State University of New York College at Cortland



Teaching ESL Students Writing

 

 

Lauren Norkus

 

 

 

Imagine you are Yoko, a Japanese student who has just immigrated to America. You speak only ten English words: hello, goodbye, yes, no, thank, you, I, and, go, where. Imagine you are Yoko’s teacher and you don’t speak any Japanese. How will the two of you communicate? English classrooms focus on oral and written language, on attaining fluency in speech and writing. In the recent past teachers of ESL students thought that teaching oral fluency and writing separately was the only logical course of action, as though these were separate modes of learning. Research over the past twenty years has revealed that oral fluency and the ability to write are inherent in each other and should be developed simultaneously. Language proficiency is the outcome; writing is the process by which proficiency is attained. 

Why is it imperative for all of us to understand and address the needs of ESL learners? The 2000 Census found that one out of six school age children in the U.S. speak a language other than English at home (). Our role is to teach everyone educable, and marginalization, though often unintended, is inexcusable simply because of students’ differences in language.

 

The Problems We Face

To address the needs of ESL learners in our classrooms we first must understand the multitude of problems we face as teachers. First, I’d like to present the argument between cultural sensitivity and racial profiling. Because this is such a controversial topic and because, obviously, a teacher would not want to admit to committing it there is little research to be found. Any mention of such instance was in the contestation of President Bush’s No Child Left Behind legislature. There are implications for ESL students within the criticisms of these policies. The populations of multilingual citizens are increasing making improvement of the U.S. public schools’ ESL capabilities unavoidable. Beverly Cross emphasizes that immigration often occurs in larger urban areas, providing momentum for the argument against Bush’s policies:

Rather than prioritizing proven reforms such as teacher training or smaller class size, however, President Bush’s solution is to hold students accountable to academic standards based on test scores, with little or no additional assistance to underfunded, underperforming schools. Moreover, Bush’s plan to ‘reward success and sanction failure’ links Title I funds for schools to test results, so that states with public schools that need the most assistance are at risk of losing critical funding. This creates a perverse set of incentives that undermine the goal of a quality education…remedial education tracking, forced grade repetition, and increased drop out rates (9).

How could students possibly feel compelled to learn and assimilate when the powers that be seem to seek to keep them marginalized?! Lack of opportunity and urgency toward remedial tracking sets these students up for failure.

Cross’ article cites studies showing that standardized tests tend to reinforce institutionalized racism, arguing that, “the SAT (has) proven to be a better indicator of parents’ wealth than of academic ability, disproportionately excludes students of color from the ranks of the college-educated” (11). By distributing funding according to test scores, schools who already lack funding remain lacking. Students who come from families that lack the resources and/or motivation to provide the best educational opportunities in conjunction with public schools that lack the financial and personnel resources results in more students without high school diplomas or jobs, let alone fluency.

            Our upstate locale may lead you to think that vast numbers of ESL students are not being affected here. However, there are schools in our area who lack the proper funding to support the needs of these students.

Because of inadequate funding for ESL programs and a lack of ESL teachers, students end up in inappropriate educational settings. As Ilona Leki, a national authority on second language acquisition points out, “Unfortunatley, when financial and personnel resources are not available … ESL students are sometimes lumped together with other students requiring special attention … often in classes considered remedial” (27). Placing ESL students in remedial classes is an attempt to provide them with extra attention and a slower pace than a regular classroom, but such classes they are ultimately designed for students with severe learning disabilities, such as dyslexia or hearing impairments, not for students with a language barrier. The result of such placements is an immediate plunge in the ESL students’ self-esteem, which is further highlighted by self-doubt and apprehension towards learning and school in general. The setting is simply inappropriate.

