 40–59). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Kumagai, Y., López-Sánchez, A. and Wu, S. (eds) (2015) Multiliteracies in World Language Education. New York: Routledge. Lally, C.G. (2000) First language influences in second language composition: The effect of pre-writing. Foreign Language Annals 33, 428–432. Li, Y.-Y. (2007) Apprentice scholarly writing in a community of practice: An interview of an NNES graduate student writing a research article. TESOL Quarterly 4, 55–79. Ma, G. and Wen, Q. (1999) The relationship of second language learners’ linguistic variables to second language writing ability. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 4, 34–39. Magnan, S.S., Murphy, D., Sahakyan, N. and Kim, S. (2012) Student goals, expectations, and the standards for foreign language learning. Foreign Language Annals 45, 170–192. Mantero, M. (2002) Bridging the gap: Discourse in text-based foreign language classrooms. Foreign Language Annals 35, 437–456. Maxim, H.H., Höyng, P., Lancaster, M., Schaumann, C. and Aue, M. (2013) Overcoming curricular bifurcation: A departmental approach to curriculum reform. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 46 (1), 1–26.

Interpersonal Writing in the Advanced Undergraduate French Curriculum  59

MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages (2007) Foreign languages and higher education: New structures for a changed world. Profession 234–254. The National Standards Collaborative Board (2015) World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages (4th edn). Alexandria, VA: ACTFL. New London Group (1996) A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review 66 (1), 60–92. Paesani, K. (2015) Student perceptions of multiliteracies-oriented and traditional grammar activities: A mixed-methods case study. Konin Language Studies 3 (1), 31–55. Paesani, K. (2016) Investigating connections among reading, writing, and language development: A multiliteracies perspective. Reading in a Foreign Language 28 (2), 266–289. Paesani, K. and Allen, H.W. (2012) Beyond the language-content divide: Research on advanced foreign language instruction at the postsecondary level. Foreign Language Annals 45 (s1), s54–s75. Paesani, K., Allen, H.W. and Dupuy, B. (2016) A Multiliteracies Framework for Collegiate Foreign Language Teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Pathey-Chavez, G. and Ferris, D. (1997) Writing conferences and the weaving of multivoiced texts in college composition. Research in the Teaching of English 31, 51–90. Polio, C. and Zyzik, E. (2009) Don Quixote meets ser and estar: Multiple perspectives on language learning in Spanish literature classes. Modern Language Journal 93, 550–569. Reichelt, M., Lefkowitz, N., Rinnert, C. and Schultz, J.M. (2012) Key issues in foreign language writing. Foreign Language Annals 45 (1), 22–41. Roca de Larios, J., Manchón, R., Murphy, L. and Marín, J. (2008) The foreign language writer’s strategic behavior in the allocation of time to writing processes. Journal of Second Language Writing 17, 30–47. Schultz, J.M. (2011) Second language writing in the era of globalization. In T. Cimasko and M. Reichelt (eds) Foreign Language Writing Instruction: Principles and Practices (pp. 65–82). Anderson, SC: Parlor Press. Swaffar, J. (2006) Terminology and its discontents: Some caveats about communicative competence. Modern Language Journal 90, 246–249. Swaffar, J. and Arens, K. (2005) Remapping the Foreign Language Curriculum: An Approach Through Multiple Literacies. New York: Modern Language Association. Todhunter, S. (2007) Instructional conversations in a high school Spanish class. Foreign Language Annals 40, 604–621. Toth, P.D. (2011) Social and cognitive factors in making teacher-led classroom discourse relevant for second language development. Modern Language Journal 95, 1–25. Veivo, H. (2004) Strange things on the edge of the city: Writing strategies in contemporary French suburban literature. Semiotica 150, 283–305. Yancey, K.B. (2004) Looking for sources of coherence in a fragmented world: Notes toward a new assessment design. Computers and Composition 21, 89–102. Zyzik, E. and Polio, C. (2008) Incidental focus on form in university Spanish literature courses. Modern Language Journal 92, 53–70.

4 Teaching Japanese L2 Writing Inside and Outside Japan: Implications for Global Approaches in L2 Writing Jim McKinley

Introduction and Overview

This chapter explores second language (L2) writing instruction of the Japanese language in higher education both inside and outside Japan. Japanese continues to be one of the most commonly taught languages in the world, drawing hundreds of thousands of international students into Japanese universities. However, there is a significant gap in L2 writing research regarding the teaching of Japanese writing in L2 learning contexts. Most studies of teaching Japanese writing focus on simple kanji recognition levels (i.e. jōyō kanji: a list of 2136 regular-use characters issued in 2010 by the Japanese education ministry). At levels of writing that explore rhetorical approaches and writer identity, the focus has been on the problems Japanese students face when learning English (e.g. Kubota, 1998, 1999; McKinley, 2006) or on the controversial notion of Japanese-to-English contrastive rhetoric (Hinds, 1983; Kaplan, 1966; Kubota, 1998; McKinley, 2013). Writing at this level can and has been taken into consideration as regards English speakers learning Japanese (e.g. Kubota, 1997), but it is a context that is severely under-researched by comparison, with very few exceptions such as Chikamatsu’s (2003) study of the impact of computer use on learning Japanese L2 (JSL) writing, and some studies on assessing JSL writing published in Japanese and reported by Kondo-Brown (2016). Thus, the study outlined in this chapter aims to explore the L2 writing instruction of Japanese in order to explore issues surrounding rhetorical approaches. The study involved four instructors of the Japanese language serving as case studies, two teaching in Japan and two teaching in an English-speaking country. Data were collected through analysis of program and course descriptions as well as interviews. 60

Teaching Japanese L2 Writing Inside and Outside Japan  61

This study was built on an earlier study (McKinley, 2014) in which I explored the impact of Western criticisms of Japanese rhetorical approaches by first language (L1) Japanese writers of English on learners of JSL writing, based on the cultural dichotomization of West versus East, raised by Kubota (1999). The earlier study concluded that university instructors of Japanese should address the Western criticisms (such as ‘problematic’ inductive writing, or ‘indirect’ writing) when clarifying the specific genres and uses of particular rhetorical approaches in written Japanese, and put more emphasis on the differences between written and spoken Japanese. While this outcome was pragmatic, it raised further questions about the content within JSL writing course curricula, in terms of how they align with L2 writing theory. It further highlighted a need for a comparative investigation of university-level courses inside and outside Japan. Given the different writing needs between the two contexts, such a study could also evaluate the arguments surrounding Japanese–English contrastive rhetoric. Therefore, the central research question for the current study is: • What are JSL writing courses in universities inside and outside Japan comprised of? In addition to this research question, the study also builds on the results of my 2014 study in responding to the question: • What are the approaches taught in advanced Japanese language writing classes? In the analysis of the data, I investigate whether the observed approaches concur with current L2 theory on contrastive and intercultural rhetoric, which I have argued previously to be unrepresentative of academic writing in Japanese (McKinley, 2014). The data are also used to discuss whether current L2 writing research of Japanese–English contrastive rhetoric is biased due to being underpinned by research that explores the unidirectional process of JSL learners learning English, as opposed to English L2 learners learning Japanese. The chapter includes a discussion of the implications of these findings for other foreign language writing besides Japanese. The discussion also explains which ideas are only suitable for JSL writing instruction (versus other foreign languages) and why. The chapter concludes with suggestions for further studies, which could improve our understanding of rhetorical approaches in L2 writing in languages other than English. Overview of L2 Writing Research on the Teaching of Japanese L2 Writing

Dwarfed by the abundant research on English L2 writing, research on the teaching of Japanese writing in L2 learning contexts has been

62  Part 1: Curricular Issues

neglected. This section examines the influence of the existing literature on the teaching of JSL writing. Taking into consideration the lack of available literature on teaching JSL writing, this section includes an analysis of the relevant literature regarding the binary logic problem that positions writing in Japanese as ‘Eastern’ as contrasting writing in English as ‘Western’. Applied linguistics research on argumentation in East Asian culture including Japanese has traditionally been held in polar opposition to Western culture, particularly in the English language (see McKinley, 2005, 2013, 2017). While the East is viewed as homogeneous, traditional and group oriented, the West instead emphasizes individualism and critical thinking (Kubota, 1999). This cultural dichotomization is manifested in studies in contrastive rhetoric. These studies characterize Japanese written rhetoric as ‘indirect, implicit, and inductive’, while English written rhetoric is described as ‘direct and deductive’ (Kubota, 1999: 12). This kind of cultural determinism has been reflected in descriptions of Japanese language education. Kubota (1999: 12) points to Carson’s (1992) exploratory work to critique such ideas as: ‘teaching methods in a Japanese language class in Japan emphasize traditional techniques such as memorization, repetition, and drilling rather than creativity and innovation’. From the initial development of contrastive rhetoric studies with Kaplan (1966), and continuing with Hinds (e.g. 1983), writing in Japanese was considered starkly different from writing in English, with key points positioning Japanese writing as inductive, indirect and occasionally offtopic. While Kaplan (1987) revisited these points, they continued to persevere. These points served to establish the ‘East versus West’ dichotomy that was increasingly disputed. Notably, Kubota (1999) strongly challenged this dichotomization to support cultural pluralism and promote a more multicultural and more critical perspective in understanding cultural differences in language acquisition. While this was done in reference to acquiring English, it could equally be applied to learning JSL. A major point of contention regarding Western criticisms of Japanese writing is that of the writing genre (McKinley, 2014), that is, the format and style of writing, with notable differences between, for example, academic essays or reports and personal responses or reflections, as well as business correspondence, business reports and letter writing. Many of the perspectives that maintained a cultural dichotomization were referring to more expressive genres of writing including essay writing, known in Japanese as sakubun [essay writing] (Kubota, 1997, 1999). This type of essay writing differs from more global approaches to academic writing as it is not intended to serve the same function. Historically, instruction in Japanese L1 writing concentrated on personal expression, requiring students to write about their feelings and personal experiences. Along this line, students also practiced kansobun, in which writers describe

Teaching Japanese L2 Writing Inside and Outside Japan  63

their impressions of assigned readings (Hirose & Sasaki, 1994). In Dyer and Friederich’s (2002: 278) study on teaching autobiography in Japan, they cite Arai (2000: 6), a Japanese professor of English in Tokyo, who in a criticism of the L1 writing process stated that ‘in Japanese writing instruction, the emphasis is placed on two elements, jiyu [freedom] and jibun no iken [one’s own opinion]: “Students are encouraged to write down their ideas spontaneously, without worrying about such irrelevancies as organization, clarity, or logic”’. This understanding of non-linear logic or random quality in Japanese essay writing is based on the history of expressive, not academic, essay writing. Indeed, the Japanese word for essay, zuihitsu, is translated as ‘writing at random’ (Dyer & Friederich, 2002). The idea that Japanese writing uses non-linear logic has prevailed in related publications over the decades. In Fox’s (1994: 8) book Listening to the World, she quoted a student in Japan on the vagueness of Japanese writing compared to English: ‘“Japanese is more vague than English”, she [a Japanese student] tells me. “It’s supposed to be that way. You don’t say what you mean right away. You don’t criticize directly”’. However, this debate on non-linear logic in Japanese essay writing is concerned more with personal writing than with expository writing. According to Dyer and Friederich (2002), Japanese personal writing is not all that different from English personal writing. Japanese writing is inherently inductive. The Japanese ‘habit’ of writing inductively (Kubota, 1997) can also be attributed to the principle of kenkyo, which is literally defined as ‘modesty’ (Davies & Ikeno, 2002). Davies and Ikeno (2002: 143) explain that kenkyo is important in Japanese culture because, ‘Self assertiveness is more or less discouraged, while consideration for others is encouraged’. This idea manifests itself in Japanese speech as well. While addressing an individual of a higher rank or social status than themselves, Japanese speakers will add softeners to their speech or let their sentences trail off to avoid being perceived as overly assertive (McKinley, 2013). However, the effectiveness of the communication works in the visual, spoken form, but not necessarily in the written form. As Japanese has been described as more visual than verbal (see Rose, 1996), academic writing in Japanese is expected to be more direct. Research published in English on the teaching of JSL writing has not often addressed writing at advanced levels, concentrating more on learning the complex Japanese writing system including kanji (logographic characters originally borrowed from Chinese), hiragana (phonological symbols used for grammatical structure) and katakana (phonological symbols used to represent words borrowed from other languages, most often English) (see Rose, this volume). However, recently, KondoBrown’s (2016) entry in the Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics focused on assessing Japanese writing ability, targeting the importance of

64  Part 1: Curricular Issues

extended writing tasks such as essay writing over discrete-point testing that is more often used in assessing the memorization of kanji. She makes the claim that writing ability in Japanese can only be done through actual writing, emphasizing the need for Japanese language studies to incorporate more writing at this level. Kondo-Brown highlights four related issues that have received attention in more recent research, namely: cultural influences on rhetorical organization; the conceptualization of ‘good’ writing in Japanese; assessing both Japanese L1 and L2 academic writing; and validating the essay test in the Nihon Ryūgaku Shiken [the Examination for Japanese University Admission for International Students], introduced in 2002 to serve as a replacement for the Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT), as it integrates several subject tests in addition to testing language proficiency. Based on the gaps in the available research on L2 Japanese writing education (i.e. insufficient focus on advanced levels of writing in which instructors’ backgrounds and sociocultural aspects of writing play a role), this chapter attempts to extend the existing examinations of teaching JSL writing by exploring how teachers in Japan and outside Japan address issues related to writing at advanced levels. L2 Writing Study

The study examined the L2 writing practices of four instructors of Japanese: two working in a university in Japan and two working in universities outside of Japan. The inclusion of both contexts allowed the researcher to explore both Japanese as an L2 and Japanese as a foreign language (JFL) programs. This section will first provide information about the settings of the study with a brief description of the programs. This is followed by descriptions of the instructor participants and the methods of collecting data from these four cases. Settings

The L2 Japanese language programs at the universities where all four instructors worked are well established. The two instructors in Japan work within the same university (University A), but on different Japanese language programs; the two instructors outside of Japan work in different universities in an English-speaking country. In the program in Japan, hundreds of international and returnee students are enrolled every year, and the program caters to English-speaking students. The two programs outside Japan are top-ranked Japanese language programs in their country. In the university in Japan, the program is divided into two tracks (to the dismay of program coordinators, to be discussed later): courses for ‘native’ Japanese students and ‘non-native’ Japanese students. Students are permitted to self-identify as native or non-native, although students

Teaching Japanese L2 Writing Inside and Outside Japan  65

identifying as ‘native’ speakers have to meet certain criteria. The rule is if one parent is Japanese, the student can enter the native Japanese track, regardless of where that student grew up. Therefore, these students include many who attended international (English or Japanese) schools and/or lived overseas, spoke only some Japanese at home and/or attended additional Japanese schooling. It is important to note here that native Japanese students who graduated from a Japanese-medium high school in Japan were not required to enroll in the Japanese language program, and could study other languages to complete the language requirement for graduation. The two prominent Japanese language programs outside of Japan are offered in very different formats. At University  B, the fairly traditional language degree program spans four years, with the third year a compulsory year abroad in Japan. This is similar to the university’s offerings for studies in other foreign languages. In University C, quite a different approach is taken to Japanese language education, as it is offered as an optional unit, with classes held in the evening. All students are undergraduates enrolled in degree courses. Participants

Participants were selected on a volunteer basis, targeting contexts with established Japanese language programs in Japan and outside Japan in an English-speaking country. Two instructors of Japanese at the university in Japan (University A), and one instructor each at the two different non-Japanese universities (Universities B and C) were identified via a volunteer sample to achieve a total of four case studies. The four participants are given pseudonyms in this chapter: Ms Mayu and Dr Ren (from University A) and Dr Kana and Dr Yuka (from Universities B and C, respectively). All instructors are native Japanese, born and raised in Japan. Both Ms Mayu and Dr Ren are Japanese language program coordinators, one who did training in second language acquisition (SLA) education in Western institutions, and the other in Japanese language education in Japan. Universities  B and C’s participants both completed undergraduate degrees in Japan and postgraduate degrees in Western institutions. Ms Mayu is the coordinator and instructor of the native track at University  A, and completed all her education in Japan. Ms Mayu’s academic publications are mostly written in Japanese, as she feels more confident about expressing her ideas in Japanese, and notes that English manuscripts require a ‘native check’ before publishing (see Mauranen et al., 2010 for related discussion). Dr Ren is the coordinator and instructor in the non-native track at University A, and did all of his higher education in an English-speaking country. While he was never formally taught how to write in academic

66  Part 1: Curricular Issues

English, he used his experience having to write his dissertations in English to teach academic writing in both English and Japanese to his students. Dr Ren writes more in Japanese than English, but publishes in both languages. The two instructors of Japanese outside Japan came about their positions through quite different paths. In the degree program at University  B, Dr Kana completed her undergraduate and master’s degrees in English language and linguistics at a university in Japan, focusing on English grammar, and submitting the thesis for each degree in English. She then moved to an English-speaking country for her PhD, and shifted her focus to Japanese language and linguistics, submitting her doctoral thesis in English. While her first two degrees were in Japan, nearly all of her academic writing experiences were in English. As a result, Dr Kana publishes almost exclusively in English (the last publication in Japanese was a collaborative effort several years ago), and explains that she feels unfamiliar with writing articles in Japanese regarding terminology and nuance, having never had to explain her ideas at that level in Japanese. Also, as a scholar at an English-speaking university, she is expected to publish in English. Despite all this experience with academic writing in English, Dr Kana explains that she still has all her work proofread, and is regularly asked by editors to have her work ‘native checked’, even in collaborations with native users of English. Dr Yuka is a Japanese instructor in University  C, which offers the Japanese language as an optional unit. Dr Yuka grew up in Japan and completed her undergraduate degree in Japan and her postgraduate degrees in a non-linguistic-related field in an English-speaking country. She also holds a Japanese language teaching certificate. Dr Yuka writes exclusively in English, but she did publish one article in a small academic journal in Japanese. When submitting her work in English, Dr Yuka usually asks a non-native English-speaking friend who is an experienced English teacher to proofread it. Methodology

Data collected for the study included course descriptions (collected directly from the instructors at the university in Japan, and downloaded from the university websites for the programs outside Japan) and two interviews each with the instructors. Initial semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect basic data such as the instructors’ educational backgrounds, thoughts about the practice of teaching JSL writing, and languages used for their own academic publication. Questions on their thoughts about teaching JSL writing focused on advanced writing practices, including whether or not they aim to get their students to ‘sound Japanese’ in their writing, i.e. a consideration of a Japanese writer identity. Other questions targeted any influences and innovations regarding their teaching (see Appendix for all interview questions).

Teaching Japanese L2 Writing Inside and Outside Japan  67

The data collected from the initial interviews were analyzed using a thematic analysis to identify emerging themes used to then develop questions for a follow-up, semi-structured interview with each instructor. Analysis was interpretive, in a qualitative tradition, as it was important to identify subtle nuances in how key concepts were discussed in the interviews. This subtlety required an interpretive rather than a positivist approach to the analysis, which was better achieved via ‘qualitative text analysis’, sometimes referred to as ‘qualitative content analysis’ or ‘thematic qualitative text analysis’ (Kuckartz, 2014). Findings of the Study Teaching Japanese in Japan (University A)

The typical profile of those studying the Japanese language in a Japanese university is an exchange student who is either on a semester or year of study abroad. However, as described earlier, the university where the study was conducted holds Japanese language classes for an increasingly significant number of Japanese students who did not graduate from Japanese-medium universities, and may have attended international (English or Japanese) schools and/or lived overseas, spoke only some Japanese at home and/or attended additional Japanese schooling. The motivation to study the language is very different depending on the student’s intentions after graduation. Teaching Japanese writing in the ‘native track’

The students in the native track included a wide range of backgrounds, many who would questionably be considered native speakers by global standards. Most students in this track were returnee students who lived at least part of their teen years overseas and attended either local or international (English or Japanese) high schools. These students spoke at least some if not only Japanese at home, and may have attended additional Japanese schooling (commonly referred to as ‘Saturday School’). Ms Mayu describes the students as ‘not truly bilingual’. She says there is ‘something missing’, giving an indication with non-verbal clues that the students did not have the insider awareness of what it means to use the Japanese language as an L1. Ms Mayu asserts that much of the students’ linguistic proficiency depends on the parents’ attitude toward reading and writing in Japanese and toward their child’s future. There are three levels in the native track, each with its own objectives regarding writing. Essay writing (including both argumentative and research essays) starts from Level  1. Each level spans one semester. Therefore, students are expected to already have a basic ability to construct at least simple sentences in written Japanese. The

68  Part 1: Curricular Issues

expectations of each level, provided in Ms Mayu’s own words in the interview, are as follows: Level 1: Paragraph writing, argument essays based on experience, short research paper. Level 2: Argument essays based on experience, writing in various genres. Level 3: Focus on reading, many have done Japanese essay writing in the past; they can, for example, learn the correct understanding of problems and politics in the world. For the research paper required in Level 1, the expectation is that students will ‘borrow’ from the reading. Ms Mayu explains that this is acceptable, as long as they do it appropriately; but she elaborates on the description of this task that ‘something’s missing’ about their use of Japanese, that the students ‘just don’t know which part of their mind’ to apply when expressing their ideas in written Japanese. For the writing skills component of the program, Ms Mayu explains that it needs to be specific and grammatical: ‘students need to know things very well, otherwise they can’t persuade or explain what the reader doesn’t know well’. Ms Mayu identified the significant point that reveals these students’ lower written proficiency in Japanese as a lack of vocabulary. Teaching Japanese writing in the ‘non-native’ track

The students in the non-native track are mostly exchange students, with a few degree students who are either native speakers of English or dominant English language users. Dr Ren explains that some bilingual students choose the non-native track because ‘they think it will be easier, but it’s not’, indicating that the students were not able to easily meet the requirements of the course. Traditionally, the majority of students in this program have not intended to seek employment or further study in Japanese. Increasingly, this is changing, with students requesting support for academic and business writing in Japanese, and opportunities to participate in internships. While the main focus is currently on speaking and listening, there is an understanding that upcoming development, which is in part a response to the university’s participation in the education ministry-funded Top Global Universities Project (see Rose & McKinley, 2018), will introduce new writing classes and internship support. Because there is a basic sense that the students need to develop an ability to function in Japanese society and get by in daily tasks and requirements, Dr Ren explains, they are basically never asked to write in class. Language classes do include the ‘four skills’, but are weighted toward spoken communication. Writing tasks are done outside of class. Writing tasks include notes, letters and short compositions; students learn ‘genko yoshi’ [vertical writing], i.e. writing that is vertical, not

Teaching Japanese L2 Writing Inside and Outside Japan  69

horizontal, like English. At the lower-intermediate level, letter writing is done using models for structure, and corrections are made for inaccuracies or vocabulary misuse. At the lower-advanced level there are five writing assignments in total, including three short compositions of 1000 characters each, one report and one final 2000+ character composition on a topic of their own choice, using data provided in the textbook or from their own research. Some business Japanese is taught at the lower-advanced level, including form writing, business mail and business reports. Teaching Japanese in an English-speaking country

For students learning Japanese outside Japan, the strongest factor impacting their studies is whether or not they came into the program with any previous experience having studied Japanese. Typically, students in this context will have studied at least one European language, while Japanese is in addition, but Japanese may be used to fulfill the language requirement. The students have two options for studying Japanese at the university level outside Japan, either as a degree subject or as optional units. Either way, the students are reported to hold an interest in studying Japanese because of curiosity about Japanese culture, often the result of an interest in Japanese pop culture including manga, anime and video games. Teaching Japanese writing in a degree program (University B)

University B is a public university in an English-speaking country, offering an undergraduate degree program in Japanese language. The most decisive factor reported for the students coming into the program is whether or not they had studied Japanese before entering the program. Around 30%–40% of students had done so. There is a sense that students who have no previous experience studying Japanese should be able to catch up within about six weeks of intensive grammar training. The students in the program were described as in love with Japanese culture, and not just pop culture such as manga and anime, but sometimes architecture and other aspects. They were also described as a little afraid of the workload, seeming to want to take on more content without taking into consideration the practical aspects of what is required to acquire and sustain the language. For example, when learning kanji, students wanted all the compounds (i.e. collocations and other word associations), which Dr Kana explained is impossible. The students tended to think that it was necessary ‘to have all of the compounds’ to progress, but did not understand the impracticality of actually learning all of them, and expected their teachers to somehow ‘make it happen’. Dr Kana believed this may be because they had studied at least one European language – in which

70  Part 1: Curricular Issues

knowing compounds was an indication of higher proficiency and learning compounds may have seemed easier because of the linguistic alignment many European languages have with English – before they started in the Japanese language program. The writing requirements in the Japanese language classes targeted kanji development as well as extended writing tasks. For kanji, students are expected to know 350 kanji in Year 1, and 750 in Year 2. Year 3 is a compulsory year abroad. For their final year, students are expected to be able to work without any kanji tuition, that is, they are expected to have jōyō kanji (2136 regular-use characters), or at least be able to look up jōyō kanji and, as Dr Kana explained in her interview, ‘follow classes without delay’. Students in their first two years are also required to complete a number of Japanese to English translations, usually one a week, as well as a basic essay in Japanese. In the past, the senior thesis was also a translation, but now fourth-year students are required to write an 8000-­character, research-led essay in Japanese on societal or cultural issues. In terms of Dr Kana’s approaches to teaching writing, her extensive experience with writing in English, she explains, impacts her teaching in Japanese. ‘I’m very particular – loose approaches are not acceptable – casual is not acceptable’. Dr Kana clarifies that she expects students to avoid expressions in their writing such as the Japanese equivalents of ‘in my opinion, I feel…’. She clarifies, ‘I want to know what they critically analyze, so I think I see things differently… I always try to get students to become language users rather than learners, so my teaching is often task-based, and can-do focused’. In response to a question about getting students to ‘sound Japanese’ in their writing, Dr Kana rationalizes: This would depend on the year and context. In keigo-class [honorific Japanese language], for example, it is very important that students can write in an appropriate style, which would require sounding ‘natural’, as in using an appropriate level of keigo and other lexical choice. On the other hand, if they are writing a short essay as part of grammar or lexical acquisition, the focus of feedback might be more on grammar/vocabulary than nuance. In final year, however, we will try to get students to sound as ‘natural’ as possible, as the learning outcome of the year is to be the competent language user rather than learner. They need to be able to conduct social and professional exchange in writing and in person, which require naturalness.

Dr Kana draws on her experience in both English and Japanese linguistics and language education for successful innovations in the teaching of Japanese writing, and in her response draws on the concept of multicompetency, i.e. the understanding that an L2 user makes use of known languages as a connected system, rather than shifting from one language system to another, which happens as an L2 learner (see Cook, 2008).

Teaching Japanese L2 Writing Inside and Outside Japan  71

Teaching Japanese writing in an optional unit program (University C)

University C is also a public university in the same country as University  B; however, this university does not offer a degree program in Japanese language. Instead, Japanese is offered as an optional unit in which any matriculated students can enroll. There are two levels of Japanese language classes. One class is for complete beginners. The level of interest in studying Japanese, as reported by Dr Yuka, is mixed, but it is generally high. Usually, the students tend to have an interest in Japan or Japanese culture, especially popular culture such as computer games and anime. The other class is designed for students who have previous experience studying Japanese. The level varies between students, but it is between JLPT levels N5 and N4 (lowest levels). Students’ interest in studying Japanese is generally high as they want to continue studying, or at least they want to sustain their current level of proficiency. For both levels, the students tend to be quiet in the classroom, but they work hard for tasks such as group presentations. Regarding language production, they tend to add more complicated grammar and sentence patterns in an attempt to create a more interesting presentation, reflecting the Japanese attitude of ‘challenge’, which indicates an enthusiasm for studying Japanese. Regarding the writing requirements in the program, Dr Yuka explained that there are no official writing requirements in her classes, but for the undergraduate module classes at the highest level, students have to perform two interactive oral presentations in a group of four or five, for which they have to write scripts. These scripts can be regarded as the writing requirements. Dr Yuka claimed that she aims to get her students to ‘sound Japanese’ in their writing ‘because they are at the beginners’ level, I want them to have a solid ground’. But she clarified that because she does not really teach Japanese writing, influences on her approaches are more driven by an emotional sensibility of providing supportive feedback on their writing to avoid discouraging her students. In terms of her own academic writing, Dr Yuka writes exclusively in English. Having received most of her postgraduate education in Englishspeaking universities using materials written in English, although she still makes small grammatical mistakes, writing academic articles in English is ‘more natural’ to her. Pedagogical Implications and Ideas that could be Used in Other Foreign Language Writing besides Japanese

The current study investigated the composition of JSL writing courses, taking into consideration possible influences from the instructors’ backgrounds on their teaching of L2 writing, particularly looking at experiences they had in studying, in this case, in Western English-­speaking countries, raising a number of implications regarding

72  Part 1: Curricular Issues

the teaching of Japanese and other L2 writing. Of the four instructors in the study, only Ms Mayu had no experience in an English-speaking country, and this was reflected in her description of the idea that there was ‘something missing’ in her students’ writing, relying on implicit, non-verbal cues to indicate it was related to a certain unnatural usage of the language. Alternatively, the other three instructors, while in very different teaching contexts and with widely varying expectations of writing, all described explicitly the importance of aiming to get their students to ‘sound Japanese’ in their writing, but not in a way that tries to neglect their L1 (i.e. English language) selves (something they each experienced as Japanese L1 users completing higher degrees in English). They each explained that their own educational backgrounds had brought them to this understanding of what was reasonable to expect, and they also mentioned the importance of keeping students motivated and encouraged by providing them with ‘insider’ perspectives of what it means to be a user of the language beyond the learning stages (see Cook, 2008). These findings suggest that teaching JSL writing is defined not only by the curriculum of the Japanese language program, but also most certainly by the instructor’s educational background and academic writing experiences in both Japanese and English. These considerations are significant in deliberating on the pedagogical implications when working within a prescribed curriculum. The instructors and program coordinators will inevitably be influenced by their own backgrounds and experiences. Regarding their own academic writing practices, the instructors in Japan were writing for publication mainly in Japanese, while the instructors outside Japan were writing almost exclusively in English. This also influenced their teaching in different ways. For both Ms Mayu and Dr Ren, their own understanding of academic writing in Japanese is current and evolving. As they continue to publish themselves in Japanese, they recognize how their writing is being received, and can transfer that understanding to their teaching (whether it is writing or speaking). For the two instructors outside Japan, their understanding of Japanese writing was described as limited, directly related to the fact that they just do not write advanced academic Japanese. Dr Kana confessed that she feels unfamiliar with academic writing in Japanese particularly with terminology and nuance, as she has never had to explain her ideas at that level in Japanese, having completed her higher degrees in English. Both Dr Kana and Dr Yuka expressed a personal connection to the English-speaking culture in which they have spent their lives as a major contributor to their academic writing output, that while they may be asked to have their writing checked by a ‘native speaker’ or have their writing drastically revised, they feel confident about writing in English in a way that they have never felt writing in Japanese. It is important to note here that this feeling will weigh on the teaching of L2 writing in Japanese, a morphographic writing system, in a way that is very different from other languages,

Teaching Japanese L2 Writing Inside and Outside Japan  73

particularly those that use the Roman alphabet. While communicating in spoken Japanese might advance to levels reaching native-like fluency in Japanese, writing will commonly remain at rudimentary levels (see Rose, this volume). In the post-process era, it is important to maintain an understanding that, as Trimbur (1994) pointed out more than two decades ago, composition is a cultural activity. This has significant pedagogical implications not only for JSL writing but for the teaching of L2 writing in other languages as well. Three of these four Japanese language instructors have been influenced by their own educational and pedagogical experiences in Japan and abroad, their approaches have taken on an inevitable ‘global’ perspective. They share the understanding that L2 writing is a cultural activity, and target students’ linguistic development toward that understanding. However, more than a decade ago such a global perspective was challenged: Ferris (2004) drew our attention to the ‘grammar correction debate in L2 writing’ and highlighted studies from traditional perspectives favoring accuracy over fluency. She drew on our progressive desire to downplay error-correction in order to place more value on the sociocultural aspects of L2 writing. This is the kind of desire I found to be so strong with the instructor who received all of her education in Japan, in contrast to the three instructors who received their higher degrees in English-speaking countries. The focus in the Western-educated instructors’ teaching of writing was much more on communicating, rather than adopting a Japanese writer identity. This was precisely what Ms Mayu was concerned about – that while the students were able to produce extended written texts, there was still ‘something missing’ that, as I interpreted, indicated they were not fully, socioculturally competent in the written language. Ms Mayu’s teaching approaches may been viewed as countering progressive beliefs about L2 writing education, but it was evident that the sociocultural aspects of the students’ writing were in fact even more significant for her. In teaching any L2 writing, particularly by teachers who are maintaining more local rather than global perspectives, the sociocultural aspects of student writing seem to be the most significant factor. Research Implications: Influenced, Impacted or Integrated? Western Approaches to L2 Writing Education

Some efforts have been made in research on how L2 writing education in languages other than English (LOTE), particularly languages of an Eastern cultural origin, has been influenced and impacted by Western approaches, namely, English L2 writing education. More than two decades ago, Silva et al. (1997) pointed out how the marginalizing of L2 writing (English and other languages) was detrimental to mainstream composition studies. They raised the issue in no uncertain terms that

74  Part 1: Curricular Issues

by drawing on L2 writing scholarship, a more global understanding of writing would provide a much needed opening up of otherwise limited studies. More recently, Horner et  al. (2011) drew our attention to the idea that English L2 writing research has developed and contributed to providing a more global perspective on composition studies, but that research in LOTE L2 writing continues to be neglected. They challenged the limitations caused by English L2 writing research by arguing for ‘adopting a translingual approach to languages, disciplines, localities, and research traditions in our scholarship, and propose ways individuals, journals, conferences, and graduate programs might advance composition scholarship toward a translingual norm’ (Horner et al., 2011: 269). It seems that L2 writing research will inevitably be influenced and impacted by the abundance of research on Western approaches to L2 writing education, especially that of English L2 writing education. Particularly at more advanced levels of writing, such as those described in this study, beyond basic phonemic forms of written language, the majority of studies examine English L2 writing. The leading journal in the field, the Journal of Second Language Writing, reflects this narrow focus. As English is the main language for academic writing output, this comes as little surprise. But is it necessarily problematic for instructors of L2 writing in a language other than English? Based on the findings of this study, it seems it does not have to be. Rather than looking only at the influence and impact of all the work done in English (and the reality that L2 instructors are also writing almost exclusively in English), it seems we should build on the arguments of Silva et al. (1997) and Horner et al. (2011) to further explore in what ways LOTE L2 writing instruction is in fact integrating their understanding of writing in English with their understanding of writing in the target language. Such studies are more common in bilingual education, such as a recent study with young Spanish–English bilingual learners of writing in the USA that emphasizes the importance of integrating writing as a holistic system, rather than in ‘discrete pieces’ (Soltero-González et al., 2012: 86). Another study also with young learners encourages the use of translanguaging in bilingual academic writing development (Velasco & García, 2014). But outside bilingual studies, looking toward L2 writing education, there is little evidence of such ideas about integrating different perspectives of writing to develop a more global perspective. The concept of multi-competency is an important one in this vein. To transfer from language learner to language user, as explained by Cook (2008), describes a phenomenon that is different from bilingualism. It is the idea that a person has added to their linguistic bank, and therefore functions in the multiple perspectives afforded by acquiring knowledge of more than one language. This is potentially invaluable for L2 learners who feel ‘bilingualism’ to be a status too far out of reach. Perhaps LOTE L2 writing education, which does not always carry the same

Teaching Japanese L2 Writing Inside and Outside Japan  75

socioeconomic motivation of English L2 writing education, could be successfully promoted this way. Conclusion and Suggestions for Further Research

This chapter has explored cases of university-level JSL writing instruction both in Japan and in an English-speaking country to examine the influences on instructors’ ideas about their teaching, and to draw on some of the concepts that can be applied to taking more global approaches to L2 writing in other languages. Significant findings included Ms Mayu’s localized perspective and concern about ‘something missing’ from her students’ JSL academic writing in the JSL context, and Dr Kana’s feeling of unfamiliarity with writing in academic Japanese potentially limiting her teaching of JSL academic writing in the JFL context, but pressing the importance of her students’ shift from language learner to language user. On the idea that something may be missing in expressing ideas in L2 writing, this is certainly not an unusual thought in English L2 writing. Where there are socioeconomic consequences for English L2 writers to fully grasp nuances and terminology, in LOTE L2 writing, this is not often the case. In the JFL context, students were described as interested in Japanese through popular culture, not by employment opportunities. In the JSL context, however, there was recognition that students would need to communicate in writing in, for example, business in Japan. This opens up opportunities for further research, to clarify what is that ‘something missing’ that could be preventing JSL writers from succeeding in employment in Japan. As for the JFL context, Dr Kana’s concern about her own familiarity with writing in academic Japanese does not present a problem, given the goals of the program as well as students’ future needs. But her emphasis on multi-competency is significant, and warrants further research in L2 writing education. While the JSL writing context differs from alphabetic L2 writing contexts, in that the writing level for JSL students is typically significantly lower than their speaking level, the shift from language learner to language user is a valuable concept to allow L2 writing students in LOTE to advance their proficiency in the target language. The integration of global concepts seems to be key to the advancement of L2 writing education in any language. As L2 writing research advances, we need to take into consideration the strengths and weaknesses of the rhetorical approaches in other languages, not just English, which has dominated the academic writing style. A multi-competence in rhetorical approaches should be the goal in L2 writing, drawing on perspectives from multiple languages, to achieve a global approach to academic writing.

