Developing International EFL/ESL Scholarly Writers

Donna Bain Butler

• Publisher: De Gruyter Mouton
• Year: 2015
• eBook ISBN: 9781501500855
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Education General
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

This study had a research purpose and a pedagogical purpose. Research disclosed the dynamic, changing nature of (learner-internal and learner-external) variables that influence strategic competence for developing EFL/ESL writers. This competence was found necessary for international graduate students to move from writer-centered learning to reader-centered communication. The research instruments proved to be practical tools for guiding learners' processes of learning and writing a scholarly paper or article and avoiding plagiarism. The implication for teachers and program administrators is a systematic approach for developing self-regulation (control) in EFL/ESL writing. The first part of the book reports on the mixed methods (quantitative and qualitative) research. The second part gives an in-depth report of the 6 cases used in the research. The third part presents tools for systematically developing self-regulation in scholarly (and academic) writing with (a) student and teacher checklists for formative assessment that are valid and reliable; and (b) a model syllabus for teachers that can be adapted across disciplines and genres. These tools deal with learning strategies and their applications to writing and writing instruction.

Part I: Combining Research with Instruction

dp n="20" folio="" ? dp n="21" folio="" ?

1 Making a Difference in the Academic Writing of International Graduate Students

1.1 Why this topic matters

It is quietly understood that international graduate students with contrasting academic and cultural backgrounds may not engage authentically, legitimately, or appropriately in academic English writing. They may not have (a) prior knowledge or experience with second language disciplinary discourse, (b) textual routines associated with genres and the writing processes, or (c) advanced literacy strategies and language skills. Faulty problem-solving may occur with contrasting ideas about academic English writing and writer versus reader responsibility, for example, or the role language plays in the academic writing process and domain learning situation. “No descriptive research has studied the whole range of students’ techniques for writing from sources” (Howard, Serviss & Rodrigue, 2010, p. 178); however, this research offers perspectives on written language use by EFL/ESL graduate student writers learning to use strategies and skills for accomplishing important goals in scholarly (academic) writing. The research has implications for shifting pedagogical priorities and revising assessment objectives (Canagarajah, 2005a) for international student writers producing academic research papers in a context-reduced, native-speaker, professional setting.

The book focuses on developing EFL/ESL scholarly writers and what international graduate students may do to develop their academic writing. Learning is emphasized, with teachers and professors facilitating the learning process. The research informs second language writing and teaching practice, relevant for anybody working with international students at an advanced level. It provides in-depth knowledge of what informed, graduate-level language users do for success in writing research papers for law school – useful for disciplinary writing practitioners, scholars, and curriculum developers in foreign and second language education interested in the role and development of student writer competences and other forms of educational knowledge. The book targets international EFL/ESL graduate student writers and scholars, ESP/EAP practitioners, and legal writing specialists who may “feel at a loss of where to start in helping students with the language difficulties they encounter” when writing from disciplinary sources (Davis, J., personal communication, November 3, 2013). As Cook (2012) argues, “language teaching should be based on the successful second language (L2) user, not on the idealised native speaker” (p. 1).

The EFL/ESL graduate writer research in this book narrows the gap in foreign and second language education because it uses research to inform pedagogy for non-native English students (NNES) crossing academic cultures of learning. It has significance for graduate school areas in which NNES students learn to write professional-level research papers and journal articles, with implications for all students developing skills and integrating knowledge in academic domains requiring high levels of literacy and “academic communicative competence” (Swales, 1990, p. 9). Understanding how non-native English graduate students are grounded in language and literacy contributes to an empowering curriculum and writing pedagogy that is “process-oriented, autonomous, and experiential” (Canagarajah, 2006, p. 15).

The term “literacy” is often used by researchers in place of “writing” (Schultz, 2006). Researchers in both English composition and second language studies “have come to recognize the complexity and multidisciplinary nature of second-language writing research and teaching” (Matsuda, 2006, p. 23). Professional school programs in the U.S., however, may still assume a “difference- as-deficit” (Canagarajah, 2002) position for non-native English writers in relation to native English writers. Writing, as learner output, plays a part in second language acquisition (Ellis, 2005) by incorporating more and better attributes of language performance (Byrnes, 2002). Learner output in writing obliges learner attention not only to grammar, but also to development of discourse skills and professional voice (Skehan, 1998; Swain, 1995).

An important goal of this book is to align professional development with knowledge of written language use and advanced literacy (Braine, 2002) for international students writing research papers for subject-matter courses and independent study. Advancing literacy in U.S. graduate education means transforming text to construct new knowledge through selecting, connecting and organizing key information from source text with appropriate attribution, as well as plain language techniques for clear and accurate communication.

