Free Paper Example on Teaching Language to ESL Learners: A Necessity for Learning

Introduction

Language is an essential component of the learning process that human beings need to communicate. Students need language to argue, explain, recount, and describe issues in different subject areas. However, language requires explicit teaching since it does not come naturally to many students (Derewianka & Jones, 2016). This phenomenon is common among English as a second language (ESL) learners (Derewianka & Jones, 2016). In essence, this situation means teachers should have an in-depth understanding of how language is used in academic contexts.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The second language writing theory can help teach L2 writing as it highlights key elements that should be considered to improve written communication. According to Flower and Hayes (1981), the cognitive process theory highlights three writing components integral to teaching L2 writing. These elements are the writer's long-term memory, the writing process, and the task environment (Flower & Hayes, 1981). Teachers can use this model to examine the relationship between the writing process and the context.

We need a comprehensive theory of L2 learning to teach second language writing in the spirit of scientific theorizing. Such a model is of great importance to teachers who need to describe and explain various elements that constitute L2 writing. According to Lei (2008), the traditional cognitive framework studied the art of writing as a generative process that involves strategies such as planning, monitoring, organizing, reviewing, and translating (Lei, 2008). In this view, the L2 theory is needed to analyze appropriate writing strategies for ESL learners.

Theory and teaching align in different ways. An example of an activity that shows this interaction is brainstorming ideas in the classroom and presenting them in an agreeable written form. Key elements of the theory, such as teacher's expectations, appropriate rhetorical skills, an understanding of the topic, and writing requirements must be met for a student to be successful.

Differences Between EFL and ESL Contexts

L2 writing is essential, especially in this era of globalization, where written communication plays a fundamental role in many fields. Researchers have paid closer attention to learning L2 writing in recent years than teaching it (Lee, 2010). Learning and teaching second language writing in ESL and English as first language (EFL) contexts differs in several ways.

First, EFL educators find it challenging to use the best teaching practices in classroom contexts dominated by conventional methods. A good example is implementing process pedagogy in writing classrooms that are essentially product-oriented (Lee, 2010). A recent study showed that EFL teachers in Hong Kong who were enthusiastic about process pedagogy developed an improved version of process writing (Lee, 2010). Conversely, the major difficulty in learning L2 writing among ESL individuals is proficiency in using the target language.

Secondly, EFL teachers primarily treat L2 writing as a tool for reinforcing vocabulary and language structures. According to Lee (2010), this phenomenon leads to a situation where L2 educators do not see themselves as writing teachers but rather as language teachers. In such contexts, teachers spend a lot of time marking student pieces of writing. In contrast, ESL learning needs include enhancing cultural understanding and acquiring L2 literacy (Lee, 2010).

Thirdly, EFL writing contexts focus on helping learners cope with writing in an L2. Teachers need to implement novel methods and alternative techniques to help students develop their second language writing skills. ESL context is different from the EFL situation in that it uses the scaffolding method, which aims to provide temporary assistance to guide learners to write themselves. According to Taplin (2017), this technique supports students in reading and writing by amplifying their message instead of simplifying it. An example of a method for teaching ESL students L2 is creating cloze passages for them to complete.

The Specificity of Second Language Writing Instructions

In my opinion, L2 writing instructions at a university level should be specific rather than general. The reason is that high specificity addresses the unique language needs of different groups of second-language students. Accordingly, such instruction helps university students fulfill their education requirements to succeed in their academic and professional settings. More importantly, specific instructions support the principal goal of English for Academic Purposes (EAP). In this regard, EAP refers to teaching English, mainly to enable learners to research and study in that language (Hyland & Hamp-Lyons, 2002).

ESL university students can better meet specific academic work requirements when curriculum designers use precise writing instructions. Here, the reason is that such writing instructions increase the capabilities of L2 university students by enhancing the development of strategies and academic skills. Hyland and Hamp-Lyons (2002) corroborated that it is essential to ground instructions based on the linguistic, social, and cognitive demands of specific academic disciplines. The authors’ argument supports the use of specific instructions at a university level.

In recent years, educators have come to the knowledge that teaching students who use English for specific purposes (ESP) only differs from teaching learners who use EAP (Hyland & Hamp-Lyons, 2002). With this variation, I think it is essential to use highly specific writing instructions to enhance academic knowledge dissemination. Hyland (2002) argued for the case of specificity and said that it is fundamental to key aspects of ESP.

Similarly, using specific rather than general writing instructions can help fix university students’ learning problems that emanate from school curricular gaps. Specific instructions are useful to such students as it helps them develop skills relevant to their situation. Hyland (2002) argued that this solution is cost-effective since it requires few skilled personnel to implement. However, many countries are yet to adopt this strategy (Hyland, 2002).

Arguments Regarding L2 Written Corrective Feedback

The debate on whether teaching professionals should use written corrective feedback (WCF) to help L2 students improve their writing has gained immense interest among researchers (Ellis, 2009). Truscott (1996) and Ferris (1999) argued different perspectives on WCF or grammar correction's usefulness and practicality. Truscott (1996) argued against using written error correction or WCF, claiming that it has harmful effects on students. However, Ferris (1999) opposed Truscott's point of view and claimed that WCF is valuable to L2 students.

In my opinion, Ferris (1999) made the most plausible argument regarding L2 grammar correction. Two things show that Ferris (1999) has substantial evidence supporting error correction. First, Ferris (1999) acknowledged the existence of several ways to approach grammar correction, meaning Truscott (1996) had a narrow perspective on WCF methods. In my view, this argument suggests that some WCF strategies would be less or more effective than others. This idea supports Ferris’s (1999) perspective that correctly done error correction is helpful to L2 student writers, while less effective ones would mislead them.

Ferris (1999) cited five scholarly research that proved that WCF is useful in helping students improve their writing accuracy. Such studies demonstrated that precise and selective error correction could produce beneficial results (Ferris, 1999). The idea that there is evidence supporting WCF’s usefulness means Ferris (1999) had the most potent argument on the controversial subject.

Secondly, Truscott (1996) relied on research that used college-level ESL students in the United States. According to Ferris (1999), this group of learners is less motivated to correct grammatical issues in their work than EFL students at the same academic level. The reason is that language classes for ESL students do not focus on process-oriented activities that help the learners to write accurately and fluently in the target language (Ferris, 1999). This argument strengthens Ferri's (1999) view that teachers should continue using WCF to improve L2 writing.

References

Derewianka, B., & Jones, P. P. (2016). Teaching language in context. Oxford University Press. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED574011Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023

Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(99)80110-6

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600

Hyland, K. (2002). Specificity revisited: How far should we go now? English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 385-395. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(01)00028-x

Hyland, K., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). EAP: Issues and directions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1475-1585(02)00002-4

Lee, I. (2010). Writing teacher education and teacher learning: Testimonies of four EFL teachers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(3), 143-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.05.001

Lei, X. (2008). Exploring a sociocultural approach to writing strategy research: Mediated actions in writing activities. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 217-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.04.001

Taplin, A. (2017). Accounting for the needs of EAL/D students in the mainstream classroom. Metaphor, 1(48). https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=701790673694442;res=IELHSS;type=pdf

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x