SLWIS Newsletter - March 2015 (Plain Text Version)

Return to Graphical Version

In this issue:
LEADERSHIP UPDATES
•  LETTER FROM THE CHAIR
•  EDITORS' NOTE
ARTICLES
•  A MATCH MADE IN HEAVEN: IMPROVING ESL TRAINING AT THE UNIVERSITY THROUGH LEARNING PARTNERSHIPS
•  USING TUTOR-WRITTEN SCENARIOS FOR TUTOR TRAINING
•  RESPONSE TO STUDENT WRITING IN L2 WRITING TEACHER PREPARATION
BOOK REVIEWS
•  REVIEW OF WRITING IN ENGLISH: STEP BY STEP
BRIEF REPORTS
•  THE 2014 SYMPOSIUM ON SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING AT ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
TESOL 2015 PREVIEWS
•  SLWIS SPECIAL SESSIONS AT TESOL 2015
ABOUT THIS COMMUNITY
•  SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING INTEREST SECTION CONTACT INFORMATION
•  SLW NEWS: CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS

RESPONSE TO STUDENT WRITING IN L2 WRITING TEACHER PREPARATION

Elena Shvidko, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA

As the heart of writing pedagogy, teacher feedback has been widely researched in the field of second language writing, and, admittedly, appears to be one of the most popular topics addressed in academic journals and professional conferences in the field. In an attempt to better understand “one of the most challenging aspects of the writing instructor’s job” (Ferris, 2007, p. 165), established scholars in the field of second language writing publish articles (Ferris, 2007; Lee, 2008; Zamel, 1985), book chapters (Ferris, 2003a; Goldstein, 2001; Leki, 1990), and book-length publications (Ferris, 2003b, 2011; Goldstein, 2005; Hyland & Hyland, 2006) in which they address various aspects of response to student writing and provide writing teachers with effective feedback strategies and practical suggestions, or so-called “best practices” (Ferris, 2014, p. 7).

Much of this literature is devoted to researching and identifying the effectiveness of various forms of feedback—explicit or implicit (Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005; Ferris & Roberts, 2001), direct or indirect (Ferris, 2006, 2011; Lee, 2004), comprehensive or selective (Ellis, Sheen, Murakami, & Takashima, 2008; Lee, 1997, 2004). The recommendations relate not only to written commentary, but also to other forms of responding to student writing, such as one-on-one conferences (Ferris, 2014; Goldstein & Conrad, 1990; Patthey-Chavez & Ferris, 1997) and peer review activities (Liu & Hansen, 2002; Lundstrom & Baker, 2009).

However, despite the substantial accounts that have been undertaken within the literature on feedback, research has not much to offer to impart us with a greater understanding of how teachers provide feedback in real-world institutional settings, what factors influence their feedback, or how their feedback practices and beliefs on feedback change over time. These are just a few of the many areas that are yet to be explored. In addition, there is not much research on the “instructors’ side” of the issue (Ferris, 2014, p. 9): instructors’ perceptions of and attitudes toward their feedback. Although L2 writing scholars have recently begun to express more interest in “the opinions, thought processes, beliefs, and backgrounds of the instructors themselves” (Ferris, Brown, Liu, & Stine, 2011, p. 217), these avenues need further exploration. As Ferris (2014) said, we need more incorporation of “the teachers’ voices into conversations on response to student writing” (p. 9).

Furthermore, despite the wealth of empirical research and pedagogical literature on response to student writing, it is not well known how feedback is addressed in L2 writing teacher education courses. Ferris, one of the most established scholars in the field of second language writing, an expert in written feedback, and a competent teacher educator, wonders what takes place in writing teacher education programs with respect to feedback:

It could be valuable to study courses and programs that prepare writing instructors to find out to what extent such preparation includes formal training in response to student writing and what the content and form of such training might be. For example, does “training” in response consist of reading and discussing an article or two on the topic in a composition pedagogy seminar, or does it include hands-on practice in writing comments or conducting conferences, with feedback from peers or a trainer about the effectiveness of the response? (2014, p. 22)

Other scholars, who, similar to Ferris, are teacher educators themselves, call for more emphasis on feedback in L2 writing teacher education courses. Lee (2004), for instance, asserts, “Teacher education courses have to put more focus on helping pre-service and in-service teachers cope with this time-consuming and painstaking task” (p. 302). Along the same lines, Hyland (2010) states,