Academic writing in U.S. higher education is a problem-solving activity used by professors to develop content knowledge, with knowledge seen as a by-product in students’ term papers, research projects, theses, and dissertations (Krashen, 2011). Over time, graduate students may implicitly learn to produce knowledge through their research, and undergraduate students may explicitly learn how to analyze knowledge and take a position in relation to their research through U.S. college writing programs. This kind of academic writing is a tool for learning and assessment in U.S. law schools, for example, but not generally part of the educational curriculum in other countries such as China and Russia. At the very least, writing research papers in international legal education context means that students must be able to (a) analyze, synthesize and evaluate legal research in English, and (b) describe, compare/contrast, and/or critically examine legal content. From a pedagogical perspective, analytical reasoning and critical thinking in L2 legal English require students to integrate knowledge of law and language use when writing from primary and secondary source texts.

Systematically developing EFL/ESL academic writers in law school is necessary because U.S. legal English differs from ordinary English “not just in vocabulary, but also in morphology (structures of words), syntax (structure of sentences and parts of sentences), semantics (meaning of words, phrases, and sentences), and other linguistic features” (Wydick, 2005b, p. 10). As students acquire domain knowledge through legal research in English, they develop language awareness in relation to their legal research topics, with possibilities for analytical reasoning and presentation in academic writing. Like native English legal writers, L2 legal writers need to express clear meaning, critical thinking, and effective communication in a paper that does not reproduce the poor legal style they read that may be cluttered, wordy, indirect, and full of unnecessary technical words or phrases. This obscure writing style, known as “legalese,” is not to be emulated. Re-producing text or templates for legal writing is neither transformative nor growth-oriented for non-native English writers aiming to demonstrate a high degree of skill required for their graduate degree or career. Communication in writing is especially needed by international graduate students and legal scholars preparing to work internationally with English as their professional lingua franca (common language). However, U.S. law school policies and practices may maintain English dominance by ignoring EFL and ESL student writer needs.

The problem setting the stage for this research relates directly to pedagogy: the relation between teaching and learning. The researcher wanted to know how L2 legal research writers develop knowledge of written language use through explicit strategies instruction to show competence or expertise in scholarly (academic) writing. As Hinkel (2006) observed, “achieving proficiency in writing requires explicit pedagogy in grammar and lexis and is important because one’s linguistic repertoire and writing skills often determine one’s social, economic, and political choices” (p. 124). Hence the importance of this research for international graduate students.

Knowledge, understanding, and skills integration in L2 academic writing translates into social, cultural, and economic “capital” (Bourdieu, 2001) for foreign-trained graduate student writers in many English-medium universities and professional schools, opening the possibility to publish articles in English and present at international (academic and business) conferences. Explicit strategies instruction (Oxford, 2011) puts emphasis on learning contrastive approaches to academic and disciplinary writing, filling gaps in knowledge and experience, building on EFL/ESL students’ backgrounds, developing academic language and disciplinary discourse, and providing both social and cognitive tools necessary for “bilingual literacy” (Pray & Jiménez, 2009a, 2009b). With respect to advancing literacy, academic and disciplinary writing are intertwined from a learner/user perspective. Both may be seen as transactional tools for communicating. Strategies support students’ ability to be aware of their first academic/legal language to develop understandings of their second academic/legal language (Pray & Jiménez, 2009b).

Explicit pedagogical approaches are also part of the solution to complex problems associated with linguistic plagiarism in academic legal writing. Pecorari (2008) defines plagiarism as “fundamentally a specific kind of language in use, a linguistic phenomenon” (p. 1). Her literacy research on international graduate student writers found that language skills “are deeply implicated in plagiarism” (Pecorari, 2008, p. 7). Through linguistic analysis comparing international graduate student writing with written sources, Pecorari (2008) shows how some plagiarism can be regarded as a “failure of pedagogy” rather than a deliberate attempt to transgress. Like mine, her research points to a gap among (a) institutions’ expectations of foreign-trained graduate students, (b) their performance, and (c) institutional awareness, asserting that pedagogical solutions need to be implemented at all levels. Reducing threats and charges of plagiarism for international graduate student writers in U.S. law schools may be one possible outcome of learning from this applied linguistics research.

1.2 Learner-centered research and pedagogy

This research is learner-centered, meaning that the author explores her EFL/ESL graduate students’ changing needs, processes, and practices as academic writers rather than their writing products. The focus is on the learner as language user. The research contributes to professional development and professionalization in international education with development of materials that meet international EFL/ESL graduate students’ developing needs as academic English writers. As an ESP/EAP course designer and teacher, the researcher explores her international students’ levels of composing from legal source text and the research-based strategies they find most useful for writing a scholarly paper. Strategies are known to be under learners’ conscious control, and students use them to compensate for gaps in writing knowledge, language, and composition skills. Strategies guide students’ written language use and learning, while research and writing expand and deepen student learning in a content area like law.

Research on L2 writers’ strategic behavior suggests three dynamic interplays: (a) L2 writers implement a wide range of general and specific strategic actions when they learn to write and express themselves in L2 writing; (b) the L2 writer’s strategic behavior is dependent on both learner-internal and learner-external variables given the socio-cognitive dimensions of composing; and (c) the writer’s strategic behavior is mediated by the instruction received and can be modified through strategy instruction (Manchόn, Roca de Larios, & Murphy, 2007). Explicit strategies instruction was the case for the EFL/ESL graduate student writers participating in this research. Strategic knowledge is reflective knowledge, considered important for all learners at high levels (Anderson, Lorin & Krathwohl, 2001). It is especially important for language users connecting factual knowledge of L2 writing with procedural knowledge of discipline-specific skills and techniques.

