Second Language Writing - Free Essay Sample

Introduction

Language is an essential component of the learning process that human beings need to communicate. Students need language to argue, explain, recount, and describe issues in different subject areas. However, language requires explicit teaching since it does not come naturally to many students (Derewianka & Jones, 2016). This phenomenon is common among English as a second language (ESL) learners (Derewianka & Jones, 2016). In essence, this situation means teachers should have an in-depth understanding of how language is used in academic contexts.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Second Language

The second language (L2) writing theory can help teach L2 writing as it highlights key elements that should be considered to improve written communication. According to Flower and Hayes (1981), the cognitive process theory highlights three writing components integral to teaching L2 writing. The three elements are the writer's long-term memory, the writing process, and the task environment (Flower & Hayes, 1981). Here, this model can be used in L2 writing to examine the relationship between the writing process and the context.

We need a comprehensive theory of L2 learning to teach second language writing in the spirit of scientific theorizing. Such a model is of great importance to students and teachers as they describe and explain various elements that constitute L2 writing. According to Lei (2008), the traditional cognitive framework studied the art of writing as a generative process in which individuals reformulate their ideas after a critical thinking process. The theory also recognized that writing involves using strategies such as planning, monitoring, organizing, reviewing, translating, and generating ideas (Lei, 2008). In this view, the L2 theory is needed to analyze writing strategies for ESL learners. Such a synthetic model covers components such as the writing processes, contexts, and rhetorical text choices that fit ESL students.

Theory and teaching align in different ways. An example of an activity that shows this interaction is brainstorming ideas in the classroom and presenting them in an agreeable written form. Key elements of the theory, such as teacher's expectations, appropriate rhetorical skills, an understanding of the topic, and writing requirements must be met for a student to be successful. This scenario illustrates an instance where teaching and theory interact.

Differences Between EFL and ESL Contexts

L2 writing is essential, especially in this era of globalization, where writing skills play a fundamental role in many fields. However, much attention has been paid to learning L2 writing than L2 teaching, despite the two elements being important (Lee, 2010). Learning and teaching L2 writing differ significantly in ESL and English as a first language (EFL) contexts.

First, EFL teachers find it challenging to use the best teaching practices in teaching contexts dominated by conventional methods. A good example is implementing process pedagogy in writing classrooms that are essentially product-oriented (Lee, 2010). A recent study showed that EFL teachers in Hong Kong who were enthusiastic about process pedagogy developed an improved version of process writing (Lee, 2010). Conversely, the major difficulty in learning L2 writing among ESL individuals is proficiency in using the target language.

Secondly, EFL teachers primarily treat L2 writing as a tool for reinforcing vocabulary and language structures. According to Lee (2010), this phenomenon leads to a situation where L2 teaching professionals do not see themselves as writing teachers but rather a language teachers. In such contexts, teachers spend quite a lot of time marking student pieces of writing, leaving them with little time to perform tasks integral to their work as writing teachers. In contrast, ESL learning needs include enhancing cultural understanding and acquiring L2 literacy (Lee, 2010).

Thirdly, EFL writing contexts focus on helping learners cope with writing in an L2. Teachers need to implement novel methods and alternative techniques to help students develop their writing skills. ESL context is different from the EFL situation in that it uses the scaffolding method, which aims to provide temporary assistance to guide learners to write themselves. According to Taplin (2017), this learning technique supports students in reading and writing by amplifying the message they receive instead of simplifying it. An example of a method for teaching ESL students L2 is creating cloze passages for them to complete.

The Specificity of Second Language Writing Instructions

In my opinion, L2 writing instructions at a university level should be specific rather than being general. The reason is that high specificity address the unique language needs of different groups of L2 students. Accordingly, such instruction helps university students fulfill their university education requirements to succeed in their academic and professional settings. More importantly, specific instructions support the principal goal of English for Academic Purposes (EAP). In this regard, EAP refers to teaching English, mainly to enable learners to research and study in that language (Hyland & Hamp-Lyons, 2002).