Also inappropriate is thrusting ESL students into mainstream classrooms without considering the instructional approach of the teacher. Those of us who are what Ellen Curtin refers to as “didactic or autocratic” teachers may be using a teaching style that is problematic for ESL students. It may be difficult to accommodate their needs with modifications in assignments and assessment. If we are new to the profession we may not have established concrete classroom procedures and structures. Those of us who are experienced may be too set in our ways. In her study of ESL students’ experiences Curtin observed a “didactic” teacher who completely ignored a Latino student because she had been absent:

(She) consequently (was) never included in the group work…I told her to ask Mr. Bond what she was expected to be doing…Mr. Bond did not come to her for the first 15 minutes…even though her hand was raised. When he finally noticed her he assigned her…a separate worksheet…He never came back to check on her even once for the remainder of the class period. Mr. Bond expressed to me later…that rules applied to everyone…He never made any exceptions to the rules he told me. Because this student was absent at the beginning of the project period she could not participate (39).

Teachers like Mr. Bond, who make no exceptions to the rule, even exceptions due to language barriers, do not operate classrooms where ESL students’ learning will take place.

Leki observes that didactic teachers are also more apt to give the “foreign student C,” a passing grade in exchange for ESL students’ having shown up regularly (120).

Those of us whom Curtin calls “interactive teachers” have teaching styles that ESL students may find compatible. Curtin observed, “interactive teachers (who) allowed more choice in assignments and … were more student-centered in their instructional styles.” She says, “I observed them emphasizing the content of the lesson first as opposed to vocabulary development.” (39). Such teachers have the ability personalize with their students, they greet them at the door, call on them by name and tailor assignments to fit the needs of individual students’.

As ESL students are truly outsiders, new to American culture and traditions and they suffer from the real phenomenon of culture shock. This can result in depression, passivity, pessimism, lethargy, apathy, irritability, feelings of failure and resistance to assimilation. Unwillingness to assimilate may result in a failure to make friends outside their native language; further obstructing the acquisition of English.

During the month that I taught a middle school math lab I had several Latin students. One young man, Alex, would not speak a word of English to me. The only communication I got from him was the occasional ‘no,’ and lots of doe-eyed, confused looks. The female students would converse with him in Spanish and relay to me that he simply didn’t understand. Alex’s math teacher happened to be Cuban and spoke Spanish. She would often communicate with her Spanish-speaking students thus. I was reassured that things could not be as bad as they seem. After a week of Alex making no progress I confronted his core ESL teacher, who also happens to be fluent in Spanish. She explained that through many conversations with Alex the sad fact was that he hated being in NY state and had convinced himself that the move was temporary and it was just a matter of time until he’d return to Puerto Rico.

Shortly after this conversation my position ended and wondered what became of Alex’s attitude. I returned a month later to substitute for a science teacher and Alex happened to be in the class. He raised his hand and I asked how he was. He grinned and nodded, pointing to his worksheet. I pointed to the diagram asking him if the force was pushing toward or pulling against, he said softly, “pushing toward.” I was so appalled to hear English words coming from his mouth! I looked at him, shaking my head, asking him if he could speak English all along. He nodded. Maybe Alex finally made some friends and was feeling more comfortable. At least he was feeling comfortable enough to make effort towards his education.

ESL students are also confronted by teachers’ general ignorance of and disinterest regarding their native culture and personal backgrounds. The rest of “us” resort to stereotypes when addressing these students’ needs and experiences. This creates a double bind for ESL students between the desire to succeed and please the teacher and their cultural and linguistic disparaties. It is our responsibility to be aware of the ways different cultures ascribe different meaning to facial expression, gesture and inquisition. According to Leki, asking students if they understand may result in them affirming that they do when in fact they are preoccupied with pleasing the teacher and telling them what they think they want to hear. Asking an ESL student if they understand what’s being covered doesn’t necessarily accomplish what it does for native English speakers, “…they may always claim to understand even when they don’t, either hesitant to bring further attention to themselves by their failure to understand or reluctance to imply that the teacher has not made a point clearly enough” (52). You must look for non-verbal clues such as facial expression, gesture and posture.

In order to teach writing to ESL students you must be aware that the NYS ELA Standards for ESL are different. First, ESL students may opt out of standardized testing for the first three years of official enrollment. I believe this has the potential to further marginalize students from their teachers’ attention, simply because their test scores wouldn’t matter as of yet. ESL students are also lumped together according to a very broad and vague set of “rules,” (see Appendix A). The wording for regular education ELA standards specify the act of writing throughout, “write imaginative texts, write essays, write for literary response and expression.” ESL standards employ vague terminology such as, ‘create,’ and, “produce,” (emsc.). Even if the ESL student in question was at a high proficiency they would still be retained by lower standards.

