Some Tips For Teaching L2 Academic Writing
Maria Virginia Mulone, Argentina
Maria Virginia Mulone is an EFL teacher and translator. She lectures in English Language, Linguistics and Academic Writing at the Autonomous University of Entre Ríos, the Adventist University of Río de la Plata, and New Start Institute, Argentina. She has taught numerous professional development courses for teachers and translators and carried out research on the field of language teaching. E-mail: mvmulone@yahoo.com.ar
Menu
Introduction
Developing competences for L2 academic writing
Considering contextual factors
Conclusions
References
Both teachers and students will agree that academic writing in L2 is one of the pillars on which the university education of teachers and translators is supported. By writing, students are able to show _ and teachers to evaluate _ their language proficiency and knowledge of content. In addition to this, through the practice of academic writing, students acquire strategies for obtaining, judging and processing information, following standardised procedures, while exploiting their creativity and originality, all of which contribute to the development of critical thinking. That students acquire the capacity for critical thinking is widely believed to be, besides professional training, the ultimate goal of university education.
Developing critical thinking is widely perceived as a challenging task, and so is academic writing. Academic writing is complicated enough in L1, let alone in a foreign language. It is complicated because it is a very complex ability, anchored in various competences and knowledge, and affected by several factors. My 15 year experience as teacher and translator trainer, and my research on this field has led me to the following conclusions about L2 academic writing by university students
- When faced to the task of writing academic texts, most students lack confidence and autonomy in relation to some stages of the writing process and reveal an unsatisfactory performance at some aspects of the writing competence.
- The errors in the writing products reflect weaknesses in specific aspects of the linguistic, discourse, pragmatic, strategic and intercultural competences on which academic writing ability is sustained.
- In addition to gaps in knowledge or competence, these errors are associated with other factors, such as mother tongue influence, attitudes and motivations, and affective states.
- Many of these errors can be prevented if students are made aware of these “error-sensitive” aspects of communication and persuaded to conduct their writing processes in a more conscientious way.
- This awareness can be induced pedagogically through activities which focus on specific areas of communicative competence, and particularly of the academic writing competence.
Through this article, I intend to share some of the activities that I have found useful for improving my students’ performance at writing. These activities are oriented towards specific aspects of the competence for writing academic texts. For this reason I have organised them by the type of competence they are intended to enhance. I have also included a discussion of some contextual factors intervening in the writing process.
Writing is a high-order cognitive skill requiring the mastery of processes and strategies. Connor (1999) defines it as a communication act between reader and writer which is determined by cultural models and assumes knowledge of semantic features, model texts and socio-cultural norms. L2 academic writing may be viewed as integrated in the frame of communicative competence, and, as such, its component competences, namely, linguistic, discourse, pragmatic, strategic and intercultural competence, may be analysed. (Usó-Juan & Martínez-Flor, 2006a; Celce-Murcia & Elite 2000).
A. Linguistic Competence
The linguistic competence includes knowledge of the target language phonology, spelling, morphology, syntax and semantics. It entails knowledge of language system related rules concerning, for example, denotative and connotative meanings, word and sentence formation, etc. (Usó-Juan & Martínez-Flor, 2006a; Canale, 1983). Mastery of this competence results in the production of texts which are legible and correct in the l2. How can we improve our students’ skill in this respect? Basically, any activity which aims at sharpening any aspect of written accuracy, such as the ones described below, can help.
Focus on grammar and spelling.
Traditional tasks such as spotting the error or choosing the right spelling focus students’ attention on grammar and spelling. Re-writing sentences, another familiar exercise, never grows old for it helps students widen their repertoire of structures. An alternative to the classical sentence re-writing exercise (the key-word or the sentence beginning variety) is to pick sentences from texts, either the students’ or model texts, and to re-write them preserving the meaning. Encouraging students to use grammar checklists, on the other hand, promotes self correction and metalinguistic awareness. Teachers should also be attentive to specific language problems, such as fragments or dangling participles, and create opportunities to address them in class.
Focus on vocabulary
Vocabulary knowledge is another key aspect of writing. Students need to acquire the skills for choosing precise lexical items in their written expression. Resorting to dictionaries, thesauruses, and production dictionaries is always an advantageous practice, as so are activities which involve vocabulary work, for example, elaborating word lists, categorising lexical items semantically, functionally, syntactically, or morphologically, and processing vocabulary in relation to semantic categories like synonymy, antonymy, superordination, collocation, etc.
Focus on writing models
Model writing should not be underestimated either, for it provides both accuracy and fluency oriented practice, while making students focus on specific features of the academic genres.
B. Discourse competence
This competence implies the ability for adequately sequencing sentences in texts which are both cohesive and coherent (Canale, 1983; Byram, 1997). Mastery of this competence results in the production of discourse which is unified and coherent with its purpose and context. The following are some suggestions to drive students’ attention to cohesion:
Focus on reference
Students can sometimes be unaware of cohesion resources such as reference and substitution, so teachers have to device strategies to drive their attention back to these aspects of writing. There is a wide range of possibilities in this field, from explaining reference of pronouns in texts to spotting and correcting ambiguous, misleading, erroneous or sexist reference or substitution.
