Call for proposals
The 2010 Symposium Organizing Committee seeks proposals for 20-minute presentations that address various topics within the field of L2 writing broadly defined. Any topic related to second language writing theory, research, or teaching is welcome. We particularly encourage proposals that seek to challenge the status quo in the field by introducing new topics as well as new theoretical and methodological approaches.
As with all previous nine Symposium iterations, we are interested in L2 writing issues in any second or foreign language, at various levels of education, and in the professions. Given the theme of the Symposium, we particularly encourage proposals that connect L2 writing with other related areas of inquiry, such as computer assisted instruction, second language acquisition, sociocultural theories, linguistics, psychological and educational sciences, language testing, or rhetoric. We welcome proposals from around the world.
To submit your proposal, please use the proposal submission form available at http://sslw.asu.edu/2010/proposal.html. Proposals must include both an abstract (limited to 300 words) and a proposal summary (50 words).
Proposals must be received by 23:59:59 November 15th, 2009 (Spanish time).
Proposals will be peer reviewed by a panel of experts. Notification of acceptance 20th December 2009.
For more information about SSLW 2010, please visit: http://sslw.asu.edu/2010/ We look forward to receiving your proposal!
Paul Kei Matsuda and Tony Silva, Chairs
Rosa Manchón, Local Chair
Monday, September 28, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Responding to Plagiarism Issues
The issue of plagiarism can generate attention as well as discussions almost everywhere, classrooms, meetings, conferences. It might be because the fact that all articles we are reading still argue for the definitions of this term. The definition itself is somewhat ambiguous because it has been defined from different perspectives, personal, institutional, and international. This could be confusing to teachers and students to exercise this concept outside the Western academe as well.
The recurring issue mentioned in almost all readings is how to equip students to be aware of this issue so that they will not commit this “academic crime”, especially for students who are outside the Western academic institutions. In this response, I would like to propose two alternative pedagogical-related approaches to this issue: literacy narrative and consciousness of textual borrowing.
In the first approach of asking students to write literacy narrative, this approach is valuable for students to recognize themselves, their cultures, the way they live and learn, how they gain literacies. Apart from that we can also ask students to write the significance of their literacies and how they can use their literacies to help others who are in need. With this assignment, students have to start their writing from their own personal stories in which they cannot copy from anywhere. We teachers can help students to incorporate other texts to support their experiences by providing other people’s narratives. We could ask students to bring in some (famous) biographies that they are interested in or they share some similarities (or differences). Students will start acknowledging other stories into their own to support their arguments. This assignment helps students to avoid the issue of patch writing and plagiarism.
Another approach is to raise students’ awareness of plagiarism issue in writing for academic purposes. We can teach students general guidelines of citation and textual borrowing. We can teach students to paraphrase ideas by pairing students up in class to practice this exercise. This will help students to (somewhat) trust students in asking for peer response. For example, if I were to teach writing in Thailand, I would ask students about the issue of intellectual property in Thailand or how Thai scholars exercise their textual borrowing practices. Then I could also show them with local research articles and compare it with Western ones. This will prepare students to be aware of this issue in both local and international perspectives.
The recurring issue mentioned in almost all readings is how to equip students to be aware of this issue so that they will not commit this “academic crime”, especially for students who are outside the Western academic institutions. In this response, I would like to propose two alternative pedagogical-related approaches to this issue: literacy narrative and consciousness of textual borrowing.
In the first approach of asking students to write literacy narrative, this approach is valuable for students to recognize themselves, their cultures, the way they live and learn, how they gain literacies. Apart from that we can also ask students to write the significance of their literacies and how they can use their literacies to help others who are in need. With this assignment, students have to start their writing from their own personal stories in which they cannot copy from anywhere. We teachers can help students to incorporate other texts to support their experiences by providing other people’s narratives. We could ask students to bring in some (famous) biographies that they are interested in or they share some similarities (or differences). Students will start acknowledging other stories into their own to support their arguments. This assignment helps students to avoid the issue of patch writing and plagiarism.
Another approach is to raise students’ awareness of plagiarism issue in writing for academic purposes. We can teach students general guidelines of citation and textual borrowing. We can teach students to paraphrase ideas by pairing students up in class to practice this exercise. This will help students to (somewhat) trust students in asking for peer response. For example, if I were to teach writing in Thailand, I would ask students about the issue of intellectual property in Thailand or how Thai scholars exercise their textual borrowing practices. Then I could also show them with local research articles and compare it with Western ones. This will prepare students to be aware of this issue in both local and international perspectives.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Discussion Questions on Voice
This is another topic in which it can generate animated discussion on the concept of "voice" in writing especially in second language or multilingual writing. If anyone is interested in reading more about this, please let me know. I can generate some references as a start. In addition, it should be noted that this has been one of the controversies issue in composition as well.
