UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Voices from across cultures: language socialization among college students in an English literature classroom… Nishizawa, Sumiko 1997

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1997-0184.pdf [ 11.59MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0078108.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078108-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078108-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078108-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078108-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078108-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078108-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

VOICES F R O M ACROSS CULTURES: LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATION A M O N G C O L L E G E STUDENTS IN A N ENGLISH LITERATURE CLASSROOM AND ITS ESL ADJUNCT COURSE by SUMIKO NISHIZAWA B A . Japan Women's University, Tokyo, Japan 1978 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL F U L F I L L M E N T OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE D E G R E E OF M A S T E R OF ARTS in THE F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES D E P A R T M E N T OF L A N G U A G E EDUCATION We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A April 1997 © Sumiko Nishizawa 1997 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Lan vAt*fl £- E oLiLflyfi CHA The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) ii ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to explore the role that sociocultural context plays in college students' socialization into the classroom culture of a Canadian community college. To this end, it exarnined the nature of a college first year English hterature classroom; the social, cultural, and academic values and norms promoted both exphcitly and imphcitly in that classroom; and the tasks designed by instructors to enable the students to achieve the stated goals of the course and their own personal goals. The study further explored the role of this hterature class's ESL adjunct class in promoting language and cultural socialization, and examined similarities and differences in the socialization experiences of native speakers (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS) of English. This study employed an ethnographic approach and analyzed data mainly collected from classroom observations, video- and audio-taping of classroom tasks and activities, interviews with the instructors and students, and questionnaires. "Task" was the key unit of analysis, viewed from a language socialization perspective: tasks as sociocultural activities in which social and cultural components are embedded. This study was conducted over one semester (fourteen weeks); sixty-five lessons for the English hterature class and twelve lessons for its adjunct were observed and video-taped. This study examined the planned curriculum and the lived curriculum of the hterature class in order to analyze social, cultural, and academic values and norms promoted in the class, and how students perceived these values and norms, created the classroom culture, and constructed knowledge. The qualitative analysis of these two curricula~planned and lived—suggested the complex nature of classroom culture created by its members' interactions with other members. The tasks embraced social, cultural, and academic values and norms; while engaging in these tasks, students learned academic language, reconceptualized then-perspectives, and acquired socially-constructed knowledge. The study also described non-native speakers' difficulties, and suggested that the adjunct class provided them with scaffolding and facilitated their language socialization. Looking to the future, this study offers pedagogical implications for second-language learning and teaching: first, NNSs' communicative competence is socially constructed through interactions with NSs, and thus NNSs' language socialization should be examined in relation to that of NSs; second, classroom tasks are not culturally neutral; thus sociocultural perspectives must be considered when planning tasks; third, adjunct models are most effectively constructed from a sociocultural perspective. Finally, this study suggests that creating a dichotomy between NS and NNS, novice and expert, and North American culture and Asian culture oversimplifies the challenges of a classroom culture which is likely to place sociocultural, conceptual, and linguistic demands upon all students. iv T A B L E OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii TABLE OF CONTENTS... iv LIST OF FIGURES viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ix Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background to the Problem 1 1.2 The Integration of Language and Content 3 1.2.1 Adjunct Instruction 5 1.2.2 Native Speakers' Role 6 1.2.3 Task as a Unit of Analysis 6 1.2.4 The Language Socialization Perspective and the Adjunct Model...7 1.3 Research Purpose 9 1.3.1 Suitabihty of Course Content 10 1.3.2 The Personal Context 11 1.3.3 Research Questions 13 1.4 Significance of the Study 14 1.5 Organization of the Thesis 16 Chapter 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 19 2.1 Task-based Research in SLA: Psycholinguistic Approach to Language Learning 19 2.1.1 Definitions of Task 19 2.1.2 Task in SLA Research 20 2.2 Sociocultural Approaches to Language Learning 24 2.2.1 Language Socialization 24 Task in Language Socialization Research 27 2.2.2 A Sociocultural Psychology 28 Activity Theory 28 The Zone of Proximal Development 30 2.2.3 Language Socialization Research 31 Language Socialization Research in First Language 32 Language Socialization Research in Second Language ...33 2.3 Literacy as Social Practice 38 2.4 Content-based Instruction 42 2.4.1 A Rationale for Content-based Instruction 43 2.4.2 Program Models 45 Theme-based Instruction 46 Sheltered Instruction 47 Adjunct Instruction 50 V 2 A.2 A The Merits and Demerits of Adjunct Instruction 53 2.4.3 Subject Areas 55 Social Studies 56 Literature 57 2.4.4 Research Imphcations for Adjunct Instruction 59 Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY 62 3.1 Ethnographic Research 62 3.2 School Sites 65 3.3 Lessons and Instructors Sampled 65 3.4 Participants 66 3.5 Data Collection 67 3.5.1 Recording Procedures 68 3.5.2 Interviews 70 3.5.3 Student Questionnaires 71 3.5.4 Writing 72 3.6 Method of Analysis 72 3.6.1 Task as Focus 72 3.6.2 Transcription Procedures of Student Tasks 72 3.6.3 Analysis 73 3.7 Issues of Vahdity 73 3.7.1 Internal Vahdity 73 3.7.2 External Vahdity 75 Chapter 4 THE LITERATURE COURSE: PLANNED CURRICULUM 77 4.1 Literature Course 77 4.2 English 106 Literature Course 78 4.2.1 Course Objectives and Content (Reading and Writing Tasks) 79 4.2.2 Course Structure 85 4.2.3 Declared Method of Instruction 85 4.2.4 Pedagogical Tasks and Activities 87 4.2.5 Course Assignments 89 4.2.6 Method of Evaluation 93 4.3 Social, Cultural, and Academic Values and Norms Promoted in the Course 94 4.3.1 Individuahsm 94 4.3.2 Collaboration 97 4.3.3 Equality 100 4.3.4 Poststructural Approach to Literary Interpretation and Classroom Practice 102 Chapter 5 THE LITERATURE CLASS: LIVED CURRICULUM 105 5.1 Literature Class 105 5.1.1 The Students 106 5.1.2 Classroom Tasks and Activities 107 vi 5.2 Input Tasks 107 5.2.1 Lecture 109 5.2.2 Critical Reading 113 5.2.3 Writing Theme Statements 114 5.2.4 Whole-class Discussion 116 5.2.5 Essay Analysis 117 5.2.6 Quizzes 117 5.2.7 Learning about Culture From Literature 119 5.3 Interactive Tasks 120 5.3.1 Small-group Discussions 120 Examples of Small-group Discussions 122 Learning about Culture from Fellow Students 131 5.3.2 Peer Editing 133 5.3.3 In-class Writing 135 5.4 Output/Evaluative Tasks 136 5.4.1 Essay Writing 136 5.4.2 Editing (Essay Editing) 140 5.4.3 In-class Essay Writing 142 Chapter 6 Participants' Perceptions and Perspectives 145 6.1 The Students 145 6.1.1 Native Speakers of English 146 6.1.2 Non-adjunct, Non-native Speakers of English 147 6.1.3 Adjunct Students 148 6.2 Becorning Literate in the Literature Class 150 6.3 Process of Language Socialization 151 6.3.1 Perceptions of the Classroom Culture 152 6.3.2 Negotiation 153 6.3.3 Reconceptualization 155 6.4 Classroom as Society 156 6.4.1 Individuahsm 156 6.4.2 Collaboration 158 6.4.3 Equality 162 6.4.4 Poststructural Approach to Literary Interpretation and Classroom Practice 163 6.5 Learning Together: Non-native Speakers' Perceptions 165 6.5.1 Linguistic Problems 165 6.5.2 Sociocultural Gaps 167 Chapter 7 ADJUNCT COURSE: PLANNED AND LIVED CURRICULUM 171 7.1 Adjunct Course: Planned Curriculum 171 7.1.1 Course Objectives and Content 172 7.1.2 Course Activities 173 7.1.3 Course Structure 173 7.1.4 Method of Evaluation 173 7.1.5 Instructor 174 7.2 Adjunct Course: Lived Curriculum 174 7.2.1 Classroom Tasks and Activities 176 Lecture and Whole-class Discussion 178 Small-group Discussions 181 Oral Presentation 185 Individual Conference 186 Other Tasks 187 7.2.2 Classroom Culture 187 Chapter 8 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS 190 8.1 What was the Nature of this College First-year English Literature Course? 190 8.1.1 The Literature Class as Community 190 8.1.2 Social, Cultural, and Academic Values and Norms in the Community 192 8.2 What was the Nature of the English Literature Classroom Tasks? 199 8.2.1 Task as Sociocultural Activity 199 8.2.2 Students' Language Socialization 200 8.3 What Kinds of Difficulties did NNSs Experience? 202 8.3.1 Linguistic Problems 202 8.3.2 Sociocultural Gaps 203 8.3.3 Psychological Difficulties 203 8.4 How did the Adjunct Course Help NNSs Cope? 204 8.4.1 Language and Content Learning 206 8.4.2 Cultural Learning 207 8.4.3 Language Socialization 208 8.4.4 Challenges 209 8.5 Pedagogical ImpHcations for Second Language Education 212 8.5.1 Multicultural Classrooms: NS-NNS Communication 213 8.5.2 Task Planning for Multicultural Classrooms 217 8.5.3 Adjunct Course 220 8.5.4 Moving beyond the NNS/NS Dichotomy 222 8.6 Limitations to the Research 225 8.7 Suggestions for Future Research 227 Chapter 9 REFLECTIONS OF PLANNED AND LIVED RESEARCH 230 References 238 Appendix A CONSENT FORMS 251 Appendix B INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 256 Appendix C QUESTIONNAIRE 259 Appendix D TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS 262 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1 Timetable for English 106 and EASL 498 (Adjunct) 68 Figure 3.2 The number of the students 69 Figure 3.3 Data collection procedure 71 Figure 4.1 Timetable for English 106 85 Figure 5.1 The number of students in English 106 107 Figure 5.2 Classroom tasks and activities 108 Figure 5.3 Course objectives and tasks 109 Figure 5.4 Students'performance 139 Figure 7.1 Tasks in adjunct class and English 106 177 Figure 8.1 Construction of classroom culture 192 ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge and thank all people who have shared my journey since coming to Canada. Without their support, I would not have been able to complete my thesis. First, I would like to thank my thesis committee members, Margaret Early, Patricia Duff, and Lee Gunderson. Margaret Early and Patricia Duff, in particular, provided me throughout my research with valuable insights to help me fulfill this challenging work. Lee Gunderson offered extensive editorial commentary. I am grateful to all three of them for their advice, encouragement, and support. Second, I would like to acknowledge the inspiration and warm support provided by Howard Eaton and Jan Selman. I also thank Barbara Coward who first suggested that I should explore the issues of this study and has given me encouragement and support, and Tom Whalley whose knowledge of intercultural communication helped me broaden my perspectives and develop the analysis of this study. I am also very grateful to friends for sharing research interests, friendship, and life with me. With Miki Niiyama, my co-traveller on this thesis journey, I have shared the challenges of Canadian graduate student life in our native Japanese. Melanie Yip has shared good times and bad times with me and always given me moral support. Janet Allwork, my English literature teacher, my editor, and my friend deserves a special word of thanks; she has been a rich source of wisdom, friendship, and love, which has enabled me to carry on my journey. My final thanks is to my family members. Their love and support have encouraged me along this journey and helped me reach where I am today. I am deeply appreciative. Finishing my thesis allows me to embark on a new journey. Like students in my study, I will search for my identity and my role in this society, and would like to contribute to it to the extent that I can. I believe that this is the only way I can think of to show my appreciation to all who have helped me—the only way I can return what I have been given. 1 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background to the Problem The level of overseas student and immigrant enrollment in post-secondary institutions has been increasing in both Canada and the U.S. (BariL 1991). In British Columbia, in 1991, 7.3% of undergraduate emollment consisted of overseas students. Similarly, in the U.S., as Crandall (1993) points out, a growing number of university students are non-native speakers of English and 'limited English proficient, requiring some additional English instruction" (p. 111). This development has introduced a new level of complexity into instruction in post-secondary classrooms. Most universities both in Canada and the U.S. tend to assess overseas students according to their performance on standardized English proficiency tests such as the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) or the Michigan Test of English Language Proficiency (MTELP). The vahdity of these measurements, however, is controversial since research suggests that many factors other than mere English proficiency should be considered for admissions decisions (Graham, 1987). In fact, after their admission, overseas students may find that their language skills are not able to meet the demands of their course work; whatever their major, they are expected to acquire in a limited time communicative competence as well as linguistic knowledge, together with critical thinking ability, reading, and writing skills (Leki & Carson, 1994). Despite succeeding in the TOEFL examination, they nevertheless do not yet possess the necessary speaking and writing skills to feel comfortable in their new environment. Because of their limited 2 English proficiency, they tend to experience anxieties and high pressure when participating in class discussions with native speakers. If their English proficiency has not reached the required level to attain university admission, many overseas students enroll in other post-secondary institutions such as community colleges or private colleges in which ESL courses are offered, so that they can improve their English. Even then, after entering university, many students find that the preparation provided by ESL courses is insufficient to equip them for regular university courses (Leki & Carson, 1994). Whether they are already in university, or in a preparatory ESL program, they need courses that explicitly and pointedly help them cope with "real" university course work. Cultural differences can also hinder students' adaptation to the new environment. This applies not only to overseas students but also to those who are immigrants or permanent residents from non-English backgrounds; such students have to struggle to bridge both linguistic and cultural gaps. Indeed, failure to bridge either one of these two gaps can have deleterious effects on students' achievement. In Canada, many post-secondary ESL students are at first placed in an ESL classroom to improve their English. Here, their instructor is the only native speaker of English. This environment can provide an advantage for the students since they feel less intimidated and anxious in ESL classrooms than in regular classrooms with native speakers. But this atmosphere also disadvantages them because they do not have a chance to communicate with students who are native speakers of English nor to experience mainstream classroom culture. When the students complete the ESL requirement, they can take regular courses with native speakers of English; but they usually have difficulty adapting to the new 3 classroom culture--participating in class discussions or small group discussions, taking notes, doing assignments, and communicating with native speaker students in and outside class. Although they have experienced these activities in ESL classrooms, the dynamics of mainstream classroom cultiu-e--different as they are from those of the ESL classroom— discomfit them and isolate them from their fellow students. 1.2 The Integration of Language and Content To help students bridge gaps between ESL classrooms and mainstream classrooms, the integration of language and content has become the focus of several studies (Brinton, Snow & Wesche, 1989; CrandalL 1993; Mohan, 1986) and curriculum at many institutions, and has been employed in various classroom settings. These studies have highHghted the positive effects of this integration. As opposed to the traditional view in which language is taught in isolation, or in relation to notions, functions, and other aspects of every day language use, the integration of language teaching and content teaching has received the attention of educators and researchers, and the importance of language as a major medium for developing cognitive skills has been widely discussed (Mohan 1979, 1986). Mohan (1986) argues that educators should make a distinction between language learning and using language to learn. This distinction calls language teachers to a broader mandate in the classroom as teachers of both language skills and intellectual skills. Regardless of age level, the concern is for meaningful content to be taught in the target language at the same time as language skills are developed (Oxford, 1993). Post-secondary ESL students, argues Oxford (1993), need to acquire different modes of 4 language including both social and academic language to do well in their studies and facilitate their acculturation. Collier (1989) discusses this point—the importance of combining integrated- skill academic instruction and social language skills. Cummins (1984) also suggests that ESL programs should go beyond developing conversational skills to develop the cognitive-academic language proficiency required for academic success. Several instructional models have been developed (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1989, Crandall, 1993) and implemented effectively to achieve this goal. Since such approaches to language education allow students to acquire knowledge through language which is embedded in authentic and meaningful content, these programs have helped ESL students in post-secondary education adapt to university courses, and provided them with effective ways to achieve their academic goals. Among the various instructional models, an adjunct model has many benefits. A language teacher and a content teacher support one another and cooperate for the educational benefit of the students. Because it allows students to enroll in a linked language course and a content course at the same time, the adjunct model can provide an authentic learning environment that enables ESL students to achieve both academic integration and classroom acculturation. Academic may success come more easily to ESL students in post-secondary education who are provided with support courses that bridge linguistic and cultural gaps and help to alleviate stress imposed by alien social norms and values. 5 1.2.1 Adjunct Instruction The focus of this model is on linking a language-learning course with a content course: "the two courses share the content base and complement each other in terms of mutually coordinated assignments" (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche 1989, p. 16). In the language class, ESL students are sheltered and can concentrate on mastering language skills and functions; at the same time, in the content class, they participate in a real university classroom situation in which both native and non-native speakers study the same content together. E S L students are thus required by the latter to use language in a normal academic setting, organize lecture notes, deal with academic reading materials and writing assignments, and discuss the content with instructors and native speaker classmates. Adjunct courses benefit E S L students because they are placed in an authentic classroom situation (content class) while being provided in the adjunct class (language class) with practical as well as emotional support to help them adapt to that classroom culture; eventually, this model enables them to become independent learners. Wesche (1985) also recommended an adjunct model, saying that although a sheltered situation is initially important as it reduces the anxiety of ESL students, they also need to communicate with native speakers. Compared to other models of instruction (Oxford, 1993), in an adjunct course, non-native speakers (NNSs) have more opportunity to study with native speakers (NSs) in a content classroom while being supported by a language (ESL) classroom. If one considers the integration of language and content on a continuum, the adjunct model can be placed close to a mainstream class (Brinton et al. 1989), while providing students with the support that encourages success. 6 1.2.2 Native Speakers' Role In an adjunct model, native speakers in the content class play an important role. Through them, E S L students can learn how to communicate with their instructors, how to participate in teacher-led or small group discussions, and how to deal with their assignments. What is more, they can experience classroom culture and academic discourse through interacting with NSs. Typically Second Language Acquisition (SLA) suggests the limitations of NS's roles. Krashen's thesis (1980) stated that, just as the caregiver's speech is modified to suit his or her young children, NSs' speech is modified into what is known as "foreigner talk," when they communicate with NNSs. The result of 'Toreigner talk" is to provide NNSs with "comprehensible input." Long (1983a, 1983b) suggested that looking not only at input, but also at interaction modifications, including such devices as confirmation and comprehension checks and clarification requests, is important. In a comparison of NSs-NNSs and NSs-NSs in equivalent speech situations, he found remarkable differences in the structure of conversation between these two groups. Mainstream classrooms offer E S L students the opportunity to interact, through learning tasks, with NS students. The adjunct model specifically offers E S L students sufficient practice and targeted language development in a sheltered classroom to enable them to progress beyond the contrived patterns of "foreigner talk" in the mainstream classroom and to function as equals in that environment. 1.2.3 Task as a Unit of Analysis Since Long's (1985, 1991) seminal work, student tasks have received a great deal of attention in the SLA literature. These tasks, however, have been considered from a 7 psycholinguistic perspective, and SLA research has often examined students' speech in contrived experimental settings only. There has been a growing recognition that in order for learners to succeed in actual classrooms, they need to learn not only linguistic but also cultural and content knowledge. A sociocultural perspective (e.g. Ochs, 1988; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986) has thus gained increasing interest. Crookes and Gass (1993) point out two major areas of student tasks discussed in second language hterature: first, tasks which enhance students' interactions examined in SLA hterature mentioned above; second, tasks which are used in curriculum design. Task is a useful unit of analysis in curriculum design and can be used for implementation and assessment (Long & Crookes, 1993). For the purpose of this analysis, curriculum design has two important dimensions: the planned curriculum and the lived curriculum (Aoki, 1991). The lived curriculum varies depending on the lives of students and teachers, who create the classroom culture and share knowledge. Aoki (1993) argues: ...if there are 25 students in the class, there are apt to be 25 lived curricula. Quite a multiplicity! Each of these lived curricula deserves the label "curriculum" as much as the "curriculum-as-plan" deserves the label "curriculum" (p.96). A sociocultural perspective becomes crucial in order to examine the lived curriculum. In the present study, task is a key unit of analysis, examined not from the psycholinguistic perspective but from the sociocultural perspective of language socialization. 1.2.4 The Language Socialization Perspective and the Adjunct Model Language socialization comes about as a result of specific processes. The notion of language socialization concerns, first, socialization to use language, and second, socialization through this language use. Sctaeffelin and Ochs assert that language 8 socialization "begins at the moment of social contact in the life of a human being" (1986, p. 164); young children and novices are involved in conversational activities with caregivers and experts. These activities are related to cultural behefs, values, and the social order. In this process, a child or novice is "not a passive recipient of knowledge but rather an active contributor to the meaning and outcome of interactions with other members of a social group" (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986, p. 165); language is used as a medium or tool. This process occurs naturally in classrooms, too; however, it can also be promoted by instructors. Students learn language by interacting with experts—instructors or classmates; they also learn and help create the culture of the new social group they now belong to. Exploring an adjunct model in light of 'language socialization" (Mohan & Smith, 1992; Ochs, 1986; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986) is thus important because language socialization "views language learning and cultural learning as interrelated," and "seeks to understand the role of language in the process of forming social practice" (Mohan & Smith, 1992, p. 81). By applying the viewpoint of language socialization to an adjunct model, we can observe ESL students' processes of socialization while they cooperate with instructors and other students to fulfill the tasks of their course work. In that process, the adjunct course plays an important role. It functions as what Bruner (1983) calls a "scaffold"~as the expert's cooperative efforts to support novices capable of completing a task, and to enable them eventually to become competent members of their social groups as independent learners (Cazden, 1988). Cazden (1988) discusses the importance of scaffolding, suggesting that it enables a novice to participate in a task from the beginning by providing well-timed and appropriate support. She argues also that the scaffold is linked with Vygotsky's "zone of proximal development" (p. 107); while receiving experts' help, novices function in their zone of proximal development, first, with help, and second, alone. In regular college classrooms, E S L students may be challenged at first by their course work. Yet, as they communicate with instructors and other students, they are able to assimilate into the classroom culture, eUciting, modifying, and adapting their prior knowledge, including their cultural norms and values. This process has been called "reconceptualization" (Cazden, 1988). Embedded in this context, they gain both content and cultural knowledge necessary to progress from novice to expert. 1.3 Research Purpose This study investigated several of the issues raised above in the context of an English first-year literature course and an adjunct course designed to support E S L students in the literature course in a cornmunity college in New Westminster. The purpose of the study was to examine the role that socio-cultural context plays in enhancing students' socialization in the classroom culture of a Canadian college. To this end, it examined the nature of a college first year English hterature classroom; the social, cultural, and academic values and norms promoted both explicitly and implicitly in that classroom; and the tasks designed by their instructors to enable the students to achieve the stated goals of the course and their own personal goals. The study further explored the role of the 10 adjunct class in language and cultural socialization and examined similarities and differences in the socialization experiences of NS and NNS, information which offers insights useful in future considerations of task design in English literature adjunct courses. Because it allows students to enroll in a linked language course and content course at the same time, the adjunct model has the potential to enable ESL students to achieve academic integration, classroom acculturation, and English language development in relevant disciplines. 1.3.1 Suitability of Course Content Literature is a suitable study for adjunct instruction. It is a useful study for post-secondary ESL students, even for students majoring in science subjects, because literature courses help the students grasp their new culture's norms and values, develop communicative competence, and improve their language and tliinking skills. Literature courses are challenging and demanding, not only for ESL students but also for native speakers of English, because they require advanced academic reading and writing skills. As readers, students are expected to explore the themes of a work, as well as respond to these themes in speaking and writing. They need to develop an awareness of the connotations of language. Because of these demands, several researchers have suggested the benefits of teaching literature as a content course to ESL students (Oster 1989, Talib 1992; Willoquet-Maricondi 1991). According to these researchers, the rationale for using Uterature as content is that first, literature enhances students' sociocultural awareness and sense of identity in a certain culture; second, it makes them realize that culture constantly influences people's views 11 and values; third, it draws students' attention to the links between culture and language; and finally, it helps the students develop critical thinking and communication skills, and enriches their written and oral language. As WiUoquet-Maricondi (1991) pointed out, hterature is accessible because it draws upon universal human experience, and it is also challenging when it focuses on cultural and personal experience. In a content classroom, either or both of these qualities can be utilized depending on the course objectives. If the course aims to enhance ESL students' awareness of the culture they are in, texts should reflect that culture. If its goal is to help students become aware of different cultures and their values, a text written by an author from a different cultural background offers this. In this case, a literary work may bring about active discussions between native and non-native Enghsh speakers through which they can build a reciprocal relationship. Overall, hterature enables ESL students to see various perspectives and this leads them to learn to read and write in a more mature way. As Oster (1989) concludes, "at the very least, the students are seeing more feelingly, reading more incisively, and expressing themselves more vividly in English—no small achievement" (pp. 100-101). 1.3.2 The Personal Context I would like to add my personal context which initially prompted me to pursue this study. Looking back over the past five years of my academic life in Canada, I can feel a transition in myself as a former teacher, as a second language learner and as a novice researcher. Because changes were gradual and rather subtle, I did not fully realize what the changes were and how they happened. My graduate courses, however, enabled me to 12 understand this process and provided me with my future research direction; in particular, the theoretical perspective of language socialization and content-based instruction inspired me, helping me analyze my experience as a second language learner and my own personal development as a whole. In May 1992,1 came to Vancouver. When I arrived, I had very little English speaking and writing ability; I could barely participate in this new culture or communicate with its members. I felt vulnerable; social activities such as driving downtown, shopping at a local supermarket, and borrowing books from a library, which were second nature in Japan, made me nervous each time I had to do them, since I had to learn new rules or to modify my background knowledge to appropriately function in this society. The major obstacle in the new culture was communication; my limited English and Japanese accent discouraged me from communicating with other people. I liked my E S L classes from the beginning. With my limited English, I could discuss many current issues with other ESL students and experience North American classrooms where students were expected to be creative learners, critical thinkers, and active participants. Although I still had many difficulties understanding and being understood by people in the community, I became less nervous and my sphere of activity broadened. When I first found myself in a regular college classroom where the majority of students were native speakers of English, however, I again experienced the anxiety and isolation I had felt when I started to live in Vancouver. Difficulties were both practical and emotional; practical problems were related to language proficiency and study skills, and emotional problems were a lack of confidence and low self-esteem I had to understand a 13 new classroom culture and adapt myself to it. Nevertheless, I was able to complete the course, because of an ESL adjunct course linked to it, which helped me fully understand course content, participate in discussions and write essays. During this time, I sensed that I was gradually being socialized into the classroom where students were more active and critical, and their relationship with their instructor closer and more equal than in ESL classrooms; I felt that I was becoming a member of the Canadian college community. This experience encouraged me to investigate the language socialization of college students. Specifically, I hoped to examine effective ways to provide ESL students with support which would enhance both their language and content learning and consequently alleviate the stress imposed by social and cultural differences. 1.3.3 Research Questions This study investigates the language socialization of college first-year English hterature students, who were both NSs and NNSs. Data were collected over the semester between January and April 1996 and analyzed based on the theoretical perspective of language socialization. I used the following methods: (1) observation of classes; (2) ethnographic interviews with students and instructors; (3) videotaping and audiotaping classroom activities and discussions; (4) questionnaires providing background information about the students and their opinions about their course work and this project; (5) observing individual conferences between instructor and student. The major research questions of this study are as follows: 1. What is the nature of a college first-year English hterature course into which college students are socialized? That is, what are the social cultural, and academic norms and values of the course as outlined in the written and declared course curriculum (the planned curriculum)? (Chapter four addresses this question.) 2. What is the nature of the English literature classroom's tasks and the college student's language socialization into these tasks? That is, what are the students' lived experiences in the course (the lived curriculum)? (Chapter five addresses this question.) 3. How do different participants perceive the nature of the course as declared and as experienced, and how do they perceive their learning in relation to their socialization into the course tasks? (Chapters five and six address this question.) 4. What similarities and differences emerge in the language socialization experiences of NSs and NNSs? What kinds of difficulties, i f any, do NNSs experience that are specific to them in performing the task demands of the course? If they do experience difficulties, how does the adjunct course help them cope? (Chapters six and seven address this question.) 1.4 Signif icance of the Study The theoretical framework of this study is language socialization, which emerged traditionally from children's first language acquisition (e.g. Heath, 1983, 1986; Ochs, 1986, Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986); language and culture are interrelated and thus the language acquisition process is embedded in the process of the socialization of knowledge. Few studies, however, have investigated second language learners' language socialization (cf. Duff, 1995; Morita, 1996, Poole, 1992), in particular, among adult learners. It is thus 15 important for this study to explore the learning process of college students as they acquire knowledge of the particular social situations in which they learn about hterature and, for E S L students, language. As discussed earlier, even though the increasing number of E S L students in mainstream courses has encouraged the development of several instructional models, which have allowed E S L students to acquire knowledge through language, embedded in authentic and meaningful content, few studies have investigated how these courses can actually equip them to achieve their academic goals when they enter college or university. As Leki (1995) suggested, "we need at once closer looks at individual students and broader looks not only at their English classes but at their hves as they negotiate their way through higher education once they step outside the safe threshold of the ESL classroom" (pp. 235-236). Looking at E S L students in the college classroom is thus useful. We should also examine E S L students' academic hves in relation to those of NSs, since E S L students' language socialization occurs when they communicate with other students and participate in classroom activities, in which they often need to negotiate with other students who have different cultural backgrounds, and reconceptualize their knowledge and experience to become competent members of the classroom. Examining college English hterature courses allows this study to illustrate social interactions among students and instructors in a classroom comprised of both NSs and NNSs, and to analyze students' learning process in which they acquire not only knowledge of hterature but also social and cultural competence. 16 Language socialization is a lifelong process; so, even if it concerns the students in a classroom, it cannot be understood in a short period of time, nor be examined only by looking at students' final marks. Many researchers, working on adjunct instruction, such as Snow and Brinton (1988), have focused on the gains students make in sociocultural proficiency and content learning; however, it is also important to examine students' learning processes rather than results; an ethnographic approach to research enables this study to ihuminate students' academic as well as sociocultural learning processes. Since few studies have employed an ethnographic qualitative approach to examine the complex nature of language acquisition and socialization (Duff, 1995) or focused on adolescents and adults (Johnson, 1992), this study is useful, offering an ethnographic approach to understanding college students' language, content, and cultural learning. 1.5 Organization of the Thesis Chapter two presents the literature relevant to this study. It has three parts. The first part outlines the task-based studies in second language learning/teaching hterature from a psycholinguistic perspective and a sociocultural perspective, discussing the key theoretical concepts which have emerged in the hterature and which provide foreground to this study. The second part reviews cross-cultural studies of literacy as social practice. Finally, I outline the nature of content-based instruction and examine several models, in particular, an adjunct model. Chapter three outlines the methodology used in the study. It describes the research sites and participants, and details the ethnographic data collection, comprising classroom 17 observations, video-recordings, interviews, and questionnaires, and data analysis procedures. Chapters four through six present the findings. Chapter four analyzes the nature of a college first-year English hterature course, based on the "planned curriculum" (Aoki, 1991), synthesizing findings mainly from written and declared course content, interviews with the instructors, and observations. Chapter five analyzes the students' lived experiences, in other words, the 'lived curriculum" (Aoki, 1991). It synthesizes findings from observations, video- and audio-recordings, the participant interviews, and questionnaires, and discusses critical tasks as well as support which enable students to achieve the goals of the course. Chapter six illustrates how individual participants—students and instructors—perceived the course and its activities, how the students socialized into the classroom culture, and how they might have been transformed through their socialization process. Interviews and observations are the main sources for this chapter. Chapter seven analyzes the adjunct class, examining both the planned and lived curriculum. It synthesizes findings from observations, video- and audio-recordings, and the participant interviews. Chapter eight synthesizes the overall findings of this study and discusses a number of issues related to this study's theoretical perspective: language socialization. In so doing, it attempts to provide answers to the original research questions, described earher in the introduction. Chapter eight also considers the implications of this study: first, how the study contributes to our understanding of the pedagogical significance of socio-cultural 18 learning; and second, how the study contributes to future research fields. It also discusses what the adjunct course can and cannot offer; it analyzes the potential difficulties students might encounter and effective support they can receive. Finally, in chapter nine, I offer my personal reflections as a novice ethnographic researcher throughout this study. 19 Chapter 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In this chapter, I review three areas of hterature relevant to my study: 1) language learning; 2) literacy as social practice; 3) content-based language learning. The chapter begins with language learning from two different perspectives—the psycholinguistic approach in second language acquisition (SLA) and the sociocultural approach from the language socialization perspective. Next, I review from a cross-cultural perspective studies of hteracy as social practice. Finally, I examine several models of content-based instruction, in particular adjunct instruction. These three areas provide the present study with its theoretical background. 2.1 Task-based Research in S L A : Psycholinguistic Approach to Language Learning Defining and examining students' tasks—what students are doing in their classroom—is important, since it may provide insights into both the learning process and the learning product. Depending on the theoretical perspective, however, the assumptions about tasks differ. 2.1.1 Definitions of Task The term task remains vague (Ellis, 1994). Ellis (1994) introduces Crookes's definition, which defines a task as "a piece of work or an activity, usually with a specified objective, undertaken as part of an educational course, or at work" (p. 595). Nunan 20 (1993) discusses two kinds of perspectives—a non-technical, non-linguistic one and a pedagogical one. An example of the former is "the hundred and one things people do in everyday life, at work, at play, and in between" (Long, 1985, p.89). Breen (1987) provides an example of the latter: task refers to "a range of workplans from the simple and brief exercise type, to more complex and lengthy activities such as group problem-solving or simulations and decision making (cited in Cmdlin & Murphy, p.23). Although a task can be a real-world activity or a contrived one, researchers examine the process of completing tasks as a method of mvorving communicative language while promoting students' interaction; Nunan (1992a) defines the task as "a piece of meaning-focused work mvofving learners in comprehending, producing and/or interacting in the target language, and that tasks are analyzed or categorized according to their goals, input data, activities, settings and roles" (p. 11). 2.1.2 Task in SLA Research SLA researchers view tasks as experimental, given by the teacher to the student to complete; tasks help students interact with each other. A number of studies have examined interaction between speakers while investigating task variables. Krashen's (1980, 1987) psycholinguistic approach provides the theoretical rationale known as the Input Hypothesis, which suggests how acquisition takes place. ESL learners acquire language "by understanding input containing structures that are a bit beyond their current competence" (Krashen, 1987, p.38). Traditionally, analysis of E S L classroom discourse has focused on the roles of a native speaker (NS) teacher with non-native speaker (NNS) students, rather than on the NS-21 NNS or NNS-NNS students' conversation. Such interactions among students, however, have recently captured researchers' attention. They have investigated interaction in different group settings, such as NS-NNS groups, and NNS-NNS groups. Emphasizing the importance of comparison between NSs-NNSs and NSs-NSs, Long (1983a, 1983b) suggests that not only input but also interactional modifications—such devices as confirmation and comprehension checks and clarification requests—are important. He (1980) found remarkable differences in the structure of NS-NNS conversations and those of NS-NS. These differences occurred even when no statistical difference was found in input modification. Pica, Young, and Doughty (1987) support this claim, suggesting that frequency of interactional modifications has the greatest impact on second language learning. Compared to the teacher-fronted classroom, student-centred group work elicits more interaction among students. Long and Porter (1985), for example, point out the advantages of using small group work (including pair work) for "increasing the quantity of language practice opportunities, for improving the quality of students' talk, for mdividualizing instruction, for creating a positive affective climate in the classroom, and for increasing student motivation" (pp. 207-208). Pica and Doughty (1988) also suggest that group work plays an important role in stimulating student interaction and, therefore, learning. In studying the effectiveness of group work, many researchers have examined different types of tasks in order to assess their effects on interlanguage development. Among them, the use of two-way tasks in small group work provides more comprehensible input and 22 more opportunities to commvrnicate with language than one-way tasks and larger group tasks (Doughty & Pica, 1986;r)uff, 1986; Rulon & McCreary, 1986). In particular, problem-solving, decision-making, and information-exchange tasks trigger a large amount of input negotiation and interaction by ehciting students' spontaneous speech (Duff, 1986; Pica, 1987, Porter, 1986). Duff (1986) suggests that convergent tasks, in which learners have the shared goal to reach mutually acceptable solutions, produce more negotiation than divergent tasks, in which learners have independent goals. Yule and Macdonald (1990) used an information exchange task with NNS graduate students, and found that the higher proficiency students who had a dominant role engaged in little interactive cooperation, whereas the higher proficiency students who had a non-dominant role engaged in substantial negotiation work. Using the same task, later, they found that communicative effectiveness is enhanced when the speaker is led to 'IJiink primarily about the hstener's needs rather than the form of the speaker's message" (Yule, Powers, & Macdonald, 1992, p. 250). Not only the kind of task, but also, how group members work together influences interaction. In addition, Gass and Varonis (1983) discuss familiarity with topic as an important variable facihtating comprehension. The gender of the participants in the tasks has also been found to play an important role (Pica, Holhday, Lewis, & Morgenthaler, 1989; Pica, Holhday, Lewis, Berducci, & Newman, 1991). In this study, both male and female NNSs were offered more oppoitunities for L2 input, and modified interlanguage output, during interaction with female NSs than with male NSs. 23 In a study of task-centred discussions between intermediate and advanced E S L adult students and NSs in a classroom setting, Porter (1986) suggested that NNSs can offer each other the same comprehensible input and similar repair strategies as NSs can provide, even though they cannot always provide each other with accurate grammatical and sociolinguistic input. In addition, the more advanced the learners were the better quality input they provided. She suggested, however, that advanced students might benefit from talking with less proficient students because they have to produce various kinds of comprehensible output and practice negotiation of meaning. These studies help us identify many task variables which affect language learning and acquisition; however, because the ultimate goal of SLA is to understand the role of linguistic competence in the process of language learning, SLA research does not examine how students acquire sociocultural knowledge in classrooms. As Mohan and Smith (1992) suggest, learners are seen as subjects in an experimental task, who share "the same 'definition of the task,'" and this task lasts for "the duration of the experiment" (p. 84). They argue that SLA research has failed to address " (1) how contextual information becomes known, and is socially constructed; and (2) how it operates on units larger than the sentence, such as the task" (p.84). It is thus important to perceive that each classroom provides students with its own social context, where individual students bring their own background knowledge—particularly sociocultural knowledge—to understanding and approaching tasks, and participating in various activities. 24 2.2. Sociocultural Approaches to Language Learning Whereas the psycholinguistic approach views language learning as the process of mdividuals' linguistic development, the sociocultural approach focuses on the social context and considers language learning and cultural learning as integrated process. 2.2.1 Language Socialization Language socialization is a concept initially developed by Schieffehn and Ochs (1986a, 1986b), and embraces two major areas of socialization: "socialization through the use of language and socialization to use language" (1986a, p. 163). They (1986a) assert that language socialization "begins at the moment of social contact in the life of a human being" (p. 164). Young children or novices are involved in conversational activities with caregivers or experts; these activities are related to cultural beliefs, values, and social order. In this process, a child or novice is "not a passive recipient of knowledge but rather an active contributor to the meaning and outcome of interactions with other members of a social group" (p. 165). Schieffelin and Ochs thus consider socialization to be an "interactional display (covert or overt) to a novice of expected ways of thinking, feeling, and acting" and suggest that "social interactions themselves are sociocultural environments" (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986b, p.2). In their view, knowledge of language and sociocultural knowledge are interrelated, and "individuals have the potential to modify linguistic and sociocultural knowledge throughout the course of their life spans" (Ochs, 1990, p. 289). They (Ochs & Schieffehn, 1984; Ochs, 1988; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986a, 1986b) have demonstrated language socialization through children's language learning processes and 25 make a clear distinction between language acquisition and language socialization; the former refers to an encapsulated process of hnguistic competence, and the latter, considering language as a medium or tool, constitutes a lifelong process of the child or the novice becoming a competent socialized member of his or her society. Ochs (1988) suggests that linguistic knowledge and sociocultural knowledge interact with and rely on each other. In addition to this notion of interface, Ochs argues that the concept of social activity, in which language is structured by hnguistic and sociocultural knowledge, is important to the sociocultural perspective. She perceives an activity as a behavioral unit as well as a process, which creates the linguistic and sociocultural phenomenon. Ochs (1990) also points out that language socialization rehes on the manner, "a range of verbal phenomena such as grammatical forms, voice quality, codes, and written, spoken, or signed modes" (p. 288), which involves the important concept of indexing and activity. She argues: Of particular interest here are structures that vary across contexts and hence index (point to) contexts when used...[t]hese features may index something about the social identities of the participants, for example, or about the activities taking place, or about the feelings or knowledge of the speaker, (p.288) Indexing means not only to map a given contextual feature onto a linguistic form and/or linguistic forms and contextual dimensions, but also to organize past and present knowledge: "an index or set of indexes may recontextualize the past and precontextualize the future, as well as contextualize the communicative context of the moment" (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986b, p.212). 26 Understanding how children acquire knowledge of status and role through language use is another important aspect of socialization, which involves understanding of how the organization of communication carries cultural concepts of social status; "[TJanguages have constructions at all levels of grammar and discourse that signal information concerning how interactants see their own and others' social positions and roles" (Ochs, 1986, p.4). Ochs also argues that even though children will understand all the basic communicative roles, societies will vary "in the development point at which and the situations in which it is appropriate for children to assume particular roles, these differences being linked to their attitudes about children and their communicative competence" (p.8). Furthermore, Ochs (1986) suggests that children need to acquire the ability to recognize and express feelings in context, which is an important component of sociocultural competence. She argues that every society has "ways of viewing moods, dispositions, and emotions, including how they are to be displayed verbally and nonverbally and the social conditions in which it is preferable or appropriate to display them" (p. 8). Finally, how one perceives cross-cultural differences should be considered (Ochs, 1986). Ochs (1986) argues that cross-cultural differences are "differences in context and/or frequency of occurrence" (p. 10). These concepts suggest the importance of exarrnning the sociocultural context in language learning; language socialization is realized through language practices and social 27 interactions, where children (novices or individuals) are engaged in various communicative and situational roles. Task in Language Socialization Research As Ochs argues, social activity is an important concept in the language socialization approach which defines a task as a sociocultural activity, and as both "a unit of cognitive organization within the individual" and "a unit of social organization within the culture" (Mohan & Smith, 1992, p.88). Mohan and Smith cite Bruner's work (1983) and define task as both a cultural and a social activity. They distinguish between the expert's task and the novice's task; the novice's task gradually progresses and expands into the expert's task (p.87). As novices' tasks expand, they come to understand the context of their actions, and the context is socially constructed. The expert's cooperative efforts to support novices in their completion of a task and eventually to enable them to become competent members of their social group as independent learners are what Bruner (1983) calls a scaffold. Cazden (1988) discusses the importance of scaffolding, suggesting that it enables a novice to participate in a task from the beginning by providing wen-timed and appropriate support. She argues also that the scaffold is linked with Vygotsky's zone of proximal development; while receiving experts' help, novices function in their zone of proximal development: first, with help, second alone. (Vygotsky's framework will be discussed in the next section.) D\iring this process, novices are able to assimilate into the new culture, ehciting, modifying, and adapting their prior knowledge, including their norms and values, which is called reconceptualization (Cazden, 1988). 