Tutoring Second Language Writers (34 page)
Read Tutoring Second Language Writers Online
Authors: Shanti Bruce
In this vignette, we see a tutor uncertain and possibly anxious about how to approach elements of a writer’s text, and we see her working with a writer’s resistance.
Haziq is a fourth-year engineering student who brings part of a design report to the writing center. He is writing collaboratively with a team of students, and he is responsible for only one section of the document. Abhi is a tutor who, although she is not an engineer, has worked in a number of engineering courses for several years as communication support staff. Abhi herself is a L2 writer. Her family moved to the United States when she was twelve years old, so she is familiar with some of the challenges that face young L2 writers.
The section Haziq presents is relatively short, but the challenge for Abhi is that the subject—analysis and design of a power and propulsion system for a small satellite—is very technical. The design choice is based on calculations that are difficult for her to understand. However, because she has worked with engineering students before, Abhi understands the rhetorical purpose of this section; Haziq is writing a trade analysis of the various options for the subsystem. These options will be evaluated against a set of criteria that meet the overall system requirements.
Knowing this, Abhi looks at the writing and asks Haziq to highlight the key decisions about the power and propulsion system design options. She observes that key information is at the end of the section after minutely described analysis and not at the beginning where an experienced engineering writer would have put it. Moreover, Haziq does not clearly specify the design choices. Like many student writers, Haziq has written the section in the order of his activities and his internal thought process. Abhi tells him, “It’s expected that you will tell the reader right away what your recommendation is. Then back it up with your analysis.” But Haziq resists: “No, this is how we do it in my other university. We explain and then we give the decision. The reader cannot understand if you do not give all the details. I want the reader to read all this.”
Abhi feels overwhelmed by the document. Not only are the final conclusions buried at the end of the section, the writing is broken by calculations and several tables filled with numbers and specifications. She studies the pages and says to Haziq, “To me, this seems confusing. All these numbers seem to distract from the point you say you want to make. Let’s talk about all the numbers and tables. Why do you include so many?”
Haziq is quick to answer: “They have to be there. I want the teacher to see what I did. I did a lot of work.” Abhi reminds Haziq that she is not talking about right and wrong but rather about what is expected in the conventions of engineering taught in the United States. “We could outline it a different way,” suggests Abhi. “You can get some feedback
from your teammates and your professor. Then you can decide.” They work on a more succinct outline with straightforward organization; Abhi suggests some language to introduce the section. As they work and talk, Haziq can see the section becoming more focused. It sounds better to him, and soon he seems to be more positive about the different organizational structure. About the tables of numbers? Haziq volunteers, “I could put some of that analysis in the appendix—that would be okay, I think.”
In this vignette, we see a tutor working with a writer who is trying to present data and argue for conclusions. We also see a tutor guiding a writer toward deeper reflection about the graphics chosen.
Guan Yang is a graduate student in bioengineering. He brings a rough draft of his thesis to the writing center, asking Abhi to read the results and discussion section. When Abhi turns to that section, she sees many small graphics that show Guan Yang’s data, but the interpretation of the data seems too brief. “What do you want to say about this data?” Abhi asks. “Usually, readers expect you to interpret that data for them, to tell them what it means. They expect you to argue for your conclusions based on your experimental results.”
Guan Yang looks uncomfortable. “In my country, that would be rude—to tell a reader what to think. The reader should look at the data and make up his own mind.” Abhi agrees partially. “Yes, the reader will make up his mind, but a reader still expects that interpretation. Let’s try to develop some language that says what you think.”
Then Abhi looks at the graphics. Now that she understands Guan Yang’s ideas somewhat, she can ask, “Is this the best way to show these results?” She doesn’t know if the information is accurate—she relies on Guan Yang for that—but she wonders if a different type of graphic might illustrate Guan Yang’s conclusions more effectively. Abhi shows Guan Yang an exemplar the writing center has collected from another engineering writer (with the writer’s permission). Guan Yang and Abhi review the exemplar’s results and discussion section together, noticing how the graphics show the data and the way the text supports and interprets that data. Abhi ends the session with Guan Yang by reminding Guan Yang to talk with his advisor soon in order to get the advisor’s feedback on any possible change in graphics and the accompanying text.
