Wen Xin

Dr. Mary Jo Reiff

ENG 801
9 Nov 2015
Theoretical Rationale: Approaches to Teaching Writing to ESL students
1. Background
The number of international students in U.S. higher educational institutions has been
continuously increasing. It seems that writing teachers in first year composition classes will
inevitably encounter ESL students at one point. (Although my primary focus is on Chinese
students, who, according to my previous research, have become the dominant group among the
diverse groups of ESL students, the pedagogical theory and application in this rationale are also
applicable for any ESL students. I would therefore only use the phrase ESL students in this
rationale.) These ESL students bring linguistic and cultural differences to FYC classrooms and
raise a set of challenges for their first year composition instructors. Because of the increasing
number of ESL students, many U.S universities have developed a completely independent
discipline of second-language writing often called the ESL program. Matsuda describes this as a
disciplinary division of labor. ESL programs offer language training to ESL students to help
improve their language proficiency in English. It seems like ESL students will be well prepared
before they take first year composition classes. First year composition teachers, because of the
existence of independent ESL programs, do not seem to have any responsibility to teach
language skills and cultural conventions to ESL writers but only treat them the same as native
English writers. However, because ESL programs and first-year composition programs are
administered by different departments and administrators and thus have different sets of goals,

research, and teaching practices, the preparation ESL students receive from ESL programs may
not be appropriate for their first year composition classes and other disciplines. In addition,
Matsuda believes that ESL students will not seem to have sufficient writing proficiency through
the language training of only several additional semesters. Therefore, second language issues
will inextricably appear in first year composition classes.
Before developing different approaches, writing teachers first need to distinguish different
types of ESL students so the pedagogies developed can suit students particular needs. According
to Reid, ESL students should be at least divided into two different groupsU.S. resident
students for whom English is a second (or third or fourth) language and students who have come
from non-English-speaking countries to study at postsecondary institutions in the U.S. The two
groups have learned English differently. Students of the former one have learned English by their
ears; that is, they have subconsciously acquired English by listening to others, have
sophisticated English oral fluency and listening skills, and understand U.S. culture. Students of
the latter one have learned English by their eyes: They have systematically learned English
grammar and vocabularies and have substantial reading skills. Unlike U.S. resident ESL students
who need information on local issues, such as lexicon and syntax, international students who
have already obtained knowledge on grammar and reading skills need information on cultural
expectations and different discourse communities. The targets in this rationale are international
students who are holding student visas for undergraduate studies; thus, they should be classified
into the second groupstudents who have come from non-English-speaking countries to study at
postsecondary institutions in the U.S. With this particular focus, writing teachers, then, need to
develop pedagogical approaches that fit ESL students needs.
2. Approaches

In terms of the issues of second language writers, there has been a debate of whether ESL
students should be placed into a separate ESL first year composition classroom or a mainstream,
regular first year composition class. Braine conducts a study in which he investigated ESL
students efficiency of learning writing in both types of classes. The results show that students
enrolled in the ESL class had higher grades on the exit examination and the lower rate of
withdrawal of the class, whereas students enrolled in the mainstream class had lower grades on
the examination and the higher rate of withdrawal. He then claims that rather than forcing ESL
students to enroll in mainstream first-year composition classes, teachers and advisors should
leave the choice to students themselves; Silva also advices that ESL students be offered as many
placement options as possible so they will have safe writing environment. Placing ESL
students into a separate first year composition class, of course, will offer them a friendly and
comfortable writing environment. It seems very unrealistic, however, to always place ESL
students into separate classrooms because they need to take not only writing classes but other
disciplines as well. More importantly, as we have seen in Braine study, many ESL students in
the mainstream class tended to withdraw from the class or otherwise had lower grades on the
exam; it seems very likely that students who choose to enroll in mainstream classes will
encounter many challenges. Only giving the options of placement thus cannot solve ESL issues
in first year composition classes.
On the other hand, as is mentioned above, ESL students eventually will have to take courses
with native students, and the mainstream composition course still seems to be the standard.
Placing ESL students into a mainstream classroom will be a more reasonable option, which
requires writing teachers to address ESL students particular needs in mainstream classrooms.
Land and Whitley point out the patterns of organization, which are acquired in rhetorical