28 2.2.2 A Sociocultural Psychology The process of language learning has been examined from different perspectives. In the history of psychology, as I mentioned before, this process was studied in an experimental setting; however, since the study of children's cognitive development, there has also been a recognition of the role of language as a means for "constructing knowledge and understanding"; people use language as "a social mode of thinking" (Mercer, 1995, p.4). Mercer states that language is a psychological tool, as the Russian psychologist Vygotsky described, and a cultural tool in which people share experiences and transform them into cultural knowledge and understanding; language is not just "a means by which individuals can formulate ideas and communicate them," it is also "a means for people to think and learn together" (p.4). Through his study of the development and function of consciousness, Vygotsky (1978) argues that consciousness distinguishes the behavior of human beings from that of other living beings, and that consciousness, as "comprised of the self-regulatory mechanisms that humans deploy in solving problems," (Lantolf & Appel, 1994, p.3) links people's knowledge to their behavior. Although Vygotsky's thesis was not fully analyzed during his lifetime, his work has become significant in sociocultural psychology (Lantolf & Appel, 1994). A c t i v i t y T h e o r y Vygotsky and colleagues who support him view human actions as a reflection of social practices, deterrnined by sociocultural circumstances. After Vygotsky's death, his followers proposed Activity Theory (Lantolf & Appel 1994; Leont'ev, 1981; Wertsch, 29 1985). Leont'ev suggests that there are three levels in Activity Theory: activity, action, and operation. The highest level of activity is denned as context or setting which refers to the "sociocultural interpretation or creation that is imposed on the context by the participants" (Lantolf & Appel, 1994, p. 17). The second level consists of actions, which in the Vygotskians' view, have goals, and these goals can be divided into subgoals. mdividuals have first to fulfill subgoals, which eventually lead them to achieve the primary goal. As Lantolf and Appel suggest, goals are not always physical objects but "phenomena of anticipatory reflection'" (p. 19); for example, a student who wants to become a medical doctor has to fulfill subgoals, such as passing the final exam and obtaining a doctor's degree, and these subgoals also consist of subgoals, such as fulfilling general education requirements. Goals thus "permit one to compare and evaluate intended and actual outcomes of activity before the activity is concretely operationahzed" (p. 19). The final level of an activity consists of operations, which "determine the means, physical or mental, through which an action is carried out" (p. 20). The same goal can be achieved through a different set of operations; for example, if one feels cold and has a goal to get warm, he or she can go to a shop to buy a sweater, or move to a warmer place to satisfy the goal. Wertsch (1985) suggests that "because operations can be converted into goals or subgoals as actions are carried out, one must look at actions and operations and their interactions simultaneously to fully understand a given activity" (p. 205). Although Lantolf and Appel (1994) point out some problems in Activity Theory, they conclude: [T]he level of motive answers why something is done, the level of goal answers what is done, and the level of operations answers how it is done. The link between 30 socioculturally defined motives and concrete actions and operations is provided by semiotic systems, of which language is the most powerful and pervasive, (pp. 21-22) The Zone of Proximal Development Vygotsky (1978) argued that social interactions help children develop their cognition, and that there are two developmental levels: the actual developmental level and the zone of proximal development. The actual developmental level is "the level of development of a child's mental functions that has been established as a result of certain already completed developmental cycles," (p. 85) and the second level—the zone of proximal development—is "the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers" (p. 86). As I discussed before, by illustrating interactions between caregivers and children, Bruner (1983) has called such guidance scaffolding; Vygotsky's notion of the zone of proximal development is discussed by both language socialization and sociocultural psychology (e.g. Cazden, 1988; Donato, 1994; Mohan & Smith, 1992; Ochs, 1988). Focusing on potential abilities of children or novices, adults or experts (more capable peers) can create opportunities for them to assume sharing responsibility for learning tasks. Such tasks cannot be completed on their own, but achieved with guidance or scaffolding. Schieffelin and Ochs (1986a) explains: [T]hey (children or novices) develop skills in a "zone of proximal development" as they move from guided or collaborative to independent action. Within this framework, cultural knowledge both organizes and is acquired through these communicative activities, (p. 166). 31 In applying Vygotsky's theory and Bruner's notion of scaffolds to classroom instruction and student learning, Johnson (1995) points out some of the components of scaffolded instruction, mcluding not only the instructional design of what occurs in classrooms, but "the teacher-student dialogue embedded in that instruction" (p.75). Student-student interaction is also important (Johnson, 1995). He argues that student-student interaction can create cognitive conflict among students, since students can be introduced to alternative or contradictory viewpoints from their peers, which encourage them to search for more information or to take alternative views. Cazden (1988) calls this reconceptualization, viewing discourse as a catalyst; student-student interaction can induce cognitive conflicts, which in turn "can result in cognitive restmcturing and growth" (Johnson, 1995, p. 113). 2.2.3 Language Socialization Research The notion of language socialization has developed through sociological, anthropological, and psychological approaches to the study of social and linguistic competence in a social group. Schieffelin and Ochs (1986b) points out that language socialization research has as its goal: the linking of microanalytic analyses of children's discourse to more general ethnographic accounts of cultural beliefs and practices of the families, social groups, or communities into which children are socialized. In this sense, language socialization research is concerned with a different scope of context than considered in developmental pragmatic studies. The language behaviors of children, their peers, and caregivers are compared with language behaviors of members across a range of social context, (p. 168) 32 Language Socialization Research in First Language (Ll) Many studies have examined interaction between children and their caregivers. Ochs (1988) studied language socialization among the Samoans and compared and contrasted their clarification patterns with white middle-class American caregivers. Whereas Samoan caregivers asked children to repeat what they said when the caregivers did not understand them, American caregivers helped children expand their speech or used guessing. Ochs argued that these differences came from different cultural values. Similarly, Duranti (1986) compared clarification procedures among Samoan children, caregivers, and peers, in various settings, such as legal, school and work. Schieffehn (1986) examined Kaluh children's interactions, focusing on teasing. Miller (1986) also focused on teasing as language socialization among white American working class children. Watson-Gegeo and Gegeo (1986) studied the structure of Kwara'ae children's disagreements and conflict resolution, which is tied to norms among Kwara'ae adults. Heath (1983, 1986, 1992) conducted ethnographic research over nearly a decade, examining the effects of home and community environment on the ways in which children learned language structures and uses, and how this language underwent adaptations in the shared classrooms and job settings of the communities of a white working-class and a black working-class community. Heath focused on the face-to-face network through which each child learned ways of acting, believing, and valuing those about him or her through home and community experiences, classrooms and schools; these children were socialized as talkers, readers, and writers. Her research suggested that children's language development is closely related to their language socialization at home. 33 Crago et al.(1993) also conducted longitudinal ethnographic research on language socialization in Inuit famihes; they examined communicative interaction patterns between Inuit caregivers and their children in two communities. These studies demonstrate a language socialization process in which children acquire linguistic as well as sociocultural knowledge while participating in cultural events or activities, and cultural norms and values determine interaction styles and language use. Language Socialization Research in Second Language (L2) As language socialization assumes a lifelong process, researchers (e.g. Crago, 1992; Donato, 1994; Duff, 1995; Mohan & Smith, 1992; Poole, 1992; Willett, 1987, 1995) have examined such processes among people in second-language learning situations and in new sociocultural contexts. Willett (1987) conducted ethnographic research in an American nursery school and examined two non-English- speaking preschoolers' language development and acculturation. These children were from Korea and Brazil. Since they grew up in different sociocultural environments, their interaction and learning strategies were different. Willett suggested that interaction patterns were culturally shaped and influenced the type of language input, and "may explain, in part, their learning styles and developmental language output" (p.83). Her research has demonstrated the importance of understanding language learners' present and past sociocultural differences, which influence their approaches to language learning and thus language development. In another ethnographic study, Willett (1995) examined four first-grade children acquiring English in a mainstream classroom Three of them were girls; they helped each 34 other to complete tasks and constructed "desirable identities, social relations and ideologies" (p.499) in the classroom culture. Whereas the girls came to establish their identity in the class and became independent, the boy was not able to work collaboratively with bis peers and became dependent on his teachers, because it was the boy's cultural preference in the class not to ask for help. Comparing girls' experiences with those of boys', she noted "how the micropohtics of gender and class worked to position the boy as a problematic learner and the girls as successful learners in this particular sociocultural setting" (p.499). Through these children's experiences, Willett suggested that the local culture had a strong influence upon children to shape their identities, social interactions, and ideologies, which also affected their second language development. Crago (1992) focused on young Inuit children's language socialization and investigated the interface between the socially constructed communicative interaction and second language acquisition. She found significant differences in the style of communication between Native Inuit families and non-Native second language educators; for example, non-Native teachers asked Native children display questions for instruction and interaction with children in the classroom, but Native parents did not use display questions, since they already knew the answers. She pointed out the crucial point for second language teachers, suggesting that non-Native educators should be aware of "a form of prejudice endemic to much of the education of children from nondominant cultures"; the prejudice called "ethnicism" is "the conscious or unconscious denial of a person's cultural ways" (p. 502). While some researchers have examined ESL children's language socialization, others have conducted their research on other ESL students. Poole (1992) exarnined interactions in an ESL class offered at a university. She focused on classroom discourse features: first, expert accommodation of novice incompetence, second, task accomphshment, and finally, the display of asymmetry. Her analysis of the classroom discourse between white middle-class female teachers and their students suggested similar patterns to those found in SMeffelin and Ochs (1986a) study of middle-class American caregivers' interaction. Poole's study pointed out that these phenomena were reflective and constitutive of cultural beliefs and practices. Language teachers should be aware of these aspects of language education not only in ESL but also E F L situations. Kramsch (1987) argued that foreign language education came to stress the socialization aspect of language learning by focusing on "the interactional processes through which language [was] learned and different cultural patterns of thought [were] acquired. Kramsch (1993) also pointed out that a concept of "culture" has become slippery, which might lead language teachers to teach only "safe topics," such as the rules of grammar and the dictionary definitions of words. She thus suggested that cross-cultural training of language teachers is very important. In her case study of a Hispanic woman in a doctoral program in sociology, Casanave (1992) examined the nature of the graduate school experience for culturally diverse graduate students and discussed the relationship between academic socialization and cultural diversity. The doctoral student in this study had not only to cope with school language which was "more specialized and thus distant from everyday language, in accordance with conventions in different fields and disciplines" (p. 153), but also to learn ways of knowing and understanding the culture, consisting of community members who 36 shape such culture. This doctoral student eventually left her program, because she felt alienated by the language and values of the culture; this forces us to ask "whether disciplines should socialize all students into a preordained set of values and practices, or whether they should accommodate the cultural diversity of the populations they serve and thus open themselves to change (p. 148-149). Mohan and Smith (1992) also conducted research in a graduate school setting and examined a group of Chinese students' language socialization. This study provides insights to my study, since it focuses on tasks, and participants' language proficiency is below the required level. Even though these students had limited English proficiency, they succeeded in a graduate adult education program, because of the cooperative interaction between instructor and students. Mohan and Smith chose task as a focus, including lectures, group discussions, group tutorials, and assignments. The instructor as expert helped the novice participate in activity, by "breaking down the activity into sub-tasks," (p. 91) and these sub-tasks were designed to be within the zone of proximal development. Through achieving tasks, the students became "more expert in the culturally organized activity of program planning" (p.98). Mohan and Smith demonstrated language socialization where the novices were not young children, and tasks were more symbolic than physical. They, in conclusion, suggested that more complex issues of analysis surrounding the language socialization perspective should be investigated: the relationship between cultural activity and discourse; and the differences in the communicative processes of learning a cultural activity between first- and second-language learners. 37 While Mohan and Smith focus on various tasks in graduate school, Losey (1995), in a community college, also examined and analyzed tasks to reveal the sociolinguistic and interactional environment of the classroom; tasks included whole class discussions, one-to-one tutorials, students' assigned reading, workbook exercises, and a composition assignment. In this analysis, Losey examined the relationship between gender and ethnicity in second language development among Mexican-American adult students, just as Willett discussed micropohtics of gender in a classroom. Even though the bilingual women were verbal in one-to-one tutorials and unofficial peer talk, the female students' participation in the classroom discussions was characterized as "pervasive silence," (p.645) while male students often volunteered to speak. Losey points out that low self-esteem or negative self-perceptions about women's status in their culture played a role in the silence; they were "oppressed not only in Anglo American society at large, as women and as Mexican Americans, but also within the immediate contexts of their homes and culture" (p.655). This research illustrates how classroom and extracurricular contexts influence students' interaction and participation. Sociopohtical aspects of language education are an important focus in language socialization research, and researchers (e.g. van Lier, 1996; Duff, 1995) have investigated foreign language education and culture. Duff (1995) selected speech events as a main focus. She conducted a comparative analysis of language socialization in two different Hungarian secondary school settings: a traditional monolingual program, where recitation was the dominant pedagogical strategy; and a dual-language program, where open-ended discussion activities were dominant, and the instruction was given mainly in English. She 38 examined the socialization of discourse competence in detail, at a microscopic level, and at a more macroscopic level examined, inevitable educational and linguistic changes caused by massive sociopolitical transformations in Eastern Europe in the late 1980's. Morita (1996) also focused on oral academic presentation tasks in a graduate school setting and exarnined them from a sociocultural perspective, arguing that this socioculturally organized task promoted students' language socialization. Although these studies have explored second language socialization in various settings, they suggest the importance of sociocultural context and tasks or activities when examining second-language learning. 2.3 Literacy as Social Practice In its simplest form, hteracy is defined as the ability to read and write—a technical skill primarily. But researchers (Hornberger & Hardman, 1994; Hourigan, 1994; McKay, 1993, 1996; Street, 1995) offer a much broader definition of the term, viewing hteracy not only from an individual skill perspective but also a sociocultural perspective. McKay (1996) supports this broader notion, saying "hteracy is a complex interplay between both individual skills and social knowledge." (P.421) For students in a college English hterature class, the ability to read and write—to be literate—is surely essential but just as essential is the ability to understand sociocultural contexts—to comprehend not just the words that comprise the hterature but also the world view that creates it. This broader definition of hteracy is essential to this study. 39 Among anthropologists and social scientists, the nature and role of hteracy in society have been important issues (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986a). Schieffelin and Ochs point out: The research focus is on the relationship among attitudes, values, beliefs, and skills that are culturally transmitted to learners in relation to the development of hteracy skills. The social relationships and interactions in which an orientation to hteracy is presented to the learner are fundamental to understanding the social and cultural processes of hteracy socialization, (p. 180) McKay (1996) argues that those who view hteracy as an individual phenomenon tend to consider the levels of hteracy and examine the relationship between written and oral language as well as the relationship between hteracy and cognitive development; they fail to view hteracy as cross-cultural hteracy and learners' socialization. Schieffelin & Cochran-Smith (1984) define hteracy as "a social and cultural phenomenon, something that exists between people and something that connects mdividuals to a range of experiences and to different points in time" (p.4); hteracy depends on values and standards of society at a particular time, which may differ from one conmiunity or culture to another. It is thus crucial to scmtinize hteracy from a sociocultural perspective. Researchers perceive hteracy as a reflection of community values or cultural values about text. Heath (1983) examined the hteracy behavior of two communities in the U.S.A, where people approach and deal with texts differently. In her study, adult members of the African-American corrnriunity considered hteracy a necessary tool for everyday life; they used writing only when they had to, viewed reading materials as important for their children's development, but tended not to read. The other conmiunity consisted of Caucasians who used reading as an aspect of daily social interactions; they often read aloud and shared content. Heath suggests that these differences affect the ways 40 in which children use language and their socialization into the community. Michaels (1981, cited in McCollum, 1991) examined the narratives of African-American children during "sharing time" and found that these children's "topic-associating" form was not valued because the white teacher expected a "topic-centered" form. In a multicultural classroom, such differences result in different levels of accessibility to literary experiences. McCollum (1991) addresses these "multiple literacies" and hteracy from a cross-cultural perspective: [l]earning-task environments vary and are composed of the tools, symbols (words or numbers), and particular forms of social relationships in which learning tasks are situated. If any of the elements of the learning-task environment are altered, one's ability to perform at customary levels may also change....language and the social relations that are embedded within language use become important for the execution of learning tasks, (pp. 108-109). When students whose communities have different approaches to hteracy study together in a classroom, they may have difficulties communicating with each other; this may require that they reconceptualize their knowledge of hteracy. The present study attempts to examine these multiple hteracies and ways in which students reconceptualize then-knowledge of them through interaction. Attitudes towards reading and writing, and how to develop arguments, vary among cultures. People in different cultures value different approaches to developing knowledge. Discussing the work of Ballard and Clanchy, McKay (1996) wrote: Cultures which emphasize conserving knowledge promote reproductive approaches to learning, stressing strategies such as memorization and imitation, dealing with questions of what. Cultures in the middle tend to value analytical tlunking, focusing on judging and reconciling ideas, examining questions of why and how. Cultures at the other end focus on deliberately searching for new possibilities and explanations and answering questions of what if...many Asian 41 countries favor a reproductive mode of learning, whereas many Western countries favor an analytic or speculative mode (p.434). Since my study examines students from various cultural backgrounds, this reality must not be ignored. Students frequently have to modify their approaches to reading and writing about hterature, because of their diverse cultural backgrounds, through which they approach hterature and its social contexts differently. Various studies have been concerned with this cross-cultural hteracy. Beginning with Robert Kaplan's study (1966), contrastive rhetoric and related issues have been discussed and have generated controversy (e.g. Carson et al., 1994; Connor, 1996; Kaplan, 1966; Leki, 1991, 1993; Mohan & Lo, 1985; Pennycook, 1996). Through close examination of first language (Ll) as well as second language (L2) texts, researchers have found that rhetorical patterns among cultures are more complex and dynamic than they were once considered, "responding to the interaction between discourse communities and individual writers over time and in varied contexts" (Leki, 1993, p.361). Leki suggests, however, that even though it is in its formative stages, an understanding of contrastive rhetoric can bring several benefits for ESL students, who have trouble writing in English because of their cultural rhetorical tradition, and their teachers. She argues: Directly confronting the issues of the varieties of rhetorics and resulting expectations of native-speaker readers may help ESL students become more aware of themselves as members of a variety of discourse communities.... Contrastive rhetoric studies help us to remember that the idea of "being yourself," or writing elegantly, or communicating clearly and convincingly has no reality outside a particular cultural and rhetorical context and that our discourse community is only one of many (p. 366). 42 In a liberal arts or sociology class, particularly, this is worth examining, since ESL students have to understand the expectations of the audience—the instructor and students who are mostly native speakers of English— and find their own voices in English when they write essays. This notion of contrastive rhetoric has implications for this present study and its exarnination of students', in particular, ESL students' difficulties in writing hterature essays. 2.4 Content-based Instruction The assumption that language can effectively be learned through the medium of meaningful content has been widely accepted since the 1960's (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1989). Content-based instruction has been implemented in various settings, first for native speakers of English, and later for non-native speakers of English. The language across the curriculum movement began in the 1970's (Crandall, 1993; Mohan, 1986; Oxford, 1993). Focusing on reading and writing, it has provided students with a means to understand and express complex content required in academic settings. Influenced by this movement, second language instructional theory and practice have developed several models, helping ESL students develop skills required in work places or in academic disciplines; English for Specific Purposes (ESP) and English for Academic Purposes (EAP) are prevalent models. These courses involve a specific topic area, and the students generally share the same occupational or educational goals. In other words, the courses aim to integrate language skills in particular situations for specific purposes such as nursing, chefs training, science and technology, businesses, economics, or social 43 sciences. The instructors are usually not specialists in the content areas but help students acquire English for specific needs; for example, "the linguistic items taught are generally arrived at via on-site needs analyses, test analyses of subject-area tests, interviews with subject-area experts, and similar factors" (p.26). ESP and E A P are the most significant movements in English language education today, used by business, hospitals, technical schools and universities (Oxford, 1993). Immersion education is another example of content-based language instruction, which has been used in Canada and the USA since the 1970's (Snow, Met, & Genesee, 1989); in particular, French Immersion has become a major component of second language education for students at the elementary and early secondary levels in Canada. The immersion program has shown its effectiveness among majority language children; however, it has also resulted in unsuccessful outcomes with minority language children (Mohan, 1986). These results suggest that the best second language instruction focuses on language in real contexts and cornmunicative situations, rather than language as grammar lessons and conversations in a contrived situation. 2.4.1. A Rationale for Content-based Instruction Researchers (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1989; Crandall, 1993; Mohan, 1986; Richard-Amato, & Snow, 1992; Shih, 1986) point out several theoretical rationales underlying content-based instruction: the first is derived from SLA theory, and the second comes from practical experience. 44 In what is known as his "input hypothesis," Krashen (1982) claims that second language acquisition results from learners' exposure to comprehensible L2 input within a real communication situation. This means that the learner can successfully acquire a second language when the conditions are similar to his or her first language acquisition: language is a medium to understand the world, and its study should focus not on form but on meaning. Moreover, since input promotes language acquisition, it must also help learners acquire new elements in the language in context by interacting with their background knowledge. Content-based instruction facilitates language acquisition by making academic content more accessible. Crandall (1993) discusses Cummins' theory of two types of language proficiency: first, basic interpersonal language skills (BICS); and second, cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP). In his theory, mdfviduals develop BICS, which is cognitively undemanding and context-embedded, in a few years; and CALP, which is cognitively demanding and context reduced, in five to seven years. Learners need to acquire C A L P in order to study academic subjects. Brinton et al. (1989) point out another four rationales. First, the success of English for Specific Purposes suggests that when language learners' needs and interests coincide, language learners enjoy a good learning environment. Second, even when these needs and interests are not met, the use of content motivates the learner and enhances learning. Third, content-based instruction encourages learners to use their previous experiences and their existing knowledge, applying the pedagogical principle that teaching should build on the learners' previous experiences. Finally and most importantly, learners learn effective language use, becorning aware of the "larger discourse-level features and the social-45 interaction patterns" (p.3). In real life, since people use language as a tool to communicate with other people, to express themselves, or to find out what they want to know, language is learned most effectively through "communication in meaningful, purposeful social and academic contexts" (Richard-Amato, & Snow, 1992, p.28), rather than as an object of study (Wesche, 1985). Furthermore, content provides "a cognitive basis for language learning in that it provides real meaning that is an inherent feature of naturalistic language" (Richard-Amato, & Snow, 1992, p.28). In other words, without real meaning, language is likely to be learned in an abstract way that ignores conceptual or communicative value. For these reasons, content-based instruction has become increasingly popular among language educators. 2.4.2 Program Models Depending on students' English proficiency level and academic objectives, different approaches to and methods of content-based instruction have been developed. At the post-secondary level, researchers have elaborated upon a number of models such as theme-based instruction, sheltered instruction, and adjunct instruction (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche 1989). The present section will draw largely upon the research of Brinton, Snow, and Wesche (1989), Richard-Amato and Snow (1992), Crandall (1993), and Oxford (1993). The models they present will be discussed in relation to the focus of this study--content-based instruction for post-secondary ESL students. 46 Theme-based Instruction This approach integrates language skills and content in the study of themes or topics such as the environment, television news coverage, or family customs. The primary aim is to help students develop target language competence, while giving instructors responsibility for both language and content. Theme-based instruction is popular in post-secondary E S L programs in which heterogeneous groups of students can share some common areas of interests and learn different cultural aspect of these themes. Another variation on this approach might organize the curriculum for a whole course with one major topic such as marketing. Hedgecock and Pucci (1993) suggest, from the point of view of cognitive authenticity, "a feature describing texts that make real-life demands on learners," and developmental authenticity, "a criterion for assessing texts so that they offer learners a range of concepts presented in various test types," that the theme-based ESL curriculum provides the "best starting point" for E S L students (p.23). At Northern Arizona University in the U.S., Giauque, cited by Oxford (1993), provides another case—a theme-based French course studying Greek mythology for third year university students. This suggests that such an approach could also be effectively used in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom. While this approach allows students to obtain integrated language ability through interesting themes and enables them to conimunicate their ideas on selected topic areas, there are drawbacks; students do not have opportunities in class to interact with native 47 speakers, and there is not much provision for ahowing them to acquire study skills--organizing lecture notes, reading authentic text books, writing term papers. The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach ( C A L L A : Chamot, O'Malley, 1987), originally designed for upper elementary and secondary E S L students at intermediate and advanced English level, is closely related to the theme-based model. But it has an advantage in providing ESL students with learning strategies derived from cognitive psychology to assist "their comprehension and retention of both language skills and concepts in the content areas," (p.227) such as science, mathematics, and social studies. Learning strategies, such as metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies, and social-affective strategies, are intended to help ESL students acquire academic language skills that will help them succeed in content areas. However, the content itself is de-emphasized and not seen as integral to language learning. Sheltered instruction The sheltered instruction method has been widely adopted. Students can be sheltered in a language classroom (i.e. an E S L course) or in a content classroom specifically for ESL students. In sheltered instruction in the latter case, the teacher is trained in both content and language education (Brown, 1994). As Brown notes, at Newcomer High School in San Francisco, for instance, one-year-sheltered instruction is provided to help new immigrants to integrate into the regular classrooms: the students are "sheltered" and given a combination of content and language instruction in various subjects. 48 As content mastery is emphasized, ESL students are "sheltered" or segregated from native speaker students, which can help them adjust more easily by providing a low-level anxiety environment. This method does not provide opportunities to communicate with native speakers; however, in an E F L situation, it is effectively employed (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche 1989). The University of Ottawa employed the sheltered instruction approach for its Introduction to Psychology course, in which English as a Second Language for French speakers and French as a Second Language for English speakers were taught by psychology professors of their target language following the standard course content (Edwards, Wesche, Krashen, Clement, & Kruidenier, 1984). The research shows that the students gained in second-language proficiency 'In the absence of formal language instruction when the second language [was] used as the medium of instruction and the input [was] made comprehensible" (p.280). They also noted that the students of these sheltered classes reported lowered anxiety, increased second language proficiency, and improved self-confidence. They concluded that the program might be an appropriate form of instruction for second language students, as a "bridge between the language classroom and the real world" (p. 281). Although, unfortunately, the University of Ottawa had to cancel the program because of low enrollment, Oxford (1993) notes that they now use a modified adjunct model in its place. Harklau (1994) examined this transition from ESL to mainstream classrooms and found significant instructional and cultural differences in the two contexts. She conducted 49 a three-arid-half-year ethnographic study and researched four Chinese imnhgrant students' transitions in a high school setting. Her study provides important insights to my study, since she has discussed what ESL students might lose and gain in their transitions from ESL classrooms to mainstream classrooms. She points out that although mainstream classes provide students with rich and plentiful authentic linguistic interactions to transmit the content of subject matter, the instruction allows few opportunities for L2 learners to develop extended interaction and receive exphcit feedback on the target language. Furthermore, newcomers to North American society tend not to take advantage of these few opportunities provided in mainstream classes; rather, they perceive a barrier between themselves and native speaker peers. Dlustrating the strengths and weaknesses of transitional students refining their English in mainstream versus ESL classes, she argues: special language instruction that is isolated from and unintegrated with the mainstream curriculum is not sufficient to develop the language proficiency required to succeed in academic contexts and mainstream instruction must be more responsive to these students' needs. (P.267) She suggests that E S L students' diversity should be respected and valued in order to help them overcome barriers to interaction and participation. Focusing on university academic writing, Atkinson and Ramanathan (1995) explored the disjuncture that E S L students' experienced as these students moved from an E S L writing program to a freshman composition program. Atkinson and Ramanathan argue that because of the different cultural norms, E S L students have difficulties in the mainstream composition class; the program is "modeled on the norm of a cultural/linguistic native (or near-native) student," and students are tacitly expected to have the kinds of knowledge, including "considerable famiharity with native patterns for 50 stracturing discourse, knowledge of native norms of cornmunicative behavior, and some understanding of writing (or communication in general) as a heuristic, self-defnung activity" (p. 563). They also point out the importance of investigating program-level norms and socialization practices, an investigation which is linked to the present study. Adjunct Instruction The adjunct instruction links a special second language learning course in which ESL students are sheltered, with a content course in which both native English speaker students and ESL students are enrolled. The two courses share a content base, but the focus of instruction differs. While the content instructor focuses on academic content, the language instructor provides E S L students with language skills such as academic reading and writing skills, which enable E S L learners to integrate into the content course. Snow and Brinton (1988) describe the Freshman Summer Program (FSP) at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), in which an adjunct model has been employed since 1977. The FSP is a 7-week content-based instructional program designed to "meet the linguistic and academic needs of students who lack exposure to the types of tasks required for success at the university" (p.556). In the FSP, students enroll in one of several introductory courses for native speakers, such as psychology, history, political science, or social science, and also in parallel courses which are designed to facilitate coordination between language and content for nonnative speakers. In this way, ESL students can obtain both the language needs in the language course and "the authenticity of the academic demands" (p.556) in the content course. 51 Snow and Brinton found that, compared to the students who enrolled in a traditional segregated-skill E S L program, the adjunct students achieved overall academic success and learned the "system" necessary to cope with the demands of university study more effectively. Braine (1994) introduced the adjunct model—Freshman Writing Programs—at the University of South Alabama. The University has an enrollment of 850 E S L students out of a total of 12,000 students, both international visa students and immigrants, originally from 78 countries and speaking 37 languages. The program was devised as a reaction to a high failure rate among E S L students in mainstream courses, usually as a result of poor writing skills together with a sense of isolation in the classroom. The adjunct model is employed for freshman writing courses in which about ten percent of enrollment comprises E S L students. Braine also points out cultural problems that are reflected in writing; for example, '"be yourself,' the first rule of Enghsh composition, will not be useful to students from cultures where individuahsm is a synonym for selfishness" (p.24). He notes accordingly that mainstream instructors need to recognize the "varying rhetorical patterns in the essays of ESL students" (p.25). ESL students need eventually to learn an Enghsh writing style; yet, when instructors realize the cultural gaps underlying E S L students' writing and help the students to bridge those gaps, their integration into mainstream courses is encouraged and facilitated. Braine Mmself has conducted a workshop in E S L composition pedagogy for interested teachers. This workshop has helped content instructors to understand E S L students and increased their collaboration with the adjunct course. As a result, E S L 52 students' writing skills have improved, and they have given a positive evaluation of the adjunct course. This case suggests that the adjunct model helps not only ESL students' academic integration but also classroom acculturation, and understanding and cooperation between content instructors and language instructors are important keys to the success of the adjunct model. Iancu (1993) reports a case study of adapting an adjunct model to "raise student morale by providing a different context for learning English" (p.20) in the English Language Institute (ELI) at George Fox College in Newberg, Oregon. The content courses concerned were sociology and U.S. history. Over a period of about three years, the adjunct model fiufhTed the instructors' expectations as well as bringing other benefits. First, rather than feeling frustration about staying in ESL, students were highly motivated to succeed in a "credit-bearing academic course" (p.20), and found that the adjunct courses helped them develop skills essential for success in college coursework. Second, enrollment in a regular academic course helped ESL students develop relationships with native speaker peers through several class activities and assignments. Third, the adjunct model "greatly eased the transition between ESL status and regular student status" (p.21). Iancu also mentioned as a benefit for language instructors that this model helped them "decide when a student is ready to advance" (p.21). In a similar approach to the adjunct model, Blanton (1992) suggests the tutoring model, which assigns E S L students enrolled in content courses to small tutored groups focused on the content of different courses. In Iancu's case, the tutoring model is also 53 employed so that E S L students whose TOEFL score is about 450, which is relatively low for enrollment in university (in Canada, for example, universities usually require a score of at least TOEFL 550), are able to have the opportunity to take adjunct courses, and results seem most satisfactory since students have access to content tutoring. Although the adjunct model is generally considered appropriate for advanced-level students, this case study suggests its possible application to a broader range of students. T h e M e r i t s a n d D e m e r i t s o f A d j u n c t I n s t r u c t i o n Re-examining the various kinds of content-based instruction provided for E S L students in tertiary education, the adjunct model offers an effective bridge to the mainstream because it provides the most authentic situation. Even if ESL students feel confident to participate in mainstream classes, they cannot experience authenticity nor realize the reality until they actually enroll in the content class. Regarding the study skills issue, for example, Snow and Brinton (1988) find that after emolling in a content class, E S L students show "a noticeable decline in confidence" (p.568) concerning time management, lecture note taking and reading, and feel discouraged participating in class activities and in discussions with native speakers. Adjunct courses, however, help E S L students retrieve their confidence and acquire integrated, transferable academic skills by means of which they can achieve their goals. Adjunct instruction, on the other hand, also poses some problems that limit its applicability (Braine 1994; Iaucu, 1993; Raphan & Moser 1993; Snow & Brinton 1988). First, it requires that both content and language classes be available and coordinated; in other words, an institution must offer programs that allow ESL students to enroll in both 54 content and adjunct courses. To get around this problem, the tutoring model might be an effective alternative since it does not require estabhshing a new course. Second, since both courses share the same content but the focus of instruction differs, the adjunct model requires two instructors for teaching content and language and their substantial coordination. Tliird, this model requires a budget to prepare instructors and staff, and their strong commitment of time and energy to integrate the content materials with language teaching. Several sets of research findings have shown the importance of planning and coordination as keys to success. Finahy, and most importantly, an adjunct course needs a reciprocal relationship between content and language instructor, which needs to be built up through a number of coordination meetings held before and during the term Braine's case (1994) that suggests a workshop to increase instructors' awareness, mentioned above, may provide one solution. In their conclusion, Snow and Brinton (1988) argue that if these conditions cannot be met, "the implementation of the model will be severely hampered" (p.571). Another aspect to be considered is the effect of the cultural gap between E S L students' own cultures and north American culture regarding mainstream classroom behaviour (Braine 1994; Raphan & Moser 1993). Raphan and Moser, for example, suggest that i f ESL students come from cultures in which active interaction between teachers and students is totally absent, content instructors are only likely to discover the students' problems after students have written an essay or an examination. Again, students from traditional education systems may feel embarrassed to speak in front of the class, thus hindering their participation in class discussions and presentations which are so common in 55 content classrooms. In the latter case, Raphan and Moser note that such students may benefit from a small-group format which allows them "to elaborate on their ideas without fear of ridicule" (p. 19). The adjunct model benefits post-secondary ESL students by building a bridge between their language activities and content-area instruction. Authentic materials are widely valued in an authentic classroom situation where both native and non-native speakers of Enghsh study. Among various content-based approaches, only adjunct instruction can provide such authenticity. In the next section, post-secondary content-based issues related to adjunct instruction in specific subject areas will be discussed. 2.4.3 Subject Areas As Mohan (1986) suggests, the role of content in language learning is an important one. For the purpose of this section concerning suitable content courses for adjunct instruction, two subjects—social studies and hterature—will be discussed. The reasons why these courses are chosen is that first, both require integrated skills such as reading, writing and critical tlunking in the academic fields, which enable ESL students to emulate native speakers in content classrooms. Secondly, they stimulate active interaction among students and instructors, and E S L students can share their own experiences and views with students from different cultures, which helps ESL students actively participate in a content classroom. And, finally, ESL students can learn North American culture through authentic text books and materials and gain a broader range of vocabulary and expressions; this facilitates their classroom acculturation. Studying social studies or hterature helps E S L students to attain academic as well as cultural integration. 56 Social studies Some researchers have argued that social studies is an ideal subject area through which to develop language skills and thinking skills (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wildenson 1984, cited by Oxford 1993). Although they refer to elementary and secondary classes, King, Fagan, Bratt, and Baer (1987) suggest that a content-based social studies class can help E S L students develop background knowledge based on cultural values. Short (1994) reports on her ongoing research project that focuses on ESL learners in middle school social studies classrooms, in which the subject is American history. This research has been conducted both on "sheltered instruction" and "sensitive content instruction" (p.583) in which ESL students and Enghsh-speaking students study history together. Short suggests that for E S L students, social studies may be academically more challenging than other subjects since it demands both high hteracy skills and extensive background knowledge; however, she notes that it also provides opportunities for students to "reflect on their heritage and the role their countries and peoples play and have played in the world" (p.584). The results have been successful because "the academic language demands of social studies mirror many of the higher-level hteracy demands of other content areas"; thus, an integrated language and social studies course might be "an appropriate springboard for students who will make the transition to mainstream classes" (p.603). In addition, Steinmetz, Busch, and Joseph-Goldfarb (1994) report some interesting research findings related to Short's. Because their purpose is to "integrate language and culture, as well as ensure personal relevance" (p. 12), they have chosen a multicultural theme—Lakota Indian culture—and worked with two U.S. college-level E S L classrooms. The researchers note the difficulties of bringing culture into the classroom because of the lack of training and curricular materials. Nevertheless, the students responded positively to this subject, and instructors found language improvement by students through learning the content. The conclusions drawn by Short and Steinmetz et al. can apply to post-secondary ESL students; social studies courses such as history or sociology can help them develop critical-thinking skills and background knowledge about cultural values and diversity. Because they become a part of their new country's diverse cultural fabric, the subject may appeal to them and stimulate their motivation. While the content facilitates ESL students' adaptation to the new culture, i f an adjunct course is available, they also receive help in coping with higher-level hteracy demands. What is more, social studies benefit both ESL students and native speaker students in the content class, as they together learn and share their own cultures in culturaUy-diverse classrooms. Literature Literature courses are both challenging and demanding, not only for E S L students but also for native speakers of English, because they require advanced, academic reading and writing skills, and as readers, students are expected to explore the author's underlying thoughts, feelings, and the theme of a work, as well as respond to these by expressing themselves (cf. Chen & Graves, 1995). They need to understand the connotations of language, and to have a highly developed command of language themselves. Despite 58 these difficulties, several researchers have suggested the effectiveness of teaching hterature as a content course to ESL students (Cantoni-Harvey, 1992; Oster 1989; Sasser, 1992; Tahb 1992; Willoquet-Maricondi 1991). As these researchers suggest, using hterature as content is effective. Literature helps students reflect upon their cultural and personal experience, which enhances students' sociocultural awareness and sense of identity in a certain culture as well as universal human experience (Willoquet-Maricondi, 1991). Literature also enables students to realize that cultural values and norms constantly influence people's world view; it thus draws students' attention to the links between culture and language. Particularly in multicultural classrooms, cross-cultural experience and understanding cultural diversity is important (Jobe, 1993). Reading hterature and writing essays further helps students develop critical reading and tlmiking skills, and communication skills, and enriches their written and oral language. Collie and Slater (1987) discuss four reasons why language teachers should use hterature. First, hterature is valuable authentic material, offering rich and important fundamental human issues and providing language which is genuine and undistorted. Second, it contributes to students' cultural enrichment, helping them increase their insight into a country and its society. Third, there are linguistic advantages. Although the language of literary works is not always the language of daily life, hterature provides students with various features of the written language, such as the formation and function of sentences, different grammatical structures, and many ways of connecting ideas. Finally, hterature enables students to shift their focus on language from a rule-based system to a socio-semantic system; the language "becomes 'transparent'—the fiction 59 svrmmons the whole person into its own world"(p.6). Furthermore, hterature stimulates various class activities as it can be dramatized or used as a basis for students' own creative writing, which may broaden students' views of studies and inspire them to develop their potential. Overall, hterature seems suitable for adjunct instruction, providing effective support for post-secondary E S L students, even for students who major in science subjects, because hterature courses help the students grasp their new culture's norms and values, develop communicative competence, enrich their sense of language, and improve their thinking skills. As content coursework enhances their cognitive and linguistic maturity, it also helps E S L students find a way past one of their major obstacles—the cultural gap. Despite these advantages, very few studies have been done in hterature courses (Oxford, 1993), and it seems valuable to explore this field. 2.4.4 Research Implications for Adjunct Instruction Several post-secondary content-based instructional approaches have been implemented in various settings and have obtained successful results through offering ways to link the various language skills through meaningful content. Content-based instruction moves away from traditional language teaching and learning toward "the acquisition of communicative skills related to content" (Oxford 1993). Among the various approaches and methods considered, adjunct instruction offers ESL students the possibility to attain the language required for their academic success while experiencing "the authenticity of the academic demands" (Snow & Brinton, 1988), both of which help them achieve integration and acculturation to mainstream classrooms. 60 Oxford poses several issues related to adjunct instruction. Issues related to students and course structure seem especially significant. One such issue is whether or not native Enghsh speakers feel that the courses are in any way watered down, or whether they get the same quality and intensity of content learning with ESL students in the classroom; one course structure issue centres on what kind of institutional supports are necessary for this highly coordinated course structure to be implemented. Many universities struggle with the question of whether or not language teaching for communication belongs at the university level. After considering this, Le Blanc (1994) mentions the importance of ESL students' contributions to the mainstream classroom. In the content courses, native Enghsh speaker students may encounter communication problems with E S L students; however, they can experience other cultures and peoples through their relationships with E S L students, and this may spur their desire to broaden their own insights by exploring other cultures. This is an issue of principle with which academic institutions continue to struggle. Other issues include the availability of financial support to establish a new program, as well as the availabihty of the necessary facilities such as a language laboratory, and of additional personnel such as new faculty or extra support staff (Brinton, Snow & Wesche, 1989). This present study examines those issues discussed above, as Crandall (1993) suggests that it is important to do careful research to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction, specifying optimal conditions, and to examine difficulties individual students experience in their content classes. In this chapter, I have reviewed three areas of hterature relevant to the present study and discussed its theoretical background. In the next chapter, I will describe the methodologies used in the present study. 