Besides being descriptive and learner-user centered, this research is classroom-based with the intention of improving international graduate student writing quickly, within one academic semester. The research took place within the context of an academic legal writing intervention. “All knowledge, especially but not exclusively linguistic knowledge, is the result of learners’ interaction with their social context, and acquisition is both social and cognitive” (Sanz, 2005, p. 4).

Findings revealed that student writer participants underwent a strategic shift from learning to communicating as they wrote their research papers during one academic semester (14 weeks). Research instruments disclosed how language was both a cognitive tool for learning law and a sociocultural tool for communicating ideas about law for the two groups of culturally and linguistically diverse student writer participants. One research group of student writers was acculturated, having undergone EAP classroom instruction the previous semester. These students had crossed over from being EFL language learners to ESL language users. The other research group of students was unacculturated and had not experienced this change. They were undergoing EAP instruction while writing research papers for various law school courses during the time of data collection. What is interesting is that all student participants came to see the data collection instruments as interactive tools for learning that helped them engage consciously in their research and writing processes. Strategies and goals for knowledge construction and transformation contributed to original writing and critical thinking in L2 English. The interactive tools also stimulated awareness of writing strategies that student participants were using efficiently and effectively. They acted as a tool kit that can be adapted by teachers and modified for international EFL/ESL academic writers in other disciplines – in traditional (face to face) or online classroom teaching. The tool kit provided students with “tangible strategies that address the complexities and anxieties they experience” as high-level multilingual writers and critical thinkers rather than a set of rules that ignores their background knowledge and life experiences (Kamler & Thomson, 2008, p. 512).

It is important to point out that this research adopts a sociocognitive literacy development perspective that views (a) international EFL/ESL student literacy as culturally based, involving higher intellectual skills, and (b) ESL academic writing as situated language use within the context of intercultural literacy. It follows a tradition of L2 (EFL and ESL) writing strategy research that sees strategies “from the perspective of the actions carried out by L2 writers to respond to the demands encountered in the discourse community where they write and learn to write” (Manchón et al., 2007, pp. 231-232). It provides “empirical evidence of the interplay between the social and cognitive dimensions involved in the development of the L2 writer’s strategic competence” (Manchón et al., 2007, p. 234). It is useful to teachers because it links teaching to student learning and self-efficacy or control in L2 academic writing and how it can be developed (Bandura, 1997). It is useful to EFL/ESL academic writers because it helps them develop and believe in their own competencies. Exploring student writers’ strategic competence, a component of communicative competence (Canale & Swain, 1980) in the Hymesian tradition of contextualized communicative competence, was a research goal. Findings support strategic competence as a key factor for EFL/ESL academic writer development – especially for students having difficulty (a) critically engaging in L2 English writing from multilingual sources (discourse synthesis), and/or (b) expressing thoughts clearly in L2 English writing, even with good analytical skills.

Meaningful communication and development of learners’ communicative competence, central to integrated and multiskill instructional models (Hinkel, 2006), are central to EFL/ESL scholarly writer development. Canale’s (1983) proposition that strategic competence is knowledge of skills and strategies that either enhance or repair communication applies to international EFL/ESL scholarly writers. Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2005) suggest that “strategic competence (Canale & Swain, 1980; Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei, & Thurrell, 1995) refers to how well language users can deploy the knowledge and resources at their disposal in order to communicate their intended meanings” (p. 731). Leaver and Shekhtman (2002) suggest a need for engaging communicative competence components along the L2 learning-producing continuum, especially strategic competence for students at the novice to advanced high levels who may “need to change from mostly compensatory to mostly metacognitive” as they strive for “near-native” proficiency in writing (p. 10). Metacognitive knowledge comprises knowledge abou...

Table of contents

• Donna Bain Butler Developing International EFL/ESL Scholarly Writers
• Studies in Second and Foreign Language Eduction
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Table of Contents
• Part I: Combining Research with Instruction
• Part II: Learner-User Research
• Part III: Learner-User Perspectives
• Part IV: Learner-User Centered Pedagogy
• References
• Key Definitions
• Appendix A: Academic English Writing Questionnaire ©
• Appendix B: Beliefs about Academic Writing and Instruction Questionnaire
• Appendix C: Research Writing/Grading Schedule
• Appendix D: Strategic Competence Questionnaire (SCQ): 4 stages
• Appendix E: Interview Protocol (IP)
• Appendix F: Quality Assessment Tools (SQAT/TQAT): 4 stages
• Appendix G: The Process of Scholarly Writing ©
• Appendix H: Strategies Checklist: Self-Editing for Clarity © - SELF-EDITING STRATEGIES CHECKLIST
• Appendix I: Strategies for Academic English Writers: 3 stages
• Appendix J: Checklists of Goals for Academic English Writers: 3 Stages
• Appendix K: Syllabus with Formative Assessment
• Index