communities where ESL students learn their native language, differ from the pattern of the
American conventional organization. The differences in the patterns also result in ESL students
being regarded as poor writers. Land and Whitely mention that the common belief of teaching
writing to ESL students in regular composition classes is that writing teachers need to not only
teach linguistic conventions of standard written English (SWE) but need to teach rhetorical
conventions of SWE as well. Silva agrees with the idea; according to Silvas article, many ESL
writers need information about rhetorical and conventional issues. Cai also makes a similar
claim, arguing that one of the biggest problems ESL students have in writing is that their
rhetorical conventions extremely differ from traditional rhetorical conventions, which causes
their writing to not meet the expectations of their instructors and audiences. Cai deems that such
different rhetorical conventions attribute to the deeper and broader social, political, ideological
beliefs and values that ESL students have gained from their native cultures. To effectively teach
writing to ESL students, Cai says that writing teachers first need to provide information on the
American rhetorical conventions and writing skills and then to explain the American cultural and
sociopolitical values and beliefs and disciplinary ideologies related to the academic discourse
community. In addition to the appropriate instruction, Cai further indicates that when evaluating
ESL students essays, writing teachers must detach themselves from the traditional rhetorical
conventions and look into the underlying factors that affect and shape ESL students writing.
Silva also mentions that writing teachers also need to be aware that the difference in rhetorical
conventions in ESL writers work is triggered by cultural backgrounds rather than cognitive or
education deficiencies. In short, this approach suggests writing teachers provide information on
cultural and rhetorical conventions with ESL students so they will produce writing that is
appropriate for different discourse communities in the U.S., especially the academic discourse

community.
The approach of teaching cultural and rhetorical conventions focuses a lot on the needs of
ESL students but does not give enough attention to native English writers. NES after all consist
of the majority in first year composition classes. How to prepare NES writers under the
environment of globalization, to some extent, is more crucial for first year composition teachers.
Land and Whitely believe that it is necessary for native students to develop a sophisticated
understanding of other patterns of organization, for the culture of the U.S. is becoming
pluralistic. Matsuda and Silva propose a cross-cultural composition course, which will not only
provide an ESL friendly environment for international students but will offer native English
speaker students an opportunity to learn different cultures and prepare them for a globalized
world. The course proposed has been successfully taught at Purdue University, demonstrating
that the mediated integration of both native and international students in a cross-cultural
composition course was an effective way of meeting the needs of both NES and ESL students.
Miller-Cochran agrees with the idea of cross-cultural composition courses by Matsuda and Silva.
She claims that a cross-cultural composition course will solve the dilemma by not separating
students but also by highlighting a curriculum that puts all students in a position of authority in
composition classrooms. The cross-cultural composition class thus seems to be the best approach
to teach writing to ESL students.
3. Application
To implement a cross-cultural composition course, a particular placement procedure should
be built for students enrollment. Ideally, the class should consist of ten native students and ten
ESL students. This practical application is for English 101 and has three major writing
assignments. The ultimate goal of this course is to help students develop a sophisticated

understanding of cultural differences and an ability to apply rhetorical conventions in other