62 Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY This chapter introduces the procedures used in the present research: the ethnographic approach to research, the courses and classrooms chosen for observation, transcription procedures, and analysis. 3.1 Ethnographic Research I employed an ethnographic approach to this study. Ethnographic research in education is one kind of qualitative research which involves the study of the culture and characteristics of a group in a natural setting (Nunan, 1992a; Schumacher & McMillan, 1993; Tesch, 1990; Wolcott, 1992). Ethnography was originally developed in anthropology but has become adapted to other disciplines, such as sociology and psychology. It has been widely accepted in research in second language acquisition and teaching (Johnson, 1992; Nunan, 1992a; Watson-Gegeo, 1988) as an alternative to the more quantitative approach of positivism (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995; GalL, Borg, & Gall, 1996) and facilitates the in-depth study of culture. Shirnamura (cited in Gall et al., 1996) identified three major characteristics of ethnographic research, which were suitable to my study: first, focusing on "discovering cultural patterns in human behavior"; second, focusing on the "emic [i.e. insider's] perspective of members of the culture"; third, focusing on studying "the natural settings in which culture is manifested" (p.608). These characteristics suggest the appropriateness of an ethnographic approach to my study, since I attempted to explore classroom culture and students' socialization through individual participants' values, beliefs, customs, and other aspects related to their behavior and their behefs. Ethnographic studies are usually conducted with one particular group, concerned with the group members' culturally-shared behaviors and attitudes. A classic example is Heath's work (1983, 1986, 1992), investigating and comparing language use among three different cultural groups. Some researchers (e.g. Duff, 1995; Harklau, 1994; Losey, 1995; Poole, 1990; Willet, 1987) have examined students in a classroom, considering the classroom to be its own culture. The researcher's role is to capture a holistic overview of the context and to derive data on the perceptions of insiders withhi that context (Miles & Huberman, 1994). In this study, conclusions were drawn through what Geertz (1973) called "thick description" which is a "richly detailed report that re-creates a situation and as much of its context as possible, along with the meanings and intentions inherent in that situation" (Gall et al., 1996, p.773). I attempted to examine multiple perspectives in the college classroom culture; my focus was on how participants perceived and defined their lived experiences in studying hterature. As an ethnographic researcher, I was expected to convey the participants' perspectives (an emic perspective) of their experiences. Yet, my own experience several years ago of studying hterature as an E S L student and taking an adjunct course had given me my own emic perspective of a different classroom culture. This multiple perspective continuously reminded me of the need for balance and impartiality in my role as researcher. Ethnography has been criticized for several unresolved issues (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996; Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995; Nunan, 1992a). One such issue is its status as 64 science. Since ethnographic researchers take an emic perspective, they might not be able to generalize sufficiently to provide a basis for "discovering laws of social life" (Gall et al., 1996, p.617); whether or not ethnography should even aim to develop universal laws is another unsolved issue. An etic perspective, on the other hand, might be able to provide a better basis, and yet, this etic perspective might distort understanding of any particular culture because it can impose values upon that culture. At issue here is the discussion of who tells the story and whose story is told. The role of key informants has been discussed by researchers (e.g. Delamont, 1992); some argue that ethnographies are fictional stories created by the author, rather than genuine life accounts. I reflected upon these issues as I collected and analyzed data. My reflections pertaining to these issues will be discussed in later chapters. An ethnographic approach to second language acquisition and teaching "not only defines what it is that learners must learn as they are socialized into a new language and culture, but it also provides a way of relating second-language acquisition (which can be viewed as L2 socialization) to acculturation" (Johnson, 1992, pp. 133-134). Because ethnography offers the researcher access to the insider's perspective, it provides a richer understanding of the cultural contexts at work in the classroom and opportunities for holistic interpretation of participants' lived experiences. For these reasons, I have employed an ethnographic approach for the present study. 65 3.2 School Sites The present study investigated an adjunct instruction course designed for E S L students enrolled in Enghsh 106, a first-year hterature course at New West Community College (a pseudonym) in New Westminster, B.C. The reasons that I chose the college were as follows. First, it is representative of community colleges in B.C. in terms of the number of ESL students and the average age of students and it offers ESL students who have completed the highest level E S L courses access to university transfer programs; these students had academic goals to achieve, mtending eventually to transfer to university to obtain a degree. Second, the college has used the adjunct model for several years; thus, instructors were experienced with and its course content as well as challenges. Third, I was personally famihar with the institution and its adjunct model, having experienced both as a student. 3.3 Lessons and Instructors Sampled The present study was conducted in two courses: the content course was Enghsh 106, a first-year hterature course, entitled Studies in Prose Fiction; and, the language course was E S L 498, the adjunct course to Enghsh 106. Both courses were taught by experienced instructors. There were several sections available of Enghsh 106, but the sampled sections were the only ones in which the adjunct students could register. I attended all the Enghsh 106 classes and all the adjunct classes for the duration of the Winter semester 1996 for fourteen weeks. 66 English 106 consisted of a lecture session for two hours (all students were required to attend) and a tutorial session for two hours once a week (there were four tutorial sessions scheduled throughout the week, and students were required to register in one of them). The adjunct course was offered once a week for two hours. 3.4 Participants Participants in this study were college students taking English 106 on its own or with the adjunct course, and their instructors. AU the participants—students and instructors-had given their informed consent to me, prior to the research (Appendix A). There were sixty-six students enrolled in English 106. Forty-two of them were native speakers of English (NSs) of diverse cultural backgrounds; twenty-four of them were non-native speakers of English (NNSs), and nine of them enrolled in the adjunct course. Their ages ranged between eighteen and forty (most of them were in their early twenties). Most of the non-adjunct NNSs were of Chinese background, from either Hong Kong or Taiwan; among the fifteen students who had registered for the course, one female student, whose first language was Persian, was from Iran. A l l were landed-immigrant students and had been in Canada between two and five years. Among the nine adjunct NNSs, two male students were from Hong Kong or Taiwan, and the others, all female, were from Korea (1), Japan (1, who was Korean-Japanese), Malaysia (1), Philippines (1), Hong Kong (1), and Iran (1). They were landed immigrant students, except the Korean-Japanese student who was an International student. Most of them were in their early twenties. 67 The Enghsh 106 instructor was male, and has taught Enghsh hterature courses at the college for over twenty years. The adjunct instructor was female, and has taught E S L courses at the college for over fifteen years. She has taught adjunct courses before to Enghsh 106 and Enghsh 130 (Academic Writing); it was her third time working with this particular Enghsh instructor. AU participants' names are pseudonyms. 3.5 Data Col lect ion I employed a variety of data-collection methods. Researchers (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995; Johnson, 1992; Yin, 1994) have suggested the advantage of using multiple data-collection methods and gathering data from various sources. This process— triangulation—'helps to eliminate biases that might result from relying exclusively on any one data-collection method, source, analyst, or theory" (Gall et al., 1996). Five strategies were used for coUecting data: first, observing the class and the students, and taking field notes; second, videotaping the classes, and sometimes audiotaping small group discussions; third, conducting interviews with the instructors and the students; and, fourth, conducting a questionnaire at the end of the semester. I also collected the students' in-class writing, quizzes, essays, and other writing which was graded by the instructor and I was able to look at students' course evaluations after the semester was over. Initially, I had intended to be a participant-observer, so that I read all the required texts to prepare; however, since the Enghsh instructor assigned his students to separate groups 68 for small-group discussions and editing, I stayed with my camcorder most of the time and remained as a non-participant observer. 3.5.1 Recording Procedures A l l English 106 and adjunct classes were observed and recorded. The in-class writing examination was not recorded so as not to disturb students' concentration. In English 106, the instructor divided the course into two formats—a lecture session and a tutorial session (cf. Figure 3.1). For the lecture session, all fifty-one students met together once a week in a big lecture room for two hours. They attended a tutorial session once a week for the same amount of time. There were four tutorial sections all conducted by their instructor, and although classroom structure and size were similar, the number of students varied depending on the section (cf. Figure 3.2). In the adjunct class, the students met once a week for two hours. The number of students was twelve in the beginning and decreased to nine who were the participants of this study. Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 8:00-9:55 Tutorial #1 10:00-11:55 Tutorial #2 Tutorial #3 12:00-13:55 Adjunct Tutorial #4 14:00-15:55 Lecture Figure 3.1 Timetable for English 106 and E A S L 498 (Adjunct) I videotaped both English 106 and the adjunct class, accumulating about 110 hours of tape. My camcorder, set on a tripod, was placed in one corner at the front of the classroom most of the time, and I stood behind the camera, looking through the viewfinder. Recording usually began about five minutes before the class and ended about five minutes after the class, because I wanted to obtain students' interactions with the 69 instructor and other students in a relaxed atmosphere. Although the students were aware that they were being videotaped, the recording did not seem to affect them very much; in the questionnaire, the majority of the students said they were not bothered at all, and did not even notice the camera after a while. Two out of fifty-three students answered that they felt self-conscious in the beginning. Enghsh 106 Lecture: Enghsh 106 Tutorial: Lecture Hall Classroom 66 Ss Section #1: 10 Ss (NS 9, Adj 1) NSs: 42 Section #2: 20 Ss (NS 15, NNS 3, Adj 2) NNSs: 15 Section #3: 13 Ss (NS 9, NNS 4) NNSs (Adjunct): 9 Section #4: 23 Ss (NS 9, NNS 8, Adj 6) Adjunct Course Classroom NNSs 9 Figure 3.2 The number of the students Most classrooms had big windows on one side of the room and two doors on the other side; the classroom contained large, movable tables and chairs and was equipped with two large black boards, a television, and a VCR. The classroom was big enough for both large and small group activities. The instructors used one of the tables as a desk, which was centered in front of the room. On the table, there was a small lectern for books and papers and an overhead projector. When they lectured, the instructors stood in front of the classes; but, they moved around the classrooms during group discussions. In Enghsh 106, students were seated in rows, facing the blackboard, except for group discussions where they were seated around the tables. In the adjunct class, the students were seated in a half-circle, surrounding the instructor. 70 When the students were in small groups, I audio-taped as well as videotaped their discussions (a total of sixteen hours). Three groups in each section were chosen to be audiotaped; I selected three different kinds of groups~NSs only, NS-NNS (non-adjunct), NS-NNS (adjunct)~for the purpose of comparison. I also audio-taped the adjunct students' individual conferences with their adjunct instructor for a total of eight hours. The conferences were held twice each week before the due dates of major essays. The student met the instructor either in a classroom or in her office for about a half hour. I usually sat behind them and put my walkman-size tape recorder on a table beside me; the students did not look at me during their discussions. 3.5.2 Interviews I interviewed instructors twice and students once during the semester. My interviews were structured with specific but open-ended questions (Appendix B). I took brief notes while talking with the student or the instructor and audio-taped all the interviews. I also video-taped the interviews with the instructors. For students, I conducted the interviews after having observed them in their classrooms for two months; by that time, they had already finished their first essay which had been graded by the instructor. They had a sense of what they were expected to do and what they needed to work on in the course and were also used to me and my presence. Each interview took about twenty minutes; I met the students mainly in the cafeteria and occasionally in a classroom. For the purpose of this study of ESL adjunct students in a college Enghsh hterature classroom, I compared their learning process with that of non-adjunct E S L students 71 (NNSs)--those who elected not to take the adjunct course—and students who were native speakers of Enghsh (NSs). When I interviewed students, I thus tried to ensure a balanced range of students, in terms of their number, gender, age, cultural background, first language and course marks. I interviewed all nine adjunct students, ten non-adjunct NNSs, and fourteen NSs. I interviewed the instructors twice—in the middle and at the end of the semester—about an hour each time. These interviews were conducted in quiet offices. January, 1997 week 1 Classroom observations began week 2 Video-recording began Aucuotape-recording began week 3 week 4 February week 5 week 6 Instructors' interviews #1 week 7 week 8 Students' interviews March week 9 Students' interviews week 10 Students' interviews week 11 week 12 April week 13 week 14 Students' questionnaires Instructors' interviews #2 Figure 3.3 Data cohection procedure 3.5.3 Student Questionnaires I conducted a questionnaire of students at the end of the semester (Appendix C). Since several classes were canceled due to snow and a strike (the college lost several days to faculty job-action during this term), I was able to conduct and collect it in class for only two sections. For the other two sections, I asked the students to complete and give the 72 questionnaires to their instructor when they handed in their final essays. I was able to collect eighty percent of the students' questionnaires: thirty-two NSs; thirteen NNSs; nine adjunct students. 3.5.4 Writing I collected the students' in-class writing, quizzes, two major essays, and other writing, after it had been graded by the instructor. 3.6 Method of Analysis In this section, I will describe the method of analysis. 3.6.1 Task as Focus In this study, 'task' (or 'activity' in the Vygotskian framework) has been chosen as a unit of analysis, which is common to language teaching and learning (Mohan & Smith, 1992). As I discussed in Chapter Two, I analyzed various tasks from the language socialization perspective, which is concerned with task as a cultural and social activity. 3.6.2 Transcription Procedures of Student Tasks I listened to the audiotapes and viewed videotapes recorded in class and in interviews. Then, I transcribed recorded data both from the audiotapes and videotapes, which reflected significant aspects of classroom culture and students' socialization. The transcriptions were double-checked by native speakers of Enghsh. The standard transcription conventions of classroom discourse analysis were employed (Appendix D). 3.6.3 Analysis Three major data analyses were used in this study: first, the analysis of the written and declared curriculum derived from observations (including field notes) and interviews with the instructors (audio- and video-recordings); second, the analysis of students' lived experiences derived from observations (including field notes, audio-and video-recordings), interviews (audio-recording), questionnaires; and third, the analysis of discourse (audio-and video-recordings). The data from questionnaires and students' course grades were analyzed quantitatively in order to provide additional information. The data were categorized by recurring themes and patterns, and explained mainly from participants' perspectives. 3.7 Issues of Validity Prior to my study, I considered issues of vahdity. 3.7.1 Internal Validity Data collection in this study was constrained in several ways. First, since I was the only researcher, the study is limited by my interactive style, my data recording, and my analysis and interpretation of participant meanings from the data. I was concerned about low-inference descriptors and tried to present concrete, precise descriptions from field notes and interviews. I used mechanically recorded data—tape recorders, and video-tapes--wherever possible, because audio-tape recording and video-recording help increase the precision of descriptions. When I observed students and took field notes, I frequently confirmed observations and participants' meanings with the individuals concerned through 74 both formal and informal conversations. After interviewing students and instructors, I asked them to review my synthesis of all interviews to ensure accuracy of representation. To increase internal vahdity, I implemented three strategies and considered such threats to internal vahdity as history and maturation, observer effects, selection, attrition, and plausible alternative explanations (cf. Schumacher & McMillan, 1993). The first strategy was a pilot study conducted in the semester prior to this study in order to plan this research. The pilot study familiarized me with course content and structure, and helped me plan my research in the most effective way possible. Ethnographic research generally requires a lengthy data collection period; in my study, however, the length was limited to fourteen weeks since the course was limited to one semester. The second strategy was to conduct observation and in-depth interviews in natural settings. I interviewed participants in college classrooms, cafeterias and instructors' offices since these places were relatively quiet and thus good for concentrating on the interview, while also providing a relatively relaxed atmosphere. The third strategy was disciplined subjectivity; since I was familiar with the college and the adjunct course, I had to self-monitor to minimize my biases, my potential subjectivity, when I collected the data. In addition, I was concerned about several threats to internal vahdity. First, observer/researcher effects: I tried not to influence participants' thoughts and feelings. Attrition—loss of subjects—is common in this kind of study. This happened in the adjunct course, in which initially twelve students registered, but by the middle of the term, three had stopped coming to the class. Researchers' failure to obtain multiple perspectives of 75 participants can become a threat to internal vahdity. I was aware of cases that negated the data, and of discrepant data during data collection and analysis, and endeavored to ensure, by checking again with instructors or students, that my data was correct. 3.7.2 External Validity Detailed descriptions enable other people to understand similar situations and to develop subsequent research; however, with this study, this will not be easy to achieve because of the particular nature of this research. Major threats to external vahdity in this research are those that hrnit its usefuhiess—comparability and translatabihty. Comparability is enhanced when the research design is adequately described so that researchers may use the study to extend the findings to other studies. This seems, however, problematic since there are few post-secondary institutions that have implemented adjunct courses, and each institution has a different course design. Translatabihty is even more difficult to achieve since my theoretical framework—language socialization—was broad and relatively new to E S L educational research, and thus not many researchers have examined ESL classrooms or programs from this perspective. The major threats to comparabihty and translatabihty of research findings are selection effects, setting effects, history effects, and theoretical effects. Since I was not able to choose a group with balanced characteristics, selection was a threat; I had to research whoever signed up for the course. Setting effects are also difficult to resolve, since these may not be generalizable to other institutions, or other researchers and participants. History effects and theoretical effects were even more problematic. Since I could not fully 76 observe many participants at the same time, I had to choose a hmited number of participants whose historical experiences of groups and cultures limited comparability. Nevertheless, an ethnographic approach offers a useful way to exarjoine the adjunct model from the language socialization perspective; it can inform us about ESL students' cultural experiences in their classrooms, how cultural assumptions and values can shape interactions, and what factors lead them to acquire different approaches and attitudes towards learning within the classroom culture. Even though increasing external vahdity is difficult, the essential consideration is to realize what the potential problems and threats are, and how to cope with them. Each case has its own findings, but reporting them clearly and precisely enhances generahzabihty to other sites. In this chapter, I have described the methodology of the present study. In the next three chapters (4-6), I will present the findings of this study. 77 Chapter 4 THE LITERATURE COURSE: PLANNED CURRICULUM This chapter addresses Research Question One—What is the nature of the Enghsh hterature course into which students are socialized ?--and presents an analysis of a first-year college Enghsh hterature course based on the planned (written and declared) curriculum. When a curriculum is designed, it "speaks of goals and objectives, teacher and student activities, and teaching resources" (Aoki, 1993, p.96). Focusing on "task" as the unit of analysis, this chapter examines the social, cultural, and academic values and norms promoted in the planned curriculum of the Enghsh hterature course and the instructor's declared expectations for this course. Primary sources are the course curriculum, prescribed texts, two additional texts--CoMr.se Materials Package and Writing from Reading'—my own observations, and interviews with the instructor. Long and Crookes (1993) suggest that "task" is a useful unit of analysis in needs assessment, program design, method of instruction, and evaluation. In the planned curriculum of the Enghsh hterature class, "task" was integrated into all these areas. 4.1 Literature Courses In the college calendar, hterature courses are comprised of three major activities— reading, th ink ings and writing—which are introduced as follows: The study of hterature at New West Community College provides necessary elements in the intellectual development of students. A wide range of literary materials assist students to make their personal experience meaningful and develop the capacity for an imaginative understanding of the experience of others. Literary 1 In order to preserve anonymity, these two items will not appear in the list of References. 78 material presented, such as stories, images, and metaphors, allows students to develop the capacity for reading, thinking, and writing. This statement makes clear that students are expected to reflect upon their own experiences when they study literary materials in and outside class and share these reflections with other students. Participation, not only written but also verbal, is expected. Students are also required to understand underlying meanings, images, and metaphors presented in literary materials. 4.2 Engl ish Literature Course 106 English 106~Studies in Fiction—is a first-year three-credit hterature course, which is transferable to universities in B.C. First year hterature courses (100-level) are designed to provide students with "the skills and information necessary to read literary works independently, with understanding and enjoyment" (College Calendar, 1995-1996, p. 142). The college English department official course outline for English 106 (1996) describes the course as: the close reading of novels and short stories, principally from the modern period. Students will read at least three different kinds of fiction, such as realistic fiction, fantasy, science fiction, romance, and allegory. (P. 1) The course format is stated as four hours a week of lecture, and the maximum class size is thirty-five. There is no course prerequisite; however, students must satisfy a minimum Writing Assessment requirement or submit a substitute or equivalent assessment in order to enroll in any hterature course. Substitutions or equivalent assessments are: a grade of B or better in English 12 within the last four years; an acceptable score from the Language Proficiency Index (LPI) within the last four years; a transcript showing 79 enrollment in a college-level writing or literature course within the last four years; mastery of the highest level E S L or DVST (Developmental Studies) writing course within the last four years. A l l students are also recommended to take the Enghsh Academic Writing course, Enghsh 130, before taking any hterature courses. The official course outline states general course objectives, course content, method of instruction, and evaluation for the course. Yet, depending on the instructor and his or her choice of texts, classroom tasks and activities may be quite different. 4.2.1 Course Objectives and Content (Reading and Writing Tasks) In the official course outline, course objectives are divided into two major tasks: reading and writing. Reading The student will learn the relation between the particulars of a work of hterature and the meaning of the whole work by learning to 1) read attentively and receptively; 2) read with a sensitivity to language, including a recognition and understanding of the difference between denotation and connotation; 3) recognize and understand the device of irony; 4) recognize and understand the nature of character, including major and minor characters, round and flat characters, protagonist and antagonist, developing and static characters, and stock and stereotyped characters; 5) recognize and understand elements of narrative structure, including various points of view; and 6) recognize and understand the use of setting. Writing The student will learn the process of writing a critical essay on a portion of a work, a whole work, or more than one work of hterature by learning to 1) pre-write by using devices such as informal and formal outlines; 2) develop an essay through multiple drafts and respond effectively to commentary on his or her written work; 3) develop and use a thesis; 4) develop a unified and coherent essay; 5) comprehend the nature of literary evidence and use this type of evidence effectively and correctly; and 6) write with a thematic focus. (Course Information, 1996, p.2) 80 A significant portion of the course content is "devoted to instruction in writing critical essays on literary subjects" (English 106 official course outline, 1996, p.3). In the instructor's course syllabus, reading and writing are also emphasized. Students will read short stories, long short stories, and short novels, and will learn "concepts of literary analysis and use them to gain a better understanding of assigned fiction" (p. 1). This description of reading does not explain what the concepts of literary analysis are. These concepts are nevertheless the subject of instruction throughout the course. The description of writing tasks rehes also upon the ability of the student to understand and interpret key terms. Students write two "critical essays" (600-800 words) on assigned works, some short paragraphs (quizzes and exercises) written in class, regular written homework" (p. 1). The syllabus also suggests that students' writing should be "at a level of content, organization and correctness appropriate to university-transfer students" (p.l). Terms such as "critical" and "appropriate" in the above statements are not specifically defined in the course syllabus. The syllabus points out that class time is used not for "basic composition skills" but for "lectures, class exercises, and essay revisions" (p.3); it also states: basic language and composition skills are a prerequisite for this course: weakness in basic language or composition skills will result in a significantly lower grade on essays and may lead to difficulties with the college writing bar (see 4.1.6). Basic skills include format, spelling, punctuation, grammar, diction, quotation and paraphrase, and documentation. (P.3) The instructor expects students to: come to the class with homework completed; to enter the class relatively fluent in Enghsh; to have all the basic punctuation skills; to be able to read and follow directions; to do the assignments as they're asked to; and to do the homework in the way required. (Interview) 81 Since students do not receive language support in class, the syllabus suggests those who need assistance with basic skills should "examine their time budget and modify their workloads" (p.3) and study on their own to master these skills. Clearly, the instructor considers this course challenging: The problems are, first of all, they have no experience writing this kind of essay; second, even though they have taken Enghsh 130 [academic writing], they didn't necessarily write papers about stories....They have to learn what constitutes evidence—this is difficult for them—and they have to learn to write, I mean, what I require them to do is to learn to address an audience. I think that the most difficult thing is that I require them to pick their own subject, to pick their own topics, to develop them. I expect them to be serious. They have to actually come up with something that's new for their audience. They have to develop this topic themselves; that's probably the first time they've had to do that and just getting that expectation clear on the first paper is a challenge. (Interview) Reading and writing tasks required both language learning and content learning. These tasks also promoted cultural learning. The instructor, as expert, planned to provide students with opportunities to develop thinking skills by participating in tasks. The required texts of the course in this study were as follows: 1. Margaret Atwood (1991). 'True Trash," 'HairbalL" " The Age of Lead," "Isis in Darkness" in Wilderness Tips. Toronto: McClelland-Bantam. Born in Ottawa in 1939, Atwood has become one of the most prominent modern Canadian writers, since winning the Governor General's Award at twenty-seven. She has "created a substantial body of writing—poetry, fiction and criticism—which has gained her an international reputation" (Brown et al. 1990, p.587). She has published over thirty books, which have been translated into more than twenty languages. Wilderness Tips is a collection of short stories. 82 2. IsakDinesen (1983 edition). "ThePearls," 'Invincible Slave-Owners." in Winter's Tales. Toronto: Penguin Books. The book was first published in 1942. Isak Dinesen was born in Denmark in 1885, studied art at Copenhagen, Paris and Rome, and went to Kenya after her marriage. Most of her books were published in Enghsh and Danish under different pen-names. This collection of eleven tales was written after her return from Kenya during the Nazi occupation. These tales were her own 'Tavorite work"; her stories proceed "from an astonishing and wholly unexpected sympathy with their powers of romantic phantasmagoria" (p.226). 3. Fyodor Dostoevsky (1968 edition). "The Gambler," "The Eternal Husband." in Great Short Works of Fyodor Dostoevsky. New York: Harper & Row. Born in Moscow, 1821, Dostoevsky is one of the great nineteenlh-century Russian novelists. "The Gambler (1866)" and "The Eternal Husband (1870)" were written in his literary maturity, a personally traumatic time in his life which included the death of his wife, brother, and children, and his own addiction to gambling (Pickering, 1992). "The Gambler" is "an autobiographical study by an addict of his own fixation" (Hingley, 1968, xi). "The Eternal Husband" illustrates Dostoevsky's "attitude toward love, which is portrayed with uncanny subtlety" (Hingley, 1968, xii). 4. E . M . Forster (1990 edition). A Room with a View. London: Penguin Books This book was first published in 1908. Forster was born in London in 1877 and went to King's College, Cambridge in 1897. The Editor's Introduction suggests that Forster's first visit to Italy inspired him to write this novel. He wrote six novels, four of which appeared before the First World War; A Room with a View was one of them. He has been 83 called "one of the most esteemed Enghsh novelists of his time" (p. 1). A Passage to India is considered his masterpiece. 5. Henry James (1966 edition). "Daisy Miller," ''Washington Square." in Great Short Works of Henry James. New York: Harper & Row. Henry James was born in New York, 1843, of "wealthy, patrician parents and was privately tutored in New York City, Albany, and then abroad, in England, Switzerland, France, and Germany" (Pickering, 1992, p. 1436). His experiences were reflected in 'Daisy Miller" (1879); because she is an American, Daisy Miller does not fit in European society; yet, she is always herself until she dies sadly. "Washington Square" (1881) is considered a masterful short novel (Flower, 1966), portraying the relationship between a father and a daughter, and her marriage. His short novels are always "grounded in a particular society and a particular time, because social observation was part of the novelist's task" (Flower, 1966, vii). 6. R.K. Narayan (1982 edition). The Painter of Signs. Toronto: Penguin Books. This book was first pubhshed in the U S A in 1976. The story unfolds in India. The main characters of the story are Raman and Daisy: "Raman is considering giving up sign painting when he meets Daisy of the Family Planning Centre. Slender, Mgh-rninded, thrillingry independent, Daisy has made up her mind to be modern and is now dedicated to bringing birth control to the people." Narayan "has a faultless ear for the intricate eccentricities of Indian Enghsh, and the dialogue is a joy in itself' (p. 146). The instructor selected these short stories and novels, including translations, from various times (between 1866 and 1991) and cultures (Russia, Denmark, England, Italy, India, Canada, etc.) to represent diverse writing styles, perspectives, and cultural contexts; 84 nevertheless, there was an underlying theme—human experiences and relationships, particularly those between men and women—on which he wanted students to focus: I think there's a certain degree of comparability among the various writers in terms of theme and subject matter. I try also to pick a variety of writing styles and perspectives on the subject, and I also pick some good examples of literary devices like first person narration, stories primarily ironic, major symbols. There are plenty of opportunities to discuss literary devices in stories. These are important to me. I tend to pick books, generally speaking, that are worthwhile to read and present serious attempts to deal with experiences....I want to give them [students] a wide variety of cultural perspectives for them to see the same themes dealt with in many contexts so that they get a sense of how many different ways there are to deal with subjects. Most of the subject matter is between men and women....We have a lot of cultural diversity in a classroom, so I think that it's not inappropriate to have a number of different cultural contexts. (Interview) A 32-page booklet, Course Materials Package, written by the instructor, reinforces the importance of subject, theme, and literary devices. This is a self-study guide used for homework and in-class work. It contains: 1) required conditions for the theme statement; 2) definitions of literary devices (theme, imagery/symbolism, irony, narrative structure); 3) guidance for editing theme statements, thesis development exercises, and peer editing; and 4) group conduct rules and suggestions for resolving conflict in the edit/discussion. The students are also required to use a guidebook, Writing from Reading; this book, written by a New West Community College instructor, is a guide to using and documenting sources when students write academic essays. These guidebooks are intended to help students understand the detailed content of class assignments and group work; however, their value is most fully realized as students engage in the course; it is difficult to appreciate the help they can provide before engaging in the actual tasks. 4.2.2 Course Structure As mentioned, the course runs four hours a week, usually divided into two classes of two hours each. The instructor uses these two class times differently in two formats: the common lecture (Mondays, 14:00-16:55, Lecture Theatre) and a tutorial for each section (Figure 4.1). Students attend both the lecture session and one of the tutorial sessions. Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 8:00-9:55 Tutorial #1 10:00-11:55 Tutorial #2 Tutorial #3 12:00-13:55 Tutorial #4 14:00-15:55 Lecture Figure 4.1 Timetable for Enghsh 106 According to the instructor, this format not only saves him from presenting the same information four (there were four sections in this study) times but also helps students prepare for university. As he points out, when students transfer to university, which most of them want to do, they will likely experience lectures in a big lecture room. The content of each tutorial session is basically the same. The instructor does not direct the tutorial sessions; students work either in small groups or on their own. These two formats (lecture and tutorial) provide students with different learning environments. 4.2.3 Declared Method of Instruction The method of instruction as outlined in the syllabus and/or stated by the instructor is task-based; various kinds of activities are employed to help students achieve the goals of the course. In the official course outline, some or all of the following tasks are stated to 86 be used: lecture/discussion; group work and peer editing; and commentary on student's written work by peers. The instructor in this study particularly emphasizes "structured group work assignments" in his course syllabus. The syllabus states the importance of preparation and individual study because class and small-group discussions are based on this homework. If students do not bring prepared homework to class, they "are expected to leave classes to complete the homework, whenever structured exercises or group work begin" (p. 1). The syllabus also states that the instructor will give students some training "in the development of skills necessary for work in the class" (p.l). The instructor considered small-group discussion crucial: they [the students] should have some interaction skill objectives: they should learn to listen and learn to speak and learn the ethos of academic discussions. (Interview) Such collaborative learning, which encourages students to be interactive and independent of the instructor, is a growing trend among colleges and universities in North America (cf. Ferris & Tagg, 1996; Nunan, 1992b). Ferris and Tagg have conducted a survey which suggests that college and university instructors' lecturing styles have become less formal and more interactive. This style of learning can be a challenge for E S L students, particularly those who have experienced the Asian education style where students are given instructions and expected to follow them exactly. These students are not rewarded for imagination, creativity or critical analysis but instead are rewarded for their ability to memorize facts, repeat back to the instructor hiformation he or she has given them, and summarize accurately the authorities whose arguments they read. 87 Students in English 106, however, have to work in cooperative groups and exchange then-ideas and writing assignments. The instructor wanted them to find each other's ideas interesting: their different social, cultural, and family backgrounds, he hoped, would lead to better discussions and more interesting perspectives about the hterature. 4.2.4 Pedagogical Tasks and Activities Although there is not a specific section in the syllabus about classroom tasks and activities, these can be deduced from such sections as course content, assignments, and evaluation. These tasks are: 1) understanding the instructor's lecture; 2) class note taking; 3) whole class discussions; 4) essay analysis; 5) group discussions based on assigned reading; 6) group work on homework (theme statements, thesis statements); 7) individual and group work on thesis development exercises; 8) peer editing (thesis development exercises, essay revisions) and group discussions; 9) short paragraph in-class writing (quizzes and exercises); and, 10) an in-class essay exarnination at the end of the course. The course focuses on two forms of communication: oral and written. But it does so in a way not common in first-year college classes. Students are not just encouraged to work collaboratively but obhged to do so in order to reach conclusions about the hterature. They study through discussion and negotiation with each other as peer novices rather than through instruction from their teacher, the expert. The instructor is cornmitted to this approach: There are a couple of things. First of all, they [students] are learning listening skills and learning the ethos of academic discussions when they work together with other people in small groups....then they learn patience and the ability to explain their own ideas....it's more genuinely practicing a model of scholarship in my opinion, than hstening to me. The third thing is that students read the same material; they've read and have ideas and interpretations which they wish to present. That is exactly the nature of academic life really except that many 88 students are not going to get the chance to experience this until they are graduate students or even after that. I think that's wrong. I think they should be having this experience. It's fun, and they should be having the social rewards and intellectual rewards through genuine discussion. They can't have me, because they know that I understand the story very much better than they do. It's very artificial for them to argue with me. But it's real, if they discuss in relation to other students, because there is only argument and no authority to provide the "right" answer. So, I think it's a good system from that point of view. (Interview) Reinforcing this approach, the instructor does not encourage students to seek him out outside of class. In fact, he does not maintain specific office hours, but the syllabus makes clear that students can talk to him "immediately after classes" and "by appointment" (p. 1) Students can also leave a voice message on his office telephone and e-mail him. In setting these limits, the instructor reinforces his behef that students themselves must reach then-own interpretations and develop the confidence to solve their own problems. In using this approach, their instructor reflects current trends in research about hteracy. Heath (1992) argues that "communication is negotiation" (p.42). She suggests that the following language socialization experiences seem to "positively correlate with academic success and the retention of literate habits": participation in talk delineating the sequence or the problem-and-solution aspects of ongoing actions; participation in situations in which [experts] expect [novices] to compare one phenomenon (e.g. action, scene, character, object, occasion, or written text) with another; participation in verbal explanation of cause and effects; participation in verbatim or near-verbatim retellings; participation in story telling, (pp. 53-54) As students in English 106 discuss in class, they also prewrite and rewrite. In these ways, students are enabled to "efficiently and effectively make their points on paper" (p.44); perceive that other people challenge their ideas, which empowers them to anticipate problems in their writing; and improve "their chances of 'making sense' to a distant reader 89 who will hold them accountable for their language skills as well as their knowledge about language" (p.50). Even though Heath's argument addresses ESL/EFL learners, it also apphes to students in this study, because studying hterature requires understanding advanced academic language and critical thinking; few students, even native speakers of Enghsh, in first-year hterature courses have such skills. The structure of this Enghsh class demands that they develop them. The planned curriculum suggests that to complete tasks, students need hstening skills, discussion skills, and in-class writing skills, including editing (structural elements and mechanics), in addition to reading skills. The planned curriculum does not specify the sub-skills or elements necessary to successfully perform these tasks. Successful reading, for example, requires not only students' understanding of the language of the hterature, but also historical as well as cultural background and literary conventions; they must have good vocabularies to understand the hterature, follow the lecture, and express themselves in speech and writing; they also need internal affective aspects, such as motivation and confidence. The course thus challenges them in multiple ways. Most of the tasks and activities affect students' final grade in the course; specificaUy, the results of students' tasks and activities 6) to 10) (cf 4.2.4) were marked and graded by the instructor. 4.2.5 Course Assignments Course assignments, consisting of various tasks, have two purposes: first, helping students to prepare for the class (preparation tasks); second, assessing students' work (assessment tasks). Assignments are clearly outlined in the course syllabus; the instructor 90 gives students a handout entitled Schedule of Assignments, which shows each class's assigned reading, quizzes, examination, and essay due dates for the whole semester. This schedule enables students to organize their course work and prepare for the class in advance; in particular, it helps students who are slow readers. Preparation tasks, stated in the guidebook—Course Materials Package—are 1) reading, 2) self-study about writing (using the guidebook), and 3) writing. A major writing task is to write a theme statement "from three to eight sentences, or 40 to 125 words" (Course Materials Package, p. 1). The theme statement must meet three conditions: first, it must make sense of ah the facts of the story; second, it must "not make use of or depend on facts not in the story"; third, it must be "general enough to account for all important aspects of the story, but specific and detailed enough to distinguish the story clearly from other, perhaps similar, stories" (Course Materials Package, p. 1). The instructor designs three sub-tasks for helping students write theme statements. These sub-tasks are: 1) listing the major characters and notable scenes and events; 2) writing a maximum 150 words of plot summary; 3) hsting other significant facts—title, setting, character or place names, and literary devices such as symbols/images, and irony. These sub-tasks, once completed, give students the information they need to produce an effective theme statement. Each time students read a new story or novel, they are required to write theme statements. The guidebook gives students further instruction in this task. Students are required to bring all preparation work to class. The course syllabus states: Preparation of assigned reading requires that material be read attentively. The student will be given a specific set of directions "Homework Guide: Writing 91 Theme Statements," and is required to bring the required written preparation to class, along with the required texts. (P. 2) The syllabus advises that "(preparation notes should be kept in a binder and brought to ah classes: they may be collected from time to time for evaluation, or used in in-class exercises" (p.2). It also suggests that this assigned work "should be brought to class for at least five class periods following the period for which the work is assigned, since classroom presentations and in-class exercises will continue beyond one class period" (p. 2). The syllabus particularly emphasizes the significance of assignments for each class, stating that students should be committed to the course and must prepare all assignments: students "unprepared for group work will be asked to leave the class in order not to delay or otherwise inhibit the learning of those who are prepared" (p.2). Assessment tasks include quizzes, in-class writing (e.g. peer-editing of theme statements), two major essays, and an in-class writing examination. As for the two major essays, the course syllabus informs students about the detailed content; students know in advance that they are expected to write "a successful critical essay" which they are told requires: —a significant, properly limited topic —a precisely stated, significant, insightful thesis --unified and coherent paragraphs containing clear, convincing and complete proof of the thesis, based primarily on data from the work of fiction. (P.3) Depending on students' experiences in writing academic essays, especially about hterature and literary language, these requirements can be daunting. Students may have little idea about, for example, how to produce a "significant, insightful thesis." What for them may seem significant, the instructor may consider too obviously descriptive. Though students 92 likely have little dimculty understanding the words in the requirements above, their full import is quite another matter. The instructor emphasizes that "students make the most of in-class work on essays, since this may be the majority of detailed assistance they receive on a composition" (p. 3). Students are expected to work coUaboratively~to learn from each other rather than rely upon the instructor's expertise. The syllabus also states that "each writing assignment will require from twelve to twenty hours outside of class, assuming that students have no special writing problems" (p.3), informing particularly ESL students that they will need to devote considerable time to writing. Students are required to submit four items when they hand in their critical essays: 1) a completed thesis development exercise; 2) an edit draft of the essay; 3) a student edit completed in class (commentary on the draft); and, 4) a final copy of the essay for marking/grading by the instructor. As most of the work is done in class, these requirements reinforce the significance of in-class activities and participation. Even i f students are very good writers of critical essays, this ability is not enough to enable them to complete the course satisfactorily; they must also demonstrate successful completion of other sub-tasks mcluding the editing of their fellow students' work. Furthermore, these sub-tasks are demanding, especially for students who are aware of their weaknesses as writers. On the other hand, students may interpret these sub-tasks as beneficial, since they are evaluated not only upon their essays but also other items. Nevertheless, the amount of work required is time-consuming. 93 If students receive a P+ grade or lower on their first essay, they are allowed to revise and resubmit their essays within three classes of these essays being returned. They cannot revise their second essay because it is due at the end of term 4.2.6 Method of Evaluation In the official course outline, there are three major categories of evaluation: first, a nnnimum of two academic essays (at least 40 % of the course grade); second, at least three other evaluations, such as writing assignments, quizzes, and oral presentations; and finally, in-class writing (at least 15 % of the course grade). In addition, a student must achieve a grade of C- or better on first submission (not rewrite) of one of the two academic essays in order to receive a grade of better than P for the course. The course syllabus indicates that the course grade is calculated by 1) essay one (15%), 2) essay two (25%), 3) quizzes etc. (40%), 4) in-class essay (10%), and 5) variable component, by which the "better of the two essays will be weighted an additional 10% (based on best 80% of scores plus homework points)" (p.2). The course syllabus encourages students not to miss class, because quizzes, homework, and in-class exercises, which may not be made up i f missed, determine 40% of the course grade. The instructor employs a Bonus/Penalty Points system for thesis development exercises and edit drafts of essays one and two, which are apphed after the course calculation: "Ten bonus points are sufficient to raise a student's grade one level on the course grade scale" (p.2). Likewise, ten penalty points lower a student's grade one full grade level. After these points are combined, "a maximum of fifteen bonus points or a maximum of twelve penalty points will be apphed to the course grade" (p.2). He also gives students 94 Homework Points for completing homework. There are three levels: "one or two for satisfactory, none (zero) for completion but not satisfactory, and rninus one or two for no assignment. These points are totaled and added to the total of quiz points. Even if students do not consider themselves good writers, these points may encourage them to work hard; when they make an effort, they can get points to raise their grade. 4.3 Social , Cultural, and Academic Values and Norms Promoted in the Course In this section, I analyze social, cultural, and academic values and norms promoted in the Enghsh hterature class; in particular, mdividuahsm, collaboration, equality, and a post-structural approach to literary interpretation and classroom practice are the focus. These values and norms emerged from course content and objectives, method of instruction, and course tasks/activities. 