76  Part 1: Curricular Issues

References Arai, M. (2000) Riled to distraction by random thoughts. Asahi Evening News, 12 February, p. 6. Carson, J.G. (1992) Becoming biliterate: First language influences. Journal of Second Language Writing 1 (1), 37–60. Chikamatsu, N. (2003) The effects of computer use on L2 Japanese writing. Foreign Language Annals 36 (1), 114–127. Cook, V. (2008) Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. London: Arnold. Davies, R.J. and Ikeno, O. (2002) The Japanese Mind: Understanding Contemporary Japanese Culture. North Clarendon, VT: Tuttle Publishing. Dyer, B. and Friederich, L. (2002) The personal narrative as cultural artifact: Teaching autobiography in Japan. Written Communication 19 (2), 265–296. Ferris, D.R. (2004) The ‘grammar correction’ debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime…?). Journal of Second Language Writing 13 (1), 49–62. Fox, H. (1994) Listening to the World: Cultural Issues in Academic Writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Hinds, J. (1983) Contrastive rhetoric: Japanese and English. Text 3 (2), 183–195. Hirose, K. and Sasaki, M. (1994) Explanatory variables for Japanese students’ expository writing in English: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing 3 (3), 203–229. Horner, B., NeCamp, S. and Donahue, C. (2011) Toward a multilingual composition scholarship: From English only to a translingual norm. College Composition and Communication 63 (2), 269–300. Kaplan, R.B. (1966) Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning 16, 1–20. Kaplan, R.B. (1987) Cultural thought patterns revisited. In U. Connor and R.B. Kaplan (eds) Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 9–21). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Kondo-Brown, K. (2016) Assessing Japanese writing ability. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Wiley Online Library. Kubota, R. (1997) A reevaluation of the uniqueness of Japanese written discourse. Written Communication 14 (4), 460–480. Kubota, R. (1998) An investigation of L1–L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing 7, 69–100. Kubota, R. (1999) Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied linguistics research and ELT. TESOL Quarterly 33 (1), 9–35. Kuckartz, U. (2014) Qualitative Text Analysis: A Guide to Methods, Practice & Using Software. London: Sage. Mauranen, A., Hynninen, N. and Ranta, E. (2010) English as an academic lingua franca: The ELFA project. English for Specific Purposes 29 (3), 183–190. McKinley, J. (2005) A Western researcher in a Japanese university writing classroom: Limited or advantaged? Cultural sensitivity and the debate on Japanese students’ critical thinking. The Journal of Asia TEFL 2 (3), 139–146. McKinley, J. (2006) Learning English writing in a Japanese university: Developing critical argument and establishing writer identity. Journal of Asia TEFL 3 (2), 1–35. McKinley, J. (2013) Displaying critical thinking in EFL academic writing: A discussion of Japanese to English contrastive rhetoric. RELC Journal 44 (2), 195–208. McKinley, J. (2014) The impact of Western criticisms of Japanese rhetorical approaches on learners of Japanese. Language Learning in Higher Education 4 (2), 303–319.

Teaching Japanese L2 Writing Inside and Outside Japan  77

McKinley, J. (2017) Overcoming problematic positionality and researcher objectivity. In J. McKinley and H. Rose (eds) Doing Research in Applied Linguistics: Realities, Dilemmas and Solutions (pp. 37–46). Abingdon: Routledge. Rose, H. and McKinley, J. (2018) Japan’s English medium instruction initiatives and the globalization of higher education. Higher Education 75 (1), 111–129. Rose, K.R. (1996) American English, Japanese, and directness: More than stereotypes. JALT Journal 18 (1), 67–80. Silva, T., Leki, I. and Carson, J. (1997) Broadening the perspective of mainstream composition studies: Some thoughts from the disciplinary margins. Written Communication 14 (3), 398–428. Soltero-González, L., Escamilla, K. and Hopewell, S. (2012) Changing teachers’ perceptions about the writing abilities of emerging bilingual students: Towards a holistic bilingual perspective on writing assessment. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15 (1), 71–94. Trimbur, J. (1994) Taking the social turn: Teaching writing post-process. College Composition and Communication 45, 108–118. Velasco, P. and García, O. (2014) Translanguaging and the writing of bilingual learners. Bilingual Research Journal 37 (1), 6–23.

Appendix Semi-Structured Interview Questions

(1) What are the writing requirements in your Japanese language classes? (2) Do you aim to get your students to ‘sound Japanese’ in their writing? Why or why not? (3) What are the strongest influences on your approaches to teaching Japanese writing? (4) What innovations, if any, do you make in teaching Japanese writing? (5) Do you do academic writing yourself in Japanese? In English? Why or why not? Follow-up Questions

(6) What are the students’ proficiencies and interests in studying Japanese? (description of students) (7) What is your preferred language when writing for publication (or other)?

5 Unique Challenges of Learning to Write in the Japanese Writing System Heath Rose

Introduction

This chapter explores the challenges associated with learning Japanese as a second (L2) and foreign language, particularly investigating the barriers to literacy associated with alphabetic first language (L1) users who are learning to write in morphographic and syllabic scripts. The Japanese writing system consists of three types of script (kana, kanji and romaji), which are used simultaneously, and which linguistically represent the language in vastly separate ways: its syllables, its morphemes and its phonemes. Kana, the Japanese syllabary, is written using a further two scripts: hiragana and katakana. Due to this complex representation of language at its different linguistic levels, the Japanese writing system is often considered the exception in world writing systems research. Almost all other languages use a writing system that represents just one dimension of the language, usually its phonemes (however, orthography varies greatly, and one symbol does not always map to one phoneme in most languages). The unique challenges associated with learning the script often go unaddressed in L2 writing theory, which tends to focus on learning to write in alphabetic scripts. Recent research on other complex scripts has suggested that a script’s visual complexity can pose different challenges to those reported for less visually complex orthographies (e.g. Nag et al., 2014). Therefore, for L2 writers, Japanese may pose unique challenges that are largely uncaptured by L2 writing research, which has predominantly focused on learning to write in alphabetic writing systems. A number of studies have highlighted L2 students’ difficulties in learning to write in Japanese, indicative of the slower rate with which learners from alphabetic language backgrounds acquire Japanese compared to other European languages. In early work, researchers (e.g. Walton, 1993) indicated that Western students of Japanese progress more slowly than those studying traditional modern languages, suggesting Japanese is acquired three times more slowly than languages like German or French. 78

Unique Challenges of Learning to Write in the Japanese Writing System  79

In a study conducted with US State Department employees who were engaged in language training, Jackson and Malone (2010) found that learners of Japanese took four times as long to reach the same benchmark of proficiency as French, German and Spanish. Importantly, we cannot attribute slow proficiency development entirely to issues involving L2 writing, as Japanese is also syntactically, morphologically and lexically separate from Indo-European languages. However, it is clear that the writing system creates a formidable barrier for L2 learning. Everson (2011: 251) concurs with this notion in stating that despite other linguistic differences, the character-based writing system ‘presents special challenges for learners whose first language (L1) employs the Roman alphabet’. Moreover, the writing system is posited as a deterrent for learners to study the language to higher levels. For example, the difficulties faced by L2 learners of written Japanese has been linked to high attrition rates in Japanese language programs in Australia (Kato, 2002), which was an early adopter of Japanese as a foreign language (JFL) education. Such a relationship suggests that research into the challenges of JFL writing is essential in promoting JFL education in general. My own studies have examined the unique challenges posed by learners of Japanese as an L2 (e.g. Rose, 2003, 2013, 2017; Rose & Harbon, 2013), and have focused on the cognitive, metacognitive and affective load placed on learners when memorizing kanji. When writing up these studies, I have often found it very difficult to position my findings in L2 reading and writing theory, because the learning experiences of Japanese language learners do not align with the learning experiences of students writing in English, in which much L2 writing research is contextualized. In fact, this appears to be an issue for other researchers (e.g. Chikamatsu, 2005; McKinley, 2014) who need to position their research in broader concepts of learning, psychology or cognitive theory in order to contextualize the processes observed in the data. This can be problematic in that much of the research into the L2 learning of Japanese is not being used to inform a current theory of L2 writing. This chapter aims to provide a theoretical commentary on our current understanding of learning to write in Japanese as a foreign and second language. In this commentary, some key concepts in L2 writing will be challenged as being overly representative of L2 English writing, concurring with the findings of McKinley (2014; see this volume), who suggests that cross-cultural rhetoric theory is very unidirectional in its description of how Japanese students learn to write in English, but not how English-speaking students learn to write in Japanese. The chapter will draw upon data collected from learners in Japan and Australia in order to illustrate key differences. The chapter will show that many currently accepted concepts in L2 writing do not fully explain the learning of complex writing systems such as Japanese.

80  Part 1: Curricular Issues

Overview of the Language

Modern-day standard Japanese is rooted within an independent language family of Japonic languages, and as such it does not share historical linguistic origins with other world languages, like Indo-European languages do. Thus, Japanese is fundamentally different from the native languages of all JFL learners on most linguistic dimensions, particularly phonologically, syntactically and morphologically. However, due to historical ties with China, and then later with the USA, there has been substantial lexical borrowing from Chinese, and to a lesser extent English. Some Japanese dictionary sources claim that up to 50% of Japanese words have their origin in kango (words borrowed from ancient Chinese) and 9% from gairaigo (other foreign languages, but predominantly English). However, these words have been integrated into a Japanese phonology, syntax and morphology, so knowledge of Chinese and English only provides a little help in understanding the spoken language. Chinese speakers, however, have one advantage over their English-speaking JFL counterparts, in that the Chinese writing system was adopted from China from the 5th century, and remains the predominant script used to represent the Japanese language today. This historical tie means that readers of the Chinese language have the advantage of knowledge of a morphographic script and how it represents language, as well as knowledge of some phonological clues due to the shared historical roots of certain modern-day Chinese words and Japanese kango. It is important to note that Japanese and Chinese are not linguistically related, which means there are inherent problems in transferring the writing system from one language to the other. This is very different from other examples of writing system transference, such as the adoption of the Roman alphabet to represent other spoken European languages. Although there were fundamental phonological differences in these languages, they were linguistically related and problems were easily overcome with additions, deletions, substitutions and orthographic rules. Because the Chinese writing system was developed to linguistically represent Chinese languages (tonal languages with relatively transparent morphologies), the adopted script (kanji) was in fact a poor match for Japanese. Japanese, compared to Chinese, relies on a lot of verb and adjective inflections to convey its grammar, which are best relayed phonologically – something that a morphographic script is poor in communicating to a reader. This reality saw the introduction of kana (two syllabic scripts) from the 9th century, which was first developed as a means of representing the language phonologically. Kana were intended as an uneducated person’s substitute for kanji, but their clear effectiveness in representing the sounds of the language meant that they were subsequently adopted into the main writing system to fill the phonological gaps that kanji could not represent. Thus, in modern-day Japanese,

Unique Challenges of Learning to Write in the Japanese Writing System  81

kanji is still used to represent content words in the language (e.g. its traditional nouns, adjectives and verbs), while one kana script (hiragana) is used to represent its grammar (e.g. its particles and markers) and its morphology (e.g. verb and adjective stem conjugations and inflections). The other kana script (katakana) is mostly used to represent foreign words that emerged in the modern era, for which no kanji was assigned (e.g. words like computer and hamburger, but also words like table and dress, which were marked differently from the Japanese equivalents of similar objects). Increasingly romaji (the Roman alphabet) is being used in Japanese, although it is largely for stylistic purposes, rather than as a replacement for katakana. The challenge of kanji

Also, due to lexical borrowing from Chinese alongside the use of original Japanese words, kanji have developed different readings: onyomi (readings of Chinese origin) and kunyomi (readings of Japanese origin), with some kanji having multiple onyomi or kunyomi, depending on the words they represent. For example, the kanji for under (下) can be read according to: • three kunyomi: shita (in the word for socks), kuda (in the verb to go down) and sa (in the verb to lower); • two onyomi: ge (in the word for sewer) and ka (in the word for earth). Moreover, due to this type of borrowing, kanji can be monosyllabic, as in the reading of ha for 歯 [tooth], and polysyllabic, as in the reading of ka-su-mi for 霞 [mist]. Thus, whereas in Chinese, each character of the writing system generally approximates to one morpheme, one syllable and one reading, in Japanese each kanji does not represent the language with the same level of precision. The quantity of discrete characters in the Japanese writing system is also a challenge for JFL writers. In addition to 46 hiragana and 46 katakana, which are used to represent 204 sounds with the addition of diacritics, a learner must master 2136 joyo [official everyday use] kanji to be functionally literate in the language. This represents a massive cognitive load on the learner. The challenge of learning to write in such a complex language, therefore, has pedagogical implications that have largely been unaddressed by L2 writing research in applied linguistics. This aspect of the writing system is further complicated by the different ways in which a kanji can represent the language. Although kanji are often described as being morphographic representations of meaning, most of kanji are not pictographic. In basic terms, kanji can be broken into three categorizations according to how they connect to their morphemes: pictorial characters – ‘stylised representations of the object they

82  Part 1: Curricular Issues

represent’; abstract characters – ‘arbitrary symbols for words’; and combination characters – ‘the synthesis of two characters (or components) into one’ (Paradis et al., 1985: 26). As an illustration: (1) a mountain [山] is pictorially represented by the kanji for mountain, where its etymology is still distinguishable in its modern shape; (2) the number 10,000 [千] is abstractly represented by an arbitrary symbol; (3) the concept of tomorrow [明] is represented in a single kanji, which is formed by the combination of two components for day [日] and night [月]. For learners of Japanese, this basic categorization of kanji is sufficient in providing an understanding that kanji represent morphemes in different ways; however, it should be noted that it is not a comprehensive guide to the full range of ways in which kanji operate. Many Japanese linguists prefer to use a more etymologically accurate categorization of six types of kanji, which are: (1) Shokeimoji (pictographs): Pictorial representations of meaning. (2) Shijimoji (logograms): Symbolic representation of abstract ideas. (3) Kaiimoji (ideographs): A combination of pictographic components. (4) Keiseimoji (semasio-phonetic ideographs): A combination of components, of which one gives a clue to the original pronunciation or meaning. (5) Tenchuumoji (derivative characters): Kanji that have been derived from an original concept that has been disassociated. (6) Kashamoji (phonetic loan characters): Kanji that have been adopted into current usage for phonetic reasons. This six-type system provides further evidence of the complexity of this script, as some kanji types such as kaiseimoji and kashamoji call into question the notion that all kanji are morphographs, as they actually draw linguistic connections to the phonology rather than the meaning or morphemes of the language. L2 Writing Practices

The quantity of kanji and the complexity of the writing system in general means that much effort is required to learn it. Even native speakers of the language require nine years of formal schooling to master all 2136 joyo kanji. Moreover, a large percentage of the national curriculum is devoted to learning how to write; at most universities, kanji knowledge tests make up 25% of their entrance exams. Clearly, from the outset, we can see an importance placed on teaching and testing the writing system,

Unique Challenges of Learning to Write in the Japanese Writing System  83

which has no equivalent in alphabetic language contexts. The importance of learning the writing system also filters down into the JFL curriculum. When I was a student of Japanese in Australia – and also when I worked later as a teacher – the Japanese writing system took up at least 25% of class time (if not more) and about 75% of assigned homework and selfstudy. While each teaching and learning context is different, it is a fair assumption to say that a focus on learning to read and write Japanese encompasses a large amount of students’ learning focus, and unlike learning to read and write in an alphabetic script, the time devoted to learning the writing system intensifies rather than diminishes as a learner’s proficiency develops. Learning to write in Japanese in JFL classrooms tends to mimic the practices of native Japanese children learning to write. There is a lot of repetitive practice (writing characters over and over), an emphasis on rote memorization of kanji lists and a clear focus on form in terms of producing visually accurate characters according to the prescribed stroke order. This notion is illustrated by a survey of 251 Japanese teachers in the USA, which found that the preferred instructional method of most teachers was rote learning (Shimizu & Green, 2002). Teachers in this study indicated that they often utilized activities such as repetitive writing, frequent quizzes and the incorporation of practice drills into writing classes. These practices seem to be in contrast with the literature on L2 writing, which has developed ‘a view of L2 writing as a socially situated activity’ (Atkinson, 2003: 5), and has moved beyond process approaches to genre-based pedagogies (Hyland, 2003). Japanese writing, it seems, never made it to the process stage, let alone post-process, and thus remains firmly cemented in product-based approaches. L2 writing scholars (e.g. Casanave, 2003; McKinley, 2010, 2013) have noted that in Japan the process revolution never actually happened, and while Casanave (2003) was referring to L2 learning of English, the same observation can be applied to the teaching of Japanese. It also contradicts theory in cognitive educational psychology, which suggests rote learning to be a poor memorization strategy due to a shallow level of processing (e.g. Matlin, 2005). Nevertheless, this teaching method prevails, partly due to its historical tradition in Japanese language education, but also due to a lack of other suitable L2 writing instructional methods. Disjuncture between speaking and writing abilities

Likewise, it is difficult to position the teaching of L2 writing in Japanese with the instructional approaches of other foreign languages. In learning English, for example, learners have long been encouraged to engage with authentic materials in their writing (Breen, 1985; Widdowson, 1998), and to develop writing through process approaches (Flower & Hayes, 1981). However, any learner of Japanese will soon discover

84  Part 1: Curricular Issues

the inaccessibility of authentic materials to them. Most students at an intermediate level (or even at an advanced level) would be unable to read a newspaper aimed at a Year 6 reading level, due to an insufficient knowledge of kanji. Likewise, an adult learner trying to engage with authentic materials at younger levels would still find it difficult to engage with books aimed at children, who would have a vastly wider vocabulary range. Thus, the use of such materials, particularly when writing on topics related to their Japanese classes, is impossible for most learners, even at the intermediate and advanced level. A problem, therefore, with the teaching of JFL is a disconnection between progression in the written language and the overall proficiency of the student. A student will build up a knowledge of spoken Japanese at a much faster rate than their written knowledge. This gap is illustrated by using the Education Queensland curriculum for high school Japanese. Queensland was an early adopter of Japanese language education (Rose & Carson, 2014), and thus makes a useful backdrop to explore a mature JFL program of study, which may be reflective of other JFL curricula. In this curriculum, students at the exit level of senior Japanese are expected to converse on a range of topics from economic and social issues, to current affairs, to music, art and literature. In addition, they must be able produce all kana and 250 kanji. In reality, many students do not reach this benchmark, and have a knowledge of spoken language that they cannot fully represent in written form. What results from this disparity is a gap between a learner’s vocabulary knowledge and their writing development; simply put, one can know a word, but not know how to read or write it. This leads one to question the role of writing in JFL contexts, and to question the purpose it serves. While writing can be used to support foreign language development in most languages, this cannot be said for Japanese as writing skills lag behind spoken skills development. Uniqueness of these challenges

Because of the unique features of the Japanese writing system, many accepted practices of L2 writing pedagogy are ill-fitting for JFL instruction. Practices that fall within theories of process writing, genre-based approaches, responding to writing, rhetoric and composition seem somewhat out of reach for JFL learners, who are for the majority of their writing classes still learning the equivalence of their ‘ABCs’. To provide an illustration of how research into writing practices and L2 instruction in general are an ill-fit for the challenges outlined thus far, I refer to a summary of research into L2 instruction by Hinkel (2011). In this summary, Hinkel showcases L2 instructions centering on activities such as: generating ideas and producing L2 text, organizing ideas in keeping with L2 discourse conventions, planning and outlining, paragraph and

Unique Challenges of Learning to Write in the Japanese Writing System  85

text development, drafting, revising at the discourse and sentence levels, considerations of audience, lexical choice, precision, and vocabulary changes, dictionary uses, spelling, punctuation, editing, and error correction, as well as using computers for writing, grammar practice, and vocabulary development… As a follow-up, learners usually receive instruction in paragraphing, discourse structuring and organization, sentence construction, vocabulary, narrative or argumentation conventions, cohesion development, revising, and editing, as well as linguistic aspects of text. (Hinkel, 2011: 532)

Hinkel (2011) goes further to explain that innovative modern activities have increased in popular use in L2 writing classes, including writing from source materials, analyzing language in print and online media, examining academic texts or business sources and producing critiques. Much of this research, however, is based on studies with speakers of alphabetically based L1s learning to write in an L2 that uses the same or a similar alphabet (e.g. Spanish-speaking students learning English). Even in the cases of research with students writing in a different writing system (e.g. Chinese or Japanese students learning to write in English), the research is almost entirely unidirectional, with a paucity of research for English speakers learning to write in Chinese or Japanese. Moreover, due to the pervasiveness of the Roman alphabet within Chinese and Japanese writing (e.g. Roman letters are learned by Chinese and Japanese children to write pinyin and romaji), L2 learners are already familiar with the script before learning their L2. Because many students of Japanese (even at the intermediate and advanced levels) have not mastered the orthography of the language, ideas of incorporating source material in L2 writing, or examining print and online media, or writing critiques are far beyond the capabilities of most JFL learners. While some level of composition does take place in JFL classes, especially when learners are allowed to write in the syllabary (kana), the type of writing covered in most L2 writing research such as exploring genre constructions, argumentation conventions or cohesion development are also beyond the scope of most JFL classrooms. Furthermore, some findings of L2 writing research, which are seen to enhance writing in other languages, cannot easily be applied to JFL contexts. For example, dictionary use and computer use can actually be major obstacles in JFL writing. Kanji can be notoriously challenging to locate in a dictionary (although new image recognition software is changing this), and the use of computers when writing in Japanese requires typing in the phonology of the language (commonly using the Roman alphabet) and selecting the correct choices in the Japanese writing system. Some research has suggested that the use of computers actually detracts from a user’s ability to write in Japanese by perpetuating the ‘tip-of-the-pen’ phenomenon (Chikamatsu, 2005), where a writer is

86  Part 1: Curricular Issues

unable to produce a known kanji when engaged in writing. Acts of typing in romaji and selecting kanji improve a learner’s recognition of a kanji, but result in an inability to produce it once the technological aid is taken away. Computers, thus, enhance receptive rather than production skills when writing in Japanese. Positive results of the use of computers have been noted in an earlier study by Chikamatsu (2003). She found that the use of computers allowed JFL students to write more accurately with a larger number of kanji compared to similar handwritten work. However, she also noted that the study was unable to explore the long-term effects on writing development, including the issue of interference with kanji production abilities discussed above. Chikamatsu (2003: 122) further argues that her study examines the written product, with a particular focus on kanji, which is somewhat different to the focus of other writing research, which looks ‘beyond the grammatical and linguistic’, and calls for more research that is more situated with the discourse, organization, cohesion and coherence research more typical of L2 writing research. Although McKinley (2014) examines this gap, very little research into L2 writing of Japanese is in this vein. Strategies for more efficient learning of kanji

One area of writing research that has interested scholars is the exploration of the strategies that students use to help them to acquire written Japanese, in particular kanji. In early work, which tied in with learning strategy research at that time, Bourke (1996) identified 15 categories of kanji learning strategies. This work was clearly based in the burgeoning field of language learning strategies at the time, led by Rebecca Oxford. There are clear conceptual similarities between Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) and Bourke’s Strategy Inventory for Learning Kanji (SILK). However, the items in the SILL and SILK are vastly different, once again highlighting the ill-fit of the SILL to the unique task of learning kanji, which appears to be a separate process to learning the Japanese language in general. As a result, although the SILL has fallen out of popularity due to its one-size-fits-all approach (see Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Rose, 2015), I would argue that the SILK is still a largely valid instrument, and I have since adapted it for my own research purposes (Rose, 2003, 2013, 2017). Bourke’s (1996: 131) study found that successful learners in a kanji recall task also used the highest number and widest variety of strategies. She also discovered that the type and complexity of the kanji as well as the proficiency of the student influenced which strategies they applied. Unsurprisingly, she found that beginner students tended to apply pictorial strategies, but higher-level students tended to break kanji into their components in order to memorize more complicated kanji.

Unique Challenges of Learning to Write in the Japanese Writing System  87

This finding was also supported by my own studies, which found that component analysis was an essential strategy for all students, particularly those at the intermediate and advanced levels (Rose, 2013). These findings also point to the importance of developing an awareness that most kanji contain morphemic clues. Toyoda (1998: 156) calls this understanding graphemic awareness, which can be described as ‘awareness that kanji can be segmented into graphemes and that graphemes can be the subject of analysis’. Graphemes are the smallest unit a kanji can be broken into, and these components can then be learned via any number of suitable memorization strategies. If learners can develop their own graphemic awareness from the outset of learning kanji, it could aid them in their writing development. The use of mnemonic strategies to attach meaning to a kanji’s components has also been investigated in terms of their efficacy in learning kanji, but with varying results. From a cognitive perspective, a mnemonic strategy is defined as ‘a method for enhancing memory performance by giving the material to be remembered a meaningful interpretation’ (Anderson, 2005: 461). Some studies have pointed to the importance of mnemonic strategies (e.g. Lu et  al., 1999; Toyoda, 1998), but my own research has highlighted issues when learners rely on one strategy for all kanji (Rose, 2013). Moreover, I discovered a limitation in most mnemonic strategies that linked a kanji’s physical properties with its meaning, in that the strategy did not facilitate the learning of a kanji’s pronunciation in Japanese: while a mnemonic strategy may be used to connect the kanji 下 [below] to its meaning, the same mnemonic strategy provides no indication whether the kanji should be read ge, shita, kuda, ka or sa, all of which are possible. (Rose, 2013: 982)

Thus, all research points to two facts. First, the learning of kanji is a major obstacle in mastering Japanese writing. Second, this research does not align well with general research into the learning of writing of other languages. In fact, much research into the L2 writing strategies for kanji draws upon cognitive theory and memorization strategies rather than on the work of other L2 writing strategies scholars. Pedagogical Implications and Applications

If both teachers and learners better understand the linguistic features of the Japanese writing system and how it differs from writing in an alphabetic script, they can adjust their teaching and learning accordingly. Due to the lack of suitability of L2 writing approaches for learning Japanese writing, most teachers and learners study the writing system via methods designed for L1 learners, which can be problematic.

88  Part 1: Curricular Issues

Most novice learners of Japanese, like the general population as a whole, believe that the writing system consists of pictographic representations of meaning, or abstract derivations that have evolved from their pictographic etymologies. Researchers have suggested that beginner learners of kanji almost always apply pictographic strategies to all kanji they encounter. Some widely used resources leverage this assumption and encourage learners to draw pictographic associations with hiragana and katakana. A famous series used in Australia in the 1970s and 1980s purported it was possible to learn hiragana in 48 minutes (Quackenbush & Mieko, 1999), at least at a receptive level. This approach utilizes a mnemonic strategy to encourage associations with the sounds of the language rather than its morphemes. This strategy also appears to be effective for the beginning stages of learning, when the most commonly used kanji are shokeimoji (e.g. the kanji for tree, mountain or river). However, the strategy soon outlives its usefulness as students progress in proficiency and encounter more and more kanji that are abstract or complex in their representations of the language’s morphemes and phonology. To provide an example that I have used elsewhere (Rose, 2017), a learner would be unwise to associate the shape of the kaijimoji (combination kanji) such as 鍵 with its meaning of key, as the shape bears no resemblance to the kanji meaning. For this type of kanji, a strategy that examines the components of the kanji for derived meaning would be more applicable. A study by Mori (1999), which examined learners’ success in deciphering unknown kanji, showed that learners had greater success when components were semantically semi-transparent. In contrast, a keiseimoji or semasio-phonetic ideograph would best be associated with its sound rather than its meaning because it is specifically marked for phonological decoding. The Japanese character for time [時], for example, contains a character on the left meaning sun or day, which ties it to its meaning of time, and a character to its right meaning temple, which gives a clue that the pronunciation of the character is ji, identical to how the left character is pronounced in isolation. While the meaning of temple has little to do with the kanji’s meaning of time, the right component remains as a clue to the pronunciation (in fact, most kanji with temple as its right-side component are pronounced ji). There has been some research (e.g. Horodeck, 1989; Sayeg, 1996) suggesting that native speakers of Japanese draw on phonological processes when reading and writing kanji. Both of these studies found that many errors are phonologically based rather than morphemically based. That is, a writer may make an error in writing by substituting an incorrect kanji of the same pronunciation with the correct one. JFL learners and teachers should be made more explicitly aware of the fact that the majority of kanji are not pictographs, and many are not morphographic, and thus a single method of learning cannot possibly

Unique Challenges of Learning to Write in the Japanese Writing System  89

account for their successful mastery of this script. Research suggests that the use of a wide repertoire of strategies that are selected according to kanji type may greatly reduce the cognitive energy spent by JFL learners. Indeed, some learning strategy research points to the importance of raising learners’ awareness of the strategies available to them to use (Macaro, 2001). It is important to note that raising awareness of strategies to better memorize and recall kanji when writing need not take up a large amount of class time. White et al. (2007), in their review of strategy research, note that even showing students an inventory of strategies can expose learners to new ideas they can use in their own learning. However, teachers must also understand that the use of strategies is highly individualized; just because a teacher finds a strategy helpful for their own learning should not be seen as an indication that their own students will feel the same way. Indeed, L2 reading and writing research of Japanese is in line with general language acquisition research (e.g. Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015) that suggests each individual learns in uniquely different ways. In learner strategy training, therefore, the teacher should take on a facilitating role in order to encourage their learners to experiment with different ways of tackling the kanji problem, rather than forcing particular solutions on them, which may not be a good fit for everyone. In my own study (Rose, 2013), I found a number of students who resented using particular strategies because their use was overemphasized by their teachers. Thus, in raising awareness of the numerous strategies learners use to acquire the Japanese writing system, teachers can help their students select strategies most salient to their own needs. Japanese instructors often struggle to introduce kanji in creative and meaningful ways to learners – indeed one study of mine indicated that as students encounter more kanji they can become fatigued by the learning process (Rose & Harbon, 2013). In this multiple case study of 12 learners of Japanese studying on a year abroad in Japan, we found students who maintained an intense cultural curiosity with the Japanese writing system and were not affected in terms of procrastination, boredom or fatigue by the task of learning kanji. To the contrary, these students were fascinated by the origins of kanji, their complexities and their etymologies. Such a result could indicate that in sparking learners’ cultural curiosity in the writing system, not only might this result in an increase in student motivation to write in the language, but it could also provide them with an historical appreciation of kanji. Activities such as calligraphy and the use of writing to produce art might be small tasks that could potentially spark an interest in the cultural traditions of writing. Such ideas are supported by evidence that participating in the writing culture of the target language can motivate learners (see Yiğitoğlu, 2016). In Yiğitoğlu’s (2016) study, she found that the calligraphy writing culture of Arabic motivated Arabic foreign language learners to learn the language

90  Part 1: Curricular Issues

in general, as did participating in the letter writing culture of Russia for Russian foreign language learners. The pedagogical implication of understanding the uniqueness of the Japanese writing system is immense: both for JFL contexts and for other languages that use a logographic script (e.g. Chinese) and may be encountering similar difficulties. Research suggests that L2 writing practices that have been borrowed from L1 writing practices, such as requiring learners to write out characters repetitively, are not useful substitutes for the L2 learner. This practice, nevertheless, continues to be pervasive, as illustrated by Shimizu and Green’s (2002) study that found repetitive writing was the preferred format of teaching writing in American classrooms. Toyoda and Kubota (2001) found this practice to be one of the least effective memorization techniques in learning, concurring with cognitive theory on memorization strategies that also depict repetitive writing as a shallow and ineffective encoding technique. Thus, JFL teachers need to consider the effectiveness of the classroom activities they use to teach Japanese writing, and to ensure their practices are underpinned by educational theory rather than maintaining the status quo in terms of how they learned to write. Activities that encourage JFL learners to make meaningful connections between the characters in the writing system and the language it represents will prove more efficient than those that encourage shallow learning and production. Research Implications

Considering that very few languages use a logographic script in the world today (Chinese and Japanese), and that the widespread learning of Japanese and Chinese as a foreign language (CFL) is a relatively new phenomenon compared to European languages, there is currently a paucity of research into the learning of these scripts by L2 learners. Problems encountered by JFL and CFL learners provide a unique opportunity for researchers to examine the cognitive processes involved when transitioning from an alphabetic writing system to a morphographic one for the first time. For Japanese – even more so than Chinese – the cognitive processes involved in learning a writing system that constantly jumps between a logographic script and a phonetic script should be of primary interest to cognitive linguists, yet it remains severely under researched. Such research would substantially add to our understanding of mapping and decoding in writing systems research, which provides excellent accounts of phonological decoding and mapping of typographically similar L1 and L2 writing systems (e.g. Woore, 2014, 2016), but currently does not account for the complexities of morphemic decoding in nonalphabetic languages in dissimilar L1 and L2 writing systems. Recent research by Matsumoto (2013) has started to address this gap. Her study examined learners from different writing system backgrounds

Unique Challenges of Learning to Write in the Japanese Writing System  91

engaged in reading three types of kanji. There is potential to expand research of this type in order to fully understand the complex effects of learners’ L1 writing system on the learning of a new writing system, especially Japanese that represents language both phonologically and morphographically. Furthermore, as Matsumoto only explored the reading process, L2 writing still remains severely under researched. Other studies, such as Horodeck’s (1989) investigation of the role of phonology for native Japanese speakers when reading and writing Japanese, show the importance of phonological processes when decoding and producing kanji. However, Horodeck’s study was not published, and this research approach has not been fully developed by researchers since this time. Sayeg’s (1996) research also found phonologic decoding was as important as semantic decoding when reading kanji, but did not extend this exploration to the writing process. Thus, there remains a vacuum of studies in the past two decades that have examined the processing of kanji by L2 learners when writing in Japanese. There is an urgent need for a study such as Horodeck’s on L2 learners, and also for the replication of the Sayeg (1996) study that also incorporates the writing process. I also see the need for more focused comparative research on kana and kanji learning, particularly examining what strategies work best for different types of linguistic representations (e.g. a comparison of strategies salient to learning kana versus kanji; but also comparisons of strategies salient to different types of kanji, such as pictographs versus logograms versus ideographs versus semasio-phonetic ideographs). Previous studies – including my own – have been narrowly focused and typically involved learners studying kanji lists, reporting the strategies they used, and sitting kanji recall tests to examine the effectiveness of these strategies. Few studies have compared how processes vary according to the different scripts of the writing system, or different linguistic representations within the kanji script. Moreover, most studies have focused on kanji recognition (the reading of kanji), and have ignored how these processes manifest in L2 writing. The prevalence of the ‘tip-of-the-pen’ phenomenon (Chikamatsu, 2005) indicates that the two processes are quite distinct – a learner may be able to read many more characters than they are able to write. Finally, there is a need for an exploration of the efficacy of current writing practices in JFL classrooms. Shimizu and Green’s (2002) study on teaching practices focused on the teaching of kanji alone, was only conducted in the USA and is now more than 15 years old; therefore, there is a need for an updated study exploring the current practices for Japanese language. Such a study will help researchers to better situate JFL writing practices within the current literature of L2 writing instruction. Likewise, there is a need for more intervention research exploring the efficacy of teaching practices on the learning of the writing system. Topics such as written corrective feedback are booming in L2 English writing research,

92  Part 1: Curricular Issues

but are scarcely explored in JFL contexts. This is despite clear applications of such research on ‘focus on form’ teaching and error correction practices, which are prevalent in JFL writing instruction. Conclusion: Implications for L2 Writing in General

This chapter has shown that learning to write in Japanese poses unique challenges for many learners. Challenges stem from the complexities of the writing system in terms of how it represents the language, and the large number of novel characters a learner must memorize before they are able to write. As a result of these hurdles, the challenges of JFL learners are not fully explained by much L2 writing research, which tends to focus on the linguistic, discoursal, organizational and cohesive structures of writing, rather than the learning of features across writing systems. This disparity exists because much L2 writing research centers on L2 writing of English, which uses a comparatively more transparent writing system. I concur with Nag and Snowling (2012: 404) who state that ‘compared to the voluminous literature on reading development in alphabetic languages, studies of nonalphabetic scripts are still relatively rare’. The same imbalance can also be observed within the extant literature on writing development. In short, overemphasis on English and other alphabet-based L2 writing has created a skewed understanding of challenges in L2 writing. This skewedness is also prevalent in many research papers, which claim to contribute to L2 writing theory building, but do so through a narrow focus on one language. As a result, many conclusions drawn from L2 English research contexts are unjustifiably generalized to all L2s. Thus, the field desperately requires a boost in research on languages other than English. Such research can help to confirm what theory is universal to L2 reading and writing, and what theory is language specific (Nag & Snowling, 2012). JFL research, in particular, has much to offer L2 writing theory, because many learners from an alphabetic writing system need to adapt to an unfamiliar non-alphabetic writing system, which poses unique challenges for learning. At the moment, these challenges and the search for suitable solutions are largely undocumented, under researched and thus highlight new avenues for L2 writing research. References Anderson, J.R. (2005) Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications (6th edn). New York: W.F. Freeman. Atkinson, D. (2003) L2 writing in the post-process era: Introduction. Journal of Second Language Writing 12, 3–15. Bourke, B. (1996) Maximising efficiency in the kanji learning task. PhD thesis, University of Queensland. Breen, M.P. (1985) Authenticity in the language classroom. Applied Linguistics 6 (1), 60–70.

