Dr. Josh Lederman
Office: Rabb 217
Meeting time: M, W,5:00-6:20Email:
Labe: TBDOffice Hours: M, W, 2:00-3:00 and by appt.
Office: Rabb 217
Meeting time: M, W, Th 1-1:50Email:
Classroom: Rabb 236Office Hours: M, W, 2:00-3:00 and by appt
Second Language Writing Instruction: Theory and Practice (ENG 108b)
Rationale, goals, and audience: This course seeks to provide students with an opportunity to learn about the role of English in the postcolonial, post-industrial world; to understand the complexities that accompany English as a world language; to explore theories of teaching English writing to English Language Learners (in a variety of contexts); and finally, to put these understandings into practice through service to the Waltham community. Several rationales support this course. For one, as English spreads throughout the world, many US college graduates, particularly native English speakers, are able to find work all over the world as English language instructors. Yet a number of ethical complexities arise with these opportunities—native English speakers are often hired with no other qualifications other than their native language, and thus on the one hand, highly qualified non-native speakers struggle to practice in their field, and on the other hand, the spread of English was a world language continues on without the critical problematization that it need. In addition to valuable work and learning experiences during the semester, this course seeks to place students in a position to help disrupt these larger issues (i.e., the “native speaker fallacy”; see Canagarajah) if they decide to teach English abroad.
This course will offer a unique opportunity to study the role of English in today's world through a linguistic and pedagogical lens, really focusing on the language itself, both in terms of its grammars and its impact in the world.
Finally, service-based experiential learning is known to be effective in all kinds of ways—aside from the service to the Waltham community (in a particularly needed area) in and of itself, research shows that students learn most effectively through problem-solving, particularly when the problems they encounter require an understanding of the course material at hand (see, e.g., Wirkala and Kuhn). Teaching and tutoring, particularly of English writing to English Language Leaners, are practices rife with problems, puzzles, conundra—sometimes in ways obvious to the tutor, sometimes in ways the tutor may not even realize at first. This course projects to have no shortage of problems for students/tutors to struggle through, and these problems will then serve as a platform for both discussions and for seeking to understand the often complex theory that accompanies the course literature.
Pedagogical methods and assignments: Learning objectives will include: a deeper understanding ofEnglish, both in terms of its internal structure and (more importantly) its role on the world stage; understanding of the connections between language and identity (personal, social, historical, institutional); a social perspective on language teaching and pedagogy, based on the ethical implications of teaching as a liberatory practice; current perspectives on writing as a networked, social practice, and the pedagogical implications of these perspectives. As an experiential learning course, students will learn both through readings/discussions, and through practice. The goal is that their practical experience will inform their understandings of the theoretical and research-based literature, while their understanding of the literature will inform their practice. Class time will revolve around discussions that aim to develop both understandings of the literature and to wresting with problems that arise in students' practice, striving to reconceptualize these problems in light of the theoretical sensibilities students develop over the course of the semester.
Along with the course readings and written responses, students will keep a log of their tutoring work—specifically seeking to engage the similarities and differences between what they literature describes and what they come across in actual practice. Students will write a final course paper that use both reflection and scholarship review: they will compose a narrative of their experiences in the field and discuss how their developing understanding of the theory and research covered in class made an impact on these experiences, helped shape their teaching, or even seemed to contradict their first-hand experience.
Student will begin their tutoring service after Week 3 of the semester (the second week in September, 2016), which means that they will have some foundation in the course principles, but will be very much learning as they go. As such, the instructor will use a scaffolding approach during the tutoring sessions, where he will be present to observe and field questions/address issues as they arise during the early weeks of tutoring, and then will scale back that time, allowing the students/tutors to take over the sites of practice as they gain experience and confidence.
Hourly Breakdown:
Brandeis Four-Credit Course Policy:
Success in this 4 credit hour course is based on the expectation that students will spend a minimum of 9 hours of study time per week in preparation for class (readings, papers, discussion sections, preparation for exams, etc.).
We need to multiply this by 1.5
Classtime: 4.5 hours Option 1: One 3 hour class meeting, 1.5 hour lab/practicum discussion
Option 2: Two 1.5 hourclass meetings, 1.5 hour lab/practicum discussion Outside of Class: 13.5 hours of Coursework and Service
Readings/written analytic responses/reflective responses: 8 hours Tutoring: 4 hours [3 to 4 tutoring sessions, plus travel to and from the site/s] Final Project: 1.5 hours
Final grades will be calculated as follows:
Attendance and class participation: 15% Weekly response posts (on Latte): 20% Mid-semester reflection project: 25% Final project: 40%
As students begin their work in the Waltham community, we will dedicate class time (and some readings) to wrestling with the quandary of how to put good theory into daily practice. We willcontinue to read important scholarship on literacy and language acquisition, but we will aim more at developing practices that reflect the sensibilities of these theoretical issues.
Works Cited:
Canagarajah, Suresh. "Interrogating the "Native Speaker Fallacy": Non-Linguistic Roots, Non- Pedagogical Results." Non-Native Educators in English Language Teaching. Ed. Braine, George. New York: Routledge, 1999. Print.
Wirkala, Clarice, and Deanna Kuhn. "Problem-Based Learning in K–12 Education." American Educational Research Journal 48.5 (2011): 1157-86. Print.
