Teacher Perceptions of ESL Student Preparedness for

Discipline-Specific and ESL Writing Tasks

Brenna Seifried Sharon Tjaden-Glass

Intensive English Program University of Dayton

Ohio TESOL 2010 University of Dayton Intensive English Program 2

Guiding Questions

  Are IEP students prepared to write in the university after graduating from IEP?

  If they are not adequately prepared, how can we increase their preparation for these courses?

Ohio TESOL 2010 University of Dayton Intensive English Program 3

Literature Review

  Teach genres   Swales (1990)

  Ann Johns   Ken Hyland   Tony Dudley-Evans   Vijay Bhatia   Diane Belcher

  Teach skills   Spack (1988)

Ohio TESOL 2010 University of Dayton Intensive English Program 4

Literature Review

  What is academic writing?   Are genres stable between disciplines

and within disciplines?

Ohio TESOL 2010 University of Dayton Intensive English Program 5

Literature Review

  Previous surveys of academic writing tasks:   Kroll (1979)   Ostler (1980)   Johns (1981)   Bridgeman & Carlson (1984)   Horowitz (1986)   Zhu (2004)   Jackson, Wilhelm & Parkinson (2006)   Carstens (2008)   Dunworth (2008)

Ohio TESOL 2010 University of Dayton Intensive English Program 6

Previous Study: 2006

  Wright State University   89 discipline-specific faculty   9 LEAP intensive English program

faculty   Genres of assignments   Skills of assignments   Student preparedness = how closely

the LEAP faculty align with DS faculty

Ohio TESOL 2010 University of Dayton Intensive English Program 7

Ohio TESOL 2010 University of Dayton Intensive English Program 8

LEAP Teachers: Were students prepared for undergraduate writing tasks?

Ohio TESOL 2010 University of Dayton Intensive English Program 9

Lingering Questions

  Validity?   Is the measurement of preparedness

valid?  Are skills taught in preparatory programs

actually transferring to academic writing in content areas?

  Graduate student writing?  Are students prepared to write at the

graduate level?

Ohio TESOL 2010 University of Dayton Intensive English Program 10

Current Study: 2010

  University of Dayton   3 phase process   Phase 1: Pilot survey of genres & skills

(SurveyMonkey) 1.  20 selected UD faculty, variety of disciplines 2.  18 IEP faculty 3.  Follow-up interviews

  Phase 2: University-wide survey of genres & skills

  Phase 3: Interviews with graduated IEP students

Ohio TESOL 2010 University of Dayton Intensive English Program 11

Ohio TESOL 2010 University of Dayton Intensive English Program 12

Ohio TESOL 2010 University of Dayton Intensive English Program 13

Ohio TESOL 2010 University of Dayton Intensive English Program 14

On Language versus Writing Objectives in the ESL Writing Classroom

  “We assume that by the advanced levels that a lot of the language objectives are in place. However, when you collect the papers and you start to read, it’s rather shocking sometimes that they aren’t developed…We are forced to then to make all of these jumps to include the language structures that they need.”   IEP Instructor

Ohio TESOL 2010 University of Dayton Intensive English Program 15

On Grammar Influencing Grades

  Unsure if it does.   Are international students’

grammatical errors “a grasp of language, or is it an approach to learning and responding? I’m not sure of the answer to that.” History professor A, UD

Ohio TESOL 2010 University of Dayton Intensive English Program 16

On Grammar Influencing Grades   No, it doesn’t.   “I would say no…The truth of the matter is the best

papers are often the shortest ones and because foreigners don’t want to write much, they will put a lot of more thought into the content first… and then they’re less likely to make serious grammatical and spelling errors, so in a way, they might even be differentially advantaged.” Economics professor, UD

  “I didn’t really worry that much about grammar because I didn’t expect excellent grammar from people who were struggling with the language. Very often it was that their vocabulary was weak enough that they had trouble understanding the questions, much less expressing an answer.”

  Religious studies professor, UD

Ohio TESOL 2010 University of Dayton Intensive English Program 17

Ohio TESOL 2010 University of Dayton Intensive English Program 18

Possible Explanations for Discrepancy Related to Preparedness

1.  Differing definitions of “preparedness”?   Many university professors viewed preparation

in linguistic terms i.e. range of vocabulary and level of written expression.   “They can definitely write a complete sentence. So I

don’t think there’s grammar lacking. I think many of them feel they lack vocabulary” Economics professor, UD

  One IEP faculty member framed preparation as a

comprehensive view of a student’s self-sufficiency within a class.