Guan Yang is ready to leave the center, but Abhi points to a few sentences she cannot understand. She has wondered if her own L2
background prevented her from understanding clearly, but she has taken time to study the sentences and she regains her confidence. Guan Yang’s spoken English is fairly fluent, so Abhi is puzzled. “How did you write this?” she asks. The sentences are free of grammatical error, the punctuation is correct, and the words are properly spelled, but somehow, the short paragraph isn’t clear. This type of error can result from the difficulty a student has in transferring critical thinking from L1 to L2, or perhaps it is because the student gathers technical terms from reading and can organize them into a sentence but fails to truly understand what he is writing. Alternately, it can happen when a student puts text through an electronic translator and then tries to edit it.
Guan Yang tells Abhi he was pressed for time so he created those sentences by using an electronic translator and then editing them with a thesaurus. She explains that most web-based tools produce such flawed text, that they are not useful for more than a phrase, and that they don’t work for advanced disciplinary prose. “How can I fix it?” Guan Yang asks. “You can’t fix it,” Abhi says. “It’s better if you rewrite.”
Earlier, we asked what a tutor who is not a disciplinary expert could contribute to an L2 writer learning to write in his/her discipline. In these vignettes, we begin to see partial answers. Because of his understanding of writing and language-acquisition processes, Louis is able to stay focused on Paula’s writing task and resist the temptation to correct the sentence-level errors in her text too quickly. His accumulated knowledge about the rhetorical purposes of sections of documents cues him to look more closely at the underdeveloped introduction section of Paula’s proposal. Abhi’s awareness of her own discomfort helps her reflect as she reviews Haziq’s daunting pages of calculations and tables full of numbers. In addition, her own experience as an L2 writer gives her some perspective on Haziq’s efforts. Thus, she decides not to confront Haziq’s resistance directly, guessing it may be a sign of his own anxiety about looking foolish in front of his peers and his desire to please his professor. Working with Guan Yang, Abhi’s understanding of cultural difference helps her notice Guan Yang’s difficulty in interpreting data. While the technical nuances of Guan Yang’s thesis are a matter for him and for his thesis advisor, Abhi’s ability to be present with what she sees on the page raises key points for discussion. Because of that discussion, Guan Yang leaves the writing center with more options for that section of his thesis.
Abhi and Louis also make strong contributions by acknowledging disciplinary boundaries. The authority that comes when we recognize our limits has several positive effects. First, that internal clarity usually reduces our anxiety. Second, the writer tends to have more confidence in us when she knows we speak from the depth of our own knowledge about writing and language and that we are clear about those boundaries. This awareness of ourselves as knowledgeable tutors and of the writer as a developing professional then can be the basis of a collaborative exchange as both tutor and writer work from their areas of strength. Because we respect disciplinary boundaries, a writer can begin to see herself not as a writer who is ‘bad’ at writing (the tutor’s area of expertise) but one who is becoming knowledgeable about disciplinary communication (the writer’s growing area of expertise). She begins to own those abilities, and they become integrated into her sense of professional self. As a developing disciplinary writer moves into that new territory, she is better able to identify the challenges that lie before her. The insight into those communication challenges, the support from a knowledgeable tutor, and mentoring from disciplinary faculty are a powerful combination. Together, those factors foster a sense of agency with disciplinary language. Steadily, the writer—once an ‘outsider’ without much insight into disciplinary language and culture—transitions into her discourse community. As for her tutors, we remain as ‘outsiders.’ We continue to be guides with valuable insight about language and perhaps about another discipline but rarely members of any disciplinary community other than our own.
1. What strategies have you learned for dealing with the anxiety of the L2 writer in a tutoring session? And what strategies help you deal with your own discomfort, frustration, or confusion?
2. This chapter suggests a framework for approaching an L2 writer’s text. Do you already use some or all of these approaches? Do you have other approaches that work well for you?
