1. Toward Critical
and Socio-cultural
approaches as new
theoretical
implications to L2
writing teaching
presented by Maria Prikhodko

2. What are new implications for possible educational shift?
Implications
Author
Procedures to be accomplished New approaches
and principles in
teaching 2L
writing
How to make composition
programs more equitable
to ESL students?
Silva
(1997)
ESL writers should be:
- understood;
-appropriately instructed;
-suitably placed;
- equitably assessed;
Ethical principle
How to negotiate tacit
cultural assumptions of
ESL individuals within
composition pedagogy?
Ramanathan
andAtkinson
(1999) ESL writers should be distinguished
by: voice, peer reviewing
strategies, critical thinking
strategies and textual ownership
Invisible pedagogy
understanding
individuals-in-
context
How to accommodate
new pedagogical
approaches considering
cultural and linguistic
differences?
Canagarajah(2002)
The following domains should be
critically revised:
- content (process of writing);
- approach;
- subject (multilingual writer);
- medium (E. as a lingua franca);
- ideological stance.
Negotiation
model with seeing
difference-as
resource

3. Applying an ethical approach in composition classroom ESL
writers should be (Silva, 1997):
How to make composition programs more equitable to
ESL students?
understood -at the discourse level (less ability to revise to “sound” right)
-at the linguistic level (a simpler style, less subordination, shorter
words, etc. (Silva, 1997))
-at the demographic level (distinguishing heterogeneous groups)
suitably placed
In a learning
context
through
- an equal enrollment: mainstream comp. classes, basic writing
classes, etc.(Silva,1994);
- valuable prior experience with ESL writers (open-minded, tolerant,
empathetic);
- a reflective adoption of curricula, materials and practices;
- consciousness of probable gaps in knowledge.
appropriately
instructed by
- meeting expectations by bringing relevant information about
rhetorical, linguistic, conventional and strategic issues in order to
address the 2L writing nature (David, Gordon & Polland, 1995)
- treating ESL writers as unique individuals with their own agenda
objectively
assessed by
- providing writing prompts (Kroll & Reid, 1994)
- viewing rhetorical differences as manifestations of cultural
differences (Leki, 1991; Crabe & Kaplan, 1989)

4. Interdependence between “ideologies of the individual” and focal
principles in writing pedagogy (Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999)
Western perception of individuals Non-western perception of individuals
with the right to voice and as a part of larger communities
judgment focusing on discovery focusing on interdependent learning
(Heath, 1991) and mastery (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996)
Lack of social training in expertise has resulted in inappropriate assessment (in
process writing (ex. Scollon, 1991), in peer review (ex. Carson & Nelson, 1998), in
critical thinking (ex. Atkinson, 1997)
?

5. The authors articulated 4 “invisible”
principles to relate ESL position practice to
composition curricula
1. “Voice” as an
individual
metaphorical
signature
2. Peer
reviewing
4.Textual
ownership
3.Critical
thinking

6. How to address those idiosyncratic features in 2L writing context?
1. Voice in its most influential version
was defined in terms of the notion
“heteroglossia” (Bakhtin, 1986)
where any language has a
heterogeneous nature (Sue, 1997,
p.18)
in expressing “inner self” by ESL writers:
• “interdependence”/”independence”
(Markus & Kitayama, 1991)
• inhibited linguistic socialization (Scollon &
Scollon, 1991; Clancy, 1986)
in defining and evaluating “good
writing” :
• misconception: “good writing” is not equal
to unique perspective on life (Li, 1996,
p.18)
in applying language strategies to be
able to hear those voices:
• memorization & imitations vs. personal
perceiving and paraphrasing (Ho, 1998)
in investigating ESL desire to assimilate
to a new culture by creating a “new
self” (Shen, 1989)
Assumecross-culturaldifference

7. 2. Peer reviewing
(Koch,1982; Hedgcock &
Lefkowiz,1992; Mittan,1989)
3. Critical thinking
(Atkinson, 1997; Gee, 1990)
4. Textual ownership
(Kroll, 1988; Pennycock,
1994b; Deckert, 1993)
How to address those idiosyncratic features in 2L writing context?
- assuming that cultures differently frame critical
viewing that, eventually, cause social problems
(Atkinson & Ramanathan, 1995; Atkinson, 1997;
Heath,1983; Fox, 1994; Li, 1996);
- thoroughly choosing composition textbooks (as they
could be canonized acc. to western perspective thus
necessitating critical skills (Ramanathan & Kaplan,
1996b; Atkinson, 1997)
-colliding of social/power distance and assessment
methods in teaching writing:
• Interdependence (Carson & Nelson, 1996; Allaei &
Connor,1990)/independence (Berlin,1987;
Elbow,1973)
• Social hierarchies (Chao, 1994; Nakane, 1970;
Roland, 1998 and others)
- considering conceptual complexities of plagiarism
• culturally specified perception of expressing
individuality (Ballard & Clanchy, 1991; Fox, 1994)

8. Accommodating new pedagogical assumptions through critical
understanding
(Canagarajan, 2002)
Content and practice
(writing)
Ideology
Medium (E. as a
lingua franca)
Approach
(+attitude)
Subject (ESL
individual)