Focus on connecting devices
Students are likely to need to brush up on their ability to use a range of connecting devices, especially those appropriate for the formal style. Have students make their own lists of connecting devices, organised by meaning (e.g., addition, contrast, enumeration, etc.) and complemented by examples, and encourage them to keep the list at hand while working on their written assignments. A classroom activity to raise awareness of variety in sentence connecting is having students write a pair of sentences about a given topic and then have them re-write them many times using the connecting devices suggested by the instructor. Gap-filling tasks involving connecting devices may also prove profitable in getting students accustomed to using a variety of such linguistic items.
Focus on punctuation
Many students tend to neglect this highly relevant aspect of written expression. Activities to turn their attention to punctuation include adding punctuation marks to run-together sentences, identifying and explaining punctuation problems, and improving punctuation in poorly-punctuated texts.
Students often need to grow aware of some aspects of coherence in their written production. Here is some advice for addressing this aspect of writing competence.
Focus on text structure
One way to direct students attention towards coherence is via text re-constructing tasks. Among these activities are ordering sentences or paragraphs, choosing from missing sentences or paragraphs to fill gaps in texts, matching headings and passages, etc. The rationale behind this kind of activities is that learners become aware of not only the linguistic features, but also the semantic and pragmatic ones which contribute to text coherence.
Focus on paragraph
The skill to write meaningful, coherent paragraphs must be cultivated, for students cannot be expected to produce adequate texts if they cannot write coherent paragraphs in the first place. Paragraph composing abilities may be efficiently developed through practice in topic sentence and thesis statement writing. Activities to reflect on the structure of paragraphs and texts include identifying topic sentences or thesis statements in model texts, sketching supporting paragraphs for thesis statements, writing supporting sentences for topic sentences, or experimenting with various alternatives for supporting arguments, such as examples, comparison/contrast, or description.
C. Pragmatic competence
According to Ellis (1994), this is the competence which enables speakers/writers to use their linguistic knowledge for communication. Bachman and Palmer (1996) assert that the pragmatic competence involves two areas: functional knowledge and sociolinguistic knowledge. The former refers to knowledge to understand and interpret relationships between sentences and texts and the intentions of speakers/writers. The latter describes the knowledge to create or understand language appropriate to a particular situation, that is, it is related to issues of register and style. Mastery of this competence results in the production of discourse which is stylistically adequate and rhetorically efficacious, and below are some proposals for developing it.
Focus on style
Academic writing demands that students be aware of the stylistic conventions which regulate the production of formal and specialised texts. This awareness may be induced by tasks with a focus on vocabulary appropriateness, for example, replacing informal, general lexical items in a text with more formal, specialised ones, or re-writing passages so that they are “more academic”. The elaboration of lists of technical or specific terminology related to the writing topic is also a profitable practice.
Focus on communicative function
Students have to develop an awareness of and skills for expressing those communicative functions which are involved in academic texts, such as arguing, comparing, contrasting, describing, interpreting, analyzing, discussing, applying, defining, evaluating, critiquing, reacting, summarizing, synthesizing, etc. In order to achieve this, they may practice identifying passages which perform these functions in model texts, or writing sentences which fulfil them. A way in which communicative functions are made explicit in texts is through “hedges”. Hedge is defined by Crystal (2008, p.227) as “An application in pragmatics and discourse analysis of a general sense of the word (‘to be non-committal or evasive’) to a range of items which express a notion of imprecision or qualification.” Examples of hedging include sort of, more or less, I mean, approximately, roughly. For this reason, activities which focus on this linguistic feature, such as re-writing sentences with different hedges, or indicating the differences in meaning implied by various hedges, contribute to students’ skills to manipulate the undertones expressed by the sentences in the academic genre. Another crucial aspect of pragmatic competence is the ability to explicitly differentiate between fact and opinion. Though this ability may be regarded as a basic one, students often fail to satisfactorily communicate this distinction. Therefore, devoting some time to awareness raising tasks, such as sorting out opinion and fact statements in texts, may well be a rewarding practice.
D. Strategic competence
This type of competence may be explained as knowledge of learning and communicative strategies. Learning strategies are those meant to facilitate internalization, storage, retrieval, or use of the new language, whereas communicative strategies are those intended to avoid breakdown in communication and enhance the effectiveness of communication (Ellis, 1994). The strategic competence, then, includes strategies to write more accurately and effectively (e.g., skills for paraphrasing, describing, using examples, associating ideas, using deduction/induction, etc.) and strategies for planning and implementing a writing plan, and editing (Usó-Juan, Martínez-Flor & Palmer-Silveria, 2006, 2006; Ellis,1994). Mastery of this competence results in the production of discourse which is communicatively successful.