3. Even the most advanced L2 writer may make sentence-level errors in his/her disciplinary writing as s/he struggles with a new formal or conventional style. Or perhaps the writer constructs sentences that are correct but sound ‘wrong.’ How do you approach sentence-level errors as you tutor? When do you take up those errors with the writer? How do you talk with writers about text that may be correct but is not phrased as a native speaker would phrase it?
Cox
,
Michelle
.
2011
. “WAC: Closing Doors or Opening Doors for Second Language Writers?”
Across the Disciplines
8 (4).
http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/cox.cfm
In this article, the author describes the challenges L2 writers must negotiate in a communication-intensive curriculum. Tutors will also be interested in Michelle Cox’s review of current work in this area. The author concludes with a list of suggestions for working with L2 writers.
Craig
,
Jennifer
.
2014
. “
Teaching Writing in a Globally Networked Learning Environment (GNLE): Diverse Students at a Distance
.” In
WAC and Second Language Writers: Research Toward Linguistically and Culturally Inclusive Programs and Practices
, edited by
Terry
Zawacki
and
Michelle
Cox
, 369–86.
Anderson, SC
:
Parlor
.
As technology continues to create expanded learning environments, some tutors may be working with L2 students over distance. In this article, the author describes how teaching and tutoring must be adapted with L2 writers in virtual spaces.
Ferris
,
Dana
.
2002
.
Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing.
Michigan Series on Teaching Multilingual Writers
.
Ann Arbor
:
University of Michigan Press
.
In this book, the author shares her strategies for addressing sentence-level error in L2 writing. All tutors will find useful strategies here, no matter what level of writers they are tutoring.
Poe
,
Mya
,
Neal
Lerner
, and
Jennifer
Craig
.
2010
.
Learning to Communicate in Science and Engineering: Case Studies from MIT
.
Cambridge, MA
:
MIT Press
.
This award-winning book describes how students in science and engineering develop as disciplinary writers. Case studies in three departments and six courses illustrate the authors’ findings.
Zawacki
,
Terry Myers
, and
Anna
Habib
.
2010
. “
‘Will Our Stories Help Teachers Understand?’ Multilingual Students Talk about Identity, Academic Writing, and Expectations across Academic Communities
.” In
Reinventing Identities in Second Language Writing
, edited by
Michelle
Cox
,
Jay
Jordan
,
Christina Ortmeier
Hooper
, and
Gwen Gray
Schwartz
,
54
–
74
.
Urbana, IL
:
National Council of Teachers of English
.
The voices of L2 writers in this article are compelling, and the authors raise key insights about writers’ identities that all tutors should consider.
1.
The vignettes here are based on work with L2 writers and tutors with whom I have worked although the names have been changed.
Return to text.
Beaufort
,
Anne
.
2004
.
College Writing and Beyond
.
Logan
:
Utah State University Press
.
Bouman
,
Kurt
.
2004
. “
Raising Questions about Plagiarism.
” In
ESL Writers: A Guide for Writing Center Tutors
,
2nd ed.
, edited by
Shanti
Bruce
and
Ben
Rafoth
,
161
–
75
.
Portsmouth, NH
:
Boynton/Cook
.
Canagarajah
,
Suresh
.
2002
. “
Multilingual Writers and the Academic Community: Towards a Critical Relationship
.”
Journal of English for Academic Purposes
1
(
1
):
29
–
44
.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00007-3
.
Ferris
,
Dana R.
2002
.
Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing
.
Ann Arbor
:
University of Michigan Press
.
Ferris
,
Dana R.
2009
.
Teaching College Writing to Diverse Student Populations
.
Ann Arbor
:
University of Michigan Press
.
Harris
,
Muriel
, and
Tony
Silva
.
1993
. “
Tutoring ESL Students: Issues and Options
.”
College Composition and Communication
44
(
4
):
525
–
37
.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/358388
.
Johns
,
Ann
.
1990
. “
L1 Composition Theories: Implications for Developing Theories of L2 Composition
.” In
Second Language Writing
, ed.
B.
Kroll
,
24
–
36
.
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524551.006
.
Johns
,
Ann M.
1986
. “
The ESL Student and the Revision Process: Some Insights from Schema Theory
.”
Journal of Basic Writing
5
(
2
):
70
–
80
.
