People desiring proficiency writing in a second language (L2) usually seek some form of instruction. Some individuals seek proficiency through their own efforts – self-initiated and self-directed instruction – while many more seek instruction via another individual or team of individuals in an educational setting. This second form of instruction could be called formal instruction. How does formal instruction help individuals to gain proficiency in a second language, particularly in writing that language? Within the context of formal instruction, how does the perceived relevance of the writing task affect learning? Finally, within the context of formal instruction, what role does feedback play in the learning process? This paper will address all three questions.
The Role of Formal Instruction
In “A Case Study of Rural Second Language Education: Barriers to Adult Settlement and Education” (Mellow, 1992), 52% of respondents when asked about ESL services in their community (a small town in British Columbia) indicated that classes or tutoring were helpful in improving specific language skills. The same respondents also stated (46% of them) that their specific communication problems related to not being able to “describe specific terms, instructions, procedures or policies.” Since many workplace contexts require the communication of the above items in written form, being able to write about them certainly would be a useful skill. The people in this community perceived a need for formal instruction in order to increase their proficiency.
A very small minority of those seeking written proficiency in an L2 attempt some form of self-instruction. Although I have found no research yet on the difference between self-instruction and formal instruction, we could assume that individuals who attempt self-instruction are highly motivated to learn the L2, and have access to resources which will enable them to pursue their studies.
In my own case, I attempted to learn written Greek without benefit of formal instruction.
Through the
use of books, I memorized the alphabet system and a rudimentary vocabulary, and
formed some sense of the grammatical structure of the language. However, I
found my progress slow, and eventually opted for formal instruction.
In my situation, which is the only case study upon which I can draw at this point, the main difference between formal instruction versus self instruction was the imposed construction in my life of a set time for learning the language, and externally imposed, or “forced”, tasks which guided me into areas I might not have considered, or might have avoided for fear of the challenges they presented. The fear factor was reduced by the presence of the instructor upon whom I could rely for support and feedback. I suspect this is the primary value of formal instruction – it engages us in the use of the language in a way in which we otherwise might not engage, and provides us with objective feedback as to our progress. Formal instruction accomplishes this by imposing external deadlines and pressures which we strive to meet or face because we have entered into a contract which we feel obliged to honour. As well, it offers the security of having another individual with more proficiency to help us overcome obstacles we encounter. Although the course I took was designed to help us read the language, I imagine the same would be true had I taken the course to improve my writing skills.
With formal instruction, the instructor normally follows a set curriculum, and employs a method, or combination of methods in delivering that curriculum. Cumming (2003) discovered many commonalities in the ways in which experienced instructors approached curriculum. On whether the orientation to curriculum influences the outcome (the effectiveness of the teaching, or the end result – the students= writing proficiency), Cumming noted that, “Conceptualizing ESL/EFL writing instruction as being for either specific or general purposes may be the most consequential of these options.”
In a case study of a six-year old ESL learner and his classroom teacher (Nassaji & Cumming, 2000), the writing tasks, designed to increase proficiency for general purposes, were presented in a very informal manner (through journal writing). Through the course of the study, we see the teacher using scaffolding strategies which offered challenges and encouraged development of his language skills over a period of time. The child made clear progress in his written proficiency in English.
In a study by Parks and Maguire (1999), writing instruction geared to a specific purpose (the writing of nurses’ notes) increased proficiency in a very short period of time. Although this instruction was less formal than course work, it still would fall under a more formal instructional category than self-instruction.
Formal instruction, therefore, helps people to learn to write in a second language by creating contexts for learning and practice, and by offering challenges to keep the proficiency level increasing, while providing valuable feedback on progress.
How Perceived Relevance of the Task Affects Learning
Cumming & Riazzi (2000) point out: “A severe criticism that can be made of a majority of research on writing in second languages is that it has utilized isolated composing tasks whose validity or representativeness is limited to the performance of these tasks alone, being separated artificially (like most experimentation) from the usual complexities of learning and teaching.” While this observation points specifically to a possible flaw in the validity of the data for the purpose of analyzing proficiency in L2 writing, it addresses in a way the larger issue of the perceived relevance of the writing task for the learner, and whether or not the relevance of the task inhibits or encourages learning.