Lastly, Leki emphasizes teaching writing as a process, using each stage to focus on a particular skill or strategy. But be aware that writing for many foreign students involves no drafting process, “In their home countries they were expected to learn to produce perfect drafts at one sitting, as one might during exams,” (71). These students are used to writing one, painstakingly slow “perfect draft.” This expectation for producing one perfect draft results in unwillingness of the student to correct their own work: they don’t want to ‘mess up’ the neatness of their paper by marking it up or crossing things out.

This gives rise to a secondary problem, that second language learners are not put

off by making errors, they expect to do so, however they’ve learned to expect teachers to correct for them. In an article aimed at teachers who are not specialized in ESL, Vicki Holmes and Margaret R. Moulton emphasize that we must control our compulsion to edit for our students. By failing to do so we risk, “dictating the form and content of their writing…[therefore] teachers limit the students’ cognitive and linguistic growth”  (620).

Students won’t learn to recognize errors independently, which they will eventually have to because the editing process is becoming part of standardized testing.

Another inherent problem with teachers’ overcorrecting is the creation of, ‘dead drafts,’ anything that already has a grade on it, regardless of opportunity at further revision, is considered completed. As Leki emphasizes, “students have a tendency to reject or ignore feedback on writing which they consider dead, that is, a final draft with a grade” (122). The reasons for this are multiple: students may not understand what’s being suggested to them, the teacher’s handwriting may be ineligible to the student, the student may perceive commentary as inapplicable, or they may not know how to make the suggested changes. (122-3).

 

Solutions to the Problems

            So as English teachers, how do we attempt to appease the situation? We will all at some point or another, with whatever preparation or lack thereof, find ourselves with non-native English speakers in our classrooms. What will we do? In the course of my research there have been many suggestions. First, take the time to get to know your students personally as well as their learning styles. Settling in to a new culture and its educational sphere will obviously not happen within a week, “learning a second language takes time and space, much more time and space than students are traditionally given,” (Malu, 295).

            It is necessary for teachers to learn about their students’ culture, to familiarize with the taboos of particular cultures in order not to commit such acts at the expense of compromising their students’ learning sphere. Leki exemplifies that a Vietnamese student would be uncomfortable with a pat on the shoulder. A Japanese student expressed discomfort at being looked in the eye, she was accustomed to focusing on the base of someone’s throat. Conversely when an El Salvadorian student was looked in the eye he felt that he was being lied to (54-55).

Perhaps this responsibility could be split up between the students’ core subject teachers, this would allow each teacher to learn a different aspect and share their knowledge with each other. By sharing the responsibility some pressure is taken off the lone English teacher and perhaps more valuable information would be gleaned through each participants delving into a particular aspect.          You could also construct an informal survey to find out what taboos exist and what the student is personally comfortable with. (See Appendix B) This knowledge can be used to further develop personal relationships.

Another complication arises from where this ESL student has picked up whatever English language ability they have. Leki points out that teachers should be careful in their utilization of spoken language:

Students complained that the only English they had been exposed to was technical textbook English…resulting in inability to discriminate between…varying registers of language…(other) students experienced the same problem in the opposite direction. They were quite fluent in the everyday English language use of the street but had little exposure to academic or technical uses of English

(84-5).

Depending upon the individual students’ English learning experience thus far dictates the kinds of spoken communication they’ll best understand. This will probably be very different from student to student, which again, places more emphasis on the teachers’ role in establishing personal relationships.