Discussion questions relating to Prior (2001) and Ivanic and Camp (2001):
1. Do you hear any "voices" from reading these two articles?
2. What are the definition of "voice" from these articles and from which perspectives? What seems to be the problem in defining the concept of "voice" here?
3. As the concept of "voice" can be defined from different perspectives, how will you as future teacher-scholars define and incorporate in your teaching?
4. Both articles attempt to theorize the "voice pedagogy" in both L1 and L2 composition settings, can you relate this concept of other scholarships?
5. What is the similarity in relation to all reading about "voice" in writing (Ramanathan and Atkinson, 1999; Atkinson, 2001; Prior, 2001; and Ivanic and Camp, 2001)?
Please consider submitting your proposals on voice to both CEA on Voices (Link below) and Academic Literacies Symposium (@IUP, deadline is October 15, 2009)
Discussion questions relating to Prior (2001) and Ivanic and Camp (2001):
1. Do you hear any "voices" from reading these two articles?
2. What are the definition of "voice" from these articles and from which perspectives? What seems to be the problem in defining the concept of "voice" here?
3. As the concept of "voice" can be defined from different perspectives, how will you as future teacher-scholars define and incorporate in your teaching?
4. Both articles attempt to theorize the "voice pedagogy" in both L1 and L2 composition settings, can you relate this concept of other scholarships?
5. What is the similarity in relation to all reading about "voice" in writing (Ramanathan and Atkinson, 1999; Atkinson, 2001; Prior, 2001; and Ivanic and Camp, 2001)?
Please consider submitting your proposals on voice to both CEA on Voices (Link below) and Academic Literacies Symposium (@IUP, deadline is October 15, 2009)
Monday, September 14, 2009
Discussion questions on Connor's CR and IR
Before I jump into the questions, I would like to warn everyone about this CR/IR research issue that this is a tricky and easy to fall into your own traps. As you all know that this issue has been criticized heavily, please be advised to take this issue, if you happen to be interested in conducting the research, with care!
After reading Connor (2004), I have the following questions to head the discussion up a bit.
Pedagogically speaking:
1. Where is the place for "audiences" in CR/IR research?
2. How does CR/IR help us pedagogically to teach students to compose?
3. From the CR/IR persepctive, whose "rhetoric" is being put forward - researchers or students?
4. How do you define "culture"? (researchers' or students' perspectives)
The following questions are from Connor (2008) chapter.
Research/methodological related questions:
1. "Contrastive rhetoric has always been multidimensional in its research" (Connor, 2008, p 300). What are these dimensional aspects of IR research?
2. What are problems with the IR research methodologies?
3. If the rhetorical tradition is not pure, as stated in Connor (2008), what would be the future directions of the IR research?
4. Why do you think scholars criticize IR research methodologies?
5. What research methodologies/tools would help IR research to expand its horizon?
After reading Connor (2004), I have the following questions to head the discussion up a bit.
Pedagogically speaking:
1. Where is the place for "audiences" in CR/IR research?
2. How does CR/IR help us pedagogically to teach students to compose?
3. From the CR/IR persepctive, whose "rhetoric" is being put forward - researchers or students?
4. How do you define "culture"? (researchers' or students' perspectives)
The following questions are from Connor (2008) chapter.
Research/methodological related questions:
1. "Contrastive rhetoric has always been multidimensional in its research" (Connor, 2008, p 300). What are these dimensional aspects of IR research?
2. What are problems with the IR research methodologies?
3. If the rhetorical tradition is not pure, as stated in Connor (2008), what would be the future directions of the IR research?
4. Why do you think scholars criticize IR research methodologies?
5. What research methodologies/tools would help IR research to expand its horizon?
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
2010 CEA Conference: Voices
Dear Colleague,
We welcome you to join us for the 41st Annual Conference of the College English Association at the Sheraton Gunter Hotel in San Antonio, TX, on March 25-27, 2010. The attachment to this message provides the Call for Papers, including supplementary calls.
The Call for Papers
The primary conference theme for 2010 is “Voices”—native voices, voices from the margins and the center, voices in the wilderness, digital voices, voices in material culture, voices of protest, and much more. We also invite papers or panels on composition and pedagogy in response to this conference theme.