One respondent in the Mellow study cited earlier stated that he had no interest in taking instruction in English because of the “kindergarten” style atmosphere he perceived. What he wanted to learn was not the focus of the majority of the instruction. One participant in an online course in which I was enrolled noted that some adult ESL learners wanted to learn only specific forms of writing, not perceiving value in other forms. The interests or goals of the teacher may conflict at times with the interests or goals of the students, or some students. In “Responding to ESL Writing”, Ilona Leki asks the following:
“As teachers deal with ESL writing, then, the question arises, how good must the writing of these students become? What exactly do we want our students to be able to do in English? Their own varied goals aside for the moment, what should our goals for these students be? Can we have the same goals for ESL writing as we may have for native-speaking writers? Should we, for example, or can we, expect that these ESL students will use English writing as a means of self-exploration, as a means of discovery and learning about themselves as we do expect from native students? Is this a presumptuous goal for ESL graduate students, many of whom are highly sophisticated, even eminent professionals in their fields?” (Leki, 1992).
In deciding what the specific, required tasks will be, the teacher makes a statement, either consciously or unconsciously, about relevance. During self-instruction, students decide for themselves what is relevant and what is not. In formal instruction, depending on the willingness (or ability) of the instructor to take the time to determine what the students perceive as relevant, and to modify the course accordingly, students may find themselves exploring genres or working on assignments which they do not perceive as being relevant to their particular needs. In the first case, students may find more intrinsic motivation to work on the tasks they impose on themselves because of the perceived relevance of those tasks, but the corresponding disadvantage may be that they miss a valuable opportunity for increasing their proficiency because they did not expand their horizons in the target language.
As another online course participant noted, relevance may help students with specific tasks when learning to write in an L2, memorizing vocabulary, for instance. A student may be more likely to remember a word in the L2 if he or she thinks that word will be useful in the short term.
Certainly younger students in the age group with which I’m most familiar, when writing about something that has personal meaning to them, almost always produce a higher quality piece of writing, certainly a lengthier one, than students writing about something in which they have little or no interest.
It would be interesting to research whether or not perceived relevance has a measurable effect on learning. Although people may enjoy the instruction more if they perceive it to be relevant, do students who feel the tasks were highly relevant improve more than students who felt they were not relevant? Or do both groups make similar progress in improving their proficiency because of extrinsic motivation, such as a desire to attain a certain grade or goal they have for themselves? In Cumming & Riazi (2000) it was noted that: “Seemingly, the achievement that the students made was equivalent irrespective of the teachers with whom they had studied, teachers whom we observed to have taught in fundamentally similar ways (Riazi, Lessard-Clouston, & Cumming, 1996) but to have had quite different individual beliefs about how second-language writing should be taught (Shi & Cumming, 1995).” One would imagine that teachers who had different beliefs about how L2 writing should be taught might use different tasks to accomplish similar goals. Quite possibly, some tasks might be perceived as irrelevant by the students. Yet the students’ performance appeared to be the same regardless of the instructor’s beliefs. Pedagogically, is the instructor under any obligation to make the writing tasks relevant for the students?
Horowitz (1990) in “Fiction and Non-Fiction in the ESL Classroom: Does the Difference Make a Difference?” explores whether the use of literature, as contrasted to expository writing, affects one’s competence in the L2. He investigates three major claims that proponents of the use of the literature make, exploring each one for validity. He concludes that before making a decision to use literature, instructors need to ” . . . think hard about how the actual activities performed in class fit in with their students’ needs and wants.”
Under certain conditions, perceived relevance may be more important than under other conditions. Pedagogically speaking, relevance may or may not play a role in the outcome – the proficiency of the students’ writing in the L2. However, formal instruction provides an opportunity for instructors to consider the needs of the students, and to design course work that students will perceive as relevant. It may also help students to broaden their idea of perceived relevance.
How Feedback Affects Learning
As a teacher, the kind of feedback I gave students on their writing was an important field of inquiry, trial and error, and consideration of results. Giving feedback can be extremely time-consuming. If it is not useful, I don’t want to waste my time (or theirs). Some students appeared to use the feedback I gave them, while others appeared to ignore it. Some questioned it, or used it as a springboard to ask about something else, while others never mentioned it.
Several studies have noted that L2 writers seem far more eager for teacher feedback than L1 writers, and take it more seriously. (Leki, 1986; Radecki & Swales, 1998; Cohen and Cavalcanti, 1990).