Unique Challenges of Learning to Write in the Japanese Writing System  93

Casanave, C.P. (2003) Looking ahead to more sociopolitically-oriented case study research in L2 writing scholarship. Journal of Second Language Writing 12, 85–102. Chikamatsu, N. (2003) The effects of computer use on L2 Japanese writing. Foreign Language Annals 36 (1), 114–127. Chikamatsu, N. (2005) L2 Japanese kanji memory and retrieval: An experiment on the tip-of-the-pen (TOP) phenomenon. In V. Cook and B. Bassetti (eds) Second Language Writing Systems (pp. 71–96). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z. and Ryan, S. (2015) The Psychology of the Language Learner Revisited. Abingdon: Routledge. Everson, M.E. (2011) Best practices in teaching logographic and non-Roman writing systems to L2 learners. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31, 249–274. Flower, L. and Hayes, J.R. (1981) A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication 32 (4), 365–387. Hinkel, E. (2011) What research on second language writing tells us and what it doesn’t. In E. Hinkel (ed.) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, Volume 2 (pp. 523–538). New York: Routledge. Horodeck, R.A. (1989) The role of sound in reading and writing kanji. PhD thesis, Cornell University. Hyland, K. (2003) Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (1), 17–29. Jackson, F.H. and Malone, M.E. (2009) Building the Foreign Language Capacity We Need: Toward a Comprehensive Strategy for a National Language. Center for Applied Linguistics. See http:​//www​.cal.​org/c​onten​t/dow​nload​/2795​/3563​3/ver​sion/​1/ fil​e/bui​lding​-fore​ign-l​angua​ge-ca​pacit​y.pdf​ (accessed 28 November 2018). Kato, F. (2002) Efficacy of intervention strategies in learning success rates. Foreign Language Annals 35, 61–72. Lu, M., Webb, J.M., Krus, D.J. and Fox, L.S. (1999) Using order analytic instructional hierarchies of mnemonics to facilitate learning Chinese and Japanese kanji characters. The Journal of Experimental Education 67, 293–311. Macaro, E. (2001) Learning Strategies in Foreign and Second Language Classrooms. London: Continuum. Matsumoto, K. (2013) Kanji recognition by second language learners: Exploring effects of first language writing systems and second language exposure. Modern Language Journal 97, 161–177. Matlin, M.W. (2005) Cognition (6th edn). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. McKinley, J. (2010) English language writing centres in Japanese universities: What do students really need? Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 1 (1), 17–31. McKinley, J. (2013) Displaying critical thinking in EFL academic writing: A discussion of Japanese to English contrastive rhetoric. RELC Journal 44 (2), 195–208. McKinley, J. (2014) The impact of Western criticisms of Japanese rhetorical approaches on learners of Japanese. Language Learning in Higher Education 4 (2), 303–319. Mori, Y. (1999) Beliefs about language learning and their relationship to the ability to integrate information from word parts and context in interpreting novel kanji words. The Modern Language Journal 83 (4), 535–547. Nag, S. and Snowling, M.J. (2012) Reading in an alphasyllabary: Implications for a language universal theory of learning to read. Scientific Studies of Reading 16 (5), 404–423. Nag, S., Snowling, M., Quinlan, P. and Hulme, C. (2014) Child and symbol factors in learning to read a visually complex writing system. Scientific Studies of Reading 18 (5), 309–324. Oxford, R.L. (1990) Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury House Publisher.

94  Part 1: Curricular Issues

Paradis, M., Hagiwara, N. and Hildebrandt, N. (1985) Neurolinguistic Aspects of the Japanese Writing System. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Quackenbush, H.C. and Mieko, O. (1999) Hiragana in 48 Minutes. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation. Rose, H. (2003) Teaching learning strategies for learner success. BABEL: Journal of Modern Language Teaching Association Australia 38 (2), 32–38. Rose, H. (2013) L2 learners’ attitudes toward, and use of, mnemonic strategies when learning Japanese kanji. The Modern Language Journal 97 (4), 981–992. Rose, H. (2015) Researching language learner strategies. In B. Paltridge and A. Phakiti (eds) Research Methods in Applied Linguistics (pp. 421–438). New York: Bloomsbury. Rose, H. (2017) The Japanese Writing System: Challenges, Strategies and Self-Regulation for Learning Kanji. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Rose, H. and Harbon, L. (2013) Self-regulation in second language learning: An investigation of the kanji-learning task. Foreign Language Annals 46 (1), 96–107. Rose, H. and Carson, L. (2014) Chinese and Japanese language learning and foreign language education in Japan and China: Some international perspectives. Language Learning in Higher Education 4 (2), 259–269. Sayeg, Y. (1996) The role of sound in reading kanji and kana: A review. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 19 (2), 139–151. Shimizu, H. and Green, K.E. (2002) Japanese language educators’ strategies for and attitudes toward teaching kanji. The Modern Language Journal 86 (2), 227–241. Toyoda, E. (1998) Teaching kanji by focusing on learners’ development of graphemic awareness. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics Series 5 (15), 155–168. Toyoda, E. and Kubota, M. (2001) Learning strategies employed for learning words written in kanji versus kana. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 24 (2), 1–16. Walton, A.R. (1993) Japanese language in US high schools: A new initiative. Modern Language Journal 77 (4), 522–523. White, C., Schramm, K. and Chamot, A.U. (2007) Research methods in strategy research. In A.D. Cohen and E. Macaro (eds) Language Learner Strategies (pp. 93–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, H.G. (1998) Context, community and authentic language. TESOL Quarterly 32 (4), 705–716. Woore, R. (2014) Beginner learners’ progress in decoding L2 French: Transfer effects in typologically similar L1-L2 writing systems. Writing Systems Research 6 (2), 167–189. Woore, R. (2016) Learners’ pronunciations of familiar and unfamiliar French words: What can they tell us about phonological decoding in an L2? The Language Learning Journal 1–14. Yiğitoğlu, N. (2016) The role of writing in learning less-commonly-taught languages in Turkey. Journal of the National Council of Less Commonly Taught Languages 19, 2–30.

6 Feedback to Feed Forward: Giving Effective Feedback in Advanced Chinese Writing Ming Fang and Andie Wang

Introduction

Writing ability is often considered to be a strong indicator of language proficiency (Agustín, 2011). The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL, 2012) proficiency guidelines clearly outline the expected writing performance of learners at different proficiency levels. It is evident that developing students’ writing competency is an important task in foreign language education. Some scholars have meaningfully explored the interface of second language (L2) writing and L2 acquisition (e.g. Ortega, 2012; Williams, 2012). Recent research also suggests that writing has a facilitative role in one’s L2 development. This facilitative role relies heavily on teacher feedback of student writing, and teacher feedback is crucial in the draft–feedback–revision cycle. In this chapter, we carried out a close examination of teacher written corrective feedback (WCF) in the second author’s teaching context. As noted by Manchón (2009: 14–15), the scarcity of scholarly work on giving effective written feedback in foreign language teaching and the importance of this topic warrant more investigation on it. Specifically, there are two goals that motivate our discussion in this chapter. First, we hope to enrich the analytic descriptions of teacher feedback, especially in the context of teaching Chinese as a foreign language, a rare context for feedback research. We realize there are a plethora of empirical studies on teacher feedback. One major category of such study is the descriptive studies of what teachers actually do when responding to student writing. For instance, Ferris et al. (1997) examined a teacher’s written commentary on a sample of 111 essay drafts by 47 advanced English as a second language (ESL) students, and found the commentary varied among different genre types of assignments, among students with varying competence levels, and lessened as the semester progressed. Montgomery and Baker (2007) investigated the local and global written 95

96  Part 1: Curricular Issues

feedback that teachers gave and teachers’ self-assessments on their local and global written feedback. The results showed that there was a mismatch between teacher perceptions and their actual performance. These descriptive studies have enriched our understanding of teacher written feedback and their perceptions on feedback practices. The text-analytic descriptions of written teacher feedback, useful for descriptive studies, however, are not sufficient (Ferris & Hedgcock, 2014), and to our knowledge, such studies are even rarer in the foreign language writing literature. Second, although written feedback has been a constant topic in scholarly journals and discussions in ESL writing and writing studies (Ferris et al., 2011; Montgomery & Baker, 2007; Sommers, 1982; Zamel, 1985), it has largely remained a rarely charted territory in the teaching of foreign languages, especially the less commonly taught languages such as Arabic and Chinese. As Reichelt (2016: 195) states in a recently published synthesis of L2 writing in non-English languages, research into non-English L2 writing is just beginning to coalesce as an area of focused inquiry. In this chapter, we hope to contribute to this area of inquiry by discussing teacher feedback and students’ uptake in foreign language contexts. As Martinez and Roca de Larios (2010) state, teachers are usually not given any clear guidelines about providing feedback, and feedback techniques are rarely explicitly discussed. In addition to the focus on the nature of teacher feedback, Hyland et al. (2017) also point out the need to investigate students’ uptake of the feedback. We hope our discussion of both teacher feedback and student uptake in this chapter will contribute to the very purpose of this collected volume. We propose to provide an analysis of teacher feedback on an advanced Chinese writing task. We seek answers to two research questions: (1) What type of feedback did the instructor provide for student writing in Chinese as an L2 at advanced level? (2) How did the students respond to the instructor’s feedback in revisions? We start with a comparison of ESL writing and Chinese writing, hoping to outline the specific features of Chinese. Then, we look at the draft–feedback–revision cycles of a major writing task in a college-level advanced Chinese course. We describe patterns of teacher feedback as well as the features of student revisions. Based on these observations, we offer pedagogical and research implications. ESL Writing and Chinese Writing

Feedback research on ESL writing can certainly benefit our discussion of feedback in Chinese as a foreign language writing. Previous studies on feedback to student ESL writing focus on students’ views of feedback and teachers’ practices and beliefs in providing feedback. For instance, Best et al. (2015) investigated how students in their program’s advanced writing course viewed, responded to and made meaning from the feedback they received. The feedback strategies discussed in those studies, such as

Feedback to Feed Forward  97

modeling and prioritizing, are not language specific, and are therefore relevant when the target language is other than English. A particular type of feedback, WCF, has been taken up as a frequent topic of investigation by many researchers. WCF is particularly relevant to our discussion in this chapter, since it is the major type of teacher feedback in the teaching context presented in this chapter. Emerging from the feedback literature mainly on ESL writing, as noted by Ferris (2013), some suggestions for WCF are as follows: (1) Teacher feedback should focus on multiple aspects of writing, including organization, content, language style and mechanics, and feedback needs to be tailored to the students’ individual needs. (2) Teacher feedback should focus primarily on the organization and content of the draft, saving language and mechanic issues for the end of the writing process. (3) Prioritizing error correction on treatable error patterns is important as comprehensive error correction can be overwhelming thus less beneficial. (4) When error feedback is provided, indirect error feedback is more beneficial than direct error feedback in the long run. While most of these best practice suggestions can be readily transferrable to foreign language teaching contexts where the target language is not English, some may need reconsideration, since there are also particular considerations for language-specific features, the different learning goals of foreign language courses, as well as the role of writing in foreign language teaching context. There are clear differences between ESL writing and non-English L2 writing, especially considering the function of writing in students’ future academic and professional lives. Research shows that ESL writers tend to regard writing more useful than non-English L2 writers (Reichelt, 2016). Writing skills in Chinese are probably among the most difficult to acquire for foreign language learners given the complexities of the character system and the diverse linguistic and cultural conventions associated with it. For example, although sharing the same basic sentence structure of noun phrase and verb phrase, Chinese sentences are hard to define and have flexible construction rules revolving around the special topic-comment structure (Shei, 2014; Shi, 2000). In addition, syntactic constructions are not only governed by syntactic rules, but also subject to lexical and prosodic requirements. This means that collocation and prosody need to be considered along with syntactic rules in the judgment of the grammaticality of a sentence (Po-Ching & Rimmington, 2004). As such, when giving feedback to students, sometimes it is impossible to separate grammar errors from the vocabulary or word choice errors.

98  Part 1: Curricular Issues

When we look at the goals of Chinese courses, although writing skills are often targeted in these courses, the complexity of writing is often not a primary goal of the courses, unlike some ESL courses that have the ambitious goal of preparing students for the advanced study of an Englishmedium university curriculum. Despite the popularity of language learning pedagogy that aims to improve students’ communicative competence, such as communicative approach or task-based learning, writing still remains largely a language practice in many Chinese courses, rather than genuine meaning-producing communication. For Chinese foreign language learners who often do not have much access to the target language outside classrooms, nor the urgent need to use the language immediately outside the classroom, writing tasks assigned in a Chinese course become pivotal in providing them with learning opportunities to practice important language skills. Improving students’ language proficiency is a primary goal of many foreign language courses, unlike ESL writing courses, especially advanced ESL writing courses, which generally do not take a strong focus on language development. In Chinese courses, even advanced Chinese courses, where writing is still a tool for student whole language development, the feedback that the teacher provides can still be largely on lexical or grammatical aspects. We think these contextual factors that any instructor operates on in a language course are important to be considered when exploring the Chinese language instructor’s feedback practices. Because of the notoriously hard-to-learn Chinese characters, the focus of teaching Chinese as a foreign language has traditionally leaned toward decoding characters rather than writing. Even the necessity of developing learners’ ability to write in Chinese has been controversial. Some even argued that it would be a waste of time (Allen, 2008). Similar to other L2 writing contexts, there was also a debate as to whether the problem in writing in Chinese is a writing one or a language one (Aliakbari, 2002). As corrective feedback is driven by the conceptualization of writing in the Chinese language teaching, the question of what role writing plays in Chinese language learning is essential to understanding the use of corrective feedback in this study. We argue that it is also the other way around, that is, how corrective feedback is given in writing in Chinese is a reflection of the role of writing in a Chinese language learning context. Instead of simply offering a description of an instructor’s practice, we are also interested in exploring the link between writing as conceptualized in Chinese language learning, the instructor’s perceptions of the function of writing tasks and his/her feedback and the instructor’s feedback practice. Research Context: An Advanced Chinese Language Course The role of writing in an advanced Chinese language course

The context for the present study was a small liberal arts college in the USA where Chinese was taught as an L2. In this context, the need

Feedback to Feed Forward  99

to improve students’ Chinese writing ability was being re-examined and reinforced under the influence of the writing across curricula campaign on campus. As Chinese language classes have become a popular choice in the foreign language curriculum in the K-12 setting, an increasing number of students in recent years have come to college with a much higher Chinese language proficiency level than years ago. Thus, more freshmen were placed in higher-level Chinese courses and in order to fulfill their two-year foreign language requirement, the Chinese language program was obliged to provide more courses at intermediate and advanced levels. The change in student population required a more rigorous Chinese language curriculum. In response to the changing needs of the student population and the drive for writing across curricula, an advanced Chinese language course was initiated with a strengthened writing component. Students taking the course were required to have completed four years of Chinese language courses or the equivalent. According to the ACTFL (2012) proficiency guidelines, their Chinese proficiency level was estimated to range from advanced low to advanced mid in all four modalities. The course adopted Wiggins and McTighe’s (1998) Backward Design framework and developed a content-based curriculum using the Chinese food culture as the course theme. Five topics were selected for the semester, including food landscape, food memories, food choice, food safety and food trend. For each topic, a series of authentic literary essays and video materials were introduced to students for class discussion and homework assignments. Although the reading material was purposefully selected to include a variety of genres such as narrative, analysis and argumentation, writing tasks were designed mainly for language practice, not with the purpose of writing in genres or a communicative act. The theme-based curriculum approach in this context

The curriculum adopted an integrated approach to Chinese language learning, the writing component in the curriculum equivalent to the other three modalities: listening, speaking and reading. Writing was practiced in the form of free writing, short paragraph writing homework and essay writing. The essay writing was assigned at the end of each unit as a summative assessment tool in which students were asked to write a three-tofour paragraph essay in Chinese in response to a series of prompts given by the instructor. Student needs and instructor practices

The two types of writing – writing to learn and writing to c­ ommunicate – however, were not equally emphasized in the course. According to Manchó́n (2011), the writing to learn dimension includes writing activities that not only aim at students’ development of writing

100  Part 1: Curricular Issues

competence, but also contribute to other areas of development. Feedback is closely associated with this dimension of writing as students process the WCF provided to enhance their interlanguage. Whereas the writing to communicate dimension mainly concerns students’ learning to express themselves per their communicative needs. Most of the students in the advanced Chinese language course were Chinese majors or minors who were expected by the department to develop their Chinese language proficiency toward superior according to the ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Writing ability was a significant component of the requirement. The instructor also believed that writing in Chinese is a meaningful tool to cultivate a deeper understanding of the Chinese language and culture because writing contributes to the development of metacognition and higher-order thinking skills (Yancey et al., 2014). Thus, the primary purpose for the students to write in the course was to further develop their Chinese language proficiency and cultural knowledge, or write to learn. There were also practical reasons for some students to write in Chinese. For example, one student was applying for a job in which he was expected to write in Chinese to communicate with his future customers. Several of them were Chinese heritage language learners and felt highly motivated to learn to write to communicate with family, relatives and friends in Chinese. Nevertheless, writing to communicate was not the primary focus of the course. As the instructor reflected later, it was a decision the instructor had made because she did not feel ready or confident to teach writing to communicate in the course back then. The instructor was a native speaker of Mandarin Chinese, the target language of the course. She came to the USA with a master’s degree in applied linguistics and a BA in English. At the time of teaching the course, she was a doctoral candidate in second language education in a research university in the USA. She took multiple courses on writing in an L2 and assessment in the graduate school; however, in practice, she had not had experience teaching writing in an advanced Chinese class. She did have years of experience teaching integrated English to non-English majors in a university in China, where writing is a necessary component and serves language practice more than a communicative act. She has found that Chinese language courses in the US setting are similar to the integrated English course in China in this aspect. Specific writing tasks

During the course, the students were asked to compose three essay writings on three topics under the course theme of food: food stories, food safety and food trend. For each essay writing task, the topic and genre of the writing were closely related to the corresponding reading and listening materials in

Feedback to Feed Forward  101

each unit. For example, in one unit, the reading material was a narrative story of the best breakfast between a father and his son. The essay writing was also a narrative in which students were asked to write about a memorable meal in their life. In the unit on food safety, the students were asked to make a comparison between food safety in China and other countries in an analytical writing after reading about food safety issues in China. For the unit on food trend, students were guided to read an opinion essay on the gradual loss of traditional food and watch a TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) Talk, an American set of conferences run by the private non-profit organization Sapling Foundation (https://www.ted.com/talks), on the importance of local food promotion. Afterward, they were asked to share their opinions on the direction that dieting may take in the future and provide evidence they had gathered in and outside class to support their opinions. Although these writing tasks have so much potential in developing students’ genre awareness, the purpose of them is not to introduce genre features, but to create meaningful context for students to practice and use the target language. Each unit took six class periods, 75 minutes each, across three weeks. For each unit, the writing task was used as one of the two summative assessment tools (the other was an oral presentation in class). When assigning the writing task, the instructor provided the following scaffolding: leading an analysis of the discourse characteristics of an assigned reading piece on the unit theme in class and providing a list of questions as prompts for generating ideas for writing. Then, students were allowed approximately one week for the first draft on their own time. The instructor believed that the alignment between supporting material, class activities and the writing topic served the purpose of providing adequate and meaningful scaffolding for students’ writing. After the students turned in their first draft, the instructor gave written feedback, mostly in English, on both language and content, including both inserted comments and summative feedback at the end. It was not required that a student had a writing conference meeting with the instructor, although the instructor had conference meetings with several students upon their request. After the instructor gave feedback on the first draft, students had up to three revision opportunities before a grade was assigned to their writing. The revision process did not count toward the grade, yet encouraged students to collect feedback from others (e.g. the instructor, the tutors who were Chinese international students and their Chinese-speaking friends) and revise their writing as much as possible. The target characteristics of Chinese language use in the writing task were clarity and accuracy. In practice, under the overarching principle of viewing writing as a process, the instructor gave different types of feedback for each draft. A common distinction made with different types

102  Part 1: Curricular Issues

of feedback is direct versus indirect feedback. When a teacher provides direct feedback, the correct form of the target language is provided to the student writer; whereas, when a teacher provides indirect feedback, only an indication is provided to the students that an error has been made. When looking at students’ first drafts, the instructor mostly marked on language errors and places where language was inappropriate and refrained from giving direct feedback in the belief that students were capable of self-correcting some of the errors. Subsequently, if the students failed to self-correct, she tended to give hints (e.g. giving a sentence pattern or listing synonyms) and direct feedback (e.g. ‘食物 for food’ or ‘饭 for rice’). The errors that remained were an indication of two possible cases: the students were unable to notice the errors and needed explicit feedback from the instructor, such as pointing out the error and providing the correct form, or they had no knowledge of how to correct the errors. In either case, explicit feedback was provided. Data Collection and Analysis

To closely examine the teacher feedback and the students’ revisions, we selected one writing task from the course: the final essay writing task described in the previous section, which asked students to write about the food trend in the future. We selected six students’ working drafts and final drafts. Our selection was based on the maximum variation principle (Patton, 2002). Those six students, although all enrolled in the advanced Chinese course, were at slightly different proficiency levels, as commented on and observed by their teacher. Also, their language backgrounds varied. Four students were heritage language learners with stronger language exposure and practice opportunities in their previous language learning experience; and two students had less exposure and practice compared to the heritage language learners. Despite the differences, the variance in their writing performances in the task under study did not point to an explicit link with their heritage/non-heritage language background. We coded all the teacher comments into three different categories: grammar, vocabulary and content. We did not include ‘structure’ as a category here since we did not find any comments on essay structure in our reading of the drafts and comments. A special feature of the Chinese language, as discussed before, is that the syntactic rules are operational in conjunction with semantic principles. Therefore, sometimes, the distinction between the misuse of vocabulary and grammar errors is blurry. For instance, some students would conflate ‘而’ [yet] with ‘而且’ [but also]. At first glance, this may look like a misuse of words. However, because of the different clauses that these two conjunctions may connect, the students’ problem may be grammar related rather than vocabulary related. To ensure the accuracy of our coding, both authors went through the drafts together, discussed and reached agreement on the coding

Feedback to Feed Forward  103

categories. We also showed the coding of one draft to another faculty teaching Chinese for further member checking. Teacher written feedback

In going through the teacher’s written feedback for all six working drafts, we noticed several patterns in her feedback practice. First of all, we noticed a strong focus on the accuracy of language use. Most of the teacher’s feedback comments were either on vocabulary or on grammar. Table 6.1 shows the results of our coding for the six students’ working drafts. As can be seen from Table  6.1, the teacher was mainly focused on the accuracy of writing when giving feedback. This is not surprising in foreign language contexts, where instructors attach great importance to the accuracy of writing. This is a distinct feature to note in the foreign language writing context, since much of the literature on L2 writing in English seems to argue for prioritizing feedback on ‘global concerns’ that address the content and structure of the writing, rather than providing feedback on ‘local concerns’ that address the sentence-level issues. From our observation, the feedback was mostly on error correction. While the teacher gave brief comments on content, such as ‘理由很充分’ [argument well supported with sufficient reasons], her major focus was clearly on the correct language use. Also, the comments on content were mostly favorable, affirming students’ ideas in writing, with only a couple of exceptions, where the teacher encouraged students to be more specific and to strengthen the logic connection of different ideas. Second, we noticed a strong tendency for the teacher to provide direct feedback, especially on grammar-related errors. From the feedback literature, we know that one of the most important decisions in error correction is whether teachers should provide direct or indirect feedback. Direct feedback provides the correct form of the target language to the student writer; whereas indirect feedback only suggests to students that an error has been made. Students are expected to self-correct. Figures 6.1 through 6.5 are examples illustrating the teacher’s direct and indirect feedback. Table 6.1  The number of teacher feedback on each category Student names

Grammar feedback

Vocabulary feedback

Content feedback

Alex

8 (7 direct and 1 indirect)

12 (6 direct and 6 indirect)

3

Dong

6 (5 direct and 1 indirect)

10 (4 direct and 6 indirect)

1

Mai

6 (6 direct and 0 indirect)

9 (3 direct and 6 indirect)

3

Hao

6 (6 direct and 0 indirect)

2 (1 indirect and 1 direct)

1

Han

5 (5 direct and 0 indirect)

5 (4 direct and 1 indirect)

0

Sai

8 (8 direct and 0 indirect)

7 (5 direct and 2 indirect)

0

104  Part 1: Curricular Issues

Figure 6.1   A sample of direct feedback

In the example in Figure 6.1, the teacher circled the phrases that were used incorrectly and provided the correct options above. It is interesting to note that the teacher put a question mark after the correct form she provided. That may suggest two intentions of the teacher: (1) the willingness to negotiate the meaning of the student writing and (2) the intention to make the feedback less directive. Figure  6.2 shows a different approach by the teacher. She only circled the errors without providing the correct forms. There were three contexts when the teacher provided this type of feedback. First, she predicted that the student was able to self-correct. Second, she had already provided direct feedback for a similar or the same error. Third, she was not sure what the student writer intended to express. In the second line in Figure  6.2, a question mark was used, which indicated the teacher’s confusion. In addition to the clear distinctions shown by the examples in ­Figures 6.1 and 6.2, sometimes the teacher provided different options of target language form without explicitly pointing out which one to use. In that case, we still categorized the feedback as indirect (Figure 6.3). In Figure  6.3, the teacher underlined the word ‘平凡’ [ordinary] and suggested a few other synonyms: ‘usual’ [普通], ‘regular’ [平常], ‘commonplace’ [常见]. However, she did not explain which of these synonyms should be used in this sentence. Therefore, we still categorized such feedback as indirect. While most experts in L2 writing would agree that indirect feedback has the most potential to help students develop their proficiency and metalinguistic knowledge, especially for advanced-level students, direct

Figure 6.2   A sample of indirect feedback

Feedback to Feed Forward  105

Figure 6.3   A sample of indirect feedback

correction can be productive with idiomatic lexical errors (Ferris & Hedgcock, 2014) or for students who are unable to self-correct. Panova and Lyster (2002) also suggested that direct feedback may help students master new forms of language, whereas less explicit feedback may help with deeper processing of familiar forms. The teacher had considered these in her feedback choices. As the teacher reflected on the rationale of her practice, she said, I think I always have an urge to provide the correct forms to students. That’s why most of my feedback are direct. On vocabulary though, these are advanced students, and some errors can be easily discerned on their own if they carefully proofread; however, I’m not quite sure that’s the same with grammar and sentence structures. At this level, most of the students can express themselves clearly in writing, however, the ‘foreignness’ still shows with awkward sentence structures, sometimes due to the negative transfer of their first language. I guess it’s hard to correct that on their own. Also, these students, although at the advanced level, are usually better at speaking and listening because of their previous learning experience at the lower levels and they have not systematically learned Chinese grammar. So I think providing that explicit feedback on grammar-related errors would be beneficial.

Third, another question to consider when giving feedback is whether to give feedback on some or on all errors. In the L2 writing literature, most experts argue for selective feedback since it is less overwhelming for both the teacher and the students and it allows prioritization of error correction (e.g. Van Beuningen et  al., 2012). There are also arguments for comprehensive feedback because of student preference and the need for thorough error correction when students do real-world writing tasks. This teacher took a comprehensive feedback approach. The example in Figure 6.4 shows this approach. As we can see from Figure 6.4, the feedback is quite comprehensive, with circles, underlines, wavy lines, arrows and various direct target language forms. The feedback was not focused on a particular structure or language feature. To sum up, the patterns of feedback that we have observed so far are a strong focus on error treatment, predominantly direct feedback, especially on grammar-related errors and, finally, a comprehensive

106  Part 1: Curricular Issues

Figure 6.4   Comprehensive feedback sample

feedback approach. Although these patterns seem to conflict with the best practices suggested in ESL writing feedback, the teacher’s practice can also be well justified, considering the targeted learning outcomes, student motivation and proficiency levels and her course design and writing task design. As previously mentioned, the writing tasks in a Chinese course are crucial opportunities for students’ language development, and accurate use of the target language is a fundamental learning goal, hence the pressing need for error correction. The direct feedback approach may link to language-specific features. As previously mentioned, Chinese sentence constructions are flexible and dependent not only on syntactic rules but also on lexical and prosodic requirements, which challenges making grammatical judgements on a sentence in students’ writing. In many cases, it was hard to identify the causes for the students’ syntactical errors, which could be multiple, and provide indirect feedback. Therefore, she chose to provide direct feedback based on her assumption of the students’ intended meanings. Direct feedback also serves as beneficial language input for students. The comprehensive feedback approach is a reality in the language classroom (Van Beuningen, 2010); it is the most common type of feedback that teachers give. Van Beuningen et al. (2012)

Feedback to Feed Forward  107

also found comprehensive feedback to be effective in increasing accuracy, which is an explicit learning goal of this course under discussion. Students’ revisions

When we went over students’ final drafts, we identified the error corrections one by one. Since the teacher feedback on content did not seem to play a major role in students’ subsequent revisions, we excluded this category from our analysis on student writing. Table 6.2 summarizes the students’ revisions in response to their teacher’s feedback. In Table 6.2, we notice that although the teacher’s feedback is comprehensive, it does not seem to overwhelm the students. Overall, the students’ revisions were successful; all students attempted to correct all the errors pointed out either directly or indirectly by their teacher. Most of the revisions were accurate and therefore improved the overall quality of their writing. Since the teacher was providing a lot of direct feedback, some may argue that it is easy for students just to take the forms the teacher provided and make corrections, which is exactly why many experts hold against direct feedback. We do not totally refute this argument. However, in order for students to make accurate corrections, they need to first understand the feedback given to them, and then know how to incorporate that into their writing. In the case of Chinese, it is not always easy to make such corrections. Students still need to take some agency in making corrections. Figure 6.5 is an example of student revisions. In Figure  6.5, the teacher underlined the last sentence ‘下面是普通人整体吃什么的一个例子’ [Below is an example of what an ordinary person eats everyday] and also provided direct feedback above the sentence ‘下面的例子说明了’ [Below is an example that explains]. However, that direct feedback does not complete the whole sentence. The student still needed to figure out how the sentence should be structured.

Table 6.2  Students’ revision results Student names

Grammar error correction

Vocabulary error correction

Alex

All 8 errors corrected

9 errors corrected, 1 ignored, 2 failed revision attempts

Dong

5 errors corrected, 1 failed revision attempt

All 10 errors corrected

Mai

All 6 errors corrected

All 9 errors corrected

Hao

All 6 errors corrected

Both errors corrected

Han

All 5 errors corrected

All 5 errors corrected

Sai

2 failed revision attempts, 6 errors corrected

6 error corrected, 1 failed revision

108  Part 1: Curricular Issues

Figure 6.5   A sample sentence from a student’s working draft

Second, we also notice that, despite the direct feedback provided to them, students did not always simply take the correct form supplied by the teacher; instead, they made revisions that made sense to them. For instance, the following is how the student revised the error pointed out in Figure 6.5:   Before revision: 下面是普通人整天吃什么的一个例子     (Literal translation: Below is ordinary person whole day eat what an example)    Teacher direct feedback: 下面的例子说明了     (Literal translation: Below’s example explains)   After revision: 下面举一个普通人日常生活的例子     (Literal translation: Below make an ordinary person daily life’s example) As we can see, this student did not take the teacher’s direct feedback. He changed the structural as well as the semantic aspects of his original sentence that the teacher had marked wrong. Nonetheless, his sentence after revision is grammatically correct and is also improved in style. The following is another example:   Before revision: 在发展的中世界      (Literal translation: Among the developing middle world)    Teacher direct feedback: 发展中国家？      (Literal translation: The developing countries?)   After revision: 在第三世界      (Literal translation: Among the third world) The sentence before revision is unclear in meaning. Then, the teacher provided a possible correction, but with a question mark, suggesting one possibility of correction. The student, instead of taking the direct feedback, chose another expression that shared the same meaning. We argue that it can be beneficial for teachers to frame their direct feedback as options for students to consider and also encourage students to explore other possibilities. Third, we also find that students were able to self-correct most errors that were located by the indirect feedback. The teacher identified the most vocabulary-related errors in Alex, Dong and

Feedback to Feed Forward  109

Mai’s working drafts. The three students were able to self-correct almost all errors, with the only exception being one error in Alex’s draft, which he failed to address. This shows the great potential of students’ selfcorrection. On reflection, the teacher also acknowledged that she could have provided more indirect feedback, especially considering the high proficiency level and high motivation of the students. Lastly, we would also like to point out two major sources of errors that we have identified in examining students’ errors and their selfcorrections. One error source is quite common for all foreign language learners: the negative transfer of the first language (L1). This negative transfer results in both vocabulary and grammar errors. For instance, to express ‘after arrival at work’, a student translated ‘work’ directly into the Chinese word ‘工作’. However, in Chinese, the collocation never goes as ‘arrival at work’; following ‘arrival’ is always a specific location where one works, such as ‘arrival at one’s office’, ‘arrival at the hospital’, ‘arrival at the factory’. The teacher was giving direct feedback on such errors, and the students were able to self-correct with that input in their subsequent revisions. However, whether the students can apply these self-corrections and become more conscious of the language differences is still unclear, given the limitation of the current study. Another error source is perhaps unique to the Chinese language. Chinese has two systems: the sound system (Pinyin) and the character system (Hanzi). Learners of Chinese usually start with the Pinyin system, especially English as L1 learners. When these student writers compose on a computer, they type Pinyin and then select the characters from the options given by the language input system. As such, knowing the sound (Pinyin) is very important; if a student doesn’t know how to pronounce a word, the right option for the characters will not show up. However, sometimes, students may probably rely too much on Pinyin and fail to notice the correct form of the characters, resulting in the selection of the wrong option. This is especially true when words share the same Pinyin but take different characters. For instance, when one types Pinyin ‘shi’pin’ without the tone markers, the corresponding characters can be ‘视频’ [video] or ‘食品’ [food] or ‘饰品’ [decoration/jewelry]. Five out of the six students made such character selection errors. However, they were also able to fix the errors on their own in the subsequent revisions, even when the teacher was giving mostly indirect feedback on such errors. Pedagogical Implications and Applications

In the previous section, we closely examined a few students’ writing in this course and discussed the teacher’s feedback, mainly WCF, and students’ revisions in response to the feedback. As we can see from the analysis, some pedagogical practices were contradictory with the best practices usually recommended in the ESL feedback literature. In the

110  Part 1: Curricular Issues

following, we discuss these contradictions and summarize what we have learned from this study, sharing pedagogical implications for writing in an L2 in general. First, as the results indicated, the instructor offered comprehensive feedback for each draft without a particular focus, and the students attended to most of the feedback in their revisions. Given the positive connection between the instructor’s WCF and the students’ revisions, it may be argued that advanced learners like those in this study may be capable of processing a wider range of feedback at one time and potentially benefitting from it. This argument is supported by some researchers (e.g. Bitchener & Storch, 2016; Goins, 2015; Hartshorn et al., 2010; Van Beuningen et  al., 2012). In an ESL context, Hartshorn et  al. (2010: 89) even proposed that a more comprehensive approach to student errors in writing at the advanced level, or what they called ‘dynamic written corrective feedback’, was conducive to learners’ linguistic accuracy. Likewise, our study indicated that a dynamic WCF approach was effective at least in the early stage of cognitive processing (i.e. uptake in revisions) in a Chinese as a foreign language context. Second, as previously mentioned, the instructor in this study utilized predominantly indirect feedback the first time and a significant amount of direct feedback later. The instructor believed that the sequence of types of feedback, from indirect to direct, was helpful to cultivate students’ ability to self-correct. The benefits and drawbacks of using either direct or indirect feedback in L2 teaching have long been controversial and in need of further investigation (Bitchener & Storch, 2016). While many studies support the use of indirect feedback (Ferris et  al., 2013), some who have defended the validity of direct feedback have argued that the use of direct feedback has values in some context (Van Beuningen et al., 2008, 2012). The results of the present study show that both direct and indirect feedback may have prompted the students to self-correct. We speculate that both types of feedback would be beneficial for student language development. When it was certain that the students were able to self-correct the errors, the instructor opted for indirect feedback by circling or underlining the errors. When it was uncertain, she chose to circle or underline the errors at first and then pursued with direct feedback such as using a suggested word along with a question mark or a list of word choices. However, this may not always be a clear-cut situation. On the one hand, it is often not easy to determine if students are able to selfcorrect when indirect feedback is given because a variety of individual and social factors play into the cognitive process (Bitchener & Storch, 2016). On the other hand, as can be seen from the data, some students still exercised their agency when applying the direct feedback and they did not simply take the suggested form provided in direct feedback. We encourage teachers to closely examine contextual factors because giving feedback to student writing is a highly contextualized pedagogical

Feedback to Feed Forward  111

activity. There are many pedagogical choices that a teacher needs to make when giving students’ feedback. As Hyland et al. (2017) point out, there are a number of variables to consider, including feedback-related variables, learner-related variables and language-related variables. All these variables need to be carefully considered so that we make these pedagogical choices with good rationale. Research Implications

Research on feedback practice in the foreign language teaching context is still scant. We hope future lines of research can truly benefit teaching practice and make this important yet challenging task of giving feedback more efficient and effective. Our research seems to suggest that comprehensive feedback and direct feedback do not necessarily hurt students’ learning potential to improve their linguistic accuracy in foreign language writing. Our study shows that students were able to take WCF and make corrections in one writing task. However, it is not our intention to make a definite conclusion on the potential of WCF for lasting language development. Even at this point, we are still genuinely curious about the effects of comprehensive feedback and direct feedback in other foreign language writing contexts. We hope future research on the effect of different feedback types in foreign language writing will help to enhance our understanding of WCF in non-English languages such as Chinese. Specific to the Chinese language, we hope to see future research on the impact of corrective feedback on language acquisition, especially acquisition of particularly difficult language features such as the ‘le’-expository sentence. More broadly to foreign language teaching as a whole, future research studies can further explore the overall impact of error correction on the development of students’ capacity to reflect and evaluate their writing performance. Students’ perceptions of error feedback are also an area worthy of investigation. We would also like to acknowledge the limitations of our study. Our preliminary study, focusing only on one teacher’s practice in one writing task, is quite narrow in its scope. Although we believe we have shown an interesting case of students learning to write in Chinese, we hold that future research, especially longitudinal studies, on a larger scope, focusing on different teachers’ practices and on different levels of students, is necessary to expand the horizon of L2 writing in a foreign language context. As a Chinese proverb goes, ‘throw a brick to attract the gem’, we hope to see more rigorous and broadly scoped research on this topic. Conclusions

In this chapter, we have discussed the case of student writing in an advanced Chinese as a foreign language course. We looked at how the

112  Part 1: Curricular Issues

teacher provided feedback in one major writing task in this course, and explained why the teacher provided feedback in a certain way and how students responded to the feedback and made revisions. We found that the teacher put a strong emphasis on error treatment, provided comprehensive feedback and most of the written correct feedback was direct. Although these pedagogical decisions may seem contradictory with the best practices recommended in feedback scholarship, these decisions were also well justified in the teacher’s course context. The teacher did provide a lot of support in her classroom instruction on the content of the essay, and students had little difficulty with the organization of writing. Also, in the foreign language context, students have a relatively limited amount of input in the linguistic accuracy of their writing. Therefore, a strong focus on the linguistic accuracy of writing and providing direct feedback as meaningful language input can be beneficial. Students’ revisions were mostly successful. Due to their strong motivation, relatively advanced level and the length of the writing, all the students responded well to the teacher’s comprehensive feedback. Our investigation here is limited in scope and preliminary in nature. However, we strongly believe the value of such an investigation of teacher feedback in a naturalistic context, especially in foreign language writing. As Ortega and Carson (2010) remind us, L2 writing should be about multiple language writing. Beyond the omnipresent ESL writing, the study of L2 writing should validate and welcome inquiries on foreign language writing, since writing in a foreign language is so different from ESL writing in contextual factors, such as the amount of student language input and distinctive learning goals. In addition, there are complex differences between languages. Therefore, investigating foreign language writing would possibly generate multiple perspectives on learners’ L2 development in writing and enrich the field of L2 writing. We believe our investigation of teacher feedback in advanced Chinese writing responds to the call for establishing a more inclusive view of L2 writing (Reichelt, 1999) and to broadening the perspective of L2 writing scholarship (Manchón, 2012). References Agustín, L.M.P. (2011) Lexical Errors and Accuracy in Foreign Language Writing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Aliakbari, M. (2002) Writing in a foreign language: A writing problem or a language problem? Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics 6 (2), 157–168. Allen, J.R. (2008) Why learning to write Chinese is a waste of time: A modest proposal. Foreign Language Annals 41 (2), 237–251. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (2012) ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. Alexandria, Virginia. See https​://ww​w.act​fl.or​g/pub​licat​ions/​guide​lines​ -and-​manua​ls/ac​tfl-p​rofic​iency​-guid​eline​s-201​2 (accessed 2 October 2016). Best, K., Jones-Katz, L., Smolarek, B., Stolzenburg, M. and Williamson, D. (2015) Listening to our students: An exploratory practice study of ESL writing students views of feedback. TESOL Journal 6 (2), 332–357.

