Blog Post (1/30)

I happened to have three non-native English speakers in the Rhetoric course I taught last semester. When grading their papers, I always tried to focus on the quality of the ideas, argumentation, and organization over grammatical or sentence-structure errors. Only when I felt as if I could not understand what they were trying to convey did I step in to address the more technical aspects of writing. I was a little scared about being misunderstood by them, or of not being of much help to them, but I came to realize that non-native English speakers (like most other students) are creative and thoughtful. On top of that, they are willing to put in the extra time and effort into assignments that are naturally more difficult for them because of the language barrier. I am excited to tutor second-language students in the Writing Center because I might be able to import some of the strategies I learn here into the class room setting. Teaching Rhetoric, I often struggle to find ways to make second-language students feel included or encouraged to speak up in class. Maybe I can learn some one-on-one techniques in the Writing Center that might prove helpful later when teaching.   

Comments

  1. Lindsey QuinnJanuary 26, 2018 at 5:54 AM

    I agree--focusing on the little grammar errors doesn't seem that important in grading papers. I was actually really surprised when I taught rhetoric last semester that my native speaker students made errors that I'd have attributed to an L2 speaker. They'd turn in papers with sentences that they'd never say. After I read the drafts of their first papers, I encouraged them to all read their papers out loud to themselves or to someone else, but I know many of them didn't. For my L1 and L2 English writers, I'd just make one comment on the most egregious systematic error. I actually get the impression that my L2 writers got more out of such comments because they know enough about grammar to understand and apply the comments, and they cared about making a deliberate effort to improve their grammar. I still had L1 English speakers turning in papers with word salad at the end of the semester. Maybe it goes back to what you said about putting in the effort.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tamar BernfeldJanuary 27, 2018 at 8:33 PM

      I am teaching Basic Writing at Kirkwood. My class is split between L1 and L2 writers, and I am also finding that there are "errors" of the type I might have attributed to non-native writers in the "native" writers' work. I think there is a huge gap for many students (who do not write unless they have to) between spoken and written language fluency.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Writing to Learn, Learning to Write

I'm familiar with different approaches in different contexts. As an instructor, I'm most familiar with learning to write, because even my content-based assignments receive extensive writing attention. As a student, though, I was and am more familiar with writing to learn. But I'm still displeased that as a student in English at the undergraduate, MA, and PhD levels, there was/is not more attention placed on learning to write. At this stage, this seems to be something professors take for granted. (I was recently told: "That's not how you title a dissertation chapter." And I responded: "Can you please tell me how you title a book chapter? I have never done this.") I think also in liberal arts required courses, writing to learn is prioritized in many (most?) disciplines. I'm not particularly persuaded by one form over another, though I have never succeeded in writing to learn language models. But I am partial to the idea that learning to write sho...
Read more

Emi 03/27

These two case studies consider two different research methods that will inevitably lead to very different discussions and presentation of the ideas.  T he non-fiction case study (Lorraine) is purely qualitative, while the academic case study (Fei) is a mixed methods study in which qualitative data is quantitized and the rest of the collected qualitative data (e.g. interview) mainly serves to enhance legitimation. These two different focus, qualitative (Lorraine) and Mixed methods with a focus on quantitative (Fei) are well accepted in research. However, the way that readers approach them may be very different. The qualitative (non-fiction) case study is more engaging, more relatable, and easier to read. As promoted in Qualitative research, the authors present the data as if it were a story and include very detailed anecdotes (called vignettes) that represent the main point to be conveyed. The study is not replicable, but the authors do provide additional information to ensure...
Read more

4/17

In my tutoring sessions, I've been most familiar with the 'learning to write' paradigm. I felt Ortega's statement that "...LW places at the center of attention the cognitive activity of the writer and her or his authorial voice" encapsulates the work my students have called on me to do. Whether they're working on a Peace Corps application, a psychology paper, a global health paper or a speech for Rhetoric, I've found my work can be described in Ortega's twofold statement: helping students put in writing first, their cognitive activity (their opinions, arguments, and questions) and second, their authorial voice (by airing confusions, doubts, and identifying needs for further research). In class, I'm wondering if we can have a discussion about the overlap between LW and WLL when it comes to students picking up specific language necessary for academic assignments. As Ortega writes, there is a difference between students "learning to write abo...
Read more