9. How does critical perspective redefine writing
(as content and practice)? (Canagarajah,2002)
theory
thinking
pedagogy
Critical ethnography
linguistics
discourse
“Critical” develops an attitude that makes us see
the hidden components and subtle ramification
Writing is understood then:
• as situated (not autonomous) – by reconstructing reality;
• as social (not individualistic) – by presenting text as a mediated continuum;
• as material (not cognitive) – by negotiating of various instruments;
• as ideological (not formal) – being informed by conventions and values
• as historical (not spatial) - being shaped by struggles during its construction
The shift from writing as an OBJECT to writing as an ACTIVITY

10. How has this new perspective affected the educational settings?
1. Individuals:
• ESL learners and EFL learners (purposes of English learning);
• ESOL students and L1 learners (not seeing linguistic and grammatical
difference as the main gap);
• Advanced L2 leaners and L1 learners;
• Novice L2 learners and expert L2 learners
AsteachersweshouldnotconsiderDIFFERENCEperse
butchangeourattitudetowardit(Silva,1993,p.217)
2. Medium (E. as a lingua franca)
3. Examine one’s ideological stance whether it addresses the interests of equality
and justice + it remains open to the potential of gaining meta-awareness
• Separatist orientation Universalist orientation L. as a resource
(E. conditions ESL thinking) (E. as a neutral medium) (reflexive usage)

11. How has this new perspective affected the educational settings?
4. Approach (+attitude)
• Normative approach relativistic approach
(L1 writing is treated (taking students’ own
as the norm of reference) frames of reference seriously)
• Difference-as-deficit Difference-as-resource
(ESL students are imposed (their first language and cultural
to train the explicit forms of background as a source to master skills
Logic and reasoning (Fox, 1994)) and feel confidence)
• Conversion model Negotiation model (creatively
(surpassing students) merging conflicting discourses)
AsteachersweshouldnotconsiderDIFFERENCEperse
butchangeourattitudetowardit(Silva,1993,p.217)

12. Conclusion
Silva (1997) proposed in the
article “On the Ethical
Treatment of ESL Writers”:
a set of actions that would
facilitate ESL writers to be
considered equitable and
legitimate in composition
programs.
In its turn, those steps and
procedures would serve as
helpful hints that inform
educators about unique
peculiarities of ESL writers
as cultural beings.
Ramanathan and Atkinson
(1999) suggested in the
article “Individualism,
Academic Writing, and ESL
Writers”:
how could 4 hidden
ideological principles of
writing pedagogy be
interpreted in terms of
being visible and
considerable for teachers
and any educational
system as a whole.
Canagarajah (2002) laid out in
the article “Understanding
Critical Writing”:
his new framework that
could shift pedagogical
perceptions to ESL
teaching. According to the
scholars, difference-as-
resource framed in a
negotiation model would
lead L2 students to utilize
their linguistic and cultural
background as a
informative device to
culturally harmonized
environment.
Consciously considering composition class as a pluralistic dynamic zone full of linguistic and
cross-cultural idiosyncrasies.

13. References
1. Atkinson, D. (2000). On Peter Elbow’s response to ‘Individualism, Academic Writing, and ESL Writers’ by Via Ramanathan & Dwight
Atkinson. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(1), 71-76
2. Atkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 71-94.
3. Silva, T. (1997). On the ethical treatment of ESL writers. TESOL Quartely, 31(2), 359-363.
4. Ramanathan,V., Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 45-
75
5. Canagarajah, A.S.(2002). Understanding critical writing. Critical Academic Writing and Multilingual Students. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press, 1-22
6. Pennycock, A.(1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. London: Longman
7. Silva,T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly,
27(4), 657-678.
8. Fox,H.(1994). Listening to the world: Cultural issues in academic writing. Urbana, III.: National Council of Teachers of English.
9. Allaei, S.K., Connor,U. (1990). Exploring the dynamics of cross-cultural collaboration in writing classsrooms. The Writing Instructor,
10,19-28
10. Ramanathan,V., Atkinson,D.(1999). Ethnographical approaches and methods in L2 writing research: A critical guide and review.
Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 44-70.
11. Ho,I.(1998).Relationships between motivation/attitude, effort, English proficiency, and sociocultural educational factors and Taiwan
technological university/institute students’ English learning strategy use. Unpublished dissertation, Auburn University.
12. Koch,R.(1982). Syllogisms and superstitions: The current state of responding to writing. Language Arts, 9, 464-471.
13. Kroll, B. (1998). How college freshmen view plagiarism. Written Communication, 5, 203-221.
14. David,D., Gordon, B., & Pollard, R. (1995). Seeking common ground: Guiding assumptions for writing courses. College Composition
and Communication, 46, 522-532.
15. Grabe, W., Kaplan, R. (1989). Writing in a second language: Contrastive rhetoric. In D. Johnson & D. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing:
Empowering ESL students, 263 – 283. White Plains, NY: Longman.
16. Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 123-143.
17. Heath, S.B. (1991). The sense of being literate: Historical and cross-cultural features. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mothental, &P.D.
Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research,2,3-25, NY: Longman.
18. Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Cultures and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological
Review, 98, 224-253.
19. Cortazzi, M., Jin, L.(1996). Cultures of learning: Language classrooms in China. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language
classroom (169-206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Deckert, G. (1993). Perspectives on plagiarism from ESL students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing,2,131-148.