4.3.1 Individualism One of the important and prominent social and cultural values and norms of North American society is mdividuahsm, which emphasizes individuals' initiative and achievement, and promotes self-realization (Gudykunst & Kim, 1995). There are always individual differences, and various personal experiences help people shape their views, which cannot be determined alone by the culture they grew up with; however, it is still worthwhile to consider different values and norms among cultures. Gudykunst and Kim (1995) discuss North American individuahsm compared with Asian collectivism, and point out that "mdividuahsm-coUectivism is the major dimension of cultural variability used to explain cross-cultural differences and similarities in communication across cultures" 95 (p.56). They argue that individuahstic societies and the hterature they produce emphasize individuals' initiative and achievement and promote self-realization; collectivistic cultures (e.g., Asian, African, Latin American, and southern European, according to Gudykunst and Kim) and their hterature, in contrast, emphasize belonging to groups and require that individuals fit into these groups. In the English 106 class, the hterature and classroom tasks reflected indfviduahsm In the short stories and novels selected for the course, even though the instructor specifically selected books from various writers reflecting diverse cultural traditions, North American and European society and culture were dominant; also, historical knowledge about North American and European social structure, economic and pohtical situations, religion, and gender roles was important to understanding the texts. The issues raised in the books are related to lifestyles, family relationships, gender, work ethic, and so on, and the understanding and interpretation of these issues are influenced by social and cultural values. Students of North American and European backgrounds who learned North American and European history not only from schooling but also from the media they grew up with likely understood this context better than students who were from non-western societies. Authors of the hterature focus upon mdividual people's lives, and main characters pursue their own interests and goals rather than common interests and group goals. From nmeteenth-century works such as those by Forster and James to a modern work such as Atwood's, the hterature makes readers ponder personal growth and self-actualization accompanied by "a subjective sense of rightness and personal well-being" (Waterman, 96 1984, pp. 4-5); even Dinesen's work, which takes the form of a tale, depicts a princess's self-actualization to independent mdividual. The books suggest that one's husband, wife, father, mother, or child is not as important as oneself when pursuing goals in life. When one feels it is right to pursue and achieve one's individual wishes, he or she does so without regard to the constraints of social class or society. The traditional class system, family values, or roles of men and women are negatively perceived, and characters in the hterature eventually stand up against them. Dostoevsky's novels, even though they present deterioration rather than self-actualization, also focus on individual journeys. Classroom tasks such as self-directed preparation, small-group discussions, and peer-editing also promoted an individuahstic culture; students were expected to be independent and active learners, speaking their minds and sharing ideas freely in small groups designed to promote individual expression. This runs counter to the experience of many Asian students. Examining mathematics learning in Japanese, Chinese, and American classrooms, Stigler and Perry (1990) find that American students spend much time 'Svorking independently and contact with the teacher is more likely to take the form of individualized or small-group instruction" whereas Asian students spend most of their time "working on teacher-led activities as members of a whole class of students" (p. 3 50). They also suggest that American students are required to solve many problems on their own, while Asian students are given more opportunities to get instructor feedback about then-ideas and discussions. Schwartz (1992) calls the American approach "self-direction" in which students are encouraged to have independent thought and action, choosing, creating and exploring. This approach was challenging for the ESL students in Enghsh 106 who 97 were mostly from Asian countries where students generally remain passive recipients of instruction, and respond to very structured assignments. Students in the English 106 class were expected to achieve mdividual goals on then-own. Jf* they did not feel comfortable with this value, they had to struggle to reconstruct their values or endure the conflict (e.g. Cummins, 1995) 4.3.2 Collaboration On one hand, the hterature and classroom tasks of the Enghsh 106 class reflected individuahsm; on the other hand, the classroom tasks at the same time encouraged students to help each other, while working in small groups. Small-group tasks such as discussions and peer-editing seem to contradict individuahsm; however, these collaborative experiences encouraged students to work together to develop individual thinking, reading, and writing skills, and deepen their individual understanding. The goal was not to encourage students to reach group conclusions but to achieve mdividual goals through group discussion. The small-group work also required students to reveal themselves to other members they did not know very well. Researchers (e.g. Gudykunst & Kim, 1995; Levine, 1985) distinguish this communication style, low-context communication, dominant in mdividualistic societies, from high-context conmiunication, dominant in collectivistic societies. These different interpersonal connnunication styles are powerfully influenced by cultural differences (Gudykunst & Kim 1995; Hall, 1976; Levine, 1985). Gudykunst and Kim define low-context communication as communication in which 'information is embedded mainly in the messages transmitted" (p.65), and argue that mdividuahstic 98 cultures predominantly use this low-context communication--people communicate in a direct and unambiguous fashion. People in collective cultures use high-context communication, commumcating indirectly and ambiguously, since they try to avoid leaving an assertive impression with the listener. Okabe (1983) further points out that reserved attitudes are considered active, not passive, behavior in collective cultures. In these cultures, silence can also be valued, while people who use low-context cornmunication often feel discomfort with silence. If these two communication approaches are present together in group discussions, both speakers and listeners feel frustrated. Low-context coinmunication requires individuals to be open to other people, sometimes involving revealing personal information (Gudykunst & Kim, 1995), which may be difficult for people in collective cultures. Nevertheless, Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988) suggest that when low-context communication takes place, personal information is necessary to predict behavior. Successful low-context coinmunication therefore encourages the students to get to know each other and to say directly and precisely what they are thinking. The hterature course was designed to help the students achieve low-context communication (e.g. sitting in the lecture theatre with students of their section; working in small groups); however, this is a challenge for students who are accustomed to high-context communication. When the students discussed their ideas with other students in a small group, they had to exchange opinions and provide commentary to each other. They were not allowed only to listen; they had to speak. For some E S L students, this was challenging, because of a language barrier and cultural differences. Not only were E S L 99 students not accustomed to commenting on other people's writing, but they also had difficulties describing, explaining, or expressing their opinions and feelings. When they were not understood, they tended to stop speaking. Communication styles in small groups are also influenced by students' knowledge of what it means to be a member of a cultural group (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1989). North American students are likely to have a lack of group consciousness, whereas Asian students consider belonging to a particular group important. In a conectivist culture, self-esteem is linked to people's ability to accommodate others and maintain harmony rather than to conflict with them (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Asian students are likely to avoid argument, even though this dynamic is often at the heart of small-group discussions. Triandis (1988) argues that the relative importance of ingroups— groups important to us~is one of the major factors which differentiate mdividuahstic and coUectivistic cultures. "[T]he sphere of influence in an mdividuahstic culture is very localized (i.e., the ingroup affects behavior in very specific circumstances),'' whereas "the sphere of influence in a collective culture is very general (i.e., the ingroup affects behavior in many different aspects of a person's life)" (p.57). Young adults in collective culture groups know themselves as members of this group and find their identity defined by their role within it; young adults in mdividuahstic cultures identify themselves as mdividuals or small groups (such as cliques, teams, or gangs) and feel a limited sense of connectedness to their society generally. 100 The hterature students studied and discussed primarily reflected European tradition and individuahstic cultures with their attendant values. When students exchange their interpretation and opinions about the behaviour of characters in the hterature, other culturally-specific perspectives emerged. For example, in North America, young people are encouraged to become independent when they reach a certain age, whereas in Asia, traditionally, many young people remain at home until they get married; even after the marriage, they—and especially eldest sons—stay home to look after their parents and sometimes grandparents. In North America, when children leave home, they usually share a house with friends or rent an apartment; not only do they become independent, but they also obtain freedom. Young people are also encouraged to make money on their own even when they are teenagers, whereas in Asian culture, where a strearmhg/tracking system prevails and where university entrance is much more competitive, this is not common, since students are expected to concentrate on their studies. At home, they are expected to play certain roles as members of their famihes; they do not have as much freedom as young people who hve on their own. These differences can enrich small-group discussions, since students are able to explore a variety of perspectives; however, they may also prevent discussions from developing, i f students are not willing to share their diversity. 4.3.3 Equality Equahty is another value promoted in the hterature class. In the hterature students studied, gender equahty was an important social value. The stories and novels encouraged students to analyze the relationships between men and women from a feminist perspective. 101 Even though women in some stories and novels such as those by Dinesen and James had to depend on men, and marriage appeared to be a significant part of their hves, these women nevertheless struggled to become more independent. Narayan's novel, in particular, suggests how some cultures have treated women as inferior to men and how women have fought male domination to improve their hves. In this way, the hterature provided students with an opportunity to reflect upon not only their own cultural values but also compare and contrast them with other cultural values. Triandis (1995) calls the western culture which values equality a 'horizontal culture" in which people are not generally differentiated by class but view themselves as equal to others. In vertical cultures, on the other hand, people are expected to fit into a social strata and view themselves as distinct from other strata; equality is thus not highly valued. If people accept inequality, the less powerful members of community, institutions, and society accept a high power distance as part of society (Hofstede, 1991; Hofstede and Bond, 1984). Depending on their background cultures, students are likely to interpret and respond to equality promoted in the hterature differently. Most NS students, for example, take gender equality for granted, but NNS students might take gender inequality for granted. These different perspectives might lead them in small-group discussions to re-examine equality. Equality was not only valued in the hterature students studied, but also in the classroom tasks. The instructor emphasized a collaborative learning approach and remained liimself a facilitator. This equality between instructor and students—low power distance (Hofstede, 1991)~characterized the classroom Low power distance is seen as 102 one of the characteristics of current western college classrooms, where students "do not necessarily accept superiors' orders at face value" (Gudykunst & Kim, 1995, p.73) and are encouraged to challenge their instructors in order to construct knowledge. In the Enghsh 106 class, the tasks—mostly small-group work—encouraged students to be at the centre of learning about hterature. The instructor encouraged students to discuss issues with other group members and hoped that they could learn from each other; he would not provide students with his own perspectives, even when asked. The members of high power distance cultures, such as Asian students, considered this equal relationship and small power distance between instructor and students uncomfortable (cf. Hofstede, 1991). The hved curriculum, analyzed in Chapter Five, demonstrates that this different understanding of the instructor and student power relationship discouraged students from actively participating in group work. 4.3.4 Poststructural Approach to Literary Interpretation and Classroom Practice The instructor adopted a poststructural approach to literary interpretation. Poststructurahsm is "an approach to the study of systems that denies the possibility of finding any inherent meaning in them," and poststructurahsts perceive that "there is no one objective, true interpretation of a literary work or text" (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996, p.636). Gall et al. (1996) discuss: The value of the poststructurahst approach, in the eyes of its proponents, is that it stimulates people to question deeply the assumptions they most take for granted about what they consider to be true or authoritative, (p. 637) This parallels the instructor's approach. He said in the interview that "there is only argument and no authority to provide the 'right' answer." 103 This poststructural approach challenged both NS and NNS students in a variety of ways. The English 106 students were expected to be: 1) critical readers, 2) critical thinkers, 3) critical writers, and 4) active speakers. When they read the hterature critically, they were expected to understand differences between denotation and connotation; this disadvantaged ESL students. When they thought about the hterature, students were invited to analyze it using their own experiences and values. What was important was that their ideas were analytical and creative, and significantly tied to the reading. Students, regardless of their first language, had difficulties understanding themes and implications in the hterature; despite this, the instructor never gave students his preferred interpretation to consider. Critical tliinkers were students who developed effective ways of reading and analyzing stories, grasping crucial themes and making connections with their own thoughts and feelings. They could consult handbooks provided by the instructor, though the niformation provided therein was very general. Even when students had important and interesting ideas, these were not alone sufficient to enable students to function effectively in the course. Students were required to communicate those important and interesting ideas with the instructor and other students through speech and writing. They needed to have a rich vocabulary and sensitivity to the English language to accurately express themselves, as well as knowledge of effective ways to construct their arguments. Without an objective truth to decipher, students were reliant upon their facility with argument and evidence to cornmunicate meaning. 104 Through critical reading, small-group discussion, and individual and shared writing tasks, students were expected to construct their own interpretations of the hterature, reflecting a poststructural approach to knowledge and classroom practice. This chapter has addressed Research Question One. I have described the planned curriculum and analyzed the nature of a specific first-year college Enghsh hterature course. I have also attempted to examine social cultural and academic values and norms promoted in the hterature classroom. In the next chapter, I will illustrate the hved curriculum of the Enghsh hterature class, focusing on its tasks. 105 Chapter 5 THE LITERATURE CLASS: LIVED CURRICULUM This chapter prirriarily addresses Research Question Two—What is the nature of the Enghsh hterature classroom tasks and the students' language socialization into these tasks?~and also speaks to issues related to Research Question Three—How do the different participants (instructor and students) perceive the nature of the course as lived? As such, it presents an analysis of the hved curriculum, exarnining the nature of the Enghsh hterature classroom's tasks and students' language socialization into these tasks. In a planned curriculum, "students are faceless others and thus are reducible to some kind of sameness" (Aoki, 1993, p. 96). The discourse of the hved curriculum, however, "speaks a somewhat different language—more concretely situated, embodied and incarnated, often narratively told" (p.96). The lived curriculum is created by students, their instructors, and their interactions. This chapter has four sub-sections; in each section an aspect of the lived curriculum is portrayed followed by an account of the students' and the instructor's perceptions. 5.1 Literature Class The lived curriculum of Enghsh 106 derives from classroom observations, audiotaping, videotaping, student and instructor interviews, and student questionnaires. In what follows, I explore the lived curriculum of Enghsh 106. On the first day of the class, students came to a lecture room. They found first that they would have to sit according to their sections for the entire term; as a result, some of 106 them had to sit permanently at the very back of the room far from the instructor and the blackboard. In front of them there was an OHP screen on which the instructor wrote a plan for the day. Students were given a handout, "Workload/Study Skills: Self-analysis and Planning Guide," which asked them to reflect upon their course background, their attitude towards studying, their reading and writing skills, and their own perceptions of their writing, including strengths and weaknesses. Students had to write answers to the questions on the handout, but the instructor did not collect them. His purpose was to let students consider how much they were committed to the work of the course, suggesting that they would not be able to pass the course if they did not devote their time and effort to reading and writing. The instructor asked students, after completing the questions, to come for an interview with him, i f they thought it necessary. Then, the instructor read to the class a short story, explained the essence of essay writing, and asked students to write a summary of the story in fifteen to twenty minutes. Even though this was the first half of the first day of the course, the instructor provided students with information which they were expected to use in the course, and gave them tasks which allowed them to consider the nature of a hterature course and their attitudes toward studying. As the planned curriculum made clear, these tasks demanded that students take responsibility for the course and be active learners. 5.1.1 The Students Sixty-six students remained until the end of the semester; the number of students varied depending on the section (Figure 5.1). I use data from my observations, questionnaires (32 NSs, 13 NNSs, 9 NNSs-Ad), and interviews (14 NSs, 10 NNSs, 9 NNSs-Ad). 107 Lecture Session 66 students (NS 42, NNS 15, NNS-Adj 9) Tutorial Session Section 1: 10 Ss (NS 9, NNS-Adj 1) Section 2: 20 Ss (NS 15, NNS 3, NNS-Adj 2) Section 3: 13 Ss (NS 9, NNS 4) Section 4: 23 Ss (NS 9, NNS 8, NNS-Adj 6) Figure 5.1 The number of students in Enghsh 106 5.1.2 Classroom Tasks and Activities Classroom tasks and activities could be divided into two major categories depending on the goals—instruction and assessment. Figure 5.2 shows kinds of tasks and activities. Tasks and activities related to assessment (underlined in Figure 5.2) were more emphasized in class than those related to instruction (not underlined in Figure 5.2). The students spent more time working on interactive and output/evaluative tasks in class than they did on input tasks (see Figure 5.2). 5.2 Input Tasks (i.e. Tasks which build background knowledge and comprehension) Input tasks were tasks and activities which helped students build upon their background knowledge and enhance individual comprehension. The students were asked to engage in these tasks, critical reading for example, before the class, or were given information at the beginning of the class through lecture, whole-class discussion and quizzes when they studied a new story or a novel. These tasks and activities provided them with input they then could use to perform the more analytical and interactive tasks. 108 Input Tasks —lecture —critical reading —writing theme statements —whole-class discussion —essay analysis —quizzes Interactive Tasks —small group discussions —peer editing —in-class writing Output/Evaluative Tasks —essav writing (40% of the course mark) —editing —in-class essav (10%) Figure 5.2 Classroom tasks and activities (Tasks and activities related to evaluation are underlined.) The amount of time devoted in class to these activities was about forty percent of the lecture session and twenty percent of the tutorial session. These tasks were mostly mdividual tasks which required less discussion with peers and the instructor than the interactive or output/evaluative tasks. Through these tasks and activities, the students learned important information about reading hterature, as stated in the course objectives (Figure 5.3): recognizing and understanding the richness and complexity of language 109 (denotation and connotation, and the device of irony); the nature of character; narrative structure; various points of view; and the use of setting. Reading 1) read attentively and receptively; 2) read with a sensitivity to language, including a recognition and understanding of the difference between denotation and connotation; 3) recognize and understand the device of irony; s4) recognize and understand the nature of character, including major and minor characters, round and flat characters, protagonist and antagonist, developing and static characters, and stock and stereotyped characters; 5) recognize and understand elements of narrative structure mcluding various points of view; and 6) recognize and understand the use of setting. Writing 1) pre-write by using devices such as informal and formal outlines; 2) develop an essay through multiple drafts and respond effectively to commentary on his or her written work; 3) develop and use a thesis; 4) develop a unified and coherent essay; 5) comprehend the nature of literary evidence and use this type of evidence effectively and correctly; and 6) write with a thematic focus. Figure 5.3 Course objectives and tasks 5.2.1 Lecture In a typical class, lecture was given in the beginning of the class associated with related reading and writing tasks and activities; while each class varied shghtly, four different routines prevailed. Routine One, the instructor provided literary and cultural context for the story or novel being studied; Routine Two, he chose a passage from the hterature and Input Tasks Lecture Critical reai Writing theme Whole class discusi Essay analysis Quizzes Interactive Task Small group discussion/ Peer editing In-class writing Output/Evaluatj Essay writing Editing In-class essay asked students to perform several exercises with it; Routine Three, he produced a sample of student writing and asked students specific questions related to it; Routine Four, the instructor read a passage either from hterature they were studying or other sources such as poems, and the students explored the significance of the passage. The foUowing are examples of each of the four routines used in delivering the lecture. Routine 1: Literary and cultural context for the hterature e.g. —biographical detail about authors —the significance of literary devices, symbols, images in the hterature —the roles of ladies and gentlemen in late 19th century Europe —Russian narrative style Routine 2: A passage from hterature (Week 9, March 1996) Image/Symbol Exercise: A Room with a View Complete the exercise on symbol/image, looking for water imagery. Passages: 64.5-66.7; 88.2-89.5; 126.2-126.8; 145.1-152.5; 175-181.5; 222.5-223.2; 229.8; 230.9 Explain how the symbol/image pattern/ set of images is related to the theme of the novel, as stated in the theme statement you have prepared in your homework. Routine 3: A sample student paragraph writing (Week 2, January 1996) 1 KAT'S FIRST PRIVATE CREATION IS THE IMAGE OF "KAT." 2 THOUGH UNIQUE AS SHE WISHES, IT TURNS OUT TO BE A FAILURE. 3 Her whole transformation from "romanticized" Katherine (36) to "street-feline" and "unusual" Kat (36) has only one goal: to get attention. 3 Although Kat, with most of her hair shaved off and with a "drop-dead stare' (37), gets the attention of Enghsh men, her relations with them were not a success. 4 Enghsh men are attracted to her because she is unique, but because she did not fit into the Enghsh class structure (38), they felt that it was easy to abandon her, without feeling guilty (38). 5 Despite the success of an original personality in getting men's attention, Kat's life, instead of being exciting, "began to seem long" (39). 6 Kat was not aware of what could really make her happy. 7 She pretended she did not want children and continued to care only about the uniqueness in her life. I l l Discussions for Exercise: Using the text of "HairbaU" and Writing from Reading, as necessary, on a blank sheet of paper, rewrite the underlined portion of the sample paragraph. a) Quote, paraphrase, surnmarize, and explain, as necessary, to make it clear what facts in the text are the basis for this interpretation. b) Document the rewritten material, as necessary c) explain in the rewrite, as much as is necessary to make it clear, the connection between the interpretation, and claim in the topic sentences (in S M A L L CAPS). Routine 4: A passage from other sources (Week 3, January 1996) Sailing to Byzantium by Yeats was used to lecture about allusion. 1 This is no country for old men. The young In one another's arms, birds in the trees —Those dying generations—at their song, The salmon-falls, the mackerel-crowded seas, Fish, flesh or fowl, commend all summer long Whatever is begotten, born, and dies, Caught in that sensual music all neglect Monuments of imaging intellect .... These routines required the students to be active listeners and seemed beneficial for the students, who were able to concentrate on important aspects of hterature rather than just passively listen to a lecture and consider issues discussed by the instructor. Lectures, however, did not present any interpretations of stories, nor did the instructor answer questions concerning how to interpret stories. The students always had difficulty understanding the value of this poststructural approach to literary interpretation and felt frustrated in ascertaining whether their understanding of a story was "right:" (Interview) If there's no right or wrong answer, then how can you judge different ideas if they are good or bad. How can you know if the author intended to write something about symbolism or irony. (NS) 112 I'm frustrated sometimes, because he [the instructor] didn't explain to us about the story very much. He just said 'think, think, think." Maybe, that's the way it should be. But, I wanted to see good answers, because then I can learn how to interpret the story and write about it. (NNS) The instructor on the other hand considered this experience important for the students: they [students] should read it [a story] and have some understanding of it....But, what does a scholar do? I'm not expecting them to know the answer. They are used to having the answer—it's an old learning style, inappropriate to the university level. There is no answer. The stories have no answers. There's no right interpretations. They learn the tools if they have the right attitude. If they have those things, they'd have what they wanted to have. They don't lose anything— just insecurity. It doesn't require any particular talent for that. It requires certain levels of inteUectual maturity with hterature. We're lucky in Enghsh. We don't have one textbook—no short version of biology... we all study the original. (Interview) Although the instructor intentionaUy did not provide the students with his own explanations or interpretations, he lectured on historical context and cultural aspects, such as social structures and different cultural norms and values. This helped students understand hterature: (Interview) I like lectures because I can't really think of the meaning of the story....It's really interesting, when he [the instructor] talks about different stories and stuff. It's useful...for like writing a theme statement. (NS) I was interested in learning about different cultures and religious beliefs....lecture was good, because he [the instructor] told us lots of things I did not know. (NS) The nineteenth century's cultural tradition was interesting, like ladies and gentlemen, you know... .1 tlrink the lecture was useful. (NS) After the lecture, I understood better the historical context of the story. I thought it would have been better to know it before I read the story. Now I see many things [in the story] differently. (NS) 113 ESL students said they liked the lecture class, because lecture tasks were generally completed individually, and through these tasks and the resulting instruction, they were better able to understand the hterature. Most NSs, on the other hand, suggested that small group discussions were more beneficial to them. There were, however, several NSs who preferred lectures to discussions. Their reasons varied. Some wanted just to listen and learn about hterature. Others who were highly motivated in learning about hterature and had already taken several hterature courses liked the lecture class because they did not feel they benefited from discussions with other students as much as direct instruction, which stimulated them inteUectuaUy. During lectures, very few students took notes; those who did were mostly E S L students. 5.2.2 Critical Reading Most of the students expressed how challenging it was for them to fully understand the stories, interpret them based on the evidence provided by the story, and find a significant and insightful thesis which accounted for important aspects of the story. Clear instruction helped students develop their abilities to read critically. A l l the tasks and activities--lectures followed by whole-class discussions, for example—helped them read receptively as well as critically and recognize important structures and points of view in the hterature. Assignments also encouraged them to develop issues discussed in class. The instructor felt that the hterature he chose was appropriate: I was relatively pleased with the readings—the students liked them....I tliink that the value of the stories is that they made them aware of possibilities in their own hves. Dr.Sloper and Catherine ["Washington Square"], for example, make them think about parents, the value of money, and so on. Atwood's stories make them think how women live. I tlnnk good writers tend to write about things that are interesting to all of us. (Interview) 114 The students found that reading was a time-consuming task, particularly for those who had several other courses, or a job, or who were NNSs: (Questionnaire) I am not a quick reader; so, I have to allow myself extra time to read the stories required. (NS) Reading required lots of time to fully understand the content of the story. (NNS-Adj) What hindered me most was not having enough time. Being busy with other classes and my job. (NS) Time allowed for some stories was not enough for a full time students. (NS) I find that I have to really think when reading and understand there's a meaning below the surface level. But, I'm impatient to be a critical reader. (NS) Some of the reading was pretty intense and difficult to not only read but understand as well. (NS) 5.2.3 Writing Theme Statements The task of writing theme statements was an individual task done outside of class and closely connected with the critical reading task. Students wrote theme statements when they began to study a new story. As directed in the guidebook, this task consisted of three sub-tasks designed to help students successfully complete the task. Students were asked: first, to list the major characters and notable scenes and events in the story; second, to write a maximum 150-word plot summary; and third, to list other significant observations such as literary devices. While they were making notes and writing a theme statement, they were also tlunking and reading about the hterature critically. Since the task required students to read the story carefully and with attention to detail students who were slow readers, particularly NNSs, found this task demanding. One of 115 the NNS-Adj students said that she did not have sufficient time to finish reading as carefully as she needed to; in order to write a theme statement, she read the novel's translation in her own language to understand the plot. Students also found that deciphering themes was challenging: (Questionnaire) Finding the author's hidden messages is difficult. I sometimes have an extremely difficult time deciphering theme. (NS) Very long stories and too many characters give me a hard time understanding stories. I don't understand keywords, symbolism etc. (NNS-Adj) Even though both NSs and NNSs seemed to have similar difficulties, the level of understanding was different: (interview) I usually read a story just once; so, when I write a theme statement, I have to go back to the story again, because you know I forget. It's pretty demanding work. (NS) I'm a very slow reader. I took seven, eight hours to read one short story. Yeah, I sometimes take a whole week to finish reading a story. I had to check a dictionary, because I don't know the words. I made notes, like writing names of the characters and relationships. I'm confused sometimes....I just can't have time to read more than once. But, when I write an essay, I know I realty need to read more...more deeply and critically. I don't know how I can be critical. (NNS-Adj) Despite difficulties, many students came to appreciate that this task was useful for essay writing. Guided by the sub-tasks provided by the instructor (expert), students (novices) were able to develop their critical tliinking and reading skills and write a theme statement which would enable them to participate in the next level of tasks. 116 5.2.4 Whole-class Discussion The whole-class discussion occurred when the instructor first gave the students a lecture, then posed a question which he invited students to answer. Through the discussions, the students were free to express their thoughts and able to grasp important perspectives about a story. But, since the instructor did not give students any "correct" answers to his questions, the students could not know whether or not they had an appropriate answer to the question. This sometimes frustrated them, since they wanted to know the right answer: (Interview) Interpretation of the story is a tricky one. I think it's a matter of opinions. If it's math, you know there's one answer—the right one. But, there's no such thing in hterature. How can you tell i f my interpretation is right, or not right, you know....I asked him (the instructor), but he didn't tell me his interpretation. (NS) But others liked this challenge and sensed the value of the poststructural approach to knowledge: (Questionnaire) I like this course and his [the instructor's] method of instruction. He makes us think. Best instructor I have had yet. (NS) NNS or NNS-Adj students rarely participated in these discussions. Only one NNS student from Iran often expressed himself throughout the semester. E S L students, particularly non-adjunct ESL students in section three which had no adjunct students, always sat close together and seemed to help each other by whispering to each other in their first language during lectures and whole-class discussions. They said they did so to clarify their understanding of the teacher's instructions or other students' 117 opinions. Some NSs perceived this behaviour as somewhat annoying, with the result that a chasm developed between NSs and NNSs: (Interview) They always sit together and chat, chat, chat, you know. I wonder "Hmm what are they talking about...?" Maybe they don't understand the instructor, or the story. I feel it's a bit weird...I just let them do it. (NS) 5.2.5 Essay Analysis The instructor focused on theme statements which would later be developed into a thesis statement and student critiques of other students' statements which could be used for peer-editing. The students first read passages on an OHP screen, and discussed and evaluated the quality of the work with the instructor in whole-class discussions. The instructor consciously chose passages with problems because he wanted to let students realize their own problems when writing or editing essays, despite the fact that many students wanted to read good samples as models. In this way, the instructor encouraged the students to develop then own ideas and arguments rather than to copy other people's ideas. After whole-class discussions, the students further analyzed theme statements and student critiques through mdfvidual writing or small-group discussions. 5.2.6 Quizzes Quizzes were given at the beginning of the class when the students started to study a new story. Unlike typical reading quizzes which test a student's comprehension of plot, this instructor's quizzes were generally single questions requiring a paragraph answer mvolving analysis. The instructor put quiz questions on the OHP and usually gave the students ten to fifteen minutes to complete answers. Since a quiz was given at the 118 beginning of studying a new story, it helped the students to recognize important issues in that story. Sample Quiz Questions 1. 'True Trash" Write a character sketch of Joanne. 75 words/max. 2. Painter of Signs "[A]ny girl will accept you~no, adore you. You are eveiything a girl dreams of" Answer the following questions about the above passage, in a short paragraph. What does Daisy do, just after she says these words to Raman? For what reason(s) does she do what she does? 3. A Room with a View Definition: Define the term "muddle" as it is used in this novel Discussion: Explain how "muddle" is a crucial problem for Lucy Honeychurch, discussing at least two major examples in as much detail as time permits. Quizzes encouraged students to read and understand the hterature before they discussed it in more detail. The students said that the quizzes were not difficult when they studied the book ahead of time; however, some of them felt nervous, particularly E S L students, because this task required them to express their thoughts in writing in a limited time: (Questionnaire) I don't have problems, if I've read the book. But, it's hard to answer i f I don't understand the story. (NS) Collecting my thoughts in a short time is challenging. (NS) Sometimes I can't express my ideas in proper Enghsh. I cannot organize tliinking in a short time and complete it [a quiz]. (NNS-Adj) Because I had to take quizzes, I had to read stories and think about it, which was good. I got important points in the story [from quizzes]. (NNS-Adj) 119 Quizzes were marked out of two. When it was a short paragraph, such as a character sketch, it was marked A (A-), B (B-), C (C-), and so on. The students wrote a page or two; there were not significant differences in the length of the papers of NSs and NNSs. The instructor's comments on quizzes suggested that the students' grammar or spelling mistakes (though these mistakes were noted) did not affect their marks very much. 5.2.7 Learning about Cultures from Literature Through the input tasks described above, the students learned about diverse cultural traditions, values, and norms in different places and times, reflected in the hterature. Many students said they learned sociocultural perspectives from the stories. Understanding these cultural values and norms was sometimes challenging, particularly when they read stories written centuries ago or written in Russia where sociocultural values were very different from what they were accustomed to. They nevertheless viewed this experience as useful: (Questionnaire) Learning about other cultures can help me understand the traditions and expectations of certain cultures. I learned a lot from reading the stories, and might be able to apply this vmderstanding to my essays. (NS) I learned about the Russian culture and European culture from reading the stories. (NS) Different cultures can give you knowledge of different views which helps you when you are writing. I found that the stories were interesting. (NNS-Adj) Input tasks helped them become aware of diverse cultural traditions and integrate new knowledge into their own background knowledge of culture. 120 5.3 Interactive Tasks While input tasks equipped the students with a basic understanding of hterature, helping them grasp social context, characters, and themes, interactive tasks helped the students deepen their understanding of hterature and express their thoughts and feelings both in speech and in writing. These tasks were directly linked to assessment. Characterized by individuahsm, collaboration, and equahty (discussed in Chapter Four), interactive tasks encouraged students to achieve the major goals of the course: essay writing and editing (Figure 4.3). The tasks required the students to interact and communicate with peers and the instructor; the students had to work with other students in small groups, share ideas, and help each other improve their essays. A significant amount of time (sixty to seventy percent of class time) was devoted to these tasks. Interviews and questionnaires revealed students' learning processes and their appreciation of interactive tasks, which provided them with ideas to write about and suggestions to improve their tliinking and writing skills. 5.3.1 Small-Group Discussions Small-group discussions reflected mdividuahsm, collaboration, and equahty—values promoted in the class—and were used to help students develop a poststructural approach to constructing knowledge. Through discussions, students were expected to share knowledge and reconceptualize it. They were expected to construct their own interpretation of the hterature, since from the instructor's view, there was no one objective, right interpretation. 121 In the class, the students discussed various themes in small groups during the tutorial session; in each week, approximately fifteen to twenty percent of class time (about twenty minutes) was used for the discussions. The instructor assigned the students to a group; he wanted students to have opportunities to discuss stories with different students, since they tended to sit in the same place. Groups were limited to between three and five students. The students discussed topics derived from their writing (either in-class or homework). The topics of discussion varied. The significance of a passage, essay analysis, theme statements, and editing an assignment or in-class writing (editing essays is discussed in Output/Evaluative Tasks) were typical topics for small-group discussions. Smah-group discussions not only gave students opportunities to get to know fellow students, but also encouraged them to exchange opinions about hterature. They could share various views and sometimes different cultures. The students had to be both assertive speakers and attentive listeners; i f they lacked either of these skills, discussions did not develop. The instructor valued this task: I try to keep groups relatively small so that basically everyone is pretty well obhged to participate....But, my secret ambition is that they should talk about the stories and try to understand them in those discussions. They get a kind of sense that the stories are meanmgful and that discussing them is a worthwhile social activity. (Interview) More NSs than NNSs found that small-group discussions were beneficial to them because the other students' ideas inspired them to develop their own. Many NNSs, on the other hand, felt afraid of making comments which might be totally wrong or sound "stupid." This was one of the obstacles that they had to overcome because of their limited Enghsh language proficiency and other affective factors. Many NNSs said that they felt 122 frustrated because they could not explain very well to NSs what they wanted to write about in their writing; they tended not to ask questions; and they felt reluctant to talk to NSs because they felt their Enghsh was not good and feared their opinions might be "wrong." This task was challenging also for NS students who were shy or not used to expressing themselves freely: (Questionnaire) I wasn't able to speak to my group members about ways to format essays, or even discussing my ideas was hard. I wasn't comfortable sharing my ideas with my group members. (NS) Speaking in group discussions was very difficult for me. I was scared to speak up, because I didn't have confidence. (NNS-Adj) The instructor recognized this challenge for ESL students and said he might have encouraged ESL students to participate more if he had helped the class develop an awareness of their difficulties: Maybe we should talk about it [ESL students' perspectives] in the first group work. I had thought about that, because I had so many ESL students. I might have said at the first one that "if you are ESL, would you just say you're ESL and not comfortable speaking—if you find yourself feeling inhibited or uncomfortable." I should have explained this at the beginning to them [all students], and before I asked them to work in groups, I should've talked about how difficult it would be for ESL students and make the NSs' awareness a little bit better and encourage the NNSs to participate. (Interview) While such a tactic might have heightened NSs' awareness of NNSs' difficulties, small-group discussions nevertheless favour NSs for whom participation was much easier and more natural than it was for NNSs. Examples of Small Group Discussions Small-group discussions revealed several interactive patterns illustrated in the examples below. A group usually consisted of two NSs and one NNS, except in section four where 123 more than half of the students were NNSs. NNSs usually remained quiet and did not actively participate in the discussions, while NSs interacted actively and freely. Example 1 (2 NSs and I NNS) NS 1: So what do you want to say (0.2) uh you want to write about imagery? NS 2: I thought about the slave owners, and I tried to use the king as an example NS 1: right (=) NNS: (=)uh NS 2: So it makes her act in a certain way, (1) I don't know (0.5) it's like socially acceptable, to act that way, (=) N S 1 : (=) Yeah that's right NS 2: ...I think images are more important for a dancing couple (0.5) I used that example, 'cause like they dance rather than sleep together on their honeymoon, it's like shows how important image is, but it didn't work very well. That's why I did it. NS 1: I think it's interesting to think the way you did (0.5) but maybe you need to explain more NS 2: yeah I know ((laughs)) I totally agree with you In the discussion, some NSs appeared to be ^different to NNSs. NNSs said that they were afraid of making mistakes in their speech and sometimes felt neglected: (Interview) I'm always nervous when I speak to NSs. I'm worried about making mistakes and thinking about if I sound stupid. (NNS) I felt bad about myself and thought they didn't want to talk to me...because they just talked to each other and didn't say anytliing to me. (NNS-Adj) I wanted to talk to them and participate in the discussion, but they spoke too fast and joked about something I didn't know, and I didn't understand them...so, what I can say? You know. (NNS-Adj) On the other hand, NNSs who had not experienced E S L classrooms perceived the classroom situation without preconceptions: Of course they don't understand me all the time, but you know this is the way it should be. We are in Canada and studying Enghsh. (NNS) Most NSs perceived collaboration tasks positively, believing their learning situation 124 represented the typical college classroom and accepting it; however, they suggested that there were problems when they discussed writing with NNSs. The major concern raised by NSs was that they did not get much help from NNSs in improving their writing within the limited time allotted. They did not ignore NNSs but had to give up making them participate: (Interview) It's so difficult getting them to talk. I think they have to learn how to express themselves...their language is generally vague, and sometimes they don't understand what we are talking about, so I have to explain to them. Sometimes I'm not in the mood to help them, then, I say to myself okay let them be. (NS) I feel communication gaps. I tlunk they have some problems in understanding the teacher and other students. (NS) Their frustration was more serious in section four. I would say it [my learning] was hindered because I can't get lots of feedback from them. I just helped them. I was surprised at the first day of the class, because there seemed more E S L students than NS students...maybe a third is better. If more than that, there are problems. (NS) I wanted to help them, and I want to get feedback too. But, time is limited, you know, if I spent a lot of time explaining to them what I meant in my essay, or correcting their grammar and sentence structure, I wouldn't have time to discuss content very much, though that's why I'm in the class and what we're supposed to do. (NS) I don't want to learn "cultural diversity." That's not why I am here [in the class]. (NS) Even when NNSs participated in discussion, they tended to act as novices. They did not have confidence when they presented their ideas and asked NSs' opinions. The NNSs' attitude towards NSs might have reinforced NSs' role as relative experts. Consider the following interchange between a NS and NNS. 125 Example 2 (2 NS and I NNS-Adj) NS 1: You know that Kat changed into her image of herself... and finally she sent him a Hairball. I think it's symbolic. NNS-Adj: So you want to say (0.5) why uh Kat sent a Hairball to Gerald? NS 1: No, that's not what I mean. What I wanted to say is that (1) my point is that how uh Gerald changed to seduce his way into getting Kat NNS-Adj: Oh (1) okay so uh can you just explain to me once more? NS 1: Yeah we know that Kat tried to change an image of herself (0.5) I'm not getting into that 'cause everybody knows that - right? NNS-Adj: okay NS 1: So once Gerald changed to Ger (1) he wanted to get Kat (0.5) I'm supporting this argument NNS-Adj: right NS 1: And he thought that Kat was vulnerable NNS-Adj: okay NS 1: Ger used Kat which helps us understand the story more clearly Although the NNS-Adj student tried to participate in the discussions by asking good questions, she lost confidence to pursue her questioning, perhaps assuming that her difficulties in understanding the NS's argument were a result of her language deficiencies rather than his inabihty clearly to articulate a logical position. When it came to her turn to present her ideas, she did not show confidence in her argument. As a result, the NS student asked questions to clarify the meaning of her argument. NNS-Adj: I don't know if I got the right idea NS 1: Maybe uh I can (2) so you wanted to say that once Gerald got Kat, he wanted to get into her position, taking her job away? NNS-Adj: yeah NS 2: That's basically the point (1) so you tried to prove it uh through the whole thing NNS-Adj: yeah (1) because Gerald is someone who (1) uh Kat really created you know, he changed NS 2: [yeah when he was changed NNS-Adj: When he was changed, it (2) uh Kat saw the change 126 The NNS-Adj student clearly knew what she wanted to write about but lacked the confidence to express her idea forcefully. As a result, the NS student took the expert role, attempting to help her explain her argument and providing her with language support. Yet in this situation, the NNS was the more insightful thinker and the better reader of hterature than the NS was. Her language limitations and lack of confidence confined her to the novice role; his cornmand of Enghsh and his lack of self-consciousness propelled him into the expert role. Many NNSs nevertheless accepted this relationship as a positive experience, feeling that NSs helped them clear up the argument of their writing, correct grammatical errors, and improve diction, (interview) They [NSs] had good ideas. It was useful for my writing. They helped me to write my opinion. (NNS) They [NSs] read my paper and asked me questions because I think they didn't understand. I felt they were kind. Then they corrected my errors...my grammar, diction...it was very useful. I learned how to write. (NNS-Adj) In section four where NNSs were dorninant, however, the dynamics of small-group discussions changed in some groups as the course progressed. In the beginning of the semester, even though NNSs were a majority in the section, they acted in the same way as other NNSs in the other sections; they sat together quietly and tended to play the role of novices in the discussions. After several group discussions, however, some of them felt that they could contribute to the discussion. They did not feel anxious about making written comments on NSs' theme statements and essays. Several adjunct students pointed out that because of the adjunct course, they had a better understanding of what academic 127 writing required of them than did the NSs. This experience encouraged the adjunct students to participate in discussions after making written comments, since they felt that they had something to offer the NSs: (Interview) I was surprised when I read one NS's essay, because there wasn't a thesis, there wasn't a topic sentence, and...I think he didn't know academic essay very much...I mean structure? Format? Yeah, format. I know it because I'm taking the adjunct course and I took Enghsh 130 before. So, I told him he should write clear thesis and topic sentences. I was nervous a little bit, because he was a native speaker, and I don't know if...uh...he understands me? I think he did. I felt good about it. The adjunct course is good. (NNS-Adj) Example 3 (1 NNS-Adj, I NNS and I NS) NS: I want to know if my topic is feasible or not (1) i f it's possible to do it ((laughs)). So, I can spell ((laughs)) so I can help your grammar and spelling (0.5) that's about it for me (0.2) my strength. And, I can take criticisms of my paper. NNS-Adj: I think uh your argument is good (=) NS: (=) oh thanks NNS-Adj: But, you didn't provide enough support, (0.2) evidence, NS: I know I know that' s my problem NNS: I hope uh I can help (1) and you can help me like like my grammar NNS-Adj: I tliink this sentence, NS: Yeah, NNS-Adj: I think it's a topic sentence right? NS: Yeah NNS-Adj: But then (1) uh what you're saying here is not really supporting this sentence, I mean you need evidence (=) NS: (=) evidence right. But, don't you think this is the evidence though? NNS-Adj: I think it's your opinion, interpretation, but uum not really evidence. You're talking about - spirituality NS: Uum NNS-Adj: I think uh evidence (1) you maybe have to pick up from the story? NS: So what you're saying is that it's my interpretation? 