In my opinion, also, ESL university students are better positioned to meet the requirements of specific academic work when curriculum designers use precise writing instructions. Here, the reason is that such writing instructions increase the capabilities of L2 students by enhancing the development of strategies and academic skills. Hyland and Hamp-Lyons (2002) corroborated that it is essential to ground instructions based on the linguistic, social, and cognitive demands of specific academic disciplines.

In recent years, teachers have come to the knowledge that teaching students who use English for specific purposes (ESP) only differs from teaching learners that use English for academic purposes (Hyland & Hamp-Lyons, 2002). With this variation, I think it is essential to use highly specific writing instructions to enhance academic knowledge dissemination. Hyland (2002) argued for the case of specificity and said that it is fundamental to key aspects of ESP. According to the author, ESP is centered on activities and language appropriate to particular needs, occupations, and disciplines in academic settings (Hyland, 2002).

Similarly, using specific rather than general writing instructions can help fix university students’ learning problems that emanate from school curricular gaps. Specific instructions are useful to such students as it helps them develop skills applicable in a relevant situation. Hyland (2002) argued that this solution is cost-effective and logistically undemanding since it requires few skilled personnel to implement. However, many countries are yet to implement this strategy due to their systems (Hyland, 2002).

Arguments Regarding L2 Written Corrective Feedback

The topic of whether teaching professionals should correct L2 students' writings has gained immense interest among researchers (Ellis, 2009). In recent years, teachers have used L2 written corrective feedback (WCF) as a mechanism to enhance students' accuracy in writing. Truscott (1996) and Ferris (1999) argued different perspectives on grammar correction's usefulness and practicality. Truscott (1996) argued against using written error correction or WCF for three reasons. First, it has harmful effects on students; secondly, it is ineffective for practical and theoretical reasons, and thirdly, no research has proved that this method is helpful. The author further claimed that there is compelling evidence indicating that grammar correction is ineffective (Truscott, 1996). However, Ferris (1999) opposed Truscott's point of view that teaching professionals must abandon WCF. This author claimed that WCF is valuable, and teachers should improve their writing accuracy (Ferris, 1999).

In my opinion, Ferris (1999) made the most plausible argument regarding L2 grammar correction. Two things show that Ferris (1999) has substantial evidence supporting the essence of grammar correction. First, Ferris (1999) acknowledged several ways to approach error correction, meaning Truscott (1996) had a narrow perspective on written corrective feedback methods. In my view, some WCF strategies would be less or more effective than others. This idea supports Ferris’s (1999) perspective that correctly done error correction is helpful to L2 student writers, while less effective ones would mislead them. Ferris (1999) cited five scholarly research that proved that WCF is useful in helping student writers improve their writing accuracy. Such studies demonstrated that precise, selective, and prioritized error correction could produce valuable results (Ferris, 1999). The idea that there is evidence supporting WCF means Ferris (1999) had the most potent argument on the controversial subject.

Conclusion

To conclude, Truscott (1996) relied on research that used college-level ESL students in the United States. According to Ferris (1999), this group of learners is less motivated to correct grammatical issues in their work than EFL students at the same academic level. The reason is that language classes for ESL students do not focus on process-oriented activities that help the learners to write accurately and fluently in the target language (Ferris, 1999). This argument strengthens Ferri's (1999) view that teachers should continue using WCF since prioritized and selected grammar correction is useful to students motivated to revise and correct their work.

References

Derewianka, B., & Jones, P. (2016). Teaching language in context. Oxford University Press. Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016.

Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107.

Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.

Hyland, K., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). EAP: Issues and directions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 1-12.

Hyland, K. (2002). Specificity revisited: How far should we go now? English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 385-395.

Lee, I. (2010). Writing teacher education and teacher learning: Testimonies of four EFL teachers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(3), 143-157.

Lei, X. (2008). Exploring a sociocultural approach to writing strategy research: Mediated actions in writing activities. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 217-236.

Taplin, A. (2017). Accounting for the needs of EAL/D students in the mainstream classroom. Metaphor, (1), 48.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-3.