Pursuing SL argumentative writing scholarship as a synergistic endeavor

Journal of Second Language Writing 36 (2017) 75–76 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Second Language Writing journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jslw Disciplinary dialogues Pursuing SL argumentative writing scholarship as a synergistic endeavor MARK Amanda Kibler Curry School of Education, University of Virginia, 417 Emmet Street South, Charlottesville, VA 22901, USA As an SLW scholar familiar with L1 research and pedagogical traditions who studies multilingual students’ writing in a range of U.S. classroom contexts, I find particular resonance in Alan Hirvela’s call for pursuing a “comprehensive agenda” regarding the teaching and learning of argumentation in second language writing (SLW). In this response I first comment on some of the complexities inherent in studying argumentation before suggesting possible ways forward that could foster the kinds of empirical and pedagogical insights needed in our field. There are notable complexities inherent in the study of argumentation with which our field must contend. First is that of definition: In their recent book, Hirvela and colleagues (Newell, Bloome, & Hirvela, 2015) claimed that while certain key features of the social practice of argumentation can be identified, it is clearly a “pluralistic” enterprise that varies widely. In this sense, individuals teaching or pursuing “argumentation” may be engaging in very different textual practices, and others may be unaware that what they write or teach actually fits into any particular argumentative tradition. Argumentation in schools and universities is often seen to vary by academic discipline (Gitrow, 2000; Hyland, 2000), but scholars like Prior (1998) claim that such settings are so “locally situated, extensively mediated, deeply laminated, and highly heterogeneous” (p. 275) that they defy categorization even within specific disciplinary settings. This situation becomes even more complex when considering the many different academic and professional contexts across the world in which argumentation is undertaken. While the U.S.-based “argument industry” focused on L1 writers has firm institutional footing in writing and rhetoric programs at the university level and English language arts classrooms at the secondary level, the situation for SLW is notably more complex. In the U.S., SL writers at the university level may learn argumentation in required writing courses (which may or may not be designed for multilingual writers) or in intensive English programs: Teachers in these varied contexts draw from quite different pedagogical backgrounds and traditions, with very few likely to have a firm understanding of both argumentation and the needs of SL writers. Secondary schools in the United States are in a similar position, with responsibility for writing instruction often shared between English language arts teachers, who are typically trained in writing pedagogy but not SL instruction, and language specialists, who work exclusively with SL students but may have little expertise in writing and argumentation. As I have found in my own work, there can be disciplinary disconnects between these two groups of teachers in relation to writing instruction, with institutional pressures at times working against collaboration (Kibler, Heny, & Andrei, 2016). Although such particular pedagogical situations clearly differ across the many global contexts in which argumentation is taught to SL writers, a better understanding of language and literacy teachers’ expertise and their enactment of it remains a pressing issue. At the same time, SL and L1 writing contexts share other complexities, ones that could lead to fruitful areas of collaboration. For example, argumentation takes place not only in language or literacy courses but also in disciplines and subject areas, whose instructors may have expertise in a subject such as biology and the ways that biologists engage in argumentation, but little pedagogical training in writing. Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) programs at the university and literacy initiatives at the K-12 level in the U.S. have argued that all teachers are teachers of writing (and reading): Our field might benefit from more sustained institutional and scholarly engagement with those efforts to highlight the role that all teachers play in both L1 and SL writers’ development of argumentative writing expertise. Another challenge in SLW scholarship mentioned by Hirvela relates to understanding culturally-related rhetorical differences in E-mail address: akk2v@virginia.edu. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.05.003 Available online 09 May 2017 1060-3743/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Journal of Second Language Writing 36 (2017) 75–76 A. Kibler argumentation. Here again, we have common ground with L1 studies that can be fruitfully explored. Scholars in both fields can build upon sociolinguistic understandings of how individuals’ discourse patterns may (or may not) reflect their social positions and membership in racial/ethnic, educational, socioeconomic, and other communities, both within and across language groups. This basic understanding can be a starting point for instruction in any classroom, requiring teachers of both L1 and SL writers to recognize students’ various sociolinguistic identities, but to also engage with these writers as individuals rather than as assumed members of any monolithic cultural group. Establishing and pursuing a robust SL argumentative writing agenda would bring benefits not only to argumentative writing pedagogy more generally but also to SL learners in particular. More specifically, greater orientation toward “arguing to learn” in SLW pedagogy (regardless of whether the teacher is a language specialist) may bring students additional benefits beyond the “critical thinking” skills that Hirvela mentions. Because SL writers are often stymied by instructors focusing on linguistic accuracy rather than the content of their writing, an emphasis on inquiry in arguing to learn has the potential to recalibrate this relationship in both the instruction and assessment of argumentative writing. There are robust traditions of SL writers arguing to learn, but in my work I have found that these tend to exist outside of traditional academic contexts, ones in which literacy practices have very different purposes (Kibler, 2014). The ways in which an arguing-to-learn tradition is being (or could be) meaningfully integrated into more typical classrooms with SL writers is a fascinating area of study. As I write this response in the aftermath of the 2016 U.S. presidential election, I am keenly aware that argumentation also plays an important civic role for all writers in our society. In a recent listserv post, literacy scholar David Pearson argued that the U.S presidential campaign and subsequent election is “an indictment of our efforts as educators, and particularly literacy educators, to promote any and/or every form of critique” (1/16/17, Literacy Research Association listserv). Such issues are important to teachers and writers regardless of their political beliefs, language backgrounds, or particular contexts, and never has the case for scholarship supporting effective argumentative writing instruction been more compelling. References Gitrow, J. (2000). Argument as a term in talk about student writing. In S. Mitchell, & R. Andrews (Eds.), Learning to argue in higher education (pp. 129–145). Portsmouth, NH: Boyton/Cook. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses. Social interactions in academic writing. Harlow, UK: Longman. Kibler, A., Heny, N., & Andrei, E. (2016). In-service teachers’ perspectives on adolescent writing instruction. TESOL Journal, 7(2), 350–392. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1002/tesj.211. Kibler, A. (2014). From high school to the noviciado (novitiate): An adolescent linguistic minority student’s multilingual journey in writing. Modern Language Journal, 98(2), 629–651. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12090.x. Newell, G. E., Bloome, D., & Hirvela, A. (2015). Teaching and learning argumentative writing in high school English language arts classrooms. New York: Routledge. Prior, P. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Amanda K. Kibler is Associate Professor in the Department of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education at the University of Virginia. Her research focuses on multilingual children and adolescents’ language and literacy development and the implications of these processes for teaching and learning. 76