In addition, we offer a wide-ranging group of traditional and specialty areas to stimulate particular scholarly and pedagogical interests; e.g., Sea at CEA; the Women’s Connection; Creative Writing; Food and the Literary Imagination; Children’s & Adolescent Literature; Hispanic, Latino, Chicano Literature; Book History and Textual Criticism; Technical Communication; Trauma and Literature—and a great deal more.
The pre-conference registration fee, which includes all panel/plenary sessions and the president’s reception, is $75 (for part-time/retired, $65; for graduate students, $42). The Sheraton Gunter Hotel is offering CEA conference-goers a special room rate of $139 for singles and doubles until Wednesday, March 3, 2010.
In closing, we look forward to seeing you at the CEA conference in San Antonio!
We all should try submitting our papers in!
We welcome you to join us for the 41st Annual Conference of the College English Association at the Sheraton Gunter Hotel in San Antonio, TX, on March 25-27, 2010. The attachment to this message provides the Call for Papers, including supplementary calls.
The Call for Papers
The primary conference theme for 2010 is “Voices”—native voices, voices from the margins and the center, voices in the wilderness, digital voices, voices in material culture, voices of protest, and much more. We also invite papers or panels on composition and pedagogy in response to this conference theme.
In addition, we offer a wide-ranging group of traditional and specialty areas to stimulate particular scholarly and pedagogical interests; e.g., Sea at CEA; the Women’s Connection; Creative Writing; Food and the Literary Imagination; Children’s & Adolescent Literature; Hispanic, Latino, Chicano Literature; Book History and Textual Criticism; Technical Communication; Trauma and Literature—and a great deal more.
The pre-conference registration fee, which includes all panel/plenary sessions and the president’s reception, is $75 (for part-time/retired, $65; for graduate students, $42). The Sheraton Gunter Hotel is offering CEA conference-goers a special room rate of $139 for singles and doubles until Wednesday, March 3, 2010.
In closing, we look forward to seeing you at the CEA conference in San Antonio!
We all should try submitting our papers in!
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Literacy Narrative
My literacies in second language start at home. I exposed to a second language when I was little. My grandparents migrated from a southern part of China to Thailand. I also had a chance to study in a Chinese school until 3rd grade. During the school year, I could read and write traditional Chinese characters somewhat fluently. I also could write my Chinese name at that time.
Up until my family moved to a new house, I also had to move to a new school. In this new school, I am required to learn English. My first exposure to English is at the age of 8 or 9 years old. I barely remembered how I started my English lessons, but I know that English is not my favorite subject at that period of time. I failed the tests almost every academic year. Though I can read and write, teachers would explain the rules on the board. We students needed to write those rules down in our notebooks. Then we needed to do some exercises in which most of the time these exercises asked students to conjugate both regular and irregular verb forms (the drill techniques/slot technique). In the reading class, we would read simplified novels in class and teachers would translate the texts to students (translation method). In speaking class, I was lucky comparing to others because I was in this catholic school. The school would have some English-speaking teachers (one Filipino, one Indian, one American) to teach us once a week.
I also had a chance to study French after I graduated. I enrolled myself into a French class offered through the France embassy in Bangkok, Thailand. The class would meet on a regular basis of 3-hour class, once a week. This is an integrated skill class in which all four skills would be taught and practiced in the class hours. I enjoyed the class very much. Though I am not fully fluent in French, I still remembered how to introduce myself in French.
Another language in which I learned through traveling is Spanish. I never took any classes in Spanish, but I decided to backpack with my friend to South America. People would think that English could be used as well in those countries. It’s not true! I needed to learn Spanish to travel as well. Well, my friend also could not speak Spanish. We traveled by using Lonely Planet’s Latin American Spanish Phrasebook. In the book, it gives basic conversation and useful word lists. Though I could not speak Spanish, I actually employed some French words that I remembered to use in Spanish. It worked! I could survive during those two months of backpacking. At the end of the trip, I know some basic Spanish words as well as some Spanish dishes I can cook at home.
Up until my family moved to a new house, I also had to move to a new school. In this new school, I am required to learn English. My first exposure to English is at the age of 8 or 9 years old. I barely remembered how I started my English lessons, but I know that English is not my favorite subject at that period of time. I failed the tests almost every academic year. Though I can read and write, teachers would explain the rules on the board. We students needed to write those rules down in our notebooks. Then we needed to do some exercises in which most of the time these exercises asked students to conjugate both regular and irregular verb forms (the drill techniques/slot technique). In the reading class, we would read simplified novels in class and teachers would translate the texts to students (translation method). In speaking class, I was lucky comparing to others because I was in this catholic school. The school would have some English-speaking teachers (one Filipino, one Indian, one American) to teach us once a week.