128 The NNS-Adj recognized clearly the deficiencies of the NS's paper and pointed them out, though in a halting and tentative way. Despite her leading role in this exchange, she nevertheless adopted the speech patterns of the novice. Still, the group was relaxed from the beginning of the discussion and gradually developed content by exchanging opinions about the difference between evidence and interpretation. By the time the students started to prepare for the second essay, small group discussion had become more beneficial to group members. Even though they presented themselves as novices, many NNSs became effective participants in the discussions. What follows is a thesis development exercise; the students read other students' thesis statements and supporting points, and exchanged opinions. During the discussion, a NNS-Adj student took the initiative in developing the discussion and was willing to present her ideas; she even interrupted a NS: Example 4 (2 NS, 1 NNS, 1 NNS-Adj) NNS: I'd like you guys to - give me a good suggestion, like (0.5) how can I prove my thesis. I'd like to know like a:: i f my evidence is good. NNS-Adj: Okay NNS: M y Enghsh is bad (=) NS 1: (=) Oh, no-i t ' s not. NNS-Adj: So::: can we talk about his thesis statement? NS 1: I think it's good (0.5) but -1 don't know i f it's vague or not, NNS: Uhhuh NS 1: A: : you're saying that - he [a character in the story] wants to marry her, because of her character right? NS 2: I think he [NNS] was saying that he wants to marry her because she is a poet (1) I think that's the claim. NS 1: Uum (1) there's a way to claim [that NNS-Adj: [Well - what I can think of is like - you [NNS] can say like a:: he wants something he doesn't have, like he wants to gain something he doesn't have from uh Selena (0.5) that's why he was attracted to her (0.5) you're saying that because she is a poetry-poet right? He wants to be a poet but - he wants to have something he doesn't 129 have and he thinks that he can get it from being together right? Is that what you're saying? NNS: Uh huh NNS-Adj: Then you can talk about a narrower thing like - what he's trying to gain from her, (-) NNS: H U h h u h NNS-Adj: Or why is she- he attracted from - to her, maybe (0.2) you can narrow the topic, NS 2: Like specific [reasons why, NNS-Adj: [reasons why (0.5) like uh first there are some qualities he prefers like - she has good quality of poetry, and like expressing emotional things, (0.5) or whatever and uh - second is this kind of thing - like a:: you can make it (0.2) I don't know NS 1: Like - maybe - it's because he admires her lifestyle, NNS: Uh huh, NS 2: A: : what exactly it is why he wants to NS 1: There are a couple of times he said he was constricted by his parents (0.5) maybe he was rebelling against his parents or something, or (1) that sort of specific thing NNS: Uhhuh NNS-Adj: Yeah, it's possible to narrow it down (1) yeah NNS: Okay The NNS-Adj student was not inhibited from speaking out; she freely presented her opinions to other group members in an organized way: first, she summarized what she thought the NNS tried to say in his thesis statement; then, she gave him suggestions about how to improve it. She was a positive and active participant, and anxious to improve her writing. When she did not understand NS's commentary, she simply asked a question to clarify the meaning, as this continuation of their group discussion suggests: NNS-Adj: May I ask something? NS 2: Sure. NNS-Adj: What's - tri: :vi:al? NS 2: Trivial? Yeah 'cause I wasn't sure what you're saying -1 wasn't sure what your thesis was - that was the thing a:: it was too (=) NNS-Adj: (=) boring? NNS 2: No no no no - it was like - hard to understand? NNS-Adj: Oh - so: :I should make it simple and clear what I am trying to say? NS 2: Exactly NNS-Adj: Okay thank you. 130 The NS student did not explain to the NNS-Adj student what trivial meant. But the NNS-Adj student tried to clarify the meaning and understand what her problem was. This was difficult for many NNSs, because they were likely to feel embarrassed about not understanding Enghsh. Later, when she read NS 2's thesis statement, she found that the NS student had a similar focus on her thesis statement to her. She suggested that they should further discuss their perspectives together outside of class: NNS-Adj: I hope that - when you write two or three more paragraphs-body paragraphs, (0.5) if you don't mind - we can talk about it, NS 1: Oh yeah, NNS-Adj: Because I'm doing the same - a:: almost the same thing (1) I have the same point of view (1) you're talking about the relationship between Catherine and Dr. Sloper right? I think It will be helpful (0.2) for us i f - we can discuss it. NS: Oh sure - definitely She was making the most of small-group discussions to develop her ideas. There seemed several reasons why many NNSs, particularly in section four, were transformed to active participants. First, because their groups consisted of more NNSs than NSs, the NNSs felt more relaxed than NNSs who were in other sections, which encouraged them to actively participate in the discussions. Second, as they got to know their fellow students, they felt less restrained expressing their minds to their group members than they were in the beginning of the class. Tnird, because they came to realize that NSs were not always better writers, they felt that they had something to offer to their NS group members; as a result, they gained confidence, which led them occasionally even to take the initiative in discussions. Overall, this small-group discussion task enabled both the NS students and the NNS students to begin the transformation to independent, active, and competent members of 131 the class. In other words, while students engaged in the social and cultural activity of small-group discussions, they learned how discussion was structured, and how to participate in and control this task. As they cooperatively worked with other students, they played roles sometimes of novices and sometimes of experts, developed academic discussion skills, and found a place for themselves within the classroom culture. Learning about Culture from Fellow Students Small-group discussions provided the students with opportunities to further discuss their perspectives about various cultures. These discussions made them realize that different students perceive and respond to cultural values and norms differently, according to their own cultural experiences. They felt generally that the multicultural classroom enabled them to view issues from more than one angle. These are examples of how they perceived cultural learning: (Questionnaire) Learning about other cultures helps course work; it helps in being able to look at or analyze problems from a different point of view, helps one be more creative. (NS) I think it is a positive step to enhance understanding and cooperation amongst different cultures. (NS) When you have group discussions, you talk and interact with people from different cultures. They might have different views on certain topics; this can better educate others. (NS) I feel that it [smaU-group discussion] can be a positive experience for both parties [NSs and NNSs]. They can help one another in areas of difficulty as well as learn about another country or culture. (NS) I observed many differences within different cultures. I found that while non-native speakers are passive (maybe quiet), native speakers are active and direct about their thoughts and feelings. (NNS-Adj) 132 To understand the cultural differences helped me make some cultural adjustments in class. (NNS-Adj) This cultural learning did not necessarily help them achieve high marks, though it encouraged them to expand their views of other people and their lives. Other students, however, felt that their different cultural values prevented them from developing discussions: (Questionnaire) I find it very interesting. But I don't tliink it will help my course work. When there was a difference of opinion in small group discussions caused by different cultural experiences or backgrounds, some students seemed reluctant to discuss their differences further. (NS) (Interview) When we talked about the role of men and women, I didn't agree with him [a fellow student]. But, I don't criticize him because it's his own culture. Mine is different. I didn't say anything. (NS) It's Western culture. They know better about it, like you know, I know Chinese culture better than them. So, I just listen to them. And they like to talk and teach us. (NNS) I tliink their [NSs] thinking style is different...like...they joked about things I don't think funny. (NNS) Sometimes I think I'm different from others. So I write differently. I will not raise my hand to ask teacher questions. During group work, I seldom argue with partners. (NNS-Adj) This workshop approach could be interpreted as reinforcing the value of cohectivistic classroom cultures in which mdividuals were expected to fit into the group and seek shared goals. During a significant amount of class time, the students read fellow students' writing and discussed ideas, which required them to be receptive to and understanding of different perceptions and perspectives of other students. The students' lived experiences revealed that they benefited from the task; they felt motivated by an academic challenge, 133 which forced them to think and work on their own, and at the same time be enriched by various views provided by their group members. The group work, however, did not encourage all students to participate actively; some students felt nervous or frustrated rather than enjoying this opportanity, because they were expected to speak their minds freely and encouraged to have independent thought and action. Schwartz (1992) calls this expectation "self-direction," which is considered an aspect of individuahsm These students, particularly Asian NNS students, felt obstacles-social, psychological, and linguistic—which hindered them from fully appreciating the value of this individuahstic collaboration task. 5.3.2 Peer Editing Peer editing was usually combined with small-group discussions. In a small group, the students exchanged their writing with other students in their groups, read it, and wrote comments on the paper. Through this task, the students had a chance to read other students' writing and learn important points to be considered when they edited their own writing. They were told at the beginning of the semester that the purpose of peer editing was not to correct spelling or grammar but to examine the content of writing. When they edited paragraph writing, for example, they were asked to consider whether or not it had a clear topic sentence and evidence to support the topic sentence. Many students found that this task was difficult, particularly NNSs, since the task required them to read other students' handwriting, understand the content, and write comments, in a limited time 134 (usually about twenty minutes to half an hour). Most of the students, however, suggested that as the course progressed, they came to realize the benefits of peer editing. (Interview) At first, it was hard; after some practice, it was much easier and useful. (NS) I think the experience I've gained and the in-class editing helped me a lot to improve my writing skills. (NS) I started to be careful on my word choices and the clarification of my topics as well as coherence. (NNS) Some NNS students could not overcome feelings of inadequacy that their Enghsh was not good enough to help others. I think it is useless to do editing, especially for students like me [ESL]. Because I don't have good Enghsh, how can I help others to improve their essays? This exercise only pulled down my mark. (NNS-Adj) Two NS students however said that NNS students provided them with reasonable feedback, allowing them to reconsider the content of their essays: (Interview) I don't see any problems [studying with NNSs]. My editor was a Chinese student [NNS-Adj student]. She doesn't talk much, but her comments were okay...I had to tliink about it again, and that was useful. His [NNS-Adj student's] paper wasn't easy to read, because it's wordy, you know, it's muddled, and the theme statement was vague. But, I understood what he meant, and communication was okay. Editing? He edited my paper, and I thought he gave me good feedback. What he had questions about were also things I wasn't sure of. 5.3.3 In-class Writing There were different kinds of in-class writing: quizzes, summary, paragraph writing, paragraph revision, theme statements, and editing peers' papers. Most of the students, regardless of the groups, felt that in-class writing was challenging. 135 (Questionnaire) I tiiink this might be my weakness. I also think it has to do with my preparation. (NS) I had troubles with the in-class writing, but I think it is because I started to panic. I didn't feel like I could answer the questions. I don't like time pressure. I feel that I take too long to tliink about what I should put on paper. (NS) Sometimes I need more time [than was allowed] to finish the theme statement. I found it's difficult to connect every sentence back to the thesis. (NNS) Nevertheless, many students felt this was a positive experience; in-class writing helped them improve their writing skills. (Questionnaire) Every time I write another paper, I do better grade wise. (NS) In the beginning, I was overwhelmed with course work. In-class writing was really tough. As the course progressed, things were better. (NS) Because of the amount of writing that I have had to do for the majority of my classes, my writing is improving. (NS) Through working on interactive tasks, the students learned to share ideas with peers, express and discuss these ideas, acquire knowledge in understanding hterature, and develop critical tlnnking. Even though it was challenging, many students came to realize that their thinking, discussing, and writing skills were improving. Eventually these tasks helped them achieve output/evaluative tasks, which will be discussed in the following section. 136 5.4 Output/Evaluative Tasks Output/evaluative tasks were tasks and activities crucial to assessment; more than fifty percent of the course mark was deterrrhned by the students' performance on these tasks. In other words, the students could complete Enghsh 106 successfully only i f they achieved these output/evaluative tasks. The output/evaluative tasks were mdfvidual tasks for which the students prepared outside class. Input tasks and interactive tasks provided students with knowledge and skills to accomplish output/evaluative tasks. 5.4.1 Essay Writing This task is the ultimate goal of Enghsh 106. The tasks and activities in and outside class were designed to help students come up with an insightful and significant thesis, and develop a unified and coherent argument. The students wrote two essays during the semester, one due in week eight and the other in week fourteen, at the end of the semester. The students expressed how difficult it was to create an essay which satisfied all the requirements. They also felt frustrated by the poststructural approach, because they did not receive specific direction from the instructor about how to revise their writing. They were only told, for example, that their thesis statement was not insightful and significant: (Questionnaire) The preparation was time consuming. I also had to read the story over and over. (NS) I don't come up with a clear, significant thesis until I have done much work on it. I tend to write far too long and become vague. (NS) I am confused with writing a good essay. I think my essay is O.K., while the instructor feels my essay is no good. I don't know how to make an essay insightful, and what it means to be msightful. (NNS) 137 In order to write a good essay in this course, you need to understand the story first. Then you need to have good writing skills. I'm confused sometimes, because I don't know if my ideas are significant or insightful. (NNS-Adj) By the time the first essay was marked and returned, however, they came to have a better understanding of essay writing and of their strengths and weaknesses as writers. In the interviews conducted before the second essay was due, most of the students said that their essay writing had improved, and that they could now write better essays. Many students felt that they spent a large amount of time reading and writing, and the demanding course work enabled them to write better essays; in particular, their editing skills improved through working on the interactive tasks: (Questionnaires) I beheve it's the case [my essay writing is improving] because the instructor's marking scheme is pretty tough. Also the steps leading up to the essay help (thesis development, editing etc.). (NS) I do not get as frustrated with my writing as I used to be because I spend an incredible time with thesis development. (NS) I now know I need evidence to support my theories and I need a good plan in my thesis, and because of the amount of writing that I have had to do for the majority of my classes, I am more competent. (NS) M y essay writing has improved. I had difficulties with theme statements, connecting every sentence with the thesis, but I have learned to stick to the thesis, and I have some great editing skills. (NNS) Because we did a lot of in-class writing and editing, I learned a lot, and my essay writing improved. (NNS-Adj) In the interviews, the students expressed the challenges they faced and how they overcame such challenges; most of the students said they could see their progress, which gave them confidence. They recognized that the instructor's teaching style encouraged them to improve their writing skills; the challenge motivated them: 138 (Interview) I did my thesis development exercise and I handed it in. Then, he [the instructor] said to me that it was a really good concept and a good topic; but, as he went through my notes, I guess what I said in my topic wasn't what I was putting on my notes. He was saying that I'd missed a lot of information that would be really helpful and useful. It was really demoralizing, because I thought "oh gee I have to start all over again"...I think the most difficult was trying to look at the details that I found in the text and deciding whether or not they were important enough to put into the essay. My essay was too long, because he always gave us extra things to look at....But, I think in my second essay, I can make it better. I think I can organize an essay a lot better than the first one. (NS) First of all, you have to be a very good reader, because there's so much reading. I guess one of the difficulties is that sometimes I am not understanding the stories. In class...the teacher I think wants us to sort of understand the stories. He never gave us...you know, we never find out what exactly the story means. I always wonder i f I'm on the right track. It would be nice to know. On my first essay, I picked a very hard topic. My thesis statement was rather difficult to analyze. I kept on asking questions to him [the instructor], and he said " well it looks like this is the one of those topics you're going to learn from, but you might not get a good grade." I decided "okay I'll stick with it." I tliink what I need for my second essay is to back up the thesis more and show more evidence. I feel pretty good about it. (NS) My writing improved a lot. Last year, I had such a great difficulty to write even a note for my friends or teachers to just... let's say '1 cannot see you at the meeting." M y weakness is organizing ideas, but it's getting much better. (NNS) It was difficult to back up my thesis [for the first essay]. It's hard to put in good evidence from the book. I spent a lot of time. I think it's going to be better. I learned a lot how to analyze a story. (NNS-Adj) Many NS students perceived that the most difficult part was to integrate evidence into their essay. NNSs, on the other hand, said that understanding the story was the most difficult part; they needed to fully understand the story in order to analyze and develop their argument. Consequently, many of them chose a short story rather than a novel for their essay, because short stories could be read several times: I don't like reading very much; so, it's difficult to come up with good ideas, because you know you have to understand a story. If you cannot find the thesis, it's going to be a problem. I chose a short story, because I can read several 139 times before I write the essay. They are good books, but they are too long and there are so many things to write about. I can't find a significant, insightful thesis [for the second essay]. But, I ' l l read more times than I usually do. (NNS) It was difficult to understand some books like Dostoevsky, maybe because it's Russian. I wanted to write about it, but I didn't, because I didn't really understand the story. I tliink I need a good thesis statement. I tMnk I can find a better one [for the second essay], because I think I know how to make my thesis statement insightful...maybe a little bit. It's difficult to use quotations; you have to say why you picked them (NNS-Adj) The instructor stated that the students' essays improved: "in the second paper, there were several A 's ; I felt that the students made a lot of improvement" (Interview). In fact, most of the students received better grades for their second essay than their first essay. For example, when comparing three groups of students whom I interviewed, their average grades (Figure 5.5) were higher in their second essay than the first ones. Since the number of students was limited, particularly NSs (I interviewed only 14 out of 42), it is hard to make generalizations; however, Figure 5.5 suggests that the students improved their hterature essay writing skills, and that NSs demonstrated their strength in in-class essay writing. ( A = l l , B=8, C=5,P=2) Students (#) Essay 1 Essay 2 In-class essay Grades NS (14) 4.3 6.25 8.2 7.8 NNS (10) 3.6 4.3 4.6 5.7 NNS-Adj (9) 3.9 4.8 5.3 6.4 Figure 5.4 Students' performance 140 5.4.2 Editing (Essay Editing) Peer editing for the two major essays was held four times during the semester. The students were engaged in the peer editing task two weeks before they submitted their essays. In the first week, the instructor assigned the students to groups of three or four. The instructor arranged the groups because he beheved that the dynamics of the group were deterrrhned by its members and that providing the students with the optimal group environment was important to help them enhance and develop discussions. The instructor also wanted to encourage students to discuss their essays with a range of students. When he chose group members, he was concerned with students' attendance, writing skills (examined by students' performance on quizzes, in-class writing, and other writing assignments such as theme statements), ethnic backgrounds and first language, gender, and personality. When students were absent, he rearranged the groups (the absentees had to ask one of their fellow students to volunteer for peer editing outside class in order to meet the peer editing requirement). When students did not bring drafts of their essays, they had to leave the class and go to the library to complete their drafts. For the first essay, the instructor introduced sub-tasks the students should follow when they edited essays in groups. When they met in a group, first they briefly introduced themselves to each other; and, second, they chose a leader of the group to lead the discussions. Then the instructor explained the role of the editor and the role of the writer to the students as well as general rules of essay editing. Specifically, students were asked not to disturb other students or groups. When they worked mdividualry and had questions, they should raise their hands; then, the instructor would come to answer their 141 questions. When they worked in groups and had questions, a leader of the group was responsible for asking those questions. The leaders were all NSs; NNSs were unwilling to volunteer for this task. The students exchanged their essays with one of their group members, read the essays and wrote comments; later, a writer was returned his or her essay with comments and discussed these comments with the editor. The editor mainly focused on first, whether the thesis was insightful and significant; second, whether body paragraphs and topic sentences were tied to the thesis statement; third, how effectively the essay concluded; and finally, the overall structure of the essay. In the first groups for essay one, some groups had difficulties corrimunicating with each other. They were not familiar with the tasks required, did not know group members very weU, and/or their personahties prevented them from actively participating in the discussion. Some of them also had difficulty understanding the argument of the essay. This happened both when NNSs did not understand vocabulary; and when the NS did not understand the grammar or sentence structure of NNS's writing. The groups for essay two worked better and more effectively than the groups for essay one since the instructor understood the students' writing skills and personahties better than when he had created the first groups. The students also came to understand their fellow students and appreciated the value of the task better than they did the first time; they were able to exchange their opinions more actively in effective ways. The instructor felt that the students learned how to write and edit papers: They did learn something about writing and editing a paper and what the expectations were—the level of writing. I thrnk that they got some confidence; 142 that's the achievement. Even if they couldn't do welL they could see at least what peers could do. (Interview) 5.4.3 In-class Essay Writing The final examination for the course required students to write an in-class essay. The specific question students were to answer was distributed on the day of the examination. Two weeks before the exam, however, the instructor provided the students with a one page handout of the general topic area covered by the in-class essay: The topic of the in-class essay will be the relationships between the three sets of characters hsted below. Dr. Sloper—Catherine Sloper Velchaninov—Liza Pavlovna Trusotsky Mr. Beebe—Lucy Honeychurch In particular, the question will require a comparison between the men, as they appear from the perspective of their relations with the women hsted. The answer will require discussion of only two of the three men hsted in the pairs above. The choice will be made by the student. Recommended preparation: Determine which two of the three pairs of characters you think you will discuss. Skim the appropriate texts ... summarize each relationship.... Select a few key passages.... Day of essay: On the day of the essay, bring two pens, the two texts, and one 8.5 x 11 page of notes, written on one side only. These should probably consist of surnmaries and page numbers of key passages. These notes must be handed in with the examination booklets and the question paper, which will be provided. Once the question is distributed and questions are answered, I recommend at least 20 minutes be spent tMnking and writing an outline of the complete answer.... Double-space and leave several lines between paragraphs. Do not recopy. Time of writing will be approximately 100 minutes. The in-class essay was held in the lecture room where the students sat according to their section. The instructor came and distributed a question sheet: 143 (In-class Essay Question) The passages below suggest the existence, in each of the characters named, of a dual nature, in which two elements are in some opposition: 1. Dr. Sloper: "Though I am very smooth externally, at bottom I am very passionate; and I assure you I can be very hard." (160) 2. Velchaninov: "The most monstrous monster is the monster with noble feelings; I know that by personal experience." (652) 3. Rev. Mr. Beebe [Lucy speaking]: "Mr. Beebe is nice....he seems to see good in everyone. No one would take him for a clergyman." (30) The contrasting/opposing elements are brought out most acutely in each story, in the relations between the characters and the female characters listed on the preparation paper. For each of the two (two only) male characters you choose to discuss, you must provide the following information: a) A description of the most important conflicting elements the reader finds within the character, then b) An explanation of how this conflict is illustrated in the character's interactions with the female character hsted, and finally c) The judgment the reader finally makes about the moral status of the male character, based on his interactions with the female character hsted. Organize the information into an essay in the following way: Thesis: State the final judgment the reader makes about the male character (c, above) as the thesis of the essay. Body Paragraphs: Use the answers to parts a and b, as key parts of the argument in the body of the essay, in support of the thesis. Conclusion: A conclusion is not essential, but if there is time and you have something more to say in relation to the thesis, write a conclusion, but label it clearly. It will not count against you, and may count for you i f it shows insight. Write clear, correct sentences, well-organized paragraphs, according to a logical outline. Both content and 'Svriting" will be considered when evaluation the essay. DO NOT REWRITE OR RECOPY: THERE WILL NOT B E TIME. WRITE F R O M A GOOD OUTLINE! The content of the exam integrated what the students had studied, and the question sheet provided the students with all the information they needed. When they followed the instructions, they could write a well focused and organized essay. Furthermore, they were 144 able to use their books and one page of notes, which helped them write wen-organized essays in a limited time of one hundred minutes. This task was particularly challenging for NNSs. The instructor understood this and pointed out: The other thing is a double standard in marking. I accept a range of idiom errors, the degree of basic errors—things like subject-verb agreement, prepositions, stuff like that, because I understand. They're nothing to do with the content of my course. They're really language skills. When a student writes a paper where I constantly find the errors are so distracting that I can't follow it or I can't make sense of it; then, that's a problem. The reason I have the in-class essay is that I want to see how they can do on their own. ESL students usually drop two to three grades below their usual performance. I want them to know that they're not functional in this environment—at least they ought to know. I'm generally quite generous on that. (Interview) In summary, in the hterature class, students participated in three levels of tasks—input, interactive, and output/evaluative tasks—which gradually enabled them to construct literary interpretations, acquire skills to share ideas with other members of the classroom culture, and critically analyze and edit other students' writing. These tasks were connected and organized so that students were provided guidance to develop an understanding of language, content, and culture; the tasks enabled them to achieve the goals of the course. This chapter has addressed Research Questions Two and Three. I have described the lived curriculum and analyzed the students' lived experiences and their perspectives in the hterature course. In the next chapter, I will address research questions three and four, analyzing similarities and differences in the language socialization experiences of NSs and NNSs. 145 Chapter 6 PARTICIPANTS' PERCEPTIONS AND PERSPECTIVES This chapter further addresses Research Question Three—participants' perceptions and perspectives—and Research Question Four--sirnilarities and differences among students' language socialization experiences. It examines first, students' hved experiences in the hterature class and their perceptions and perspectives of the classroom culture; second, the sirnilarities and differences in the language socialization experiences of NSs and NNSs. This chapter has five sub-sections: the first introduces the three groups of students (NS, NNS, and NNS-Adj students); the second and third analyze their language socialization process; the fourth examines students' responses to the values of mdividuahsm, collaboration, equahty, and a poststructural approach to interpretation; the fifth examines NNS students' specific difficulties in perforrning the task demands of the course. Primary sources are my observations, audiotaping, videotaping, and participants' interviews and questionnaires. 6.1 The Students Here, I describe three groups of students: 1) native speakers of Enghsh (NS); 2) non-adjunct E S L students (NNS); and 3) Adjunct ESL students (NNS-Adj). Forty-two NSs, fifteen NNSs, and nine NNS-Adj remained until the end of the semester. I was concerned with individual differences and the likelihood that not each student in each of these groups would share the same characteristics. As I observed and collected data from various sources, however, I was nevertheless able to perceive commonalties in each group of 146 students. As in Chapter Four and Five, I use data from observation, questionnaires (32 NSs, 13 NNSs, 9 NNSs-Ad), and interviews (14 NSs, 10 NNSs, 9 NNSs-Ad). 6.1.1 Native Speakers of English According to the questionnaire (tliirty-two students responded), more than three quarters of the students were between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, and the rest between twenty-six and forty. Most of them were born in Canada, and had lived and been educated in Canada; so, although the students' ethnic backgrounds differed, the first language of most was Enghsh. One student's first language was Finnish; however, I included her as a NS since she had lived in Canada twenty-eight years and had no linguistic problems in speaking and writing Enghsh according to the instructor. Approximately sixty percent of the students (twenty-five) were female. Most students were full time and taking four courses, including Enghsh 106. Most wanted to pursue bachelor's degrees in university; some wanted to obtain business diplomas. Their future goals varied: education (20%), business (16%), computer science (10%), medical science or nursing (8%), natural science (6%), others (political science, law, tourism, advertisement, poetry) (30%), unsure (10%). Their reasons for taking this course also varied. More than half of them (18) expressed their interest in studying hterature; five wanted to improve their writing skills; two students were recommended to the course by friends; and seven of them took the course because it was a requirement to fulfill their university transfer credits. In the interviews and questionnaires, they described their strengths and weaknesses in academic writing, and specific challenges they faced when studying Enghsh hterature; 147 many students liked reading literature and reflecting on themes. Some of them considered themselves good writers and enjoyed writing. The following strengths and weaknesses in their academic writing, and challenges faced in studying Enghsh hterature were commonly expressed. Strengths: imagination, logic, getting ideas, providing evidence, reading skills, good sentence structure, rich vocabulary, grammar Weaknesses: fmding thesis, organizing ideas (a few students mentioned they had problems with spelling and wordiness) Challenges: required a lot of research, time-consuming (reading and writing), understanding the significance of hterature, interpreting meaning, in-depth analysis, understanding literary devices such as irony and symbolism 6.1.2 Non-adjunct, Non-native Speakers of English There were nine male and six female students. Thirteen students answered the questionnaire, all of whom were under twenty five. Two students had lived in Canada for five to six years, and the others had lived in Canada less than three years; they were either Canadian citizens (2) or landed irrrmigrants (11). Ten of the students were Chinese, whose first languages were either Mandarin or Cantonese; there were two students whose first languages were either Persian or Farsi. They had studied Enghsh in their native countries and in Canada; however, the duration of the study varied between fifteen years and three years. Their most recent TOEFL scores ranged between 520 and 580, average 554. AU of them took E S L courses either in high school or coUege, and half of them had taken Enghsh 130~an academic writing course. They were mil time students taking three to four courses with NS students. They aU wanted to transfer to university to obtain Bachelor degrees or further. Their future study goals were in the fields of business (48%), natural science (15%), architecture (15%), and 148 others (medical science, chemical engineering, and computer science). A l l except one took the course because it was a requirement for university transfer. In the interview, three students said they had tutors (sometimes a NS friend) to help them edit their papers. What they considered their strengths and weaknesses in academic writing, and specific challenges they faced when studying Enghsh hterature, were similar to those expressed by NSs, although they seemed less aware of their own writing skills and course expectations than NSs. Their vocabulary to explain their writing skills might have been limited; but, even so, they seemed to have only a vague sense of their writing skills and of the course expectations. For example, they perceived that understanding stories was challenging. NSs, on the other hand, pointed out more specific areas of difficulty, such as understanding literary devices and in-depth analysis, suggesting that they were aware of the expectations of hterature courses. Many students stated that reading and understanding novels were challenging, because most of them were business or science majors. Nevertheless, they seemed to have confidence in getting ideas for essays. Only a few students mentioned grammar as their weakness. Strengths: getting ideas Weaknesses: finding thesis, organizing ideas, writing skills (grammar, expressing ideas with appropriate vocabulary) Challenges: the amount of work (reading and writing), understanding stories 6.1.3 Adjunct Students There were seven female and two male adjunct students. One student was an international student from Japan, who was eighteen and just graduated from high school; 149 the others were landed irrtmigrant students. Most of them (eight out of nine) were younger than twenty five years. Two male students were from Hong Kong or Taiwan. The other female students were from Korea (1), Japan (1: Korean-Japanese), Malaysia (1), Philippines (1), Hong Kong (2), and Iran (1). They had studied Enghsh for six years or longer either in their home country or in Canada before they entered the college; three students went to secondary school in Vancouver. For the student from the Phihppines, Enghsh was her first language alongside Tagalog. Their most recent TOEFL scores were between 560 and 587, with an average score of 574 (three students had not taken the test). Seven students had taken Enghsh 130, five of them with an adjunct course. They were taking two to three other academic courses in addition to Enghsh 106. As for their academic goals, all hoped to get a degree—business (3), computer science (2), genetic science, anthropology, psychology, or early childhood education. Six of them needed to complete two Enghsh courses in order to transfer to university; the others wanted either to improve Enghsh writing skills (2) or to enjoy reading hterature (1). Most of the students were getting some help with their writing in addition to the adjunct course: three from private tutors; three from the Learning Centre at the college; two from NS friends. This help was mostly in the form of grammar correction. Although the students wanted to get help for thesis development and essay organization, tutors could not give them useful advice for these areas without attending classes: (Interview) It [private tutoring] doesn't help me writing essay, because there are many in-class writing and quizzes, which your tutor cannot help you. Besides, the tutor herself may not understand the story. 150 The adjunct students perceived their strengths and weaknesses in writing differently from non-adjunct students; all adjunct students considered grammar as a significant weakness. Many of them said they enjoyed reading stories and thinking about themes. Yet they seemed frustrated, because even when they felt they had good ideas, they did not have enough Enghsh language to express them effectively. They also mentioned that critical tliinking was challenging, since they were used to being lectured as to what was significant about a story. This group felt that understanding hterature's social and cultural context was challenging; non-adjunct students did not mention cultural aspects of studying hterature. Strengths: enjoy reading, finding themes Weaknesses: writing skills (grammar, vocabulary), finding thesis, organizing ideas Challenges: understanding cultural information (social context, bibhcal references), understanding symbolism and irony, reading and writing (time-consuming), critical thinking 6.2 Becoming Literate in the Literature Class Heath (1992) argues that becoming literate is not learning to read and write but 'learning to talk reading and writing" (p.40). Although her research considers ESL learners, her argument supports the effectiveness of the tasks incorporated into the Enghsh 106 class. Input tasks (cf. Figure 5.2) helped students to read critically the hterature and grasp themes and literary devices. In the class, students, guided by critical/interactive tasks, learned to discuss reading and writing in small groups, and to edit other group members' writing. These tasks eventually helped them to complete output/evaluative 151 tasks; they were able to write academic essays as well as to analyze critically other students' essays. A variety of tasks helped them to learn the tools to deepen their understanding of academic reading, vvriting, and discussion, helping them to become 'literate" in the hterature class. As cultural activities, these tasks not only guided students to learn academic language and content, but also encouraged them to explore and understand cultures: the culture of the hterature class, Canadian culture, the cultural context of each story and novel and each other's cultures. In other words, in a multicultural classroom, where they worked cooperatively, the tasks helped them share different cultural perspectives with their peers. The tasks also promoted the social cultural, and academic values of western society, and helped the students develop an awareness of these values and learn about what the instructor considered "scholars' work" in the culture of his hterature class—a poststructural approach to literary interpretation. 6.3 Process of Language Socialization The Enghsh 106 classroom richly reflected the multicultural society of Canada. Even among NSs, their cultural backgrounds varied: for example, one male student, whose parents were Hungarian and German, was born in Germany and spoke both Enghsh and German; another male student's father was Yugoslavian; one male student, whose parents emigrated from India, spoke both Enghsh and Punjabi. Another student had a Japanese step-mother. One male student had a Caribbean background. They were all native speakers of Enghsh and yet their cultural perceptions differed because of their life 152 experiences. The classroom consisted of these NSs as well as NNSs who were also from various cultural backgrounds. The students' socialization into the classroom was largely influenced by this complexity. As the course progressed, the students, in their own ways, socialized into the classroom culture. In this process, NS and NNS students demonstrated some transformation while responding to or struggling with social, cultural, and academic values reflected in the tasks. Although their focus is on NNSs, Pavlenko and Lantolf (1997) identify two main phases—loss and gain—in the transformational process which they call "the process of self-translation" (p.l). They question the accepted view of language learning as immediate "acquisition," and argue that NNSs experience first "the phase of continuous loss," and later "the phase of gain/(re)construction (pp. 1-2). In the hterature classroom of this study, not only NNS but also NS students experienced these loss and gain/reconstruction phases. The phase of loss began first as they perceived a classroom culture new to them and negotiated to find their place within that culture; the phase of gain involved the reconceptualization of their own roles and identity and eventually of the classroom culture itself. I will describe their experiences through these phases and analyze students' academic as well as personal growth in the classroom 6.3.1 Perceptions of the Classroom Culture When they first came to the classroom, the students attempted to establish their identities by observing the instructor and their fellow students. This process involved 153 stereotypes and preconceptions. Pavlenko and Lantolf (1997) view this phase as the loss of subjectivities and introduce an irnmigrant's voice: My "Americanization" took place at all levels of my existence; in one sweep I had lost not only my family and my familiar surroundings, but also my ethnic, cultural and class identity, (p.l) At the beginning of the semester, students in my study felt a similar recognition of difference and loss in their identity to immigrants in Pavlenko and Lantolf s study. As I observed and interviewed the students, I recognized that the students demonstrated different attitudes towards the class and other students, which derived from their individual goals in taking the course, their background knowledge about hterature and their perceptions of a culturally diverse classroom. In their perception, some of them felt confident in their reading and writing skills, while some felt nervous because of the demanding course work; some of them were comfortable talking with other students, while others were shy and reserved; some of them had genuine motivation to learn about hterature whereas others had to take the course in order to fulfill a requirement. Students who had intrinsic interest in studying hterature perceived this particular classroom culture clearly, and were able to articulate their perceptions—whether positive or negative—whereas students who were required to take the course seemed kdifferent to their classroom culture, which was, in their view, just the same as that of other college classrooms. 6.3.2 Negotiation During the process of finding their identities in the class, the students engaged in a tacit negotiation of their pre-class identity with the new environment of multiple cultural 154 identities and perspectives surrounding them. This phase includes both loss and gain, including "appropriation of others' voices" and "emergence of one's own voice" (Pavlenko & Lantolf 1997, p. 1). Tasks designed in the Enghsh 106 class encouraged students to engage in this process, since the majority of course work done in the class was designed to share thoughts, feelings, and values with other students; their experiences of interaction with the instructor and other students through tasks helped the students to better understand themselves--their needs, weaknesses and strengths, and roles in the class—and modify behaviour and attitudes accordingly. For example, those encouraged by their successful completion of the tasks gained confidence in their critical reading and writing skills, came to take initiative in group discussions, and played the relative expert role; students who were unable to overcome difficulties in cormnumcating with other members through speech remained relative novices. Those who felt discouraged by the instructor's poststructural approach struggled with that approach, because it forced them to reconstruct their understanding about how to acquire new knowledge. They would have felt sympathy with one of the voices cited by Pavlenko and Lantolf who said: ...it is not impossible (though very difficult) to leave the experiential world of one's native language for that of another language, or stretching the metaphor to the limit, to inhabit two different worlds at once....when one switches from one language to another it is not just the form that changes but also the content, (p. 3) Those who were willing to take a leap of faith from their own "experiential world" into new ways of learning used the tasks as a means to reconstruct their learning style and thus comfortably "inhabit two different worlds" at once. Like another of Pavlenko and Lantolf s voices, "[they are] indeed double" (p.3). 155 At the beginning of the process of negotiation, some students felt that they did not fit into the classroom culture. Such students often chose not to interact with other students but worked on their own. Regardless of their ability to critically read stories and write about them, NNSs generally felt mtimidated; they considered themselves linguistically inferior to NSs, which undermined their active participation in small-group work. As I discussed in Chapter Five, even when they had good ideas to share with the NS students, they tended to underestimate their ability and insights and overestimate NSs' ability, which discouraged them from expressing themselves. But during the negotiation phase, some of them were able to establish active roles in the class, as they grew to feel accepted and developed their ability to communicate with other members. 6.3.3 Reconceptualization The negotiation process eventually led the students to establish their roles (e.g. active or passive, positive or negative, novice or expert) in the class and helped them to construct identities for the classroom culture. Observing this reconceptualization offered significant insights; those who were empowered through classroom activities and nurtured by cultural diversity achieved academic as well as personal growth. Pavlenko and Lantolf (1997) perceive this phase as "reconstruction of one's past" and "continuous growth into new positions and subjectivities" (p.2). They suggest though that even after experiencing this phase, people still face challenges, recognizing "the existence of multiple incommensurable worlds" (p.3). In the next section, I will illustrate the three phases of perception, negotiation, and reconceptualization discussed above in relation to the social, cultural, and academic 156 values~i.e. mcUvidualism, collaboration, equality, and a poststructural approach to literary interpretation—promoted in the classroom. 6.4 Classroom as Society The hterature classroom was a small community; students of diverse academic as well as cultural backgrounds shared time, worked on tasks, and learned about hterature together. They were engaged in social activities in which they shared their thoughts and values. They were also given stories and tasks which upheld specific social, cultural, and academic values. They were nurtured to become independent members of their community. 6.4.1 Individualism Individuahsm was an element of all tasks in the hterature class. Students were expected to be independent and active learners, preparing assignments on their own, creating their own arguments, and expressing themselves freely. In Canadian classrooms, individuahsm seems a taken-for-granted value. Many students thus perceived this course as a typical class in the beginning and liked self-directed assignments and tasks. These tasks consisted of sub-tasks, guiding students to complete a larger task successfully; for example, the writing thesis statements or peer-editing tasks contained several sub-tasks (mostly explained in the guidebook), enabling students to complete the larger task on their own, a practice they were well accustomed to from previous high school and college studies. 157 As the class progressed, however, students realized that this individual completion of tasks was challenging even with the guidebook, because many of them had little experience in completing the tasks without specific instruction as to how to do so: (interview) Working on my own is not easy. First I liked it. But I had difficulties putting everything together, like putting all the right sentences and right paragraphs together. It was really hard to do that. My problem is I don't know whether my points are relevant. (NS) Too many reading materials, too much homework, and too little instruction. I felt overwhelmed. I wanted to get more feedback from the instructor. (NS) I didn't tliink it [writing theme statements] was difficult. But it wasn't easy. Even after I read the guidebook, I still wasn't quite sure if I was on the right track. I wanted to have good examples. (NNS) An advocate of student-centered learning, Judith Langer (1995) understands these student concerns, noting that student-centered approaches raise the question of how students learn "literary concepts and vocabulary that underlie literary texts" (p. 119): Whenever I speak with teachers about student-based approaches to the teaching of Enghsh [hterature], they always raise a question about the place of traditional knowledge. Many fear that when the focus turns to students thinking, something called "knowledge" (literary concepts and vocabulary) has no place. (P. 119) She suggests that this knowledge should not be taught, but when students tliink about and talk about hterature, this knowledge will be used and studied. In her view, the teacher then 'listens to what students are attempting to express, and how, becomes sensitive to their knowledge growth and can help support and guide it in significant ways" (p. 120). The Enghsh 106 instructor took an even more radical approach to student-centered learning, expecting the students to support and guide each other rather than, as Langer suggests, supporting and guiding them himself. In the Enghsh 106 class, students as 158 novices were indeed expected to learn literary concepts on their own or with other students, who were also novices. This experience led some students to confront directly the reality of their learning style and reconceptualize it. Many NNSs had difficulties in working on their own, since other courses had accustomed them to getting the instructor's specific feedback about their ideas: I know the instructor expects us to work on our own and work really hard to get the right answer...more thinking and writing. The comments I am getting from him are always rather general like my writing is too complicated. I feel frustrated, but I don't know how to express myself. (NNS-Adj) The instructor did not play a direct role as expert giving them guidance; instead, he provided students with tasks to develop on their own understanding of what these literary concepts mean and how they work. Individual self-development undergirded his teaching style. 6.4.2 Collaboration As individuahsm was valued, so too was collaboration. As I discussed in Chapter Five, most of the interactive tasks (e.g. small-group discussion and peer-editing) done in class were achieved through small-group work. This cooperative approach is common in North America, and many students had already experienced collaborative tasks. NNS students found these collaborative tasks challenging, because of a language barrier and cultural differences. Asian students, especially, were not comfortable expressing their opinions and feelings freely to other people they did not know well. (I will discuss this point later in this chapter). The instructor hoped that students could experience real "academic life" where people share ideas and interpretations, mspiring each other in order to develop critical thinking; 159 novices, he hoped, could help each other build knowledge and become experts. Many NS students, however, came to use the opportunity as a social event rather than an academic task. They enjoyed chatting, talking, for example, about how difficult it was to come up with insightful ideas, but often not genuinely communicating ideas about the hterature they studied: (Interview) The small-group discussion works only when participants in the group prepare ideas and seriously want to discuss their ideas. I found a lot of them did not prepare enough or the level of Enghsh comprehension [NNS] was too low. It's wasting time. (NS) Some students felt disappointed with group work and retreated from group discussions: When it's a small-group discussion, they [NSs] don't listen to each other. They're just talking about their writing, like how difficult it was to find a theme. They seem to beheve "my essay is the best," you know. Then they joked about other things. I don't want to talk, because it's not useful. That's why I like lecture better. At least I can learn something. (NNS-Adj) Effective collaboration required individual commitment to the process. These students— well schooled in mdividuahsm--did not force nor even encourage reluctant group members to participate. Other members of the above-cited NNS-Adj student's group, for example, perceived him as smart but quiet. The instructor also said in the interview: 'Mike is a quiet boy. I don't have a clear sense of him, but he seems to be clear about himself. When he had to speak, he could express liimself well." Clearly his participation would have benefited other group members. Yet students respected an individual's right to silence and did not interfere, even when group members did not participate in collaborative tasks. 160 In small group discussions or group editing sessions, both NS and NNS students faced challenges caused by language and cultural barriers. Some NSs felt that their own learning in the class had been helped, some felt hindered, or others felt not affected one way or the other by the presence of E S L students. Similarly, some NNSs felt NSs had helped them improve their writing; some felt mtimidated or discouraged by studying with NSs; some felt both at once: I was scared [of small-group discussions]. It's a very good learning method, but it's really hard for me. The words just don't come out. I need to take time to think what I should say. But they [NSs] don't wait for me. Most of the time, I just give up....I thank it really depends on the group members. When I feel comfortable and accepted, I can speak well. And we [NS and NNS] try to explain what I mean and what they mean. I like this discussion. As the NNS student mentioned above, for some students, communication gaps were not a serious problem; rather, these gaps helped them to find different ways to convey their message to other members. Because of the difficulties, they tried hard to communicate and were able to develop discussions about literary concepts. In most cases, NNS students felt encouraged to discuss in groups where NS students were attentive listeners and interested in learning about different cultures: ...I thought it was fascinating. It's so different, you know. I think I learned a lot about Asian culture from them [in a group]. And, remember? When we talked about color. I didn't know that the Chinese wear red wedding dresses, because it's the lucky color. I thought it bizarre. Or marriage, women's role. Yeah, it's different and interesting. I like to talk with them (NS) Some NS students who expressed a sympathetic attitude towards E S L students had experienced other cultures, or themselves had a mixed cultural background: (Interview) It's just a matter of time, you know. They need more time for everything.. .no, I don't think it's a problem. I can understand them..uh...1 try not to use idiom when I talk to them. Just like when I talk to my dad.. .my dad is 161 Yugoslavian...yeah, my mom is Canadian. He came to Canada when he was twenty something. I use words that he can understand. If I use words which are not commonly used, he doesn't understand. If you're not a native speaker, it's natural. But, we can cormnunicate. I tliink they (ESL students) are nice kids, they don't talk much though. I like my class...my dad is Hungarian and my mum is German...yeah I was born in Germany and went to Singapore between 1984 and 1989. I speak German and Enghsh at home. My dad is really smart; he speaks Hungarian, German, Russian, and French. Yeah, I can read German pretty well, but I can't write. It takes time [to figure out what they are saying]. But I have time. I was a peer counselor when I was in high school. I helped E S L students learn how to speak, read, and write in Enghsh. I know their problems and feelings. The E S L students in this class are okay. Of course there are lots of grarnmatical problems, but I understand what they meant (in their essays). NNSs supported by the NS students became actively involved in discussions: Now I can participate in small-group discussions. It's interesting to discuss ideas with other students. I learned how to argue with other students. I have a little bit of confidence now. For these students, the collaborative tasks were beneficial, broadening their perspectives and deepening their critical thinking. Collaborative tasks also helped students to become aware of their writing skills, including strengths and weaknesses. Students discussed not only what they thought about the stories but also what they wrote about the stories. For example, Min was an E S L student who was willing to participate in small-group discussions. She was Korean-Japanese, born in Japan and educated both in Japan and Korea. She loved to talk with NSs without any hesitation. The instructor observed her: (Interview) Min is very outgoing and friendly, although her Enghsh is not a lot better than other average E S L students, when you listen to what she actually says. But, she's not inhibited. She was much better coping with performances. If you listen to what she actually said, she had as much trouble expressing herself as any of them. 162 But it doesn't bother her. She wasn't inhibited, while the others felt inhibited. It's not the language level alone, but also the ease. Min always actively participated in small-group discussions. She expressed her feelings and opinions about other members' (NSs and NNSs) writing, assuming the expert role to help them improve their writing. But, while reading other students' papers and receiving comments on her writing, she became aware that she needed to work on her language: (Interview) I realize that spoken Enghsh and written Enghsh are completely different. I think I need help to improve my grammar. I can think of ideas and I'm fine to talk about them. But, I can't write well. I find it's a big problem I want to write my ideas well so that other students understand. Sharing writing with other students and discussing it helped her enhance her language awareness. 