Kroll
,
Barbara
.
1990
. “
The Rhetoric and Syntax Split: Designing a Curriculum for ESL Students
.”
Journal of Basic Writing
9
(
1
):
40
–
55
.
Lave
,
Jean
, and
Etiene
Wenger
.
1991
.
Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation
.
Cambridge, UK
:
Cambridge University Press
.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780 511815355
.
Lillis
,
Theresa M.
, and
Mary Jane
Curry
.
2010
.
Academic Writing in a Global Context: The Politics and Practices of Publishing in English
.
London
:
Routledge
.
Linville
,
Cynthia
.
2004
. “
Editing Line by Line.
” In
ESL Writers: A Guide for Writing Center Tutors
,
2nd ed.
, edited by
Shanti
Bruce
and
Ben
Rafoth
,
116
–
31
.
Portsmouth, NH
:
Boynton/Cook
.
Mackiewicz
,
J.
2004
. “
The Effects of Tutor Expertise in Engineering Writing: A Linguistic Analysis of Writing Tutors’ Comments
.”
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
(
December
). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2004.840485
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=1364079
.
Matsuda
,
Paul Kei
.
1999
. “
Composition Studies and ESL Writing: A Disciplinary Division of Labor
.”
College Composition and Communication
50
(
4
):
699
–
721
.
http://dx.doi.org /10.2307/358488
.
Matsuda
,
Paul Kei
.
2001
.
Practicing WAC is Practicing ESL
.
Fort Collins, CO
:
WAC Clearinghouse
;
http://wac.colostate.edu/aw/forums/fall2001/matsuda_opening.htm
, Accessed September 14, 2015.
Matsuda
,
Paul Kei
, and
Michelle
Cox
.
2004
. “
Reading an ESL Writer’s Text.
” In
ESL Writers: A Guide for Writing Center Tutors
,
2nd ed.
, edited by
Shanti
Bruce
and
Ben
Rafoth
, 2:
42
–
50
.
Portsmouth, NH
:
Boynton/Cook
.
Poe
,
Mya
,
Neal
Lerner
, and
Jennifer
Craig
.
2010
.
Learning to Communicate in Science and Engineering: Case Studies from MIT
.
Cambridge, MA
:
MIT Press
.
Reid
,
Joy
, and
Barbara
Kroll
.
1995
. “
Designing and Assessing Effective Classroom Writing Assignments for NES and ESL Students
.”
Journal of Second Language Writing
4
(
1
):
17
–
41
.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(95)90021-7
.
Scardamalia
,
Marlene
, and
Carl
Bereiter
.
2006
. “
Knowledge Building: Theory, Pedagogy, and Technology.
” In
Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
,
K.
Sawyer
,
97
–
118
.
New York
:
Cambridge University Press
.
Silva
,
Tony
.
1993
. “
Toward an Understanding of the Nature of L2 Writing : The ESL Research and Its Implications
.”
TESOL Quarterly
27
(
4
):
657
Stoller
,
Fredricka
,
James K.
Jones
,
Molly S.
Costanza-Robinson
, and
Marin S.
Robinson
.
2005
. “Demystifying Disciplinary Writing: A Case Study in the Writing of Chemistry.”
Across the Disciplines
.
http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/volume2.cfm/
.
Swales
,
John
, and
Christine
Feak
.
2009
.
Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills
.
2nd ed.
Ann Arbor
:
University of Michigan Press
.
Williams
,
Jessica
.
2002
. “
Undergraduate Second Language Writers in the Writing Center
.”
Journal of Basic Writing
21
(
2
):
73
–
91
.
http://wac.colostate.edu/jbw/v21n2/williams.pdf
.
Zamel
,
Vivian
.
2004
. “
Strangers in Academia
.” In
Crossing the Curriculum: Multilingual Learners in College Classrooms
, ed.
Vivian
Zamel
and
Ruth
Spack
,
3
–
17
.
Mahwah, NJ
:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
.
Zamel
,
Vivian
, and
Ruth
Spack
, eds.
2004
.
Crossing the Curriculum: Multilingual Learners in College Classrooms
.
Mahwah, NJ
:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
.
