The Learner-Centered Curriculum

In a learner-centered curriculum, Brookes and Grundy (1990) emphasized a humanistic element. By the humanistic element, they mean that the learner is the main resource for meanings (topics to talk and write about) and language (ways of talking and writing). Here, they believe that the learner should be free from imposition of language models, that self-expression should be encouraged and respected, and that this reflects the centrality of the learner. This approach is certainly true of many first-year composition classes for students in US universities and at the University of Pittsburgh (Atkinson & Ramanathan, 1995; Bartholomae, 2005). The anthology of articles in DeLuca, Fox, Johnson, Kogen, & DeLuca (2013) includes work by well-known ESL authors such as Raimes (2013) and Zamel (2013), where the dominance of particular models of ‘thesis statement’ and ‘controlling idea’ may be considered too confining in an era of post-modern approaches to education. (See Paulston (1999) for a useful overview of post-modern approaches in comparative education, which to some degree reflect ideologies in the development of first-year student writing. The theme of post-modernity is also raised in Leki et al., 2008.)

However, IEP curriculum designers need to consider the future tasks of learners in a range of disciplines, and not just in first-year composition classes. Whereas in first-year composition, the notion of ‘thesis

The Development of Writing in an I EP 197 statement’ and ‘supporting ideas’ and the five-paragraph essay may be outmoded and even rejected outright as ‘wrong’ (Atkinson & Ramana-than, 1995), it is clear that for many disciplines in the social sciences and sciences, writing must follow very strict models, such as the American Psychological Association guide to writing (e.g., American Psychological Association, 2010). Thus, lEPs must strike a balance between motivating students in a learner-centered curriculum and preparing them for their various social roles in writing, for example, as research writers and students in examination settings (e.g., Hamp-Lyons, 1986).

Brookes and Grundy (1990) also noted that learners need to be able to encode the perceived power inequalities between them and the interlocutor in an appropriate way and therefore be aware of, and control, register. In order to do that, learners must have a lexical repertoire in the 3000-9000 frequency bands (Schmitt & Schmitt, 2014), as was noted in Chapter 4. Brookes and Grundy (1990) also stress the integrated nature of writing with reading for ideas and that peer feedback is integral to the writing class, not least for gauging the effect on the reader.

Awareness of Genre

ESL writing textbooks have recognized and addressed the contexts in which students write for some time and have long paid attention to the concept of genre. Swales (1990) views a ‘genre’ as a standardized communicative event mutually understood by participants. He notes that knowledge of genres also sensitizes reading in preparation for writing. At the planning stage, knowledge of genre allows a writer to know what is expected. In writing a draft, the writer can focus on drawing readers’ attention to macro-level features, which allows the writer to express his/ her meaning for the intended audience.

In acknowledging different genres, Swales (1990) lists various text types that lEPs might prepare students for:

• 1. Explanatory writing - informing, which implies the audience does not know about a topic and lacks important background
• 2. Persuasive writing - persuading, which implies that the audience must be convinced to do something or to believe a position that the writer takes
• 3. Expressive writing - clarifying, which implies various modes of presentation
• 4. Literary writing and writing of personal letters

The integration of text with diagrams and other visual support has also been a vital part of writing. At least since Keith Johnson’s (1981) Communicate in Writing textbook, writing teachers and scholars have emphasized the connection between writing and charts, graphs, diagrams, andimages. Indeed, the IELTS examinations currently require examinees to be able to carry out ‘information transfer’ tasks based on a chart or graph (www.ielts-exam.net/ielts-writing/).

Over many years, a consensus among researchers is that attention to both process and product are among the most important ways that writers discover ideas, formulate goals and plans, express their ideas, assess their own writing, revise, and edit their papers. The writing process involves planning, drafting, and revising to ensure that the writer is able to communicate clearly with the reader.

Contrastive Rhetoric: L1 Influence in L2 Writing

One issue that often arises in the ESL academic writing classroom is that cultural assumptions about good writing vary as much as genre styles in English itself. A mismatch between cultures and genres, together with the requirement that students follow English-language ‘rules’, could be viewed as English language cultural hegemony or a conflict with international students’ conceptualization of ‘individualism’ and of what it means to ‘be’ a student-see Scollon (1991), which is a conference paper cited in Atkinson and Ramanathan (1995).

Cultural writing styles clearly differ (Kaplan, 2005). However, it is in EAP and ESP contexts that differences in cultural style may have a negative effect on the reader. For example, one influence of style might be that south Asian speakers transfer stylistic embellishment from their LI (Arabic, Sanskrit, and Persian influence) to their L2 English or conversely a Farsi text may not follow English language organization, making it harder for English-speaking readers to follow (Abasi, 2012). Other learners could assume that directly quoting long passages from a well-known author is a way to show respect; they may be unaware of the prohibition in English academic writing on ‘plagiarism’. Even if they are aware of it, how they deal with it may still be a problem (e.g., Li & Casanave, 2012). Indeed, IEP teachers are well aware that the relationship of one author’s work to the previous writing of others and the problem of plagiarism versus paraphrasing is a very important but difficult skill to teach and learn. Some textbooks spend a lot of time practicing it; for example, Arnaudet and Barret (1984) had a particularly strong focus and many exercises on this topic. Teachers may want to reduce flowery language, or ‘nonlinear’ style, or confront ‘cut-and-paste’ plagiarism in an aggressive way. However, a process approach and a sensitivity to contrastive rhetorical styles (Hyland, 2016a, Chapter 3; Kaplan, 2005) can mitigate the tensions between cultures and genres.

Other lower-level stylistic topics that all writers may struggle with are such choices between what Wells (1960) called nominal versus verbal style. For example, verbal style in a sentence such as The newspaper reported that Dr. Jones approved of the fact that the hens were producing

The Development of Writing in an I EP 199 eggs while ranging freely is much more cumbersome than The newspaper reported Dr. Jones’ approval of free-range egg production. This example is deliberately extreme, but writers do need to spend time word smithing and polishing their work, which reinforces the need for a process approach to writing.

Included in LI influence are the issues of spelling and spacing that were discussed in Section 6.4. These problems can be mitigated with grammar and spell-checkers, as the composing and revision process has been made infinitely easier in the past 30 years with the advent of computers and word-processing software. However, teaching learners how to use this software effectively can be time-consuming. In addition, the challenges of the ‘qwerty’ keyboard for speakers of non-alphabetic languages need to be addressed and learners need to be able to select which spelling errors need special focus.

7.2.5 Corrective Feedback: Second Language