Feedback to Feed Forward  113

Bitchener, J. and Storch, N. (2016) Written Corrective Feedback for L2 Development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ferris, D.R. (2013) Responding to student writing: Teachers’ philosophies and practices. Assessing Writing 19, 6–23. Ferris, D.R. and Hedgecock, J.S. (2014) Teaching L2 Composition. New York: Routledge. Ferris, D.R., Rezone, S., Tade, C.R. and Tinti, S. (1997) Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing 6, 155–182. Ferris, D.R., Brown, J., Liu, H. and Stine, M.E.A. (2011) Responding to L2 students in college writing classes: Teacher perspectives. TESOL Quarterly 45, 207–234. Goins, M. (2015) Written corrective feedback: Strategies for L2 writing instructors. SLW News Letter: The Newsletter of the Second Language Writing Interest Section. Hartshorn, K.J., Evans, N.W., Merrill, P.F., Sudweeks, R.R., Strong-Krause, D. and Anderson, N.J. (2010) Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly 44, 84–109. Hyland, F., Nicolas-Conesa, F. and Cerezo, L. (2016) Key issues of debate about feedback on writing. In R. Manchón and P.K. Matsuda (eds) Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing (pp. 433–452). Boston, MA: Walter de Gruyter Inc. Manchón, R. (2009) Writing in Foreign Language Contexts: Learning, Teaching, and Research. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Manchón, R. (2011) Learning to Write and Writing to Learn in an Additional Language. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Manchón, R. (2012) L2 Writing Development: Multiple Perspectives. Boston, MA/Berlin: De Gruyter. Martinez, N. and Roca de Larios, J. (2010) The use of models as a form of written feedback to secondary school pupils of English. International Journal of English Studies 10 (2), 143–170. Montgomery, J.L. and Baker, W. (2007) Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing 16, 82–99. Ortega, L. (2012) Epilogue: Exploring L2 writing–SLA interfaces. Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (4), 404–415. Ortega, L. and Carson, J.G. (2010) Multicompetence, social context, and L2 writing research praxis. In T. Silva and P. Matsuda (eds) Practicing Theory in Second Language Writing (pp. 48–71). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press. Panova, I. and Lyster, R. (2002) Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 36, 573–595. Patton, M.Q. (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Po-Ching, Y. and Rimmington, D. (2004) Chinese: A Comprehensive Grammar. New York: Routledge. Reichelt, M. (1999) Toward a more comprehensive view of L2 writing: Foreign language writing in the U.S. Journal of Second Language Writing 8 (2), 181–204. Reichelt, M. (2016) L2 writing in languages other than English. In R. Manchón and P.K. Matsuda (eds) Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing (pp. 181–200). Boston, MA: Walter de Gruyter Inc. Shei, C. (2014) Understanding the Chinese Language: A Comprehensive Linguistic Introduction. New York: Routledge. Shi, D. (2000) Topic and topic-comment constructions in Mandarin Chinese. Language 76 (2), 383–408. Sommers, N. (1982) Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication 33, 148–156. Van Beuningen, C. (2010) Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies 10 (2), 1–27.

114  Part 1: Curricular Issues

Van Beuningen, C.G., De Jong, N.H. and Kuiken, F. (2008) The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL – Review of Applied Linguistics 156, 279–296. Van Beuningen, C.G., De Jong, N.H. and Kuiken, F. (2012) Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning 62 (1), 1–41. Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J. (1998) Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Williams, J. (2012) The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (4), 321–331. Yancey, K., Robertson, L. and Taczak, K. (2014) Writing Across Contexts: Transfer, Composition, and Sites of Writing (1st edn). Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. Zamel, V. (1985) Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly 19, 79–101.

7 A Study of Recipes Written by Basque L2 Immersion Students: Any Evidence for Language Revitalization? Ibon Manterola

Introduction and Overview of the Language

The role of education in the revitalization process of minority languages continues to be a relevant research topic not only in the field of sociolinguistics but also in the field of language didactics (García-­ Azkoaga & Idiazabal, 2015; Hornberger, 2008). Communities with ‘minoritized’ languages have implemented bilingual programs with the aim of fostering the socialization of children through the minority language. The Basque immersion programs are considered a good example of this kind of revitalization project (Nissilä & Björklund, 2014). Even though the growth of Basque-medium schools took place in the 1950s, the establishment of self-government in the Basque-speaking communities of the Spanish Kingdom in the early 1980s significantly promoted Basque-medium education. Indeed, school has played a crucial role in the revitalization process of Basque (Zalbide, 1998), to such an extent that it is estimated that during the last three decades, approximately 300,000 speakers of Basque (42.2% of the total) have grown up in non-Basque-speaking families and have learned the language in educational settings (Gobierno Vasco, 2014). This research (which has been partially supported by the Basque government – references IT983-16/GIC 15-129) investigates the relationship between Basque immersion education and the revitalization process of the language. Within this framework, I focus on the development of immersion primary students’ written linguistic repertoire. The first research question investigates the potential of immersion education to promote Basque second language (L2) primary education students’ access to written texts in Basque. This question follows Zalbide’s (1998: 365; my translation) definition of Basque revitalization: ‘the social process 117

118  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

intended to retain and retrieve speakers and areas of use for Basque, so that the language can be maintained or become the common language within the linguistic community, both in formal and informal contexts, and both in oral or written interactions’. This first research question assumes that the revitalization process of the language requires that students become competent in the production of a wide variety of oral and written texts in Basque. The second research question investigates the contribution of immersion education in promoting Basque L2 primary education students’ access to written texts in Basque. This question adopts a didactic perspective of the revitalization process, which means that it focuses on the analysis of immersion students’ written skills identified in a precise immersion classroom activity: which discursive skills can be found in the written texts produced by Basque L2 students? The answer to this question will contribute to a better understanding of the specificities of Basque L2 writing development. The sociolinguistic and educational context of Basque

The Basque language is a non-Indo-European language that is spoken in the Basque territories belonging to Spain and France, together with the dominant Spanish and French and approximately 100 ‘immigrant languages’. Basque and Spanish differ regarding diverse grammatical features: Basque is an agglutinative and right-headed language whereas Spanish, a left-headed language, is considered an inflectional language rather than an agglutinative one. In contrast, both Basque and Spanish are pro-drop languages and their lexicon has similarities because Basque has historically borrowed words from Latin and nowadays English is a frequent source for loanwords in both languages (Artiagoitia, 2014). Basque has been a ‘minoritized’ language for centuries, without official status, without a standardized written language and without a presence in schools. The slow revitalization process of Basque has taken place during the last 60 years approximately, mainly thanks to its incorporation into the educational system in Spain. There are, however, important administrative and legal differences in the three main Basque-speaking communities. On the Spanish-state side of the Pyrenees, Basque speakers belong to two different autonomous communities: the Basque Autonomous Community on the one hand, and Navarre on the other hand. On the French-state side, the three provinces where Basque is spoken belong to the Basque Municipal Community, located in the Pyrénées-Atlantiques department of the Nouvelle-Aquitaine region. In this chapter, I focus on the two Basque-speaking communities of the Spanish Kingdom: the Basque Autonomous Community and Navarre. In the Basque Autonomous Community, the Statute of Autonomy of 1979 established that Basque and Spanish are the official languages. According to the last sociolinguistic survey undertaken by the Basque

A Study of Recipes Written by Basque L2 Immersion Students  119

government, an estimated 53% of the population of the Basque Autonomous Community understand Basque, but only about 34% are able to speak the language (Gobierno Vasco, 2016). Basque is the language acquired at home only for 23% of the population. The presence of both Basque and Spanish has been compulsory in the Basque Autonomous Community’s educational system since 1982, when the so-called linguistic models were introduced: the A model with Spanish as the language of instruction and Basque is taught as a subject (three to four sessions a week); the B model in which both Spanish and Basque are used as the languages of instruction; and the D model with Basque as the language of instruction and Spanish is taught as a subject (three to four sessions a week). There is no C model because in the early 1980s this letter was not included in the Basque alphabet. It is up to parents to choose one of these three models for their children. As reflected in Figure  7.1, enrolment in the D  model has increased since its establishment three decades ago. It is important to note that approximately 50% of primary students enrolled in the D model are first language (L1) speakers of Spanish, that is to say, many parents who do not speak Basque decide to enroll their children in schools where this language is used as the language of instruction. In these cases, I refer to the D model as an immersion program. For children who speak Basque at home, the D model constitutes a maintenance program. It should be added that in both immersion and maintenance programs, the aim of the D model is to promote bilingualism, that is to say, the learning of both Basque and Spanish (Idiazabal & Dolz, 2013). Several types of motivation lead non-Basque-speaking parents to enroll their children in Basquemedium education (Amorrortu et  al., 2009): the parental engagement with the language, the importance of Basque as an integrative factor and the increasing social prestige of the minority language.

01 6

5 20

15 -2

14 -1 20

13

-1

4

3 20

12

12 -1 20

120 1

10

-1

1

D model

20

10 9-

5 -0 04

-0 0

5 -9

90

B model

20

19 99

94 19

919 8

19

84

-8

5

A model

20 0

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Figure 7.1  Choice of linguistic models in primary education in the Basque Autonomous Community (Source: Basque government)

120  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

In Navarre, Basque and Spanish have had official status since the 1982 autonomic law. However, unlike in the Basque Autonomous Community, this legal status is unequal depending on the geographical area of Navarre. Whereas Spanish is official all over the territory, the official status of Basque is different within the territory. The 1986 law to regulate the use of Basque made a geographical distinction, dividing Navarre into three linguistic zones: in the northern part, Basque is official alongside Spanish, and it is compulsory in education. Parents may choose one of the three linguistic models A, B or D. In the central part, surrounding Pamplona (the capital of Navarre), Basque is partially official, and the law permits both its promotion as well as its restriction. And finally, in the southern zone, Basque is not official. Until the recent modifications introduced by the new progressive government, Basque had only been exceptionally incorporated in the educational system of this zone by private schools, run on a cooperative basis. Today, an estimated 80% of the Navarre population has no knowledge of Basque (Gobierno Vasco, 2013) and about 45% of the children in primary education are schooled in Basque (in the B and D models) or are taught Basque as a subject (in the A model). As can be observed in Figure 7.2, the G model (where Spanish is the only language of instruction and Basque is not present at all, not even as a subject) has decreased during the last decade in Navarre. In contrast, there has been an increase in the number of children who are schooled in the D model. Concerning the curricula for the D model in the Basque Autonomous Community and in Navarre, writing is one of the core components of communicative competence. Both curricula emphasize that students need to be able to write complex texts and diverse text types, depending on different communicative situations. This is especially the case 100 90

G model

A model

B model

D model

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

6

5

01 -2 15

20

-2

01

4 14 20

-2

01

3 12

2 -1

-1

13 20

20

1

0

-1

11 20

10 20

9

-1 09 20

8

-0 08 20

7

-0 07 20

-0

6 -0

06 20

05 20

20

04

-0

5

0

Figure 7.2 Choice of linguistic models in primary education in Navarre (Source: Government of Navarre)

A Study of Recipes Written by Basque L2 Immersion Students  121

for teaching Basque and Spanish, whereas more basic skills are required for the foreign language English. Bearing in mind that the promotion of minority languages at school continues to be a challenge for most multilingual societies, it is relevant to note that Basque-medium education promotes multilingual literacy including a minority language (Idiazabal et al., 2015). L2 Writing Study Research focus

The aim of this chapter is to study the writing skills of 11-year-old students, raised in Spanish-speaking homes and environments, who attend a Basque immersion school. The research domain of this work is that of immersion language teaching and learning in a context where the immersion language is a minority language in the process of revitalization (Hornberger, 2008). In this sense, this chapter provides insights into the impact of immersion schools on the revitalization process of the Basque language, by offering precise data on some Basque L2 writing skills developed by primary education immersion students. A text genre-based perspective is adopted for the study of students’ writing skills, following the underpinnings of socio-discursive interactionism (Bronckart, 1996). According to this framework, texts and text genres are relevant communicative units for studying the acquisition of language use, since texts, as general communicative units, constitute the tools that permit humans to participate in all kinds of linguistic activities. The analysis of text genre production and comprehension permits the exploration of basic aspects of the use of language from a communicative perspective: the parameters of the communicative situations where texts are produced, the organization and planning of the contents of the texts and the specific linguistic units of the texts. From a didactic perspective, it will be assumed that the teaching of text genre production enhances the acquisition of language use (Dolz & Gagnon, 2010). For instance, and referring to the case of the genre analyzed in this chapter, learning the writing of a recipe requires that students acquire language in order to regulate the behavior of the reader with very specific purposes (Oichea, 2008). It should also be noted that, as mentioned in the previous section, the curricula of both the Basque Autonomous Community and Navarre provide a teaching framework where real communicative contexts are promoted and where texts are pointed out as relevant teaching and learning objects in the domain of oral and written communication goals. Participants

Two groups of 11-year-old students attending Basque-medium schools in very different sociolinguistic and didactic contexts took part

122  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

in this study (the age of 11 refers to the last year of primary education). One of the groups, the Basque L2 group, came from a town situated in the central part of Navarre. At most, an estimated 6% of the population of the town may use Basque in daily life (Dufur Otheguy, 2012). That is why contact with Basque was restricted to the school context for this group of students. The 20 students who took part in this research were selected from Spanish-speaking homes, where parents made an active choice of schooling in Basque for their children. From pre-school age (2 or 3), all students attended an early and total immersion program in Basque L2, which is designed to introduce Basque as an L2 in early childhood. It is important to note that these students are introduced to reading and writing in Basque, and Spanish is introduced as a subject matter in the third year of primary education (age 8). It should also be mentioned that in these programs, Basque is systematically used by teachers as the only language in the classroom (except when Spanish and English are taught as subject matter). The school in question recently celebrated its 40th anniversary (Soziolinguistika Klusterra, 2010), which reflects its long tradition in these immersion programs. The second group of students, the Basque L1 group, came from a small town situated on the coast of the province of Gipuzkoa, in the Basque Autonomous Community. This is a traditionally strong Basquespeaking area, where transmission of the language from parents to children has been quite constant. Of the population of this town, 72% are Basque speakers and 16% understand the language but are not able to speak it (Soziolinguistika Klusterra, 2014). Data from 2011 on the observations of daily informal language use reveal that 52.8% of conversations were in Basque. This percentages rose to 71.2% when only children were involved in the conversations. The 20 students who took part in this research came from Basque-speaking families and attended school in Basque. For these students, Basque-medium school constitutes a language maintenance model. They have, of course, also been exposed to Spanish, which is present in their sociolinguistic environment, and is also taught as a school subject from the third year of primary education onward. The Basque L1 students’ data constitute a reference of contrast for the main focus of interest of my study, the immersion or Basque L2 group. I would like to remark that this comparison is not aimed at considering the Basque L1 students as ideal native speakers (in this case, ‘writers’) just because they learned the language at home (Hornsby, 2015; O’Rourke & Ramallo, 2013). In other words, the aim of the chapter is not to explore whether Basque L2 students are able to reach the same level of competence as Basque L1 students. Indeed, the Basque–Spanish bilingual development of these two groups of students has already been studied in previous works of my research group (Idiazabal & García-Azkoaga, 2015; Manterola, 2011; Manterola et al., 2013). This line of research has

A Study of Recipes Written by Basque L2 Immersion Students  123

been interesting in order to build a deeper understanding of the specificities of Basque and Spanish L1 and L2 language development in distinct contexts, where the social presence and use of Basque significantly differ, and consequently, contact with the language of instruction also differs. Data collection design

The written texts that will be analyzed in this chapter were collected during a classroom activity and consist of recipes of a popular sandwich for young people. The same activity was carried out with both groups of students. Students were introduced to a fictional communicative context by the researcher, who played the role of the teacher. Within this fictional context, students were asked to write recipes for 11-year-old immigrant children who had arrived from Romania and Bulgaria to a primary school some months ago. The researcher also explained that those immigrant students were learning Basque and that recipes would be helpful both for learning to read in Basque and for getting to know a popular Basque dish for young people. The recipe referred to a solomo, gazta eta piper ogitartekoa [pork loin sandwich with cheese and peppers]. Once the communicative project was explained and discussed with the students, the researcher wrote the recipe’s ingredients on the blackboard in Basque (see Appendix  1), and then explained the process of elaboration of the recipe in Basque (see Appendix  2). This means that the students were provided with some patterns to guide their written production. The students were told they could take notes during the teacher’s oral explanation, and that they would then receive a sheet with a photograph of the sandwich. They should write the final version of the recipe on this sheet, which would be sent to the immigrant students. These were the specific instructions that were given to the students: ‘You have listened to my explanation of the recipe, and now it is your turn. You should first write a draft and then a revised copy. Write the revised copy on the sheet we gave to you. It’s the sheet with the photo, which the students from Bulgaria and Romania will receive. Remember that these are the students of your age who have recently arrived to the Basque Country and they will read your recipes. It is important that you write it well because those students will use the recipes to prepare their own sandwiches’. This classroom activity was designed following the theoretical principles of socio-discursive interactionism (see section titled ‘Research Focus’). Consequently, the project introduced by the teacher clearly specified the communicative aspects of the writing activity: the role of the recipe writers, the addressee and the goal of the recipes. It should also be mentioned that the writing activity was carried out in a single session of one hour. This is why students were provided with the list of ingredients and the process of elaboration, instead of asking them to find all this material.

124  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

Elements of analysis

The elements of analysis of the recipes were defined based on the text architecture model of Bronckart (1996) and its adaptation to the research domain of language didactics and teacher training (Dolz et al., 2013). I sought to identify very specific text writing skills so that the answers to my research questions would be based on precise linguistic data. First of all, I analyzed the level of adaptation of the texts written by the students to the genre required in the instructions. This aspect permitted me to make an initial analysis of the texts and made it possible to find out whether the students were familiar with the genre they had to produce and whether they were able to produce a text that, regardless of the diverse difficulties, would fulfill the requirements of the communicative situation proposed in the instructions. The second aspect of the analysis concerns the skills related to the planning of the contents of the recipe. Following the works by Adam (2001), Idiazabal and García Azkoaga (2015) and García-Azkoaga and Sullón Acosta (2017), I analyzed the presence of the following five parts of a recipe: title, list of ingredients, preparation process, recommendations and, finally, end of the recipe. Adam (2001) considers that the fundamental sections of a recipe are the title, the list of ingredients and the preparation process. Recommendations may appear in different parts of the text and may refer to different aspects of the recipe (i.e. presentation, conservation, taste). Even if images are also a frequent component of recipes, I did not analyze their presence, given that they were already included in the blank sheets provided to the students to write the last version of the recipe. The third and last element of analysis refers to the production of text organizers. As stated by García-Azkoaga and Sullón Acosta (2017), written kitchen recipes require that the writer organizes the process of elaboration in chronological order, because a possible modification of that order might affect the final product. The text organizers analyzed in this chapter belong to the preparation process section. First, I analyzed the use of text organizers and punctuation marks as a means of connecting the sentences and sections of the recipe. Secondly, I identified the types of temporal text organizers produced by the students. I focused, on the one hand, on the organizers that provide specific temporal information about the process of preparation. These include, for instance, the temporal organizers ‘remendability’ [first of all] and ‘azkenik’ [finally], which, respectively, mark the beginning and the end of the elaboration process. Another example is the temporal suffix ‘-ean’ (‘prest dagoenean’ [when it is ready]), which not only links two sentences, but also establishes a closer relationship between them, due to the reference to a previous action (García-Azkoaga & Sullón Acosta, 2017). On the other hand, I identified the organizers that do not add any temporal nuance to

A Study of Recipes Written by Basque L2 Immersion Students  125

the actions. Instead, the only temporal reference that they provide is that the actions come one after the other. Examples of these text organizers are ‘gero’ [then] and ‘ondoren’ [afterwards]. Data analysis and results Level of adaptation of the text to the genre required in the instructions

Almost all the texts written by both Basque L1 and Basque L2 students were clearly identifiable as recipes. Overall, the texts reflected that the students managed to follow the instructions of the activity and had a clear idea of what a recipe is and how it had to be written. Obviously, the texts showed difficulties related to various writing skills, not only with the aspects that will be analyzed later in this chapter, but also with other dimensions such as the use of verb tenses and referential expressions. However, these and other aspects go beyond the scope of this chapter. I found only one text reflecting a lower level of adaptation to the referenced genre. It is the case of a Basque L1 student’s text where the organization of the content was not at all appropriate for the recipe genre. I focus on this aspect of the recipes in the following section. The planning of the contents of the texts

As shown in Table 7.1, almost all the students were able to include the three fundamental parts of the recipe in the right order (the title, the list of ingredients and the process of preparation). There were only two exceptions: a Basque L2 student omitted the list of ingredients, whereas a Basque L1 student placed the list of ingredients at the bottom of the page, after the process of preparation. Regarding the section for recommendations, 15 Basque L2 students and 10 Basque L1 students included it. Two aspects should be emphasized concerning the recommendations: on the one hand, some texts included more than one recommendation whereas in other texts only one was found. On the other hand, recommendations refer to different aspects of the recipe. For instance, as in Example (1) the recommendation referred to the conditions for keeping the sandwich warm and Example (2) to the method of preparing the bread: Table 7.1  Components of the planning of the contents of the texts Content

Basque L2

Basque L1

Presence and right order of the title, the list of ingredients and the process of preparation

19/20

19/20

Content related to recommendations

15/20

10/20

Explicit indication that the recipe is ending

19/20

20/20

126  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

(1) … eta orain ezin baldin baduzu jan beroa egoteko zilarrezko paper batekin eztali (L2-1) (… and if you cannot eat it now in order to maintain it hot cover it with aluminum foil) (2) Nahi bada beste ogi zatitzoa zartaginean berotu (L2-11) (if you want, heat the other piece of bread in the pan) Dealing with the way that students ended their texts, 19 Basque L2 students included an explicit indication of the ending of the recipe, whereas all students in the Basque L1 group did so. It is important to note that the dominant strategy to finish the text was different in both groups. The majority of the Basque L2 students (13 out of 20) declared the end of the recipe either by announcing that the recipe was ready to be eaten, as in Example (3), or by including in the final recommendation the idea that the recipe was finished, as in Example (4): (3) Eta orain lixto dago ogitartekoa jateko (L2-3) (And now the sandwich is ready to be eaten) (4) Berehala jan behar ez baduzu zilarrezko paperean bildu (L2-7) (If you are not going to eat it at the moment cover it with aluminum foil) In most cases of the Basque L1 group (14 students out of 20), texts not only announced that the recipe was ended, but they also included the traditional expression ‘On egin’ (‘Enjoy your meal’). Overall, it can be stated that the Basque L2 students managed to plan their written recipes successfully. The three fundamental sections of the recipes appeared in almost all the texts. In addition, some sort of recommendation was also found in the majority of the texts and all but one student were able to announce the explicit ending of the recipe. The contrast with the Basque L1 students shows that even if the texts of both groups were not identical, the similarities found seem to suggest that overall the Basque L2 students’ skills are as advanced as the Basque L1 students’ skills. Text organizers

A first general approach to this element of analysis indicates that the vast majority of Basque L2 students combined punctuation marks and text organizers when articulating the sentences and sections of the texts, as reflected in Table 7.2. Example (5) shows how students articulated the sentences by means of punctuation marks and text organizers alternatively: (5) Asteko ogi barra erdia moztu eta goitik behera zabaldu. Zartagian olia jarri eta solomoak prijitu, erre gabe. Eginda daudenean

A Study of Recipes Written by Basque L2 Immersion Students  127

Table 7.2  Text organizers and punctuation Component

Basque L2

Basque L1

Punctuation marks and text organizers alternatively

20/20

17/20

Every sentence introduced by a text organizer

0/20

3/20

ogian jarri solomo xerrak eta ondoren gazta solomoaren gainean. (L2-2) (First of all cut half of a baguette and open it. Pour some oil into the frying pan and fry the pork loins, avoiding that they get burnt. When they are ready put the pork loins on the bread and then the cheese on the pork loin) As can be observed, the first step of the recipe is explicitly marked by the temporal organizer ‘Asteko’ ([To begin with], which in standard Basque should be spelled ‘Hasteko’). The link with the next sentence, however, is not marked by any organizer, but by means of a full stop. And again the third sentence is introduced by the temporal organizer ‘Eginda daudenean’ [When they are ready]. In the case of Basque L1 students, students use both punctuation marks and text organizers. The most remarkable differences, although quantitatively non-significant, are that in three texts every single sentence was introduced by a text organizer. Example (6) reflects this strategy: (6) Lehenbizi ogi erdika erditik moztu egin behar duzu ahal bada ogia egin berria izan dezala. Bigarren frijitzeko olioa zartaginera bota eta olioa beroa dagoenean solomo puxketak bota baina kontuz solomo puxketak erre gabe. (L1-3) (First of all you have to cut half of bread [and] if possible the bread has to be recently baked. Secondly, pour the frying oil into the pan and when the oil is hot, put in the pieces of pork loin but be careful and do not burn the pieces of pork loin.) The next step in the analysis was to identify the types of temporal text organizers produced by the students. As stated in the section titled ‘Elements of Analysis’, recipes require chronological organization of the elaboration steps, and thus I distinguished between temporal organizers that provide specific temporal information and those that do not provide any specific temporal nuance. The most relevant quantitative information provided by Table 7.3 is that some text organizers appear in the texts of both groups of students, whereas others do not. For instance, ‘gero’ [then], ‘ondoren’ [afterwards] and the suffix ‘-ean’ [when] show the highest frequencies among the organizers that appear in the texts of both groups. On the contrary, other forms were not so common in both groups. It is the case, for instance, of all the text organizers that serve to initiate the recipe (‘lehenengo’,

128  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

Table 7.3  Types of temporal text organizers found in the texts of each group of students (absolute frequency in parenthesis) Text organizer type Basque L2

Basque L1

Organizers without gero (then) (14) specific temporal ondoren (afterwards) (23) information geroago (later) (1) jarraian (then) (1)

gero (then) (25) ondoren (afterwards) (13) orduan (then) (1) jarraian (then) (1)

Organizers with specific temporal information

lehendabizi/aurrena (first of all) (2) hasteko (to begin with) (2) hasieran (at the beginning) (1) -ean (when) (30) bukatzeko/azkenik (finally) (4)

lehenengo/lehenik/lehendabizi/ aurrena/ lehenik eta behin (first of all) (14) hasteko (to begin with) (1) -ean (when) (11) -tu ostean (after doing V) (2) segituan (immediately after) (1) oraingoz (for the moment) (1) bukat​zeko/​bukat​zean/​amait​zeko/​ azken​ik/az​kenea​n (finally) (11)

‘lehendabizi’ [first of all] etc.), which were more frequent in the texts of the Basque L2 students. The temporal suffix ‘-ean’ [when] shows a different trend: its presence is higher in Basque L1 than in L2. Further research seems to be necessary in order to clarify these differences. A rather qualitative analysis of the presence of each type of text organizer in the text indicates that almost all the students included at least one text organizer with a specific temporal value (17 out of 20 in the Basque L2 group, and 18 students in the Basque L1 group). Examples  (7) and (8), which belong to the same action of the elaboration process, reflect the discursive effect of the presence or not of the temporal suffix ‘-ean’ [when] in the texts: (7) Zartagin berdinean piperrak berotu (ez dute denbora asko behar), bota gatza, eta nahi bada azukre pixkat ere, eta gaztaren gainean jarri (L1-18) (In the same frying pan heat the peppers (they do not need much time), sprinkle some salt, and if required, some sugar as well, and put them on the cheese) (8) Ondoren piperra zartagian frijitu solomoa frijitu duzun olio berberarekin. Piper gorriak ondo eginak daudenean, erre gabe, gazta eta solomo xerren gainean jarri. (L2-02) (After that fry the pepper in the pan with the oil you used to fry the pork loin. When the red peppers are cooked, without burning it, put them on the cheese and pork loins) In Example  (7), the Basque L1 student successfully provides a list of the actions required in order to cook the red peppers and add to the cheese. It is also interesting to note that this student adds between parentheses some information about the time of cooking. However, in Example  (8), taken from the Basque L2 group, the suffix ‘-ean’ [when]

A Study of Recipes Written by Basque L2 Immersion Students  129

permits adding nuanced temporal information, because it refers to the previous step of the process and specifies the moment when the next action has to be carried out. The fact that these kinds of precise temporal links were found in almost all the texts of the Basque L2 immersion group reflects that these students are able to organize chronologically the elaboration process of the recipe. It should also be underlined that these skills are very similar to those identified in the Basque L1 group. Pedagogical Implications and Applications

Two possible pedagogical implications of the research are proposed. This is done cautiously, given that the writing activity proposed for Basque L2 immersion students (as well as for Basque L1 students) was designed only for research purposes. The first implication refers to the didactic validity of the writing activity proposed for students in order to write a recipe in Basque. Didactic validity is defined by Dolz et  al. (2013) following three criteria: the criterion of legitimacy (the text has to belong to a recognizable genre); the criterion of relevance (the text genre has to be linked to the educational goals); and the criterion of solidarity (the activities carried out within the project of writing need to be coherent with each other). In a study on the domain of in-service primary teacher training, it was found that these three criteria were not followed in the design of communicative projects aimed at the writing of text genres (García-Azkoaga & Manterola, 2016). For instance, and focusing on the criterion of legitimacy, teachers’ instructions for the writing of texts tended to lack some aspects of the communicative context (the addressee, the goal of the writing activity, etc.). But even in cases where teachers were able to provide a clear communicative purpose for the writing activity, they had difficulties in identifying the writing activity with the production of a precise text genre. In the case of the writing activity analyzed in this chapter, I have tried to propose a writing activity that provided a very detailed communicative context (as explained in the section titled ‘Data Collection Design’). The results of this chapter show that students were able to write texts that are clearly identifiable as recipes, which may reflect that the writing activity proposed for students followed the three criteria of didactic validity. Consequently, the first pedagogical implication of this research may be that the immersion classroom activity proposed for students in order to write a recipe in Basque L2 seems to be a relevant writing activity to develop immersion students’ writing skills. Regarding the second pedagogical implication, I will focus again on the criterion of legitimacy, which may be especially relevant for the teaching of minority L2 writing. As already explained, this criterion requires that classroom activities clearly foster the writing of recognizable text

130  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

genres, understood as the tools through which humans participate in socio-historically established specific linguistic activities (Bronckart, 1996). This implies that students undertake specific language practices that already exist in their linguistic community. If it is taken into account that in the context of immersion education with minority languages the social practices in the minority language are not as accessible as the dominant language practices, then the criterion of legitimacy seems to be especially important when creating language practice activities in the classroom. This fact is related to the fundamental role played by immersion education when providing students with access to the specific language practices or text genres of the minority language community. The precise example of the recipe writing activity analyzed in this chapter may serve as an example of this idea: if it is assumed that in the context of the Basque L2 immersion students the social activity of writing recipes is mainly carried out in the dominant language Spanish, then it may be suggested that the immersion classroom activity provided Basque L2 immersion students with almost unique access to a specific linguistic activity in the minority community. Research Implications

Although in this chapter I highlighted that the recipes written by Basque L2 and Basque L1 students reflected similar discourse skills in the aspects analyzed, it may be interesting to carry out an in-depth study about the differences and similarities in the writing skills of students with contrasting sociolinguistic profiles. This research would cover not only the writing of diverse text genres by students of different ages, but it would also contrast distinct sociolinguistic contexts where the presence and use of the minority language differ. In this way, it would be possible to offer a more complete picture of the development of writing skills in Basque L1 and L2. The contribution of this research would be of great value for the design of didactic sequences devoted to the teaching and learning of written text genres both in primary and secondary education. A didactic sequence is a set of classroom activities that aim at the development of oral or written text genres (Dolz et al., 2001; Dolz & Schneuwly, 1997). In didactic sequences, students get involved in communicative contexts where they have to act through the production of a precise text genre. The example of a communicative project shown in this chapter where students had to write a recipe may constitute an example. Once the context is introduced, students produce the initial text where students’ skills and difficulties are identified. Subsequently, diverse activities are carried out in order to improve the difficulties found in the initial texts. Finally, students revise the initial text or they write a new final text that serves to evaluate the teaching and learning process. Within this framework, the

A Study of Recipes Written by Basque L2 Immersion Students  131

contribution of research on students’ skills and difficulties in the writing of diverse genres in Basque L1 and L2 would be important, since it would provide teachers and researchers with valuable data to design effective didactic sequences for contrasted sociolinguistic and educational contexts. Conclusion

The aim of this chapter was to analyze the writing skills of 11-yearold Basque L2 immersion students. By doing so, I first sought to explore whether immersion education fosters Spanish L1/Basque L2 students’ access to written texts in Basque. Overall, and even though the analysis carried out in this chapter was limited to some discursive aspects of the texts, it may be confirmed that Basque L2 immersion students managed to produce the text genre required in the classroom activity, in a very parallel way to Basque L1 students. The similarities found between both groups of students point to the fact that Basque immersion seems to succeed in promoting the development of written language skills in Basque L2 students who live in sociolinguistic contexts where the social presence and oral use of Basque are very weak. It is in this sense that I would like to state, following McCarty’s (2008) work, that immersion education continues to be a fundamental tool for the revitalization process of minority languages, given that this process requires that students become competent in the use of a wide variety of oral and written texts (Zalbide, 1998). The second research question referred to the precise discursive skills of Basque L2 immersion students in a specific writing activity. Despite the limited scope of the analysis, I showed that students’ texts were clearly identifiable as recipes, that almost all students included the three fundamental parts of the recipe in the right order and that they were able to articulate the chronological organization of the elaboration process by means of text organizers with specific and nuanced temporal values. These results may contribute to a better understanding of Basque L2 writing development in immersion education, and they could also be valuable in designing effective didactic sequences aimed at the teaching and learning of written recipes at the end of immersion primary education. As a concluding remark, and bearing in mind the sociolinguistic contexts with minority language-based immersion education, I would like to emphasize the importance of analyzing students’ L2 writing skills in immersion classroom activities with a view to exploring the contribution of immersion education in the revitalization process of minority languages. The main reason for this interest is that the future of minority languages such as Basque strongly depends on the possibilities of immersion education to foster the teaching of the minority language to students who do not learn the language at home (Zalbide, 1998). From a

132  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

research perspective, this kind of work may contribute to strengthening the links between the research domains of immersion language didactics and language revitalization theory. More specifically, I would like to note the relevance of text-genre-based L2 writing activities in order to teach specific language practices. References Adam, J.M. (2001) Types de textes ou genres de discours? Comment classer les textes qui disent de et comment faire? Langages 141, 10–27. Amorrortu, E., Ortega, A., Idiazabal, I. and Barreña, A. (2009) Actitudes y prejuicios de los castellanohablantes hacia el euskera. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Gobierno Vasco. Artiagoitia, X. (2014) Una vuelta al mundo de la morfología vasca (preferiblemente en menos de 60 minutos). Revista de lenguas y literaturas catalana, gallega y vasca XIX, 231–245. Bronckart, J.-P. (1996) Activité Langagière, Textes et Discours. Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé. Dolz, J. and Schneuwly, B. (1997) Géneros y progresión en expresión oral y escrita. Elementos de reflexión a partir de una experiencia realizada en la Suiza francófona. Textos de Didáctica de la Lengua y de la Literatura 11, 77–98. Dolz, J. and Gagnon, R. (2010) El género textual, una herramienta didáctica para desarrollar el lenguaje oral y escrito. Lenguaje 38, 497–527. Dolz, J., Noverraz, M. and Schneuwly, B. (2001) Séquences didactiques pour l’oral et pour l’écrit. Bruxelles: De Boeck. Dolz, J., Gagnon, R., Mosquera, S. and Sánchez, V. (2013) Producción escrita y dificultades de aprendizaje. Barcelona: Editorial Grao. Dufur Otheguy, A. (2012) Lizarra, euskararen biziberritzetik indarberritzera. Bat Soziolinguistika Aldizkaria 85 (4), 161–178. García-Azkoaga, I. and Idiazabal, I. (2015) Para una ingeniería didáctica de la educación plurilingüe. Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea. García-Azkoaga, I. and Manterola, I. (2016) Las secuencias didácticas de lengua: una encrucijada entre teoría y metodología. Calidoscópio 14 (1), 46–58. García-Azkoaga, I. and Sullón Acosta, K. (2017) Capacidades lingüísticas shipibo-español en textos escritos por escolares bilingües de Ucayali (Perú). Onomázein. Número especial: Las lenguas amerindias en Iberoamérica: retos para el siglo XXI (2017), 153–170. Gobierno Vasco (2013) V Encuesta Sociolingüística. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Eusko Jaurlaritza/ Gobierno Vasco. Gobierno Vasco (2014) V Mapa Sociolingüístico. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Eusko Jaurlaritza/ Gobierno Vasco. Gobierno Vasco (2016) VI Encuesta Sociolingüística. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Eusko Jaurlaritza/ Gobierno Vasco. Hornberger, N. (ed.) (2008) Can Schools Save Indigenous Languages? Policy and Practice on Four Continents. New York: Palgrave McMillan. Hornsby, M. (2015) Revitalizing Minority Languages: New Speakers of Breton, Yiddish, and Lemko. Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan. Idiazabal, I. and Dolz, J. (2013) Diversidad lingüística y formación plurilingüe. In J. Dolz and I. Idiazabal (eds) Enseñar (lenguas) en contextos multilingües (pp. 11–32). Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea. Idiazabal, I. and García-Azkoaga, I. (2015) Español L1 y L2 en escolares bilingües vascoespañoles. La escritura de recetas de cocina. In D. Riestra, S.M. Tapia and M.V. Goicoechea Gaona (eds) Cuartas Jornadas Internacionales de Investigación y Prácticas en Didáctica de las lenguas y las literaturas, Tomo I (pp. 203–222). Bariloche.

