A three dimensional review : Considerations for teaching L2 writing within
cross-cultural contexts by Damian Rivers

Abstract

This article aims to review three published journal articles which focus on L2 writing in terms of teacher, student and target reader perspectives. The first article, entitled “The Role of the Teaching Context in Hong Kong English Teacher’s Perceptions of L2 Writing Pedagogy” (1998), takes an in-depth look at L2 writing from the perspective of teacher beliefs, attitudes and knowledge within the Hong Kong public school system. The second article, entitled “Prospective Teachers and L2 Writing Anxiety” (2006), examines Turkish trainee teachers’ anxiety connected to L2 writing in an L1 English environment. The third article, “The Pragmatics of Letter-Writing” (2001), focuses on personal letter writing as a mode of cross-cultural communication between L2 writers and L1 readers. The main findings from each article will be drawn together to form a basis for further research within this field.

Introduction

The subject of L2 writing is vital within the field of teacher education because writing forms an integral part of basic human communication. Being a competent L2 speaker alone is insufficient to function within a number of social and academic roles.  Matsuda, (2001) identified the area of L2 writing as being neglected in the early years of SLA studies due to the dominance of the audiolingual approach during the mid-twentieth century. L2 writing research only gained prominence during the 1960’s when writing became a component of ESL programs within U.S university courses for foreign students. At this time many teachers had little or no experience in teaching L2 writing, but soon realized that it was an essential element needed to undertake a university course in which English was the medium of instruction. Ferris & Hedgcock, (1998) stated that for this reason L2 writing originally emerged as a “sub-discipline” of TESL with a strong pedagogical emphasis. Several pedagogical approaches have since been proposed by a number of researchers representing different conceptualizations of the nature of writing as a part of SLA theory.

Early L2 writing courses focused entirely on sentence level structure and emphasized errorless compositions. This controlled composition came from a behavioural, habit-formed theory of learning, the aim of which was to provide students with “no freedom to make mistakes” (Pincas, 1982, p91). It was believed that “any free, random, hit or miss activity” such as student led compositions or free-writing should be “eliminated wherever possible, so that errors arising from the native-to-target language transfer can be avoided” (Pincas, 1962, p.185). Any support for the notion of fluency over accuracy was significantly lacking during this period of research and a general consensus was reached that “composing writing beyond the sentence must be guided or controlled” (Slager, 1996, p.77). One of the earliest paradigm breakers was Kaplan, (1966). He put forth the idea that paragraph and sentence structures were both language and culture specific that suggested that context played an important role in developing and teaching L2 writing skills. Kaplan’s proposals also led to the realization that “writing is much more than orthographic symbolization of speech; it is, most importantly, a purposeful selection and organization of experience” (Arapoff, 1967, p.33). This essentially polarized theoretical approaches to L2 writing.

Regardless, researchers continued to debate the theoretical nature of L2 writing.  Zamel, (1976) argued that high-level L2 writers were in fact similar to L1 writers and could benefit from instruction emphasizing the process of writing rather than the structural confines of writing. Various intervention strategies subsequently emerged including, formative feedback, multiple draft composition, and peer analyses. These methods of promoting writing as a process-based event were especially popular during the early 1980’s (e.g., Raimes, 1983). The 1990’s saw the rapid development of ESP and EAP courses which signified yet another shift in theoretical opinion. If instructors could provide language specific tuition bound by context, then students would need to be aware of the multitude of writing contexts that were available to them and how each one differed. The 1990’s was very much a boom period for L2 writing research. Leki & Silva, (1992) described the “explosion of interest in research on composition in a second language” (p.3). This was also marked by the creation of ‘The Journal of Second Language Writing’ in 1992, indicating “the maturing scholarly communication in the field” (Tannacito, 1995, p.5). Kroll, (1990) symbolized the new found interest best when he wrote, “for those engaged in teaching second language [writers], what is needed is both a firm grounding in the theoretical issues of first and second language writing and an understanding of a broad range of pedagogical issues that shape classroom writing instruction” (p.2). Unfortunately, theoretical knowledge remains a minor factor in the design of many modern L2 writing programs. Other considerations such as budget and time restrictions, student and teacher motivation, social context, teacher awareness and pedagogical emphasis all play major roles in the approach to L2 writing.

