Researching Intercultural Learning

Investigations in Language and Education

L. Jin, M. Cortazzi, L. Jin, M. Cortazzi

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781137291646
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Teaching Languages

International perspectives on intercultural learning are presented within a framework of cultures of learning related to education and language learning and use in academic contexts. Intercultural learning involves learners travelling to learn in a place where other cultures of learning are dominant and to which they are usually expected to adapt.

Part I

Researching Transformations of Cultures of Learning through Internationalization

1

Cultures of Learning and Writing in the US Academy

Eli Hinkel

1.1 Overview

The past several decades have seen a dramatic growth in international student enrolments worldwide and in the United States, in particular. International students can include, for instance, such sojourners as: college and university students, academically bound learners who seek to obtain language skills prior to the beginning of their careers; professionals, or employees of a broad range of organizations, as well as their family members. Those who undertake to study in the United States often learn English as a second language (L2); here, the term second language (L2) refers to English as a second, foreign, or an additional language in bilingual or multilingual contexts. Such learners can come from all walks of academic life and pursue their learning objectives in various types of colleges and universities (Altbach and Knight, 2007).

Due to the ever-increasing pace of globalization and the mobility across national borders, large numbers of international students and new immigrants are enrolled in US colleges and universities (Open Doors, 2011). Both international and immigrant students can be enrolled in the US academy. However, one of the crucial differences between the former and the latter lies in their expected length of residence in the United States: international students are granted temporary visas with the express purpose of obtaining higher education, while immigrants are usually permanent residents or US citizens. In many investigations of these populations, the distinctions between these two groups are frequently not taken into account because considerations of social, cultural, and academic adjustments can apply equally to both cohorts of students. In the discussion below, as in many other studies, the legal status of L2 college and university enrollees is seen as being of little importance.

International learners of all kinds bring to the academic arena a great diversity of cultures of learning that are distinct from those commonly found in US educational institutions (or those in other English-speaking countries) (e.g., Andrade, 2006). L2 students are often faced with a complex adaptation to US academic and cultural norms, and particularly those that pertain to the Anglo-American culture of learning and, more specifically, the culture of academic writing (Hinkel, 1999; Lee, 2010; Wang, 2000). Martin Cortazzi and Lixian Jin (1996: 169) state, for example, that ‘any particular culture of learning will have its roots in educational, and, more broadly, cultural traditions of the community, or society in which it is located’. According to Jin and Cortazzi (2006: 9), the term ‘culture of learning’ refers to the commonly assumed, and taken-for-granted, frameworks of expectations, attitudes, values, and beliefs associated with teaching and learning. In this light, cultural attitudes and values also pertain to writing in the academy and to the educational goals that writing is expected to achieve. Broad-based societal frameworks undergird the culture of learning and writing in the academy. These frameworks also apply to how learners understand what is expected of them in writing assignments and how academic knowledge and written discourse are evaluated in their studies (Hinkel, 2011; Wang, 2000).

In general terms, culturally determined rules of appropriateness and contextualized relevance in written discourse and academic genres heavily impact on what content and ideas can be conveyed, how they are to be conveyed in accordance with the sociocultural norms, and how written discourse and text reflect the social contexts in language use. As many teachers know from experience, learning to write in accordance with the rhetorical formats and norms expected in English academic discourse can be a complicated and protracted process (e.g., Ferris and Hedgcock, 2005; Hinkel, 2002, 2011).

Many investigations of L2 skills have continually underscored that academic writing represents one of the most vital, and probably the most difficult, in an enormous range of abilities that newly enrolled cross-cultural learners need to attain. In the United States, the sociocultural elements of constructing academic writing and formal features of written discourse place great demands on students’ abilities. Thus, first, it seems necessary to take a look at the cultural foundations of student writing and formal written discourse in US colleges and universities. Based on several recent studies, the features of discourse expected in student writing and the specific criteria for their evaluation in the academy are also discussed, together with a brief description of student writing tasks in university courses.