A Study of Recipes Written by Basque L2 Immersion Students  133

Idiazabal, I., Manterola, I. and Diaz De Gereñu, L. (2015) Objetivos y recursos didácticos para la educación plurilingüe. In I. García-Azkoaga and I. Idiazabal (eds) Para una ingeniería didáctica de la educación plurilingüe (pp. 39–59). Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea. Manterola, I. (2011) Euskarazko murgilketa haur hezkuntzan: euskara-gaztelania elebitasunaren azterketa. Ahozko ipuinen analisi diskurtsiboa eta didaktikoa. PhD thesis, Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU). Manterola, I., Almgren, M. and Idiazabal, I. (2013) Basque L2 development in immersion school settings. International Journal of Bilingualism 17 (3), 375–390. McCarty, T.L. (2008) Schools as strategic tools for indigenous language revitalization: Lessons from Native America. In N. Hornberger (ed.) Can Schools Save Indigenous Languages? Policy and Practice on Four Continents (pp. 161–179). New York: ­Palgrave McMillan. Nissilä, N. and Björklund, S. (2014) One-way immersion in Europe: Historic, current, and future perspectives on program implementation and student population. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 2 (2), 288–302. Oichea, D.M. (2008) Le texte injonctif dans la didactique des langues. In R. Superceanu and D. Dejica (eds) Professional Communication and Translation Studies 1/2008 (pp. 109–113). Timisoara: Politehnica University Press. O’Rourke, B. and Ramallo, F. (2013) Competing ideologies of linguistic authority amongst new speakers in contemporary Galicia. Language in Society 42 (3), 287–305. Soziolinguistika Klusterra (2010) Lizarra Ikastola. Izar bat Lizarraldean/Lizarra Ikastola. Una estrella en Lizarra. Andoain: Soziolinguistika Klusterra. Soziolinguistika Klusterra (2014) Datu Soziolinguistikoen Bilduma. Zumaia 1986–2011. See http:​//zum​aia.e​us/eu​/udal​a/sai​lak/e​uskar​a/zum​aiako​-datu​-sozi​oling​ustik​oak/z​ umaia​ko-da​tu-so​zioli​nguis​tikoa​k (accessed 10 January 2016). Zalbide, M. (1998) Normalización lingüística y escolaridad: un informe desde la sala de máquinas. Revista Internacional de Estudios Vascos 43 (2), 355–424.

Appendix 1: Title of the Recipe and the List of Ingredients Written on the Blackboard by the Teacher (Provided to Students in the Basque Language) Pork loin sandwich with cheese and peppers INGREDIENTS • • • • • • •

bread; three pork loin steaks; two slices of cheese; tinned red peppers; oil for frying; salt; sugar (optional).

Appendix 2: The Written Text Used by the Teacher as a Model for the Oral Explanation of the Recipe (Provided to Students in the Basque Language)

In order to prepare a good pork loin sandwich with cheese and peppers, in the first place you need a half of a baguette. Try to get freshly baked bread because as we all know, the sandwiches usually taste better if the bread is freshly baked.

134  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

Open the baguette in halves as if it were a book, using an appropriate knife. Next pour a little oil into the frying pan. It must be a good frying pan where the food won’t stick. And take care not to heat the oil too much otherwise the food might get burnt. After heating the oil, fry the pork loins. When they are done, sprinkle them with salt and remove them from the frying pan to put them on one side of the bread. This must be done carefully in order to avoid drenching the bread in oil. Many people don’t like too much oil on their bread. Put the cheese slices on the still warm pork loin in order to make the cheese melt. Next we will cook the peppers. The frying pan where the pork loin was fried could be used, because the peppers will be more savoury if heated in the pork loinflavoured oil. As tinned peppers are already cooked, it is not necessary to heat them for a long time. Sprinkle them with salt, and if wanted, with some sugar as well. We will then place the peppers very carefully over the pork loins. In principle, the sandwich is ready to eat. If somebody wants to taste the oil in the frying pan, press the empty top bread into the frying pan. Now you only need to hold the baguette together and eat it. If you are not going to eat it immediately we recommend folding it up in aluminum foil in order to keep it warm until it is eaten. Enjoy your meal!

8 The Transition from the Foreign Language to the Study Abroad Classroom: Mediating Writer Culture Shock Lucile Duperron

Introduction

After Spanish, French remains the second most studied world language in US post-secondary institutions, while France ranks as the fourth study abroad (SA) destination (IIE, 2017). Even though SA is a programmatic milestone of the US undergraduate language and culture curriculum, a limited number of second language (L2) writing studies have examined the interaction between SA and writing development (Manchón, 2009). However, research investigating the SA learning environment reports that gaining ‘confident writing academic skills … is the single largest challenge for students’ (Foster, 2013: 99). Furthermore, the internationalization of the undergraduate curriculum has made writing a renewed imperative to ensure academic success at home and abroad. This has been especially true in the European Erasmus setting, which relies heavily on writing performance (Pérez-Vidal & Juan-Garau, 2009). So, how do L2 learners experience writing in their academic discipline when they move from their domestic foreign language (FL) context to their new SA environment? Do they experience a ‘writing culture shock’ (Lape, 2013)? The present chapter explores this question by tracking US undergraduates’ evolving perceptions of academic writing during SA in France. Informed by a multiple case study methodology that includes learner interviews, peer-tutor interviews and local practitioners’ observations, findings describe from an emic perspective the writing challenges resulting from two academic writing cultures in contact. Besides documenting the L2 writing experience abroad in a language other than English, this chapter discusses pedagogical facilitation between the domestic and the SA undergraduate curriculum through peer tutoring. The discussion section addresses the following question: how can we demystify the SA 135

136  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

environment in order to support translingual and transcultural learning at home and abroad? Literature Review Writing in an additional language

The nascent merging of second language acquisition (SLA) and L2 writing research traditions has advanced our understanding of writing in additional languages as a ‘multifaceted’ activity meshing language learning with writing purposes and contexts of use (Manchón, 2011: 4). Concerning the SA context, outcome-oriented SLA research has been tracking the developmental features of L2 writing, as defined by measures of complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF) in the domestic vs. SA classroom (e.g. Godfrey et al., 2014; Pérez-Vidal & Juan-Garau, 2009; Sasaki, 2004). These detailed studies document the contributions and limitations of each learning context. However, rather than establishing the definitive superiority of one context over another, they underscore the inherent variability and subjectivity of writing performance at home and abroad. This individual variation has in turn been examined through the lens of process-oriented L2 writing research, which couches the interaction between the SA experience and L2 writing development as a socioculturally situated practice (e.g. Morton et al., 2015; Sasaki, 2009). Redistributing L2 writing and SLA findings on an interactive continuum of language acquisition, purpose of writing and context of use, Manchón (2011) describes the act of writing along three dimensions: writing-to-learnlanguage (WLL), writing-to-learn-content (WLC) and learning-to-write (LW). She defines LW as ‘the manner in which second and foreign (L2) users learn to express themselves in writing’ (Manchón, 2011: 3) – a process organically captured by L2 writing research. Writing to learn (WL) combines two ‘ways in which the engagement with L2 tasks and activities can contribute to development in areas other than writing itself … be it content-knowledge (writing-to-learn-content, WLC) or language knowledge and skills (writing-to-learn-language, WLL)’ (Manchón, 2011: 3) – a goal tracked by SLA scholarship. Byrnes (2011) and Manchón and Roca de Larios (2011) observe that all dimensions are intertwined in the domestic FL classroom. Investigating the SA context, Sasaki (2007) found that SA facilitates the development of writing skills because it increases L2 writers’ motivation to attend intentionally to both WLL and LW dimensions of writing. Drawing on these insights, my study investigates L2 writers’ perceptions of writing along the WLL and LW continuum and asks how writing instruction can learn from their experience. As Canagarajah (2011) remarks, writing in additional languages is the incessant ‘shuttling’ between WL and LW. The next section examines how the transition from the US FL classroom to the French L2 classroom interacts with this dynamic. The distinction made between the FL and the L2

The Transition from the Foreign Language to the Study Abroad Classroom  137

setting signals that the language and culture of instruction shifts from a non-native to a native context of use for L2 writers. L2 writing at home and abroad

Before they study abroad, US-based undergraduates studying FLs and cultures tend to receive L2 writing instruction whose process-oriented pedagogies (LW) are modeled on L1 composition and English as a second language (ESL) learning philosophies (Reichelt, 2009). However, as pointed out by Reichelt et  al. (2012), the learning context of the FL classroom may disproportionately provide more opportunities for WLL because of its emphasis on grammatical accuracy and vocabulary building. This focus thus competes with L2 learners’ opportunities to develop LW strategies. Previous research by Hedgcock and Lefkowitz (2011) corroborates that writing activities in the communicative FL classroom tend to be taught as a means toward achieving overall proficiency (WLL), with less emphasis on supporting academic writing literacy (LW). In the case of the French FL classroom, however, L2 learners may receive more balanced opportunities in both areas because French teacher-training program curricula remain strongly influenced by the specific French writing values of not only linguistic accuracy but also prescribed organizational patterns (Reichelt et al., 2012). Even though US-based FL French learners are likely to be exposed to both LW and WL pedagogies, when they enter the French university classroom, they must adjust to local norms that do not consistently match their domestic educational expectations and practices. They find, for example, a lecture-driven and self-directed learning environment instead of a process-oriented one. Homework does not get explicitly assigned on a daily or weekly basis as there are no detailed syllabi, and timed written examinations are typically backlogged until the end of the last marking period while accounting for 60% of the final grade. Not only can their classroom experience be quite different, but also these L2 learners become evaluated according to the native norms of a writing tradition that is heavily predicated upon the mastery of formal elements of writing. Specifically, Boch and Frier (2012) observe that spelling ability has been a traditionally defining feature of superior writing skills in France as well as the ability to master canonical forms such as the dissertation (persuasive essay) from high school onward. In her thoughtful crossexamination of writing in French and US educational settings, Donahue (2009) unpacks the generic features that define the French pedagogical genres of academic writing from the lycée (high school) years to the postsecondary undergraduate experience. Whether a dissertation (persuasive essay), a commentaire composé (close reading) or a dossier (a short research paper), these texts exhibit for example ‘an easily r­ecognizable and repeatable external structure … frequent explicit transitions …[and]

138  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

… a thesis statement at the end’ (Donahue, 2009: 136). In doing so, she reminds us that ‘good writing is … largely a language-and-culture based phenomenon’ (Donahue, 2009: 138). Consequently, not only do L2 learners shuttle between writing to learn a language and learning to write, but they must also come to grips with the cultural idiosyncrasies of their host educational system’s practices and values when they transition to the SA classroom. SA scholarship suggests that such adjustment issues potentially stunt learners’ intercultural growth, especially when the host culture’s practices are perceived as being insensitive or wrong (e.g. Aveni-Pellegrino, 2005). Furthermore, SA research underscores the deep connections between language gain and the development of intercultural competence. For example, in their analysis of seven previously identified variables affecting linguistic development across six SA programs in five different languages, Baker-Smemoe et al. (2014) report that intercultural sensitivity (e.g. Deardorff, 2007) and social network development (e.g. Isabelli-Garcia, 2006) are the strongest predictors of positive linguistic gain. Since writing development abroad is tied to the specific challenges surrounding the SA experience, how can L2 writing instruction provide an intentional pedagogy that addresses them? Facilitating L2 writing at home and abroad

One discussion thread in the SA research community has focused on the challenges of facilitating participants’ opportunities for language acquisition and engagement with their host culture in order to secure linguistic and intercultural gains. SLA and sociocultural scholarship investigating the SA learning context concur that immersion does not necessarily deliver the transformative experience that language educators and participants hope for (e.g. Collentine & Freed, 2004; Wilkinson, 2002). Reflecting on the communicative opportunities afforded by the SA context and their interaction with individual variables, Collentine (2009: 226) calls for nuanced interpretations of linguistic and pragmatic growth that take into consideration not only acquisitional thresholds and learners’ cognitive predispositions that promote further acquisition during SA, but also identity factors and the ‘sociocognitive and socio-cultural pressures’ that SA participants experience abroad. This is why Allen and Dupuy (2012: 477) remind language professionals ‘to examine collegiate FL curricula and pedagogies used before, during, and after study abroad to better understand how they equip students to navigate the linguistic and cultural demands of life abroad’. In her own examination of the evolution of SA from the US research perspective, Kinginger (2009: 217) urges educators to take an ‘activist stand toward the design and use of study abroad programs’ in the face of globalization forces that may dilute the experience of ‘otherness’ and undermine local self-sufficiency. Because the SA experience has evolved, and departments of world languages and

The Transition from the Foreign Language to the Study Abroad Classroom  139

cultures are no longer the traditional home for SA in higher education, Watson et al. (2013: 63) recommend their active collaboration with other campus entities to maximize the internationalization of education at the collegiate level and create a ‘synergy’ of cooperation that supports academic success abroad. The next section describes how these recommendations were implemented through a French writing peer-tutoring program at home and abroad. The Study The domestic writing center

This exploratory study originated from discussing peer-tutor training at the author’s US-based institution with the Multilingual Writing Center (MWC). Formerly an English-based program, the MWC extended its mission to recruit and train peer tutors in English to 10 other world languages taught at its home institution: Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish. It provides an exceptionally supportive platform for world language and culture departments to collaborate with undergraduate peer tutors, whose multilingual experience ranges from being US-educated, advanced L2 writers returning from SA, binationals shuttling between two or more languages and cultures from childhood onward, to native writers with additional bilingualism on a US exchange program. This collaboration opened up a transformative dialogue between students, faculty and the MWC: Tutors were eager to share their learning experience from SA or from their home culture writing tradition in order to support tutees in the FL classroom and their transition to the SA classroom; faculty gained pedagogical insights from the tutors about the L2 writing experience; and the MWC incorporated SLA considerations that challenged their composition studies’ holistic approach to writing agency. Such cross-pollination produced further opportunities not only to advance the collaboration between the  MWC and language and culture departments but also to reflect on the articulation between the domestic and SA writing components of the undergraduate language and culture programs. Semi-structured interviews were initiated domestically by the director of the MWC to investigate peer tutors’ perspectives about L2 writing and their ramifications for tutoring in languages other than English. French tutors who were SA returnees reported various stages of acculturation ranging from ‘writing culture shock’ to ‘assimilation’ to their perceived conventions of the host writing culture (Lape, 2013). Furthermore, informal conversations with them revealed that they desired more training to facilitate their tutoring of what they portrayed as differential writing values and practices between French and English academic writing. In response, the author, an instructor in the Department of French and Francophone Studies, initiated a peer-tutoring program at her

140  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

institution’s own SA site in France with the support of the on-site staff and the MWC director. Consequently, the availability of peer tutorials could explore in situ US-educated multilingual learners’ perceptions and experiences of the transition between writing L2 academic papers at home vs. the French SA learning context. The next section elaborates on the SA site where the study took place, as well as the factors involved in adapting the MWC mission to its location abroad. The SA site

The SA site is located in a large French city. It is designed as a year or one-semester immersion experience during which participants live with French hosts. A bicultural staff runs the organization in cooperation with the Department of French and Francophone Studies and the SA office. Placement is predicated upon the participants’ ability to function in French, independently of being a French major. After a minimum of five semesters of college French, participants are eligible to pursue their field of specialization through direct enrollment at one of the three main university campuses. Concurrently, participants take two programtaught courses: an intercultural orientation course and a writing course that supports their writing in the French university setting by practicing the main pedagogical genres of French academic writing. The SA peer-tutoring program: Mediating French and US practices

The French peer-tutoring program articulated the pre-, during- and post-dimensions of the SA writing experience through developing a social network of domestic and SA tutors: On the home campus, both the exchange students from France and trained tutors returning from SA connected through tutoring with domestic students enrolled in FL classes at all levels, including those preparing for SA. At the SA site, the latter received tutoring from the French exchange students who had returned from their SA experience. This intentional structure created a peer-mentoring exchange designed to facilitate the SA writing transition. Furthermore, the implementation of peer-tutoring practices at the French SA site was a realistic adaptation of the US-based MWC. Writing center research suggests that individualized tutoring is an appropriately adaptive solution to the institutional and cultural discrepancies found between domestic and SA environments (e.g. Reichelt et  al., 2013). As a case in point, although the SA peer-tutoring initiative was fully supported, the first intercultural issue was to establish the validity of peer tutors in the French context. In fact, the very activity of peer tutoring was problematic for the SA staff. They were concerned, for example, that tutoring sessions would skew participants’ performance. One instructor asked specifically not to employ peer tutors in the early stages of the writing course so that the learners’ ‘true’ level of proficiency could be evaluated and adequate

The Transition from the Foreign Language to the Study Abroad Classroom  141

feedback provided. These concerns are reflective of the role of tutoring in the French learning environment. When French peer tutors were asked about its meaning in French, they responded that it had a strictly remedial role in the large university setting. Tutors and tutees alike also noted that the French tutoring style is direct compared with the US-based writing center’s orthodoxy of non-directive pedagogy and reported the pressure of adapting it to local norms and practices. Writing center research cautions against exporting US-based writing practices to abroad sites (e.g. Ganobcsik-Williams, 2012). Reichelt et al. (2013: 279), for example, describe the challenges of establishing an EFL writing center in Poland where writing for pedagogical genres is product rather than process oriented and as a consequence, writers are ‘reader-responsible’ and receive less writing practice. They adapted the tutorial practices of their own EFL writing center to fit local expectations. This interculturally sensitive approach is critical in the SA context where peer tutorials are conducted within the home language and culture. The next section investigates SA participants’ and peer tutors’ perceptions of the writing transition abroad as a first step to identify areas of writing facilitation. The SA participants

The three participants who are discussed for the purpose of this chapter were part of a larger cohort of 16 US-educated undergraduates in their junior year, spending the fall or academic year at their home institution SA site in France. All three had committed to a year immersion and participated in a 40-minute to an hour-long, semi-structured interview on site with the author three times during the academic year 2013–2014. Their language contact profiles (LPC) underscore their multilingual experience, as celebrated by Morton et al. (2015: 1): ‘The conceptualization of “multilingual” students is intended to recognize that what each student brings to the academy needs to be seen as a resource for writing, rather than a language problem or deficit’. Albert1 is a 20-year-old male student born in the USA, raised in English while being exposed to his family members’ native Tagalog. He took three years of French in high school and placed in the second level of the language requirement sequence out of three at his undergraduate institution. Furthermore, he took four college-level French courses before studying abroad, including two French language requirement classes and two writing-intensive courses in the major. He had no previous immersion experience in French. In France, he took three program-taught courses: the orientation course, the writing course and the seminar on French gastronomy. In the fall of his SA stay, he directly enrolled in three courses in the international management undergraduate major. In the spring, he directly enrolled in three French courses in the lettres modernes major, i.e. literature. Albert is an international business and management major with a minor in economics and a minor in French.

142  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

Kara is a 20-year-old female student born in the USA and raised in English who took seven years of French through middle school and high school. She placed in the final-level course of the French language requirement at her undergraduate institution. She reported no previous abroad experience. Before transitioning to France, she took four college-level French courses, including her language requirement class, two writing-intensive courses and a literature course. In France, she took four program-taught courses: the orientation course, the writing course, a seminar on French gastronomy and the French workplace intercultural seminar. Furthermore, she directly enrolled in five art history courses throughout the academic year along with French undergraduate majors. Finally, she completed an internship in an art gallery. Kara is a double major in French and art history, and she is an English and French peer tutor at her home institution. Sandra is a 20-year-old female student born in the USA from an English-speaking family while being educated bilingually in English and Spanish. She reported living and studying in Mexico for 10  years. She also took eight years of French spanning from elementary school to high school, and she placed in the last level of the French language requirement course at her undergraduate institution. She took three collegelevel courses before SA, including the language requirement class, and two writing-intensive courses in the major. In France, she took three program-taught courses: the orientation course, the writing course and the French workplace intercultural seminar. She also directly enrolled in six linguistics courses in the undergraduate major. Finally, she completed an internship in translation in a local media organization. She is a double major in sociology and French. The SA peer tutors

Two tutors out of six, Armand and Marcel, completed two individual interviews at the midpoint and at the end of the 2013–2014 French academic year. They were former French exchange students who took classes in American studies and English while working as French peer tutors and teaching assistants at their US host institution. They also knew the incoming SA participants from that same institution due to their previous interactions on the home campus. At the time of the study, they were master’s students at their home institution, with Armand specializing in French as an FL and Marcel in anglophone cultures and civilizations. The exploratory data

The emic perspective was adopted to explore SA participants’ perceptions of the transition between the FL classroom and the SA environment so as to understand L2 writing development in a socially situated

The Transition from the Foreign Language to the Study Abroad Classroom  143

manner (Morton et al., 2015). French peer tutors were solicited in order to contextualize further the SA participants’ perceptions and balance them out against local perspectives (Kinginger, 2009). The protocol included a language contact profile (LCP; cf. Collentine & Freed, 2004); three in-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted by the author at the beginning (Interview  1, September), mid-point (Interview  2, February) and end of the academic year (Interview  3, May); two semi-structured interviews with two peer tutors; one interview with the local writing instructor; two class observations of the SA program writing course; and field notes about the SA site and the local host universities. SA participants responded to a series of questions partly adapted from Lape (2013) for consistency between the domestic and SA interviews conducted in a larger investigation about the role of the MWC. Questions tapped into the participants’ perceptions of the transition between the FL and the SA classroom as well as their use of the peer tutorials at home and abroad (see Appendix). The interviews were conducted in French and English to capture the participants’ multilingual experience (quotes followed by asterisks * in the section titled ‘Findings and Discussion’ indicate that the information is translated from French). They were digitally recorded and transcribed. The data were synthesized by the author, following Sasaki’s (2009: 59) grounded-theory methodology of ‘clustering, recurring patterns and contrasts’ so as to gain insight into the evolving factors impacting the participants’ SA experience of writing academic papers in their host culture. These self-reports combined with peer tutors’ observations were undertaken to help the French writing program improve its practices by achieving a deeper understanding of the students’ embedded experience of SA in the undergraduate curriculum. Findings and Discussion Evolving perceptions of academic writing between Interviews 1, 2 and 3

At the onset of their SA program, participants were asked to describe what they perceived as common features of ‘good writing’ in both French- and US-based academic literacies. They provided three different foci. For Kara, it meant positioning oneself and ‘proving a point’. Albert proposed that clarity and strength of argument matter while Sandra focused on the importance of ‘good resources’. The answers given to the same question posed at Interviews 2 (I2) and 3 (I3) suggest that the participants incorporated local expectations into their overall perception of good writing. Like Albert (I2), Kara noted that ‘the development of ideas’* matters (I3) and called as her witnesses the French professors who insisted that ideas must be explained and argued. Sandra insisted on ‘the ability to examine a theme from different perspectives’* (I3), as taught regarding the French argumentative essay. These comments relate to the

144  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

participants’ perceived difficulties in writing French papers. When asked what was difficult for them when they wrote in French, all three identified the persistent issue of writing longer papers, or writing fluency. At I2 and I3, Kara observed that during timed final written exams, French students wrote all the way to the end but she was unable to do so. Albert articulated similar limitations by noticing that his fluency had plateaued. As she was struggling to write her internship report at I3, Sandra confessed that she ‘put it off’ because of its ‘length’*. However, she noticed that it was much easier for her to write more ‘fluid’ drafts (I3). These selfreports corroborate Sasaki’s (2007, 2009) findings that SA writers gain writing fluency abroad, but they also underscore SA writers’ realization that the learning curve is slow, as these students who committed to the full academic year abroad with high hopes of achieving advanced levels of proficiency came to admit. The participants described their struggles as part and parcel of their progress as multilingual writers writing to learn and learning to write. Elaborating on this dynamic interplay, they identified the adjustments they needed to make toward proficiency. All three described the crucial role of vocabulary in writing more fluently in French. Kara was frustrated by her struggle to access vocabulary: ‘I want something said and I DON’T know the word’ (I1). Although she later acknowledged her progress, she continued to attribute her struggle for ‘expansion’* in French to her knowledge of ‘vocabulary’* as well as ‘register’*, a lexicosemantic domain that Albert understood from the beginning of his stay as being crucial for advanced proficiency: ‘It’s difficult when the level of written French is more advanced because nuances are more difficult to capture’*. Sandra recounted at I1 the transition from conversational to academic French in her writing class before SA and she commented that ‘at that level, it was hard to express myself… I was surprised… It was vocabulary’. Similarly to her SA companions, she perceived herself to be more fluent (‘It comes more easily’) but she described the formal register of written French as remaining elusive at I3. In other words, the lexical nuances of academic writing require more effort even in the SA environment, which is found to be more conducive to informal vocabulary learning (e.g. Hinkel, 2003). Prompted to address their writing strategies, the participants reported that they relied on translation throughout SA. In fact, the role of translation is one of the most salient findings in the data. Sasaki (2007) previously reported the use of translation strategies and interpreted them as part of her SA participants’ motivation to write better. This was also the case for the participants in this study, whose interview data highlight translanguaging for writing purposes, i.e. the ‘flexible reliance on two languages to serve one’s immediate needs’ (Kwon & Schallert, 2016: 138). All three recalled the difficulty of shuttling between English and French when they arrived in France (Kara described ‘a war in [her] head’*) but

The Transition from the Foreign Language to the Study Abroad Classroom  145

by the end of the academic year, they used both languages for specific purposes: For example, Kara reported the need to write her notes in English before she started the writing process in French. In this case, the use of English sped up her decision-making about the direction of her paper. Furthermore, both Albert and Sandra summed up the role of translanguaging as an identity-based strategy to shuttle between their languages: ‘When I write in one language, I think in multiple languages but I feel that each language has a different mentality so when you write, it changes’ (Sandra, I3). Related to the notion of identity, Albert brought up the concept of polyphony in writing in an additional language: ‘French, it’s like an understanding that how you develop your voice in one language is not the same in the other’ (I1). In both cases, the SA context raised their awareness and appropriation of their expanding linguistic repertoire. Intercultural contact zones

Writing in an additional language generated intercultural comparisons that pervaded the participants’ perception of the transition from the FL to the SA classroom. As expected, participants commented on institutional discrepancies that affected their writing experience abroad (cf. Aveni-Pellegrino, 2005; Kinginger, 2009). Kara compared transitioning abroad to reliving her first-year experience on her home campus as she learned from her mistakes in interpreting her professors’ expectations (I2). Sandra made a similar realization when she understood that she needed to become self-directed in the French academic environment because instructors did not give specific directions (I3). Furthermore, she realized that she did not necessarily write more during her SA experience due to the differences in the educational systems. Albert commented on his frustration with the four-hour or two-hour French lecture format while Kara described being in a ‘fog’ when she started attending lectures and missed the atmosphere of her home institution library because she was a ‘nerd’ who loved to read and she had not received specific reading assignments in France (I2). The second trend of intercultural reflections in the data focused on the French academic paper. Commenting on the French pedagogical genres of writing, Kara emphasized the difficulty in matching disciplinary expectations between the kinds of art history papers she wrote domestically vs. abroad (I2). Like Lape’s (2013) participant, she decided to acculturate to local practices: ‘I have accepted that I am in France, and that is the system, and I have to do it this way’* (I2). Specifically, she learned that disciplinary discourse was socially situated. Albert mitigated his frustration with writing for local expectations with his intercultural progression as a multilingual writer: he welcomed the systematic, recognizable pattern of French papers described by Donahue (2009) and claimed that it helped him write better by showing him how to organize his ideas

146  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

in a prescribed format. Sandra echoed the same perception when she described the expected progression of the French persuasive essay while suggesting that she was becoming more ‘open-minded’* now that she had practiced the format of the dialectical essay. These findings echo Rinnert and Kobayashi’s (2009) assessment of their previous research with EFL learners of Japanese. In it, they propose a dynamic view of writing informed by writing cultures in contact rather than essentializing writing through a strictly contrastive approach. The interview data suggest that as they entered the second half of their SA experience, the participants gradually gained intercultural sensitivity through writing despite their initial frustrations. The role of peer tutoring at home and abroad: Writing support?

This section reports on tutors’ and tutees’ interview data regarding the role of peer tutorials at home and abroad. It shows that the motivation to consult tutors depends heavily on the learning context and the disciplinary discourse. Kara, a peer tutor, disclosed that she did not consult writing tutors before SA. However, she justified consulting them as a survival strategy in the SA context. After she received a failing grade on her first in-class writing assignment, she developed a close relationship with one tutor. Her specific requests consisted of reviewing grammar and ‘reformulation’ throughout the academic year, as well as the flow of organization. What Manchón (2011) observes about the WLL opportunities in the domestic FL classroom, Kara applied to her peer tutorials abroad. She explained that she valued the directness of the French tutors and elaborated on her preference based on her own tutoring experience: In the domestic context, she never enjoyed ‘playing the game’* of nondirective tutoring. According to her, this approach should be reserved for unmotivated tutees. In other words, it is what they deserve. In contrast, motivated students come with specific questions and deserve a direct answer when they do not know a rule or a lexical item. Sandra credited her understanding of organizational patterns in French essays to her peer tutorials on the home campus and she did not feel as pressured to use tutoring abroad since she claimed to have internalized the structures of the French essay. Furthermore, she reported not working with tutors during her second semester because of the methods of her linguistics courses, which did not require her to write traditional essays. Like Kara, when she consulted, she was not as concerned by issues of prompt or development as much as she wanted to ‘confirm that [her] ideas are expressed well’*. By that she meant ‘syntax, grammar, and phrases’* (I2). Overall, Sandra valued individualized tutoring but she did not feel that there was as much at stake in her disciplinary discourse of linguistics for her to work with a writing tutor, unlike Kara in art history.

The Transition from the Foreign Language to the Study Abroad Classroom  147

In contrast, Albert was upset with French peer tutors’ direct approach compared to his domestic experience. At home, he consulted tutors after he ‘developed anxiety’ over ‘writing well’ in French (I1). Albert used the domestic sessions to discuss ideas, digressions issues and how they related to his interpretation of the prompt. He also mentioned that due to differences in tutoring styles, he came to his sessions prepared with specific questions. At the SA site, Albert became anxious after consulting with French tutors who evaluated his work ‘only as a text’* rather than engaging with ideas (I2). Because he considered himself invested in ideas, he sought feedback beyond orthographic accuracy. While Albert welcomed the specific patterns of the French essay as a means to improve text organization both in French and English, he resented that the feedback focused on accuracy during tutoring sessions in France, possibly because it is ‘overvalued in France in comparison with other countries… [and] spelling mistakes are particularly badly viewed’ (Boch & Frier, 2012: 216). Albert’s intercultural experience with local norms and values of writing was thus informed by a sense of language insecurity that made him withdraw from peer-tutoring opportunities. SA tutors’ perspectives

Armand and Marcel concurred that the SA learning context affected tutorials’ goals, tutees’ attitudes and their writing needs. First, they reported a different tutoring experience compared to the ‘professional’* atmosphere on the US campus. Tutees may bring a paper to revise, but they also ask for feedback on written exams, or for a review session before a written exam, or grammar practice, or vocabulary building activities. Sessions can be as short as 10  minutes before the next class starts, or longer than an hour. Furthermore, both tutors reported being upset with some tutees’ behavior. They observed that ‘social’* participants make the most of their tutorial opportunities, while others underuse writing resources and procrastinate. Consequently, the tutors felt more pressured by tutees consulting them in a state of panic compared to the home institution: ‘You MUST help us. It is due tomorrow’*, Armand quoted. Finally, Armand and Marcel noticed that tutees were more afraid of being judged and did not necessarily trust the tutoring process, an issue articulated by Albert. Armand offered the intercultural insight that the SA context makes L2 writers feel ‘more vulnerable’* and exposed because ‘to criticize their words is to criticize their ideas’*, which in turn makes the tutoring session potentially ‘conflictual’* and ‘emotionally charged’*. According to Armand, this was because the SA context magnifies the importance of cultural norms of writing in contrast to the FL classroom and its domestic context where ‘they have other things going on’*. By the same token, Armand valued the opportunity to engage in a more ‘flexible’ mentoring relationship with tutees who may

148  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

need more encouragement and guidance in contrast to the ‘professional environment’ of the domestic MWC. Shifting the boundaries of the tutoring session, Armand described it as a safe haven or intercultural space during which he could affirm the tutees’ SA experiences with all their ups and downs. This was all the more important to him because this attitude is rare in the French educational system, which he described as being extremely judgmental: ‘Criticism before all!’* Finally, tutors observed two writing factors that did not characterize the MWC domestic environment. First, they reported that expectations for French papers were more narrowly concerned with ‘knowledge telling’* whereas they described US-based papers as knowledge building. Secondly, Armand found himself not fully equipped to address specific disciplinary discourses now that tutees wrote in the French university setting. He wondered if tutor training or recruiting should be more genre based in order to respond to the wider range of disciplinary discourses that SA students experience in the French local environment. Similarly, Kara reported consulting a tutor familiar with the art history major when she was confronted with different French writing expectations. Discussion and Pedagogical Implications

The interview data provide insight into the complex interactions between the SA environment, the participants’ language proficiency and the degree of their intercultural sensitivity as expressed through the lens of the L2 writing experience abroad. Interpreted across the WLL–WLC– LW continuum, it can inform the articulation of the undergraduate L2 writing curriculum and demystify L2 writing. With initial proficiency and intercultural sensitivity being determining pre-SA competences, and depth of social networks maximizing SA gains (Baker-Smemoe et  al., 2014), it makes sense to build on all three in order to bridge the domestic and SA components of the collegiate curriculum. While compatible with the language and culture being studied, L2 writing pedagogies can combine these dimensions at home and abroad in the following ways. 1. Writing proficiency: WLL at home and abroad

L2 writing research has established that writing is conducive to language learning. Building on SLA theory with Swain and Lapkin’s (1995) ‘pushed output’ hypothesis, Manchón (2011: 58) and her colleagues contend that because it promotes opportunities for ‘noticing and for metalinguistic reflection’, WLL product-based pedagogies are decidedly relevant in the domestic FL classroom. Furthermore, timed written tasks must be incorporated to prepare writers for performance-based writing and to develop fluency in the Erasmus context. Conversely, SA research does not report statistically significant gains in writing accuracy after a semester of immersion (e.g. Storch, 2009) compared to fluency. Although feedback

The Transition from the Foreign Language to the Study Abroad Classroom  149

provision is common practice in the FL proficiency-based classroom and supports the learning process (e.g. Ferris, 2006), interviews at the SA site reveal that it is not necessarily available in the host classroom culture. Peer-tutoring sessions are thus primed to play this mediating role at the SA site, because they offer a more familiar environment, potentially reducing students’ heightened sense of vulnerability in the SA academic context. The interview data show that tutees consistently requested WLL feedback, running contrary to LW US writing center pedagogy. In order to train tutors who support L2 writers’ transition from the FL to the SA environment, MWC pedagogy must be translingual and mediate the home and the host writing culture by treating WLL concerns as legitimate questions (cf. Salem, 2016). 2. Intercultural sensitivity: WLC and LW at home and abroad

WLC can be implemented domestically through task-based or contentbased instruction to help learners make meaningful connections between language and content through rich input, pushed output opportunities, meaningful content and collaboration (e.g. Schultz, 2011). These pedagogies may provide superior preparation for SA, as they expose writers to a variety of authentic written discourses and genres while maximizing meaningful WLL opportunities (Byrnes et al., 2010). L2 writers also learn before their SA transition that writing is socially situated and that writing conventions and values may vary across cultures. In turn, the SA context reinforces WLC learning opportunities: Albert noted that his writing ‘effort’ is different because he has moved from writing essays focused on language proficiency to essays developing deep content. This shift suggests that the SA context enhances writing motivation by grounding the relationship between WLC and WLL in a meaningful purpose (cf. Sasaki, 2009). Regarding process-based LW pedagogies, without essentializing writing, the provision of models and comparative frameworks can help students become more interculturally aware of their host writing culture. As the interview data show, both the domestic and SA environments offer learning opportunities that expose students to the preferred patterns of pedagogical genres taught in the SA context. The three participants in this study reported that the structure and logical sequence of French essays diverged from US-based prescriptions. Furthermore, they perceived making progress in areas of content organization and structure as well as internalizing them, a learning outcome enhanced by the SA context, as documented in Storch (2009). Abasi (2012: 195) underscores the ‘pedagogical value of intercultural rhetoric’ in his Persian as a foreign language course to demonstrate that ‘different does not necessarily mean deficient’. This explicit intercultural approach to writing is perhaps all the more beneficial when there is a significant perceived gap by learners between their home and their host writing culture.

