When I first started working as a peer tutor at the DePaul University Center for Writing-based Learning (UCWbL), I found one of my biggest challenges to be leading appointments with EAL writers.
I noticed many English as an Additional Language (EAL) writers (although definitely not all of them!) structured their essays differently from native English writers. They also tended to ask for feedback on grammar and seemed to prefer appointment styles where I, as a tutor, was more directive.
As some of these tendencies conflicted with how we were taught to tutor, including prioritizing feedback based on the infamous Hierarchy of Concerns, I struggled to navigate the balance between providing the writer the experience they were seeking while following UCWbL core beliefs and practices.
This struggle was the inspiration behind this multi-part blog post: a compilation of research and actionable tips for conducting appointments specifically with EAL writers!
In Part One (this post) I’ll be talking about some scholarship and background information that can inform your approach to EAL appointments. In Part Two next week, I’ll share some actionable tips that you can implement the next time you work with an EAL writer.
Through scholarship based on research and observations of EAL tutoring, I explored how writers’ cultural backgrounds can affect appointments, tutors’ tendencies to conduct EAL and non-EAL appointments differently, and what tutors can do to tutor EAL writers more effectively.
Please note! While the UCWbL uses “EAL” to refer to all multilingual writers, the scholarship I referenced focused on writers who do not consider English to be their native language, therefore using terms like “ESL” (English as a Second Language) and “non-native speaker.” I believe the research surrounding tutoring non-native English speakers is often very applicable to any multilingual writer, which is why these sources were used.
Additionally, tutors should exercise discretion on how to approach the topics outlined in this post to avoid assuming a writer didn’t learn how to write in the United States or that English is not their native language based on an indication that they’re multilingual.
How Writers’ Cultural Backgrounds Can Affect Face-to-Face and Online Appointments
A writer’s cultural background can influence their rhetorical decisions and writing style. Understanding this allows tutors to approach these topics from the lens of cultural writing differences as opposed to deficiencies in writing ability.
As Harris and Silva put it, “With our heightened awareness of multiculturalism, we are also aware of cultural preferences that are reflected in writing” (527). What may seem like a bizarre rhetorical decision at first may make more sense if seen as a cultural writing difference.
For example, a U.S. academic writing convention is to have a thesis statement that summarizes the main argument at the end of the introductory paragraph. However, this writing structure is different from what many writers in other countries are taught like in Japan, where conventions for essays involve dividing a paper into four sections: introduction, development, turning point, and conclusion.
Without an understanding of cultural writing differences, a tutor may see an EAL writer who writes an academic essay without a thesis statement as not knowing how to construct an argument, as opposed to just not knowing how to structure an argument based on U.S. academic writing conventions.
Harris and Silva sum up this idea by stating, “Without any knowledge of cultural preferences, tutors are likely to see differences as weaknesses and to assume that ESL students need basic writing help” (527) especially because “many ESL students are unaware of or unfamiliar with the writing requirements, stylistic conventions, and specific genres used in their academic discipline” (Moussu 57).
In other words, U.S. academic writing conventions may be unfamiliar to EAL writers, and understanding this context allows tutors to approach these topics from a perspective of different writing styles instead of seeing EAL writers as being unable to write.
A writer’s cultural background may also influence their behavior during a tutoring appointment. If the writer and tutor are of cultural backgrounds with different expectations of behavior and politeness, this can cause “misunderstanding and confusion” (Bell and Youmans 52). Therefore, understanding that various cultures have different ideas of what constitutes politeness is imperative for tutors to see behaviors as potentially being related to culture instead of purposeful rudeness such as the amount of eye contact made and how much space is expected to be maintained between individuals (Harris and Silva 528).
For example, a writer may be from a culture where minimal eye contact is made, whereas a tutor may be from a culture where a lack of eye contact can be perceived as disinterest or even disrespect. Not knowing that cultural background can influence behavior could result in this tutor interpreting the writer’s body language as being disrespectful, changing the their attitude of how the appointment is going.
Understanding the potential link between these behaviors and cultural differences is also critical because “we also have to be aware that we might make unconscious judgements about others based on our expectations about such behaviors” (Harris and Silva 528). Knowing every tutor may have certain expectations for politeness that may not align with a writer’s expectations can minimize judgements, which can result in misunderstandings during appointments.
