Discussions revolved around two research questions that this survey attempted to explore empirically. Findings were selectively presented to discover how they differed from or conform to the research questions. Most of the findings were straightforward, and they directly addressed two of the research questions. The first author, sometimes, drew upon his knowledge of the academic culture in Bangladesh to interpret some of the findings.
The findings of this questionnaire-based study suggested that the provision of feedback was almost identical across instructors from literature and language backgrounds. This finding was unexpected based on Silva and Leki’s (2004) view that the field of L2 writing should now be informed by both composition and applied linguistics, not by literature. It was expected as such that instructors with a language background would go about giving feedback to students in a different way from those from the more traditional literature-based background. In contrast, it appeared that despite background training, feedback had become akin to error correction. Hence, the main pedagogical approach toward L2 writing appeared still to be product-based. While this research did not collect data to discover whether the participants of this study taught L2 writing as a process or a product, the researcher yet implied that the teaching of L2 writing in Bangladesh was product-based given the reason that he taught English in Bangladesh. The implication here was that the field of L2 writing in Bangladesh had not embraced process- oriented L2 writing pedagogy, which considered writing as a non-linear and recursive means of thinking and discovering meaning through writing (Perl, 1980). L2 writing is more in the domain of language-related areas than literature; therefore, language-based instructors should have shown some signs of teaching L2 differently that aligned with the principles of teaching L2 writing. However, it seemed that the instructors were not informed by background training, and that they were, perhaps, constrained by cultural and institutional norms/traditions in the ways they taught L2 writing.
A large number of the participants from both groups provided feedback on syntax and punctuation. This evidence was worthy of note. For teaching L2 writing, a focus on grammar might not be entirely helpful. Both Matsuda (2012) and Ferris (2002) contend that grammar has to be taught with metalinguistic input and carefully planned mini- lessons. They contend that grammar has to be contextualized within the teaching of
writing; grammar should not be taught disembodied. However, possibly due to the
principles (e.g., multiple drafts, peer reviews, self-editing, delayed assessment) of process pedagogy not being in the teaching- repertoire of L2 writing instructors in Bangladesh (Shamsuzzaman & Everatt, 2013), such instructors still firmly believed that their
“expertise and energy are well-spent” (Shamsuzzaman & Everatt, 2013, p.73) only when they taught grammar. Based on his experience as a teacher in Bangladesh, the researcher argued that L2 writing instructors in Bangladesh were victims of a grammar-based tradition, which was too strong to permit more ambitious and experimental pedagogical approaches. Some instructors in Bangladesh perhaps had expertise in teaching L2 writing as this researcher anecdotally knew, but they lacked the environment to enact their
expertise. Again, the data showed that the academic backgrounds of L2 writing instructors exerted no influence on their ways of teaching.
For example, one instructor of the first age group (20-29) from a language-based background claims: “In this system of product writing, if any single teacher (or two) tries to use process writing, colleagues will object.” This could apparently imply that young instructors with a language-based background may have had the preparation and the determination to teach writing as a process, when instructors are not primarily occupied with errors and editing (Raimes, 1985). Their views of teaching writing perhaps conflicted with that of their older colleagues, who, because of a literature-based background,
considered writing as an orthographic repetition of speech. This attitude toward teaching writing proposes a pedagogical practice that emphasizes only correction. Therefore, the specter of grammar looms large in a writing classroom in Bangladesh, though grammar study may have little to do with composing (Zamel, 1976). Writers are instructed, even encouraged, to accomplish a piece of writing by enacting some familiar steps and stages. Perl (1980) contends that a formulaic approach produces formulaic writing, cutting off the possibility of discovering something new through the process of writing. A grammar- dependent pedagogical approach toward teaching writing does not allow writers options and opportunities to engage with the creative and critical aspects of a piece of writing. Because some of the young instructors seem to have been leaning toward that principle of teaching writing, the older instructors should co- operate and not object to the younger instructors teaching writing the way they consider appropriate and effective. Lack of collaboration and co-operation among colleagues at different universities in Bangladesh have been responsible for rendering L2 writing virtually ineffective. Given the perspective
of the young instructor, age and/or academic backgrounds seemed critical to perceive the strategies of teaching L2 writing.