            The basis for writing activities begins with collaborative work because it is a low risk task and it provides authenticity as students prompt one another through the exchange of questions and ideas. Authenticity further develops, “learner autonomy as students are able to make their own decisions without direct teacher involvement,” (Hyland, 118). The use of dialogue journals receives acclaim for the development of writing skills which, “evolve from the authenticity of partners engaging in a two-way interaction,” (Holmes & Moulton, 616). Because these journals are, “usually uncorrected and unrevised students use them to build fluency of language, fluency of thinking, and fluency and confidence in exploration of ideas and content,” (Casanave, 72). Journal writing is informal and takes place semi-privately between peers and/or teachers. When responding to these, focus only on content. Mechanics will come later with the drafting process.

A second “authentic” and low risk task is letter writing. This is seen as especially effective in a study conducted by Nancy Hadaway and Terrell Young, pairing older, more proficient students with less proficient, younger students. As the interaction between the two students takes place, the older student prompts the younger to develop his writing more thoroughly. More complete answers are extracted by the older student’s making suggestions and asking question (8). Students are thus writing for a realistic purpose through a realistic medium. (See Appendix C). You can see that Mario’s first letter is unfocused and unorganized. His penfriend successfully prompts him to focus and develop his main idea in the second letter.

            The next suggestion is to give students an active role in creating assignments. This would provide an opportunity to avoid cultural taboos, as well as tapping into the personal interests of the students. This would in turn provide a level of authenticity to the assignment. Provide choices in topics. Allow students an opportunity to educate you and their classmates about their cultures and traditions.

Something intruguing that Leki reveals is a division in memory storage. Where ESL students remember instances that happened before the acquisition of second language in that first language and vice versa. (81). Thus asking a student to write in English about something that happened to them before they had any exposure to the language could become a doubly difficult assignment.

Within this vein is the suggestion to allow students to use translation during the writing process. This may be a more effective way for an ESL student to gain fluency in the English. To make tasks more approachable Leki suggests that “thinking in the (first language) should not necessarily be avoided while composing in the (second language),” (80). By encouraging the translation process you allow for the development of fluent content and idea first.

What about computer use? Maria Angelova and Amastasia Riazantseva conducted a study of the experiences of international students learning to write. They found that the use of technology is conflicting; it seems each suggestion has positive and negative attributes. Because the motions for writing the English language may be very different from the first language, using computers for word processing may be more comfortable for some students by using the universal “QWERTY” keyboard. Conversely, other students may not have any familiarity with such technology and thus would not know how to use it, “the rest of the participants had no previous experience with computers…they felt lost and frustrated. Their limited knowledge forced them to write most of their first papers by hand and then type them into the computer” (508). Again the necessity of personal relationships between student and teacher is emphasized.

An attempt to bridge this conflict may be accomplished by the use of oral dictation. Such techniques, “can develop keyboarding abilities while also encouraging freewriting as learners do not have time to stop and correct minor punctuation or spelling errors,” (Hyland, 121). I think freewriting can be an effective tool in teaching students to just get ideas out. As ESL students are not used to such an approach, I think it could be helpful. In order not to distract from the flow of writing, this would initially require turning off the spell/grammar checking programs on classroom computers. Although, such programs may eventually help students to develop abilities to recognize and address mechanical errors without relying on the teacher to do so for them, it is imperative that ideas be developed first.

The most common suggestion is in regards to the drafting process. So as not to inhibit larger writing goals in compliance with all NYS ELA Standards such as #1: writing for information and understanding, teachers should reserve mechanical error corrections for the final stages of drafting. Though making errors does not discourage ESL students, they come to rely on the teacher to correct for them. Icy Lee suggests that we give our red pens a break and practice “error feedback” as opposed to overt correction by, “prompting students about the location of errors, and/or prompting the students about the nature of the errors by means of a correction code,” (466). By indicating that there are errors but not overtly correcting them, students are forced to reason what the error is and how to fix it, internalizing the skills for error recognition. As I mentioned earlier this would become important later on for these students as they begin participating in standardized testing. (See Appendix D). In this excerpt there are examples of overt correction and error feedback. Another suggestion for developing such skills is to create correct and incorrect versions of text. Have students look for patterns while making corrections and then apply these skills to their own texts. (Leki, 131-2).