6.4.3 Equality In Chapter Four, I discussed the value of equality in the classroom—both gender equality promoted in the stories and the equal relationship promoted between instructor and students. For most of the NS students, gender equality was taken for granted; however, some NS students and many NNS students were of cultural backgrounds which did not take it for granted. One student said that she felt discouraged discussing a story with her partner who was a NS of East-Indian background; she felt offended by his "male-chauvinist" attitude and interpretation of the story. Some Asian NNSs felt confused: (Interview) The traditional roles of men and women are very different in Korea. There has been movement in Korea. But, lots of people still accept traditional roles. In the [Korean] books, women are treated as passive, submissive to men. Here I find that everybody is equal and free to express themselves. My parents believe that my happiness comes with a good marriage. I believed so when I was in Korea. But, I don't feel that way anymore. I want to be equal and study at university. They [parents] can't understand. (NNS-Adj) 163 The hterature class encouraged her to reconceptualize the background knowledge she acquired in Korea. She struggled to construct her new identity. An egalitarian relationship between instructor and students is more common in North America than in non-western societies. Many NSs comfortably asked the instructor about assignments, tasks, and his comments on their writing. Many NNSs, on the other hand, did not know how to get support from the instructor and found his facilitative approach and his reluctance to teach his interpretation of the stories frustrating strategies in conflict with their cultural norms. (Interview) In Hong Kong, students don't interrupt the teacher. That's rude. So, we listen. But, here they [students] say whatever they want to say to the teacher. Sometimes, they disagree and argue with the teacher. I like to listen and learn. I hope to get involved, but I can't. Her cultural assumptions prevented her from integrating the notion of student-instructor equahty into her self-conception. But other NNSs became more assertive after they handed in their first essay, and started to ask the instructor questions in and after the class. Not only did they become accustomed to this more equal relationship, but also they became famihar with a task-based, student-centered learning style and learned how to get support from the instructor. 6.4.4 Poststructural Approach to Literary Interpretation and Classroom Practice Most of the students found this approach challenging and struggled with it. In their perception, they expected to learn the instructor's interpretation of the story or at least get some sense of it from sample essays. But they were forced to reconceptualize these perceptions. Many NS students expressed their frustration in the interview, although they 164 logically understood that they should develop their own ideas. One student said that he felt as though he had to travel "without any map." Some students went to the instructor to discuss their ideas and hoped to get a gist of his interpretation; but, they never succeeded. The instructor listened to them and elaborated their thoughts but neither supported nor refused their ideas. I introduced students' struggle in Chapter Five (5.3.1). In addition, one NS student said: I'm supposed to be able to interpret the meaning of the story. I think there must be either a right or wrong answer. His [the instructor's] teaching style is too abstract for me. If he does not tell us what is right, then how do you know how to interpret the story or understand irony and symbolism. For Asian NNS students who expected that the instructor would teach them about the stories and interpretations, this approach forced them to de-construct their background knowledge of learning. For some, it was too challenging; as a result, they had to find other experts, such as tutors and friends, who could help them find a "right" answer. Despite frustration, some of the students felt motivated by this challenge: I considered him [the instructor] one of the most difficult instructors as far as what he expected. I learned that he expects a lot. That's how we learn, so I enjoyed it a lot. He actually makes you work hard, and at the same time, he gets me interested in reading books and writing papers. Probably because there are so many different angles I can take, but knowing what he wanted~I know what his expectations are—it's really hard. I've become very critical about my own writing. Besides, I tend to be a perfectionist. But, I like this course and enjoy writing. (NS) Students like this one who were able to accept a literary world without truth and embrace a poststructural perspective reconstructed their approaches to acquiring knowledge and benefited from the course as a result. 165 6.5 Learning Together: Non-native Speakers' Perceptions I have iUustrated similarities and differences in the language socialization experiences of NSs and NNSs. fn this section, I will focus on NNS students and analyze difficulties they experienced in completing the tasks. Their difficulties arose from two major phases-linguistic and sociocultural—and both of these were linked to psychological problems; for example, when a student did not express herself well in speech, she felt not only linguisticaUy inferior to NSs but also socially incompetent to complete tasks with them. I will integrate discussion of the psychological phase throughout this section. 6.5.1 Linguistic Problems This was the fundamental and foremost problem for most NNS students. Most of them felt that they had problems with their Enghsh proficiency. They perceived that they could not fully articulate their ideas or communicate with other students; their perceptions were reinforced when NS students did not understand what they said or what they wrote. Lack of confidence as well as competence hindered their participation in group work and compelled them to remain silent. Even when they understood the literary concepts and aims of the task, their lack of confidence discouraged them from taking an expert role in discussions. Their feelings of linguistic inferiority to NS students restrained them from providing comments to NSs (c.f. Chapter Five, 5.4.1). They were usually listeners rather than speakers and tended to wait their turn to speak or to speak only when they were asked their opinions: (Interview) Even when you have clear ideas, before you say it, you have to think how to say it. I think about my grammar and make sentences in my mind. When they [NSs] 166 don't understand me—I can tell from their face—I'm totally embarrassed about my Enghsh. I feel I'm stupid. NNSs often overestimated the abilities of NS, feeling that language proficiency equaled insight. Being NSs, however, did not always mean these students had a better understanding of the literary concepts and interpretation. Just as NNSs, they also had difficulties in understanding the nature of the tasks, developing academic discussions, and writing insightful essays. Many NNS were not aware of specific areas of difficulty. Their language awareness was so vague that they did not know how to improve it. They needed to understand their weaknesses—for example, pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, and hstening skills—in order to improve their speech and writing. Some students did not feel Enghsh was the problem, especially i f they were fluent speakers, because they felt they could communicate with other students. But what they required was not a chatting skill; they did not realize the importance of learning academic language both in speech and in writing. As the class progressed, and NNSs had a better understanding of the nature of the tasks demanded of them, some students became conscious of their specific hnguistic problems—for example, grammar in speech or in writing. This awareness was important, helping them work with specific problems; but, it was also a difficult journey: I really like to study hterature. But writing is a very painful process. After I finish my paper, I sometimes cry. But, I've never stopped writing. It's not perfect, but I always try. I usually think in Korean first then tried to translate it in Enghsh though I'm not supposed to do that. It's frustrating, because that's the way I express myself but NSs don't get it. After I explain to them, they can get it. I need to work on word choice and diction. I know what kind of level of language should appear in my paper. I'm not writing an elementary composition. There are so many words which have similar meaning but in fact they are slightly different. I can see the difference in Korean, but I can't see it in Enghsh. 167 As she expressed her frustration, she also mentioned that Enghsh had become her language: I write a diary. I started to write it in Enghsh after I came here. I recently realized that I can feel Enghsh. When I wrote "I'm depressed," I didn't really feel I'm depressed...you know what I mean. But, now sometimes when I write "I'm depressed," I can get the sense of how it feels like. In this instance, this student was moving beyond the phase of what Pavlenko and Lantolf (1997) identify as a "loss of the frame of reference and the link between the signifier and the signified" expressed by one voice in these words: The words I learn now don't stand for things in the same unquestioned way they did in my native tongue. "River" in Pohsh was a vital sound, energized with the essence of riverhood, of my rivers, of my being immersed in rivers. "River" in Enghsh is cold~a word without an aura. It has no accumulated associations for me, and it does not give off the radiating haze of connotation. It does not evoke. (P-l) For the student mentioned above, the expression ' I 'm depressed" was beginning to evoke. Her sense of the Enghsh language had developed since her arrival in Canada four years ago, enabling her to experience on this occasion the phase of gain Pavlenko and Lantolf refer to. Her efforts to complete classroom tasks successfully and socialize into the class enabled her to feel the Enghsh language even more. 6.5.2 Sociocultural Gaps Sociocultural difficulties arose from students' different learning experiences acquired in their home countries. But, at the same time, they were aware—more than NSs~of the significance of learning different cultures. The NNS students, particularly the adjunct students, stated that they had learned about diverse aspects of culture from reading, from lectures, and from other students. In the interviews, they pointed out that sometimes they 168 did not understand the relationships among characters in the stories, saying that these relationships were very different from what they could imagine. Even when they read a modern work, such as Atwood's, NNSs found that the characters' life experiences were very different from their own: (Interview) I liked Margaret Atwood's stories. But, it's not easy to understand, even the young people were different....Their [characters'] lives are very different from mine. I think Canadian students understand better. There is always something different. In the stories, for example, Margaret Atwood's stories are not easy to understand [for those of non-North American background]. The adjunct instructor understood that NNSs had more difficulties in understanding culture in hterature than NSs. She suggested: I do think it's more difficult for ESL students to understand the stories, because of all the cultural stuff plus different styles of language, language that is specific to a particular period or history or particular social contexts. It's more difficult for them to grasp the subtle meanings....They have to summarize what's happening in the story, interpret it, and look for implied meanings or intent or that kind of thing. NSs are, at least, better able to get to that level....I think lots of the differences have more to do with interest in the story itself, because NSs generally read a story, get into it, and use their past experiences to understand it. It might be that the issue of a double-standard between genders might not be apparent to Asian students, for example. The actual differences are more to do with that than actual writing skills stuff. I think that the ability to interpret what's happening is more difficult. Stories like "Gambler" are out of their context; so much language used and so many ideas expressed aren't familiar. I would guess that it might be more difficult for E S L students to like the characters and be interested in the characters. (Interview) The Enghsh instructor perceived that NNSs had problems with understanding sociocultural contexts of the stories; however, he suggested that it was also so for NSs: Students need to have a sense of what's in a given story. There's a sort of large expectation of certain behaviour. Reading Henry James's story, for example, Chinese students may have different expectations of how men and women act; so, they don't always understand what's going on in the story....Stories like 'True 169 Trash" might be difficult for them, too, because boys and girls are not behaving in the ways they can easily relate to...But, I don't think that's very much more difficult for them than say for other NSs who are born here and raised in Burnaby or Coquitlam. It could be difficult for both of them to understand what's happening in the story, like in Dinesen's "The Pearls" which is set in Denmark in the 1860s. So, I'm not sure that the cultural differences necessarily disadvantage NNSs. (Interview) As I have described earher, many students had to understand and adjust themselves to the sociocultural and academic values promoted in the class in order to become independent members of the classroom culture. Such values as mdividuahsm, equahty, and collaboration encouraged them to reconstruct their values. In this process, many students experienced transformation of who they had been and who they were becoming; during this process they faced sociocultural gaps and felt isolated and ahenated: (interview) Sometimes I think differently than others, because my culture is different. So, I write differently. They [NSs] think I'm different. But, I feel they are different. Even when you have clear ideas, before you say it, you have to tliink how it affects other people's feelings. Maybe because I'm Asian. I need to say what I tliink, and I know I have to make myself clear, because otherwise they [NSs] will ask me "what do you mean?" But, I'm not used to do that. In Taiwan, I'm hesitant to speak clearly. They don't ask me. They will guess, but not ask. I'm very confused by my situation [in class] now. I feel ahenated from Canadian society. I don't feel I belong here. They don't accept me. I don't feel I'm understood. I feel like I'm a strange person. Their struggle was to find a bridge between their own cultural knowledge and values and those of the classroom. They had to corrimunicate with both cultures, perceive themselves in both cultures, and reconceptualize their identities in a new culture. They needed this process to socialize into the classroom culture. 170 This chapter has addressed Research Questions Three and Four. I have analyzed students' language socialization experiences. In the next chapter, I will describe the adjunct course's planned curriculum and lived curriculum. 171 Chapter 7 ADJUNCT COURSE: PLANNED AND LIVED CURRICULUM This chapter addresses Research Question Four, examining how the adjunct course helped NNS students cope with difficulties in performing the task demands of the course. The chapter first describes the planned curriculum of the adjunct course, and second examines its lived curriculum. FinaUy, it analyzes how the adjunct course supported the NNS students in their efforts to cope with the linguistic, sociocultural, and psychological difficulties discussed in Chapter Six. Primary sources are the course curriculum, my own observations, audiotaping, videotaping, interviews with the participants, and questionnaires. 7.1 Adjunct Course: Planned Curriculum The adjunct course was designed specifically for ESL students enrolled in Enghsh 106. In the College Calendar, students can read the general purpose of the course: "students will develop language and study skills" and find support for their Enghsh 106 course work; "[activities will help students develop the reading and writing skills" for composing academic essays; and, students' "overall academic language proficiency should improve" (p. 141). Students must have completed the highest level of E S L reading and writing courses in order to register for the course. 172 As a Mastery course, the adjunct course is not transferable to university. This may discourage students from enrolling, even i f they need the instruction, since they are reluctant to cornmit time and money to a course which universities do not recognize. 7.1.1 Course Objectives and Content In the course outline, the course objectives are as follows: the course "is designed to help you do well in Enghsh 106, Studies in Prose Fiction; [y]ou will improve your ability to understand, critically analyze and write about short stories and novels" (p. 1). The course outline states that specifically, the course helps students to: —follow and participate in discussions about readings —understand readings —summarize readings —write theme statements —critically analyze readings —generate thesis statements and/or hypotheses about readings —develop, revise, edit and proofread critical essays about readings. (P. 1) This list of sub-goals outlines the tasks required of students in the Enghsh 106 class and reinforced in the adjunct class. The instructor explained: Overall, the objective of the course is to help students manage the assignments in Enghsh 106, specifically to help them write two essays that are assigned. It's probably the primary objective, since that is where the grade comes from. I also hope to help them write theme statements and to understand stories. (Interview) The importance of reading is emphasized; every activity is related to reading. Because the course closely follows the Enghsh 106 course, a textbook is not required. Students can assume that they need to express their thoughts and feelings about readings in discussions. Furthermore, they can predict that there will be various kinds of tliinking and writing activities involved. 173 7.1.2 Course Activities Although the course content suggests some of the sub-goals of the course, it does not specify the classroom activities or method of instruction by which students will achieve such goals. The instructor said that it is difficult to choose effective activities for the limited time of two hours per week; however, she hoped to help students understand the stories: I tliink the difficulty is that it's two hours a week; so, it's hard to make the decision about what to do in two hours, and once students start working on essays, we spend time talking about the stories people are working on, or spend the class time talking about some story which one student is using for an essay and the others are not. Then it becomes difficult. So, the main objective is to work on the two major essays, although I tliink we can easily spend every two hour period simply talking about the stories. I tliink I will spend more time discussing stories than I did in the past. I think one reason I haven't done it in the past was partly because when I have done it, I ended up...me sitting there and telling them [students] what the stories were about. It's been difficult to find a good way to do that. What I'm hoping to do is get them to do a little presentation about a story. It's one way of taking the burden off me and placing it on them so that they have to work with the story in order to do that. (Interview) 7.1.3 Course Structure The course met for two hours once a week (Wednesday: 12:00-14:00) and earned 1.5 credits. 7.1.4 Method of Evaluation Since it is an E S L course, students receive a mastery grade i f they "achieve an overall average of 70% on course work, including regular in-class writing, essay preparation exercises, and participation (attendance and effort)" (p. 1). If students do not achieve 70%, they do not receive credit regardless of their grade in Enghsh 106. 174 7.1.5 Instructor The course outline provides the instructor's name, office number, and office telephone number. Even though the instructor's office hours are not specified, the students know that they can make an appointment to discuss course work with her; because they have usually taken some E S L courses before they enroll in the adjunct course, they know when and how they can contact E S L instructors. She considered that her role was to give students support: I see my role as completely supportive. I keep completely in touch with what's happening in [Enghsh] 106. I need to figure out absolutely what they need to do and to help them do it in the most effective way that I can. I feel responsible for their essays. I feel i f they hand in a poor essay, I haven't managed to help them make it better. I feel that I should be meeting students mdividuahy, but it's very difficult to do that; it's usually very time consuming. (Interview) In the next section, I will examine the lived curriculum 7 . 2 Adjunct Course: Lived Curriculum Nine adjunct students (twelve at the beginning, three of whom later withdrew) met Wednesdays (12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.); three to four students sat together at each big table. The instructor usually stood in front of the blackboard and talked to the class; but, during small-group discussions, she walked around the tables and talked with individual students. The students seemed more relaxed than they were in the Enghsh 106 classroom. The adjunct classroom was smaller than the Enghsh 106 tutorial classroom; the sunshine came in through the big windows and made the classroom bright. 175 The reasons why students decided to take the adjunct course were to get help with understanding hterature and writing essays. What follows were the students' expectations of the adjunct course when they signed up: (Interview) I thought this course [would] help me [gain] deeper and correct understanding of Enghsh hterature. I wanted to discuss hterature and learn about the language skill used in writing essays. It's difficult to interpret a story and find themes. I wanted [the course] to deepen my understanding of the reading and to help with organizing my essays. I expected the course to be very helpful, in a way that we could discuss each story fully and that I would receive comments on my essays. I hoped that the E S L instructor would explain each story in detail, and give us exercises to do for each story, which might help us understand the stories more. They hoped that the course would help them write good essays and do well on quizzes and in-class essays; they wanted to receive good grades. Their worry was more about content than language, even though many students had language problems. Perhaps they thought their tutors or NS friends would help them correct grammatical errors. Or, since most of them had taken an academic writing course, they were fully aware of the challenges involved in writing essays, such challenges as finding insightful and significant theses, and developing meaningful arguments. Their expectations corresponded with the instructor's course objectives: the course was designed to help students do well in Enghsh 106 and help them improve their ability to understand, critically analyze and write about short stories and novels. The instructor perceived students as follows: I would say that there are a fair number of the students in the class who had Enghsh 130 [academic writing course]. They are on the right track; they basically know what to do....I think that language is certainly a significant problem. But, the biggest problem is lack of experience in writing a critical analysis of a short story. I feel there's a big gap to fill for a number of students. That's (iifficult to do 176 in the short amount of time that there is. I tnink that having an experience of writing a short story essay is really crucial in taking Enghsh 106.... It's crucial to interacting with the stories, asking questions about a story and getting involved....It's frustrating to have such a quiet group.... Their perception of their role in the classroom is not very accurate. (Interview) 7.2.1 Classroom Tasks and Activities Since the course objectives were to help adjunct students do well in Enghsh 106, all the tasks and activities were linked to those of Enghsh 106; Figure 6.1 shows the major connections. For example, all the tasks indirectly provided the students with essay writing skills; individual conferences specifically and directly helped them write and edit their essays. Figure 6.1 also suggests that the adjunct class emphasized content and cultural learning such as analyzing hterature and editing other students' papers rather than language learning such as increasing vocabulary and improving grammar. Students learned new vocabulary through reading hterature and course handouts, and did error correction exercises through editing essays. The adjunct class helped equip students with skills to read and analyze a story, grasp significant themes, write insightful thesis statements, and develop essays. The adjunct instructor was concerned primarily with helping students generate effective writing. Her concern was thus with the crucial learning outcomes of the Enghsh 106 class. This focus, however, was at the expense of time spent enhancing group interaction and discussion skills, another important outcome of the Enghsh 106 class. This created a dilemma for the instructor, since there was too little time for too much content. Because time was limited 177 to only two hours a week, she was always frustrated that she could not provide students with as much support as she wanted. [Adjunct] Lecture • Whole-SmaU-group Discussion Oral Presentation Individual Conference Other Tasks in-class writing [Enghsh 106] Input Tasks —lecture —critical reading —writing theme statements —whole-class discussion —essay analysis —quizzes language error exercises. Interactive Tasks small group discussions -peer editing -in-class writing Output/evaluative Tasks - , —essay writing ^40% of the course mark) —editing —in-class essay (10%) Figure 7.1 Tasks in adjunct class and Enghsh 106 The instructor wanted the students to learn: first of all, to understand the story; secondly, to try to learn how to ask questions about a story; thirdly, how to find evidence that relates to the questions that are in their minds; fourthly, how to interpret the evidence in a way to support then-thesis about it. Probably, the main emphasis in the adjunct course is not to worry about things like theme statement or other stuff in a way, but simply try to focus on teaching them how to be critical about the story that leads into the essay. (Interview) 178 The instructor emphasized the importance of helping the students understand the stories, since the students needed to have an understanding of the social and cultural contexts underlying the hterature; she explained: ....The other issue of E S L students is cultural context for the stories. The stories are mostly North American and European. There is so much background that they don't have...When we [North Americans] read the stories, we recognize the names of the places and we grew up with that.... Also it's difficult for them to understand the attitude and cultural expectations of the people who lived in these cultures. That's second nature to us. Lots of NNSs don't really ever get this so it's difficult for them to get the underlying meaning of the story. (Interview) As she observed, most of the students felt understanding the stories was challenging. Even when they spent a considerable amount of time reading, it did not guarantee their comprehension, because they were required as well to understand literary devices and sociocultural contexts of the stories. Lecture/Whole-class Discussion The class usually began with the instructor asking how the students were doing in the Enghsh 106 class. In this way, the instructor could ensure that what she planned for the class was appropriate for all students. Because they were in different sections of Enghsh 106, sometimes some students had discussed a story, while others had not. This small talk also gave students the chance to talk about their feelings about being in the Enghsh 106 class. Although they did not always directly express their feelings, sometimes they told the instructor, for example, how challenging it was to write a theme statement in class. After this preliminary discussion, the instructor combined lecture and discussion for fifty to sixty percent of class time. The instructor provided students with concrete 179 examples by using handouts and sample writing, lecturing, for example, on how to critically analyze a story. Examples of lecture topics were as follows: —Theme statements —A thesis claim —Plot summary —Character analysis —Social context, historical background —Key terms of a story —Literary devices (symbolism, imagery) —Critical analysis of a passage of the story —Interpretation of a passage of the story —Editing (essay: an introduction, a thesis, body paragraphs) —In-class essay —Essay writing Whole-class discussions followed the instructor's lecture and usually began with a question. In the beginning, students were very quiet and did not respond to her; so, she had to rephrase the question, give an answer to the question, or sometimes call on a student by name. As the course progressed, however, they became less shy and some of them were able not only to answer her questions but also make comments or ask questions of her. The instructor fully prepared each class and was enthusiastic about discussing course content, but students sometimes came to class unprepared, which hindered then-participation in discussions. In the interviews, several students suggested that they felt overwhelmed by the amount of work in these two courses and other courses. They thus had to attend the class unprepared, hoping to learn something by just hstening to the lecture; they were passive learners. They wanted the instructor to explain and interpret a story for them, since they had difficulties fully understanding it after the first reading, and 180 yet they did not take the time to read it more than once. As a result, whole-class discussion did not always generate effective participation; students could be merely passive listeners, expecting the instructor to give them her views and interpretations and accept them. This pattern was easy for them to adapt to, since most of them were from Asia where this kind of learning style is common in school. The students' lack of preparation and participation presented a challenge for the adjunct instructor. She felt that the adjunct course should help the students acquire skills and techniques to write essays in an appropriate way. She felt, at the same time, that the students must learn ways to explore a story deeply themselves and search for viable responses to it. The adjunct course, she hoped, would be a catalyst; it would not teach them the meaning of the story. While working on different aspects of reading and writing, the students, she hoped, would learn how to learn on their own. However, the students did not respond to the instructor's hopes and expectations. She in turn responded to their learning style by lecturing about the story and its themes. Classroom practice reinforced the passive learning style characteristic of Asian students. The instructor perceived difficulties that students had: I don't like to make generalizations, but many Asian students are passive and sort of look at surface meaning rather than underlying meaning or interpretation. They just have very little experience with that kind of analysis. I think that a problem with interpreting is that it's just difficult for people to do that; it requires a level of tliinking that students are not in the habit of doing. It is also time-consuining and requires a lot of energy; that's the pressure for those unfarnihar with intellectual activity. (Interview) Interestingly, the adjunct instructor's concessions to her NNS students' need for clarity about story plot and themes clashed with the Enghsh 106 instructor's efforts to create 181 autonomous learners. Because of his silence, she felt the students' reliance on her to clarify and interpret where he refused to do so. Smal-group Discussions In the hterature class, sharing thoughts and feelings about the hterature through discussions was a significant aspect of learning. The Enghsh 106 class encouraged students to discuss in small groups. Most of the NNS students had more difficulties with discussions than with written tasks such as editing. If they were able to explain their essays well, and to ask questions when they did not understand other students, they could participate in oral activities positively. One would expect, then, that small-group discussion would be an important component of the adjunct class. The instructor employed small-group work from week four on. By this time, students had got to know each other and seemed relaxed and comfortable talking in class. She usually used fifteen to twenty percent of class time (about twenty minutes) for small-group discussions (three to four students in a group) and increased time up to thirty percent (about forty minutes) towards the end of the semester. She did not assign students to groups; they often worked with the same fellow students, since they sat at the same table every week. After the whole-class discussions, the instructor gave students a task—usually related to what they had previously discussed in class—to complete with other group members. Unlike the small-group discussions in Enghsh 106, in which students discussed topics based on their own or group members' writing, the students in the adjunct class were always given handouts and a writing task; then, they discussed topics based on the task 182 they had completed. These tasks were sometimes detailed questions about passages in a story, or an analysis guide for body paragraphs in an essay. When they read "The Painter of Signs," for example, the students were asked first to: A. Write a brief discussion of what is happening to Raman throughout this [pp. 135-136] passage. B. Write sentences in which you incorporate parts or all of the following quotes. Incorporate these quotes into sentences which interpret these quotes in terms of what is happening to Raman and/or the relationship between Raman and Daisy in the story. 1. but she specified everything for herself and always seemed to say, 'Do what you like, I don't care and I do not need your attention or arrangement." 2. "These thoughts coursed through his mind, as an undercurrent, while he tried to talk over details." 7. suddenly saw her as an abstraction - perhaps a goddess to be worshipped not to be disturbed or defiled with coarse fingers." After the students completed the task in small-groups, they made sample answers. This is an example of an analysis guide for body paragraphs: Analyze one body paragraph in your short story essay by referring to the fohowing: 1. The first sentence should be the topic sentence. It should express the point of the paragraph and refer in some way to the claim. It should also be expressed differently from the thesis claim/plan statement. 2. The paragraph should have a clear framework. If someone reads it quickly, he should be able to immediately identify the way in which the points are organized. 3. The paragraph should be coherent. If someone reads it quickly, he should be able to immediately see a number of transitional words and phrases which link points in the paragraph. 4. The paragraph should contain a balance of the following three elements: a. paraphrased descriptions of characters' actions and events in the story. b. quoted excerpts from the story, introduced in a variety of ways. c. explanations and interpretations of characters' actions and events. 5. The paragraph should conclude with a statement which somehow confirms or clarifies the point you are making in the paragraph (as stated in the topic sentence). 183 In this way, the students could confirm important points and compare their own writing with the sample-model. They felt these tasks were useful, because they provided them with modeling and concrete points: (Interview) It's very very difficult to find a good thesis. I have ideas, but it's not easy to organize ideas....Handouts and exercises are very useful. And, I like reading other students' essays [sample essays], you know, she [the instructor] used good example essays. It's easy to talk about other people's [not fellow students'] essays. It's useful. I can get ideas. In the Enghsh 106 class, the handbook, Course Materials Package, provided the students with similar guidelines, such as "Writing Theme Statements" and "Thesis Development Exercise Guide," but the students were expected to read and understand on their own. In the small-group discussions of the adjunct class, however, the students could help each other and compose model writing, which helped them find their own writing problems and better understand hterature essay writing. Other tasks for small-group discussions were writing summaries, interpreting and defining a passage, theme statement analysis, thesis development exercises, and editing. In the adjunct class discussions, the students did not appear as active or assertive as the NSs in the Enghsh 106 class, but they did demonstrate two-way interactions. Because they did not feel pressure to speak "good" Enghsh, they felt comfortable speaking up in a group: (Interview) I like smaU-group discussion. I don't worry about my grammar. It's interesting and useful to discuss ideas with other students. M y group members cooperated very much. When I find other viewpoints, I feel "oh, that's interesting!" I'm encouraged. We help each other to understand the story. I feel good about my participation. 184 Another reason they felt less mtimidated than they were in the Enghsh 106 class was that they did not edit fellow students' papers. They used sample essays provided by the instructor; so, they did not need to feel that they were "criticizing" a friend's writing: (Interview) I like that [sample essays], because I can see good examples how to develop essays. It's really useful. I have learned how to integrate my ideas into the essay. The discussions revealed that the students were both speakers and listeners; they were willing to exchange opinions and to comment on sample writing. The next example shows how they interacted with each other. (3 Students analyzed a passage) Example 1 SI: He said that to his daughter right, (1) maybe just he try to (0.5) you know, uum S2: yeah, I know I think because he felt guilty about people (0.5) because he used to betray them. SI: oh, I just thought (2) so I tMnk he tries to be nice to - you know, S3: uh (0.5) so you think like ahh actually he protected himself ? SI: yeah, besides he doesn't ask uh her (1) he used to make decisions right? (=) S2: (=) I agree (1) it's his motivation uh initial motivation maybe (=) SI: (=) you mean he wants to S2: [later on S3: [I thought (1)1 feel sorry (0.5) because he didn't bring her up but (1) uh he put her in a situation like (=) S2: (=) yeah, i f I were a father I want to protect her They equally participated in the discussion and exchanged opinions by responding to a previous speaker's comment. They did not hesitate to speak, speaking right after the previous speaker, as indicated by the latching notation (=). Example 2 SI: I don't get it. S2: I think (1) okay (0.2) so I think because uh he wants to take her away from her father, (-) S1: (=) Even though she doesn't want to go with him? S2: I think that she was doing wrong 185 SI: Who?(=) S2: (=) Uh actuahy he (1) is he selfish? S3: yeah S1: because he took it uh her away from her father? S3: He did the right thing? S2: yeah, because he thinks it a good thing (1) he thinks like uh like everybody should appreciate him (1) but actually he was thinking about liimself SI: oh S2: right? SI: I think he wanted to save her S3: If you compared him with uh Dr.Sloper (0.5) I tliink (1) umm he also wanted to save her daughter because he loves her Here, SI did not know how to interpret the passage; the other two students expressed their interpretations. S1 was not just a passive listener, however; he asked questions to ensure he understood other students. They were able to develop discussions. In the interview, they said that they felt more relaxed and comfortable in discussing content with other NNSs: (Interview) Because I don't need to think about my Enghsh very much, I feel like I can say anything. When I think about the adjunct, they were ESL and I could raise my hand, you know, and talked to the class...yeah, I could do it with E S L students. I like the adjunct class better, because I can say anything...how I feel and how I think about the stories. I can't do it [in the Enghsh 106 class]. Why? 'Cause I'm scared. Oral Presentation The students did oral presentations in week eight about themes of the stories. Two to three students were assigned a story, worked together to find themes, and presented these themes for about ten to fifteen minutes. AU group members seemed a little nervous at the beginning of their presentations and mostly read what they prepared. After the 186 presentation, they discussed the presented themes of the story; the instructor helped them discuss themes by providing comments and questions. In the end, the discussion went well, led by the students, not the instructor. The instructor felt this was a useful task, since the students gained confidence that they were able to develop discussions on then-own; nevertheless, she could not employ this task more than once because it was a time-consuming task, and she could not afford to spend too much time. Individual Conference The mdividual conferences were held twice—one to two weeks before each essay was due. Many students felt the conference was very useful; because they could talk to the instructor about their own essays, the conference helped them develop ideas for then-thesis statements and improve their writing in an mdividual way not offered by the Enghsh 106 class. The students were given about half an hour to discuss their writing with the instructor, who used her class time, office hours, and other non-teaching hours. This was time consuming, but the instructor valued this opporftrnity: 'T do tlunk that the conferences I have with students are for the most part very useful" (Interview). In the conference, the instructor and student discussed mostly the thesis statement and topic sentences to make the student's argument significant and strong. They did not have time to discuss grammatical problems. Some students came back several times after the conference to further discuss then-arguments. This was a demanding task for the instructor; nevertheless, she valued it, because it provided individual support, which she could not offer very much of in class. 187 Other Tasks The instructor employed other tasks to help students improve their performance in Enghsh 106. These tasks were in-class writing and language error exercises, which helped prepare students to write the final in-class essay. In-class writing was paragraph writing; students were required to write about ten sentences in twenty minutes. The instructor first used OHP to show students a framework to rernind them of the structure of a paragraph. She emphasized writing a clear topic sentence and evidence (two to four points) to support it. Most of the students completed a paragraph within the given time; they found that the clear visual instruction was effective. Although the instructor felt that the in-class writing exercises were important, she did not employ this task very often. She said: I should be doing more in-class writing. But I would feel like I'm cheating the students, because I would just watch them working. But, they do need in-class writing. They need to work on how to write something quickly with accurate language. (Interview) Language errors and other problem exercises also aimed to help students improve editing skills. The students were given example sentences, containing various errors, and corrected them. This task led students to find out and discuss not only grammatical errors, but also other problems such as diction, vagueness and incorrect use of quotations. Although these tasks were useful, the instructor did not employ them regularly, because of time limitations. 7.2.2 Classroom Culture The adjunct class provided a bridge for students to adapt to the indrviduahstic classroom culture of Enghsh 106, helping them to become independent active learners. In the beginning, the instructor employed more lecture/discussion tasks than small-group 188 discussion tasks, since students were mostly of Asian backgrounds and comfortable with a passive learning style. Then she gradually invited students to small-group discussions, different from those of Enghsh 106, since the students worked on teacher-led activities, where students received detailed instruction on tasks. The adjunct class, therefore, was considerably less self-directed than the Enghsh 106 class, a difference appreciated by the students, one of whom observed: I can participate in small-group discussions [in the adjunct class]. I don't know why, but it's different from Enghsh 106. I don't feel intimidated or criticized. I feel like I understand other students better [in the adjunct class]....I have clear ideas what to discuss. Maybe we can share ideas better, because we are ESL. (Interview) In the Enghsh 106 class, even from the beginning, students were expected to speak their rriinds, share ideas freely, and exchange opinions on their fellow students' writing; they had to interact through a low-context communication style in which people would communicate in a direct and unambiguous way. In the adjunct class, however, the students were allowed to use high-context communication where people tend to communicate indirectly and avoid leaving an assertive impression with the listener. By the time they worked together in small-groups, they knew other students and analyzed and edited model essays which the instructor supplied. This promoted a less demanding and mtimidating atmosphere. When they were asked how they would describe their participation in the adjunct class, most students felt they were more assertive participants in the adjunct class than in Enghsh 106. One student, however, felt that the adjunct class was not effective because she did not have sufficient chance to discuss her own writing; she liked the tension and pressure in Enghsh 106, which motivated her to complete tasks. 189 The adjunct class could provide students with opportunities to reinforce their language, content, and cultural learning, helping them develop the background knowledge and acquire skills to complete the tasks in the hterature class successfully and cope with difficulties they perceived: She [the instructor] gave us samples to create my own ideas and how to do it. She also told us cultural thing that I didn't know. I realized that was important when I write an essay. I have to read stories critically. Then I have to tliink if they are significant and insightful and then, how to put my ideas together. It's difficult. He [the Enghsh instructor] does not tell us his ideas; so, I sometimes feel lost. But, in the adjunct class, we can get a lot of ideas, models, and effective ways to express ourselves....good essays give me a sense what I have to do with my essay. (Interview) The tasks in the adjunct class worked as scaffolding for the hterature class; the instructor as expert provided support for students as novices in their understanding and completing of the hterature class tasks, helping them to become competent members of their social group—the Enghsh 106 class. Students also played expert's roles, providing support cooperatively; they were able to do this, because they did not feel linguistic and sociocultural gaps with other members. The class thus provided them with an optimal learning environment—not only linguisticaUy but also socioculturalfy; students, while receiving scaffolding by the expert's guidance and in collaboration with peers, functioned in their zone of proximal development. 190 Chapter 8 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS This chapter discusses issues which emerge from the research questions and findings of Chapters Four to Six. Pedagogical implications arising from the findings are also discussed. I then identify the limitations of the present study and suggest future research areas. 8.1 What was the Nature of this College First-year Engl ish Literature Course? The present study explored the role that sociocultural context plays in college students' socialization into an Enghsh first-year hterature classroom Analyzing its planned and lived curriculum, this study examined the nature of the classroom: the social, cultural, and academic values and norms promoted both exphcitly and imphcitly in that classroom; and tasks designed to enable the students to achieve the goals of the course and their own personal goals. The findings suggested the complex nature of classroom culture. 8.1.1 The Literature Class as a Community As the lived curriculum illustrated, the hterature class was a small community where the instructor and students shared time and space, shared the hterature, worked on the tasks cooperatively, and exchanged various perspectives. The members of this community had to communicate at two levels: first, the community level; and second, the mdividual level. 191 This community maintained certain social, cultural, and academic values and norms. When members joined this cormnunity, they, unconsciously and consciously, had to function within these values and norms, and respond to them. In addition, because they studied hterature written in different times, they were required to understand the historical and social contexts—in particular, European and North American—of the hterature. At the mdividual level, this community also provided a rich sociocultural learning environment, because members were different not only in age, gender, and academic goals, but also in background knowledge, personality, ethnic backgrounds and life experiences; these differences contributed to developing individuals' perspectives and values towards learning as well as life. In a mathematics classroom, for example, where interactions are with theory rather than with personal feeling, individual perspectives offer only limited contributions to developing the larger classroom community. In this Enghsh hterature class, however, personal contributions were highly valued, so that individuals engaged interactively with each other as well as with the cormnunity which together they created. Students were required in the class to express their own perspectives and values through interpreting the stories, sharing them with other members, and exchanging opinions freely. These interactions are perhaps unique to the hterature classroom. As members negotiated both individual and cornmunity constructs of social, cultural, and academic values and norms, de- and re-constructed their background knowledge, and eventually established their roles and identities in the corrniiunity (i.e. classroom), they at once both formed and integrated into the classroom culture (cf. Figure 7.1). In this process, students were able to broaden and deepen their background knowledge, modify 192 and reconceptualize their perspectives and values, and become competent members of the community of the Enghsh hterature class. Community Social, cultural, and academic values and norms (background knowledge; social, cultural, and academic values and norms) Figure 8.1 Construction of classroom culture 8.1.2. Social, Cultural, Academic Values and Norms in the Community In the planned curriculum, four significant social, cultural, and academic values and norms emerged: individuahsm, collaboration, equality, and a poststructural approach to knowledge. These values and norms were reflected in the hterature that students studied, the tasks they completed in and outside class, and the instructor's teaching style. In the lived curriculum, students demonstrated complicated processes of communicating and negotiating these values and norms. The complexity of this process derived from the fact that they had each their own social, cultural, and academic values and norms when they joined the hterature class as members, values and norms which sometimes conflicted with the expectation of the classroom community they now were part of. Individualism: mdividuahsm vs. collectivism is the major cultural variable when comparing western and non-western cultures (cf. Triandis, 1995). At the risk of generalizing, students who 193 grew up in western society would be at ease with mdividualism and integrate this value into their learning, whereas students who grew up in non-western societies would have difficulties adjusting to it and feel disconcerted about their place in between two cultures. As the findings illustrated, NNSs, most of whom had Asian backgrounds, generally had more difficulties adjusting to various tasks reflecting this value than did NSs. But as they were completing these tasks, they adapted to the pattern of small-group discussion as defined for them by their instructor. Following these patterns and observing other students' performances within their discussion groups, most gradually modified their background knowledge about how to acquire knowledge—their own theory of learning based on the teacher-directed model—and integrated a new value—student-centred learning. They benefited from individuahsm, developing a trust and respect for their own capacity for insightful responses. They learned the importance of independent thought and action, respect for individual differences and their own right to express themselves; as a result, many NNSs, in particular adjunct students, became more active participants in the hterature class, as they adapted to a style of learning previously foreign to them. mdividuahsm, however, also reinforced in some NNSs' their own approaches to learning, which isolated them from other members of the class. These students remained silent in small-group discussions and discussed their problems in completing assignments only with NNS fellow students—often in their first language. Their reluctance to participate in tasks actively was related to their linguistic, sociocultural, and psychological difficulties. Although the tasks were designed to encourage their participation, they could remain silent because in a sense, individuahsm protected their right to do so. Other 194 students did not force them to join the discussions, partly because they respected their individual decisions, and partly because NSs found it very difficult to give NNSs the necessary time to share their ideas in less-than-perfect Enghsh—they were impatient to complete tasks and discuss main issues; i f the NNSs were not assertive participants, NSs found it easier to ignore them. Collaboration: Collaborative learning has become important in language education (cf. Nunan, 1992b) as well as hterature instruction (cf. Langer, 1995). Langer (1995) suggests that an approach which permits students to discuss their responses to hterature rather than be taught an acceptable response permeates "hterature lessons where students' thinking is at the center of concern, where students are granted ownership for their own growing interpretations, and where they have practiced engaging in conversations about their growing understandings" (p. 5). In the hterature class of the present study, collaborative tasks were designed to encourage students to learn from each other and develop broader perspectives when they interpreted the hterature. Collaboration is often viewed as a characteristic of non-western cultures where people share responsibility and seek group goals, and harmony and cooperation are more emphasized (Gudykunst & Kim, 1995). In the hterature class, however, collaborative tasks reflected mdividuahsm, seeking not agreement upon one common interpretation but used instead to stimulate students' mdividual thinking and develop their own arguments. In small groups, students had to speak their own minds freely as well as to comment on other members' writing. This was particularly difficult for Asian NNSs, who were not accustomed to revealing themselves to others they did not know well and to "criticizing" their fellow students' writing. They needed to understand the value of direct corrmiumcation and had to modify their preconceptions about politeness, appropriateness, and group consensus. In addition, their feelings of linguistic inferiority to NSs often prevented them from discussing the content of writing, even when NNSs seemed to have better ideas and understanding than their NS counterparts. Mercer (1995) discusses three ways of talking and tMnking: first, "disputation talk" where students disagree with others and make individual decisions; second, "cumulative talk" where students "build positively but uncritically on what the other has said" to construct "a 'common knowledge' by accumulation"; third, exploratory talk in which students engage "critically but constructively with each other's ideas." Early small-group discussions in the Enghsh 106 class frequently centred on disputation talk and cumulative talk; as students gradually acquired more sophisticated interaction skills, exploratory talk became more common. In the hterature class, NNS students particularly had difficulties in developing exploratory talk with its emphasis on constructive criticism. As a result, they found it challenging to achieve one of the main goals of small-group discussions. Collaboration can benefit both NS and NNS students only when they both have the same understanding of its concepts and cooperatively try to achieve its goals. The findings supported this by showing that some NNSs, as they got to know other students better, were able to discuss their ideas with other students, which not only enhanced interaction among group members, but also helped NSs to understand that they could 196 benefit from NNSs. But both NSs and NNSs needed time to adjust themselves to this value. Equality: In many democratic societies, equality is a significant norm of life, which people highly value. Not only NSs who were educated in western society, but also NNSs who had non-western cultural backgrounds understood equality as an important concept. But again NNSs had more difficulties in adjusting to this value in the classroom than NSs. Many Asian NNSs, in particular, felt uncomfortable accepting the equal relationship between the instructor and students and/or between NS and NNS. In their eyes, the instructor was an authority and NSs were superior to them because their Enghsh was better than theirs. Because they perceived NSs this way, they did not have confidence to argue their interpretations of hterature with them. There were, however, some NNSs who benefited from the equal relationship among instructor and students. These students had usually experienced a North American education longer than others, or had more intercultural experiences in their education or personal hves: for example, students who graduated from high school in Canada; students who were interested in learning different cultures; and a student who was married to a NS and had already established her life in Canada. This suggests that larger life experience and wider sociocultural learning experiences help students adapt to North American classrooms effectively. 