150  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

Furthermore, WL pedagogies can benefit from genre instruction in order to highlight how writing conventions are the product of sociocultural norms and interpersonal factors (e.g. Yiğitoğlu & Reichelt, 2014). This is evidenced in the interview data regarding their interpretation of ‘good writing’ and how it evolved for SA participants: As they acculturated to local practices, participants not only drew connections between local writing expectations and their general growth as writers, but they also reflected on the importance of finding both their own voice and the right words in their additional language. In the SA context, this intercultural growth can be further supported through journaling, an activity that Albert spontaneously undertook, and that can be formalized through intercultural journals in the host culture (e.g. Aguilar-Stewart, 2010). 3. Social networks and writing instruction at home and abroad

The tutor reports at the SA site reveal that SA participants tapped differentially into the writing tutorials. This behavior is reflective of the SA context. For example, Storch (2009: 205) reports a ‘low uptake of support options’ in her English for Academic Purposes (EAP) program. To counteract this tendency, the combined recruitment and training of MWC and SA peer tutors builds a visible community of L2 writers at home and abroad, both programmatically and socially. As suggested by the interviews, peer tutors are well positioned to become intercultural informants who help writers negotiate writing practices and values in the host educational setting (cf. Mozafari, 2016). Furthermore, the most beneficial outcome of the dialogue with the peer tutors was the reformulation of the French writing-in-the-discipline sequence before SA. This work would simply not have been possible without engaging in deeper conversations about L2 writing with the SA staff, the MWC and the tutors, both French and US educated. The first course was refocused on the WLL dimension to address pre-SA proficiency, while the second course developed a comparative framework of US and French pedagogical genres, e.g. the explicit US prompt vs. the implicit French prompt; the implicit French prompt vs. the prescribed structure of the French essay; the US thesis vs. the French problématique. The interview data suggest that SA participants are able to integrate these reflections into their writing but further genre-based instruction is needed abroad. Conclusion

Together, WLL, WLC and LW pedagogies can build a supportive translingual writing curriculum. They require interdisciplinary training that (1) challenges the orthodoxies of US writing center pedagogies (cf. Salem, 2016); (2) recognizes SLA processes and the cognitive demands around writing (cf. Manchón, 2009: the proficiency dependency of writing); (3) understands the interpersonal and intercultural dimensions of

The Transition from the Foreign Language to the Study Abroad Classroom  151

L2 writing (cf. Donahue, 2009); and (4) values L2 learners as multilingual writers shuttling between languages (cf. Ortega & Carson, 2010). Translingual researchers such as Kobayashi and Rinnert (2013) have observed that when ‘L1 and L2 knowledge evolve, this writing knowledge becomes more merged and overlapping. As a result, writers are able to gain more control over the texts they are constructing by choosing the most appropriate features from their expanded repertoires of overlapping knowledge. In this way, they are able to meet their perceived needs and audience expectations in the particular language they are using’. (2013: 6) This finding not only meshes with the mission of the MWC to develop writer agency, but it also supports the language profession position stated in the MLA (2007) report that ‘translingual and transcultural competence places value on the ability to operate between languages’ in contrast to seeking the ultimate attainment of native writer norms. Multilingual writers will thrive if their educational institution promotes the active and intentional collaboration between domestic and SA faculty, the writing center and the office of international education in order to commit to the interculturally sensitive internationalization of education. Note (1) Names were changed.

References Abasi, A. (2012) The pedagogical value of intercultural rhetoric: A report from the Persian-as-a-foreign language classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing 21, 195–220. Aguilar-Stewart, J. (2010) Using e-journals to assess students language awareness and social identity during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals 43 (1), 138–159. Allen, H.W. and Dupuy, B. (2012) Study abroad, foreign language use, and the communities standard. Foreign Language Annals 45 (4), 468–493. Aveni-Pellegrino, V. (2005) Study Abroad and Second Language Use: Constructing the Self. New York: Cambridge University Press. Baker-Smemoe, W., Dewey, D.P., Brown, J. and Martinsen, R. (2014) Variables affecting L2 gains during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals 47 (3), 464–486. Boch, C. and Frier, C. (2012) The teaching of writing skills in French universities: The case of the Université Stendhal, Grenoble III. In C. Thaiss, G. Bräuer and P. Carlino (eds) Perspectives on Writing: Writing Programs Worldwide: Profiles of Academic Writing in Many Places (pp. 213–223). Anderson, SC: Parlor Press and the WAC Clearing House. Byrnes, H. (2011) Beyond writing as language learning or content learning. In R. Manchón (ed.) Learning-to-Write and Writing-to-Learn in an Additional Language (pp. 133–153). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Byrnes, H., Maxim, H.H. and Norris, J.M. (2010) Realizing advanced writing development in collegiate FL education: Curricular design, pedagogy, and assessment. The Modern Language Journal 94. Supplement I. Canagarajah, S. (2011) Writing to learn and learning to write by shuttling between languages. In R. Manchón (ed.) Writing to Learn and Learning to Write in an Additional Language (pp. 111–132). Amsterdam: Johns Benjamins.

152  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

Collentine, J. (2009) Study abroad research: Findings, implications, and future directions. In M. Long and C. Doughty (eds) The Handbook of Language Teaching (pp. 218–233). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Collentine, J. and Freed, B. (2004) Learning context and its effects on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26, 153–171. Deardorff, D.K. (2007) A model for intercultural competence and its implications for the foreign language curriculum. In S. Wilkinson (ed.) Insights from Study Abroad for Language Programs (pp. 86–98). Boston, MA: Thompson Heinle. Donahue, C. (2009) The lycée-to-université progression in French students’ development as writers. In D. Foster and D. Russel (eds) Writing and Learning in Cross-National Perspective: Transitions from Secondary to Higher Education (pp. 134–191). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ferris, D. (2006) Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland and F. Hyland (eds) Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Foster, M. (2013) Engaging students in academic transitions: A case of two projects using student voice and technology to personalize the experience. In J. Ryan (ed.) CrossCultural Teaching and Learning for Home and International Students: Internationalization of Pedagogy and Curriculum in Higher Education (pp. 97–109). New York: Routledge. Ganobcsik-Williams, L. (2012) Section essay: Reflecting on what can be gained from comparing models of academic writing provision. In C. Thaiss, G. Bräuer and P. Carlino (eds) Perspectives on Writing: Writing Programs Worldwide: Profiles of Academic Writing in Many Places (pp. 499–512). Anderson, SC: Parlor Press and the WAC Clearing House. Godfrey, L., Treacy, C. and Tarone, E. (2014) Change in French second language writing in study abroad and domestic contexts. Foreign Language Annals 47 (1), 48–65. Hedgcock, J. and Lefkowitz, N. (2011) Exploring the learning potential of writing development in heritage language education. In R. Manchón (ed.) Learning to Write and Writing to Learn in an Additional Language (pp. 209–233). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hinkel, E. (2003) Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L1 and L2 academic texts. TESOL Quarterly 37, 275–301. Institute of International Education (IIE) (2017) Open Doors Report 2017. See http:​//www​. iie.​org/R​esear​ch-an​d-Pub​licat​ions/​Open-​Doors​ (accessed 14 March 2018). Isabelli-Garcia, C. (2006) Study abroad social networks, motivations and attitudes: Implications for second language acquisition. In M. DuFon and E. Churchill (eds) Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts (pp. 231–258). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Kinginger, C. (2009) Americans abroad: Negotiation of difference? Language Teaching 43 (2), 216–227. Kobayashi, H. and Rinnert, C. (2013) L1/L2/L3 writing development: Longitudinal case study of a Japanese multicompetent writer. Journal of Second Language Writing 22, 4–33. Kwon, H. and Schallert, D. (2016) Understanding translanguaging practices through a biliteracy continua framework: Adult biliterates reading academic texts in their two languages. Bilingual Research Journal 39 (2), 138–151. Lape, N. (2013) Going global, becoming translingual: The development of a multilingual writing center. The Writing Lab Newsletter 38 (3–4), 1–7. Manchón, R. (ed.) (2009) Writing in Foreign Language Contexts. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

The Transition from the Foreign Language to the Study Abroad Classroom  153

Manchón, R. (2011) The language learning potential of writing in foreign language contexts. In T. Cimasko and M. Reichelt (eds) Foreign Language Writing Instruction: Principles and Practices (pp. 44–64). Anderson, SC: Parlor Press. Manchón, R. and Roca de Larios, J. (2011) Writing to learn in FL contexts: Exploring learners’ perceptions of the language learning potential of L2 writing. In R. Manchón (ed.) Learning-to-Write and Writing-to-Learn in an Additional Language (pp. 181–204). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Modern Language Association (MLA) (2007) Foreign languages and higher education: New structures for a changed world. See https​://ww​w.mla​.org/​Resou​rces/​Resea​rch/S​urvey​sRep​ o rts-​ a nd-O ​ t her- ​ D ocum ​ e nts/ ​ T each ​ i ng-E ​ n roll ​ m ents ​ - and- ​ P rogr ​ a ms/F ​ o reig ​ n Lan​guage​s-and​-High​er-Ed​ucati​on-Ne​w-Str​uctur​es-fo​r-a-C​hange​d-Wor​ld (accessed 25 October 2016). Morton, J., Storch, N. and Thompson, C. (2015) What do our students tell us? Perceptions of three multilingual students on their academic writing in first year. Journal of Second Language Writing 30, 1–13. Mozafari, C. (2016) Creating third space: ESL tutoring as cultural mediation. In M. Ianetta and L. Fitzgerald (eds) The Oxford Guide for Writing Tutors (pp. 449–463). New York: Oxford. Ortega, L. and Carson, J. (2010) Multicompetence, social context and L2 writing research praxis. In T. Silva and P.K. Matsuda (eds) Practicing Theory in Second Language Writing (pp. 48–71). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press. Pérez-Vidal, C. and Juan-Garau, M. (2009) The effect of study abroad (SA) on written performance. EUROSLA Yearbook 9, 269–295. Reichelt, M. (2009) A critical evaluation of writing teaching programmes in different foreign language settings. In R. Manchón (ed.) Writing in Foreign language Contexts (pp. 183–208). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters. Reichelt, M., Lefkowitz, N., Rinnert, C. and Schultz, J.M. (2012) Key issues in foreign language writing. Foreign Language Annals 45, 22–41. Reichelt, S., Salski, L., Andres, J., Lowczowski, E., Majchrrzak, O., Molenda, M., ParrModrzejewska, A., Reddington, E. and Wisniewska-Steciuk, E. (2013) A table and two chairs: Starting a writing center in Łódź, Poland. Journal of Second Language Writing 22, 277–285. Rinnert, C. and Kobayashi, H. (2009) Situated writing practices in foreign language settings: The role of previous experience and instruction. In R.M. Manchón (ed.) Writing in Foreign Language Contexts: Learning, Teaching and Research (pp. 23–48). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Salem, L. (2016) Decisions … Decisions. Who chooses to use the writing center? The Writing Center Journal 35 (2), 147–171. Sasaki, M. (2004) A multiple-data analysis of the 3.5 year development of EFL student writers. Language Learning 54 (3), 525–582. Sasaki, M. (2007) Effects of study abroad experiences on EFL writers: A multiple data analysis. The Modern Language Journal 91, 602–620. Sasaki, M. (2009) Changes in English as a foreign language students’ writing over 3.5 years: A sociocognitive account. In R. Manchón (ed.) Writing in Foreign Language Contexts (pp. 49–76). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Schultz, J.M. (2011) Foreign language writing in the era of globalization. In T. Cimasko and M. Reichelt (eds) Foreign Language Writing Instruction: Principles and Practices (pp. 65–82). Anderson, SC: Parlor Press. Storch, N. (2009) The impact of studying in a second language (L2) medium university on the development of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 18, 103–118. Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1995) Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics 16, 371–391.

154  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

Watson, J., Siska, P. and Wolfel, R. (2013) Assessing gains in linguistic proficiency, crosscultural competence and regional awareness: A preliminary study. Foreign Language Annals 46 (1), 62–79. Wilkinson, S. (2002) The omnipresence of the language classroom during summer study abroad. The Modern Language Journal 86 (2), 157–172. Yiğitoğlu, N. and Reichelt, M. (2014) Integrating a genre-based approach to the teaching of foreign language writing. Language Awareness 23, 187–202.

Appendix: SA Interview Sample Questions

(1) How was your experience as a student in your home institution different from your experience as a student abroad? (2) What does French academic culture have in common with US academic culture when it comes to good writing? (3) What is difficult for you when you write in French? (4) How do the writing center peer sessions support your learning at home and abroad? (5) How has your SA experience influenced the way you write?

9 Language Ideology, Language Policy and Writing in Korean as a Second Language Juyoung Song

Introduction: The Sociolinguistic Context of Writing in Korean

This chapter explores the teaching and learning of writing in Korean as a second language (KSL) in South Korea (hereafter Korea), focusing on how language ideology and policy in a given context affect the learning of writing in KSL. Sociolinguistic characteristics such as the tradition of writing instruction in Korean and language-specific structures affect writing education in KSL. Additionally, other sociolinguistic factors such as the status of Korean in relation to any other significant language(s) in the context influence learners’ needs and investment in writing development. So far, little attention has been paid to these factors in second language (L2) writing research. This chapter focuses on the sociolinguistic aspects of L2 writing, discussing implications that are applicable to other contexts similar to the KSL context. Traditionally, writing in Korean is not much emphasized in Korea as the K-12 education tends to measure students’ achievements through high-stakes summative tests, the most significant test of which is the national college entrance examination. Although the college entrance examination implemented a writing section called ‘nonsul’ in the mid1990s, the stated purpose was to establish a better evaluation of students’ disciplinary-specific knowledge, rather than their writing skills (Noh, 2010). As such, there was no systemic writing instruction in K-12 classrooms until 2000 when multiple curricular changes transformed writing instruction from a linear, controlled, form-focused approach to a more dynamic approach that emphasizes process and genre. Recently, Korean language courses for college freshmen have also witnessed a notable change, shifting the focus from students’ understanding of Korean literature and linguistics to their development of communication skills through the integration of reading, speaking and writing (Heo, 2009; Jung, 2012). This context-specific tradition in writing in Korean is relevant to Korean 155

156  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

teachers’ knowledge and attitudes toward teaching writing; teachers themselves often lack writing skills and a firm knowledge of writing instruction in Korean (Yoon, 2013). Insufficient instructional resources and no detailed writing curriculum are common for many Korean language programs (KLPs) in this tradition. The unique writing system also influences instructional practices. The Korean language has an alpha syllabary writing system called ‘hangeul’ with 14 consonants and 10 vowels. Phonology and orthography in Korean are mapped in multiple units, both at the levels of syllable and phoneme. For example, the five phonemes of a two-syllable word, picture /sa.jin/ is organized into two syllable blocks of two or three phonemes in each syllable ‘사’ /sa/ and ‘진’ /jin/ rather than a linear horizontal string of five letters, ‘ㅅㅏ ㅈㅣㄴ’. Frequent form-focused, handwriting practices in KLPs, partially resulting from the lack of a writing curriculum, socializes learners into the Korean-specific composition system. Another sociolinguistic factor significant to the study is the internationalization of Korean higher education and the status of English. Internationalization, one of the most significant driving forces for reforming higher education around the world (Knight, 2008), has recently restructured higher education in South Korea through various governmental projects that aim to globalize cultural and human capital for international competitiveness in a global market. Many Korean universities have competitively implemented new English-medium instruction (EMI) courses and incorporated more English materials and lectures into nonEMI courses to increase student mobility and the institution’s international index, a composite of various international elements on campus. As a result, many college classrooms incorporate varying degrees of translingual practices between English and Korean – often in the structure of English literacy and Korean orality (Song, forthcoming). These translingual practices are both functional and ideological as they accommodate both students’ and instructors’ proficiency in the languages and the neoliberal ideology valorizes English in Korean higher education (Piller & Cho, 2013). The practices further highlight the uneven status and roles of the languages, legitimizing academic literacy in English. Thus, the growing status of English as a gatekeeper for academic excellence in Korean universities is an important factor to consider when discussing learners’ attitudes toward and investment in KSL. That is, understanding non-English L2 learning in a multilingual setting in which the power of English as a global language is prominent requires insight into the role of English and the L2 in learners’ academic performance and social interactions and their uneven investment in them. Language Ideology and Policy in L2 Writing

In the field of L2 education, particularly in English, there has been a wealth of research on learners’ writing practices in various forms and

Language Ideology, Language Policy and Writing in Korean as a Second Language  157

contexts, including online virtual communities, social networks, the internet, mobile devices, traditional paper-based correspondences and academic essays (see Leki et al., 2010). These studies illuminate the role of learners’ linguistic practices in various social contexts in their language development from both linguistic and sociocultural perspectives, showing the pedagogical means of promoting students’ motivation and learning in L2 writing in English. Given the limited discussion on L2 writing in non-English languages, we lack not only a clear sense of the specific features and sociocultural contexts that are unique to these languages and that shape writing practices in them, but also the theory and resources for pedagogical implementation. As for the research in L2 writing, L2 scholars, on the one hand, have criticized mainstream composition studies for neglecting L2 writing theory and research (e.g. Silva et al., 1997). On the other hand, the same criticism has been made regarding a bias in official L2 writing discourse, which fails to recognize L2 writing theory and practice other than English, including non-English foreign languages (Manchón, 2009; Ortega, 2009; Reichelt et al., 2012). Macro social issues such as language ideology (the status of the L2) and L2 education policy play an important role in this imbalance at the levels of research and pedagogy in the area of non-English L2 learning. Language ideology – speakers’ beliefs about a particular linguistic form and their perception of a particular social group (Silverstein, 1979) – ­significantly affects language policy and curriculum. Individuals adopt the societal atmosphere and expectations, forming their attitudes toward the value of writing. Bruton et  al. (2010) offer a good example of language learners’ different attitudes toward the value of different foreign languages, English as a foreign language (EFL) writing in Spain and Spanish as a foreign language (SFL) writing in the USA. Due to the hegemony of English, learners in their study show higher like and needs in EFL writing than SFL writing. As such, in the current sociopolitical atmosphere, writing in L2s (other than English) is often considered of less value due to the language ideology of Standard English, which prioritizes English learning and leaves less support for other languages (Farr & Song, 2011). The sociolinguistic characteristics of a language, such as the status and tradition of the treatment of writing in the language (Reichelt et al., 2012) and its relation to other available languages and literacies in a specific context, affect learners’ and teachers’ attitudes toward writing in the language and their learning and teaching practices. Thus, it is important to explore its social context beyond the language classroom to understand how writing is understood and practiced by its users. This chapter discusses the results of a study on writing in KSL, particularly focusing on learners’ and teachers’ attitudes toward and perceptions about writing in KSL, and how these are shaped by larger social and contextual factors such as language ideology and policy. By focusing on an L2 writing context underrepresented in the literature of applied linguistics and

158  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

L2 writing (no single study so far), this study discusses the implications for theory and practice for KSL writing in particular and non-English L2 learning in general. The Current Study

This study, part of a larger study of Korean writing education in the USA and in South Korea, focuses on KSL learners and their teachers at a Korean university based on a survey of 154 KSL learners and interviews with 16 learners and teachers. The survey data and results aim to serve as a foundation for in-depth interview analysis on teachers’ and learners’ perspectives concerning writing in KSL. Context

The number of KSL learners in Korean universities has increased dramatically in the past decade, approximately seven times from 12,310 in 2003 to 86,410 in 2014 (Korea Ministry of Justice, 2014), the majority of whom are Chinese students (69%) seeking a college degree in Korea. The study was conducted at the Southern Korean University (SKU), one of the top-rated national universities outside Seoul, the capital of Korea. As of 2015, 1,184 students among a total of 39,446 students were foreign students. It has a large KLP that has six levels and offers four 10-week sessions per year. It takes one and half years to complete all six levels offered in the program. Approximately 300 students are enrolled in a total of 20–25 classes in each term, with up to 15 students in each class. The website of the KLP introduces the curriculum for each level, emphasizing communicative competence across levels, moving from interpersonal communication to professional and specialized communication over the course of study. Items directly related to writing appear two times over the entire curriculum at Level 5 and Level 6: ‘summarize, discuss and write reports’ at Level 5, and ‘describe one’s own thought and idea about Korean social and cultural issues in speaking and writing’ at Level 6. The course contents and teaching practices rely heavily on the textbooks created and published by the KLP. Each level uses its own textbook, which has 20 chapters for lower levels and 10 chapters for upper levels. Each chapter has four sections: grammar, vocabulary, listening and reading, and speaking and writing. Students in the lower levels complete two chapters and upper levels complete one chapter each week. There are few in-class writing activities except at Level 6 (see section titled ‘Interview Results’ for details). Most of the in-class ‘writing activities’ are similar to grammar practices (complete sentences using the grammatical items covered in the chapter). Students complete a writing assignment at least once a week, and teachers provide feedback on the assignment. However, none of these assignments is graded, and writing

Language Ideology, Language Policy and Writing in Korean as a Second Language  159

is assessed only through mid-term and final examinations. Students have the option to revise and resubmit their writing assignments. The most frequent teacher feedback focuses on grammar, vocabulary and spelling (see section titled ‘Interview Results’). Similar criteria for assessing writing for the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) (see the details on TOPIK Guideline on Examination) are used to measure students’ writing on those two examinations. All the writing assignments must be handwritten on a Korean composition sheet that has a certain number of small boxes (a box for a syllabary word – see Appendix). No technology is incorporated into in-class writing activities. Survey participants and data

The survey participants included 154 KSL learners at the KLP, and the survey forms were distributed to 10 classes from Levels 3 to 5 through their teachers. The majority of the survey participants were Chinese L1 students (112), and the remaining students were from other Asian countries (27) and the rest of the world (15). Most learners were taking Korean classes in order to enroll in university programs in Korea. Figure  9.1 shows participants’ length of time studying Korean. The survey consisted of five sections, including 30 questions on a 5-point Likert scale, about participants’ attitudes toward writing in KSL, their frequent writing practices and additional questions about their proficiency. All questions and directions on the survey were written in English, Korean and Chinese to facilitate participants’ understanding. All survey data were entered in SPSS for data analysis. The only results relevant to the focus of the study, participants’ attitudes and perceived needs in writing, are presented in this chapter. Interview participants and procedure

Interview participants were 10 KSL learners (three graduate students, two undergraduate students and five KSL learners) and six teachers.

Figure 9.1   Participants’ length of Korean study

160  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

The primary goal of interviewing students and teachers was to determine how and why they perceived and experienced Korean writing as they did. The participants were recruited purposefully. For student participants, a recruitment letter was sent to a few advanced-level classrooms in the KLP. I also contacted several faculty in a few departments at SKU that house a large number of international students. Based on their Korean proficiency, major and linguistic background, 10 students were selected from a total of 17 volunteers. Teachers were recruited variously – through my personal connections, direct contact with the participants on the KLP website and the snowball selection method in which participants introduce other participants into the study. All the interviews were conducted face to face, recorded and transcribed for data analysis. Each interview lasted between 45 and 90 minutes and was conducted in either Korean or/and English. The interview data were analyzed to discuss the major issues regarding teachers’ and students’ views of KSL writing practices in the program and their relationship with the context, specifically language policy and language ideologies. They were analyzed discursively to discuss and add insights to the findings from the survey data through participants’ perspectives, focusing primarily on several emerging themes such as the language Table 9.1  Interview participants Status (graduate/ Nationality/ undergraduate/ country of Participants Gender teacher) origin

Languages spoken (L1, L2 or any language of high proficiency)

Length of studying/ teaching Korean

SKU 1

M

Graduate

China

Chinese

6 years

SKU 2

M

Graduate

China

Chinese

6 years

SKU 3

F

Graduate

China

Chinese

3 years

SKU 4

F

Undergraduate

China

Chinese

4 years

SKU 5

M

Undergraduate

Serbia

Chinese

2 years

SKU 6

M

KSL Level 5

China

Chinese

1 year

SKU 7

F

KSL Level 6

Japan

Japanese

3 years

SKU 8

F

KSL Level 6

Japan

Japanese

3 years

SKU 9

F

KSL Level 6

Japan

Japanese

3 years

SKU 10

F

KSL Level 5

Rwanda

Kinyarwanda, English, French

8 months

T1

F

KSL teacher

Korea

Korean, English

6 months

T2

F

KSL teacher

Korea

Korean

3 years

T3

F

KSL teacher

Korea

Korean, English

6 years

T4

F

KSL teacher

Korea

Korean, Chinese

2 years

T5

F

KSL teacher

Korea

Korean

8 years

T6

F

KSL teacher

Korea

Korean

5 years

Language Ideology, Language Policy and Writing in Korean as a Second Language  161

ideology of English as an academic language, the mismatch between curriculum and student needs and the lack of teacher training. Table 9.1 shows a list of interview participants and their background. Survey Results

The survey items in Section  C asked about learners’ perceptions of their current language skills in four different areas, speaking, listening, reading and writing, in eight categories of proficiency, from beginner (1) through superior (8): beginner, low-intermediate, mid-intermediate, high-intermediate, low-advanced, mid-advanced, high-advanced and superior. Writing skills were rated the lowest among the four domains at 2.30 on the 8.0 scale shown in Table 9.2. Table 9.2  Self-rating of proficiency in four domains Skill

Number

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. deviation

Speaking

148

1

8

2.32

1.64

Listening

148

1

8

2.47

1.72

Reading

148

1

8

2.46

1.54

Writing

148

1

8

2.30

1.31

The survey also included questions about learners’ future learning goals in different skills, and participants, again, rated their writing learning goal as the lowest among the four areas shown in Table 9.3. While the differences are not significant, writing ranks the lowest in both tables. Figure 9.2 shows more details regarding learners’ current proficiency and their future proficiency with the percentage at each level – Levels 2 and 3 are the most frequent levels for learners’ current writing proficiency while the rating for their desired future proficiency ranges between Level  3 and Level 8, which shows their broad range of language learning goals for writing: Level 3 (9%), Level 4 (12%), Level 5 (12%), Level 6 (13%), Level 7 (20%) and Level 8 (30%). This means that more than half of the participants did not consider that mastery of writing skills (superior) would be necessary (or possible). As for the value of writing skills in Korean, participants showed a positive attitude (3.81 out of 5): more than 60% of the participants responded as either agree or strongly agree to the statement, ‘Writing well in Korean is useful in real life’. However, more specific questions that compared the value between English and Korean writing as well as between speaking and writing skills in KSL showed mixed results: about one third of the participants responded as either strongly agree or agree to the statements ‘Writing well in English is much more valuable than writing well in Korean’ (38.5%) and more than two thirds of the participants agreed that ‘I would rather focus on improving my speaking skills in Korean’ (69%).

162  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

Table 9.3  Language learning goals in four domains Skill

Number

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. deviation

Speaking

148

1

8

6.51

1.91

Listening

148

1

8

6.53

1.79

Reading

148

1

8

6.39

1.84

Writing

148

1

8

6.20

1.89

Figure 9.2   Current and future writing skills

Figure 9.3   Attitudes toward KSL writing. (a) English writing skills are more important than Korean writing skills. (b) Korean speaking skills are more important than writing skills

The left chart in Figure  9.3 shows that less than 15% of students disagreed (disagree and strongly disagree) with the statement. Also, the right chart shows that only 5% of the participants disagreed with the statement. These results indicate learners’ emphasis on the development of oral proficiency over writing skills, which reflects the general curricular emphasis in various foreign language programs and learners’ immediate needs demanded in each context (Byrnes et  al., 2010). They also imply that participants embraced the language ideology of English as a global language, which also affects their views and learning of KSL writing through the hegemony of literacy skills in English over literacy skills in other languages. The next section is drawn from interviews and continues to discuss how those perceptions and attitudes are related

Language Ideology, Language Policy and Writing in Korean as a Second Language  163

to the linguistic and sociocultural conditions of their Korean language learning context. Interview Results

The interview data with both KSL students and teachers reveal how their views of and attitudes toward KSL writing skills are intricately related to the context, the frequent use of English as a global language and the prevalent language ideology surrounding it, and the narrow notion of ‘communicative competence’ that has been emphasized in the KSL program. Students’ perspectives Low demand in Korean writing in college courses

Most of the students consider the importance of KSL writing skills secondary to their speaking skills on account of the dual language policy in the graduate classes and few written assignments for undergraduate students. According to graduate student participants (SKU, 1, 2 and 3), while international students are required to use Korean for oral presentations, classroom discussions and listening to lectures, their literacy practices such as reading course-related readings and writing their assignments are mostly in English. The participants admitted their preference for writing course-related assignments in English because of not only their lack of writing proficiency in KSL, but also their belief that professors grant better grades on the assignments written in English. As such, many international students feel that they need to improve their English skills as well as their Korean language skills, specifically speaking skills, in order to be successful in the course. Also, these students do not have many opportunities, or the necessity, to write in Korean. One graduate student described her few writing experiences throughout her program: When I prepare for a class presentation, I write everything down in English and translate it into Korean by myself. Then, one of my Korean classmates helps me revise it by correcting all the errors. Then I can see what is wrong and right. (SKU 3)

Writing a presentation script is considered to be her major writing activity throughout her program of study. She also reported that she had never learned how to write an academic paper in Korean at the KLP. In the following, she illustrated a typical writing activity that she had in the KLP: What I did was to write a short passage in Korean such as write about what makes me happy this month. I learned several key expressions and grammatical elements first. Then I was told to use them in writing my assignment. I also had a chance to read a similar text on the same topic,

164  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

so it was easy to write it by replacing some words and expressions with new words. (SKU 3)

Undergraduate participants reported their difficulty in understanding their courses due to their low listening and speaking proficiency. As for writing skills, their instructors allowed them to write in English and gave them relatively generous grades on their assignments written in Korean, considering their background as an L2 learner. These students, however, found it easier and competitive to write in English even though they did not have high proficiency in English. Thus, they did not feel that improving their writing skills was as critical as improving their speaking skills in Korean. It appears that the accommodation that the instructors have made for those learners’ results in lowering the demand and need for them to improve their KSL writing skills. Lack of writing curriculum and language ideology of English

Three KSL learners (SKU  7, 8 and 9) in Level  6 described writing as the most difficult skill to improve, and their KSL writing had not improved much during the past six months. These students reported that they did not have much experience with writing in their classroom until they began Level 6. Level 6 contains in-class writing activities that emphasize the writing process and collaboration through peer review practices. They admitted that these practices made them realize that their writing was not strong enough, and that writing should go beyond ‘the combination of the right expressions and correct grammar’ (SKU 7). In response to the relative value of KSL writing skills, most students value their competency in English, especially in speaking, more than KSL writing for their future career, or upon returning to their country of origin. However, since they also realized that the job market would be flooded with people competent in English, they decided to invest in Korean, hoping it would give them an extra ‘edge’ that they might need in the future. Thus, most of the students (especially the graduate students) wanted to improve or maintain their English skills even while learning Korean. One undergraduate student commented on the value of English for her future career: To me, English skills would be more important and valuable. However, there are so many people who can speak English very well in China these days. Thus, I would like to learn a ‘small’ (minor) language such as Korean or Japanese that not many people speak in China. I study and live in Korea and learn Korean culture and other stuff, so I hope I have an advantage. (SKU 4)

This particular student rated her Korean-speaking skills (2) the lowest and her English writing skills (7.5) the highest. She explained that she

Language Ideology, Language Policy and Writing in Korean as a Second Language  165

wrote a lot in English for classes and felt pretty good about her writing in English. She went on to clarify that whereas her speaking and writing skills in Korean were perhaps at the same level, she had a higher expectation and need for the former, which resulted in the low self-rating in speaking. Such a language ideology of global English is well reflected in one of the KSL students’ (SKU 10) language use outside the class. She reported her frequent use of English with her peers at the KLP because she felt more comfortable communicating in English due to (1) her lack of proficiency in Korean and (2) her perception of English as a ‘common’ L2. This KSL learner speaks three languages, as well as English as an L2 in her country of origin. She rated her use of English outside of class at 60% and the other two languages at 20%, which leaves only 20% for Korean. Students’ interview responses clearly demonstrate that the language ideology of English and the language policy surrounding SKU classrooms significantly affect learners’ attitudes toward and investment in KSL writing. In this context, learners negotiate the hegemony of language ideology in their learning of Korean – Korean’s status and power as an L2 is redressed in the process. This implies that not all L2 contexts are the same; the KSL context is critically different from the ESL context, and those differences should be accounted for in the theory and pedagogies for L2 writing. Teachers’ perspectives Lack of writing curriculum and instruction

A teacher’s illustration of writing instruction summarizes the curriculum in the KLP: ‘No instruction specifically focuses on writing. We don’t provide students with any systematic training for writing in Korean, but just give students a lot of chances to write through their assignments’ (T3). As a result of completing these writing assignments in the program, students are expected to develop writing skills by themselves. The teacher’s following statement highlights her view of the role of writing instruction in the program: Writing is considered as a reinforcement of speaking or reading activities. A written text is introduced to the students as a part of a reading activity. Once students complete a reading comprehension activity, they are given an assignment, ‘Write like this’. Thus, it is not exactly a writing activity. (T3)

Another teacher commented on writing instruction in the KLP: We use a textbook based on an integrated-skills approach and try to balance such four areas as vocabulary, grammar, listening and reading,

166  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

and speaking and writing. However, we tend to focus on the first three areas. We frequently have speaking activities in the classroom these days, but not enough time for writing. Thus, we have a day called ‘Speaking and Writing’ after every four or five chapters. On the day, students use only supplementary materials to practice speaking and writing. Through these practices, students review the grammar and vocabulary that they have learned. We have four Speaking and Writing days per term. (T5)

While the ‘Speaking and Writing Day’ is intended to boost students’ proficiency and fluency, activities on the day focus on a review of the previous chapters, the purpose of which is to prepare learners for mid-term and final examinations. Teachers pointed out several reasons for the lack of writing instruction: lack of teacher training, limited time and an excessive number of students in a class, which are common challenges for many language programs. I have never learned any writing-related theory or pedagogy while I was in the teacher preparation program. Also, there was no professional training on this area for new instructors. Thus, teachers figure things out as they teach based on their own experiences or follow what other teachers do. (T6)

Many teachers admitted that they did not have much professional knowledge about writing instruction due to the lack of training. They added that they themselves did not have much experience with writing throughout their schooling. More importantly, the view of the overall goal of the KLP results in the lack of writing instruction in the program. As one teacher described: In my view, Korean language education for foreigners has not been systematically established yet, and there is no specific goal set up for each level. Many teaching materials and textbooks do not specify any specific instructional objective or learning target for students. (T4)

The teacher said that she could guess from the textbooks that the communication ability would be the major overarching goal for the entire curriculum. However, in her view, this ‘communication ability’ emphasizes accuracy over fluency and creativity, prioritizing grammar and speaking over other areas, much like many other foreign language programs (Byrnes et al., 2010; Manchón, 2009; Ortega, 2009; Reichelt, 1999). Five out of six teachers identified speaking proficiency as the greatest need for the current KSL learners, and only one indicated speaking and writing as the most needed skills.

Language Ideology, Language Policy and Writing in Korean as a Second Language  167

Mismatch between curriculum goals and students’ needs

According to the teachers, the goal of the KLP is to help students gain an ability to communicate, rather than academic language proficiency. A teacher (T5) explained that ‘the program, while the majority of the students (more than 80%) plan to study at a Korean university, is not designed to prepare students for the academic language skills’. This means that there is a mismatch between the curriculum goal and students’ needs. According to the KSL curriculum posted on their website, this gap clearly appears. While the major goal of the program posted on the website is to raise learners’ communicative competence, the notion of communicative competence adopted and applied seems to narrowly focus on oral communication skills since only two items on the entire curriculum are related to writing, which appear only at the advanced levels (Levels 5 and 6). The detailed concept of communicative competence developed in L2 testing and assessment (see Bachman & Palmer, 1996) includes writing both under organizational skills (structural knowledge) and pragmatic skills (knowledge of language use) as areas for instruction and assessment. This concept, however, was not fully adopted in the program. The latest changes in the textbooks and curriculum for the KLP incorporated more systematic in-class writing activities for Level 6 based on the process-focused approach. T3 participated in writing the textbook for Level 6. She explained that the writing section was created and added by KSL teachers at the KLP who witnessed students’ difficulty due to the lack of in-class writing instruction. She reported that no curriculum goal was given for writing the new textbook, but teachers themselves designed and built the contents of the textbook based on their experiences. The new textbook incorporates more in-class writing activities including peer review and revision activities, but these are only offered to students at Level 6. However, many students join college classrooms after Level 3 or 4, which is the minimum requirement for college entrance. Thus, all the teachers in the study agree that most students’ writing skills at the end of Level 4 are not high enough to complete college-level assignments in addition to their lack of appropriate speaking abilities. This reflects the popular belief about writing instruction in L2 and FL contexts – writing is only for advanced learners (Haneda, 2007). This underlying belief, rather than students’ needs, significantly affects teaching and learning KSL. When asked about students’ writing ability for a college classroom, the teacher (T3) who is teaching at Level 6 indicated that about half of the students who had completed all levels of the program may be able to produce college-level essays.