Many ESL students will carry small, electronic language dictionaries. Though the intent here is positive, the use of such tools may lead a student in the wrong direction. This is because these dictionaries often, “give several different translation options but without any context,” (Leki, 72). Without context, how is a student to discern which definition makes sense? Leki further points out that regular English dictionaries provide similar disservice: the words being used as a definition are unfamiliar, sending one leafing through the dictionary, seemingly in circles. Two dictionaries specifically suggested are the Oxford Student’s Dictionary of American English and Longman’s Dictionary of American English (73).

 

Civil Responsibility

 On this grander scale, teachers are members of the local and national community and we cannot ignore our civil and educational responsibility to promote change. Much of the problems for public schools and teachers stem from insufficient resources. To change this we must demand that the appropriations for funding public schools to be reconfigured:

The hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on high-stakes tests do … a lot to aggravate pre-existing inequalities. This money could be more fairly spent on reforms that are known to work such as high-quality teachers and small class sizes … By providing justification for school privatization, high-stakes tests make quality education inaccessible and unaffordable, especially to low-income students and students of color (Cross, 11).

Again, the way our government runs, or in my opinion fails to effectively run, the educational needs of the nation must be reformed. Priorities must be reassessed and funding must be allocated according to need.

My final and most immediately accessible solution is awareness. Be open to the backgrounds and needs of each and everyone of your students, to teach is not only to educate someone but an appreciation and devotion to humanity. Realize that just as there is a need in all English classrooms to write more frequently, the need is the same in ESL classrooms. The teaching of English is the teaching of fluency and literacy, regardless if it is your first or second language.

           

Bibliography

 

 

Angelova, Maria and Riazantseva, Anastasia. “If You Don’t Tell Me, How Can I Know?: A Case Study of Four International Students Learning to Write the U.S. Way.” Written Communication. 16.8 (1999): 616.

 

Au, K. Literacy Instruction in Multicultural Settings. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace, 1993.

 

Barton, D. and Hall, N. Eds. Letter Writing as Social Practice. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1999.

 

Belcher, Diane D. “A Guide to Writing English as a Second or Foreign Language: An Annotated Bibliography of Research and Pedagogy.” The Modern Language Journal. 80.4 (1996): 539.

 

Belcher, Diane. “The Apprenticeship Approach to Advanced Academic Literacy: Graduate Students and Their Memoirs.” English for Specific Purposes. 13 (1994) 23.

 

Belcher, Diane and Braine, G. Eds. Academic Writing in a Second Language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995.

 

Berg, E. “The Effects of Trained Peer Response on ESL Students’ Revision Types and Writing Quality.” Journal of Second Language Writing. 8 (1999): 215-41.

 

Brice, Colleen. “On Second Language Writing.” The Modern Language Journal. 87.2 (2003): 322.

 

Byrnes, D. A, Kiger, G. and Manning, M.L. “Classroom Teachers and Language Minority Students.” Educational Quarterly. 22.1 (1998): 26-31.

 

Casanave, Christine. Controversies in Second Language Writing. Ann Arbor, MI:

University Of Michigan Press, 2004.

 

Chalhoub-Deville, M. “Second Language Interaction: Current Perspectives and Future Trends.” Language Testing. 20 (2003): 369-83.

 

Cross, Beverly. “A Time For Action.” Racial Profiling and Punishment in U.S. Public Schools: How Zero Tolerance Policies and High Stakes Testing Subvert Academic Excellence and Racial Equity. Oakland, CA: ARC, 2001.

 

Cumming, A. “Theoretical Perspective on Writing.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 18 (1998): 61-78.

 

 

Curtin, Ellen. “Instructional Styles Used by Regular Classroom Teachers while Teaching

            Recently Mainstreamed ESL Students.” Multicultural Education. 12.4 (2005): 36-

            42.

 

Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. Eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994.

 

Diaz-Rico, L. and Weed, K. The Cross-cultural, Language and Academic Development Handbook: A Complete K-12 Reference Guide. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2002.

 

Dolly, M. “Integrating ESL Reading and Writing Through Authentic Discourse.” Journal of Reading. 33 (1990): 360-5.