197 Poststructural approach to literary interpretation and classroom practice: Compared with (fisciplines which maintain objective truth in knowledge, hterature encourages students to consider multiple "truths" and interpretations. Griffith (1994) discusses the meaning of interpretation, saying: When you write essays about hterature...you join a cornmunity of people who quest for truth, not just the cornmunity of people you know personally, but the community of ah truth seekers. Argumentative essays are "dialogicar'; they invite a dialogue about ideas between writer and readers....when we develop arguments, we invite people to think along with us. We give our readers credit for being able to make up their own minds....they may challenge everything we say. But we should want an intelligent and critical response. For when we reason together, with good will and open minds, we hammer out the best "truth," for ourselves and our communities. (P. 14) The Enghsh 106 instructor supported students in their efforts to "hammer out the best 'truth'" rather than sharing with them his own or other literary critics' sense of the best truth. In this way, the instructor maintained a poststructural approach to the interpretation of hterature as well as classroom practice, encouraging students to understand the meaning of interpretation and providing them with tasks to develop their own interpretations of hterature. Poststracturalism in hterature offers "a radical theory of reading that rejects the certainty of meaning altogether" (Griffith, 1994, p. 151). The instructor, however, did not emphasize this deconstructivist approach to interpretation; rather, he tried to help students reconstruct their approach to interpretation. In classroom practice, he did not provide students with his own interpretations. He also did not use good sample student writing; instead, he encouraged students to develop critical analysis skills and create their own arguments. He told students that there is no "right" answer to 198 interpretation. Students felt disconcerted and challenged by this approach, since they were used to being instructed in the better interpretation and steered away from the poor one. They expected that the instructor would teach them good interpretation so that they could understand the hterature better; they also wanted to feel reassured that their interpretation was a good one. The instructor recognized students' frustrations but also offered the theoretical framework undergkding his method: It is important to remember that the teacher in the hterature class is not the reason why the students are there. If the students are reading the kinds of hterature they should be—works of great intrinsic value—then the real "teacher" is the great artist who is present in the work. A good classroom teacher tries not to interpose himself between the work and the student, but to help the student appropriate the work to himself. This is maybe the best reason not to offer interpretations-interpretations from the teacher block the student from his or her own interpretation, and therefore block him or her from contact with what is almost always the better of the two imaginations, perceptions, visions—the artist's. The classroom teacher should not enclose the work inside his own limitations. It is easy to forget, in the focus on being a good teacher oneself, to be properly respectful of the power of the material, to give it the primacy it should deserve, i f it is fit to be part of a student's education. That is why the goal of reading the works is on the list of goals—because simply reading the works, coming into contact with great works, is a goal in itself, and maybe the greatest goal of the course. In this analysis, his flunking parallels that of literary critic Susan Sontag (1966) who in her work Against Interpretation writes: In the most modern instances, interpretation amounts to the philistine refusal to leave the work of art alone. Real art has the capacity to make us nervous. By reducing the work of art to its content and then interpreting that, one tames the work of art. Interpretation makes art manageable, conformable. This pluhstinism of interpretation is more rife in hterature than in any other art. For decades now, literary critics have understood it to be their task to translate the elements of the poem or play or novel or story into something else. (p.8) Clearly, students (both NS and NNS) were hoping that the instructor would "translate the elements of the [hterature] into something else." But he refused; instead, in responding to 199 students' instructional needs, the instructor offered the following description of his classroom practice: I would not "teach" them an appropriate interpretation directly. I would offer clear criticisms of their argument, point out elements in the work they had ignored or overlooked, and ask how these might be improved. I might make suggestions for change in the interpretation. But, in general, I tliink it is always the student's task to come up with an interpretation. To provide a worked-up interpretation, generally, is to take the work away from the student. I expect many students leave the course with no clear idea at all of the meaning of some, even many, of the works studied. This is a reasonable outcome, since the course emphasizes method more than results. Not many students fully appreciated the value of this approach. Nevertheless, it offered students an opportunity to enhance their awareness of other students' interpretations. While cornmunicating their views and understanding with other students, they were able to explore a broader world of interpretation. 8.2 What was the Nature of the Engl ish Literature Classroom Tasks? The hterature class consisted of various tasks which students engaged in both inside and outside class. In this study, these tasks were analyzed from a language socialization perspective rather than a psycholinguistic perspective; I was concerned with students' performance of tasks and the social and cultural contexts surrounding those tasks. 8.2.1 Task as Sociocultural Activity Three levels of tasks—input, critical/interactive, and output/evaluative tasks—provided the hterature classroom with sociocultural activities; in order to complete tasks, students had to communicate with their background knowledge about learning, with the course hterature, and with their perspectives about life. The tasks were designed to help students 200 develop critical reading and writing skills step by step within the "zone of proximal development." The instructor (expert) created opportunities for students (novices) to assume responsibility for learning tasks. The tasks provided scaffolding for students, and students provided scaffolding for each other and became competent members of the hterature class; all the tasks were linked to each other and guided students to successfully achieve the larger activity. In this process, students also gained cultural knowledge through communicative tasks. The students' learning process can be explained by activity theory (cf. Lantolf & Appel, 1994): ...the level of activity, is defined as the social institutionahy determined setting or context based on a set of assumptions about the appropriate roles, goals, and means to be used by the participants in that setting. Setting, in Leont'ev's framework, does not mean the physical or perceptual contest in which humans function; rather, it refers to the sociocultural interpretation or creation that is imposed on the context by the participants. (Wertsch, 1985, cited in Lantolf & Appel, 1994, p. 17) Students engaged in the tasks as sociocultural activities in which they exchanged multiple sociocultural interpretations, while interacting with the instructor and other students. 8.2.2 Students' Language Socialization Through participation in the various tasks, students became socialized into classroom culture. Particularly critical/interactive tasks, which included small-group discussion and peer-editing, promoted students' language socialization. Participating in these tasks, students learned how to analyze other group members' writing, how to develop discussions, what academic language should be used, and how to establish their roles vrithin these tasks. At the same time, they learned about culture embedded in the tasks 201 and reflected in other students' work. Students were not always active participants in the tasks; nevertheless, even in their roles as observers, they were socialized into the classroom culture: Understanding of the context is not initiaUy a given. And there is a range of communicative ways of learning: while the learner's participation in the cultural activity is a central means of socialisation, it is not the only means; observation may be important, as may comment, discussion and explanation. (Mohan & Smith, 1993, p.88) Observation was especially important for NNSs, who were reluctant to speak in their groups. In the tasks, students played the roles of novice and expert, because the classroom culture they were socialized into was not a given culture; through cooperative work, they created it. In the class, the instructor emphasized his facilitator's role and encouraged students to study independently of him. Students thus played the role of both expert and novice; sometimes they were experts who understood the rules and values embedded in the task, taking initiative and providing scaffolding for other group members—in this case novices. Sometimes they were all novices, who then helped each other to complete tasks. In doing so, they came to understand effective ways to develop discussions and analyze writing, and acquired knowledge to become experts in the hterature class. Their interpretation of hterature sometimes conflicted with others; the resulting discussions and negotiations helped them to reconceptualize their background knowledge and understanding of the world of hterature. 202 8.3 What K inds of Diff icult ies d id N N S s Experience? In the process of language socialization, NNSs had more difficulties than NSs, because of their limited Enghsh language proficiency, their non-western cultural backgrounds, and their psychological difficulties related to language and culture. 8.3.1 Linguistic Problems As expected, NNSs had difficulties fully expressing themselves both in speech and in writing. In speech, which requires students' spontaneous response, they had more difficulties, not being able to respond to the other students as quickly as NS students. Their grammatical mistakes, wrong usage of idiomatic expressions, pronunciation errors, lack of vocabulary, and comprehension difficulties caused communication gaps between NS and NNS students. These problems sometimes made NSs feel that their learning was hindered by NNSs' lack of language proficiency. NNSs on the other hand were often frustrated and nervous by a situation which allowed them very httle control. As small-group discussions unfolded, they were obhged either to take the risk of speaking in their limited Enghsh or remain silent and ignored. When they fully prepared writing assignments, they were better able to participate in the small-group discussions, because they could refer to their own writing to explain their interpretation and argument more logically. NSs also could read NNSs' writing more easily than they could understand the meaning of their speech. Some NNSs' performance in small-group discussions suggested that they could communicate with NSs orally despite their lack of language proficiency. When NNSs were not afraid of making mistakes and tried different ways of expressing their ideas, such as asking questions, to communicate 203 with NSs, or when NSs understood their difficulties and were willing to listen to NNSs, linguistic difficulties became less significant. 8.3.2 Sociocultural Gaps NNSs had to socialize into a classroom and content area where western societies' social, cultural, and academic values and norms were dominant. They had to learn effective approaches in order to perform tasks successfiiHy—tasks, which contained social and cultural values and were socioculturaUy organized. Even though they understood logically about these values and norms, they had to overcome disconcerting feelings and reconceptualize their perspectives. Because these values and norms were not exphcitly addressed in the class, NNSs had first to intuit them and integrate them into their understanding of effective learning. 8.3.3 Psychological Difficulties Psychological difficulties were derived from and/or closely connected with both linguistic and sociocultural problems and difficulties. For example, NNSs felt linguisticahy inferior to NSs and generalized the linguistic inferiority to a more pervasive inferiority in learning generally. They thus beheved that they could not perform tasks better than NSs, which lowered their self-esteem and confidence; this assumption was also wrong, since many NNSs were more insightful literary critics than their NS counterparts. Nevertheless, sociocultural gaps made them feel they were different from NSs, which isolated them from other students and discouraged them from discussing their own interpretations with other students who they felt viewed them as alien and inferior. 204 None of the difficulties discussed above could be solved in a short period of time. However, as some NNSs demonstrated, when students became aware of these difficulties and able to confront and analyze them, they were more capable of coping with these problems. When they realized their weaknesses were linguistic rather than intellectual, they could seek better approaches to overcome them. When they felt conflict between their own culture and North American culture, they could reflect upon their own learning styles, and reconstruct a new self-concept based on two cultures. When they provided NSs with different values and perspectives, they could learn about diversity and help NSs become more aware of cultural diversity. Psychological difficulties were reduced when NNSs interacted with NSs who were receptive and encouraging. 8.4 H o w did the Adjunct Course Help N N S s Cope? The adjunct course provided NNSs with support, helping them to cope with various difficulties discussed above and complete the tasks successfully in the hterature class. The adjunct instructor employed tasks emphasizing content and cultural learning more than language learning. Overall, when quantitatively examined, the means of three groups (NS, NNS, and NNS-Adj) of students' marks on Essay One, Essay Two, and the final in-class essay exarnination showed that in each essay the adjunct students received higher marks than those of non-adjunct NNS students. This result alone, however, cannot determine the effectiveness of the adjunct course, since I did not assess students' writing at the beginning of the semester, and there might have been other reasons that NNS-Adj students completed output/evaluative tasks better than non-adjunct NNS students. For example, as 205 questionnaires showed, since NNS-Adj students were generally more interested in studying hterature, they might have originally been better writers and/or studied harder; and/or, the adjunct course might have helped them simply by providing them with more opportunities to read and analyze the hterature. In his interview, the hterature instructor questioned the role of the adjunct class, suggesting that the adjunct class did not help NNSs' linguistic problems which was, he beheved, the initial goal of the class. He argued that the adjunct students' outcome was better than non-adjunct students simply because they spent more time analyzing the stories and novels. The given time—two hours a week—of the adjunct class was not sufficient to support all difficulties with which NNS students had to cope. The adjunct instructor had to make decisions about what to emphasize. The adjunct students' language socialization process does suggest that the adjunct class provided NNSs with effective content learning and sociocultural support. In the adjunct class, students developed through instruction and group discussion possible interpretations of the hterature they were studying and insightful ways of expressing these. With this scaffolding, they entered the Enghsh 106 class with clearly articulated contributions to small-group discussions. With these contributions, they felt increased confidence to participate more fully than non-adjunct NNS students who had no such scaffolding. Because so much of the 106 class was built around tasks which challenged and stretched the social and cultural adaptability of NNSs, the input provided by the adjunct class directly influenced their acceptance of the classroom context and enhanced their opportunities to participate effectively and ultimately determined their success in the 206 course. The adjunct class helped them learn critical reading and writing by providing them with an underlying sociocultural context. The adjunct class also encouraged them to reflect upon their own learning styles, and strengths and weaknesses in their reading and writing skills, which enhanced their awareness of language and cultural learning; students were able to work on specific areas to overcome their individual difficulties. In addition, affective factors cannot be ignored. In the adjunct class connnunity, the adjunct students helped each other to gain self-confidence and self-esteem through sharing not only their ideas but also their concerns and anxieties common to other members of this community. When their opinions were heard, understood, accepted, and valued by other members, they felt that they could offer valuable insights. The adjunct course provided students with time to practice how to express themselves and how to interact with each other. There were tradeoffs, which remained unsolved; nevertheless the adjunct class provided scaffolding, helping students bridge social, cultural, and academic gaps. 8.4.1 Language and Content Learning Unlike other adjunct models which place a considerable emphasis on helping students improve their second language proficiency through assignments adapted to their language needs, this adjunct class focused on content, reinforcing students' critical reading skills--understanding and analyzing~and their ability to write two essays. In the adjunct class, grammar and idiom were not treated as separate exercises but integrated into other tasks such as writing theme statements and analyzing paragraphs; as they analyzed sample writing, students learned such grammar as article usage, tense usage, and idiomatic 207 expressions. In this way, students were able to learn appropriate usage of academic language and literary language and concepts. The instructor also hoped that they were able to improve self-editing skills through these tasks. The adjunct class was able to support the content of the Enghsh 106 class as well as provide more dehberate writing instruction than the Enghsh 106 class. For example, in the hterature class, students learned how to organize an essay by reading the guidebook, studying sample student writing, and other fellow students' essays. However, they did not specifically discuss a whole essay in class; instead, they analyzed thesis statements and paragraphs. In the adjunct class, the students were provided with opportunities to analyze a whole sample essay. The adjunct instructor felt they needed to do so: My sense of the most helpful thing is showing them how to do the essays, giving them examples, showing them how to do the whole thing rather than just the short discrete kinds of exercises they do in 106, where they get little exercises answering questions about a theme or doing a httle passage. But they did not seem to be instructed as to how to set up the essay overall. That's my interpretation. They need to see the whole thing, how the body paragraph fits with the thesis statement. I hope that's the best thing. (Interview) Many students found this approach was useful and beneficial to them, enabling them to acquire the skills necessary to analyze fellow students' writing critically in the hterature class. 8.4.2 Cultural Learning One of the difficulties for most NNSs was sociocultural gaps between their own culture and the classroom culture. They had to understand the social, cultural, and academic values, norms, and expectations of the hterature class. As I discussed earlier, 208 students had to negotiate such values and norms as mdfvidualism, collaboration, equality, and a poststructural approach to knowledge and integrate them into their background knowledge; they sometimes had difficulties in understanding these values and norms and felt isolation, alienation, and resistance. The adjunct class provided students with tasks to help them integrate content, language, and cultural learning, while working cooperatively. The tasks in the adjunct class offered an optimal transition, enabling students to learn exphcitly about the new culture and its values, norms, and expectations through learning content and language. The Enghsh instructor perceived that the adjunct class helped students cope with sociocultural gaps. He said: 'T tlrink that the adjunct class might be a good place to talk about these cultural matters as well as talk about how to respond to the fact that they don't feel comfortable speaking." 8.4.3 Language Socialization Becoming socialized into a hterature classroom is a big challenge for E S L students, because they are required to understand not only the language of the short stories and novels, but also the underlying sociocultural context and literary devices. They have to develop their own interpretation of the hterature they study, and share it with other students; they have to cope with not only linguistic but also sociocultural and psychological difficulties. The present study suggests that the adjunct class, working in concert with the hterature class, could promote students' language socialization into the hterature class, and enable them to complete the tasks of the hterature class successfully and smoothly. In the adjunct class, students acquired knowledge of the sociocultural context underlying the tasks in the hterature class, sociocultural values and norms reflected in those tasks, and the historical and sociocultural background knowledge needed to understand the hterature. They worked cooperatively with the instructor and other students in a sheltered situation where they felt more relaxed and confident in expressing themselves. Among themselves, they enjoyed an equal relationship, which helped them to appreciate their own contributions to other members of their adjunct classroom community; their self-confidence and self-esteem increased. The student interviews suggested that the adjunct students were more aware than non-adjunct students of their weaknesses as well as strengths in learning about hterature and the skills they needed to acquire in order to complete the tasks in the hterature class; they thus could focus on specific areas of mdfvidual difficulties. Some students pointed out that the class provided them with explicit criteria for analyzing paragraphs and essays, which helped them gain confidence in editing other students' writing. As they offered useful suggestions to NSs, their relationship with NSs became more equal and interactive. The better connnunication they had with NSs, the more effective roles they played in the classroom. 8.4.4 Challenges The present study suggests three remaining challenges: first, when and how to address individual students' language accuracy in writing; second, how to provide students with optimal support to bridge sociocultural gaps; and third, the kinds of tasks and activities which help students acquire academic discussion skills with NSs. These were the unsolved challenges. 210 The instructor was fully aware of the first problem but did not have time to work on it. She felt frustrated: "T wish I could give them more help in language accuracy to do editing and proofreading, but I never seem to have time." Although she integrated grammar and idiomatic expression exercises into sample essay analysis, the mdrvidual problems remained. She also offered conferences to meet with students mdrviduaUy and discuss their essays. The discussions, however, mostly focused on the content rather than grammatical errors, partly because students did not prepare fully developed essays by the time of the conference, and partly because students wanted to discuss their interpretation and argument with the instructor. Tutors, NS friends, and the Learning Centre helped students improve the language accuracy of their essays. Yet questions remain: is this the best solution to the problem? Or are there any better ways to help individual students improve editing skills? An adjunct model whose focus is language support will be discussed in the next section. The second challenge was how to balance a socioculturahy comfortable learning environment with the challenge of embracing new learning strategies. Since the hterature instructor emphasized students' independent learning and took a poststructural approach to classroom practice, many students who were accustomed to being taught by the instructor the "correct interpretation" of hterature felt disconcerted by the absence of good modeling. They wanted the adjunct instructor to explain and interpret the stories and novels for them. Understanding this need, the instructor spent time lecturing about the story and its themes, which inevitably reinforced students' roles as passive listeners. This pattern was easy and comfortable for them to adapt to, yet it ran counter to the spirit 211 of the hterature class in which they were encouraged to seek viable responses to the hterature and develop their own interpretations independently. In a sense, then, one could argue that the adjunct class undermined an important aim of the hterature class: to explore students' own interpretations and to understand that "there is no right answer." Yet one could argue equally that the adjunct class provided essential scaffolding for students whose ability to derive effective interpretations required first that they understand clearly the hterature they were studying. Certainly, this seems to have been the adjunct instructor's intent, and student responses to interviews and questionnaires suggest strongly the essential nature of the information and commentary. She provided a basis upon which they could build their own interpretations. Consideration of the students' prior learning experiences and provision of a socioculturally comfortable learning environment thus benefited the students, but doing so while encouraging adaptation to the social, cultural, and academic values of the hterature class was a challenge, because as the present study suggests, these two sometimes conflicted with each other. The present study also suggests that providing students with academic speaking skills is crucial. In the hterature class, expressing their minds freely and sharing thoughts and feelings about the hterature were highly emphasized skills. Many Asian NNS students had difficulties in mastering these skills, because of their lack of language proficiency and a lack of experience derived from different sociocultural approaches to learning. The adjunct class provided them with guidance, such as small-group discussions and oral presentations, and their participation in discussions in the hterature class became more active than non-adjunct NNSs because they had a better understanding of the context for 212 the hterature classroom's tasks and had better tools for analyzing writing. Nevertheless, most of them felt oral participation was challenging. Just as they learned academic language to write and edit essays, they needed to learn oral academic language and strategies to enable them better to explain the argument of their essays, and to ask questions when they did not understand other students or in order to develop discussions. More frequent oral presentations and small-group discussions to analyze fellow students' writing (which they did not do in the adjunct class) might have given them practice in pubhc speaking, enabling them to have confidence, and encouraging them to speak out in class or in small groups even with NSs. Not only acquiring linguistic skills, but also understanding the sociocultural context underlying small-group discussions was crucial, yet the sheltered learning situation of the adjunct did not give students this experience. Had the instructor had time to emphasize academic speaking skills, the adjunct class could have encouraged students who decided not to participate in small-group discussions because they did not appreciate their value to take a more active role, expressing their feelings and redirecting the content of discussions. In addition to these three areas, the instructor also suggested that the students needed to do a substantial number of in-class writing tasks to produce precise and well-organized paragraphs under time pressure. 8.5 Pedagogical Implications for Second Language Educat ion This section considers implications of the present study for educational practice in language and sociocultural learning. This study has allowed me to bring theory into 213 practice and helped me deepen my understanding of the role of tasks in the classroom and of both the NS and NNS students' personal growth as well as academic development embedded in their socialization into classroom culture. I will explore first pedagogical imphcations for managing social relations in multicultural classrooms, second, the design of tasks which include NSs and NNSs, and third the design of adjunct courses for E S L learning. 8.5.1 Multicultural Classrooms: NS-NNS Communication When planning a curriculum for multicultural classrooms where NS and NNS students study together, promoting reciprocal relationships is important. The college hterature classroom in the present study was multicultural—a characteristic becoming common in North American college classrooms. As I described in Chapters Five and Six, students from diverse cultural backgrounds together constructed a community and created the community culture. In the cormiiunity, students shared common interests and goals-learning about hterature. They had to share responsibility and support each other to achieve the academic goals of the hterature class, since this cornmunity's social, cultural, and academic values and norms encouraged them to do so. In this kind of learning environment, NNS students' difficulties in socializing into the community cannot be examined only from the NNS students' perspective, because their difficulties depend upon the fluctuations in their relationships with NS students. In the study, individual students experienced a variety of difficulties, which derived from group dynamics. Elaine (NNS), for example, looked very nervous and quiet in one day's small-group discussion; she did not participate in the discussion because she felt NS 214 members were frustrated by her lack of Enghsh proficiency and thus devalued her contributions. In the next day's class, however, she was active, making comments on NSs' writing and giving her suggestions; she looked as if she were a different student. She felt she could offer her ideas to these NS members, because she sensed that they were receptive and willing to hsten to her opinions. In the former situation, her linguistic and psychological difficulties stood out and prevented her from participating; on the other hand, in the latter situation, her problems were reduced by open and receptive NSs and therefore became less significant. The present study suggested that the more NS students understood sociocultural diversity and problems arising from differences, the better they could communicate with NNS students. These students' receptive attitudes and understanding reduced psychological difficulties and encouraged NNSs to overcome the gaps between them Certainly enhancing students' awareness of such social and cultural gaps and differences significantly helps students improve communication. It enables the NNS to view him or herself as a resource for other group members rather than as an inniediment. It enables at the same time the NS to benefit from the insights of NNS whose opinions they might otherwise dismiss. NNSs were not entirely dependent upon the generosity of NS to include them in discussions. NNSs' refusal to engage in feelings of inferiority helped them influence communication patterns and transform power relationships in small groups. For example, Stacy (NNS) observed that Kate (NS) was distant and unwilling to share ideas with NNSs in small-group discussions. Stacy's oral proficiency and comprehension skills were better than those of the average NNS speaker; she did not have difficulties in expressing herself 215 and understanding others. But she was shy and felt her Enghsh was poor, which discouraged her from participating. When Stacy worked with Kate, Stacy was unable to present her ideas clearly, which made her more discouraged. Kate looked frustrated and retreated; as a result, they could not develop discussions and remained silent most of the discussion time. Several other NNS students had similar problems with Kate and perceived that she did not like NNSs. When Kate discussed her theme statement with Min, however, she was commumcative and supportive of Min. Because Min, whose Enghsh proficiency was not particularly superior to other NNSs, did not hesitate to speak out in small groups and was always interested in sharing ideas with other members, she, taking the initiative, was willing to comment on Kate's writing and asked questions when she did not understand Kate's comments. They both shared ideas and achieved the goals of their discussion. These incidents suggested that NNSs were not always powerless and passive but had the potential to develop effective relationships with NSs, even with a lack of Enghsh proficiency. The implication here is that NNSs should be encouraged to take the risks inherent in interacting with NSs and recognize that perhaps it is not the linguistic "errors" that bother NSs so much as the reticence of NNSs to interact. These examples have significant implications, leading us to believe that fluency is negotiated in very subtle ways, and that traditional views of communicative competence as individual achievement are seriously limited by the failure to account for the social construction of "communicative competence." NNSs develop their language and sociocultural learning in their relationships with NSs; such relationships are not one-way but two-way and fluid. When students come to appreciate both their own and other 216 students' cultures and understand gaps created by differences, they can benefit rather than retreat from them. Promoting an equal power distribution transforms students' roles in the classroom, enhances communication, and empowers them. Fairclough (1995, 1989) and others (Clark, Fairclough, Ivanic, & Martin-Jones, 1991, 1990) have argued the importance of critical language study, which highhghts "how language conventions and language practices are invested with power relations and ideological processes that people are often unaware o f (Fairclough, 1995, p.260) and maintain four theoretical propositions: 1) language use, as two-way dialectical relationship, "shapes and is shaped by society"; 2) discourse 'helps to constitute (and change) knowledge and its objects, social relations, and social identity; 3) discourse is shaped by "relations of power, and invested with ideologies"; 4) "the shaping of discourse is a stake in power struggles"; critical language study sets out to "show how society and discourse shape each other" (pp. 261-262). Fairclough argues that "awareness affects language capabilities," (p.267) and critical language study provides students with emancipatory learning. Clearly, the first two propositions apply to the students of this study for whom language use was a two-way dialectical relationship—an interaction between themselves as individuals and their classroom culture and cornmunity which they helped to create. Since this study did not address issues of power, propositions three and four are beyond the scope of discussion here; however, students' experiences in this study supported his argument about power relations and the mutual shaping power of society and discourse. Critical language awareness is thus crucial to an understanding of additional language learning and teaching. 217 8.5.2 Task Planning for Multicultural Classrooms The present study supported other language socialization research (e.g. Mohan & Smith, 1992), suggesting that classroom tasks were not culturally neutral but rather were sociocultural activities; social and cultural components were embedded in the tasks, and while students were working on these task, they at the same time communicated with social and cultural values and norms underlying the tasks. They learned not only about language and content but also culture, which helped them reconceptualize their knowledge. A sociocultural perspective thus must be considered when planning tasks. This study suggested that for multicultural classrooms, interactive tasks such as small-group discussions and peer-editing were particularly effective for promoting sociocultural learning and enhancing sociocultural understanding. Because both NS and NNS students had to share ideas and feelings with other students, they were able to share different perspectives and background knowledge fostered by their life experiences in various cultures. NNSs however had more difficulties engaging in interactive tasks because of their lack of Enghsh proficiency and various cultural gaps. NNS students, for example, had to learn sociocultural assumptions underlying tasks in order to become competent participants in the tasks. In small-group discussions, for example, many Asian NNS students needed to acquire ways to cornmunicate with NS students and develop discussions, learning to speak their minds freely and being direct and exphcit rather than indirect and implicit. Some NNSs felt disconcerted because they were afraid of being different from other students, and others felt uncomfortable with the equal relationship among instructor and students. As they participated in interactive tasks, they gradually 218 recognized sociocultural values and norms underlying tasks and the student and instructor relationship, and came to broaden and reconstruct their background knowledge. Had NNSs received support which developed their awareness of these different values, norms, and expectations, their language socialization could have been facilitated. Giving NNS students guidance to compare and contrast social, cultural, and academic values and expectations for classroom participation between their own culture and North American culture, and providing both NS and NNS students with opportunities to reflect upon themselves and discuss difficulties and gaps when interacting would help them perceive interactive tasks positively and thus benefit from these tasks. As I illustrated in Chapter Six, one NNS student felt that small-group discussion was useless, because he felt that group members were just chatting. He added in his interview that he highly valued his own Chinese culture in which students were competitive and studied hard on their own; he beheved in such an approach to learning and had been successful with it. His cultural superiority limited him and prevented him from adapting to a new perspective towards learning about hterature; he could not appreciate the value of small-group discussions nor benefit from them Furthermore, his reluctance to express his frustration in the classroom was also rooted in his culture: he valued pohteness and accepted the reality of unequal relationships between students who were powerful (NSs) and students who were less powerful (NNSs). If either the adjunct or Enghsh 106 class had dealt more exphcitly with sociocultural differences, he might have been encouraged to express his frustrations to other group members and the instructor; he might also have 219 changed group members' participation patterns and benefited more significantly from group tasks. Individual tasks such as reading and writing must be considered also from a sociocultural perspective because different cultures approach hteracy differently (cf. Chapter Two, 2.3). Researchers (e.g. Leki, 1995; Shih, 1986) have explored a number of ways in which E S L students cope with academic writing demands at college and university. Leki (1995) explores various strategies ESL students employed and discusses how they successfully completed writing tasks across the curriculum. Although she did not analyze students' strategies from a sociocultural perspective, she suggested that many ESL students had already developed their own strategies when they enrolled in university courses but were able to "alter their strategies and pursue new ones when their first attempts did not produce the desired results" (p.258). In my study as well, NNS students approached reading and writing assignments first according to their own theories about critical reading and writing and later, as their skills developed, learned to produce better outcomes. This transformation occurred since they learned not only academic reading and writing but also underlying sociocultural values and expectations. In classrooms, this NNS students' transformation is necessary i f they are to construct new roles and identities in the classroom. But it is valuable too for NS students to recognize NNS students' different approaches to reading and writing, approaches which are socioculturahy constructed just as theirs are. Too often, NS students are ignorant of the fact that their learning style is not the only, nor even the best one; they can benefit from a broader exposure to the range of approaches to reading and writing available in their classroom. 220 Considering the social and cultural components of tasks and using the differences between NSs and NNSs as resources rather than hindrances, we can promote students' socialization into the classroom culture, helping them benefit from sharing cultural diversity rather than being in conflict with each other. 8.5.3 Adjunct Course The adjunct model is one of several content-based instruction models, providing ESL students with an opportunity to study content areas with NS students while receiving language support in a sheltered situation. Brinton, Snow, and Wesche (1989) illustrate the U C L A Freshman Summer Program as an example of the adjunct model: In this program, entering freshman students attend an intensive orientation program in which they enroll in one of several ''linked'' content/English adjuncts (e.g., introductory human geography and Enghsh composition). The link between the two courses rests essentially on a sequence of rhetorical modes presented each week. The rationale behind this shared focus on modes is that the linked courses will assist students in developing academic coping strategies and cognitive skills which will transfer from one discipline to another. Thus, this model integrates the language curriculum with the academic language demands placed on students in their other university courses, (p. 17) In this way, E S L students learn language with meaningful content, and their difficulties are addressed in context, which helps them acquire contextualized use of language rather than fragmented examples of usage, and become aware of "the larger discourse level features and the social interaction patterns which are essential to effective language use, as well as of the correct grammatical conventions" (Brinton et al., 1989, p.3). Much research (cf. Chapter Two) on the adjunct model has been conducted and examined from a SLA perspective, viewing comprehended input in the target language as necessary for ESL students to acquire productive skills in their target language (cf. Shih, 1986). As the 221 present study suggests, however, we must consider the adjunct model from a sociocultural perspective and examine how ESL students acquire sociocultural knowledge, which should also be considered a significant transferable skill. The adjunct course in the present study emphasized content and cultural learning more than language learning; language problems were integrated into tasks. The NNS students, for example, worked on common grammatical errors and idiomatic expressions while analyzing theme statements or sample essays. But they also had different kinds of problems mdividuahy, which were more difficult to address in the class. They often needed individual support to correct errors; tutors and NS friends helped them. The U C L A Freshman Summer Program, on the other hand, provides students with tutoring inside the adjunct model. Students have access to a tutor for both language and content; they can ask a tutor for individual support and work on their individual problems. Certainly this situation of language and content support is ideal; but few institutions have the means to provide both. Language support is available from a number of other sources—Learning Centres, mdividual tutors, and fellow students; specific content and sociocultural support is not so readily attainable and is thus the more valuable function of the adjunct model. Even i f E S L students have mastered perfect grammar, this does not guarantee that they have acquired critical reading and writing skills or the sociocultural knowledge they need to communicate with the instructor and their fellow students. The Enghsh 106 instructor commented on this issue, saying that: An essay may be poorly written—with grammar, spelling, and structural errors—but i f it has good argument qualities—insight, and facts and explanations that constitute evidence for the insightful claim in the thesis—if, in other words, it demonstrates 222 insight into the work discussed, that essay will have value, in spite of its weaknesses. On the other hand, well crafted essays, completely correct that demonstrate no insight and contain no argumentation, are failures, and completely miss the point of the assignment. In the hterature class, students needed to understand the stories and novels in order to create insightful arguments. NNS students had more difficulties than NS students in understanding historical backgrounds; social, economic, and pohtical situations lying behind the hterature; and the connotations of language. The adjunct course helped NNS students construct a bridge between then background knowledge and the sociocultural knowledge presumed by the hterature, a knowledge which was initially foreign to them; as a result, students not only gained a better understanding of the hterature but also became able to participate in the Enghsh classroom tasks with confidence. Extending and re-examining the role of an adjunct model from a sociocultural perspective is thus important. The present study also suggests that a hterature adjunct class, in particular, has potential for empowering students, since hterature classes encourage students to reflect upon their and other people's hves and express themselves both in speech and in writing, and the adjunct class helps NNS students acquire background knowledge and effective ways to achieve the goals of the hterature class. 8.5.4 Moving beyond the NNS/NS Dichotomy This study examined college students' language socialization into the culture of an Enghsh hterature classroom and explored the process of constructing knowledge as well as classroom identities. In the process of learning, both NS and NNS students demonstrated similar difficulties in appreciating the social, cultural, and academic values and norms of this college classroom, and socializing into them. This particular classroom 223 placed demands upon both NS and NNS students which they likely had not encountered either in their high school years or in previous college courses. At the same time, the NS and NNS students showed different perspectives towards these values and norms, and had different experiences integrating these into their study of the hterature and their interactions with fellow students. Certainly an aspect of these different experiences derived from their various cultural backgrounds and sociocultural experiences; however, creating a dichotomy between NS and NNS, novice and expert, and North American culture and Asian culture oversimplifies the challenges of a classroom culture which placed linguistic demands upon all students and which obhged ah students to reconceptualize their sense of the college classroom. In studies exarnining L2 learning and teaching, NNSs tend to be viewed as students who aim to acquire NS-like language skills. And indeed most NNSs expressed feelings of being inhibited by a lack of fluency. Yet NSs experienced also the need to acquire a new language—the language of literary analysis. Together, NSs and NNSs worked to develop communicative competence. When analyzing the stories and novels and editing with peers, the Enghsh language was the means to exchange opinions and develop understanding. This study showed that NS students were usually more active participants because they could express themselves more easily than their NNS counterparts. But ease of expression does not necessarily translate into depth of analysis. NNS students too were able to demonstrate insights into the hterature and assume the role of relative expert in small-group discussions, suggesting to educators the importance of looking beyond our stereotypical assumptions of NS and NNS students. Because all students were new 224 members of the classroom community, and in a sense, all novices who were learning about the hterature through a poststructural approach, students shared the relative roles of expert and novice depending upon their understanding of and interest in the issue they were discussing. Not only linguistic but also cultural identity tends to be viewed stereotypically. Yet, the cultural identity is not "a fixed and exclusive entity" (Kim, 1994, p. 1). Although I discussed the classroom's social and cultural values related to individuahsm, often defined as a North American value in cross-cultural communication hterature, and collectivism, often found in Asian countries, the findings of this study showed that mdividual differences were as important as cultural differences. A willingness to embrace new concepts about learning, for example, was an important personal value for both NSs and NNSs. Yet, the study also suggested that Asian NNS students had common difficulties in adapting to the classroom culture because of their Asian background, whose characteristics are often discussed in cross-cultural communication studies. Kim (1994) argues that "each of us can discover the shape of our own identity along the way, rather than insisting on the one already defined by birth and the scripts prepared by others" (p. 17). This statement apphes as much to the NS students of this study as to their NNS counterparts. Both were challenged to "discover the shape of [their] own identity" in this college Enghsh hterature classroom where mdividualfy and cohectively they created literary understanding and a culturally diverse classroom identity. 