Conversation about Writing in ALP

Several ALP faculty members have been meeting with Andrew Tomko in order to begin forging a closer tie between writing assignments in ALP and in WRT 101. What follows is a conversation between Maria Kasparova, who has led the ALP faculty in this initiative, and Bonnie MacDougall about issues that came up at last week's meeting. Both Maria and I invite you to join our conversation with your own insights. Thanks.

From: Maria KasparovaSent: Thu 10/29/2009 12:30 AMTo: Andrew Tomko; Bonnie MacDougall; Gail Fernandez; Milena Christov; Bruce Gospin; Lori Talarico; Caroline Kelley; Gemma Figaro; Margarita Bernstein; Roya Kowsary; AMER LANG PROGCc: William Jiang; Carol MieleSubject: RE: WRT-101 and ALP Meeting Minutes

Dear all, attached are minutes of today's meeting. If you have any questions or suggestions, let me or Andrew know.ThanksMaria

To: Maria Kasparova; Andrew Tomko; Gail Fernandez; Milena Christov; Bruce Gospin; Lori Talarico; Caroline Kelley; Gemma Figaro; Margarita Bernstein; Roya Kowsary; AMER LANG PROGCc: William Jiang; Carol MieleSubject: RE: WRT-101 and ALP Meeting Minutes

I'd like to add to and clarify some of my thoughts about the discussion yesterday.
* the rhetorical patterns we teach are certainly artificial in that most good writing blends them; however, each pattern has associated language [comparison/contrast: ~er than/ as....as/ more.....than/ the most.../the same/similar,etc] and we can't expect second language learners to intuit this language; it must be taught, used by students in a thoughtful context and then used again more accurately in thoughtful contexts.
* it is all too easy to teach the rhetorical patterns and associated language simplistically;therefore, let's choose three, any three, patterns for each level so that we can teach them at some depth, i.e. with texts that we ask students to interpret and use as a major or minor point in their essays.
* although I think narration is difficult, the point I was making is that the language used to manage time is difficult--it could be taught through analysis of a historical event just as well as through ficitonal story--but that it should be taught at a level that incorporates text and allows time for revision.
* it makes sense to me to teach reasons/comparison and contrast/cause and effect together either in Level 2 or Level 3 because some of the same language can be used in all [because/ in order to/ so...that,etc.] and would give students several chances to use and therefore truly comprehend that language.
* it makes sense to me to teach some form of managing time and process together because both deal with forms of chronology. Perhaps along with those patterns, we could present the importance of minor support [summary/paraphrase/description, etc.] and give more time to the development of minor support.



Bonnie,

Thank you for taking time to clarify some points in our Wednesday’s discussion.You made some interesting suggestions which I understand come from your personal experience in the classroom, and I’d like to respond to some of your thoughts.
First, I like your idea of introducing text and analysis of a historical event or a fiction story when teaching a narrative. It would expose students to other forms/genres of narrative in addition to the personal narrative which most ESL books already teach.I agree with you that narrative is difficult for students to master but in my opinion not only and not as much because of “the difficulties of introducing the language used to manage time” as you stated as because a narrative especially a personal narrative is closest to creative writing in a way.When you tell a story to your audience, you go through some unique creative process and the way you tell your story seems to be more important than what happens in the story. The challenges associated with using rich expressive idiomatic vocabulary such as action verbs and image nouns are obvious for ESL students.That’s why we should try to introduce those points in the earlier levels of the program, so that students can build up language tools such as vocabulary and learn to handle verb forms and verb tenses (as well as less standard means of expressing time) starting from beginning levels.
Next, I understand your concern and I agree that there isn’t enough time to teach several rhetorical patterns in depth at each level of the program. The question is then what patterns should we choose to cover and what should we base our choices on? What do we prepare our students for after the ALP? How do we measure their success in mastering all those patterns, etc? I think all those questions should be addressed in the program review and during our ALP meetings.
At our Wednesday meeting it came up that argument and comparison-contrast are given most attention in composition 1 courses for the reason that students will inevitably need to do argumentation and comparison-contrast at some point in their college courses.I make an effort of introducing cause-effect and then move on to argument in level 2.My students love it (even the weak ones) because it allows them access to many interesting and controversial topics of the day and social issues where they can express their opinion and analyze the opponent’s point of view when building their argument.Of course, they don’t do it at the same level of complexity as composition students or native speakers do. For that we don’t have enough time or language skills in the ALP, but I still think that it’s worth exposing students to it even if just for making them think critically and for heightening their interest. Our students are intelligent and educated people and we should try to expose them to more challenging topics and assignments.I hope that our conversation will continue and more people will participate.Maria



Maria,

I enjoyed thinking about all of your thoughtful comments and will continue to mull them; on first reading what struck me more than anything was your comment about using argument in Level 2:

"My students love it (even the weak ones) because it allows them access to many interesting and controversial topics of the day and social issues where they can express their opinion and analyze the opponent’s point of view when building their argument."
I, too, find that students relish times to express and debate opinions at Level 2, I think because Level 2 marks the beginning of fluency for most students and therefore marks one of the first times they are thinking in English. It was your parenthetical comment (even the weak ones) that really got to me. I think you're right, and that convinces me that we should teach argument at Level 2 because if we can strengthen the weaker ones at Level 2, then we'll be strengthening the whole Program. Also I can so easily see areas where Grammar 2 and Writing 2 enforce one another if we teach argument in Level 2.
If we teach argument at Level 2, it is a natural progression to build in a unit on minor support at Level 2 where we focus on summary/paraphrase/description/tiny narratives as the fodder for minor support in arguments. I think they need such training and at present we have no designated place for it; treatment of minor support is more or less willy-nilly mixed in with overall points about writing essays. If we teach argument and minor support, then the next logical progession for me would be comparison/contrast, which is a layered way of making an argument, and we need more time to work with the layers. By layers I mean that students must hold two subjects, an A to be compared with a B, rather than just one subject/topic as in arguemnt. Beyond that, they must make sure the two subjects are in the same category (critical thinking); then, too, they have to weigh the way(s) in which they will compare (or contrast) A and B, and they have to decide (critical thiking) if it makes more sense to emphasize comparison or contrast of A and B. I can easily see a Level 2 Writing syllabus that offers these three units. By units, I mean study of these rhetorical models and parts using texts and requiring that reference to those texts be part of minor support. As you say, such ideas can be further discussed and teased out at both our regular Department meetings and during our Program Review.
I, too, hope others will join our conversation here. I find this forum extremely helpful in sharpening my ideas about changes we will be making in the Program.
Bonnie