Constructing Theoretical Notions of L2 Writing Through Metaphor Conceptualization
CONCLUSIONS
The 15-week long exercise on metaphorical conceptualization resulted in a variety of realizations that helped the teacher trainees understand, clarify, reconsider, expand, and/or change their own concepts of learning and teaching writing. Through metaphor, participants were able to link different conceptual domains to arrive at a better understanding of the ESL writer and teacher. Metaphors helped connect prevailing concepts of writing and pedagogical approaches as participants imagined themselves teaching from a particular metaphor or tried to identify with corresponding stances/paradigms. Through metaphor, they were able to recognize their classmates’ style of teaching or their perspectives of writing and teaching writing and expanded their repertoire of metaphors as they appropriated their classmates’ conceptualizations. Participants were also able to modify and/or change their conceptions of writing. The exercise further enabled participants to develop their own voice and formulate plans of action to implement their new views in their classrooms. Metaphor was thus an effective mediator in our participants’ learning of writing notions.
Although conceptualizing through metaphor was a beneficial exercise for our participants, one of them, Sara, remained somewhat static during the intervention. Her metaphors for the ESL writer–a lightning bug that lights up, a caterpillar, a young soldier–portrayed the same passive learner awaiting instructions. Her adopted metaphor for the teacher (orchestra conductor), at the end of the course, suggested, however, the onset of change. Because Sara was the teacher with more than 15 years of experience, some questions arise. Can we say that she did not benefit from the experience because she did not change her views? Are her metaphors reflective of highly entrenched conceptions of the learner among teachers? What kind of conceptual restructuring did Sara experience? As we try to look for responses, we should bear in mind that the transformations that occur in the ZPD may not only lead to change but also “reproduce existing practices and values” (Wells, 1999, p. 133). Perhaps, in Sara’s case, there was more perpetuation of old beliefs than real change.
As we evaluate the methodology of the study, we find that conceptualizing through metaphor proved to be a useful strategy because it allowed us to see development in our participants’ beliefs about writing and teaching L2 writing. However, KAL teachers interested in metaphor conceptualization might want to complement the technique with two other instruments: literacy histories and interviews. Asking participants for a literacy history, in which to include how they learned their notions of writing and their experience as learners and teachers of writing, would give insights into the participants’ prior knowledge and shed light on the rationale for choosing their original metaphors. Interviews would prove useful not only for the researcher to clarify doubts but also to probe deeper into the participants’ set of beliefs.
Finally, through our study, we were able to witness the impact that intervention in the form of metaphorical conceptualization had on our students’ belief systems. To review, metaphorical conceptualization (a) promoted reflection and initiated changes at the theoretical level, (b) encouraged examination of beliefs and practices, (c) contributed to appropriation and internalization of socially shared concepts of writing, (d) aided in the formulation of teachers’ roles and plans of action, and (e) fostered a deep understanding of the social context of learning.