Instructors’ perceptions about teaching L2 writing varied from the practice of teaching in Bangladesh because of the unique academic culture. A significant percentage of participants both from language-based and literature-based backgrounds claimed that they feel overwhelmed as they provide feedback. This has been true about writing instructors, regardless of contexts. Sommers (1982) contends that responding to and commenting on students writing consumes the largest proportion of time of the writing instructors, around 20-40 minutes for each paper. Bangladesh, nonetheless, presents an extraordinary context, since one of the instructors mentioned that she had to check around 200 scripts per course, when she had been teaching three courses in a semester. However committed an instructor is, under such a circumstance, he/she is completely unable to streamline his/her teaching practice to the standard theories of the field of L2 writing. They are trapped in a unique culture of L2 writing to “reduce, categorize, and generalize”
(Zamel, 1997, p. 342). While reducing the class size to an optimal level is determined by political and economic constraints and criteria in Bangladesh as anywhere else in the world, which instructors can hardly influence, they, of course, can reduce the number of assignments to an optimal level. Admittedly, “teaching writing in English is altogether a different phenomenon in Bangladesh” (Shamsuzzaman & Everatt, 2013, p.81), but this is not a valid excuse to neglecting their responsibilities or to feel helpless. When they
invested their time, energy, and expertise carefully and more informed, they could enhance their teaching outcome. In order for that to happen, reducing the number of assignments merits critical consideration.
Regardless of the background, around 90% of instructors claimed that they identified all errors, and that around 70% instructors maintained that providing feedback was mandatory. Researchers such as Connors and Lunsford (1988) and Ferris (2006) had shown that no instructor either in an ESL or an EFL context was capable of reaching that ballpark of error identification. This shows a chasm between practice and perception focused by research question two, in that around 30% instructors surveyed refrained from providing any feedback at all. Therefore, instructors in Bangladesh must examine whether their perceptions of teaching writing align with their practices of teaching it. Furthermore, all their perceptions might not be valid or need critical modifications before they are
enacted to help student learn writing. Providing feedback or responding to students’
writing is a thorny issue (Raimes, 1991); there is no universal and unanimous way of doing it. The time and type of feedback are contingent upon an individual student’s idiosyncratic needs determined by his prior exposure to the target language, and his aptitude for and attitude to learn it. L2 writing instructors in Bangladesh must realize that providing feedback to help student learn writing is not mandatory in that Knoblauch and Brannon (1981) contended having examined a large body of literature on error correction on native speakers that marking errors on students’ paper does not help them improve their writing or even eliminate the errors. To some extent, they must shift their attention away from error/feedback in teaching writing as one participant mentioned: “Students may feel inhibited by constant error correction and might be discouraged.”
This uncritical submission to feedback to teach to help students write might imply that students’ sensitivity toward the method of teaching writing was not considered critically. The power and the pervasiveness of the red pen might overwhelm or cripple students to perform up to their potential, as one of the participants believed, “Red pen might make first year students frightened.” Breidenbach (2006) contends that most writers have an intense symbiotic relationship with a paper when it is new-born; it has no life independent of a writer, so it becomes the writer. The blobs of red ink on the paper bleed the writer to crush his/her ego and to damage his confidence. A situation such as this is responsible for initiating teacher-induced errors (Raimes, 1991). The provision of feedback, then, warrants caution and informed consideration so that the students are not hurt or humiliated by their teachers. Premature and rigid attempt to correct students’ writing along with hostile and mean-spirited comments (Sommers, 1982) is potentially counterproductive in helping students learn to write. A grammar-dependent approach to teaching writing that L2 writing instructors in Bangladesh upheld was more teacher- centered than student-friendly. This system should undergo significant modifications to yield an environment conducive to teaching L2 writing in Bangladesh inasmuch as ESL students do not need large doses of language instruction to improve writing (Raimes, 1985). Because almost all participants believe in the potential of feedback in helping students learn writing, instructors’ background training is not a significant predictor of approaching the teaching of L2 writing in Bangladesh.
Of the 46 participants of this survey, only 5 had Ph.D.’s. Around 89% of the participants had only M.A’.s. While a Ph.D. does not insure effective teaching by itself, the possession of a Ph.D. yet indicates maximum academic preparation and intellectual excellence to approach teaching in a more informed fashion. A lack of a Ph.D. suggested that the instructors of this study were not intellectually advanced enough to adopt a pedagogical option, which considers the unique local constraints to maximize learning outcome. Also, English is a staple of Anglo-American culture. However, a vast majority of the participants (63%) earned their qualifications from Asian countries. It is hardly
controversial to claim that all the ideas and information as well as the theories of teaching L2 writing are generated in the Anglo-American culture. Teaching effectively presupposes earning qualifications from this culture. L2 writing instructors in Bangladesh, then, did not have proper training from the right place to teach effectively. Only 17% of the participants earned their qualifications from North America, where the field of composition and L2 writing originated and flourished (Silva, 2006; Silva & Leki, 2004), but none claimed specialty in composition or L2 writing. Not having a Ph.D. as well as discipline specific qualification perhaps adversely affecting the teaching of L2 writing in Bangladesh.