 

Duanti, A. and Goodwin, C. Eds. Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

 

Englert, C., Hiebert, E. and Stewart, S. “Detecting and Correcting Inconsistencies in the  Monitoring of Expository Prose.” Journal of Educational Research. 81 (1988): 221-7.

 

Faigley, L. and Witte, S. “Analyzing Revising.” College Composition and Communication. 32 (1981): 400-14.

 

Ferris, Dana and Hedgecock, John S. Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998.

 

Fipp, M. “Transcending the Traditional: Whole Language in the Transitional English Classroom.” Equity and Choice. 10 (1994): 38-44.

 

Forrest, Scott. “Reading the World: Integrating Geography in an English Language Learner Literacy Program.” Journal of Geography. 101.5 (2002): 191-8.

 

Gebhard, Meg. “Getting Past See Spot Run.” Educational Leadership. 60.4 (2003): 35-9.

 

Gibbons, P. Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning: Teaching Second Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2002.

 

Gray, Tracy. “Successful Strategies for English Language Learners.” Educational Leadership. 62.4 (2004/2005): 84-5.

 

Green, C. and Green, J. “Secret Friend Journals.” TESOL Journal. 2 (1993): 20-23.

 

Gay, G. Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research and Practice. New York: Teacher’s College Press, 2000.

Hadaway, Nancy and Young, Terrell. “Accommodating Diversity in Literacy Instruction

            Through Interactive Writing,” The New England Reading Association Journal

            38.3 (2005): 5-9.

 

Hamp-Lyons, L. Ed. Assessing Second Language Writing in Academic Contexts. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1991.

 

Hauglie, Joseph, W. “Landmark Essays on ESL Writing.” The Modern Language Journal. 87.2 (2003): 322.

 

Henry, A. Second Language Rhetorics in Process. New York: Peter Lang, 1993.

 

Holmes, Vicki L. and Moulton, Margaret R. “Dialogue Journals as an ESL Learning

            Strategy.” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 40.8 (1997): 616-21.

 

Hyland, Ken. Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

 

Jacoby, S. and Ochs, E. “Co-construction: An Introduction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction. 28 (1995): 171-83.

 

Kennedy, Mary Lynch. Ed. Theorizing Composition. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1998.

 

Krashen, Stephen. Principals and Practices of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon, 1982.

 

Kroll, Barbara, Ed. Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

 

Kroll, Barbara, Ed. Second Language Writing: Research insights for the Classroom. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003.

 

Lee, Icy. “ESL Learner’s Performance in Error Correction in Writing.” System 25.4

            (1997): 465.

 

Lee, Icy. “Teaching Coherence to ESL Students: A Classroom Inquiry.” Journal of Second Language Writing. 11 (2002): 135-59.

 

Leki, Ilona. Understanding ESL Writers: A guide for Teachers. NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1992.

 

Levy, C. and Ransdell, M. Eds. The Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences and Applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996.

 

Malu, Kathleen. “Reading and Writing in More than One Language: Lessons for

            Teachers.” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 44.3 (2000): 295-6.

Matsuda, Paul & Silva, Tony J. Second Language Writing Research: Perspectives

            On The Process of Knowledge Construction. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum

            Associates, 2005.

 

McKeon, D. “When Meeting Common Standards is Uncommonly Difficult.” Educational Leadership. 51.8 (1994): 45-9.

 

Moll, L. Ed. Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications for Applications of Sociocultural Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

 

Olson, L. Made in America: Immigrant Students in Our Public Schools. New York: The New York Press, 1997.

 

Ovando, C., Collier, V. and Combs, M. Bilingual and ESL Classrooms: Teaching Multicultural Contexts 3rd ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2003.

 

Peyton, J.K., Staton, J., Richardson, G and Woofram, W. “The Influence of Writing Task on ESL Students’ Written Production.” Research in the Teaching of English. (1990) 24, 142-71.

 

Peyton, J. and Staton, J. Eds. Writing our Lives: Reflections on Dialogue Journal Writing with Adults Learning English. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1991.