Additionally, a writer’s cultural background may affect their perceptions of the role of the Writing Center. While tutors often see themselves as peer collaborators, EAL writers may come to appointments with the expectation that tutors act as personal editors.
Understanding this difference in expectations can inform the tutor as to why a writer is making certain requests and can allow them to address and clarify differences in expectations.
Moussu writes, “ESL students have a strong preference for authoritative linguistic feedback (from teachers and WC tutors). In fact, ESL students often expect this type of feedback…from instructors and teachers” (58). If a writer has this perspective, the collaborative approach to agenda-setting and providing suggestions that many tutors take may seem confusing or not meet their expectations.
This is exacerbated by Bell and Youmans’s findings that “the notion of a student ‘collaborating’ with someone of greater status and authority can be problematic for some…students, many of whom lack a schema for the notion of collaborative learning” (40). Understanding a culture’s potential influence on a writer’s expectations for an appointment can provide context for a writer’s requests as to how an appointment is conducted.
Harris and Silva state that these differences in cultural expectations for how tutoring should be conducted means that “tutors cannot assume that a pattern of [collaborative] interaction that is common and accepted in their culture will be familiar or comfortable for their ESL students” (533). Therefore, tutors may want to clarify their reasons for conducting appointments collaboratively with the writer if they feel the writer has different expectations for interactions than them.
These differences in expectations for appointments can also influence the type of feedback EAL writers seek from appointments.
I’ve noticed in my personal experience that many EAL writers come into appointments seeking feedback on grammar and remain concerned about this topic even if I point out or try to steer the conversation towards higher-order concerns like essay organization, clarity, or argument.
Regarding this topic, Moussu finds that “ESL students who go to WCs [Writing Centers] in hopes of finding help with a difficult language and who specifically need feedback on what WC culture tends to regard as lower-order concerns may feel structurally excluded” (59). In other words, a tutor’s desire to focus on higher-order concerns over grammar in order to help the writer as effectively as possible may be seen as exclusionary by writers who come to Writing Centers specifically for grammatical feedback.
Observations of How Tutors Conduct EAL vs Non-EAL Writer Appointments
Thonus observed a number of Writing Center appointments for EAL and non-native English writers and noted patterns of differences in how tutors conducted each type. The goal of this section is not to tell tutors that treating EAL and non-EAL writers’ appointments differently is good or bad; rather, it is to inform them of potential differences in their approaches to these two types of appointments they may not be aware of themselves.
Thonus notes, “Tutors are far more likely to mitigate directives offered to NS [native speaker] tutees” (230) and that “not only did tutors use less mitigation with NNSs [non-native speakers] than with NSs, but they also used more upgraders with NNSs. Upgraders strengthen the force of directives, with the use of modals such as you have to and imperatives” (230).
Directives are explicit instructions to do something, and mitigation involves softening these directives so they’re not as forceful, as opposed to upgraders that make the writer feel a stronger need to obey the instruction.
Example of directive: “You should add a comma here”
Example of mitigation: “You might want to add a comma here”
Example of upgrader: “You need to add a comma here”
Additionally, Thonus states that tutors “talk on average 50% more than their tutees” (230) in appointments with NSs and that “this pattern is accentuated when the tutee is a NNS” (Thonus 230).
Tutors also engaged in fewer collaborative discussions to set an agenda and were more willing to give explicit answers to non-native speakers. They were more likely to make diagnoses for non-native speakers without the writer’s input, and often rejected non-native speakers’ self-evaluations (230-234).
Knowing about these tendencies can allow tutors to examine their own habits when it comes to approaching appointments with EAL vs. non-EAL writers and determine if these differences in approaches are something they wish to keep or change.
Stay tuned for Part Two!
Works Cited
Bell, Diana Calhoun, and Madeline Youmans. “Politeness and Praise: Rhetorical Issues in ESL (L2) Writing Center Conferences.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, 2006, pp. 31-47.
Harris, Muriel, and Tony Silva. “Tutoring ESL Students: Issues and Options.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 44, no. 4, 1993, pp. 525-537.
Moussu, Lucie. “Let’s Talk! ESL Students’ Needs and Writing Centre Philosophy.” TESL Canada Journal, vol. 30, no. 2, 2013, pp. 55-68.
Thonus, Terese. “What Are the Differences? Tutor Interactions With First- and Second-Language Writers.” Journal of Second Language Writing, vol. 13, 2004, pp. 227-242.