Writing has always been a struggle for university students. However, the normal difficulties of university-level writing can be compounded for English language learners (ELLs). ELLs can struggle with writing at so many different levels. To succeed as writers, ELLs must learn how to master the writing process; discover appropriate morphology, syntax, and rhetorical strategies; master academic conventions of paraphrasing, citation, and thesis development; and understand cultural features of the community in which they are learning (Barkaoui, 2007, pp. 35–37).

As a result, ELLs may have

• done the assignment incorrectly because they didn’t understand the directions,

• developed a draft that is incomprehensible because it was developed in their native language first and then translated into English,

• plagiarized their work from the internet or developed a draft with many uncited references, or

• developed a draft with spelling and grammatical errors so numerous that it interferes with reader comprehension.

In addition to the technical issues of dealing with these manuscripts, there are also a number of ethical issues. For example, should an instructor have different standards of grading for ELLs and non-ELLs? Because the difference between the two is often blurry, can an instructor even make this distinction? In addition, how does an instructor balance the differing and sometimes conflicting demands of maintaining high standards in the classroom and not destroying a student’s confidence? In the specific instance of plagiarism, there is also the question of whether the instructor should make special allowances when considering the cultural background of the student. Many students, for example, have been educated in cultures that have different viewpoints on what constitutes plagiarism.

The four main points I would like to make in regard to student writing are that instructors should attempt to (1) build cultural awareness with the students as they teach; (2) provide direct, easy-to-understand feedback and error correction; (3) emphasize the dignity and humanity of the writing process over simple error correction; and (4) keep in mind the emotional needs of students.

Build Awareness With the Student

Cultural traditions might be an important factor impacting a writer’s ability to communicate in English. For example, Chinese students often make their points in roundabout ways, delaying the use of subjects and instead using suppositions; this reflects a rhetorical tradition of shunning individuality in Chinese rhetoric (Ji, 2008). Though teachers cannot learn all the ways culture impacts writing, they can be sensitive to the fact that culture does impact writing and that it will take time for students to adjust to new rhetorical communities. Thus, they should try to build awareness of cultural factors as they teach.

Provide Direct Feedback and Error Correction

Feedback and error correction should be direct and easy to understand for ELLs. Sometimes vague feedback comes from the best of intentions. What Hyland & Hyland (2001) call “mitigation” strategies in feedback—the mix of praise and criticism to soften the criticism—can often lead to confusion with ELLs. As the authors write, “teachers may sometimes forget that students are reading their feedback in a foreign language and that being more indirect and ‘subtle’ may actually result in significant misunderstandings” (Hyland & Hyland, 2001, p. 203). For this reason, instructors might want to use clear rubrics or feedback sheets that demonstrate what constitutes praise and what constitutes criticism. When possible, it might also be appropriate to confirm with students whether they understand the feedback.

Emphasize Process Over Counting Errors

The issue of how to eliminate student errors in writing is a topic that has become extremely controversial. However, when it comes to ELLs, it is important to remember that they benefit more from learning about the writing process in its entirety than they do from a strict emphasis on eliminating errors, a process that will take much longer and likely last throughout their professional careers (Cumming, 2001).

In some institutional settings, there may be pressure for writing instructors to focus on error correction above all else. This pressure might manifest itself as complaints that graduates from the university are embarrassing the institution by making simple mistakes on résumés and cover letters. However, research (and my own experience) has found that feedback on the writing process and the content of the essay helps with both learning and motivation (Barkaoui, 2007). Students tend to have more motivation to do good work when instructors demonstrate a genuine interest in the writer’s ideas. In addition, a focus on the writing process helps the students reflect and refine the way they approach their writing, including correcting errors.

Keep in Mind the Emotional Needs of Students

An excessive amount of criticism can easily destroy student motivation and confidence, especially if they have put a lot of effort and emotional energy into their work. When approaching student writing strictly from a technical perspective, some of the humanity and dignity of the process is lost. Thus, instructors should always remember that there is a person behind the writing trying to communicate something. Whenever possible, instructors should emphasize the humanity and dignity of the writing process.

Concluding Thoughts

There are no easy solutions to the issues of dealing with student writing. In many cases, students will need to develop their writing skills over many years of hard work, often having to learn little by little from their mistakes. As instructors, we can help our ELLs by keeping in mind the aforementioned concerns. Most importantly, we should remember the person behind the writing and learn to see beyond the errors.

References

Barkaoui, K. (2007). Teaching writing to second language learners: Insights from theory and research. TESL Reporter, 40(1), 35–58

Cumming, A. (2001). Learning to write in a second language: Two decades of research. International Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 1–23.

Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185–212.

Ji, Y. (2008). Indirectness: A barrier to overcome in teaching writing. TESL Reporter, 41(2), 1–13.

Daniel Clausen has taught ESL, English composition, and other courses in the United States, Japan, and Saudi Arabia. He has also conducted research in the field of international relations. His work has appeared in The Diplomat, e-IR, East Asia Forum, and TheKorean Journal of International Studies, among other places. He currently works as an English language instructor for Coco Juku in Japan.