Hirose Article - Post for 1/30

How does this article shed light on the notion of CR/IR? What are the strengths/weaknesses of the research? How does it relate to Casanave Ch. 2?

Hirose’s study is an interesting mix of support and contradiction for the concepts underlying CR and IR. The findings that writing styles/choices did not differ significantly between writings in an L1 and L2 seem to discredit the ideals of CR saying that there is a difference which transfers negatively into L2 writing. However, it could be argued that the lack of negative transfer is due to outside circumstances such as the students’ writing backgrounds, the nature of the essay, the time limit, etc., but this ideal also seems to contradict the CR which took little consideration of context and genre. These findings seem to fit well within the framework of IR, however, which makes greater efforts to take context into consideration and is more focused on drawing conclusions about the differences between cultures rather than forcing those conclusions to look like differences.

Some of these outside factors which could have influenced the results of the experiment are also some of the weakest areas of the research. For example, the study had a relatively low number of students participating and an unequal number of males and females. It also didn’t randomize by student the order of whether the L1 or L2 essay was given first. Although small issues, these could certainly have an effect on the study’s results. In addition, while the study tried to minimize variation by using student participants who had similar educational backgrounds, I think the fact that the participants had fairly extensive instruction in L2 writing defeated the purpose. Likely much of the feedback they were given in these classes was to use a deductive writing style, therefore starting with beginner students-- or at least those who had not been given fairly explicit instruction on the structure of English rhetoric-- would be more insightful.