Teacher beliefs and attitudes toward L2 writing

Sengupta & Falvey, (1998) examined the ways in which L2 writing is perceived and its pedagogy conceptualized by English language teachers in Hong Kong secondary schools. They adopted the theoretical basis offered by Flower, 1989; Nystrand et al 1993 and Silva, 1993 who stated that in any form of writing research, cognitive and contextual factors shape the teaching and learning of writing. Flower, (1989) acknowledges that how cognition and context interact within the classroom is not well documented and this is where Sengupta & Falvey aimed to provide solid research data. Sengupta & Falvey also stated that through an exploratory investigation they wished to explore questions connected with how these beliefs are acquired, justified and explained by the teachers, and what social and cognitive implications these justifications have for future curriculum development.

Raimes, (1985) had previously stated that L2 writers need to be taught:

- How to be aware of and make use of the processes involved in their writing
- How to develop and organize their ideas
- How to deal with language related concerns

Sengupta & Falvey, (1998) suggested that teachers should be aware of these factors stating, “there is much more to the teaching of successful writing than the mere teaching of accuracy in lexis and syntax” (p.73). This raises a number of questions concerning the role of the ESL teacher. The majority of L2 teachers tend to rely on the teaching of grammatical rules at the expense of other writing areas. Zamel, (1987) notes, “It seems that ESL writing teachers view themselves primarily as language teachers, that they attend to surface-level features of writing and that they seem to read and re-act to text as a series of separate pieces at the sentence level or even clause level, rather than as a whole unit of discourse" (p.700).  This is not surprising when we consider that writing is an artifact, which has to meet certain standards of social acceptability (Widdowson, 1983). In many high-context societies such those found in Asia, this social acceptability is directly gained through the quality of examination results rather than through any form of communicative competence. Indeed, Sengupta, (1996) had stated prior that L2 teaching in Hong Kong is primarily teacher dominated and product centered. Tse, (1993) had also earlier pointed out that in Hong Kong, studying to pass examinations is the norm and the teaching of writing is very much examination orientated.

Sengupta & Falvey, (1998) identified two research questions as being central to their research. These were; 1) What is/are the central aspect/s of writing pedagogy that Hong Kong teachers refer to when discussing writing?  And 2) How do teachers rationalize their perceptions? They found that grammatical and lexical accuracy was the most commonly mentioned aspect of L2 writing that Hong Kong teachers referred to when talking about teaching and learning L2 writing. The teaching of writing is very much geared to writing structurally correct sentences. Language as a tool for making meaning was never discussed by the teachers and the quality of the language was paramount. Many teachers felt it was not their job to address issues of developing or formulating ideas. This would seem to support the ideas stated earlier (e.g., Zamel, 1987:700). It also reinforces those theoretical views from the 1960’s, which essentially saw L2 writing as an activity in which there was absolutely “no freedom to make mistakes” (Pincas, 1982, p91). In those rare cases where teachers were open to alternatives they stated the pressure of student examinations, unsupportive department heads and city officials as well as a lack of teaching ability as obstacles in changing the way L2 writing was taught. The emphasis on examination scores represents not only an educational problem but also a cultural one, which cannot be solved without a thorough social debate. Sengupta & Falvey, (1998) do accept that even with massive injections of cash and re-from, change will be slow coming and they point out that if Hong Kong wishes to keep its image as a sophisticated, economical strong city then the trilingual abilities of its residents require continued improvement.

