A More Individualized Approach to Working with ELL Writers

In his article, “Influence of Cultural and Linguistic Backgrounds on the Writing of Arabic and Japanese Students of English,” Bouchra Moujtahid discusses a different way of working with ESL writers.  He criticizes the common notion that all ESL writers are the same and should be treated as such.  This misconception greatly inhibits the success of writing programs, as each native language requires special attention and consideration.  He explains, “the students from each national group share a set of writing difficulties which are closely related to the linguistic and cultural backgrounds of that particular group,” (1).  As consultants, it is important that we pay attention to these specific linguistic differences and avoid classifying all ESL writers the same way.  Moujtahid chooses to focus on two particular types of foreign writers, Arabic and Japanese, as a way of examining the importance cultural differences play in ESL writing. 

The unique culture that exists within the Arabic language is vastly different than that of the English language.  Arabic speakers tend highlight “form” rather than “content.” They believe in elaborating each sentiment in order to demonstrate sincerity.  However, this embellishment seems redundant to English speakers.  As a result, Arabic writers tend to have difficulty understanding the brevity of English writing.  This important cultural variation is crucial to fully understanding the trouble Arabic writers face. 

The Japanese language is also greatly influenced by the country’s extremely distinctive culture.  Much of Japan’s culture is a reflection of Zen Buddhism, which emphasizes silent communication and subtlety.  Moujtahid states, “There is a deep distrust of language in the Japanese culture,” (4).  This “distrust” causes Japanese writing to sometimes seem ambiguous and indirect, as these writers do not believe such directness is necessary. Without knowledge of this important cultural difference, a writing consultant would not be able to adequately assist Japanese writers.  

Prior to reading his article, I had extremely limited knowledge about the Arabic and Japanese writing styles.  I found Moujtahid’s research particularly helpful, as I now feel more equipped to work with Arabic and Japanese writers.  However, I would love to extend this knowledge to other commonly spoken native languages here at Richmond.  I think that it might be helpful for future 383 classes to examine more of these variations during their training.  For example, students could each be assigned a different language and research its cultural variations.  Students could then present their findings to the rest of the class.  Even this brief exposure to other languages would improve our understanding and better prepare us to work with Richmond’s ESL students. 

Dorothy Jacobs

The Communication Potentials of Conference Summaries

Jane Cogie’s article “In Defense of Conference Summaries: Widening the Reach of Writing Center Work” discusses the potential of writing conference summaries, well written ones that is, to broaden the communication and understanding between the professor, student and tutor.

Cogie first discusses the two common perspectives towards writing center summaries. Cogie refers to these positions as “sharers” and “seclusionists”, two terms coined by Michael Pemberton in his 1995 Writing Lab Newspaper. Pemberton defines “sharers” as people who “perceive these reports as promoting “a unified educational experience for students” and “productive relationships with faculty”’ (Pemberton 13). “Seclusionists, on the other hand “see summaries as just another instance of limiting tutors to the role of “service workers” for instructors” (Pemberton 13). Cogie briefly entertains the problems with poorly written or brief summaries which do nothing to highlight the improvements made by the writer nor tactfully point out to the teacher possible issues with the assignment. These summaries merely serve as a technical formality which indicates to the professor that the tutor has done the job.

However for the remainder of her article Cogie takes a firm “sharer” stance towards writing summaries and goes on to address how successful writing conference reports can be composed. It is asserted that summaries must be longer than three sentences and that the writing center and director must be supportive of lengthier and thorough responses, training their consultants on how to write these detail-specific reports which provide useful information for future meetings between the professor and student. 

Cogie goes on to discuss the benefits of detailed writing reports. The survey results provided in the article indicate that teachers have confirmed that strong summaries provide them with better insight into their students’ struggles and confusion with an assignment, stating “10% of the teacher responses citing use of the reports to focus teaching and design exercises for students” (Cogie 56). It is also pointed out that tutors are able to gain a better idea of the writer’s progress and the overall productivity of the session through summarizing their work.

Perhaps the most intriguing was the student survey portion where all students interviewed agreed that writing summaries were helpful. However large percentages indicated that they desired to be more involved in the conference summary process, with 67% being in favor of optional student commenting and 72% being in favor an exclusive student section. High percentages of students also indicated a desire to receive a student copy of the summary.

This leads me to question whether in the traditional writing center process if students feel a certain disconnect after the consultation ends. Yes, they gain valuable insight towards their paper and how to strengthen the claim, style, flow etc. However they are left wondering what the consultant has said to their professor in the post-report write-up. The consultant could underestimate the level at which the writer has understood the assignment which they have been given, or the consultant could overestimate the understanding and confidence with which the writer left the conference. Either way, the professor would be misinformed in the summary. I wonder if, professor permitting, an optional student commentary section in the professor write up could be a beneficial addition to reports at Richmond? Students would be much more involved in the conversation between consultants and professors, something which would strengthen student-professor communication beyond the writing center. Students would also be more comfortable discussing their work. There is great potential for more student involvement in writing center summaries.