cultures.
At the beginning of the semester, both U.S. students and ESL students are unaware of the
significance of cultural differences. For this reason, the first project aims to help students raise
awareness of cultural differences, which will allow students to accept other cultures before
judging them. Students will be asked to work in groups of two, with each student representing a
cultural group. Students then will interview each other to learn about culture that is different
from their own and identify dissonance. Each student finally needs to write an exploratory essay
to share the insights about cultural difference he or she obtains from this project.
The second project focuses on an in-depth cultural analysis. Students, in this project, will be
asked to work with the same person they worked with in the first project. Each student will be
asked to find an advertisement that will best reflect his or her culture. Students then will give the
advertisements chosen to their partners. Students also need to conduct further interviews with
their partners in which they ask particular cultural and social questions they possibly have about
the advertisements. Based on what they learned from the two interviews, each student will write
an analysis paper. The paper needs to address why the advertisement is organized in a particular
way, why the advertisement is effective under the particular cultural context, and what cultural
assumption the advertisement has. From the project, students will develop an in-depth
understanding of different cultures.
The third project involves multimodal composing. Students will first learn what multimodal
text is and then will be asked to create their own multimodal products that can reflect cultures
they have explored in the first two units. The multimodal product can be anything, such as a
poster, a flyer, a music video, a website, etc. Students then need to write rationale papers, in

which they discuss why they chose such particular multimodal texts, how different elements they
used help reflect the cultures, how they addressed audiences from those particular cultures
through their multimodal products, and whether the products can be really used.
Both U.S. and ESL students will benefit from this cross-cultural composition class. On the
one hand, U.S. students will develop an understanding of cultural differences and a view of
accommodating and valuing writing that includes various rhetorical organizations. On the other
hand, ESL students will also develop an understanding of U.S. culture, which will help them
better involve into other disciplines they have to take in the future. More importantly, ESL
students will have senses of sharing their cultures with native students who are not familiar with
any cultures expect American one. Native students will also have interest in learning other
cultures rather than simply consider ESL students not able to offer them any help in writing.

Annotated Bibliography
Braine, George. ESL Students in First-Year Writing Courses: ESL Versus Mainstream Classes.

Journal of Second Language Writing 5.2 (1996): 91-107. ProQuest. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.
It is not uncommon to see the presence of ESL students in first year writing courses. The
placement of ESL students, however, has been controversial. ESL writing specialists argue,
based on research on second language writing, that ESL students should be placed into
separate ESL writing classes, but mainstream writing courses still seem to be the norm.
Braine, at a medium size university, conducted a study in which he offered the options of
being enrolled in either a mainstream or an ESL writing class to ESL students and then
examined the ESL writers efficiency of learning writing in both classes. The results showed
that students enrolled in the ESL class had higher grades on the exit examination and the
lower rate of withdrawal of the class, whereas students enrolled in the mainstream class had
lower grades on the examination and the higher rate of withdrawal. The article also
explained the reasons for the high rate of withdrawal of ESL students from mainstream
classesESL students did not feel comfortable in the mainstream class. They were afraid of
asking questions and of speaking out in class. The study concluded that the majority of ESL
students tended to enroll in ESL writing classes and would perform better on the exit exam.
Braine thus claims that rather than forcing ESL students to enroll in first year writing
classes, teachers and advisors should leave the choice to students themselves. Braines
suggestion, to some extent, is very useful to teach writing to ESL/Chinese students if they
can be placed into a separate classroom. My only concern, however, is that ESL/Chinese
students need to take not only writing classes but other disciplines as well. It seems very
unrealistic to always place ESL/Chinese students in separate classrooms. Teachers might
have to force ESL students to step out from their comfort zone.
Cai, Guanjun. Beyond Bad Writing: Teaching English Composition to Chinese ESL Students.
1993. ProQuest. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.
Many Chinese writers enrolled in regular composition classes are regarded as poor writers
because of the features of indirectness, digressions, loosely developed topics, and lack of
transitional signals in their writing. Cai claims that such different rhetorical conventions
attribute to the deeper and broader social, political, ideological beliefs and values that the
Chinese students gained from their native cultures. He then argues that when evaluating
Chinese students writing, teachers of writing must detach themselves from the traditional
rhetorical convention and look into the underlying factors that affect and shape Chinese
students writing. In this article, Cai examines some sample published essays and illuminates
what the Chinese rhetoric convention is and how it differs from the American one. Based on
the comparisons, Cai then provides the pedagogical implications for teaching Chinese
students in regular composition classes: Writing teachers need to teach Chinese students not
only the American rhetorical conventions and writing skills but also the American cultural
and sociopolitical values and beliefs and disciplinary ideologies related to academic
discourse.
Land Jr., Robert and Catherine Whitley. Evaluating Second-Language Essays in Regular
Composition Classes: Toward a Pluralistic U.S Rhetoric. Second-Language Writing in the
Composition Classroom. Ed. Paul Kei Matsuda et al. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006.
324-331. Print.
Land and Whitley, in this article, claim that when evaluating ESL students writing, many
evaluators tend to find fault with the pattern of organizations even if the writing is error-free,