1.2 Cultural bases of student academic writing in US colleges and universities

Research in the cultures of learning has demonstrated that cultural constructs in discourse and linguistic proficiency in academic writing play an indelible role in learners’ success in education. For instance, Cortazzi (2007) outlines a substantial number of variables that impact the attainment of the necessary skills in academic writing in English. These include (ibid.: 1): ‘linguistic, ethnic, social, cultural, and religious background and community membership; educational and social experience, and the role and extent of previous learning and use of English; the purpose of migration, and so on’ (ibid.). The author goes on to say that in practically all cases, the general guidelines for ‘developing writing skills for these learners will need to be modified in relation to school and classroom context and the individual learners’ needs’.

In another research report, Jin and Cortazzi (2006: 18–19) similarly point out the many cultural complexities that students encounter when learning to construct written academic discourse: ‘students are likely to face a number of challenges linked to written ... learning’ due to a range of reasons. These can be ‘a weakness in academic essay writing, due to a relative lack of emphasis on developing English writing’ in those locations where ‘few teachers have developed a high ability in writing in English’. In addition, due to a lack of familiarity with ‘discourse patterns expected in’ academic written prose, ‘students may use a background-before-main-point presentation of ideas, but this inductive pattern can be misunderstood by ... teachers [in English-speaking countries] if they do not find main ideas where they expect them’. Further difficulties in learning to produce appropriate academic writing may stem from students’ ‘unfamiliarity with academic expectations for written assessment, including unfamiliarity with the required critical responses and style of expressing personal ideas in academic work’. As Jin and Cortazzi explain, in students’ academic preparation, learning to produce formal written discourse receives comparatively little emphasis in education in various regions and, thus, it does not become ‘part of students’ academic socialization’.

Today, most language teachers and methodologists take it for granted that written discourse and language are inextricable from social and cultural contexts in the academy. Practically all L2 students who prepare to enter degree programs in US colleges and universities dedicate vast amounts of time and resources to learning to produce written academic prose. Unfortunately, as Jin and Cortazzi (2006) note, teachers (or students) in preparatory English language programs do not always have a clear picture of the types of writing and written discourse tasks required of students at the university level. In particular, academic learners need to become relatively well-versed in displaying knowledge of the subject matter within the formats expected in written academic discourse and text (e.g., Hinkel, 2001; Jin and Cortazzi, 1998b, 2006, 2011; Paltridge, 2006). To put it simply, the content of academic writing must be structured in a manner that meets the reader’s cultural presuppositions and assumptions in order to enable him or her to discern the writer’s intent and identify the stance.

In university writing, the features of written discourse and text need to follow a conventional genre-specific form and meet the sociocultural norms of appropriateness expected in student papers (e.g., Celce-Murcia and Olshtain, 2005; Ferris and Hedgcock, 2005; Hinkel, 1994). It is important to note that discourse frameworks in various cultures adhere to and value different rhetorical conventions (e.g., Hinkel, 1994, 2011; Jin and Cortazzi, 2011). For instance, as Jin and Cortazzi (2006) state, in many languages, the main idea (or the thesis) is not directly stated at the beginning of writing but is usually implied or alluded to throughout. In this case, L2 students socialized into such L1 discourse paradigms have to be explicitly taught that for American academic readers it is the writer who is responsible for making the main point clear early in the text, rather than it being the reader’s task to follow an exposition and draw a conclusion which is intended to be drawn but is not necessarily made explicit.

Research has determined that what is appropriate and inappropriate in academic written discourse in English is highly conventionalized (e.g., Hinkel, 2001; Swales, 1990, 2004). Typically, writing instruction focuses on such fundamental features of formal academic discourse as the organization of information (e.g., introduction, body, conclusion, and other discourse moves), the presence and the placement of the thesis statement, the structure of the paragraph (e.g., the topic sentence), the rhetorical support for the thesis included in every paragraph, and an avoidance of needless digressions, repetition, and redundancy, among many other factors. Thus, the purpose of writing is often stated explicitly at the outset: that is, a deductive framework plays a crucial role in how discourse is constructed and understood (Ferris, 2011; Scollon and Scollon, 2001).

