As already stated, the thesis was designed to shift from studying learning to write in English to informing teaching to write in English as an L2. Measuring linguistic skills underlying the writings of L2 writers both in ESL and EFL contexts is important to discover what L2 writers do, do not do, and should do as they write. It follows on that it is also important to examine teaching practices to see if the feedback given is based on the areas that have been discovered to be most strongly associated with strong writing. As such, while the first two studies explored the dimensions and difficulties of learning to write in English both in ESL and EFL contexts, the third study explored the dimensions and constraints of teaching L2 writing in the EFL context of Bangladesh. The study recruited 46 instructors of L2 writing at different public and private universities located in the capital city of Bangladesh, Dhaka. The study intended to discover how instructors’ academic backgrounds informed their practices and perceptions of teaching L2 writing in the EFL context of Bangladesh. As far as the findings of this study were concerned, they were simultaneously unique and universal.
This study discovered that the trends and traditions of English studies in
Bangladesh had been undergoing critical modifications. It also revealed that the paradigm of English studies in Bangladesh had been shifting from literature to language. A
significant number of young instructors who aged from 20-40 (78%) years specialized in language-related area compared to their senior counterparts who aged from 40-50+ (22%) years, specialized in literature. Alam (2011) has acknowledges this shift in English studies in Bangladesh, when he also details the causes and consequences of such a shift. English literature, which had been the dominant mode of English studies in the Indian
subcontinent, including Bangladesh, seemed to have been sliding backward. Referring to Thomas Kuhn, Canagarajah (2013) claims that “behind the rise and fall of intellectual paradigms” (p.441) the logic was that certain concepts serve their usefulness, so they are abandoned as new concepts are constructed to reflect new realizations and pedagogies. Donohue (2008) is apprehensive of the existence of the humanities in general, when he portends existential crises for English studies on the horizon. He avers that most of the concepts in the humanities in general, and English studies in particular may already have served their usefulness, which warrants an immediate overhauling of the humanities, including English studies, all over the world. The shift in the focus of specialization of the
English instructors in Bangladesh may have been influenced by these undercurrents of English studies around the globe. Such a shift is apparently pushing literature on the edge in Bangladesh.
Regarding the relegation of literature to a lesser position in Bangladesh, this reflection of new realizations and pedagogies may have been the rationale, but Alam (2011) presents compelling argument, explanations, and information to discount such a rationale. Alam (2011) implies that this shift toward language studies in Bangladesh is at once an aberration and an imposition. However controversial or convenient this shift toward language studies is, it has already critically changed the landscape of English studies in Bangladesh. This merits a nuanced exploration to discover what it implies (or does not imply) about the field of L2 writing in Bangladesh, as well as for the field L2 writing in general. The data suggested that this shift from literature to language was
apparently inevitable, but the data also cautioned against an uncritical submission to such a shift. Potentially, such a shift smacks of upending the knowledge base of English studies in Bangladesh, which revolves around literature for centuries. Adequate intellectual and infrastructural resources have not accrued independent of literature in Bangladesh. Therefore, supplanting literature with language, however promising it appears, might be pyrrhic for English studies in Bangladesh. This shift might not augur well for the
promotion of L2 writing in Bangladesh.
Despite such a shift in English studies in Bangladesh, this study discovered that like language learners who “too often, get cast as a uniform group, writing pedagogy relies on formulaic,one-size-fits-all instruction” (Athanases, Bannett, & Wahleithner,
2013,p.162), as if L2 writing instructors are a monolithic group of professionals across contexts. Ideally, the perceptions and teaching practices of L2 writing instructors vary across contexts significantly because of multiple factors. For example, because of the disciplinary division of labor between literature and language streams, the expertise of a literature professional is undoubtedly different from that of a language professional. Presumably, this difference in expertise between these two groups of professionals is reflected in the ways they approach the teaching of writing. In contrast, this study’s findings suggested that instructors from different professional backgrounds were
writing. They appeared to be an amorphous group of professionals, who were influenced by the same pedagogical and philosophical principles of teaching L2 writing.
For example, the feedback strategies of the vast majority of participants of this study were language-focused, not content focused. Only a minority of the participants provided feedback on both language and content. There did not seem to be a clear pattern across the participants in the ways they provided feedback, nor in the way did they believe feedback should be provided and they actually provided feedback. Indeed, because writing pedagogy is a complex, ongoing, and evolving process (Estrem & Reid, 2012), it
apparently is not uniform across contexts and instructors. If, however, the writing
instructors of this study had “disciplinary self-doubt” (Estrem & Reid, 2012, p.237), they would not have been teaching writing alike, in that their areas of expertise were different. This dimension of L2 writing pedagogy in Bangladesh, even though locally informed, is fraught with implications for the field of L2 writing globally. Considering all L2 writing instructors alike is a myth, but it is pervasive across contexts. Reid (2008) claims that there is a grain of truth in every myth. The finding of this study demonstrated that considering all L2 writing instructors alike across contexts might not be an essentially empty myth. The differences regarding perceptions and practices of feedback across the participants of this study were marginal, but the similarities were significant and critical. What accounts for that and whether it happens across contexts merit further research in Bangladesh and beyond to facilitate to the teaching of L2 writing.
This study demonstrated that the unique EFL context of teaching L2 writing in Bangladesh was not at all peculiar when it came to providing feedback on students’ writing. Regardless of instructors’ backgrounds, the dominant mode of feedback was grammar and mechanics. Instructors hardly commented on issues with organization, cohesion, and logic. Study one and two demonstrated that across languages and contexts, L2 writers were mainly concerned with grammar and vocabulary. While grammar and vocabulary are the building blocks of writing, teaching them disembodied does foster facility in writing. Some writing scholars (e.g., Truscott, 1996) suggest that writing instructors must not teach writing the ways students want in that students are not always informed of the right strategies of learning to write. Sommers (1982) as such contends that writing instructors must “sabotage” (p.154) students’ convictions about the appropriate teaching strategies. Truscott (1996) claims that student’s preference about feedback on
form does not constitute a strong rationale for writing instructors to provide feedback on form. The L2 writing instructors of this study did not align their teaching practices to the principles recommended by these writing scholars. The L2 writing instructors in
Bangladesh, instead, exposed a chasm between what teachers ideally should do and what they actually do. For the field of L2 writing, though, it is not altogether a peculiar scenario.
This study demonstrated nonetheless that teaching L2 writing in Bangladesh was student-centered, however controversial and ineffective it was. Leki (1991) claims that ignoring students’ request for error correction works against students’ motivation. Historically, ESL composition has privileged texts (Blanton, 1995). Zamel (1985) also claims that ESL teachers are more concerned with language specific errors as well as the superficial aspects of writing. This is a conservative, perhaps counter-productive, approach to teaching writing, which Zamel (1983) criticizes for reducing the complexity of
composing as adopting preconceived rhetorical frameworks. Writing essentially is not mechanical and syntactic; it is, instead, generative and semantic. A formulaic approach to teaching writing such as this deprives L2 writers of exploring and exploiting generative and semantic potential of language. L2 writing instructors in Bangladesh approached to teaching L2 writing the way their colleagues did elsewhere in the world. However, the intellectual infrastructure as well as the policies and politics of teaching L2 writing in Bangladesh were unique. Discovering the causes and consequences of enacting principles of L2 writing pedagogy, which are at once unique and universal, can definitely add new insights and information to the repertoire of L2 writing instructors to facilitate the teaching of L2 writing in the EFL context of Bangladesh.