so the common belief of teaching writing to ESL students in regular college composition
classes is that teachers of writing not only need to teach linguistic conventions of standard
written English (SWE) but need to teach rhetorical conventions of SWE as well. In their
previous research, Land and Whitley have found that the text features that affect English
native speakers most negatively when reading ESL students writing are the patterns of
organization acquired in rhetorical communities where ESL students learned their native
language. In that research, native readers rated the ESL writers papers lower than those of
native writers. In contrast, non-native readers rated both the native speakers and non-native
speakers papers as being of about equal quality. Land and Whitley concluded that the
bilingual and multilingual readers experience with different types of texts used in different
cultures enable them to accommodate and value writing that includes various rhetorical
organizations, whereas native readers only expect SWE rhetorical conventions that highlight
strong sentence-to-sentence connections and a deductive logical arrangements but devalue
other rhetorical patterns of organizations. Land and Whitley argued that forcing ESL
students to write SWE and apply a deductive, linear argument, and then to evaluate their
writing based on how they accurately situate themselves into this particular context is
composition colonization. The article urges teachers of writing to change the way they read
and evaluate when assessing ESL students writing. Specifically, teachers must learn
rhetorical traditions their students bring into classrooms and consciously suppress their
desire for regarding ESL writers work as lacking in organization. Both teachers and native
speakers all need to develop a sophisticated understanding of other patterns of organization,
for the culture of the U.S. is becoming pluralistic. In doing so, Chinese students will have
more freedom in choosing patterns of organizations, and their presence in writing
classrooms will enable native speakers to develop an understanding of Chinese rhetorical
conventions.
Matsuda, Paul and Tony Silva. Cross-Cultural Composition: Mediated Integration of U.S. and
International Students. Second-Language Writing in the Composition Classroom. Ed. Paul
Kei Matsuda et al. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. 246-259. Print.
The article states that writing teachers and writing program administrators are encountering
two significant challenges brought by international students in U.S. colleges and
universities. The first challenge is that most writing teachers have not had enough
experiences teaching and working with ESL writers. The second challenge is how writing
administrators can offer educational opportunities in which all students will be prepared for
a globalized world. The piece has pointed out the fact that many ESL students have
difficulties adapting to mainstream writing courses because they feel intimidated and
uncomfortable when working with native English speakers who are more proficient in
English and familiar with U.S. classrooms as well as with writing teachers who may be
oblivious to their special needs. It is not hard, then, to imagine that Chinese students,
compromising a large group of international students in U.S. educational institutions, are
also facing this issue as taking the first year composition class. Matsuda and Silva proposed
a cross-cultural composition course, which would not only provide an ESL friendly
environment for international students but would offer native English speaker students an
opportunity to learn different cultures. This course thus would help solve the two challenges.
The course proposed had been successfully taught at Purdue University, demonstrating that
the mediated integration of both native and international students in a cross-cultural