225 8.6 Limitat ions to the Research The present study revealed specific limitations. There were several limits in data collection methods. First of al l recording procedures had limits. Since I was the only researcher, when I videotaped small-group discussions, I could not take fully described field notes, but when I did concentrate on taking field notes, I missed interactions among the instructor and students. Equipment too had limitations. The video camera could not cover a whole class; I had to focus on part of the class at a time. Since I used small tape recorders with attached microphones, I was not able to capture students' discussions fully, because of background noise. The study was also hmited in duration, and by the participants; the tasks both in the hterature class and in the adjunct class were designed by the particular instructor for the students who enrolled in the course at the time. Other instructors would undoubtedly have approached these courses differently, and different students would have created a different classroom culture. Interviews and questionnaires were used to collect students' individual perspectives and reflections, interviews with the instructors and students helped me obtain participants' perspectives in their own voices, make sense of my observations, and understand the different attitudes and behaviour of participants. However, as I analyzed the data, I realized that I should have asked several additional questions of the participants; for example, I should have asked students about changes in discussion groups and other interactive tasks over the duration of the term: did they feel that such groups functioned more effectively as the term progressed, and i f so, how would they characterize the changes? I asked about the challenges they faced in these interactive tasks, but I failed 226 to ask them about the process, which I observed as important to their language socialization. I also realized that I should have considered more specifically the connotations of the language I used in the interviews and questionnaires. For some terms, such as cultural learning, I had my own understanding, which the participants, especially students, did not necessarily share. The term was vague to them, and I could not collect responses in the areas I wanted. I should have examined the language more precisely and elaborated upon this and other terms' meanings. Because it was time consuming and difficult to arrange an interview schedule with students who had other commitments, I interviewed them only once. Had I interviewed students twice, at the beginning as well as at the end of the semester, I could better have examined their socializing process into the classroom culture. As well, my role as non-participant observer became difficult to maintain. Because I was socialized into the classroom as researcher and had closer contact with some students than others through interviews and other interactions, through which I got to know them better, I became aware that I could analyze and understand some students' learning processes better than others. I will reflect on my role and discuss this point in the next chapter. Finally, the data was analyzed based on the assumption that they presented tratJiful records, representing the students' real learning experiences. I felt that the participants were honest and open with me and provided me with their real voices. But I was also aware of limitations in their capacity to share. Furthermore, when I presented the data, it 227 was inevitable that I interpreted their voices and behaviour, which posed the question of what constitutes accurate interpretation and how one establishes it. 8.7 Suggestions for Future Research The present study examined the hterature classroom and its adjunct from a language socialization perspective, through which language and cultural knowledge are acquired together as the learning of sociocultural activity. The findings illustrated students' socialization process into the classroom culture while they engaged in various tasks as social activities; they developed the contextual knowledge underlying the hterature as well as social and cultural values and norms promoted in the classroom, which enabled them to complete tasks more independently, more confidently, and more successfully as they became socialized into the classroom culture. This contrasted with work on task-based teaching and learning in SLA, which often overlooks consideration of the importance of students' sociocultural learning. This study also illustrated NSs' degree of language socialization to the literary world and compared and contrasted their socialization process with that of NNSs. Based on the findings and limitations of the present study, the following suggestions are made for future research. First, the role of classroom tasks should be examined in other hterature classes and other disciplines. This would give us a better understanding of how the students become (or do not become) more aware of language and culture, and what kinds of tasks help promote such awareness. Focusing on fewer tasks than the present study would help us understand NS and NNS students' language and cultural learning processes more 228 specifically and in more depth. For example, I could have limited this study to criticaFinteractive tasks (small-group discussions, peer-editing, in-class writing) and exarriined the similarities and differences in the language socialization experiences of NS and NNS students. The data collection methods would involve more detailed interviews, questions and recording procedures. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the tasks in an adjunct class, different adjunct models in different subject areas should be examined. Second, a longer duration for the research should be considered. Since language socialization is a lifelong process, research of longer duration or foUowing up individual students' socialization into other classroom cultures would help us better understand the language socialization process. This would provide us with a broader picture of how sociocultural learning changes over time, and how these changes help students reconstruct their cultural understanding and identity. Third, in relation to suggestion two, future studies need to exarnine students' language socialization not only in the classroom but also outside the classroom. A case study approach would provide more in-depth study of individuars second-language learning and cultural learning. Fourth, future research should address issues of critical approaches to hteracy. In the present study, many NNSs' difficulties--linguistic, sociocultural, and psychological--were related to power. Their feelings of intimidation, ahenation, and resistance when they participated in the particular tasks were closely related to their perception of the power relationship. Many researchers (cf. Canagarajah, 1993; Fairclough, 1989; Heath, 1992; Peirce, 1989, 1990, 1995; Pennycook, 1989; Tollefson, 1991) have perceived hteracy as 229 "a reflection of social relationships as well as a vehicle for changing the status quo" (McKay, 1996, p.421) and examined the impact of social, economic, as well as pohtical power upon the theory and practice of language teaching and learning. They also maintain that hteracy can empower people to change their lives. In her extensive ethnographic research on irnmigrant women in Canada, Peirce (1995) questions current conceptions of the individual in SLA theory and analyses the degree of investment (rather than motivation) of the language learner, who has "a complex social identity and multiple desires" (p. 18). She argues: [Ljanguage learners' motivation to speak is mediated by investments that may conflict with the desire to speak. Paradoxically, perhaps, the decision to remain silent or the decision to speak may both constitute forms of resistance to inequitable social forces, (p.20) In a multicultural classroom, this view of learners' investments is crucial to exarnine, since in this study students struggled with estabhshing their roles and identities when they participated in interactive classroom tasks. Finally, future studies should invite more active participant involvement in the research (cf. Heath, 1992); by keeping reflective journals or learning logs, students can participate as researchers who reflect upon their learning and socialization process, thus enhancing their critical awareness of language and culture, and eventually empowering them to transform themselves. This empowerment is the goal of hteracy. 230 Chapter 9 REFLECTIONS OF PLANNED AND LIVED RESEARCH In the autumn of 1995 I started to plan this research project. At the time my resources were mostly books and journal articles where I learned theories and methodologies. In the Request for Ethical Review, I typed on the computer screen the purpose and objectives of my project, sites, participants, and data collection and analysis. At the time, even though the site of my project was the college where I had been an ESL student four years earlier and had done a pilot study, I could not yet picture instructors and students; I designed my project for 'Taceless teachers and students" (Aoki, 1993, p.96). The four months of my lived research, however, enabled me to make my research active and real. I shared time, space, hterature, and life with students and instructors. In this chapter, I will narrate my reflections upon this lived research, examining qualitative ethnographic data collection methods used in this study. The present study enabled me to perceive the nature of social research, appreciating the fact that we "act in the social world and yet are able to reflect upon ourselves and our actions as objects in [the participants'] world" (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995, p.21). Reflexivity by which "the researcher's self [is] an integral constructor of the social reality being studied (Gall, Borg, & GalL p.20)" has been advocated as an important component in ethnography (Gall et al., 1996; Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995); I felt that it was also significant in this study, as I came to realize myself as part of the classroom community in which language, content, and cultural learning were socially constructed. 231 Throughout the present study, my data-coUection methods helped me understand the complex social reality of the classrooms. I employed multiple data-collection methods in order to reduce threats to vahdity: observations, video-and audio-taping, interviews and questionnaires. I initiaUy thought I could be a participant observer who participates in classroom activities, but I could not do so, because students mostly worked in small-groups, and I did not feel it appropriate to interfere with their tasks. I also had to videotape the class and take field notes, which limited my roles. Nevertheless, as I observed students' language socialization process, I sensed that I was also being socialized into the classroom culture, estabhshing my role and constructing relationships with participants in the classroom culture. My experience paralleled NNS students' experiences. First, my identity includes being Japanese, being a graduate student, and a person for whom Enghsh is a second language; I felt I was a stranger just as they felt. Gradually, however, I felt that I was becorning less visible and more familiar to other students; I learned the goals of the classroom tasks and the underlying social, cultural, and academic values and expectations. Perhaps because I had been an E S L student, I first established a relationship with NNS students. Like them, I also felt that my socialization into the adjunct class was much faster; I sensed in the class that students perceived me as not a researcher but as an expert who could provide them with support. They asked me to read their writing, wanted to discuss ideas for essays, and sometimes just came to chat with me. I was willing to take these opportunities to learn about them. M y relationship with NSs developed particularly after I started the interviews with them; they then became interested in and more supportive of my project. 232 Video-recording and audio-taping were effective ways to collect data. I was concerned that the camera's or recorder's existence might have interfered with students working on tasks; however, most of the students responded that they did not feel affected by them Perhaps these recording methods are part of their lives today, as one student said "it didn't affect me; I have grown up surrounded by video and cassette tapes." In the questionnaires, however, one student commented that a camcorder should be placed behind the students. But had I videotaped the students' backs, I would not have captured students' non-verbal communication—facial expressions and body language. Videotapes helped me review the classroom tasks and add information I missed in my field notes. Audiotaping was used for small-group discussions and interviews. Most of the students said they did not feel any pressure from the presence of a tape-recorder. Perhaps its effect was so subtle that I (and the students) did not recognize it. Only one NNS student said she felt nervous speaking in front of the Walkman; nevertheless, she expressed herself fluently. It was hard to deterrrhne whether or not the tape recorder discouraged her from speaking her mind. Interviews enabled me to appreciate the value of "real voices." Their responses have helped me make sense of my observations and understand students' attitudes towards learning about hterature and the classroom culture. My questions were structured specificaUy, although open-ended. I found that interviewing can be a significant means of generating information otherwise difficult to obtain and a help in understanding the situations I observed. Data from observations and from interviews can ihuininate each other (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995), and in my case they threw light on various phases 233 of my observation. Although I had to be aware of the inherent problems of interviewing such as question bias, response bias, and inaccuracies (Yin, 1994), my interviews ehcited the students' own reflections about the hterature, classroom tasks, their fellow students, and the instructor. Interviews are a socially constructed event, and when interviewing participants, sharing a mutual understanding of interview questions is important. Goldstein (1995) discusses the difficulties of conducting interviews in a multicultoal/multilingual environment where the researcher and participants do not share the same linguistic and cultural backgrounds. She argues that in order to ask meaningful questions in intercultural research, two things should be considered: first, "an awareness of the norms the interviewees had for talking about themselves and talking about their experiences"; and second, "shared background knowledge about these experiences" (p.592). She also points out how mrportant it is that both "interviewer and interviewee share the same understanding of the meanings of the questions they are asking and answering" (p.589). As I mentioned in Chapter Seven, some questions such as those about "culture" were difficult for students to answer; I should have provided them with more detailed context. Even though I am an ESL speaker with a Japanese background, generally I did not feel communication gaps with students; however, I was aware that NNSs had difficulties in expressing themselves as well as in understanding my questions. Sometimes I felt that I was able to understand them even from their very little explanation. Perhaps, I might have understood Asian NNS students' feelings better than other NS and NNS students. But I 234 had to be cautious about not too readily projecting my perceptions and experiences on to their stories. Interviews became not only a source of information for this researcher but a component of the classroom culture. First, they influenced the social reahties of the classroom. It was as though by analyzing their roles as students and considering the social and cultural implications of their classroom behaviour, students could take these reflections into the classroom with them, adjusting their roles and behaviour accordingly. Interviews thus encouraged participants to transform themselves in the class because they allowed them to reflect upon their learning. When I interviewed Chris (NS), for example, the issue became the instructor's poststructural approach to classroom practice; he said he was frustrated but could not specify the reasons why he felt frustrated. We started to discuss the instructor's approach, the meaning of interpretations, and the value of classroom tasks. The interview went for almost an hour (it usually took twenty minutes), and by the end, he was able to articulate bis feelings and analyze his preferred approach to studying hterature. He found that he had been a passive learner, hoping the instructor would give him interpretations. His frustration and unhappiness with the marks on his writing discouraged him from actively participating in classroom tasks. As a result of the interview, he realized that he should ask questions of the instructor when he was not clear about interpretations, and that he should take advantage of small-group discussions to exchange and share his feelings and opinions with other group members. After the interview, I realized that Chris had changed; he started to ask questions of the instructor in and outside class. In whole-class discussions, when he was not satisfied with the 235 instructor's response, he continued to ask more questions. He also became a very active participant in small-group discussions. The interview helped him reflect on himself^ analyze his learning style, and transform his behaviour. Second, interviews helped NNS students enhance their cultural awareness and classroom identities. Carol (NNS) told me that she had many questions but could not ask them of the instructor, because she did not have confidence to make spontaneous conversation with him. I encouraged her to ask him questions and suggested that she should write down her questions, which would help her organize her thoughts. The next class after the interview, she prepared the questions in writing and talked with the instructor during the break and after the class. She said later that discussing her ideas with the instructor was useful, and she gained confidence to assume a more active role in the classroom. In the interviews, many NNS students said that they felt isolated or ahenated when they could not express themselves in Enghsh nor share the same sociocultural knowledge as NS students. They told me that they studied hterature differently when they were in then-home countries; they wrote essays differently; and had less intimate relationships with the instructor and fellow students. Some of them were willing to assimilate into North American culture; some of them felt their own culture was more valuable; and, others felt in conflict. Realizing differences, however, helped them consider who they had been and who they would like to become, and by expressing these feelings in the interview, they became aware that they were constructing a new self in a new culture, what Kim (1994) defines as intercultural identity. She argues: 236 as an mdfvidual's cultural identity evolves toward increasing interculturalness, that person's definition of self and others becomes increasingly less restricted by rigid cultural and social categories. Instead, the person's perceptual orientations become broadened and enriched by an increased ability to "particularize" his/her perceptions of each communicative event in the context of a specific situation, (p.14) Their experiences overlapped with my own language socialization and my process of constructing an intercultural identity. Throughout the interview, I was moved by the fact that interviews allowed me to share the lives of people whom otherwise I would never have encountered. In these cases, the interview changed the students' behaviour in positive ways. One could argue that this change is, in fact, from a researcher's perspective, a negative outcome. No longer is the researcher an objective observer; instead, he or she is now a participant in, even a determinant of, the research study's outcome; ethnographers might be troubled by this powerful influence. Critical ethnographers would accept the inevitabihty of a researcher interacting with his or her participants in ways that might ultimately affect the result. Recognizing this influence, I began the transition from the objective researcher I had been at the beginning to the more critical researcher I became. Questionnaires were conducted at the end of the semester. They provided me first with general information about students (their backgrounds and academic experiences) and second, their perceptions about the hterature and the adjunct class. I felt that students answered the questions seriously and honestly, perhaps because questionnaires were anonymous. An ethnographic approach to the present study enabled me to interpret the culture of one particular conrmunity--an Enghsh hterature classroom. Triangulation allowed me to 237 explore students' language socialization from different perspectives and enabled me to perceive the acquisition of the socially constructed knowledge. In this study, I attempted to describe an emic perspective and not to add my etic perspective; I did not want to provide distorted views. Throughout the hved research, however, I became more sympathetic to the value of a critical approach, which "rejects the view that any research can claim to be objective or unbiased"; aims to "investigate the complex relationship between social structure, on the one hand, and human agency, on the other"; assumes that inequities of gender, race, class, ethnicity, and sexual orientation produce and are produced by unequal power relations in society"; and, aims to achieve "social and educational change" (Peirce, 1995, pp. 570-572). My lived research made me realize that culture is created by community members, including researchers. Individual members have different perspectives, but through interaction, they share various perspectives, reconceptualize them, and together construct culture and acquire knowledge. A researcher, as a member of the classroom community and narrator, helps other members critically reflect on their roles and goals, enabling them to reflect more actively on their social roles. I learned also that those members too help a researcher grow. 238 References Aoki, T. T. (Ed.) (1991). Voices of teaching. Vancouver: The British Columbia Teachers' Federation Program for Quality Teaching. Aoki, T. T. (1993). In the midst of slippery theme-words: Toward designing multicultural curriculum In T. T. Aoki & M . Shamsher (Eds.), The call of teaching (pp. 81-86). Vancouver: The British Columbia Teachers' Federation Program for Quality Teaching. Atkinson, D. & Kamanathan, V . (1995). Cultures of writing: An ethnographic comparison of L l and L2 university writing/language programs. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 539-568. Baril, A. , & Mori, G. A . (1991). Educational attainment of linguistic groups in Canada. The Canadian social trends, Spring, 17-18. Blanton, L . L . (1992). A holistic approach to college ESL: integrating language and content. ELT Journal, 46 (3), 285-293. Braine, G. (1994). Starting ESL classes in freshman writing programs. TESOL Journal, 3 (4), 22-25. Brinton. D. M . , Snow, M . A . and Wesche, M . B. (1989). Content-based second language instruction. New York: Newbury House / Harper & Row. Brown, D., Bennett, R , & Cooke, N . (Eds.) (1990). An anthology of Canadian literature in English. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Brown, H . D. (1994). Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy. Toronto: Prentice Hall Regents. Bruner, J. (1983). In search of mind: Essays in autobiography. New York: Haper & Row. Canagarajah, A. S. (1993). Critical ethnography of a Sri Lankan classroom: Ambiguities in student opposition to reproduction through ESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 601-626. Candhn, C. N . & Murphy, D. (Eds.) (1987). Lancaster Practical Papers in English Language Education: Vol. 7. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Carson, J. G. & Nelson, G. L . (1992). Writing groups: Cross-cultural issues. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 17-30. 239 Casanave, C. P. (1992). Local interactions: constructing contexts for composing in a graduate sociology program. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 83-110). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, N . H . : Heinemann. Chamot, A. TJ., & O'Malley, J. M . (1987). The cognitive academic language learning approach: A bridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 227-249. Chen, H. & Graves, M . F. (1995). Effects of previewing and providing background knowledge on Taiwanese college students' comprehension of American short stories. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 663-704. Clark, K , Fairclough, N . , Ivanic, R., & Martin-Jones, M . (1990). Critical language awareness part 1: A critical review of three current approaches to language awareness. Language and Education, 4 (4), 249-260. Clark, R., Fairclough, N . , Ivanic, R., & Martin-Jones, M . (1991). Critical language awareness part 2: Towards critical alternatives. Language and Education, 5 (1), 41-54. Collie, J. & Slater, S. (1987). Literature in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Collier, A . U . (1989). How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in second language. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 509-531. Connor, U . (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crago, M . B. (1992). The sociocultural interface of cormnunicative interaction and L2 acquisition: An Inuit example. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 487-506. Crago, M . B. , Annahatak, B. , & Ninguruvik, L. (1993). Changing patterns of language socialization in Inuit homes. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 24, 205-233. Crandall, J. (1993). Content-centred learning in the United States. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 111-126. Currrmins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: issues in assessment and pedagogy. Cleveden, Avon: Multilingual Matters. 240 Cummins, J. (1995). Discursive power in educational policy and practice for culturally diverse students. In D. Corson (Ed.), Discourse and power in educational organizations (pp. 191-210). Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Delamont, S. (1992). Fieldwork in educational settings: Methods, pitfalls and perspectives. London, Washington D. C : The Falmer Press. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research, (pp. 33-56). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publisher Corporation. Doughty, C. & Pica, T. (1986). "Information gap" tasks: An aid to second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305-325. Duff, P. A . (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk: Taking task to task. In R .R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversations in second language acquisition (pp. 147-181). Rowley, M A : Newbury House. Duff, P. A . (1995). An ethnography of communication in immersion classrooms in Hungary. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 505-537. Duranti, A . (1986). Intentions, language and social action in a Samoan context. Journal of pragmatics, 12, 13-33. Edwards, H . , Wesche, M . , Krashen, S., Clement, R., & Kruidenier, B. (1984). Second-language acquisition through subject-matter learning: a study of sheltered psychology classes at the university of Ottawa. The Canadian modern language review, 41, (2), 268-282. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press. Fairclough, N . (1989). Language and power. London: Longman. Fairclough, N . (Ed.) (1992). Critical language awareness. London: Longman. Fairclough, N . (1995). Critical language awareness and self-identity in education. In D. Corson (Ed.), Discourse and power in educational organizations (pp. 257-272). Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Ferris, D. & Tagg, T. (1996). Academic oral communication needs of E A P learners: What subject-matter instructors actually require. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 31-55. 241 Flower, D. (1996). Introduction. In Great short work ofHenry James, (pp. vii-x). New York: Harper & Row. Gall, M . D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research. (6th ed.). New York: Longman. Gass, S. & Varonis, E. M . (1983). The effect of farrhharity of the comprehensibihty of normative speech. Language Learning, 34 (1), 65-89. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. Goetz, J. P. & LeCompte, M . (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. New York: Academic Press. Goldstein, T. (1995). Interviewing in a multicultoal/multilingual setting. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 587-593. Graham, J. G. (1987). Enghsh language proficiency and the prediction of academic success. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 506-521. Griffith, K (1994). Writing essays about literature. (4th ed.). Toronto: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Gudykunst, W. B. & Kim, Y . Y . (1995). Communicating with strangers: an approach to intercultural communication. (3rd ed.). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Gudykunst, W. B. & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday. Hammersley, M . & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: principles in practice. (2nd ed.) London: Routledge. Harklau, L . (1994). E S L versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2 learning environments. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 241-272. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heath, S. B. (1986). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. In B. B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 242 Heath, S. B. (1992). Literacy skills or hterate skills? Considerations for ESL/EFL learners. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Collaborative language learning and teaching (40-55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hedgecock, J., & Pucci, S. (1993). Whole language apphcations to E S L in Secondary and higher education. TESOL Journal, 3 (2), 22-26. Hingley, R. (1968). Introduction. In Great short works of Fyodor Dostoevsky, (pp. vii-xiii). New York: Harper & Row. Hofstede, G. & Bond, M . (1984). Hofstede's cultural dimensions. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 15, 417-433. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill. Hornberger, N . H . , & Hardman, J. (1994). Literacy as cultural practice and cognitive skill: Bihteracy in an ESL class and a GED program. In D. Spener (Ed), Adult biliteracy in the United States. McHenry, IL: The Center for Applied Linguistics. Hourigan, M . M . (1994). Literacy as social exchange. New York: State University of New York Press. Iancu, M . (1993). Adopting the adjunct model: a case study. TESOL Journal, 2 (4), 20-24. Jobe, R. (1993). Cultural connections. Markham, Ontario: Pembroke Publishers. Johnson, D. M . (1992). Approaches to research in second language learning. New York: Longman. Johnson, K. E. (1995). Understanding communication in second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20. Kim, Y . Y . (1994). Beyond cultural identity. Intercultural Communication Studies, IV: 1, 1-23. King, M . , Fagan, B. , Brat, T., & Baer, R. (1987). E S L and social studies instruction. In Crandall, J. (Ed.), ESL through content-area instruction. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hah. 243 Kramsch, C. (1987). Socialization and hteracy in a foreign language: Learning through interaction. Theory into Practice, XXXVI (4). Kramsch, C. (1993). Language study as border study: Experiencing difference. European Journal of Education, 28 (3). Krashen, S. D. (1980). The input hypothesis. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Current issues in bilingual education. Washington, D. C : Georgetown University Press. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. Krashen, S. D. (1987). Apphcation of psycholinguistic research to the classroom. In M . H. Long & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Methodology in TESOL, (p.33-44). Langer, J. A. (1995). Envisioning literature: literary understanding and literature instruction. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Lantolf, J. & AppeL G. (Eds.) (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pubhshing Corporation. LeBlanc, R. (1994). Language teaching at the university level: the emergence of a field of study. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50 (2), 250-270. Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 123-143. Leki, L, & Carson, J. G. (1994). Students' perceptions of E A P writing instruction and writing needs across the disciplines. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 81-101. Leki, I. (1995). Coping strategies of E S L students in writing tasks across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 235-260. Leont'ev, A. Z. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V . Wertch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology, (pp. 33-71). New York: M . E. Sharp e. Levine, K (1985). The flight from ambiguity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Long, M . H. (1980). Inside the "black box": Methodological issues in classroom research on language learning. Language Learning, 30 (1), 1-42. Long, M . H . (1983a). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom. On TESOL '82 207-225. 244 Long, M . H . (1983b). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126-141. Long, M . H . (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language training. In K Hyltenstan & M . Pienemann (Eds.), Modeling and assessing second language acquisition. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. Long, M . H. & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207-227. Long, M . H . (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 279-295. Long, M . H. & Crookes, G. (1993). Unit of analysis in syllabus design: The case for task. In G. Crookes & S. M . Gass (Eds.), Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-54). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. Losey, K M . (1995). Gender and ethnicity as factors in the development of verbal skills in bilingual Mexican American women. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 635-661. Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for selves and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. McKay, S. L . (1993). Agenda for second language literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McKay, S. L . (1996). Literacy and hteracies. In S. L. McKay & N . H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 421-445). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McConum, P. (1991). Cross-cultural perspectives on classroom discourse and hteracy. In E. H . Hiebert (Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives, practices, and policies, (pp. 108-121). New York: Teachers College Press. Mercer, N . (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Miles, M . B. & Huberman, A. M . (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Miller, P. (1986). Teasing as language socialization and verbal play in a white working-class community. In B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures (pp. 199-211). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 245 Mohan, B. A . (1979). Relating language teaching and content teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 171-182. Mohan, B. A. (1986). Language and content. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Mohan, B. A . & Lo, W. A. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 515-534. Mohan, B. A . & Smith, M . (1992). Context and cooperation in academic tasks. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Collaborative language learning and teaching (pp. 81-99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morita, N . (1996). A study of oral academic presentation tasks from a language socialization perspective. Unpublished masters thesis. The University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Murray, D. E. (1992). Diversity as resource. Virginia: Teachers of Enghsh to Speakers of Other Languages. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (1992a). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (Ed.) (1992b). Collaborative language learning and teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E. & Schieffelin, B. B. (1984). Language acquisition and socialization: Three developmental stories. In R. Shweder & R. LeVine (Eds.), Cultural theory: Essays in mind, self, and emotion, (pp. 276-320). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E. (1986). Introduction. In B. B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.). Language socialization across cultures (pp. 1-13). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language development: Language acquisition and language socialization in a Samoan Village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E. (1990). Indexicahty and socialization. In J. W. Stigler, R. Shweder, & G. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural psychology (pp. 287-308). New York: Cambridge University press. 246 Okabe, R (1983). Cultural assumption of East and West: Japan and me United States. In W. Gudykunst (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory, (pp. 21-44). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Oster, J. (1989). Seeing with different eyes: another view of hterature in the E S L class. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 85-103. Oxford, R (1993). Progress in tertiary content-based ESL instruction. TESL Canada Journal, 11(1), 75-97. Pavlenko, A. & Lantolf, J. P. (1997). Voices from the margins: SLA as a (re)construction of self Paper presented at the A A A L Conference, Orlando, Florida, March 8-11. Peirce, B. N . (1989). Toward a pedagogy of possibility in the teaching of Enghsh internationahy: People's Enghsh in South Africa. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 401-420. Peirce, B. N . (1990). The author responds. TESOL Quarterly 24, 589-618 Peirce, B. N . (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 9-31. Peirce, B. N . (1995). The theory of methodology in qualitative research. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 569-576. Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 589-618. Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others' words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly 30, 201-230. Pica, T. (1987). Second-language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 8 (1), 3-21. Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737-757. Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1988). Variations in classroom interaction as a function of participation pattern and task. In J. Fine. (Ed.). Second language discourse: A Textbook of current research. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex pub. corp. Pica, T., Holhday, L . , Lewis, N . & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of hnguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11: 63-90. 247 Pica, T., Holliday, L . , Lewis, N . , Berducci, D. & Newman, J. (1991). Language learning through interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 343-376. Pickering, J. H . (1992). Fiction 100: An anthology of short stories. (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan PubUshing Company. Poole, D. (1992). Language socialization in the second language classroom. Language Learning, 42, 593-616. Porter, P. A . (1986). How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-centered discussions. In R . R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversations in second language acquisition, (pp. 200-222). Rowley, M A : Newbury House. Raphan, D., & Moser, J. (1993). Linking language and content: E S L and art history. TESOL Journal, 3 (2), 17-21. Richard-Amato, P. A. , & Snow, M . A. (1992). The multicultural classroom. New York: Longman. Rulon, K A. &McCreary, J. (1986). Negotiation of content: Teacher-fronted and smaU-group interaction. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition, (pp. 182-199). Rowley, M A : Newbury House. Schieffelin, B. B. & Cochran-Smith, M . (1984). Learning to read culturaUy: Literacy before schooling. In H . Goelman, A. Oberg, & F. Smith, (Eds.), Awakening to literacy. Exeter, N H : Heinemann. Schieffelin, B. B. (1986). The acquisition of Kaluli. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition, (pp. 525-593). HiUsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Schieffelin, B. B. & Ochs, E. (1986a). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15, 163-191. Schieffelin, B. B. & Ochs, E. (1986b). Language socialization Across cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schumacher, S. & McMillan, J. H . (1993). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins CoUege Publishers. Schwartz, S. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values. In M . Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (pp. 1-65). New York: Academic Press. Shih, M . (1986). Content-based approaches to teaching academic writing. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 617-648. 248 Short, D. J. (1994). Expanding middle school horizons: integrating language, culture, and social studies. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 581-608. Snow, M . A. , Met, M . , & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second / foreign language instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 201-217. Snow, M . A . & Brinton, D. M . (1988). Content-based language instruction: Investigating the effectiveness of the adjunct model. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 553-574. Sontag, S. (1966). Against interpretation. New York: Dell Pubhshing. Steinmetz, D. L . , Busch, K. A , & Joseph-Goldfarb, N . (1994). TESOL Journal, 3 (3), 12-14. Stigler, J. W. & Perry, M . (1990). Mathematics learning in Japanese, Chinese, and American classrooms. In J. W. Stigler, K A. Shweder, & G. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Street, B. V . (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography and education. New York: Longman. Tahb, I. S. (1992). Why not teach non-native Enghsh hterature? ELT Journal, 46, 51-55. Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York: The Falmer Press. Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the community. London: Longman. Tollefson, J. W. (Ed.) (1995). Power and inequality in language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Triandis, H . C. (1988). CoUectivism vs. individuahsm: A reconceptualization of a basic concept in cross-cultural psychology. In G. Verma & C. Bagley (Eds.), Cross-cultural studies of personality, attitudes, and cognition, (pp. 60-95). London: Macmillan. Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-517. Triandis, H . C. (1995). Individualism-collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview. 249 van Lier, L . (1996). Conflicting voices: language, classrooms, and bilingual education in Puno. In K. M . Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom: Qualitative research in second language education, (pp. 363-387). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vygotsky, L . S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, M A : Harvard University Press. Waterman, A. (1984). The psychology of individualism. New York: Praeger. Watson-Gegeo, K . A . & Gegeo, D. W. (1986). Calling-out and repeating routines in Kwara's children's language socialization. In B. B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Watson-Gegeo, K A. (1988). Ethnography in ESL: Defining the essentials. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 575-592. Wertsch, J. V . (1985). Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wesche, M . B. (1985). Immersion and the universities. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 41(5), 931-940. Willett, J. (1987). Contrasting acculturation patterns of two non-English- speaking preschoolers. In H. T. Trueba (Ed.), Success or failure?: Learning and the language minority student (pp. 69-84). New York: Newbury House Harper Row. Willett, J. (1995). Becoming first graders in an L2: An ethnographic study of L2 socialization. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 473-503. Willoquet-Maricondi, P. (1991). Integrating ESOL skills through hterature. TESOL Journal, 1, 11-14. Wolcott, H . F. (1992). Posturing in qualitative inquiry. In M . D. LeCompte, W. L . Millroy & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 3-52). New York: Academic Press. Yin, R. K (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yule, G , & Macdonald, D. (1990). Resolving referential conflicts in L2 interaction: The effect of proficiency and interactive role. Language Learning, 40(4), 539-556. 250 Yule, G., Powers, M . , & Macdonald, D. (1992). The variable effects of some task-based learning procedures on L2 communicative effectiveness. Language Learning, 42 (2), 249-277. 252 will not be used), and questionnaires will be anonymous. Nobody will have access to any data including videotapes and audiotapes except you, my thesis advisor, and me. You will be invited to review videotapes and audiotapes recorded in class and in interviews at any time. DURATION: Class observations will be conducted for the duration of the course (i.e. between January and April 1996). The questionnaire will take 15 to 20 rninutes. Interviews will take approximately 20 minutes each (three times a semester) and will be conducted by me at your convenience. I may informally ask you some questions for a few rninutes before or after the class. Classroom activities will be videotaped / audiotaped for about 60 minutes once a week. R E F U S A L S : You have the right to refuse to participate at any time; it is not a problem i f you do not wish to be interviewed, observed, or recorded (videotaped and/or audiotaped). INQUIRIES: I will be happy to answer any questions about my research at any time. Please do not hesitate to contact me either in person or by telephone. 256 Appendix B INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Background Information Questions (for all students) —Please tell me about yourself and your background. —What made you study at Smith College? —What courses have you taken? —What your academic goals? (for immigrants and international students) —What made you come to Canada? —How long have you studied Enghsh before you came here? NATIVE SPEAKER STUDENTS 1. What are your strengths and weaknesses in academic writing? 2. What were the principal difficulties you experienced when writing your first essay in Enghsh 106? 3. What changes do you expect to make to your second essay so that it will better than the first one? 4. What elements of the Canadian cultural environment have you found to be important for Enghsh writing? 5. Do you think you have learned anything about different cultures in class? If yes, please specify. 6. What specific challenges do you face when studying Enghsh hterature? 7. What specific challenges do you face in small group discussions or group editing sessions with non-native speakers? What would you make you feel more comfortable? 8. Do you feel your own learning in this class has been helped or hindered or not affected one way or the other by the fact that ESL adjunct students take this class? 9. Are you getting any help with your writing (learning centre, tutor) ? If so, in what areas of your writing do you most need help? 10. What aspects of essay writing do you feel your instructor emphasize or value the most? 11 What two comments would you make to a student considering signing up for the Enghsh 106 next term? 12. How would you describe your participation in the class (ENGL 106)? 13. What would you like to be capable of doing at the end of this course? ESL NON-ADJUNCT STUDENTS 1. What are your strengths and weaknesses in academic writing? 2. What were the principal difficulties you experienced when writing your first essay in Enghsh 106? 257 3. What changes do you expect to make to your second essay so that it will be better than the first one? 4. What cultural differences have you found between your Enghsh writing style and that of your first language? 5. What elements of the Canadian cultural environment have you found to be important for Enghsh writing? 6. Do you tibink you have learned anything about different cultures in class? If yes, please specify. 7. What specific challenges do you face when studying Enghsh hterature? 8. Do you feel comfortable in small group discussions with native speakers? What would you make you feel more comfortable? 9. In what ways do you benefit from studying with native speakers? 10. Did you know about adjunct course? 11. Why have you decided not to take the adjunct course? 12. Are you getting any help with your writing (learning centre, tutor) ? If so, what kinds of help do you most need? 13. If you had to make the same decision over again, would you choose to sign up for the adjunct pairing? If not, why not? 14. Do you feel a tutor or the learning centre could give you the same or better assistance? 15. What aspects of essay writing do you feel your instructor emphasize or value the most? 16. What two comments would you make to a student considering signing up for the Enghsh 106 next term? 17. How would you describe your participation in the class (ENGL 106)? 18. What would you like to be capable of doing at the end of this course? E S L A D J U N C T S T U D E N T S 1. What are your strengths and weaknesses in academic writing? 2. What were the principal difficulties you experienced when writing your first essay in Enghsh 106? 3. What changes do you expect to make to your second essay so that it will be better than the first one? 4. What cultural differences have you found between your Enghsh writing style and that of your first language? 5. What elements of the Canadian cultural environment have you found to be important for Enghsh writing? 6. Do you think you have learned anything about different cultures in class? If yes, please specify. 7. What specific challenges do you face when studying Enghsh hterature? 8. Do you feel comfortable in small group discussions with native speakers? What would you make you feel more comfortable? 9. In what ways do you benefit from studying with native speakers? 10. When you signed up for the course, what sort of help did you expect the adjunct course to provide? Were your expectations fulfilled? 258 11. What have you found most helpful about the adjunct course? 12. What two suggestions would you make to the adjunct instructor to improve instruction? 13. Are you getting any help with your writing in addition to the adjunct course (learning centre, tutor) ? Jf so, what kinds of help do you most need? 14. If you had to make the same decision over again, would you choose to sign up for the adjunct pairing? If not, why not? 15. Do you feel a tutor or the learning centre could give you the same or better assistance? 16. Do you feel you could succeed in a subsequent hterature course without the benefit of the adjunct courses? 17. What aspects of essay writing do you feel your instructors emphasize or value the most? 18. What two comments would you make to a student considering signing up for the Enghsh 106/ ESL 498 adjunct next term? 19. How would you describe your participation in each of the classes (ESL 498, E N G L 106)? 20. What would you like to be capable of doing at the end of this course? I N S T R U C T O R S I. Interview 1 (conducted between week five and week six) A. Enghsh hterature instructor I. What are your objectives for this course? 2.1 wondered how you come to choose a particular book for your course. 3. Is there any reason why you chose some translations instead of sticking to stories written in Enghsh? 4. Why do you employ two different formats for your course, lectures and tutorials. 5. What do you think is the value of small-group discussions?' 6. How do you find your students this term? 7. What do you expect of your students? 8. Do you find much difference between students of one section and another? 9. What problems do you tliink students have when writing literary essays? Are there any differences between native speaker students and E S L students? 10. What kinds of writing problems do ESL students experience with regard to language and understanding social and cultural context? II. Do you ever give special guidance to ESL students during class-time? 12. Do you make any allowances for the E S L students in the classroom (e.g. reducing speaking speed, increasing explanations, using alternative terms, introducing different techniques)? 13. What differences do you perceive in the performance of students taking the adjunct course with those of students not taking it? 14. How do you think native speaker students feel toward E S L students? 15. How do you perceive your role and responsibilities as an instructor? 16. In what ways do you think the adjunct course is effective? 259 17. Are there any problems in implementing adjunct courses? 18. What kind of changes would you suggest for improving the current system? 19. From my own experience, studying hterature is one of the most challenging disciplines for E S L students. Do you think there are any effective strategies for them? B. Adjunct instructor 1. What are your objectives for this course? 2. How do you find your students this term? 3. What do you expect of your students? 4. What problems do you think students have when writing literary essays? Are there any differences between native speaker students and E S L students? 5. What kinds of writing problems do ESL students experience with regard to language and understanding social and cultural context? 6. How do you tJrink native speaker students feel toward E S L students? 7. How do you perceive your role and responsibilities as an instructor? 8. In what ways do you think the adjunct course is effective? 9. Are there any problems in implementing adjunct courses? 10. What kind of changes would you suggest for improving the current system? 11. From my own experience, studying hterature is one of the most challenging chsciplines for E S L students. Do you think there are any effective strategies for them? n. Interview 2 (conducted after the end of the semester) 1. Looking back over this term, do you think you achieved everything you wanted to achieve? 2. What points were you most or least satisfied with? 3. What do you tliink students learned most of all from the course? 4. What areas do you think the students benefited most in? (e.g. practical benefits such as writing and reading practice; quahtative benefits such as developing their awareness, or increasing their knowledge.) 5. Which parts of the course do you tliink gave the students most problems? 6. What was the most common difficulties bye the raised students? 7. Did NSs have troubles in different areas from NNSs? 8. If you were to teach this course again, is there anything you would change? 9. Did the adjunct course seem to be helping the NNSs? 10. Have you found that collaboration with your co-instructor has been smooth? 11. What problems have you encountered? 12. Do you tliink the existence of adjunct course has made a big difference to the overall success of the course as a whole? 260 Appendix C Q U E S T I O N N A I R E Part 1: Background Information Demographics 1. Your age group: 1. 18-20 2. 21-25 3. 26-30 4. 31-40 5. 41 or over 2. Your gender: 1. Male 2. Female 3. Your status: 1. Canadian citizen 2. Landed immigrant 3. International student I have hved in Canada for ( ) years. 4. Your first language: ( ) 5. Your most recent TOEFL score (if apphcable): ( ) Academic Information 6. Where and for how long have you studied Enghsh? (Please answer i f your first language is not Enghsh.) 7. What E S L courses have you taken? (Please answer if your first language is not Enghsh.) 8. What courses are you taking this semester? 9. Did you study academic Enghsh hterature before coming to Douglas College? If yes, please specify. (When, where, and how long?) 10. What are your future goals? Would you like to continue studying? In what field? Part 2: English 106 11. Have you ever taken any other Enghsh courses? If yes, please specify. 12. Why did you take Enghsh 106? 13. Have you experienced any problems or difficulties in understanding the Enghsh 106 course? If yes, please specify (e.g. lecture/tutorial, hstening comprehension, reading materials, writing assignments, in-class writing, participation in group discussions). 14. What problems do you experience when doing assignments? Reading: Summary writing: In-class writing: Thesis development: 261 Essay writing: 15. How do you feel about native and non-native speakers studying together? 16. Do you think your essay writing is improving? Why do you think that is the case? 17. What are your strengths and weaknesses in academic writing? 18. Do you feel that you can learn different cultures in the classroom? If yes, how do you think such cultural learning would help your course work? 2-2: E A S L 498 19. Why did you decide to take the adjunct course together with it? 20. When you signed up for the adjunct course, how did you expect it to help you? 21. Did it differ from your expectations? If yes, please specify. 22. What kinds of activities have you found useful in the adjunct course (e.g. instructor's presentations, small group work, mdividual conferences with the instructor)? 23. What improvements would you suggest? 24. Are you getting any help with your writing in addition to the adjunct course (e.g. private tutoring, the learning centre)? 25. Do you feel that cultural differences between Canada and your home country affect the way you participate in class and write essays? Please describe. 26. Please tell me any ways in which the presence of the video camera or tape recorder in the classroom affected whether positively or negatively your learning. 262 Appendix D T R A N S C R I P T I O N C O N V E N T I O N S 1. Participants: I = instructor; S = students 2. Left bracket [: indicates the beginning of overlapping speech, shown for both speakers; second speaker's bracket occurs at the beginning of the line of the next turn rather than in ahgnment with previous speaker's bracket. 3. Equal sign =: indicates speech which comes immediately after another person's, shown for both speakers. 4. (#): Marks the length of a pause in seconds. 5. (Words): The words in parenthesis ( ) were not clearly heard; (x) = unclear word; (xx) = two unclear words; (xxx) = three or more unclear words. 6. Underlined words: Words spoken with emphasis. 7. CAPITAL LETTERS: Loud speech. 8. ((Double parenthesis)): Comments and relevant details pertaining to interaction. 9. Colon: Sound or syllable is unusually lengthened (e.g., rea::lly lo:ng) 10. Period: Terminal falling intonation. 11. Comma: rising, continuing intonation. 12. Question mark: High rising intonation, not necessarily at the end of a sentence. 13. Unattached dash: A short, untimed pause. 14. One-sided attached dash - : A cutoff often accompanied by a glottal stop (e.g., a self-correction); a dash attached on both sides reflects spelling conventions. 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items