The first-class instruction of English as a second language<\/p>\n
Setiono, Jakarta<\/p>\n
The status of English language as a lingua franca throughout
\nthe globe has compelled non-English-speaking countries to brace
\nthemselves for the free trade era. While China, Japan and
\nIndonesia include English as a compulsory subject in their
\nnational curricula, other countries such as Malaysia, the
\nPhilippines and India, to mention a few, have been relatively
\nsuccessful in implementing a policy to use English in numerous
\nsectors like education, politics, government and entertainment.<\/p>\n
Indonesia, in fact, is still struggling to promote the
\nimportance of English through education -- both formal and
\ninformal -- although English is the first foreign language
\ntaught. The Ministry of National Education has made English a
\nmandatory subject at secondary schools, but it is only recently
\nthat the language has become compulsory at the primary level.<\/p>\n
Sadly, however, English-language instruction has not yet
\nyielded satisfactory results, seen in the fact that many high
\nschool and university graduates are unable to communicate in
\nEnglish, particularly in its written form. This ensues from
\nteachers' fallacious perceptions about the essence of teaching
\nliteracy.<\/p>\n
A student in my writing class, for example, once lamented that
\nin a previous writing class, she always felt intimidated by the
\nassignments given out by the instructor. She said the class was
\nboring, the teacher often made discouraging comments on her
\npapers and the teacher seldom supported freedom of expression.<\/p>\n
According to this description, teachers of writing are much
\nmore concerned with the written product and seem to overlook the
\nstudents' overall learning experience in regards writing.<\/p>\n
This inevitably brings about a negative result for students:
\nThey become confused, distressed and bored with the demands on
\ntheir writing assignment, and end up feeling constantly
\nintimidated in class. In addition, they often fail to meet their
\nteacher's expectations. The flip side is that when they do manage
\nto fulfill expectations, the students feel they have not acquired
\nthe abilities needed to write well.<\/p>\n
Teaching students to write successfully to meet the academic
\ndemands of their college or university careers is a challenging
\nand arduous enterprise. Endeavors have been made to enhance the
\nefficacy of writing instruction by introducing new approaches and
\ntheories to teaching. Nevertheless, writing is still perceived as
\na notoriously arduous and intricate skill to teach.<\/p>\n
Writing is indeed a complex skill to teach and to learn, as it
\ninvolves not only the mastery of grammar, diction, syntax and the
\nability to arrange sentences in logical order, but it also
\ninvolves the skill to make the written word intelligible to
\nreaders. Writing is not just a matter of generating, composing
\nand revising ideas on paper, but an act of translating these
\nideas into readable texts in a context appropriate to different
\naudiences.<\/p>\n
Put simply, writing is not a mere product. It is an
\nundertaking of complex cognitive processes.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, it is this very critical understanding of
\nwriting that our teachers lack.<\/p>\n
Due to the inherent complexity of writing, teachers often
\nbecome frustrated, focused on succeeding in their instruction.
\nWhat is more, with the emergence of so many conflicting writing
\ntheories and so many applications to consider, many language
\nteachers feel daunted by teaching writing.<\/p>\n
Beset by the uncertainties and perplexities of adopting the
\nappropriate approach, teachers feel they no longer need coherent
\nperspectives, principles or models -- theories of thought -- upon
\nwhich to base their instruction. The ideology behind teaching is
\nthus ignored and even neglected by teachers.<\/p>\n
A pragmatic approach to teaching writing only presupposes an
\nassumption about writing per se. Questions related to ideology
\nsuch as the students' purpose in learning to write in a new
\nlanguage, different writing styles, intended audiences and
\nwriting context are not given sufficient consideration in
\ncomposition classes taught by teachers with pragmatic aims.<\/p>\n
Writing teachers clearly need a strong basis in educational
\nideology and theories to be competent. A firm grounding in
\ntheories that shape writing instruction in the classroom can help
\nteachers gain a significant insight into previous assumptions
\nabout writing.<\/p>\n
The fact that many university graduates are unable to write
\nwell stem primarily from a teacher's fallacious notion that
\nteaching writing is tantamount to teaching the linguistic
\ncomponents embodied in written language. This is to say that
\nteachers instill writing correctly in the students' minds, rather
\nthan good writing. The result is that students regard writing as
\na skill associated with the application of graphic rules, not the
\nfluent communication of ideas.<\/p>\n
It is common practice -- even at the university level -- that
\nthe objectives of writing instruction still cling to a
\nmechanistic approach, dealing with the accuracy of grammar and
\nrhetorical structure of the language studied. As such, writing
\ncontinues to be taught based on rigidly prescriptive principles.<\/p>\n
A teacher's limited knowledge of what actually differentiates
\nwriting from other linguistic skills, such as speaking, can also
\nbe a great impediment to producing mature student writers. It may
\nthus come as no surprise if a university graduate's writing is
\ntypically characterized by the \"spoken code\", rather than those
\nfeatures that govern the written form.<\/p>\n
A vital perspective on writing that many composition teachers
\nlack is the fundamental idea that writing is a process of
\ndiscovering meaning. This implies that during the process of
\nwriting, students are given an opportunity to formulate,
\nelaborate, clarify and reformulate their ideas. In order to
\nenable students to discover and express their ideas, teachers
\nshould facilitate classroom activities and an environment
\ndesigned to promote fluency in writing.<\/p>\n
The practice, however, seems to be the other way around.
\nTeachers often view student compositions as fixed and final
\nproducts to be judged, assessed and scored. At this juncture,
\nsuch an evaluation is counterproductive as it limits the notion
\nof writing as an exercise in deriving meaning.<\/p>\n
Finally, it is truly ironic that many university teachers are
\nassigned to teach writing, even though they have never had any
\nwriting experience -- that is, in publishing their work in
\nnewspapers, scientific journals and other media. At best, they
\nare able to assist their students in learning grammatical
\nstructure and acquiring knowledge of those graphic conventions
\nneeded for writing correctly, nothing more.<\/p>\n
As a final remark, there seems to be no better way to teach
\nwriting to our students and nurturing their growth as mature
\nwriters than to assign teachers who are not only knowledgeable of
\nteaching ideologies, but who also have ample experience in
\npublishing their own writing in national and international
\njournals.<\/p>\n
The writer is a lecturer in the Department of English
\nEducation at Atma Jaya Catholic University.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/the-first-class-instruction-of-english-as-a-second-language-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}