Academic writing requires strategies for planning, outlining, collecting and using data, organising and combining information, summarising, paraphrasing, to name a few. These strategies may be taught and experienced in class so that students can become skilled at them.
Focus on text planning
Aspects of research design and paper outlining processes may be practiced by proposing students a general topic and encouraging them to suggest various alternative directions for research, to discuss potential research queries, questions or hypotheses, as well as research procedures. Alternatively, they may be shown already made research instruments (e.g., questionnaires, observation schemes) or data (e.g., interview transcriptions) and required to speculate on the questions or hypotheses these might be used to explore.
Focus on data collecting
Students may design data collecting instruments such as surveys or interviews and pilot them in class with their classmates. In this way, they not only acquire experience in the creation and application of research instruments, but also gain awareness of the practical and procedural issues they involve. Adequate citation and documentation of bibliographical sources may be practised by improving deliberately flawed references lists. Summarising and paraphrasing passages might be a tedious task; however, it often proves to be a highly profitable exercise, for it sharpens comprehension, as well as production competence.
Focus on data analysis and interpretation
Finally, it may also be a good idea to encourage students to invite peer examination of their data, and discuss and compare alternative points of view and conclusions.
E. Intercultural competence
This term describes the knowledge to produce texts within a specific socio-cultural context which differs from the speaker’s native one (Usó-Juan & Martínez-Flor, 2006ª; Usó-Juan, Martínez-Flor & Palmer-Silveria, 2006). This means that a competent l2 user has to be aware of the differences and similarities in the rules and norms of behaviour in L1 and L2. When the writing task is contextualized in an academic setting and pursues an academic purpose, native speakers of Spanish must be alerted that in academic English the preferences for rendering citations and documenting sources, for example, differ from those in academic Spanish. Mastery of this competence results in the production of discourse which is culturally appropriate.
Focus on L1 and L2 cultural contrasts
Analysing model texts in both languages and discussing contrastive features as regards organisation and structure, content, format and layout, style, and social and cultural implications may prove enriching experiences for the students. An activity I call “cultural translation” may also provide students with an insight into this side of academic writing. This activity consists in translating texts from L1 into L2 (or vice versa), paying special attention to the rendering of each language’s conventions within the genre in question. This might mean, for example, incorporating or leaving out certain information or adapting citation format.
A range of contextual factors affect the process and product of L2 academic writing, the most influential of which are the audience, the purpose and the content of the texts. The very fact that L2 academic writing at university is considered as an instrument for assessing content knowledge or language skill poses a problem as regards perceptions of audience, purpose, and content by both students and professors. Students are often inclined to envisage the teacher of the academic subject in question as the target of their written products, and obtaining a passing grade as their goal. This may have an impact on the quality of the product: accuracy of language and fulfilment of externally imposed norms are prioritised over text content. Thus, students avoid serious involvement with the topic, their main objective being to communicate their knowledge and perspectives, not to an audience of motivated peers, but to an evaluating board whose chief interest, in the student’s view, might reside on formal aspects of the text, not its content. Some EFL teacher and translator educators prevent this misconception of the role of academic writing by widening the audience their students are writing for. They organise paper presentation sessions, where students have the opportunity to share their work with their peers and teachers in a pressure-free relaxed atmosphere. They set up blogs where their students are encouraged to publish their papers, or they take advantage of social networks to promote circulation of the students’ production and exchange of ideas and feedback.
Academic writing, while fulfilling a central role in the professional education of EFL teachers and translators, and having an incidence upon the development of critical thinking, constitutes a complex problem from the pedagogical viewpoint. Since it supposes the achievement of linguistic, discourse, pragmatic, strategic and intercultural competences, it is suggested that weaknesses related to each of these aspects should be worked upon specifically by means of classroom tasks. Activities like the ones discussed in this paper may be time consuming both to prepare and to carry out, and time is not a resource most teachers count on in abundance. Nevertheless, if these activities contribute, even if minimally, to prevent future problems in academic writing tasks, the time and effort devoted to them will be worthy.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual matters.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2 - 28). London and New York: Longman.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Elite, O. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching. A guide for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Connor, U. M. (1999). Writing in a second language. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of educational linguistics (pp. 306-310). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Crystal, D. (2008) A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (sixth edition). UK: Blackwell Publications.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Usó-Juan, E., & Martínez-Flor, A. (2006a). Approaches to language learning and teaching: Towards acquiring communicative competence through the four skills. In E. Usó-Juan & A. Martínez-Flor (Eds.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills (pp. 3-25). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Usó-Juan, E., Martínez-Flor, A., & Palmer-Silveria, J. C. (2006). Towards acquiring communicative competence through writing. In E. Usó-Juan & A. Martínez-Flor (Eds.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills (pp. 383-400). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Please check the Teaching Academic English course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Teaching Advanced Students course at Pilgrims website.
|
