Evaluating the treatment of L2 writing: an analysis of French textbooks.

Abstract

Recent research in the realm of second language (L2) composition has rejuvenated composition theory. Unable to blindly accept that the fruit of L2 research will easily and automatically be applied to L2 textbooks, educators must carefully track its presence in the textbooks they are considering for adoption. The following pages examine and demonstrate how an evaluation checklist can both strengthen and facilitate the textbook review process, and call attention to a disparity between textbook claims and textbook practice.

Introduction

Most language teachers at any given level of instruction are inextricably involved with their textbook. For better or for worse, the teacher-textbook relationship is so solid that "the textbook or the sequence of textbooks being used often drives the individual course syllabus as well as the overall curriculum" (Byrnes 29). Given this relationship, the present article sought to review treatment of the writing skill in the second language (L2) classroom as it manifests itself in our textbooks.

In a 1989 review of L2 textbooks, Byrnes identified a lacuna in the area of L2 writing. Indeed, many language educators assumed that first language (L1) writing skills would automatically and easily transfer to the L2 writing context (Scott), leading Byrnes to christen the writing skill the "stepchild" of language learning. In the same year, Terry lamented that "of the four skills that are discussed and (supposedly) taught with equal emphasis in our foreign language classrooms, writing is perhaps the most poorly understood and the skill that is given, in fact, the most cursory attention" (143).

Fortunately, for teacher and student alike, great strides in L2 composition research and pedagogy have taken shape over the past two decades. Barnett and Scott, among many others, have impressed upon the profession the need to begin L2 composition training and practice from the earliest stages of instruction, as well as the importance of viewing composition as an evolving process, rather than a static product. For Scott, writing as a process implies "a succession of actions undertaken to bring about some desired result. These actions may include planning, generating ideas, organizing, analyzing, synthesizing, and revising" (31). Scott goes on to recommend that L2 instructors:

* discuss the L1 writing process before jumping into that of the L2;

* teach writing as discovery;

* design writing assignments that engage students in the writing process;

* discuss the intended audience;

* teach students effective strategies for generating ideas;

* teach students to revise; and

* develop an awareness of a monitor. (45-55)

Although important recommendations have been made, their implementation can't be guaranteed. For example, in a cursory review of the treatment of L2 writing in six postsecondary texts, Lally found that two textbooks ignored the writing skill entirely, two promoted writing, and two textbooks addressed writing on an occasional basis. Lally concluded that "recommendations have yet to be fully implemented in practice" (310).

But how can the overworked language teacher stay both abreast of developments in all language skills (reading, writing, speaking, listening comprehension, and cultural competence) and skillfully and efficiently evaluate the presence of these developments in potential textbooks? Of course, instruments such as formulas, checklists, and criteria lists exist to help educators evaluate pedagogical materials (MacDonald). OlivaresCuhat, however, has noted that most evaluation tools are exceedingly superficial in nature, such that they may be used for all types of textbooks, and often general enough to apply to multiple subjects. In response, Olivares-Cuhat calls for the development of field-specific evaluation techniques for each content/subject area and offers an example for the L2 writing skill that is not only field- (and skill-) specific, but that relies on cognitive theories of learning and writing as both a process and a product, and on a learner-centered teaching method.

Building upon the work of Hayes, Olivares-Cuhat defines writing in general, and L2 writing in particular, as a "communicative, generative, and intellectual activity requiring a social context and medium, motivation, and cognitive processes characterized by reflection, text production, and interpretation" (1). Included within the cognitive considerations of L2 writing is the position that learning and writing are a type of cognitive skill learning. For Olivares-Cuhat, the pedagogical advantage of considering L2 acquisition as a process of skill-getting is that learning strategies can be included in L2 writing instruction.

The Instrument

At its core, Olivares-Cuhat's evaluation model considers "cognitive functions (reflection, text-production, and interpretation), learning strategies, linguistic features, and process/product-oriented approaches as key aspects in L2 writing instruction as they embrace and condition the writing process and its outcome" (5). Accepting these far-reaching developments as new truths, Olivares-Cuhat offers a pedagogical checklist that can be used to evaluate the writing components of general L2 textbooks, as well as those devoted solely to composition, either alone, or in combination with other instruments and questions while "always including representative components of SLA and L2 writing theories in its questions" (6).

Olivares-Cuhat's checklist contains seventeen statements that are to be scored according to a two-part weighting scale. First, each of the 17 statements (see Appendix A) is rated along a 0 to 4 continuum (excellent: 4, completely lacking: 0). Next, each of the 17 items is weighted according to the following criteria:

If the instructor views an item as absolutely necessary, it receives a weight of 4;

If the item is considered beneficial in the eyes of the instructor, it receives a weight of 2;

If the item is not applicable to the goals of the course, it receives a weight of 0.