We need to focus on teacher’s development of knowledge about how to give effective feedback. Teacher training programs could work to raise teachers’ awareness of the different feedback sources and modes of delivery available to them and the possible ways of combining them to make an effective support system. (pp. 180–181)

A closer look at the literature demonstrates a larger problem, namely, the peripheral position of L2 writing pedagogy as a component of second language teacher education. According to Hirvela and Belcher (2007), “While in the larger domain of TESOL there is a steady focus on teacher education issues, we have fallen short in terms of addressing writing as a component of teacher education” (p. 126). Because of this lack of understanding to what extent L2 writing pedagogy is integrated into teacher education programs, myriad questions remain unanswered. Some of these questions are raised by Hirvela and Belcher (2007):

What are the common, and successful, practices involved in writing teacher education? Which aspects of the world of L2 writing are most in need of exploration in teacher education courses devoted to writing instruction? What problems are most often encountered in preparing people to teach writing? How are those problems addressed? What resources prove most useful in guiding such teacher preparation work?” (p. 125)

These are important avenues to be pursued by L2 teacher educators.

Some scholars provided various reasons in an attempt to explain why L2 writing pedagogy is a missing component in teacher education. Hirvela and Belcher (2007), for example, assert that in the field of second language writing, the focus is primarily on L2 writers instead of on “those learning to teach writing” (p. 128). According to Ferris and Hedgcock (2005), another reason may be the relatively young age of second language writing as a discipline, which “still is viewed by some as an emergent field”; therefore, “few resources have been produced to help pre- and in-service teachers become experts in a discipline that is becoming recognized as a profession in its own right” (p. x).

Based on the concerns expressed by these prominent L2 writing professionals, an assumption can be made that writing teacher education is yet to be developed, and “teachers of teachers of writing” (Hirvela & Belcher, 2007, p. 125) need to take a stronger position in L2 teacher education. Response to student writing, then, as the essence of writing pedagogy, appears to be one of the central issues that should be paid more attention to in writing teacher education courses. L2 writing teacher education programs need to develop opportunities for beginning instructors to help them get exposure to current research on teacher feedback, gain knowledge about effective feedback practices, recognize and reflectively develop their own views and philosophies about feedback, and receive tools for their continuous professional development as writing instructors.

However, before any recommendations are made to L2 writing teacher educators to improve their training curricula and prepare competent writing instructors who are “eager to help others learn how to write” (Hirvela & Belcher, 2007, p. 128), more research on teacher feedback practices is yet to be done. L2 writing teacher educators need a better understanding of how instructors provide feedback in real-world teaching environments, how they adjust their beliefs about feedback to particular institutional contexts with their local cultures and policies, what resources teachers use to develop their feedback practices, and, finally, what factors may contribute to or impinge on the effectiveness of the revision cycle. This information will help design stronger writing teacher education courses to prepare competent, knowledgeable, and self-regulated writing instructors who are able to effectively respond to student writing.

References

Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing.Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205.

Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System,36(3), 353–371.

Ferris, D. R. (2003a). Responding to writing. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing, 119–140. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. R. (2003b). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. R. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 165–193.

Ferris, D. R. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Ferris, D. R. (2014). Responding to student writing: Teachers’ philosophies and practices. Assessing Writing, 19, 6–23.

Ferris, D., Brown, J., Liu, H., & Stine, M. E. A. (2011). Responding to L2 students in college writing classes: Teacher perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 207–234.

Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process and practice (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161–184.

Goldstein, L. M. (2001). For Kyla: What does the research say about responding to ESL writers. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 73–89). New York, NY: Routledge.

Goldstein, L. M. (2005). Teacher written commentary in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Goldstein. L., & Conrad, S. (1990). Student input and the negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 443–460.

Hirvela, A., & Belcher, D. (2007). Writing scholars as teacher educators: Exploring writing teacher education. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 125–128.

Hyland, F. (2010). Future directions in feedback on second language writing: Overview and research agenda. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 171–182.

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for teaching. System, 25(4), 465–477.

Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 285–312.

Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69–85.

Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 57–68). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Liu, J., & Hansen, J. G. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30–43.

Patthey-Chavez, G. G., & Ferris, D. R. (1997). Writing conferences and the weaving of
multi-voiced texts in college composition. Research in the Teaching of English, 31(1), 5l–90.

Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79–101.

Elena Shvidko is a PhD student in the Department of English at Purdue University. Her research interests include second language socialization, second language writing, and writing program administration.