L2 writing and student anxiety

A great deal of prior SLA research as focused on anxiety’s negative effect on performance (e.g., Gardner, 1985; Ehrman & Oxford, 1995; MacIntyre, Noels, & Clement, 1997).  Much of this research though has only centered on difficulties caused through speaking and listening activities (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986; Steinberg & Horwitz, 1986; Mejias, Applbaum, Applbaum, Trotter, 1991; Price, 1991; MacIntyre, Noels, & Clement, 1997). Numerous researchers have drawn attention to the fact that L2 writing anxiety has been found to be a specific type of anxiety unique in nature to the language-particular skill of writing (Bugoon & Hale, 1983; Daly & Wilson, 1983; Bline, Lowe, Meixner, Nouri, Pearce, 2001). As previously mentioned, writing is a neglected area of SLA and often students feel deprived of help, support and encouragement. As a direct result of this students suffer "distress associated with writing" and develop "a profound distaste for the process" (Madigan, Linton, Johnson, 1996, p. 295). As a response to this Atay & Kurt, (2006) investigated the anxiety of trainee teachers when undertaking L2 writing in an L1 environment. Claypool, (1980) had previously reported a significant negative correlation between teachers writing anxiety and the number of written assignments they set for their students. Daly, Vangelisti, & Witte, (1988) revealed that teachers’ writing anxiety affected the way they evaluated students’ written compositions. When compared to teachers with high anxiety, low anxiety teachers appeared to be less bound by rigid rules, emphasized more creative expression and effort, and worried less about mechanical sentence based structures. Teachers’ writing anxiety was also found to be negatively related to their use of exercises and activities that demanded writing.

The results in the Atay & Kurt, (2006) research were primarily based upon responses to the Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory (SLWAI) developed by Cheng, (2004). This data was then used to create three groups. Participants who had a mean score of one standard deviation below the mean were assigned to a low-anxious (LA) group (19%), participants who had a mean score that was one standard deviation above the mean were labeled as high-anxious (HA) (32%), and the remaining participants were considered to have average L2 writing anxiety and they were labeled as average-anxious (AA) (49%).  For most of the students in the HA group the inability to organize ones thoughts was considered the most difficult aspect of writing in English. This was also the case for the LA and AA groups suggesting that those researchers who support process-based L2 writing tuition are justified in doing so. The results also found that the biggest single factor that generated anxiety across both the HA and AA groups was the teacher. These results suggest that the teacher is a key negative factor in classroom anxiety. Some other participants commented that:

“Teachers generally assume that we know how to write well in English… in fact I did not have any writing classes before I came here.”

“Writing for me was only copying things from books. And now I’m expected to discuss my own ideas. It’s so difficult for me. I always question my ideas about the topic. Are they too simple? What will the teacher think when she reads my paper?”

“I didn’t do much writing when I was a student at the primary and secondary school. There was a writing section at the end of every unit of the course book but the teacher either skipped it or gave it as homework and nobody did it. So the writing classes have always been a nightmare for me. As a prospective teacher I don’t want my students to be in the same situation. Although I don’t like writing much, I know that we all need it. I believe that it is necessary to show the students how to organize their thoughts (this is my major problem). I will also make them read before writing on a specific topic because knowledge on a topic helps you a lot.”

As previously highlighted the teaching of L2 writing rarely includes process and idea formulation but instead focuses on sentence level structures. The study has a number of implications for English language education in general as well as for teacher education programs. With reference to the former issue, Atay & Kurt, (2006) suggest that writing in English should not be limited to controlled exercises. Production-based writing at the university level seems to cause anxiety in students who are not used to this kind of writing. That is, students should be encouraged to express their ideas and knowledge in writing from the early stages of education (pre-university). If L2 writing is to be a pleasant experience, it seems crucial to establish a learning environment where students can write in their L2 without embarrassment, where every student writer’s contribution is adequately valued and where self-confidence is built up. To this end, instructors need to offer more encouragement and positive feedback, and allow experimentation without evaluation.