 

Phinney, J. “Ethnic Identity and Self-esteem: A Review and Integration.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 13.2 (1991): 193-208.

 

Raimes, Ann. “Out of the Woods: Emerging Traditions in the Teaching of Writing.” TESOL Quarterly. 25.3 (1991): 407-30.

 

Raimes, Ann. “What Unskilled ESL Students do as they Write: A Classroom Study of Composing.” TESOL Quarterly. 19 (1985): 229-58.

 

Rigg, P. “Whole Language in TESOL.” TESOL Quarterly. 25 (1991): 521-47.

 

Roca de Larios, J., Murphy, L. and Manchon, R. “The Use of Restructuring Strategies in EFL Writing: A Study of Spanish learners of English as a foreign Language.” Journal of Second Language Writing. 8 (1999): 13-44.

 

Rosario Barillas, Maria del. “Literacy at Home: Honoring Parent Voices through Writing.” The Reading Teacher. 54.3 (2000): 302.

 

Sasaki, Miyuki. “A Multiple-Data Analysis of the 3.5 Year Development of EFL Students Writers.” Language Learning. 54.3 (2004): 525-82.

 

Schwartz, M. “Defining Voice through Letter.” The English Record. 35 (1984): 10-12.

 

Shi, Ling, “Textual Borrowing in Second-Language Writing.” Written Communication.

            21.2 (2004): 171

 

Silva, Tony J. On Second Language Writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001.

 

Tannenbaum, J. “Practical Ideas on Alternative Assessment for ESL Students.” (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED 395500). 1996.

 

Terry, Robert M. “New Ways in Teaching Writing.” The Modern Language Journal. 80.4 (1996): 543.

 

Tindall, Evie and Nisbet, Deanna. “Second Language Learners: Wellsprings of Learning for Teachers.” Kappa Delta Pi Record. 40.4 (2004): 170-4.

 

Van Sluys, Katie and Carpenter, Marilyn. “Writing and Identity Construction: A Young Author’s Life in Transition.” Language Arts. 80.3 (2003): 176.

 

Wang, W. and Wen, Q. “L1 use in the L2 Composing Process: An Exploratory Study of 16 Chinese EFL Writers.” Journal of Second Language Writing. 11 (2002): 225-46.

 

Young, Richard & Miller, Elizabeth. “Learning as Changing Participation.” The Modern

            Language Journal. 88.4 (2004) 519-34.

 

Zehr, M. “Translation Efforts a Growing Priority for Urban Schools.” Education Weekly. Oct. 2004: 1-15.

 

 

*Websites helpful for statistics and ELA standards:

 

ncela.gwu.edu

 

emsc.

Appendix A: Excerpts from ELA Standard 2 (for Literary Response and Expression)

Available online: emsc.

*Please note that for regular education the grades for middle school are divided by 5th and 6th grade; 7th and 8th grade. The standards for LEP within the ELA are grouped by grades 5 through 8 sharing the same standards.

 

ELA Standard 2: Grades 7-8

 

Writing: “Students will read, write, listen and speak for literary response and expression.”

 

What Students Will Write for Literacy Response and Expression:

· Write original imaginative texts, such as:

            -stories

            -poems

            -songs

            -plays

            video scripts

 

· Write interpretive and responsive essays.

 

What Students Will Do for Literary Response and Expression (demonstrated as they write by including the following):

 

· Write original imaginative texts:

-        develop a narrative, using an organizational plan such as chronology or flashback.

-        Sequence events to advance plot (rising action, conflict, falling action and resolution)

-        Develop complex characters and create a setting

-        Use literary devices

-        Maintain a consistent point of view that enhances the message and / or established mood

 

 

 

ELA Standard 2: LEP Grades 5-8

 

Students learning English as a second language will use English for self-expression, artistic creation, and participation in popular culture. They will develop and use skills and strategies appropriate to their level of English proficiency to listen to, read, and respond to oral, written, and electronically produced texts, and performances, relate texts and performances to their own lives and other works and develop an understanding of the diverse social, historical and cultural dimensions the texts and performances represent.

