Teaching Reading and Writing Week 4

-->

This week I look briefly at Rinnert and Kobayashi's (R and K) article: “Situated Writing Practices in Foreign Language Settings” from the beloved New Directions in Writing Research book. I've thoroughly enjoyed everything found within its covers.

R and K ask: What is the situated nature of writing? Unfortunately, before I can engage with their answer I must overcome a bit of disorientation and suspicion about the phrase “situated nature.” There seems to be a suggestion here, against what I understood Sasaki to have argued, that teaching meta knowledge improves writing ability. Hmm. More on this later. No surprise, R and K are aware of and influenced by Sasaki, so it's likely that I am simply misunderstanding something early on here.

As R and K present a study of studies, I am reminded of a recent editorial about medical journals http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/sep/21/drugs-industry-scandal-ben-goldacre .While it's easier to worry less about such things in TESOL, I wonder if the R and K had serious criticism about the methodology employed in each of the 12 studies they generalize from today. It takes a fair bit of imagination to dream up some TESOL conflicts of interest, but who knows? I wish I knew more about the process that legitimized and published the preceding findings.

As for our findings today, I learn here that preferences for style are dynamic. There is good reason to believe that when you write more in L2, the features of L2 composition will likely be reflected in L1. Is this claim overstated? I think a much larger study, contrasting writers with various L1s writing in various L2s would be needed to establish it. Perhaps it applies only to Japanese learners of English.

Next topic: we've heard in class that Korean's typically don't write much in school. How do Japanese students fair? R and K again seem to mischaracterize their findings. They begin by noting a big emphasis on reading, and conclude, somehow, that Japanese students do study writing to a high degree. The progression seems a bit tenuous, and the middle bit doesn't improve matters: the authors suggest that a 1-4 month period of intensive study for a single specific college entrance essay is all you need to close the gap. Really? Who else places actual emphasis on composition besides American educators?

I next read about R and K's qualitative ground game. It's nice to see, and in line with Sasaki. Write and then review the video of the session. They have no problem establishing that instruction benefited the students. As a teacher, that's always nice to read. Specifically, it looks like specialized training in L1 really pays off in L2: students generate better structures and better examples. R and K can't quantify this, but that's no problem. Is this what they meant at the onset by meta cognitive skills? Advanced students with training overseas are more likely to have definitions and counter claims. This jives with findings by Sasaki that “overseas experience can lead students to re conceptualize the task of writing through imagination of a possible audience that motivates them to refine their writing.”

Fun read.