 

Nellie Searle

Writing Should Come With A Manual

     As much as we would like to think that the English language has a set of strict guidelines that apply to all writing, Hjortshoj refers to our language as a “wonderfully complicated, living system” (81) with varying rules and exceptions for nearly every situation.  The continually evolving nature of English, however, can put a serious strain on students as they attempt to establish a definite set of rules for writing their essays.  Comments teachers make in the margins are oftentimes vague, and confused students may believe that those corrections are all-encompassing and apply to every essay they will ever write.  When various teachers offer contradicting critiques, writers become frustrated and wonder why a common standard for all English writing still eludes us.

     In this chapter, Hjortshoj explains the two different ways through which we learn the proper patterns of the English language: primary knowledge and secondary knowledge.  The former is almost instinctive – we have learned what is and is not grammatically correct by reading and listening to basic patterns of speech.  The latter, however, must be taught, as it involves all of the complex names for grammatical concepts that many forget shortly after leaving their middle school English classes.  We typically rely upon primary knowledge when drafting and revising our writing, mainly because, as Hjortshoj explains, we can “hear and correct the error before we can explain it.” (84)

     This concept of audibly catching mistakes is an extremely useful one that I have seen applied successfully in numerous situations.  In my high school’s writing center, we would frequently have the younger students who needed help with their grammar go out into the hallway with their paper and read it aloud.  When they re-entered the room, they would immediately take a pen and fix half of the mistakes without the consultants having to say or do anything at all.  I have also witnessed firsthand the usefulness of this technique here at Richmond.  During my observation last week, I noticed that the consultant read much of the paper out loud – it was remarkable how many times the writer would interject mid-sentence to admit that something sounded awkward or needed to be rephrased.

     Although this verbal editing technique is indispensable, it still does not address the larger issue of the English language’s lack of an absolute standard for writing.  Yes, reading aloud will enable you to detect subject-verb agreement errors, but how will it help guide you when your history teacher comments that your sentences are too cumbersome, yet your English teacher notes that your sentences are underdeveloped?  While I am in no way trying to insult educators who merely seek to improve their students’ writing, the tendency of individual professors to act as if their rules are absolute and universal is a great disservice to developing writers.  Many students want to approach writing as a rigid step-by-step process that can be applied to any essay and result in a desirable grade, but the absence of one generally accepted writing guide combined with teachers’ my-way-is-the-only-way attitude makes a “formula for success” unattainable.  Although I embrace the notion that language should be flexible and subject to change, I believe that these ambiguous yet authoritative corrections are what cause many students to become frustrated and declare writing to be one ridiculous game that is impossible to play due to the absence of a rule book.  Just as Hjortshoj discussed in an earlier chapter, students oftentimes find themselves “writing for a specific professor” because no one in the academic world can seem to agree once and for all as to what constitutes proper English.  While I can appreciate that each teacher has his or her own stylistic preferences, they need to help students understand when a correction is a mere personal preference and when an error violates a conventional grammatical rule.  If educators are going to force students to adhere to one strict set of rules for that class, then they should write something more specific than simply “awkward” or “unclear” in the margins.

Madeline Smedley      

"The Study of Error"

In reading “The Study of Error” by David Bartholomae I found that I gained a more informed judgment of how to deal with the shortcomings of basic writing. Bartholomae tries to examine the basis of basic writing, how we critique it, and whether it is really a shortfall on the writer’s part or just a misunderstanding of the task at hand.

I understand, from the article, that the correct way to approach basic writing is to not come at it as a lesson that we can teach students, but rather it should be looked at as an opportunity to examine the errors made by the writer when he is faced with tasks that are beyond his current ability. We as consultants need to approach papers with eyes that can recognize errors the writer has made and try to evaluate those mistakes based on where they originated. As Bartholomae states basic writers do make choices and struggle to find strategy as they deal with “the varied demands of a task, a language, and a rhetoric” (257). Basic writing is not uninformed or unintellectual, rather its confused and misguided so we must be sensitive to that as we give advice to our writers. I believe the value in this is that once we recognize the errors the writer has made we can begin the consultation by acknowledging the things the writer has done, giving him some confidence in his ability, and then come at it with a critical eye helping the writer to see what mistakes he made.

One lesson within the article that I found to be important, on our part, is the assertion that we must be proficient readers. When we look at the papers with careful eyes we can at times overlook the miscues within the writing and see the bigger picture of the writers argument. Bartholomae argues that good readers are able to see the “sense” of the passage and can make better corrections within the essay if they overlook the small errors and try to see the core of the argument. We saw this when we were editing the “Is Chance Wise” paper, as we skillfully read the paper we were able to catch a glimpse of what the writer truly meant and could give better feedback.

            This is no easy feat, and I believe that this requires a lot to be accomplished in the one-hour meeting we have with our writers. Yet, what I believe to be a valuable lesson is that in our understanding of Bartholomae’s argument we can act as better, more careful consultants because we understand the ways in which student’s shortcomings can appear within their writing. 

Emily Chadwick