168  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

Lack of teacher training and knowledge

Teachers also lamented students’ lack of knowledge and skills required to complete their writing assignments, partially caused by the absence of writing instruction in the KLP. This results in some students’ adapting and plagiarizing other sources in order to complete their assignments. Furthermore, given that students learn how to write only through teachers’ feedback on their assignments, teachers take seriously the feedback they give students and spend a great deal of time on it. However, despite their best efforts, teachers doubt the effectiveness of their feedback, in part because they have not been trained in providing such feedback, in part because of the lack of teacher–student conferences and follow-up. Since there are few in-class writing practices, students rely entirely on teachers’ feedback on writing assignments. However, there is no clear guideline on how to review and provide feedback on student writing. Thus, I am not sure how effective the feedback is in students’ development of KSL writing. Teachers’ feedback which varies according to teachers, emphasizes accuracy, correcting grammatical errors for the most of the time. (T2)

Students’ attitudes toward teacher feedback on their writing, however, are overall very positive, although they do not have a chance to revise their essays, incorporating teachers’ comments. When asked about what they do with the feedback on the writing assignments, students reported that they read the comments and corrections briefly as the revision is not required (optional). Also, these assignments are not given any evaluative points (just complete or non-complete). Thus, students do not pay much attention to the feedback. As for the writing assessment, there are several questions on midterm and final examinations, and teachers grade them based on a general rubric that denotes a set point for each area (e.g. grammar, topic, content and structure). However, the details of grading are not typically shared with students. Thus, students do not have a clear idea about what and how to improve their writing. Other context-specific factors

Recognizing the effect of TOPIK on the curriculum of the KLP, one teacher (T5) expressed her concern about the KLP becoming ‘a cram school for TOPIK’. She believes that TOPIK is partially responsible for the absence of a strong writing education. TOPIK used to have a fail/pass system for writing. If a student received lower than 40% out of 100 on the writing, s/he would fail the entire test.

Language Ideology, Language Policy and Writing in Korean as a Second Language  169

However, the grading system has recently changed. Now that there is no minimum score for each section to pass the test, students can focus and get high enough scores on other areas such as reading/vocabulary (and have a low score on writing) to pass the test. Since this change, learners are struggling more with speaking and writing in college classrooms. Many students who passed Level 4 of TOPIK and joined a college program did not have strong enough Korean speaking and writing skills to survive in the program and ended up returning to the KLP to improve their Korean more. (T5)

In her view, students could pass the required level at TOPIK without high enough writing skills since the pass and fail depend on the total score of the test, which demotivates students to learn to write. Another factor comes from students’ literacy background. Several teachers commented on students’ lack of writing experiences in their L1, which they considered to be a critical issue for writing improvement. Teachers also recognized group differences in their L1 writing experiences. The most difficulty in teaching writing is regarding the content. Many students came to the KLP right after their high school, and many of them, mostly Chinese students, do not have any experiences in writing, even in their language. Most of them do not have diverse real life experiences either, so it is hard to bring the story out of their experiences. (T5)

This teacher does not think that there is a significant difference between writing in Korean and Chinese. Thus, she reckons that teaching advanced topics such as genre or cultural rhetoric is not very effective in improving these students’ writing, but learners’ general L1 writing experience would make a difference. A further factor includes the absence of technology in writing instruction and practice in KSL. All the assignments and test items must be handwritten. Students use a Korean composition sheet to complete their assignments, and no typing is allowed or taught in the KLP. When asked about the reason for the handwriting activity, a teacher replies: I don’t know. I never thought about that. It was conventional to do the hand-writing when students do writing. It is believed that writing in a right order and neat spelling are important for learners. Now I think about it, typing would be useful as they may need to submit typed reports later. (T6)

In sum, teachers’ interview responses have revealed that the KSL program adopted a narrow notion of communicative competence as the major goal of KSL education, emphasizing the basic notion of writing

170  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

that focuses on the proper use of instructed grammatical structures and vocabulary. That is, writing in the KSL program is viewed primarily as a vehicle for language practice, so-called ‘writing to learn’ (the language), which instructors believe fosters the development of proficient communicative abilities (Ortega, 2009). Discussion and Conclusion

The participants’ responses from the survey and interviews demonstrate that various contextual factors affect learning and teaching KSL writing. They indicate that students’ current writing skills and future learning goals are lowest among four areas of language proficiency. That is, while students have positive attitudes toward the value of KSL writing, learners consider English writing and Korean-speaking skills more important to their academic and future career than KSL writing. The interview results illuminate how these perspectives are relevant to the language learning context. The status of English as a global language and its language ideology broadly and deeply permeate participants’ view of the value and status of KSL writing, which, in turn, affects their writing practices. Given that students can access a more powerful and widely used venue, English, for their writing, students express little demand and need for the development of KSL writing. This situation also reinforces the idea that speaking proficiency is a primary goal in their learning of KSL, together with the recent emphasis on communicative competence in various language programs, including EFL in the Korean education system. Teachers’ views of the curriculum goal of the KLP and the textbooks also reflect such a context, leading to an imbalance in their emphasis between speaking and writing skills. The curriculum and teachers’ attitudes and practices themselves are products of such contextual factors and also shape students’ perceptions and writing practices. The imbalance between speaking and writing in the KLP creates and reinforces students’ perceptions of the value of KSL writing. Additionally, students’ and teachers’ L1 learning experiences and their writing practices in their L1 significantly affect their teaching of KSL writing in the class. Interestingly, teaching practices in the KLP classroom more closely resemble those of non-English FL classrooms than those of ESL classrooms in the imbalance between speaking and writing instruction and the lack of teacher training in writing instruction. The major commonality for those two contexts is arguably their non-English writing context. In both contexts, non-English FL writing and non-English SL writing, students experience the hegemony of English and the language ideology of Standard English, which prioritizes English literacy skills over any other languages (Farr & Song, 2011). Such a language ideology that highlights English literary skills leads both to individual learners’ reluctance to

Language Ideology, Language Policy and Writing in Korean as a Second Language  171

invest in non-English literacy and to the scarcity of pedagogical support and research on non-English L2 writing (Farr & Song, 2011). Recognizing the effect of English on Korean language education, Jung (2012) states that research and pedagogy in Korean writing will improve only when Korean universities limit their zeal for English education and pay more attention to Korean education. The scarcity of research also contributes to the lack of theory and pedagogical discussion on the development of writing in these languages (Manchón, 2009; Ortega, 2009; Reichelt et  al., 2012). The scarcity of research leads to a situation wherein the instruction and learning of writing in non-English L2 contexts is dependent upon a whole set of material conditions and social practices that do not necessarily coincide with English writing. The lack of theory and research also results in the lack of training in writing instruction for teachers who are teaching various languages in diverse sociocultural contexts (Reichelt et al., 2012). In spite of some commonalities among all L2 education, the differences in resources, support and expectations between English and non-English L2 contexts such as a KSL context limit and challenge L2 teachers’ application of the theories and pedagogical suggestions from the research on ESL contexts to non-English L2 contexts. Pedagogical Implications

Examining learners’ beliefs about the value of writing in KSL and the current state of writing practices in and out of class is important in understanding their assumptions, expectations, contexts and experiences about their language learning and use, which, in turn, is critical in designing specific curriculum and pedagogies for them. The data analysis shows that KSL learners’ attitudes toward and investment in writing in Korean reflect their negotiation of multiple language ideologies concerning English, Korean and learners’ own L1. Thus, it is important for curriculum developers and teachers to understand the dynamic and complex relationship between those ideologies in the multilingual context and how it guides learners to decide on when, how and why to use a particular language to write. Additionally, the curriculum of the KSL program should be based on students’ needs, rather than popular beliefs or notions of language learning (Lee, 2005; Park, 2009). For example, if 80%–90% of learners need KSL for university courses, then the program should prepare learners for academic literacy, including discipline-specific rhetoric and genres, rather than focusing on the minimum requirement for college entrance. Many KSL students who are in college courses report that writing is the most difficult area (Kim, 2000). This needs-based approach also includes the incorporation of various technological tools that learners use or need to use for their academic work. Another area that the KSL curriculum lacks

172  Part 2: Multiple Languages in Contact/Conflict in L2 Writing Instruction

is student–teacher conferencing over texts. The conference should be incorporated into the curriculum as a critical aspect of the instruction in order to make the feedback effective for students’ learning and development of writing skills. Teacher education and training should set about making such changes effective. Teachers themselves have no experience with various types of writing and teaching methods, which will lower their confidence in teaching writing in the classroom. Thus, it is important to provide writing-focused training and workshops for pre- and in-service teachers, especially in the areas of teacher feedback and technology incorporation. Research Implications

By illuminating how writing in KSL is understood and practiced from the learners’ and teachers’ perspective at a Korean university, this study opens up a discussion on writing in KSL and calls for research in the relevant area. As this is a case study, programs in other Korean universities may have different pedagogical foci, student and teacher attitudes, and language and educational policies. Thus, more studies should explore diverse geographical and sociocultural contexts to understand the various effects of the context on KSL learning and teaching. Additionally, further studies can examine the relationship between learners’ writing outside the classroom and their attitudes toward L2 writing in reference to their learning of the language. Also, it will be interesting to see how different groups of learners (different L1 groups such as those who use English as their L1 or L2 versus other L1 users) have different or similar attitudes toward non-English L2 learning. As for teacher-related issues, further studies can expand the discussion between teachers’ background and their attitudes and beliefs about the role of writing in L2 learning. Possible areas of teacher background include their other language learning experiences and proficiency in the language(s) and their L1-related writing experiences. References Bachman, L.F. and Palmer, A.S. (1996) Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bruton, A.S., Marks, E.A. and Fernández, Á.B. (2010) Perceived writing likes and needs in Spanish and English as a foreign language. Hispania 93, 471–489. Byrnes, H., Maxim, H.H. and Norris, J.M. (2010) Realizing advanced L2 writing development in a collegiate curriculum: Curricular design, pedagogy, assessment. Modern Language Journal 94 (Supplementary Issue). Farr, M. and Song, J. (2011) Language ideologies and policies: Multilingualism and education. Language and Linguistics Compass 5, 650–665. Haneda, M. (2007) Modes of engagement in foreign language writing: An activity theoretical perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review 64, 297–327. Heo, J.Y. (2009) The patterns of writing subject in college curriculum and the research on the textbooks. Korean Language Research 25, 345–376.

Language Ideology, Language Policy and Writing in Korean as a Second Language  173

Jung, H. (2012) Curriculum of university studies courses on Korean language. New Practices in Korean Language 22, 43–56. Kim, J.-S. (2000) Research on the design of Korean language curriculum for academic purposes. Journal of Korean Language Education 10, 1–19. Knight, J. (2008) Higher Education in Turmoil: The Changing World of Internationalization. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Korea Ministry of Justice (2014) The number of foreign students according to nationality, gender, and status. See http://kosis.kr/wnsearch/totalSearch.jsp (accessed 22 September 2016). Lee, E.-J. (2005) A study of Korean for international students: With reference to writing lessons. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal 13, 1–16. Leki, I., Cumming, A. and Silva, T. (2010) A Synthesis of Research on Second Language Writing in English. New York: Routledge. Manchón, R.M. (2009) Broadening the perspective of L2 writing scholarship: The contribution of research on foreign language writing. In R.M. Manchón (ed.) Writing in Foreign Language Contexts: Learning, Teaching, and Research (pp. 1–19). New York: Routledge. Noh, M.W. (2010) The concept and the analysis of college entrance essay examination. Journal of Reading Research 23, 381–408. Ortega, L. (2009) Studying writing across EFL contexts: Looking back and moving forward. In R.M. Manchón (ed.) Writing in Foreign Language Contexts: Learning, Teaching, and Research (pp. 232–255). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Park. S.O. (2009) A study on the construction method of the teaching curriculum of Korean for academic purposes based on the analysis of learners’ needs. Journal of Hansung Language and Literature 28, 107–133. Piller, I. and Cho, J. (2013) Neoliberalism as language policy. Language in Society 42 (1), 23–44. Reichelt, M. (1999) Toward a more comprehensive view of L2 writing: Foreign language writing in the U.S. Journal of Second Language Writing 8, 181–204. Reichelt, M., Lefkowitz, N., Rinnert, C. and Schultz, J.M. (2012) Key issues in foreign language writing. Foreign Language Annals 45, 22–41. Silva, T., Leki, I. and Carson, J. (1997) Broadening the perspective of mainstream composition studies: Some thoughts from the disciplinary margins. Written Communication 14 (3), 398–424. Silverstein, M. (1979) Language structure and linguistic ideology. In P. Clyne, W. Hanks and C. Hofbauer (eds) The Elements (pp. 193–248). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. Song, J. (forthcoming) Learning Korean as a Second Language: Multilingualism, Neoliberalism, and English-Medium Instruction. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. TOPIK Guideline on Examination. See http:​//www​.topi​k.go.​kr/us​r/cmm​/subL​ocati​on.do​ ?menu​Seq=2​21010​1#non​e (accessed 22 September 2016). Yoon, J.-W. (2013) A study on the teacher’s difficulties and improvement in Korean writing class. Journal of the International Network for Korean Language and Culture 10 (1), 99–129.

10 Writing Practices among Spanish Mixed Pairs: An Insight Regarding the Revision of Labor and Learners’ Perceptions on Collaboration Laura Valentín-Rivera

Introduction and Overview of the Language

Heritage language learners (HLLs), broadly defined as home learners of a minority language, in this case Spanish (Montrul, 2010; Valdés, 2005), show ‘tremendous variances within their populations’ (Montrul & Polinsky, 2011: 4), such as their cultural backgrounds and wideranging proficiency levels (Blake & Zyzik, 2003). When it comes to writing performances, HLLs’ abilities are commonly challenged due to their reduced lexicon to home contexts (Potowski et  al., 2009; Valdés, 2001, 2005); their non-academic rhetoric (García, 2002; Spicer-Escalante, 2005); the English interference they show in their texts (Schwartz, 2003); and the ineffective writing strategies they employ (Mikulski & Elola, 2011). Despite the growing interest and efforts to create tracks to address Spanish HLLs’ peculiar needs, they usually enroll in mixed classes (Carreira & Kagan, 2018); learning spaces designed for, and shared with, foreign language learners (FLLs). In terms of literacy development, Spanish mixed classes in American higher education institutions commonly reflect a curriculum that relegates writing to mere grammar practice in lower-level classes (Williams, 2012), such as the use of the present subjunctive to give recommendations, while requiring learners to write academic/research assignments in upper-level courses. Additionally, to obtain a major in Spanish, learners are generally required to complete an average of 18 credit hours of ‘content’ courses: classes mainly focused on Iberian and Latin American civilization(s) and literatures, thus demoting any formal instruction on writing to a semester, if any. Despite having 177

178  Part 3: Affect and Student Attitudes Toward Pedagogical Practices

different linguistic backgrounds, HLLs and FLLs in mixed classes seem to similarly struggle with the development of such a social endeavor: writing (Valentín-Rivera, 2016). This shared struggle might be explained by the multiple aspects that effective text construction convey (Hirvela, 1999; Norris & Manchón, 2012; Scribner, 1986). The socialness and complexity embedded in writing have increased research interest in collaborative writing (Elola & Oskoz, 2010). Note, however, that the linguistic essence of collaboration implies a shared engagement and responsibility for the end product (Bosley, 1989; Ede & Lunsford, 1990), thus widely standing apart from cooperation: a premeditated division of the workload (Storch, 2002). Research on the implementation of paired writing within Spanish (a) foreign language (FL) classrooms (Fernández-Dobao, 2012; Oskoz & Elola, 2012) and (b) mixed classes (Bowles, 2011; Valentín-Rivera, 2016), has overall unveiled positive effects on language learning. No attention, however, has been given to the nonlinguistic repercussions of paired writing; for example: (1) learners’ insights on different writing modes and (2) whether/how participants have achieved (authentic) collaboration. Thus, drawing upon an Activity Theory (AT) approach, this study seeks to further understand the action oriented and perspectival impact of paired-up writing between Spanish mixed pairs – composed of an FLL and a HLL. This aim is accomplished by establishing how the addition of two types of corrective feedback (CF; i.e. an artifact) may affect the decisions of writers (i.e. the community) in terms of the roles assigned to/by the pairs (i.e. the division of labor) and whether their views on conjoined composing correspond to their performance as writers. Literature review Implications of collaborative writing in Spanish FLL and mixed settings

Research on collaborative writing in Spanish FL contexts has been suggested to yield to knowledge co-construction (Fernández-Dobao, 2012) and to the co-development of effective strategies to overcome linguistic difficulties (Oskoz & Elola, 2012). While examining linguistic precision and knowledge construction, and drawing upon Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory (SCT), Fernández-Dobao analyzed the written narratives of 101 Spanish FLLs, who were required to work either collaboratively – in pairs (n = 15) or quartets (n = 15) – or individually (n = 21). Overall, greater grammatical accuracy seemed to be accounted by collaboration; noting (1) a higher number of scaffolding instances and (2) a greater successful linguistic resolution rate in quartets (74.6%) as compared to the percentage achieved by the pairs (63.9%). Therefore, quartets built a ‘community’ of second language (L2) learners that engaged in linguistic negotiation, co-shared knowledge and co-built forms that were unlikely to be attained individually. Different to Fernández-Dobao (2012), Oskoz and Elola’s (2012) study built upon AT, a goal-oriented ramification of SCT. Their research surveyed how content, structure,

Writing Practices among Spanish Mixed Pairs  179

organization and form CF, assessed as an artifact (a figurative tool), influenced the actions of 16 Spanish college students (eight pairs) when facing contradictions (i.e. problems, ruptures, breakdowns and clashes) that arose while conjointly revising two expository essays. The addition of an artifact (e.g. CF) seemed to stimulate participants to develop multiple successful strategies to solve the linguistic predicaments they ran into, which ultimately disclosed a wide range of paths that the pairs undertook to achieve a common goal (i.e. writing effective texts). Although to a limited extent, knowledge co-construction has also been observed within mixed classes (Bowles, 2011; Valentín-Rivera, 2016). From an interactionist standpoint, Bowles (2011) examined the communications between 12 mixed pairs to establish whether the modality of production (either oral or written) influenced (1) the initiation and efficient resolution rates of language-related episodes (LREs) – conversation excerpts where learners engage in linguistic negotiations (Swain, 2001), and (2) the type of help (either grammatical or lexical) FLLs and HLLs commonly offered to each other. Results suggested that HLLs assisted their FLLs mates on grammatical issues more repeatedly when orally interacting, while HLLs were often assisted by their counterparts when facing writing mechanic issues (e.g. accent placement and spelling). Similar to Oskoz and Elola (2012), Valentín-Rivera (2016) explored two types of CF (indirect and direct) as artifacts in Spanish contexts. However, Valentín-Rivera’s study focused on mixed classrooms, in ­addition to not only surveying the handling of linguistic and non-linguistic difficulties, but also examining scaffolding affordances. Valentín-Rivera observed a higher rate of scaffolding instances that unfolded into successful knowledge co-construction among mixed pairs that received indirect CF. These results were afforded by the high cognitive reflection (Shintani & Ellis, 2013) and negotiations (Van Beuningen et al., 2012) that indirect CF led to, as well as the attention to meaning-related matters stimulated by the open-endedness of the written tasks (Lee, 2008). Also, in line with Oskoz and Elola, Valentín-Rivera’s results revealed that (indirect) CF, when adhered to paired work, enabled the co-development of efficient techniques to overcome difficulties of a linguistic (e.g. CF-related confusion and lexical issues) and non-linguistic (e.g. time-affiliated constraints and technological matters) nature. Perceptions of learners regarding collaboration in Spanish FL contexts

Given the lack of research on perceptions concerning collaborative writing within Spanish mixed classrooms, this section is restricted to addressing studies rooted in FL contexts (Elola & Oskoz, 2010; MartinezGuillem, 2012). Elola and Oskoz (2010) explored the opinions of eight advanced Spanish FL learners regarding individual and conjoined writing modes. All participants completed two questionnaires. Results showed positive attitudes toward both writing modes. Regarding individual

180  Part 3: Affect and Student Attitudes Toward Pedagogical Practices

work, participants appreciated the opportunity to develop a personal style; making content (e.g. organization) and form (e.g. vocabulary and grammar) decisions without further consultation, and being under no schedule conflicts. Collaboration, on the other hand, was appreciated by learners due to its openness to evaluating each other’s grammar skills and its potential to develop ‘a more finely tuned thesis’ (Elola & Oskoz, 2010: 64) through negotiation, thereby boosting the overall quality of the final product. Notwithstanding the mentioning of positive perceptions of collaboration, participants overall favored individualism. Martinez-Guillem (2012), on the other hand, worked with 12 beginners of Spanish, who also completed a questionnaire to express their views regarding both writing modes before and after engaging in the completion of a collaborative fairy tale through a wiki. Consistent with Elola and Oskoz (2010), learners generally preferred working on their own, especially given the lack of comfort when providing feedback to their peers. On the other hand, participants sensed that the content and language negotiations enabled by collaborative writing enhanced the quality of their final products (i.e. greater linguistic accuracy; stronger content, coherence and structure). Division of labor: Interactive patterns and Activity Theory

To the knowledge of the researcher, no study thus far has examined the division of labor in Spanish classrooms. The two studies discussed here (Blin & Appel, 2011; Storch, 2002), whose methodologies have served as a crucial base for the design of the present investigation, are undertaken in English as a second language (ESL) contexts. Storch’s (2002) class-based longitudinal study (a semester) analyzed the levels of engagement and the amount of contributions of 10 intermediate ESL pairs while they conjointly completed: a composition, an editing activity and a reconstructive task. The dyads’ dialogic encounters discerned four different patterns of interaction or working roles: (1) (authentically) collaborative (i.e. a high degree of balanced contributions among learners); (2) dominant/dominant (i.e. high engagement, but little willingness to accept other’s contributions); (3) dominant/passive (i.e. the display of high and low engagement and contributions, respectively); and (4) expert/novice (i.e. a skilled learner acted as a guiding and engaging motivator for the less knowledgeable). More specifically, Storch (2002) observed a high rate of (authentic) collaboration among participants (5 out of 10 pairs), an equal amount of dominant/dominant and dominant/passive relationships (two cases of each) and a very low rate of expert/novice interactions (1 out of 10 pairs). In addition, these roles were generally unchanging across the three tasks, thus solely observing one drastic, but positive switch (in terms of engagement and contributions) in one pair: going from a dominant/dominant to an authentic collaborative work relationship.

Writing Practices among Spanish Mixed Pairs  181

Relying on AT, a goal-oriented framework derived from Vygotsky’s SCT, Blin and Appel (2011) explored the interactions of ESL learners when writing together to establish the participants’ division of labor. AT draws heavily on the idea that actions executed by subjects (i.e. learners) in order to achieve an object (e.g. a collaborative writing task) are shaped by the physical tools (computer) or symbolic artifacts (language) at hand (Engeström, 1987). The completion of the object, however, also relies on the ‘deep social structure of the activity’ (Engeström, 2008: 90), which is comprised of the community: the people involved in the construction of the task to be completed; the rules: the instructions provided to the community; and the division of labor: the roles learners take over to achieve a common outcome (e.g. becoming effective writers). Given the vast possibilities of actions to construct an activity system, the performance of tasks may vary greatly from learner to learner (Roebuck, 2000) or from group to group, in the case of collectivity. Hence, the exploration of the historical residue engraved in mediating tools or artifacts may further our understanding of learners’ motives (Kuutti, 1996). Blin and Appel (2011) analyzed the roles taken (division of labor) by a quartet of ESL students (community) when conjointly completing an argumentative essay about euthanasia (object) through Google Docs (tool). While completing the task, each participant assumed specific responsibilities: Laura formatted and maintained the collaborative document; Miguel reduced deviations from expected procedures (i.e. ‘teacher said’); Isabel introduced new means of interaction (i.e. use of MSN messenger); and David passively agreed with his peers. In sum, Blin and Appel observed a high degree of engagement in participants’ interactions, in addition to the varied roles that each of them assumed, which ultimately shaped the task and enabled the accomplishment of a common goal. L2 Writing Study

This study aims to (1) provide a better understanding of the effects of two types of CF, indirect and direct, on the roles assumed/established by HLLs and FLLs when conjointly composing three narratives; and (2) determine the relationship between learners’ preference on writing modality (individual or collaborative) and their performances as writers. Both objectives are fulfilled through two research questions (RQs) embedded in AT: (1a) In what way did the addition of an artifact (i.e. feedback provision) mediate the division of labor among participants across the completion of three collaborative narratives? (1b) Does CF affect the distribution of learners’ roles over time? (2a) What are the learners’ perceptions regarding paired writing?

182  Part 3: Affect and Student Attitudes Toward Pedagogical Practices

(2b) Do participants’ views regarding collaboration, whether positive or negative, correspond to their skills/performance as writers? Setting and participants

It is important to note that the collected data set and the procedures carried out for the present research are the same as those seen in ValentínRivera (2016). However, Valentín-Rivera (2016) surveyed (1) scaffolding affordances and (2) the handling of linguistic and non-linguistic difficulties, while the current study addresses the division of labor and the learners’ perceptions of pair work. Thus, both studies display different data analyses, results and implications. The sample comprised of 10 FLLs (n  =  5 males, 5 females) and 10 HLLs (n = 5 males, 5 females) ranging between 19 and 23 years of age, who were enrolled in a third-year intermediate core Spanish course at a US university. The results of the Diploma of Spanish as a Foreign Language (DELE) test, available through UCLA’s National Heritage Language Resource Center (http://nhlrc.ucla.edu/nhlrc/data/example), overall positioned subjects in an intermediate proficiency level, despite their different linguistic backgrounds. Research design and data collection

Based on alike scores, 10 mixed pairs composed of an FLL and a HLL were formed. Pairs were then assigned to two CF conditions: indirect (Group  A: pairs I1–I5) and direct (Group  B: D1–D5), as shown in Table 10.1. All dyads conjointly completed three narrations in the past tense following a three-stage procedure that encompassed: (1) an in-class prewriting, (2) a composing phase and (3) an editing process. In the in-class Table 10.1  Division of the dyads Group A (indirect)

Group B (direct)

Pair I1 HLL: Jorge FLL: Stephen

Pair D1 HLL: Melissa FLL: Simon

Pair I2 HLL: Samantha FLL: Karla

Pair D2 HLL: Tomas FLL: Olivia

Pair I3 HLL: Alex FLL: Wendy

Pair D3 HLL: Claudia FLL: Elliot

Pair I4 HLL: Juan FLL: Patrick

Pair D4 HLL: Pablo FLL: Tonya

Pair I5 HLL: Kim FLL: Alicia

Pair D5 HLL: Samuel FLL: Tina

Writing Practices among Spanish Mixed Pairs  183

Table 10.2  Pre-writing handouts Narration

Description of the visual series

First

An apparent unexpected and unpleasing encounter of three characters at a stoplight: a woman and a man riding in a car and a female pedestrian seemingly related to the male character.

Second

A man who is assisted by a pedestrian after being mugged and injured by two thieves.

Third

Two young newlyweds who divorced after a two-day disastrous honeymoon.

pre-writing stage, pairs were provided with three handouts, as seen in Table 10.2, to brainstorm ideas for their plots. To facilitate the flow of ideas, each handout included cues that stimulated the negotiation of the characters’ names, appearance/personality and relationships. Regardless, pairs were urged to develop creative plots and explain in detail each problematic situation that the characters seemed to deal with, in addition to providing a possible solution to said difficulties. The composing and revising stages (Stages 2 and 3) took place during class time in a language laboratory and were mediated by Google Docs, a free social tool that enabled synchronous and simultaneous collaborations, and ReLANpro, a software that recorded the learners’ oral interactions. On the composing days, pairs wrote their narratives based on their pre-writings. Once completed, the narrations subsequently underwent two types of CFs. Group  A (pairs I1–I5) received indirect correction, that is, the teacher offered a clue regarding the nature of the learners’ inaccuracies and specified the location of pairs’ errors (Khatib & Bijani, 2012) through the following seven codes: (1) VB: verb; (2) SP: spelling; (3) AGR: agreement; (4) MW: missing word; (5) VOC: vocabulary; (6) ENG: English; and (7) WO: word order. On the other hand, direct CF for pairs in Group B (pairs D1–D5) consisted of the teacher’s amendments, that is, pairs’ errors were fixed. In addition, these adjustments were accompanied by linguistic explanations behind the inaccuracies (i.e. metalanguage). Despite the different types of CF, all pairs were required to revise their work together. To this end, pairs I1–I5 (Group  A) met at the language laboratory on revision days, thus accessing their first drafts through Google Docs where they found the teacher’s codes. Then, pairs conjointly negotiated their linguistic flaws and corrected them. Pairs in Group B (pairs D1–D5), on the other hand, initially met in the classroom where they had access to a hardcopy of the first drafts of their three compositions. Learners were exposed to the teacher’s corrections of the errors and the linguistic explanations regarding their inaccuracies during 10  minutes. Afterward, the teacher retrieved the said information and escorted the participants to the language laboratory. There, pairs accessed their compositions once again, but this time through

184  Part 3: Affect and Student Attitudes Toward Pedagogical Practices

Google Docs, which exposed learners’ errors merely through codes (like Group A). In this sense, the revisions for pairs in both groups were mediated by linguistic hints. Pairs in Group  B were expected to negotiate a suitable option if the subjects had forgotten the information provided by the teacher. Data analysis

Given the impact that subjects have on each other when determining how to address the activity (Hirvela, 1999; Storch, 2002), RQ1a surveyed the specific roles (i.e. division of labor) that mixed pairs of Spanish learners played when conjointly composing and revising. RQ1b also intended to explore whether or not these responsibilities changed over time; thus, the decision to approach indirect and direct CF as an artifact. Hence, to answer this question, the dialogic encounters held by the 10 pairs, while working together, were transcribed into LREs, that is, oral communications where linguistic negotiations are upheld (Swain, 2001b). Any LREs that reflected the establishment of roles to complete the task were classified by two raters (achieving a consensus of 96% in their results) based on Storch’s (2002) four interactive patterns. Thus, pairs’ interactions that displayed high levels of balanced engagement and contributions from both learners were classified as (authentically) ‘collaborative’, while the communications that displayed a moderate-to-high authority level but moderate-to-low mutuality – that is, engagement (Damon & Phelps, 1989) – were categorized as dominant/dominant given the potential unwillingness to value/incorporate each other’s ideas. Additionally, lower rates of balanced contributions, because of little negotiation (e.g. uneven engagement), were identified as dominant/passive relationships. Last, the interactions that exhibited a more and a less knowledgeable learner were categorized as expert/novice affairs. To classify as such, ‘experts’ needed to show a high engagement in assisting the novice in the completion of the task, in addition to motivating him/her to become (a meaningful) part of the accomplishment. Additionally, the distribution of the interactive patterns across the three narrations was analyzed to establish whether the division of labor fluctuated over time (see Table 10.6). RQs2a and 2b examined participants’ perceptions of collaboration as a working mode and the relationship between their views and their performance as writers. To this end, all participants completed a brief questionnaire after crafting their texts in relation to two factors: (1) the benefits and (2) the drawbacks of paired writing. The questionnaire consisted of the following three open-ended inquires: (1) When crafting an essay, do you prefer working by yourself or with others? (2) From your perspective, what are the advantages of working with others? (3) From your perspective, what are the disadvantages of working with others? The obtained answers underwent a bipartite analysis procedure.

Group A: 3/5

Working with others issues– ‘if one did not know the tense, the other could know it’| Wendy (FLL)| Pair I3 (Group A)

Group A: 4/4

–’We increase each other’s strengths when writing’| Karla (FLL)| Pair I2 (Group A)

Group A: 2/3

No. of comments=5

Linguistic matters

No. of comments=4

Text construction matters

No. of comments=3

Scaffolding

Group A: 1/2

– ‘We spoke Spanish together’| Pablo (HLL)| Pair D4 (Group B)

No. of comments=2

Practicing the target language

Group B: 1/2

– ‘Vocabulary development’| Tonya (FLL)| Pair D4 (Group B)

Enriching the vocabulary and content of the story

Group B: 1/3

Group B: 0

Group B: 2/5

Examples

– ‘It helped being able to talk out ideas with someone’| Karla (FLL)| Pair I2 (Group A)

Advantages

Developing creative ideas

Working with others concerns

Composing issues

Disadvantages

Examples

Group A: 3/3

No. of comments=3

No. of comments=3

Personal preferences

No. of comments=3

Finding collaboration annoying

– ‘It may be unfair if one person has to do all the work’| Patrick (FLL)| Pair I4 (Group A)

Being unable to divide the work evenly

Group B: 2/3

Group A: 1/3

Group B: 2/3 (Continued)

– ‘Composition should not require teamwork. It is a personal, creative effort’| Patrick (FLL)| Pair I4 (Group A)

Group A: 1/3

– ‘Talking while writing is distracting to me’| Kim (FLL)| Pair I5 (Group A)

Group B: 0

Group A: 3/4

No. of comments=4

Group B: 1/4

– ‘Their knowledge could help or hinder’| Olivia (FLL)| Pair D2 (Group B)

Dealing with linguistic information that neither knew

Group B: 1/5

Group A: 4/5

– ‘Not always agreeing’| Tonya (FLL)|Pair D4 (Group B)

No. of comments=5

Dealing with a wide variety of ideas

Table 10.3  Taxonomy of learners’ perceptions of advantages and disadvantages of collaborative work

Writing Practices among Spanish Mixed Pairs  185

– ‘Great feedback from my partner’| Simon (FLL)| Pair D1 (Group B)

Group A: 0

– ‘We could work off each other for ideas and corrections’| Pablo (HLL)|Pair D4 (GB)

Group A: 0

Providing each other feedback

No. of comments=2

Facilitating the revision of errors

No. of comments=3

Total no. of comments: 22

Group A: 1/1

No. of comments=1

Group B: 3/3

Group B: 2/2

Group B: 0

– ‘Making sure I was organized’| Alex (HLL)| Pair I3 (Group A)

Being organized

Group B: ½

Examples

Group A: 1/2

Advantages

No. of comments=2

Table 10.3  (Continued) Disadvantages Total num. of comments: 19

Examples

186  Part 3: Affect and Student Attitudes Toward Pedagogical Practices

Writing Practices among Spanish Mixed Pairs  187

First, one taxonomy was created based on the theme focus of participants’ comments (e.g. ‘if one did not know the tense, the other could know it’  =  scaffolding), in which case, 12 categories were identified: 7 advantage related and 5 disadvantage related (see Table 10.3). Second, a comparison between learners’ answers and the role they held while working with their peers (e.g. division of labor: RQ1a) was made to establish a relationship between participants’ perceptions of collaboration and their performance as writers. Results Division of labor

The analysis of the 15 interaction occurrences (three narratives times five pairs) that took place during the composing process revealed different tendencies in the division of labor (RQ1a) among both groups, as seen in Table  10.4. More specifically, the communication between the dyads in Group A suggested an overall higher degree of (authentic) collaboration (40%), which was followed by the expert/novice and dominant/dominant roles equally (26.7% each). The dominant/passive division of labor was barely observed, finding one case solely (6.6%). On the other hand, pairs in Group B showed a greater tendency toward an expert/novice division of labor (46.7%). In addition, their exchanges reflected moderate collaborative roles: 40%, and a low rate of dominant/ passive relationships: 13.3%. Table 10.4  Rates of the roles showed in the division of labor across groups Group A (indirect CF)

Group B (direct CF)

Division of labor

Occurrences

Percentage

Occurrences

Percentage

Collaborative

6/15

40

6/15

40

Expert/novice

4/15

26.7

7/15

46.7

Dominant/dominant

4/15

26.7

0/15

–

Dominant/passive

1/15

6.6

2/15

13.3

See Table  10.5 to better understand the exchanges that unraveled among the different types of division of labor that were displayed by the dyads. As observed, the dominant writers took a more active role in crafting the compositions, while the experts, while also being energetic, played a crucial role leading less knowledgeable peers, thus making an unconscious effort to facilitate others’ linguistic commandment. RQ1b also surveyed the distribution of the division of labor of both groups across the three narratives, which is illustrated in Table 10.6. As observed, only Dyad  I1 in Group  A (indirect CF) displayed a steady distribution of the division of labor by completing all narrations

188  Part 3: Affect and Student Attitudes Toward Pedagogical Practices

Table 10.5  Examples of the four interactive patterns established by Storch (2002) Dyad

Interactive pattern

Example

I1 HLL: Stephen FLL: Stephen

Collaborative

J: Rubieta y Charleta. Ok. What do you want to, what do you want… we have to talk about Enrique now, to describe him. S: uhm, so, Enrique… uh, ‘era muy Viejo’. J: ‘muy, viejo…¿y muy rico?’ He was rich? S: At one time… J: ‘Era muy rico’… how do you say that, ‘at one time’? S: maybe, ‘fue’, or ‘era’? J: I think ‘era’ is right. S: ah… ‘una vez ERA rico’…’era’ seems right…like a description? J: yup, a description, ‘era muy rico a una vez’… I think that is right. Now we have to write about Rubieta. Rubieta…’era’, was she young? ‘Era muy joven y era’… she was a white, right? S: ‘oh, sí’.