As for the 17 criteria, the first five statements investigate the presence of cognitive writing functions. Statements 6 and 7 examine the type of writing approach (e.g., guided composition or a process/product focus) used in the textbook. Statements 8 through 11 examine whether cognitive, metacognitive, social, and affective strategies are applied. The next three statements consider the inclusion of morphosyntactic, lexical, cultural, and discourse features. Finally, the last two statements examine the inclusion of diverse learning strategies and the methodological/teaching approach used (7). Olivares-Cuhat states that the checklist is flexible such that statements related to the goals for a given class or level may be added. In addition to its flexibility, the two main contributions of this checklist are:

* that it include[s] language learning and L2 writing components from a cognitive perspective and it is field specific. In other words, it is designed specifically for L2 writing instructional design; and,

* the inclusion of learning strategies and their training as an essential component in L2 writing textbooks, which can help both instructors and students. (7)

Olivares-Cuhat admits that her evaluation checklist does not explicitly address some aspects of the learning process (e.g., students' characteristics and needs, classroom environment, curriculum objectives, the institution, and teaching style). Nevertheless, most of these points, such as classroom environment, curricular objectives, and institution / teaching style, can be indicated and accounted for through the two-part weighting system, which is entirely at the teacher's discretion. Although necessary to maintain the instrument's flexibility (i.e., to allow instructors the freedom to weight criteria according to their individual and curricular needs), a potential drawback is the lack of a scale or a set of guidelines to help users interpret the overall textbook score.

Evaluating Texts

Armed with Olivares-Cuhat's checklist, the present author examined 12 post-secondary L2 (French) textbooks in order to determine whether, and to what extent, recently-issued L2 textbooks reflected the L2 writing theory and research of the past decade. Certainly one must expect a delay accounting for the time spanning the execution of a study, its publication, acceptance by/integration into the profession's belief system, and its manifestation in published textbooks. However, notions such as process/productoriented composition, skill/strategy training, cognitive/metacognitive/social/affective strategies, and the consideration of morphosyntactic, lexical, cultural, and discourse features are now considered essential by many (Barnett; Byrnes; Coehn; Flower; Hayes; Lally; Olivares-Cuhat; Weaver and Cohen).

Five of the postsecondary textbooks examined in this study were introductory (first and second semesters), four were intermediate (third and fourth semesters), and three were advanced (the equivalent of the fifth semester or beyond). The advanced textbooks were devoted solely to L2 composition, whereas the introductory and intermediate texts treated--at least in principle--all language skills. In order to focus on the trend rather than the text, the individual textbooks are not named. (1)

For the purpose of this investigation each of the 17 criteria were weighted equally--that is, all were considered absolutely necessary (a weight of 4). When using this instrument for their own ends, individual instructors would need to adjust the weight of the 17 statements according to their individual and institutional outcomes objectives. Also, this review only examined writing activities wherein students were to "create meaning through the arrangement of words, sentences, and paragraphs" (Scott x), rather than those for which writing is a support skill, such as copying, drafting lists, and filling in blanks. In the latter case, the goal of writing is subordinate to the acquisition and practice of the "lexical and syntactic aspects of the target language" (Scott x), not necessarily the creation of meaning.

Introductory Texts

The five introductory textbooks were all issued between the years 2000 and 2002. The overall textbook ratings are presented in Table 1 below. The average overall score for the introductory textbooks, as measured by Olivares-Cuhat's L2 writing checklist, was 90.

The most interesting and informative descriptive statistic, however, is the range of scores (from 12 to 171, or 159). Clearly some recently-issued introductory texts continue to marginalize the writing skill. In fact, textbooks 1 and 2 both contained a paltry sum of two formal writing activities in the entire program (this includes ancillary materials). There was no writing strategy training of any kind, nor were there any discussions of cognitive functions, revising techniques, or writing as a process.

Intermediate Texts

The four intermediate textbooks, all issued between 1999 and 2001, were more encouraging than the first-year texts. The overall textbook ratings are presented in Table 2 below. The average overall score for the intermediate textbooks, as measured by Olivares-Cuhat's L2 writing checklist, was 162.

Although scoring much higher than the first-year cohort in terms of the textbooks' incorporation of the fruit of recent L2 writing theory and research into practice, not all four texts did equally as well, varying from an overall score of 70 to a score of 216: a range of 146.

Advanced Texts

The three advanced texts were all issued between 1998 and 2001. Overall ratings for the advanced textbooks are presented in Table 3.

The average overall score for the advanced textbooks as measured by Olivares-Cuhat's L2 writing checklist was 217. The advanced texts showed relatively little variation in their scores (a total range of 12). Additionally, and not surprisingly, the advanced textbooks, which were all devoted to L2 composition, scored much higher than the introductory and intermediate textbooks in terms of their incorporation of recent L2 composition developments (as measured by Olivares-Cuhat's 17 criteria) into textual practice.