2.  Or are students simply not accomplishing needed writing objectives by the end of IEP?

Ohio TESOL 2010 University of Dayton Intensive English Program 19

Ohio TESOL 2010 University of Dayton Intensive English Program 20

Major Trends: WSU, LEAP, UD, IEP

  Some discrepancies are easy to understand   Summary, compare-contrast, cause-effect

  Some discrepancies are puzzling  Analysis, reflection

Ohio TESOL 2010 University of Dayton Intensive English Program 21

Ohio TESOL 2010 University of Dayton Intensive English Program 22

Ohio TESOL 2010 University of Dayton Intensive English Program 23

Implications for Future Research

  Are we teaching skills as genres?   Argument, cause-effect, compare-contrast   The “English Department genre” (Leki, 2003; Wardle, 2009).

  Do we need to spend more time on writing objectives? Do we need another level in the program to develop these objectives?

  Should we teach a literature review assignment?   Should IEP prep include study skills, cultural

consideration of professor/student issues?   What are UD professors’ perceptions of ESL

graduate student writing?   How do UD professors’ define “analysis?” Do IEP

teachers assign writing tasks that require “analysis?”

Ohio TESOL 2010 University of Dayton Intensive English Program 24

A Final Note on the Limitations of “Genres”

  “What the model, template, or sample essay cannot disclose, much less teach, however, is that whatever procedures the crafting of a well-shaped essay may display, they are procedures of a peculiar kind. Rather than being reliably stable, iterable, or rule-governed, the work of writing an essay and constructing and organizing its familiar objects entails deeply cultural judgments, and judgments are always bound to context.”

  ~Karen MacBeth, The Ohio State University, 2010

Ohio TESOL 2010 University of Dayton Intensive English Program 25

References   Braine, G. (1988). A reader reacts (commentary on Ruth

Spack’s ‘‘Intiating ESL students into the academic discourse community: how far should we go?’’). TESOL Quarterly, 22(4), 702.

  Bridgeman, B., & Carlson, S. (1984). Survey of academic writing tasks. Written Communication, 1, 247-280.

  Carstens, A. (2008). Preferred genres and rhetorical modes in the humanities and social sciences. Language Matters, 39(1), 49-65.

  Cumming, A. (2006). Goals for academic writing: ESL student and their instructors. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

  Dunworth, K. (2008). A task-based analysis of undergraduate assessment: A tool for the EAP practitioner. TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 315-323.

  Horowitz, D. (1986). What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 445-462.

Ohio TESOL 2010 University of Dayton Intensive English Program 26

References   Hyland, K. (2002). Specificity revisited: How far should we go now?.

English for Specific Purposes, 21, 385-395.   Jackson, L, Wilhelm, M., & Parkinson, J. (2006). A study of the writing

tasks and reading assigned to undergraduate science students at a South African University. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 260-281.

  Johns, A. (1981). Necessary English: A faculty survey. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 51-57.Johns, A. (1988). Another reader reacts (commentary on Ruth Spack’s ‘‘Intiating ESL students into the academic discourse community: how far should we go?’’). TESOL Quarterly, 22(4), 705–706.

  Kroll, B. (1979). A survey of writing needs of foreign and American college freshman. English Language Teaching Journal, 33, 219-227.

  Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). “Completely different worlds”: EAP and the writing experience of ESL students in university courses. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 39-69.

  Leki, I. (2003). A challenge to second language writing professionals: Is writing overrated? In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 315–331). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ohio TESOL 2010 University of Dayton Intensive English Program 27

References   MacBeth, K. (2010). Deliberate false provisions: The use and

usefulness of models in learning academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(1), 33-48.

  Ostler, S. (1980). A survey of academic needs for advanced ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 489-502.

  Spack, R. (1988). Initiating ESL students into the academic discourse community: How far should we go?. TESOL Quarterly, 22(1), 29-51.

  Spack, R. (1997). The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language. Written Communication, 14, 3-62.

  Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  Wardle, E. (2009). “Mutt genres” and the goal of FYC: Can we help students write the genres of the university?. College Composition and Communication, 60(4), 765-789.

  West, G., & Byrd, P. (1982). Technical writing required of graduate engineering students. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 12, 1-6.

  Zhu, W. (2004). Faculty views on the importance of writing, the nature of academic writing, and teaching and responding to writing in the disciplines. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 29-28.