I5 HLL: Alex FLL: Kim

Dominant/ dominant

K: I think this paragraph has all the… uhm… the letters with the accents… so, we can just copy and paste… A: Ok, so… if you…maybe we can just…like… if you want to start writing, can we both type at the same time? Try to type at the same time… K: Yeah. A: OK. K: Except it will be right behind at each other… oh… I think we can put different spaces. Uhm… so… like, you write one paragraph and I write another? A: Mmmhhh…

D1 HLL: Melissa FLL: Simon

Dominant/passive

S: Does everything look good? M: Yeah. S: Alrighty then. M: Everything looks good. S: Cool. M: Share. S: Thank you for doing most of this. M: Not a problem. Oh, we have to log out.

Expert/novice

C: Met in the car to discuss their relationship. E: How do you say ‘met’? C: Hold on… E: ‘Cause like… C: You can just say like ‘se reunieron’ since it is a punctual event, remember? E: What was that? C: Like, hold on… oops… hold on…let me help you. E: OK. C: Like: ‘r-e-u-n-i-e-r-o-n’. Remember? E: En el … oh!… yeah, ‘[se] reunieron’. I remember now. Thanks.

collaboratively. The interactions among the remaining four pairs, however, varied. Dyads I2 and I3 displayed an expert/novice relationship for the first two compositions, while working collaboratively on Composition  3. Dyads  I4 and I5 had dominant/dominant roles for the first two compositions, but when working on Composition 3, Dyad I4 displayed dominant/passive behavior while Dyad  I5 worked collaboratively. In Group  B, three pairs depicted unchanging roles throughout the three compositions: Dyads  D2 and D4 completed their work collaboratively,

Writing Practices among Spanish Mixed Pairs  189

Table 10.6  Interactive patterns throughout the three narrations in Group  A and Group B Group A Pair Comp. 1

Group B Comp. 2

Comp. 3

Pair Comp. 1

Comp. 2

Comp. 3

I1

Collaborative Collaborative Collaborative D1

Expert/novice Expert/novice Dominant/ passive

I2

Expert/novice Expert/novice Collaborative D2

Collaborative Collaborative Collaborative

I3

Expert/novice Expert/novice Collaborative D3

Expert/novice Expert/novice Expert/novice

I4

Dominant/ dominant

Dominant/ dominant

Dominant/ passive

Collaborative Collaborative Collaborative

I5

Dominant/ dominant

Dominant/ dominant

Collaborative D5

D4

Expert/novice Expert/novice Dominant/ passive

thus maintaining high degrees of equality and mutuality, rather than achieving them through time; while Dyad D3 maintained expert/novice roles (where the former was held by the HLL and the latter by the FLL). The remaining pairs, Dyads  D1 and D5 also developed and upheld an expert/novice interactive pattern (where once again, the HLL guided her FLL partner) while completing Compositions 1 and 2, but oscillated to dominant/passive roles in Composition 3. Note that given the steadiness observed in Group B’s interactions, the results presented here suggest that only indirect CF (Group A) seemed to provoke a changing division of labor among learners when writing with others through time, which was for the most part beneficial and led the majority of the pairs (3/5) to achieving authentic collaboration. Results regarding participants’ perceptions of collaboration Advantages

As mentioned previously, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding their perceptions of collaboration as a writing mode. The analysis of learners’ responses, which included 22 comments (54.5%: Group A; 45.4%: Group B), overall showed a shared positive perception of working with others, although with some restrictions. When it came to identifying the benefits of paired work, seven advantages were identified: (1) creative ideas development; (2) scaffolding opportunities in regards to (a) linguistic and (b) text-construction matters; (3) vocabulary and content enrichment; (4) target language practice; (5) better organization; (6) peer feedback provision; and (7) facilitation of error revision. Despite the overlap of the identified benefits, both groups stressed these at different degrees. For example, Group  A stressed ‘creative ideas development’ as an advantage, at a higher rate (3/5) as compared to Group  B (2/5). The significance of ‘scaffolding’ was doubly valued regarding: (1) linguistic and (2) text-construction matters; however, pairs in Group A solely appreciated obtaining language guidance, while

190  Part 3: Affect and Student Attitudes Toward Pedagogical Practices

also ranking text construction support higher (2/3) as compared to pairs in Group  B (1/3). Both groups evenly valued ‘vocabulary and content enrichment’ and ‘target language practice’ as incentives of paired assignments. Nonetheless, only dyads in Group A embraced ‘better organization’ as a perk of working with others, while those in Group B exclusively valorized the opportunities of ‘peer feedback provision’ and the ‘facilitation of error revision’. Disadvantages

On the other hand, a total of 19 comments were related to disadvantages regarding paired work, finding Group  A to be more reluctant to write with a peer (12/19  =  63%) than Group  B (7/19  =  37%). Participants’ responses were overall classified under two issues: (1) composition related and (2) personal. More specifically, the former was linked to three inconveniences: (a) managing a wide variety of ideas, (b) dealing with linguistic information that neither participant knew and (c) being unable to divide the work evenly, while the latter had to do either with (i) finding paired work annoying or simply (ii) preferring to write individually. Concerning composition-related matters, Group  A reported having more issues when (1) managing a wide variety of ideas (21%; 4/19) and (2) dealing with linguistic information that neither student knew (16%; 3/19), as compared to Group B. Additionally, solely learners in Group A declared they struggled when it came to ‘dividing the workload evenly’. On the other hand, Group B’s negative insights on paired work seemed to be more related to personal reasons, instead of academic matters. In this way, participants in Group B mainly found working with others annoying, and declared their preference to write individually. Given the results shown here, the perceptions of learner’s regarding writing with others did not seem to reflect their performances as writers, especially provided the fact that Group A showed a greater degree of disapproval toward paired writing, despite achieving a higher level of mutuality and equality when working with others, as pointed out in RQ1b. Pedagogical Implications and Applications Implications on the ways participants approached writing as an activity system

The results of this study resemble those of Blin and Appel (2011) in terms of the dynamism that was observed in participants’ division of labor and the variety of roles that each of them assumed. The addition of an artifact, in this case CF, seemed to shape the scope of actions available to learners to establish the division of labor, that is, ‘the deep social structure of the activity’ (Engeström, 2008: 86), although not always fruitfully.

Writing Practices among Spanish Mixed Pairs  191

The overall more dynamic changes in Group A’s division of labor over time, which ultimately led most pairs in this group to achieve authentic collaboration, could have resulted from two factors that indirect CF promoted: (1) the deep instances of reflection behind linguistic errors (Khatib & Bijani, 2012; Valentín-Rivera, 2016) and the search for an effective solution through linguistic negotiations (Swain, 1986). It is also worth noting that across sections the most recurrent division of labor observed in the pairs’ first interactions (Composition  1) was the ‘expert/novice’ binomials (5/10 cases: two in Group 1 and three in Group 2), where HLLs consistently stood out as the ‘experts’. However, the only two dyads that eventually achieved true collaboration were those in Group 1. Given that the only difference among the groups was the type of CF they received, it is arguable that the negotiations prompted by indirect written feedback empowered HLLs in engaging their seemingly less knowledgeable counterparts in a more balanced work relationship in the long run. Also, this study does not resemble those of Storch (2002). This disparity might be explained by the lack of CF in Storch (2002), where despite conjointly completing three different writing tasks (i.e. composing, editing, reconstructing), subjects were not required to further revise their work. Thus, it may be that the opportunity to revise a task, like in this study, may open the floor for learners to take on different and fluctuating responsibilities, in addition to providing learners with the opportunity to reflect on what they can offer (and what they need support on). Implications on the perceptions of collaboration

The results of this study partially resemble those of Elola and Oskoz (2010) and Martinez-Guillem (2012), where although overall preferring to work individually, participants declared that working with others afforded linguistic and content gains. In the present study, collaboration as a writing mode was seen as a means of (1) negotiation, (2) scaffolding/ assistance on linguistic and content matters (by Group A), (3) feedback provision and (4) error revision (by Group  B). However, Advantages  3 and 4 (both related to peer feedback) contradicted the results observed in Martinez-Guillem (2012), where participants referred to the lack of comfort they experience when providing CF to their peers. This difference might be explained by the apparent lack of familiarity that subjects in Martinez-Guillem (2012) had with providing feedback, thus struggling when formulating comments on their peers’ linguistic knowledge and ideas (Lee, 2008). This is not surprising given the participants’ limited experience and management of the L2 (i.e. beginners). Group B’s appreciation of peer feedback opportunities is somewhat surprising. Learners in this group may have appreciated the ‘peer feedback provision’ opportunity because they had a partner to rely on in case they forgot the teachers’ corrections.

192  Part 3: Affect and Student Attitudes Toward Pedagogical Practices

It is pivotal to note that the four categories of drawbacks related to paired work in this study mirror most of the perceptions of learners in Garret and Shortall (2002) and Storch (2009). These related to (lack of) enjoyment, content development, learning and workload division. Remember, however, that the views of the participants differed between groups: Group A, on the one hand, seemed to be more concerned about ‘learning’ matters in addition to ‘content development’ and ‘workload division’, while Group B was mostly conflicted by non-academic matters (i.e. the ‘lack of enjoyment’ that working with others caused). These differences in perceptions among groups may be explained by how learners addressed paired writing assignments. For instance, Group  B’s insights may be linked to the division of labor they primarily upheld: expert/ novice roles. ‘Experts’ like Samuel (HLL), for example, did not seem to enjoy leading his colleague (i.e. Tina; FLL) in the writing tasks since he ‘felt like [he] could do more [work] on [his] own’. Meanwhile, ‘novice’ participants, like Elliot (FLL), asserted that she would have been able to ‘concentrate better on [her] own and not feel rushed’. Group A’s greater attention to issues related to content development, learning limitations and workload division may also be explained by the roles that pairs held. For example, both Kim (FLL) and Alicia (HLL), who formed pair I5, equally highlighted ‘content development’ and ‘learning’ as drawbacks of collaboration, while only Alicia pointed out how hard it was for her to find a balanced workload dissection. Hence, these perceptions may be linked to the fact that these learners went from a ‘dominant/ dominant’ relationship (Compositions 1 and 2) to a ‘dominant/passive’ one (with Kim being dominant), thus finding working conjointly more problematic than helpful. Patrick (FLL; pair I4) also brought up ‘being unable to divide the work evenly’ as one of the main disadvantages of paired writing. Patrick’s perception may be explained by the fact that during most of the writing process (i.e. during Compositions  1 and 2), he upheld a ‘novice’ role. As a result, he may have felt that he did not contribute enough to the completion of the writing tasks. When writing his comments, Patrick might have overlooked the fact that the assistance he received from his partner allowed him to contribute to the construction of the last narration, as he and his partner achieved a collaborative division of labor by the time they wrote Composition 3. This result suggests that learners’ perceptions do not always match their abilities and performance as speakers (Storch, 2012) or writers (in this case). Overall, learners’ negative declarations toward paired work, namely the ones provided by pairs in Group A, could have been related to unfamiliarity and the lack of training on authentically collaborating with others (Storch, 2009, 2012). An additional explanation is the intimidation that the work among learners with different linguistic backgrounds may have caused. This observation is accounted by the fact that 14 out of the 19 mentions related to the disadvantages of collaboration were made by FLLs.

Writing Practices among Spanish Mixed Pairs  193

Pedagogic recommendations

Given the results of the present study, especially the negative perceptions of learners toward writing with others – despite some positive outcomes – it is pivotal to address the differences between the concepts of collaboration and cooperation in the classroom. This explanation could have dual significance by contributing toward the building of a positive attitude concerning pair work – especially for intimidated FLLs – while also facilitating a committed engagement in the making of content-related decisions and in the delivery/construction of linguistic knowledge. Subsequently, the design of paired writing assignments should convey and promote the essence of collaboration: a communal accountability for the (writing) assignment. To this end, the adoption of a process approach becomes crucial provided that this type of setting not only requires learners to compose, but also provides them with the opportunity to plan and revise their work. The planning phase should include cues that could show learners what type of information is indispensable to efficiently address the prompt (e.g. the characters’ names, physical and psychological descriptions, relationships and issues, in the case of this study), while making room for learners’ creativity. Regarding corrections, it is recommended that instructors provide indirect CF through which learners are encouraged to be accountable for fixing their own errors, thus opening up a space for negotiation among learners, which may subsequently afford even contributions. The implementation of a coding system may be more beneficial for intermediate learners, like the case of this study, since the cues provided by the codes guide learners’ linguistic reflections. In addition, this type of CF seemed to allow HLLs to facilitate a deeper and more balanced engagement of their less knowledgeable counterparts. However, a type of indirect feedback that solely positions learners’ errors (i.e. underlining) might be more challenging and of a higher learning value for more advanced pairs. In any of the former feedback scenarios, a handout that requires pairs to record the reasoning behind their negotiations, the agreements they reach and the linguistic amendments they make, could offer the instructors a record of their learners’ progress and struggles. Monitoring learners’ degree of engagement when working with others is also recommended to better guide them through the writing process, thus allowing the identification of passive, dominant or novice learners. Through this identification, instructors could either encourage students to adopt a more balanced role, or assist those who are linguistically weaker (i.e. novice learners) in strengthening their knowledge. Several resources are at hand to carry out a checkup both while and after writing. For example, free online tools like Google Docs display the contributions of each learner while composing by assigning a different color to each of their cursors, while providing the same information post-composing through the option: ‘revision history’ – found under the ‘file’ tab. Regarding post-writing monitoring, it is advised

194  Part 3: Affect and Student Attitudes Toward Pedagogical Practices

to ask learners to complete an individual reflection on the contributions that each of them afforded, especially when the learners perceive that they have very little to offer – like FLLs when working with a HLL. This type of exercise can shed some light on learners’ progress, as well as giving them a sense of significance. Research Implications

The results presented in this study are relevant to other languages given the interest in the application of collaborative written work across L2 classrooms that hold learners with varied cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Thus, both language learners and instructors need to be taught how to implement effective collaboration, as opposed to cooperation. However, to facilitate this type of knowledge, further research is needed. Some elements that future investigations need to address in order to advance pedagogic implications in the collective multicultural L2 writing classroom are the assignation of pairs based on alike linguistic backgrounds (i.e. HLL+HLL; FLL+FLL). This type of research would allow determining whether the roles that learners take over (i.e. division of labor) as well as their perceptions of pair work resemble those seen in this study. If this is not the case, then the suggested type of research will shed some light on how the roles may differ and whether pairs’ similar backgrounds may account for these dissimilarities. Other elements to consider are the exploration of other types of indirect CF (e.g. underlying, suggesting, asking questions) as well as the selection of other genres. More academic-inclined writing assignments, like literary criticism, which is very common in L2 higher-level American college classrooms, may reveal additional pedagogic implications in mixed classes. Conclusion

From an AT perspective, the results of the current study support the assertion that artifacts, figurative devices, are essential for human operations (Engeström, 1999), like the crafting of collaborative narrations. According to Kuutti (1996), artifacts carry over in the historical residue of the activity’s development, allowing us to understand the different stages it undergoes. In the case of this study, the addition of indirect and direct CF allowed the observation of the division of labor through time, while only indirect CF seemed to have an overall positive impact on the roles upheld by learners, thereby enabling (authentic) collaboration, in most cases. In terms of perceptions, learners’ tendency to reject paired writing tasks is somewhat bewildering, especially given the fact that the pairs in Group A overall tended to dislike writing with others, yet were the ones who showed a high level of engagement (i.e. authentic collaboration) when writing conjointly. According to Storch (2009: 115), ‘the relationship between beliefs, attitudes and actions is complex and unpredictable’; thus, learners’ opinions do not necessarily match their linguistic gains or

Writing Practices among Spanish Mixed Pairs  195

struggles – as in this study. Overall, the results presented here call for not only supplementary training on the implications of the division of labor and how to achieve authentic collaboration in mixed classrooms, but also extensive instruction on how to address CF, especially the indirect type, so that learners – despite their linguistic background – can be empowered and more responsible for their own learning, in addition to cognitively benefitting from each other. References Blake, R.J. and Zyzik, E.C. (2003) Who’s helping whom?: Learner/heritage-speakers’ networked discussions in Spanish. Applied Linguistics 24 (4), 519–544. Blin, F. and Appel, C. (2011) Computer supported collaborative writing in practice: An activity theoretical study. CALICO Journal 28, 473–497. Bosley, D.S. (1989) A national study of the uses of collaborative writing in business communication courses among members of the ABC. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Illinois State University. Bowles, M.A. (2011) Exploring the role of modality: L2–heritage learner interactions in the Spanish language classroom. Heritage Language Journal 8, 30–65. Carreira, M. and Kagan, O. (2018) Heritage language education: A proposal for the next 50 years. Foreign Language Annals 51, 152–168. Damon, W. and Phelps, E. (1989) Critical distinctions among three approaches. In N.M. Webb (ed.) Peer Interaction, Problem-Solving, and Cognition: Multidisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 9–19). New York: Pergamon Press. Ede, L. and Lunsford, A. (1990) Singular Texts/Plural Authors. Perspectives on Collaborative Writing. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Elola, I. and Oskoz, A. (2010) Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning & Technology 14, 51–71. Engeström, Y. (1987) Learning by Expanding: An Activity Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. Engeström, Y. (1999) Innovative learning in work teams: Analysing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen and R.-L. Punamäk (eds) Perspectives on Activity Theory (pp. 377–406). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Engeström, Y. (2008) From Teams to Knots: Activity-Theoretical Studies of Collaboration and Learning at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fernández-Dobao, A. (2012) Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing 21, 40–58. García, O. (2002) Teaching language minorities in the United States: From bilingualism as a deficit to bilingualism as a liability. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 155/156, 125–130. Garrett, P. and Shortall, T. (2002) Learners’ evaluations of teacher-fronted and studentcentered classroom activities. Language Teaching Research 6, 25–57. Hirvela, A. (1999) Collaborative writing instruction and communities of readers and writers. TESOL Journal 8, 7–12. Khatib, M. and Bijani, H. (2012) Evaluating the effectiveness of various types of error feedback on students L2 writing quality. The Iranian EFL Journal 8, 30–46. Kuutti, K. (1996) Activity theory as a potential framework for human–computer interaction research. In B.A. Nardi (ed.) Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human–Computer Interaction (pp. 17–44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lee, L. (2008) Focus-on-form through collaborative scaffolding in expert-to-novice online interaction. Language Learning & Technology 12 (3), 53–72. Martinez-Guillem, J. (2012) Análisis de errores en los verbos en el español como segunda lengua. Conferencias sobre la lengua y cultura del mundo de habla hispana, pp. 81–92.

196  Part 3: Affect and Student Attitudes Toward Pedagogical Practices

Mikulski, A. and Elola, I. (2011) Spanish heritage language learners’ allocation of time to writing processes in English and Spanish. Hispania 94 (4), 715–733. Montrul, S. (2010) Current issues in heritage language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 30 (Mar), 3–23. Montrul, S. and Polinsky, M. (2011) Why not heritage speakers? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1 (1), 58–62. Norris, J.M. and Manchón, R. (2012) Investigating L2 writing development from multiple perspectives: Issues in theory and research. In R. Manchón (ed.) L2 Writing Development: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 221–244). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Oskoz, A. and Elola, I. (2012) Understanding the impact of social tools in the FL writing classroom: Activity theory at work. In G. Kessler, A. Oskoz and I. Elola (eds) Technology across Writing Contexts and Tasks (pp. 131–154). San Marcos, TX: CALICO. Potowski, K., Jegerski, J. and Morgan-Short, K. (2009) The effects of instruction on linguistic development in Spanish heritage language speakers. Language Learning 59 (3), 537–579. Roebuck, R. (2000) Subjects speak out: How learners position themselves in a psycholinguistic task. In J. Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 79–95). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schwartz, A.M. (2003) No me suena! Heritage Spanish speakers’ writing strategies. InA. Roca and C. Colombi (eds) Mi lengua: Spanish as a Heritage Language in the United States (pp. 235–256). Washington, DC: George Town University Press. Scribner, S. (1986) Literacy in three metaphors. In N.L. Stein (ed.) Literacy in American Schools: Learning to Read and Write (pp. 7–22). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Shintani, N. and Ellis, R. (2013) The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing 22, 286–306. Spicer-Escalante, M. (2005) Writing in two languages/living in two worlds: A rhetorical analysis of Mexican-American written discourse. In M. Farr (ed.) Latino Language and Literacy in Ethnolinguistic Chicago (pp. 217–244). Mahwah, NJ: LEA. Storch, N. (2002) Relationships formed in dyadic interaction and opportunity for learning. International Journal of Educational Research 37, 305–322. Storch, N. (2009) The impact of studying in a second language (L2) medium university on the development of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 18, 103–118. Storch, N. (2012) Collaborative writing as a site for L2 learning in face-to-face and online modes. In G. Kessler, A. Oskoz and I. Elola (eds) Technology across Writing Contexts and Tasks (pp. 212–227). San Marcos, TX: CALICO. Swain, M. (1986) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass and C. Madden (eds) Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235–256). New York: Newbury House. Swain, M. (2001) Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review 58, 44–63. Valdés, G. (2001) Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In J.K. Peyton, D.A. Ranard and S. McGinnis (eds) Heritage Language in America: Preserving a Natural Resource (pp. 37–77). McHenry, IL: The Center of Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems. Valdés, G. (2005) Bilingualism, heritage language learners, and SLA research: Opportunities lost or seized? The Modern Language Journal 89, 410–426. Valentín-Rivera, L. (2016) Activity theory in Spanish mixed classrooms: Exploring corrective feedback as an artifact. Foreign Language Annals 49, 615–634. Van Beuningen, C.G., De Jong, N.H. and Kuiken, F. (2012) Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning 62 (1), 1–41. Williams, J. (2012) The potential role (s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (4), 321–331.

11 The Motivation of Heritage Learners vs. Foreign Language Learners in a Universitylevel Spanish Composition Course

Aroline E. Seibert Hanson

Introduction and Overview of Spanish Instruction

As enrollment in English as a second language (ESL) courses in US higher education continues to grow, courses in Spanish have also shown robust enrollment for many years. According to a recent report by the Modern Language Association of America, more students are enrolled in Spanish classes than in any other non-English L2 classes combined (Goldberg et al., 2015). This interest in studying Spanish may be driven by the immense growth of the US Spanish-speaking population (ninefold since 1960) (Stepler & Brown, 2016) and the increase in the number of Hispanics in four-year higher education institutions (90.6% reported between 2000 and 2010) (Kim, 2011). Heritage learners (HLs) of Spanish, people raised in a home where Spanish is spoken and understood and who may speak the language in addition to English (Valdés, 2001), enroll in Spanish courses alongside foreign language learners (FLLs), people with no family connection to the language who began learning it after their first language (L1) was established. This creates a unique learning environment with unique goals. In this chapter, I focus on HLs and FLLs of Spanish enrolled in the same Spanish composition course. Spanish HLs as a group have varying levels of fluency in informal registers of Spanish (Carreira, 2003). Typically, HLs’ speech consists of vocabulary from the home environment and colloquialisms as well as a mix of English and Spanish (Potowski & Carriera, 2004; Silva-Corvalán, 2004). Often, HLs seek out ways to improve their formal Spanish skills, including their writing, an area that has been studied by a few researchers 197

198  Part 3: Affect and Student Attitudes Toward Pedagogical Practices

(see Elola & Mikulski, 2013; Loureiro-Rodríguez, 2013). Only a quarter of the 772 US colleges and universities surveyed offered specific courses for Spanish HLs (Goldberg et al., 2004). However, at many universities, including the university in the present study where 7% of the student body identifies as Hispanic, there are no specific courses for HLs. Therefore, HLs enroll in the same upper-level classes as FLLs. Taking into consideration the extremely diverse composition of these learners, there is a great need for research on how best to encourage, support and instruct them in formal written Spanish. To accomplish this, it is crucial to investigate learners’ motivations for acquiring writing skills. Ryan and Deci (2000), in their revised SelfDetermination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), described two types of motivation: intrinsic motivation, which is the natural human propensity to learn resulting in high-quality learning and creativity, and extrinsic motivation, which either reflects external control or true self-regulation, and therefore can be acted upon with willingness or with resentment. In the present study, I qualitatively compare HLs’ and FLLs’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation exhibited in their freewriting assignments through the lens of the Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), as well as quantitatively assess their motivation through the use of the revised Attitude Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) (Ushida, 2003). First, I present the background literature on Spanish writing instruction, describe Spanish HL writing instruction, which differs from FLL and ESL writing instruction, and discuss the research on motivation and writing. Explaining the present qualitative and quantitative methods, I analyze and discuss the data. Finally, I conclude with suggestions for successful academic writing courses with learners from diverse linguistic backgrounds. Spanish writing instruction

Similar to ESL writing instruction, the majority of Spanish writing instruction in the USA has been geared toward students learning the target language as an L2. Contrary to ESL writing instruction, the students in a university Spanish writing course in the USA typically share a common L1. Because the majority of students are L1 English speakers with L1 writing experience, Spanish writing instruction is focused primarily on improving Spanish grammar and vocabulary instead of compositional style and organization (see Lefkowitz, 2011). Typically, these courses are for Spanish majors or minors, with HLs often enrolling as well. According to Potowski (2015), HLs’ motivations to take Spanish courses include improving their skills to better connect with their families, to participate more in the Spanish-speaking community, to be able to use Spanish in professional contexts and to overcome feelings of being outsiders within their own cultural group. The number of professional opportunities for bilingual Hispanics is increasing, providing another powerful motivator

The Motivation of Heritage Learners vs. Foreign Language Learners  199

for US Hispanics to fine-tune their academic Spanish skills (Carreira & Armengol, 2001). Heritage language instruction

Valdés (2006) analyzed the gap between the development of pedagogies for HLs and FLLs. She stated that HLs are different in significant ways from more traditional participants in second language acquisition (SLA) research (e.g. English-speaking L2 learners in a US school or nonEnglish-speaking English learners in the USA). As Valdés highlighted, not only are there key differences between HLs and FLLs but there are also key differences among HLs. Certain factors alter the linguistic knowledge systems of HLs, such as how recently they or their family arrived in the USA, their type of schooling, their access to the standard language and their exposure to family members’ language at its various levels of attrition. Additionally, these heritage speakers may already have fully acquired one dialect, but it is not the standard or academic dialect, and therefore they may be acquiring a second dialect, not an L2. This may be facilitated through the transfer of strategies and knowledge of higher registers from English (see Valdés & Gioffrion-Vinci, 1998). Because we do not yet know how similar acquisition for HLs is to acquisition for nonHLs, Valdés (2006) encourages the establishment of connections between Spanish SLA and heritage language instruction, as I aim to do here. As its own discipline, heritage language instruction has four main goals: (1) acquisition of a standard dialect, (2) transfer of reading and writing skills across languages, (3) expansion of the range of bilingualism and (4) heritage language maintenance (Valdés, 1995). The second main goal is the most important in regard to the present study since it refers to the focus on helping students capitalize on what they already know. Most HLs have been educated primarily in English, and therefore most likely possess better reading and writing skills in English than in their HL, which is only learned informally through speaking at home or with family. To date, scarce pedagogy has been developed to help students transfer their L2 skills to the L1 (see Chevalier, 2004; Colombi, 2003). The first and third goals involve expanding HLs’ knowledge of the nondominant L1 so that they will be better able to use it both professionally and personally, such as for writing emails to family members or making a formal written request. Although more closely related to native English speakers learning formal English writing than to English language learners (ELLs) or FLLs learning to write in their L2, the case of HLs is unique in that they are learning to write a language that they have various degrees of familiarity with since birth but may not have had the same exposure to in all its registers. Meanwhile, ELLs and FLLs typically are learning a skill in a language that they became familiar with at a later point in their lives.

200  Part 3: Affect and Student Attitudes Toward Pedagogical Practices

Having HLs and FLLs in one classroom presents a challenge to the course instructor in that the known differences in these two groups’ abilities and motivations are difficult to reconcile. Lefkowitz (2011) documented that instructors treat FLLs differently than HLs with biases against HLs, holding them to a higher standard and denigrating their ‘incorrect’ and ‘casual’ language, which in turn reinforces low self-esteem and may affect motivation. Instructors’ focus on grammar and accuracy impacts HLs’ linguistic legitimacy. Looking at this issue from a new angle, I study the motivations of each learner group, and from there, find ways for instructors to reconcile them. Motivation and writing

The language learning goals of FLLs and HLs mentioned in the previous section can serve as motivators if they become internalized by the learner. This is accounted for in the Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000). If students engage in the learning process because it is interesting and enjoyable, they are said to be intrinsically motivated, while students who engage in the learning process in order to gain a reward or avoid punishment are said to be extrinsically motivated. Although both may have similar outcomes, intrinsic motivation is preferred due to its enduring quality. For high levels of intrinsic motivation, people must feel both competent and autonomous. Activities that hold intrinsic interest for individuals yet also offer tangible rewards, pose threats, have deadlines or involve competition diminish intrinsic motivation since they are perceived as ‘controllers’ of one’s behavior (Reeve & Deci, 1996). For activities without intrinsic interest such as some school assignments, individuals must internalize and integrate the external values into their own system (hence making it a more autonomous activity). Writing and more specifically freewriting exercises are, for the most part, enjoyable activities in which students may feel autonomous and competent since the demands are low and no threat or competition is involved. Thus, although not tested previously, this type of writing practice could effectively enhance intrinsic motivation. Another important distinction to consider when analyzing motivation is between instrumental and integrative orientations. In their early work, Gardner and Lambert (1972) defined instrumental motivation as the desire to learn a language for utilitarian reasons such as for a job or to pass an examination. Integrative motivation, on the other hand, refers to the desire to learn a language in order to communicate with a group of people who speak the language or the desire to identify with that group. These orientations are interwoven with the concepts of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation from the Self-Determination Theory, and add an important layer to examine when understanding why people desire to learn a language.

The Motivation of Heritage Learners vs. Foreign Language Learners  201

Although research has been conducted on the role of motivation in L2 speaking (e.g. Kormos & Trebits, 2012) and reading (for a review, see Grabe, 2009) as well as in the field of L1 writing research (for a review, see Pajares, 2003), little is known about how learner individual differences affect L2 writing processes and there has been no research to date on their effect on HLs’ writing processes. In one study, Kormos (2012) investigated the motivational factors of language learning goals among other constructs that have an effect on how students learn about the L2 through writing. Kormos found that students differing in motivation also differed in the amount of use they made of learning opportunities offered by writing such as noticing gaps in their knowledge through the careful revision of texts. In one qualitative study that considered how motivational factors influence students’ L2 writing, Hyland (2011), found that students’ learning goals impacted on their willingness to develop their accuracy in writing through responding to form-focused feedback. No research to date separates out students majoring in the target language, a self-selected group that may have higher motivation, which will be examined here. As Kormos (2012) suggests, more research combining qualitative with quantitative methods needs to be done on the role of motivation in L2 writing. The Present Study

The aim of the present chapter is to answer the following research questions: (1) How does HLs’ extrinsic motivation to improve their Spanish writing compare to that of FLLs in the same composition course? Does it change over time? (2) How does the extrinsic motivation of students majoring in Spanish compare to that of students not majoring in Spanish regardless of linguistic background? Does it change over time? (3) How can we improve the intrinsic motivation of all students in a course with students from different linguistic backgrounds? The Spanish composition course in which the participants were enrolled was taught with guidance from Ferris and Hedgcock’s (2014) Teaching L2 Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice, a book that despite its ESL focus provides information on teaching L2 learners of non-English languages. Most useful for the present course was the instruction on creating questionnaires and writing prompts that maintain interaction with students about the process of writing as well as their progress. There is also extensive information on how to effectively conduct peer-review activities. The participants used the text Composición: Proceso y Síntesis (Valdés et al., 2007), which provides the basics for writing in each genre as well as guided journal assignments to complement the process.

202  Part 3: Affect and Student Attitudes Toward Pedagogical Practices

Participants

The participants (n  =  20: 5 males, 15 females; age M  =  22.15, SD = 6.43) were all university students in an upper-level Spanish composition course taught by the author. This course traditionally provides Spanish majors with the tools needed to write their senior theses. In the present course, however, only 13 of the 20 students were Spanish majors, 5 of whom were double majors. Of the remaining seven students, five were minors in Spanish, and therefore received credit for taking the course, yet did not have the extrinsic motivation of a looming thesis (see Deci & Ryan, 1985). The final two students enrolled with no schoolrelated extrinsic motivation for taking a Spanish course; one had lived abroad the previous summer and was dating a Spanish speaker and the other was a non-degree student who was interested in improving his Spanish for career purposes. Both of these participants were older than the other participants at ages 24 and 49. Of the 20 participants, 12 had studied abroad or spent over three weeks at a time visiting family abroad. There were 15 FLLs and 5 HLs. The average age on first exposure to Spanish for the FLLs was 11.53 years (SD = 3.52). All HLs reported to have been exposed to Spanish since birth. They were all first-generation immigrants to the USA, having arrived in their early childhood, with a strong command of the English language and English literacy skills. All HLs were either majors or double majors in Spanish. Since the requirements for the Spanish major at the present university are not as numerous as for other majors, especially since the majority of the credits are fulfilled by a semester abroad, students who double major in Spanish typically spend more time fulfilling the requirements of their primary major. The distribution of primary majors for all participants can be seen in Figure 11.1.

Figure 11.1  Distribution of participant primary majors

The Motivation of Heritage Learners vs. Foreign Language Learners  203

Research design and data analysis

All participants read and signed a consent form at the beginning of the semester. They also filled out a Language Background Questionnaire (LBQ), detailing which languages they used, how much time they had spent learning and using Spanish, if they had gone abroad and for how long and why they were taking the course. Motivation was tested quantitatively with the AMTB developed by Gardner (1985) and modified by Ushida (2003) for Spanish learners in the USA. Fifty items summed for analysis (high score of 250) that tapped into constructs outlined by Gardner (1985): attitudes toward the learning situation, integrativeness, motivation and language anxiety. An example of the items is: If it were up to me, I would spend all of my time learning Spanish. Participants responded using a 5-point Likert scale (with 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). The 11 negative items were reverse-scored. One example of a negative statement is: I would rather spend my time on subjects other than Spanish. The qualitative analysis consisted of three freewriting tasks completed either at home or during class time. Pavlenko (2009), citing McCabe and Bliss (2003: 6–10), discussed guidelines for eliciting personal experience narratives as data, highlighting the importance of soliciting multiple narratives in order to ‘maximize representativeness’. Pavlenko (2007) states that autobiographic narratives offer insight into people’s inner worlds, which are inaccessible to experimental methodologies. Use of self-evaluation of writing offers important insight into motivation as well. The present analysis considers participants’ statements on their goals and motivation, identifying markers of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation within a self-determination theoretical framework (Ryan & Deci, 2000), informed by the instrumental vs. integrative orientation division outlined by Gardner and Lambert (1972). For the qualitative portion of the study, three freewriting assignments were analyzed: (1) Journal entry. (2) Peer-editing response. (3) Constructive comments on the course. The participants wrote the journal entry at the beginning of the semester. They were asked to respond to a prompt about their writing experience either by uploading a document or by typing directly into the university’s online course management system. They had a week in which to respond at their leisure. The context for writing was given in Spanish, asking them to reflect on their motivations and goals for the course and for their writing in general. Then, they were asked questions about whether they like to write, what they like to write, how they feel

204  Part 3: Affect and Student Attitudes Toward Pedagogical Practices

when they write, if they share their writing, which types of texts they need to know how to write and which types of texts they prefer to read. Also, they were asked to write their goals for the course and for their writing. The prompt was adopted and translated from the students’ textbook (Valdés et al., 2007: 2). The assignment was graded either as completed or not completed. The second qualitative measure administered was a peer-editing response. After writing a descriptive essay, participants edited another student’s essay, writing constructive comments on a prepared worksheet that they handed back to the student writer. Participants were then asked in class to handwrite their answers in either language to the following questions about the peer-editing experience: • What did you learn from: a. reading your peer’s draft? b. reading their comments on your own draft? • What impact did this have on your revision? • What changes did you make between Drafts 1 and 2, and what were the sources of those changes (e.g. peer’s suggestions, ideas from peer’s papers, your own rethinking and editing)? • How do you feel about your paper at this point? As you approach your final draft, identify ONE to THREE specific questions or concerns about which you would like feedback from me. This was also adapted from Ferris and Hedgcock (2014: 261) and presented in English. Participants were allowed as much time as needed to complete the task before submitting it to the author. For the third freewriting task, on the last day of the semester, participants handwrote responses in whichever language they preferred to the following prompt: ¿Qué cosas te gustaron de la clase? ¿Qué cosas pueden ser mejoradas? [What things did you like about the class? What things can be improved?]

They were given ample time to complete the task. These three chosen freewriting tasks captured writing abilities and thought processes more effectively than the formal assignments because students were allowed to revise and rewrite their formal assignments up to three times, which may have sterilized those types of narratives. Additionally, the formal assignments made up a greater percentage of their course grade, which may have added extrinsic pressure. Their free responses and journal entries were less rigidly defined and not graded for grammatical accuracy or compositional qualities. Thus, they could write more autonomously, concerning themselves more with the message and the content.

The Motivation of Heritage Learners vs. Foreign Language Learners  205

Results and analysis

Here, I report the quantitative results from the motivation scale (AMTB), analyzing the HLs and the FLLs as separate groups as well as comparing the majors to the non-majors. Then, I present the participant responses on the LBQ and reveal the findings from the qualitative analysis of the participants’ three writing samples. Quantitative measure

The modified AMTB was administered twice: once at the beginning of the semester and once at the end. One participant was removed from the quantitative analysis due to missing data. The mean of the sums for Time 1 for the 19 participants was 201.97 (SD = 20.91) (out of a possible 250). The mean for Time  2 was 206.79 (SD  =  21.04). A t-test revealed that the difference in sums over time of 4.82 was significant for the whole class (p