Discussion

The total number of possible points in Olivares-Cuhat's checklist is 272. The first-year texts averaged an overall score of 90. The second-year texts averaged an overall score of 162, and the advanced texts averaged an overall score of 224 (with a maximum weight of 4 assigned to each criterion). The fact that the third-year texts had the highest overall scores is not surprising. Given that the third-year texts were devoted to L2 composition, we should expect nothing less than a timely reflection of the most recent theory and research. The disparity between first- and second-year texts, as well as their significant lag behind the advanced texts, is inexcusable. Indeed, Scott has found that "high school and college students are able to write extended compositions after as few as four weeks of FL study" (163) thereby eliminating the need to postpone writing activities until later levels of instruction (Swaffar). Moreover, each of the introductory and intermediate textbooks pledged allegiance to all language skills:

* this program promotes cultural content in all four skills throughout the first year;

* this program provides students with multiple opportunities for listening to, speaking, reading, and writing French;

* a primary goal of the program is the refinement of communicative skills in the four skill areas (listening, speaking, reading, writing) and culture;

* this program provides a balanced, four-skills approach to learning French through a variety of speaking, listening, reading, and writing activities,

to cite but a few prefaces. Yet few put into practice what they claimed to do in their introductory pages.

This profound disparity between what beginning and intermediate texts claim to do and what they actually deliver in terms of L2 writing should be of major concern to language educators. In many cases the teacher will be disappointed by the jargon-filled annotations and promotional pages. Unquestionably, the best solution is a profound and expansive review of all potential textbooks prior to adoption. However, in light of the obvious obstacles faced by language teachers, most ostensibly time, a second option is the application of previously-developed (and reviewed) evaluation tools to render the textbook evaluation process more manageable.

The preceding pages sought to outline how one such evaluation tool can facilitate examination of the treatment of L2 writing. More important, the application of this particular procedure to post-secondary French texts has demonstrated a striking disparity between what many texts do and what they claim they do: caveat lector.

Appendix: Checklist Criteria. Summarized from Olivares-Cuhat.

1. The textbook provides sufficient activities developing all three cognitive functions: reflection, text production, and interpretation.

2. Textbook teaches generation of ideas as key element for L2 writing.

3. Textbook teaches how to organize ideas and thoughts prior to writing.

4. Textbook provides a variety of instances for text production.

5. Textbook material emphasizes editing and revising as a constant procedure and collaborative procedure.

6. Most activities emphasize a guided approach.

7. Most activities emphasize a process/product approach.

8. The activities include practice on stylistics (e.g., tone, audience, cohesive devices and transitional phrases, etc.)

9. The writing activities offer practice on each writing genre (e.g., description, argumentation, narration, etc.)

10. The materials provide information on culture and traditions of the target language.

11. Most activities emphasize the application of cognitive strategies (e.g., grouping, summarizing, writing different texts).

12. Most activities emphasize the application of metacognitive strategies (e.g., planning, monitoring, reflecting).

13. Most activities emphasize social strategies (e.g., peer-revision, pair work, collaboration).

14. Most activities emphasize affective strategies (e.g., lowering anxiety levels).

15. Most activities include definitions of learning/reading/writing strategies.

16. Most activities include explicit strategies with information on how to use them.

17. Most activities include explicit strategies with information on how to use them, plus reflection and evaluation of the strategy's success (SBI).

Table 1 Overall Scores by Introductory Textbook

Text    1    2    3    4     5
Score   12   28   84   171   156
Table 2 Overall Scores by Intermediate Textbook

Text    1    2     3     4
Score   70   168   195   216
Table 3 Overall Scores by Advanced Textbook

Text    1     2     3
Score   212   224   216

Note

Information about the specific textbooks reviewed may be obtained from the author.

Works Cited

Barnett, Marva. "Writing as Process." French Review 63 (1989): 31-44.

Byrnes, Heidi. "Wither Foreign Language Pedagogy: Reflections in Textbooks-Reflections on Textbooks." Unterrichtspraxis 21 (1989): 29-36.

Cohen, A. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. New York: Addison, Wesley, and Longman. 1998.

Flower, Linda. The Construction of Negotiated Meaning! A Social Cognitive Theory of Writing. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP. 1994.

Hayes, John. "A New Framework for Understanding Cognition and Affect in Writing." The Science of Writing. Eds. C. Michael Levy and Sarah Ransdell. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc, 1996. 1-28.

Lally, Carolyn G. "Back to the Future: A Look at Present Textbooks and Past Recommendations." Foreign Language Annals 31 (1998): 307-14.

MacDonald, R.C. A Handbook of Basic Skills and Strategies for Beginning Teachers. White Plains, NY: Longman Group LTD. 1991.

Olivares-Cuhat, Gabriela. "An Alternative Approach for L2/FL Composition Textbooks." Academic Exchange Quarterly 5 (2001): 1-14.

Scott, Virginia. Rethinking Foreign Language Writing. Boston: Heinle and Heinle. 1996.

Swaffar, Janet. "Language Learning is More than Learning Language: Rethinking Reading and Writing Tasks in Textbooks for Beginning Language Study." Foreign Language Acquisition Research and the Classroom. Ed. Barbara Freed. Lexington Heath, 1991. 252-80.

Terry, Robert. "Teaching and Evaluating Writing as a Communicative Skill." Foreign Language Annals 22 (1989): 43-54.

Weaver, S. and Cohen, A. Strategy-Based Instruction: A Teacher Training Manual. Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA) Working Papers Series #7. 1997.

Gascoigne is an Assistant Professor of French and Second Language Acquisition.