Teaching with Technology

Blog 6

Learning a language is more than learning vocabulary and grammatical rules; it includes learning the cultural nuances that texture a language’s use. Xing et als’ article, Raising the students’ awareness of cross-cultural contrastive rhetoric in English writing via an e-learning course examines five basic differences between Chinese  and English academic writing and labels these differences contrastive rhetorical features. The article describes how Chinese postgraduate students (studying English as a foreign language (EFL) in China took an e-learning course and “closed the gap” (p. 83) between several of these contrastive rhetorical features.

An objective of the course was to make students aware of the five contrastive rhetorical differences that had been determined to encapsulate the major differences between Chinese and English academic writing. These differences were:  placement of the thesis statement; the use of discourse markers to provide transitions between paragraphs and between ideas; use of metaphors; the number of paragraphs and topic changes. Essentially, the Chinese writers wrote in a circular style that does not directly address the main topic. Native English writers quickly identify the main idea and write in a linear style that directly explores the main idea. This distinction is important because, “from the point of view of the teacher … overseas students may have a logical orientation, but it may be perceived to be illogical to a reader anticipating a different culturally-constrained demonstration of logic” (p. 71).

To “facilitate students’ academic writing in the target language” (p. 76) the e-course utilized “synchronous chat room facilities, including the occasional use of Web video cameras, and asynchronous e-mail and bulletin boards”. This framework allowed for collaboration between and among students, teachers and tutors.  Graphs, charts and essays written by the native English speaking instructors were posted for the students to review. Additionally, these materials were to elicit students’ questions and comments to which the instructors and other students responded. Similarly, students posted their writing and received comments from their cohorts, teachers and tutors.

The collaborative aspects the e-course afforded was well-received by the students and considered a key element to the program’s success by the instructors. “The communication between Chinese students and English native speakers allowed students to observe, compare and analyse parallel materials from their respective cultures. They could exchange viewpoints in a reciprocal way and gain an ever-deepening understanding of the other culture, thereby expanding their cross-cultural analysis” (p.78).

The English students who took the e-course were “successful in learning about defined aspects of English writing, reaching a level of performance that equaled that of native English speakers” (p.71). Their results were much better than those from a control group of English students that did not take the e-course.  Although, these students do not appear to have received any overt instruction in contrastive rhetorical features making it impossible to compare the two groups on the basis of instructional delivery methods, i.e., online versus offline.  That said, I think e-courses offer great opportunities for collaborative work, like the peer and instructional review work that was deemed such an important component by the students and the instructors. Because of class time restrictions, an offline class would be unlikely to afford the degree collaboration that is possible in an online class. From my experiences as an English as a second language teacher and as a cohort of international graduate students I have seen a hunger by international students to understand and master the cultural aspects of English writing. After all, they are being evaluated and rewarded by teachers and potential employers that are often native English speakers. E-learning courses can offer a powerful forum for language learners to develop an important awareness of contrastive rhetorical features along with the ability to address those differences through a more easily appreciated style of writing. 

Xing, M. ,et al (June 2008). Raising the students’ awareness of cross-cultural contrastive rhetoric in English writing via an e-learning course, Language Learning & Technology, (12) 2, 71-93. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num2/xingetal.pdf