L2 writing across cultural boundaries

Within most L2 writing research efforts, it is not explicitly stated who the compositions are produced for. Are we correct to assume that any L2 writing effort should attempt to communicate with native L1 speakers, should the L2 writing target native speakers only, if so how is this possible.  Al-Khatib, (2001) addressed personal-letter writing as a form of communication between L2 Jordanian writers and L1 British English speakers. Within the context of cross-cultural written communications there are a number of culturally bound issues, such as a lack of “shared knowledge” which can create obstacles in understanding. Nystrand, (1986) states that “text is not just the result of composing, it is also the medium of communication, the very information structure of written communication, for example, depends not just on the writer’s meaning and purpose but rather on the extent of match between what the writer has to say and what the readers needs to know, i.e., the extent to which writer and reader share knowledge” (p.36). Al-Khatib, (2001) assumes the theoretical standpoint that L2 writing should target the cultural norms and values put forward by the readers’ native culture and language (assuming that they are both the same). Therefore any L2 writing effort will contain ‘peculiarities’ or ‘errors’ which are likely to be due to the fact that different speech communities have different ways of organizing ideas in writing which reflect their cultural thought patterns (Kachru, 1997).

Al-Khatib, (2001), uses the example of Arabic informal letters. He states that they are much more tightly controlled than those written in English cultural environments. Al-Khatib, (2001) points out that “all grammatical and stylistic requirements have to be taken into consideration. Even if the letter-writer attempts to liberate himself from the burden of formality imposed on him, he will not be able to succeed” (p.187). This seems to conform with the theoretical views previously mentioned by Widdowson, (1983) who believed that writing was an artifact which has to meet certain standards of social acceptability, therefore its relevance and suitability can only be judged within the cultural and social environment in which it was produced. Different societies also function according to different basic principles. One such principle is the principle of politeness that features heavily in informal letter writing situations. Common among native English speaker letters are opening remarks such as; how are you? , I hope you are well. The British also tend to prefer politeness strategies that use negative politeness. Sifiano, (1989) believed that "they equate indirectness, the main motivation of negative politeness, with politeness, and this contributes to the elaboration of the structure and the tentativeness of the message". Jordanians on the other hand prefer to adopt direct politeness techniques, which rely on sounding as optimistic as possible. Within 65% of the 120 letters examined by Al-Khatib, (2001) it was found that the writers adopted local, culture specific opening greetings. The opening remarks included; First of all, I'd like to ask you about your health, and about your parents, and, I want to begin my letter by asking about your health and study, and about friend X's health. This offers evidence that although the sentence level structures were perfectly constructed they paid little or no reference to the target readers’ cultural norms. This skill is usually not taught as a part of L2 writing programs. Zamel, (1987) clarified this fact in stating that, “There is evidence of teachers being so distracted by language related problems that they often correct these without realizing that there is a much larger meaning-related problem that they have failed to address” (p.700).

Conclusion

The research data presented above focuses on L2 writing across three different cultural environments, Hong Kong, Turkey and Jordan. Throughout all of the research presented it is clear that L2 writing is still a relatively new area of research and much work needs to be done in order to provide solid solutions to reoccurring research questions such as:

1) How can L2 writing be taught without over emphasizing the need for sentence level correctness within low/mid level ESL students?

2) How do educational policies and cultural attitudes shape the tuition of L2 writing and curriculum design?

3) How can students break down the barrier of socio-cultural restriction when communicating across cultures through written compositions?

4) How should L2 writing be evaluated efficiently and consistently if little attention is given to sentence level structure and grammatical constraints?

Although this area has a heavy theoretical focus there is much to consider for the ESL teacher and with minimal effort they can adopt some of the suggestion set forth here into their only L2 writing classroom exercises.

References

Al-Khatib, M.A. (2001) The pragmatics of letter-writing. World Englishes, 20(2), 179-200.

Arapoff, N. (1967). Writing: A thinking process. TESOL Quarterly, 1 (2), 33-39.

Atay, D., & Kurt, G. (2006). Prospective Teachers and L2 Writing Anxiety. Asian EFL Journal, 8 (4), 100-118.

Bline, D., Lowe, D. R., Meixner, W. F., Nouri, H., & Pearce, K. (2001). A research note on the dimensionality of Daly and Miller’s writing apprehension scale. Written Communication, 18, 61-79.

Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1983). A research note on the dimensions of communication reticence. Communication Quarterly, 31, 238-248.

Cheng, Y.-S. (2004). A measure of second language writing anxiety: Scale development and preliminary validation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 313-335.

