SBU Brooklogue

by Grace Sargent, March 26, 2023

Introduction

There is a vast amount of literature regarding the operation of writing centers and how to handle the different student demographics they encounter. Given the multitude of perspectives presented, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of the different approaches suggested by knowledgeable figures. Jane Cogie, the Director of the Writing Center at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, suggests a handful of strategies for writing center tutors to utilize when tutoring ESL students and explains the value behind each of them. Sharon Myers, the Director of Academic ESL Program at Texas Tech University, responds to Cogie by pointing out the severe weaknesses of her methods, and offers alternative approaches to tutoring ESL students. 

Why is ESL Tutoring Different?

Although writing centers at American universities are helping students with English, there must be an awareness on behalf of writing center staff regarding the second language barriers that many students face. Native English speakers responding well to a certain tutoring strategy does not necessarily determine that an ESL student will react similarly, effectively introducing the concern of an appropriate approach to tutoring ESL students. Although it may seem like a negligible factor, Cogie has found that nearly 40 percent of her writing center clients are ESL students—proving that there is indeed a need present (Cogie 7).

Furthermore, one factor that has played a large role in encouraging a different approach for tutoring ESL students is the tendency for writing centers to encourage non-directive tutoring. Non-directive tutoring is a strategy used by many tutors that allows tutees to remain in control of the session and therefore their work, and strengthen their ability to problem solve with minimal assistance. Another characteristic of this method involves the tutor asking multiple questions that aim to guide the student as opposed to leading them. However, Cogie clarifies that the “inadequacy of non-directive tutoring” for ESL students lies largely in the fact that they “often lack the knowledge to engage in the question-and-answer approach to problem-solving used in most writing centers” (Cogie 7).

Cogie’s Ideas

After establishing how ESL students are commonly tutored ineffectively, Cogie claims the main question left unanswered was then, “How can we help students…function more independently as writers?” (Cogie 9). She proceeds to answer this question by proposing several strategies and detailing their value. They include using a learner’s dictionary, minimal marking, and error logs, which all “involve error awareness, identification, and self-correction” (Cogie 11). 

Cogie goes on to state that each of the strategies she advocates for are all “essential to the acquisition of a language,” which is arguably the biggest obstacle for ESL students and their writing (Cogie 11). Minimal marking involves the tutor using the margins of a paper to simply put check marks next to sentences that have unaddressed issues. The amount of issues is indicated by the number of check marks; three check marks signaling three points of concern. This is designed to accelerate the process of finding the problem itself, without immediately providing an answer for the student, and effectively prompts them to figure it out themselves.

Next is a learner’s dictionary, which is of great value for an ESL student due to its extensive instruction on “grammatical and syntactic information” (Cogie 14). Dictionaries for native speakers unfortunately lack this kind of content and are therefore rendered less effective in helping ESL students on their self-editing journey. As the tutor and the student are reading through a paper, they can easily turn to the learner’s dictionary as a means of properly explaining the path to correction. 

While introducing each of these strategies, Cogie is sure to emphasize their relationship with moderation; she asserts that they are best when used in moderation. This is especially apparent with the next strategy: error logs. These logs allow students to write down errors they frequently come across in their writing, and give them space to note how they should fix it in the future. They cannot—or should not be advised to—simply write down every error they find in a piece of their writing, as they won’t be able to properly retain it. Instead, their focus should be on the more common or glaring errors. A major appeal of the error log is its ability to be personalized to each individual student and tailored to their level of language understanding and development.

Myers’ Response

Following Cogie’s entire argument, Myers comes in with her own perspective. She counters that Cogie’s methods place far too much emphasis on ESL student errors instead of focusing on the value behind learning and acquiring more language. As Myers progresses through Cogie’s strategies, she highlights their weaknesses.

In regards to the learner’s dictionary, Myers first concedes that it isn’t entirely unreliable. Since they are indeed aimed toward ESL students, their lexical grammatical information can be of great help. Additionally, they may contain specific vocabulary for definitions that are intended to be easier for ESL students to read and comprehend. Despite these strengths, a major flaw within the learner’s dictionary is its inability to communicate to the student what exactly they need to be looking for. In other words, if a student is aware that one of their sentences contains an error, but they do not know how that error is categorized—for example, perhaps there is an issue with verb transitiveness—it becomes impossible for the student to edit their paper without searching the entire dictionary. Myers expresses a similar sentiment when discussing her disagreement with minimal marking. As she puts it, “I think we owe it to the student to at least identify the nature of errors and notjust to enumerate them” (Myers 59). 

Perhaps Myers’ biggest concern deals with the error logs, or, as she puts them, error log bogs. She believes that this strategy bogs ESL students down and unnecessarily prioritizes their attention to the “nature and analysis of wrong use of language” (Myers 60). Instead of dedicating a study session to a great search for errors, the student would benefit more from making an effort to learn the language.

Where to Locate Our Focus

Following Myers’ comprehensive counterargument to Cogie, it becomes increasingly clear that Cogie’s methods were grounded in native language naivety, rather than the reality of second language experience. Consequently, Myers encourages us to consider the latter more thoughtfully, which includes accentuating the importance of learning the language holistically. Overall, instead of taking the language level ESL students are currently at and remaining there by continuously searching for errors within it, tutors should be “giving the students more and more language from which to make choices, [and] establishing more and more links for them from the language they have to new language they need” (Cogie 64).

The Adequate Approach

Myers ends off her essay with possible strategies for tutors to use when encountering ESL students. One example aims to provide those students with a wider range of terminology when writing, and is done by having the tutor list a few alternative phrases to something the student wrote. Myers calls attention to the fact that “we use, and learn, much of language in words and word ‘chunks,’ not in abstract rules” (Myers 65). In other words, native speakers didn’t learn English by being introduced to each and every grammar rule individually, but rather by being exposed to more of the language and its correct forms, which allowed them to improve their own language to match what they learned over time.

Referring back to a point made earlier regarding writing centers and non-directive tutoring, there also needs to be an improvement made there. Many tutors are taught this idea that “giving second language students the language they need is ‘unethical’ or ‘immoral,’” however, this only helps them continue their language acquisition (Myers 66). Furthermore, resistance on behalf of the tutor to repeat certain ideas or rules to the ESL student needs to be lost as “repetition plays an important role in language learning” (Myers 66).  

Works Cited

Cogie, Jane. “Avoiding the Proofreading Trap: The Value of the Error Correction Process.” Writing Center Journal, 1999.

Myers, Sharon. “Reassessing the ‘Proofreading Trap’: ESL Tutoring and Writing Instruction.” Writing Center Journal, 2003.