composition course was an effective way of meeting the needs of both NES and ESL
students. To implement cross-cultural composition courses at universities, the course must
be taught by the teachers who are prepared to work with both NSE and ESL students. In
addition, to have a balanced enrollment of the two types of students, a particular placement
procedure should, too, be built.
Matsuda, Paul. Second-Language Writing in the Twentieth Century: A Situated Historical
Perspective. Second-Language Writing in the Composition Classroom. Ed. Paul Kei
Matsuda et al. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. 14-27. Print.
In this article, Matsuda gives an overview of second language issues in composition courses
through a historical context. According to Matsudas description on disciplinary division of
labor, ESL writers and their instructors of writing have been facing a gap between ESL
programs and first-year composition programs. Though all challenged by ESL writers, these
two programs are administered by different departments and administrators and thus have
different sets of goals, research, and teaching practices. The article illustrates the
development of second-language writing as a discipline and of major pedagogical
approaches; it also affords the historical work that explains why these divisions exist and
how compositionists can address the complexities ESL writers bring into the classroom. In
the end, Matsuda argues that second language writing should not be becoming a completely
independent discipline from other fields that also deal with second language and writing
issues. The field of second-language writing, rather, should serve as a symbolic field and
continue to contribute to provide an evolving discourse community where teachers and
administrators from various related fields can come together to discuss common issues and
concerns. Matsudas article points out a very interesting question, that is, whether it is first
year composition teachers responsibility to deal with ESL issues in the classroom because
of the existence of independent ESL programs. On the other hand, ESL writers do not seem
to have sufficient writing proficiency through the language training of several additional
semesters. Therefore, it seems like the first year composition program and ESL program
need to work together and work out clear labor tasks in order to effectively teach writing to
Chinese students and integrate them into classrooms.
Miller-Cochran, Susan. "Beyond "ESL Writing": Teaching Cross-Cultural Composition at a
Community College." Teaching English in the Two-Year College 40.1 (2012): 20-30.
ProQuest. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.
Miller-Cochran points out that with the increasing numbers of international students in
community colleges, the major challenge teachers of the first year writing class are facing is
how to effectively teach writing to both native English writers and non-native English
writers. The article discusses the debate regarding ESL writers in writing classrooms, that is,
whether ESL students should be placed in mainstream composition courses or segregated
ESL composition courses. These two options indeed have some value of helping deal with
the language issue in composition classroom; their disadvantages, however, may hinder ESL
students succeeding in their academic careers. Miller-Cochran agrees with the idea of crosscultural composition courses by Paul Matsuda and Tony Silva. She claims that a crosscultural composition course will solve the dilemma by not separating students but also by
highlighting a curriculum that puts all students in a position of authority in composition
classrooms. On the other hand, she also lists four major concerns in terms of implementing

cross-cultural composition in colleges: First, teachers of writing must be aware of their

stance or more importantly the stance of the program and institution in which they teach. A
course cannot change anything. Whether to accept diverse voices depends on the
institutions frame and expectation. Second, before designing and teaching a cross-cultural
course, teachers must have training in this particular field. Third, teachers have not had very
good resources to teach such a course because not many textbooks incorporate ESL
perspectives. Finally, a cross-cultural composition course might raise concerns for both nonnative and native students. ESL students worry that they will not do as well as native
students do when both of them are being evaluated together, and native students concern
whether ESL students could give them helpful and valuable feedback during peer review
because ESL students seem to be still developing their language competence. MillerCochrans article not only illuminates the disadvantage of placing ESL students either in
mainstream or ESL composition classes but also gives comments and cautions for teachers
of writing who intend to implement cross-cultural compositions. Compared to the options of
different placement, the cross-cultural approach seems more reasonable, but to apply this
cross-cultural approach to Chinese/ESL students, teachers of writing need to think of the
four concerns from Miller-Cochran.
Reid, Joy. Eye Learners and Ear Learners: Identifying the Language Needs of International
Student and U.S. Resident Writers. Second-Language Writing in the Composition
Classroom. Ed. Paul Kei Matsuda et al. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. 76-88. Print.
Reid divides ESL students into two different groupsU.S. resident students for whom
English is a second (or third or fourth) language and students who have come from nonEnglish-speaking countries to study at postsecondary institutions in the U.S. The two groups
of ESL students have learned English differently. The former ones have learned English by
their ears: They have subconsciously acquired English by listening to others; they thus have
sophisticated English oral fluency and listening skills, and they understand the U.S culture.
The latter ones, on the contrary, have learned English by their eyes: They have
systematically learned English grammar and vocabularies and have substantial reading
skills. The needs of these two groups of ESL students thus differ as well. Unlike U.S resident
ESL students who need information on local issues, such as lexicon and syntax, international
students who have gained good grammar and reading skills need information on cultural
expectations and different discourse communities. In order to teach writing to Chinese
students and integrate them into the first year composition class, teachers need to help them
understand the cultural expectations in the U.S.
Silva, Tony. On the Ethical Treatment of ESL Writers. Second-Language Writing in the
Composition Classroom. Ed. Paul Kei Matsuda et al. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006.
154-157. Print.
According to Silvas piece, there are four major ways in which ESL writers need to be
respected: they need to be (a)understood, (b) placed in suitable learning contexts, (c)
provided with appropriate instructions, and (d) evaluated fairly (155). First, teachers of
writing need to be aware that ESL writers differ from native English speaker writers, and
ESL writers have different learning and writing processes because of the differences in
cultures, rhetorical traditions, and linguistic backgrounds. Second, ESL students should be
offered as many placement options as possible so they will have a friendly and comfortable