Claypool, S. H. (1980). Teacher writing apprehension: Does it affect writing assignments across curriculum? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No: ED 216 387).

Daly, J. A., & Wilson, D. A. (1983). Writing apprehension, self-esteem, and personality. Research in the Teaching of English, 17, 327-341.

Daly, J. A., Vangelisti, A., & Witte, S. P. (1988). Writing apprehension in the classroom context. In B. A. Rafoth & D. L. Rubin (Eds.), The social construction of written communication (pp. 147-171). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success. Modern Language Journal, 79, 67-89.

Ferris, D., & Hedgecock, J. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Flower, L. (1989) Cognition, context and theory building. College Composition and Communication 40, 282–311.

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70, 125-132.

Kachru, Y. (1997). Cultural meaning and rhetorical styles : toward a framework for contrastive rhetoric. In G. Cook (Ed.), Principles and Practce in Applied Linguistics. Oxford : Oxford University Press, pp. 171-185.

Kaplan, R.B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20.

Kroll, B. (Ed.). (1990). Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Leki, I., & Silva, T. (1992). From the editors. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(1), 3-4.

Madigan, R., Linton, P., & Johnson, S. (1996). The paradox of writing apprehension. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 295-307). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Matsuda, P.K. (2001). Reexamining audiolingualism: On the genesis of reading and writing in L2 studies. In D. Belcher &  A. Hirvela (Eds.),  Linking literacies : Perspectives on L2 reading/writing connections (pp. 84-105). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

McIntyre, P. D., Noels, K. A., & Clement, R. (1997). Biases in self-ratings of second language proficiency: The role of language anxiety. Language Learning, 47, 265-287.

Mejias, H., Applbaum, R., Applbaum, S., & Trotter, R. (1991). Oral communication apprehension and hispanics: An exploration of oral communication apprehension among Mexican American students in Texas. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications (pp. 87-97). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Nystrand, M. (1986). The Structure of Written Communication. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press.

Nystrand, M., Greene, S. and Wiemelt, J. (1993) Where did composition studies come from? Written Communication 10 (3), 267–333.

Pincas, A. (1962). Structural linguistics and systematic composition teaching to students of English as a foreign language. Language Learning, 7, 185-195.

Pincas, A. (1982). Teaching English writing. London: Macmillan.

Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. New York: Oxford University Press.

Raimes, A. (1985) What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly 19 (2), 229–58

Sengupta, S. (1996). A study of the effects of the systematic teaching of revision on the L2 learners in a secondary school in Hong Kong.Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Curriculum Studies, The University of Hong Kong.

Sengupta, S., & Falvey, P. (1998). The Role of the Teaching Context in Hong Kong English Teachers' Perceptions of L2 Writing Pedagogy. Evaluation and Research in Education, 12(2), 72-95.

Sifiano, M. (1989). On the telephone again ! Differences in telephone behaviour: England versus Greece. Language in Society, 18, 527-544.

Silva, T. (1993) Towards an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implication. TESOL Quarterly 27 (4), 657–77.

Slager, W.R. (1966). Controlling composition: Some practical classroom techniques. In R.B Kaplan (Ed.), Selected conference papers of the Association of Teachers of English as a Second Language (pp. 77-85). Los Angeles: National Association for Foreign Student Affairs.

Steinberg, F. S., & Horwitz, E. K. (1986). The effects of induced anxiety on the denotative and interpretive content of second language speech. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 131-136.

Tannacito, D.J. (1995). A guide to writing English as a second or foreign language: An annotated bibliography of research and pedagogy. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Tse, S.K. (1993) The composing process of Hong Kong children in primary schools.Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Nottingham.

Widdowson, H.G. (1983) New starts and different kinds of failures. In A. Freedman, I. Pringle andJ. Yalden (Eds.), Learning to Write: FirstLanguage/Second Language (pp.34–48). New York: Longman.

Zamel, V. (1976). Teaching composition in the ESL classroom: What we can learn from research in the teaching of English. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 67-76.

Zamel, V. (1987) Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly 21 (4), 697–713.

Biodata

To the original article

To the articles index