Calendar:
*readings and dates are subject to change, so please refer to class notes, emails, Latte posts, etc., for the most current reading assignments.
Week 1 [no meeting]
Week 2
M 8/29Talk about class goals, hopes, fears, etc.
Scheduling labs; Start reading Freire
W 8/31Read Freire; discussion
Week 3
M x
W 9/7 Tobin/Emig
Th 9/8 *Brandeis Monday.Murdick/Hartwell
Week 4
M 9/12TESOL reading #1
W 9/14TESOL reading #2
*Service begins
Week 5
M 9/19 Hobson/North
W 9/21Broder
Week 6
M 9/26 Gee
W 9/28 Perry
Week 7
M x
W 10/5Ede/Harris
Week 8 WC:
M 10/10Breuch
W x
Week 9
M x
W 10/19Smitherman, Zimet
Week 10
M x
*T 10/25 [Brandeis Monday]Kubota
W 10/26Pennycook
Week 11
M 10/31Canagarajah (LFE)
W 11/2 Seidlhofer (LFE)//House/Jenkins
Week 12
M 11/7 Horner et al.
W 11/10Canagarajah (Translingual)
Week 13
M 11/14Seidlhofer (Double)
W 11/16Sifakis
Week 14
M 11/21Kumaravadivelu (stereotyping)
Thanksgiving
Week 15
M 11/28 Lin
W 11/30Brutt-Griffler
Week 16
M 12/5Kumaravadivelu (postmethod)
W 12/7 Final Discussion
Readings Pool:
Baldwin, J. (1979, July 29). If Black English isn't a language, then tell me, what is? New York Times, p. 19.
Breuch, L.-A. M. K. (2002). Post-process "pedagogy": A philosophical exercise. JAC, 22(1), 119-150.
Broder, P. F. (1990). Writing centers and teacher training.WPA: Writing Program Administration, 13(3), 37-45.
Brutt-Griffler, J., & Samimy, K. K. (1999). Revisiting the colonial in the postcolonial: Critical praxis for nonnative-English-speaking teachers in a TESOL program. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 413-431.
Canagarajah, S. (2006). Negotiating the local in English as a Lingua Franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 197-218.
Canagarajah, S. (2013). Negotiating translingual literacy: An enactment. Research in the Teaching of English, 48(1), 40-67.
Ede, L. (1989). Writing as a social process: A theoretical foundation for writing centers? The Writing Center Journal, 9(2), 3-13.
Emig, “Writing as a Mode of Learning” (CrossTalk)
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York: Continuum.
Gee, J. P. (1989). Literacy, discourse, and linguistics: Introduction and what is literacy? Journal of Education, 17(1), 5-25.
Harris, M. (1995). Talking in the middle: Why writers need writing tutors. College English, 57(1), 27-42.
Hartwell, P. (1985). Grammar, grammars, and the teaching of grammar.College English, 47(2), 105-127.
Hobson, E. H. (2001). Writing center pedagogy. In G. Tate, A. Rupiper, & K. Schick (Eds.), A guide to composition pedagogies (pp. 165-182). New York: Oxford University Press.
Horner, B., Lu, M.-Z., Royster, J. J., & Trimbur, J. (2011). Opinion: Language difference in writing: Toward a translingual approach. College English, 73(3), 303-321.
House, J. (2003). English as a Lingua Franca: A threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 556-578.
Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 157-181.
Jenkins, J. (2006). Points of view and blind spots: ELF and SLA. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 137-162.
Kubota, R. (2001). Discursive Construction of the Images of U.S. Classrooms.TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 9-38.
Lin, A. M. Y. (1999). Doing-English-Lessons in the reproduction or transformation of social worlds?TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 393-412.
Lu, and Horner, “Translingual Literacy, Language Difference, and Matters of Agency”
Murdick, W. (1996). What English teachers need to know about grammar.English Journal, 85(7), 38-45.
North, S. (1984). The idea of a writing center.College English, 46(5), 433-446.
Ogbu, J. U. (2004). Collective identity and the burden of "acting white" in black history, community, and education.The Urban Review, 36(1), 1-35.
Pennycook, A. (1999). Introduction: Critical approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 329-348.
Perry, K. H. (2012). What is literacy? -- A critical overview of sociocultural perspectives. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 8(1), 51-71.
Seidlhofer, B. (1999). Double standards: teacher education in the Expanding Circle. World Englishes, 13(2), 233-245.
Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a Lingua Franca.Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209-239.
Sifakis, N. (2007). The education of teachers of English as a lingua franca: A transformative perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 355-374.
Tobin, L. (2001). Process pedagogy. In G. Tate, A. Rupiper, & K. Schick (Eds.), A guide to composition pedagogies. New York: Oxford University Press.
Trimbur, J. (1994). Taking the social turn: Teaching writing post-process. College Composition & Communication, 45(1), 108-118.
Williams, J. (1981). The phenomenology of error.College Composition and Communication, 32(2), 152-168.
Zimet, S. G. (1978).Dispelling myths and examining strategies in teaching non-standard dialect speakers to read. Paper presented at the The Annual Meeting of the United Kingdom Reading Association, Northampton, England.