The reason that the features of academic writing are difficult for most L2 students to learn is that they represent normative and relatively rigid characteristics of the academic genre that are not necessarily found in written discourse in rhetorical traditions other than the Anglo-American one (Hinkel, 1999, 2001). For example, educated L2 learners who are socialized in other rhetorical traditions are rarely aware of the US academic expectation that a clear thesis statement should be placed close to the beginning of one’s essay (see Jin and Cortazzi, 2006). Furthermore, sociocultural discourse paradigms prescribe what can or cannot be included in academic writing or what can or cannot be discussed in an academic essay (e.g. Cai, 1999; Coffin et al., 2003). For example, discussions of family affairs, one’s religious beliefs or political views, or certain social attitudes are considered unacceptable in academic writing. The assumed purpose of student university writing is to display and present knowledge of subject matter in accordance with the sociocultural expectations prevalent in the US academy (e.g., Celce-Murcia and Olshtain, 2005; Swales, 2004; Turner; 2011).

1.3 Sociocultural construction of academic writing and discourse

Along with many other researchers, Anna Mauranen (1996: 1–2) observes that writing and its attendant genre-specific paradigms follow culturally determined rhetorical practices that manifest themselves in typical discourse and linguistic features that pivot on fundamental sociocultural constructs. She further comments that writers may not be (and often are not) aware of these textual features or the underlying rhetorical practices because they are an integral element of schooling or literacy learning. In cross-cultural settings, the distinctions between writing paradigms ‘are more than a difference in cultural tastes’ because these impact not merely the readers’ expectations of rhetorical elegance and style, but can be seen (in the US academy) as a lack of coherence in writing or even of confused thinking and, thus, seriously damage ‘the credibility of nonnative writers’.

It seems that, for L2 students, one of the top priorities in learning to construct academic discourse and text is to identify their needs in learning the US culture of writing (e.g., Paltridge, 2006). Another important consideration is to investigate how learners’ own culturally determined beliefs, assumptions, and expectations affect their views on what is appropriate and valued in writing and discourse frameworks in various societies. For instance, to help learners take a different view of how written academic discourse is to be constructed, teachers may need to provide explicit instruction in US cultural norms in academic writing, L2 reader expectations, and the value of explicit argumentation and evidential examples in the Anglo-American student academic genre. This means that US teachers of writing themselves need not only explicit twofold awareness of their own cultural writing and discourse frameworks and of those of their particular international students using English as an L2, but the teachers also need to have relevant pedagogic strategies to relate these together for the students’ benefit.

L1 socialization in written discourse paradigms usually has so much influence on learning to write in an L2 that often, even with explicit instruction, learners are not always able to recognize the rhetorical features of L2 discourse in practice (Hinkel, 1994). In addition, however, as with most L2 learning, students need to work with a wide range of sociocultural norms and conventions prevalent in US academy. This factor alone makes it harder for learners to understand and apply what they are instructed to do. In many human societies, writing and literacy represent one of the most highly valued and prized domains of socialization and education. For this reason, many L2 learners may initially choose to adhere to the discourse frameworks acquired in their L1 literacy socialization and the value associated with the appropriateness of writing in a particular way. For example, in English, speakers are expected to present their points in a manner that is more direct than that common among speakers of many other languages (Jin and Cortazzi, 2011; Scollon and Scollon, 2001). Thus, in Anglo-American discourse, indirectness is devalued as a hallmark of politeness in student prose and, hence, should be avoided by students in the United States (Hinkel, 1997).

Despite some amount of variation that can be identified in the features of academic discourse and text across disciplines, many represent what Swales (1990, 2004) identified as recurring patterns of organization that appear to be greatly consistent across academic genres and university courses in the Anglo-American academy. Based on Swales’s findings, recurring structural features of academic discourse consist of purposeful and predictable discourse elements, such as a sequence in which there are moves establis...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Introduction: Research and Levels of Intercultural Learning
• Part I  Researching Transformations of Cultures of Learning through Internationalization
• Part II  Intercultural Learning in Developing Language and Academic Skills
• Part III  Transcultural Adjustment and Bridging Distances
• Postscript
• Index