 

What Students will do for Literacy Response and Expression (demonstrated as they write):

 

· Create stories, poems, songs, and plays, including those that reflect traditional and popular American culture, observing the conventions of the genre; create an effective voice, using a variety of writing styles appropriate to different audiences, purposes and settings

 · Engage in collaborative activities through a variety of student groupings to create and respond to literature. Such groupings include small groups, cooperative learning groups, literature circles and process writing groups.

· Create, discuss, interpret and respond to literary works using appropriate and

 

 

-        select a genre and use appropriate conventions such as dialogue, rhythm and rhyme

-        use language that is creative

 

·Write interpretive and responsive essays of approximately 3 – 5 pages in order to:

-        express opinions and support them through specific references to the text

-        demonstrate understanding of plot and theme

-        identify and describe characters and their motivations

-        analyze the impact of setting

-        identify and interpret how the use of literary devices (such as symbolism, metaphor and simile, alliteration, personification, flashback and foreshadowing) affects meaning

-        draw conclusions and provide reasons for the conclusions

-        compare and contrast characters, setting, mood, and voice in more than one literary text or performance

-        make connections between literary text and personal experience or knowledge

-        Select a genre and use appropriate conventions such as dialogue, rhythm, and rhyme

-        Use language that is creative

 

·Maintain a writing portfolio that includes imaginative, interpretive, and responsive writing, effective vocabulary, grammar, spelling and punctuation in writing, and using

appropriate vocabulary, grammar and punctuation in speaking

· Apply self-monitoring and self-correcting strategies while reading, viewing, discussing, listening to, or producing literary texts and essays. Such strategies include asking questions, starting over, rephrasing, and exploring alternative ways of seeing things.

· Apply learning strategies to comprehend, make inferences about, and analyze literature, and to produce literary responses. Such strategies include asking questions, using prior knowledge, graphic organizers, and context cues; planning; note taking; and exploring cognates and root words.

 

 

Appendix D from: Leki, Ilona. Understanding ESL Writers: A Guide for Teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1992. (101)

Assignment: Write an essay stating your opinion whether or not animals should be used in experiments testing new products and drugs.

 

 

Overt Correction:

When life began on earth long time ago, that primitave life could seem nothing, just little celules lost in a great ocean. But these first forms of living were doing every time better. From little animals or plants to more sofisticated forms. And we see today, after millions of years of evolution that species that onces were kings of their land now have disappeared. Because they did other animals could survive.

 

 

Error Feedback:

When life began on earth long time ago, that primitave life could seem nothing, just little celules lost in a great ocean. But these first forms of living were doing every time better. From little animals or plants to more sofisticated forms. And we see today, after millions of years of evolution that species that onces were kings of their land now have disappeared. Because they did other animals could survive.

 

 

Appendix C from: Hadaway, Nancy and Young, Terrell. “Accommodating Diversity in Literacy Instruction Through Interactive Writing.” The New England Reading Association Journal 38.3 (2002): 5-9.

 

 

 

“In answer to initial questions from his penfriend, Mario (5th grade) furnished the following information:

I like to come to school because I want to learn how to speak more English. I enjoy playing baseball. I also like my bike and being with my friends. I have a big family. When I am out of school, I would like to go to Mexico and visit my cousins.

Because his ideas were not fully developed, in the next letter, Mario’s penfriend used elaborative responses to encourage him to relate more about his baseball interests. His reply showed the impact of such prompts:

You asked me if I played baseball on a team, but I don’t. I just play for fun. I play baseball with my friends and my cousins, too. When they come to my house we always go to the baseball field and play baseball. I would like to be on a baseball team when I am in high school.

A sense of community. Interactive writing involves students with partners who share something of themselves. When the whole class is involved in this type of writing activity, children feel linked within a community of meaning, exercising both reading and writing. Inside classrooms we saw children actively involved in literacy as individuals and as a group. As they wrote their own journal entries and letters and read the ones from their partners, the children assisted each other in the reading and writing tasks. They helped classmates brainstorm for ideas, put their ideas down on paper, and correct vocabulary and spelling in English” (8).

 

 

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download