The vast majority of the participants claimed that they published for further professional development, which again showed the gap between perception and practice with regard to teaching L2 writing in Bangladesh. Because of his stint at a few universities in Bangladesh, the researcher could confirm that most of the English faculty members in Bangladesh continued teaching without publishing. A cursory view of the profiles of the instructors posted on the Internet would show that most of the instructors had hardly published even in the local or regional journals, let alone in prestigious international ones. English faculty members in Bangladesh are immune to ‘publish or perish’ culture.
Hairstone (1986) contends that one of the pitfalls to teaching composition effectively is that composition instructors are not writers themselves. They teach composition without knowing what it takes and means to be writers. L2 writing instructors in Bangladesh, however committed they are in helping students learn writing, are essentially unprepared - even ineligible- to teach composition until they write themselves. They must remember that being writing instructors presupposes knowledge about the field of writing, and that the teaching of writing presupposes being writers themselves.
The data from this study suggested that younger instructors in Bangladesh prefer to focus on language streams for specialization, in contrast to their predecessors from more literature- based background. This trend will potentially change the landscape of teaching L2 writing in Bangladesh. However, the current data suggest that this trend is not yet leading to any discernible change in L2 writing teaching practices. The younger instructors in Bangladesh were possibly still too young to hold important positions within their
institutions, which would allow them to propose and enact pedagogical policies. They were not yet leaders; they were, instead, followers. They followed the senior instructors, whose expertise was literature. Given that the influence of literature background
instructors was potentially on the decline because of the emergence of the language background instructors, the field of L2 writing in Bangladesh would show evidence of change and emerge reformed in the years to come, when it would become clear that “many of those who have been teaching English writing at the tertiary level in Bangladesh
apparently do not seem to understand the principles involved in second language teaching” (Shamsuzzaman & Everatt, 2013, p.71). It is a simplistic conclusion that an increase in the number of language-based professionals as well as their ability to influence the dynamics of teaching would effect effective L2 writing teaching in Bangladesh. They must attend conferences and workshops led by both local and international presenters who can share approaches to teaching writing that respond to their contextual needs. Instructors’ background (i.e., language-based) and age (i.e., young), then, will lead to change L2 writing pedagogy in Bangladesh in the years to come.
5.8 Conclusion
Bangladesh presents an interesting case for the study of change within an educational context. The clash of expertise and the distribution of power between instructors inadvertently, but inevitably, disadvantages the promotion of the field of L2 writing. However, this scenario may be temporary, in that in Bangladesh, like many places around the world, “the student population, institutional mission and available pedagogical
resources are constantly shifting” (Matsuda, 2008, p. 168). Such a shift may be forced through the changing background experience of L2 writing instructors – as those with specialism in more language- based areas become dominant within institutions, there should be a shift in practice, which should be open to investigation. This study provides a basis on which to observe some of these shifts transpiring in Bangladesh with regard to L2
writing. The findings indicate that, although there is a shift in background experience of instructors, this shift does not seem to be influencing changes in practice. Clearly,
instructors in Bangladesh operate under a complexity of socio-economic culture of foreign language policies and politics. In such a situation, it may be expected that change will not be immediate. Indeed, because the field of L2 writing has been shifting from
interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary (Matsuda, 2013), this may further compound the context of teaching making change a relatively complex and potentially slow process. Certainly, in the case of feedback, practices will be influenced by institutional contexts as much as instructors’ background. However, further research is necessary; for example, the present data focused on how the instructors taught, it did not tell us why they taught the way they did. A more comprehensive study, perhaps using more qualitative data
techniques, may be required to investigate further the present context of L2 writing teaching in Bangladesh in order to inform predictions about its future development.
Nonetheless, it is a significant step to critique the latest developments and future directions of the teaching of L2 writing in Bangladesh.
Chapter 6
GENERAL DISCUSSION
6.1 Overview
This thesis reports the findings of three studies conducted both in ESL (i.e., New Zealand) and EFL (i.e., Bangladesh) contexts. There were 146 participants across the three studies. The participants of the first two studies were L2 writers in English. The participants of the third study were instructors of L2 writers in the EFL context of Bangladesh. Hence, the focus of this thesis shifted from learning to teaching L2 writing in English. The objectives of the work were to understand and facilitate the learning as well as the teaching of L2 writing in English both in ESL and EFL contexts. The research was based on the
assumption that learners’ academic and cultural backgrounds, as well as their varying level of proficiency in such components of language as grammar and vocabulary, critically influenced the ways learners perceived and practiced writing in English. As a result, the studies designed investigation tools, such as background questionnaires, grammaticality judgement tests, vocabulary tests and writing tasks, to determine the dimensions of interactions between students and instructors that might influence the learning and teaching of L2 writing in English. The empirical information this study gleaned and the explanations it offered would help inform and re-conceptualize the teaching and learning of L2 writing in English across contexts. The findings suggested that L2 writers and instructors in English were influenced by multiple variables across contexts, which presented unique and universal characteristics of teaching and learning L2 writing in English.