I also had a chance to study French after I graduated. I enrolled myself into a French class offered through the France embassy in Bangkok, Thailand. The class would meet on a regular basis of 3-hour class, once a week. This is an integrated skill class in which all four skills would be taught and practiced in the class hours. I enjoyed the class very much. Though I am not fully fluent in French, I still remembered how to introduce myself in French.
Another language in which I learned through traveling is Spanish. I never took any classes in Spanish, but I decided to backpack with my friend to South America. People would think that English could be used as well in those countries. It’s not true! I needed to learn Spanish to travel as well. Well, my friend also could not speak Spanish. We traveled by using Lonely Planet’s Latin American Spanish Phrasebook. In the book, it gives basic conversation and useful word lists. Though I could not speak Spanish, I actually employed some French words that I remembered to use in Spanish. It worked! I could survive during those two months of backpacking. At the end of the trip, I know some basic Spanish words as well as some Spanish dishes I can cook at home.
Reflection on Post-process
The process writing has dominated the filed in second language writing (SLW) for decades. Students would do pre-writing, writing, peer responding, and rewriting as a process of writing. This process claims to give students a sense of learner autonomy in which students can employ such process to write in different writing pieces. Reflecting from my experiences, I have been taught to do the process writing with multiple drafts, giving and responding to friends’ drafts. It is difficult, as Atkinson suggests, to teach writing without this approach.
Then the “post-process” paradigm comes into the field. As the readings suggest, there is no concrete definitions for the term. Some scholars (Matsuda (2003) and Casanave (2003)) are cautious about the definition and the use of the label in the SLW field. Other readings focus on the social, political, and cultural aspects of both the writing and the writers. Personally, I will be careful when using this term as I am still not so sure about the definitions as well. Though Kent (1999) defines the term that “writing is public,…interpretive, [and]…situated” (p. 1), every piece of writing can be classified into those categories. I agree with Casanave’s and Matsuda’s remarks that the label is socially constructed and can be interpreted in different meanings. This could add both complexities and “multiplicity” (Matsuda, 2003, p. 79) to the field.
Another interesting point to be made here is Casanave’s discussion of her Japanese students. This is nothing new to my personal experience as well. Due to time constrain and overloaded with contents, teachers and students do not have a chance to even respond to their friends’ writing, let alone to receive the paper back from teachers. Some teachers employ this teaching practice; however, students do not see the importance of peer response. This also leads to the failure in appropriating western pedagogies to different contexts. The issue of (self) perception in doing peer response should be discussed and reconstructed to students.
Is the process writing really outdated? How well students and teachers prepared for this so-called post-process? How do you define the term? What are teaching implications to be included in this post-process approach? These are questions in which I think are important to be considered.
Then the “post-process” paradigm comes into the field. As the readings suggest, there is no concrete definitions for the term. Some scholars (Matsuda (2003) and Casanave (2003)) are cautious about the definition and the use of the label in the SLW field. Other readings focus on the social, political, and cultural aspects of both the writing and the writers. Personally, I will be careful when using this term as I am still not so sure about the definitions as well. Though Kent (1999) defines the term that “writing is public,…interpretive, [and]…situated” (p. 1), every piece of writing can be classified into those categories. I agree with Casanave’s and Matsuda’s remarks that the label is socially constructed and can be interpreted in different meanings. This could add both complexities and “multiplicity” (Matsuda, 2003, p. 79) to the field.
Another interesting point to be made here is Casanave’s discussion of her Japanese students. This is nothing new to my personal experience as well. Due to time constrain and overloaded with contents, teachers and students do not have a chance to even respond to their friends’ writing, let alone to receive the paper back from teachers. Some teachers employ this teaching practice; however, students do not see the importance of peer response. This also leads to the failure in appropriating western pedagogies to different contexts. The issue of (self) perception in doing peer response should be discussed and reconstructed to students.
Is the process writing really outdated? How well students and teachers prepared for this so-called post-process? How do you define the term? What are teaching implications to be included in this post-process approach? These are questions in which I think are important to be considered.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
recent publications
Book Reviews
- Chamcharatsri, P. B. (in press). [Review of the book Teaching academic writing]. SLW IS Newsletter
- Chamcharatsri, P. B. (in press). [Review of the book A synthesis of research on second language writing in English]. Asian EFL Journal
- Chamcharatsri, P. B. (in press). [Review of the book Advances in discourse studies], Journal of Sociolinguistics
- Chamcharatsri, P. B. (in press). Do we have to problematize our identity? [Review of the book Problematizing identity: Every struggles of languages, culture, and education ]. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)