Ferris & Roberts (2001) conclude that feedback does help, but less explicit feedback is just as effective as explicit feedback, cautioning that more direct feedback may be helpful if the student has a very low proficiency in the L2.
Hyland (2001) notes that written feedback has interpersonal aspects and reflects a teacher’s values and beliefs. This ties back to the notion of relevancy, and teachers’ decisions as to what will be required of the students during the course. The same author notes how misunderstandings can arise from written feedback when the students’ reading proficiency is not high in the L2.
In “Coaching from the Margins”, Leki (1992), citing Zamel (1985), points out that “annotations of ESL writing teachers are apparently intended to catch every error the students make, and that despite that intention, the teachers miss errors; that sometimes minor errors are corrected and much more significant problems causing serious ambiguity in meaning go uncorrected; and that the content of the writing is ignored in favour of what has been called ‘prose decorum’. “
Leki goes on to cite research which supports the notion that intervening during the process of writing, or on intermediate drafts of a paper, is more effective than comments on a final paper, which students might tend to ignore since the grade has already been given and there is no opportunity to further improve that paper.
When dealing with students learning to write in a second language, the question arises as to how much like an L1 writer of the same language we can or should expect the L2 learner’s writing to resemble. Is there any good reason that L2 writing should become indistinguishable from that of a native writer of that language? (Leki, 1992)
Cohen and Cavalcanti (1992) note that student perception of teacher comments can vary widely from the teachers’ perception of their own comments, and found that teachers are not always accurate in describing what they are doing with their feedback when their statements about what they feel they are providing to their students are compared to the actual written comments they have given. They conclude that agreement between the teacher and the students on the type of feedback to be received could be an important part of the teaching/learning relationship.
The absence of feedback in a self-instructed situation clearly could have implications for learning. Meaningful feedback given during formal instruction appears to facilitate learning to write in a second language when the students clearly understand the nature of the feedback to be provided, and the purpose for it. Teachers may need to check with L2 learners to make sure written feedback has been understood and interpreted as the teacher intended it (though this could be time-consuming). As well, feedback improves learning when it is specific, and when it is given during the process of the writing, and not merely on a final product. Less direct feedback may be just as valuable as explicit, detailed feedback, particularly if the student has some proficiency in the L2.
In conclusion, formal instruction offers advantages to individuals wishing to obtain or improve proficiency in writing in a second language. It provides a meaningful context for the learning, valuable feedback, and opportunities to expand one’s understanding of the target language through tasks relevant to the learners’ needs and wants. Further research is needed to understand how and under what conditions the perceived relevancy of a learning task affects student performance, as well as how specific feedback needs to be under particular circumstances in order to improve learning. In addition, the question of how L2 writing could be different from L1 writing and still be considered proficient remains to be answered fully.
References:
Cohen, A. & Cavalcanti, M. (1990) Feedback on Compositions: teacher and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 155-177). Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Cumming, A. (2003). Experienced ESL/EFL writing instructors= conceptualizations of their teaching: Curriculum options and implications. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second-language writing (pp. 71-92). Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.
Cumming, A. & Riazi, A. (2000). Building Models of Adult Second-language Writing Instruction. Learning and Instruction, 10, 1, 55-71.
Ferris, D. & 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.
Horowitz, D. (1990) Fiction and Nonfiction in the ESL/EFL Classroom: Does the difference make a difference? In Silva T. & Matsuda, P.K. (Eds.), Landmark Essays on ESL Writing, (pp. 109 -116). New Jersey. Hermagoras Press.
Hyland, F. & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 3, 185-212.
Leki, I. (1990) Coaching From the Margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second-language writing (pp. 57-68). Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.
Leki, I. (1992) Understanding ESL Writers: A guide for teachers. (pp. 122-133). Portsmouth, NH. Boynton Cook Publishers.
Mellow, J.D. (1992) A Case Study of Rural Second Language Education: Barriers to adult settlement and education. In Burnaby B. & Cumming A. (Eds.). Socio-Political Aspects of ESL (pp. 292-303). Toronto. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Nassaji, H. & Cumming, A. (2000). What=s in a ZPD? A case study of a young ESL studenet and teacher interacting through dialogue journals. Language Teaching Research, 4, 2, 95-121.
Parks, S. & Maguire, M. (1999). Coping with on-the-job writing in ESL: A constructivist-semiotic perspective. Language Learning, 49 1, 143-175.