writing environment. Silva claims that it should be ESL writers choice for being placed into
mainstream composition classes, basic writing classes, sheltered ESL classes, or crosscultural classes. Regardless, whichever ESL writers opt for, it is more important for their
teachers to have knowledge about ESL writing and experience working with ESL writers.
Third, teachers of writing need to treat ESL writers as intelligent human beings and unique
individuals with their own views and their own stories to tell, and to provide appropriate
instruction to ESL writers. Many ESL writers, Silva argues, need information about
rhetorical, linguistic, conventional, and strategic issues. Most importantly, ESL students
must be provided appropriate writing prompts that do not disadvantage ESL students. Silva
believes it would be more appropriate to ask ESL students to choose their own topics so as
to produce solid writing. Lastly, while evaluating, teachers of writing need to understand that
second language acquisition takes a long time and to expect ESL writing, in terms of
grammar, to be indistinguishable from NES writing is unrealistic. In addition, teachers also
need to be aware that the difference in the patterns of organization in ESL writers work is
triggered by cultural backgrounds rather than cognitive or education deficiencies. Silvas
article provides great insights for the first year composition teacher. As he argues, teachers
should treat their ESL students respectfully in order to teach writing effectively.
Zhu, Wei. Interaction and Feedback in Mixed Peer Response Groups. Second-Language
Writing in the Composition Classroom. Ed. Paul Kei Matsuda et al. Boston: Bedford/St.
Martins, 2006. 186-207. Print.
Zhu conducted a study investigating the interactions and feedback during peer reviewa
commonly assigned activity in first year composition classes. Zhu found that all students
participated in her study gave global feedback to their peers. ESL students oral participation
was relatively limited, however. In addition, ESL students tended to have less control over
conversations and were more likely to be interpreted by their native English speaker peers.
On the other hand, ESL students were able to provide valuable feedback, especially written
feedback. It is a little surprising that in this study, ESL students were able to provide
valuable global feedback, which may be required of the awareness of cultural and rhetoric
conventions. Since Zhus study only had three international participants, teachers of writing
may need a further study with large samples before making generalizations. It is very
common to see a peer review workshop taking place in a composition classroom; however,
some research has shown that ESL students do not feel comfortable when taking writing
classes with native English speakers. It would be, then, reasonable to assume that ESL
students may not feel comfortable as reviewing NESs papers and being reviewed by NES.
More importantly, since too much focus has been given to ESL students, teachers might also
need to investigate whether NSE writers would feel comfortable when their work is being
reviewed by non-native English speakers who are still developing their linguistic
proficiency. If further research can be done, it will help teachers of writing place and mix
ESL students during the process of peer review.