ESL and WAC

One of the main thoughts that went through my mind while I was Reading these week’s articles was the fact that the authors commented on how learning to write (in academic settings) has been equated, in a way, to learning a foreign or second language.  I must say I was a bit shocked by the idea at first, but then I thought this was a way to problematize the issue of academic writing and to bring its complexities to the surface.

However, I must say this comparison seems to be more harmful than beneficial. Of course, I have not visited the scholarly works where this notion is put forward and elaborated on, but still, by no means do I feel that the two settings have more commonalities than differences. I must agree with Matsuda and Jablonski when they cite McCarhy on how the sharing of ethnic and cultural background between teachers and students, in the case of academic writing learning as opposed to LS learners, puts learners in privileged position second language learners practically never find themselves in. Nonetheless, it is my impression that the that the huge gap between the cognitive, social, psychological, political, cultural and economic forces pushing LS learners and those of L1 learners of academic writing requires little argumentation. The fact that L1 writing learners are acquainted with the demands of the educational system they make part of, the cultural and social values of their teachers and their expectations, and the simple fact that they are ‘insiders’ of the social groups they interact with everyday provides them with a great advantage. Difficult as the task can be, the possibilities are very different.

However, I must agree with Hall and Matsuda and Jablosnki when they call for a collaborative approach on the part of ESL and WAC/WID specialists. As NNES’s populations increase in the US, it is becoming clear that sooner and later the higher education system will have to acknowledge this reality and transform itself to provide minded institutional responses. Clearly, interaction between ESL and WAC scholars should be at the centre of these initiatives. 

Writing centers

This week readings deal with the role writing centers play (or should) in the development of writing skills on the part ELL’s, particularly, in the way one-to-one tutorials between instructors and learners should be conducted. In their article, Matsuda and Cox discuss three different approaches instructors could take when reading drafts: assimilationist, accommodationist, and

separatist. The authors describe how each of these three stances take place in tutorial sessions.  They warn readers about the causes and effects of adopting the assimilationist approach and advocate for the adoption of a different model, though they do mention the issues learners may encounter if they do not assimilate to the widespread practices of the target language culture, such as pressures from institutional parties with some kind of authorities upon learners. Ultimately, they propose a few strategies that can be adopted on the part of instructors in order to provide room for students’ agency, strategies that are based on the assumption that reading a text is more than reading the rules that ‘should’ govern it, but instead, reading the the writer and understanding the reasons why texts written by NNES’ differ from the ones of their native counterparts. Such approach, might lead to a better understanding on the part of the instructors and to more real opportunities for learning and the inclusion of divergent voices in academic discourse.

In Thonus article, she discusses five principles that maybe applied for generation 1.5 learners. She states that these learners constitute a unique type of population that should find responses that consider their peculiarities given the fact that they do differ from those who are commonly referred as ESL, but yet, are not considered fully NES’s since their writing skills are highly influenced by their heritage language. The author provides real evidence where these steps were successfully (sometimes not) implemented and elaborates on the pedagogical implications of adopting such strategies.

World Englishes

I would like to take advantage of this blog entry to continue elaborating on the issue of code-meshing and code-switching as a way to integrate non-dominant languages and dialect in academic discourse. It is stimulating to see examples as the ones presented by Cangarajah. One can only be in favor of scholars interested in fighting monolingual, linguistically imperialistic perspectives on knowledge creation and dissemination. However, I believe there is much more to it than adopting a rather naïve position on the matter. My main argument is that such valuable cases such as the ones presented in Canagarajah’s articles are exceptional, but should not constitute a central goal in second language literacy development. By no means do I wish to suggest that they are not a desirable goal in ELL’s literacy. Instead I claim that bringing this issue to the discussion of what the teachers’ role should be does little favor beyond unnecessary problematization of the literacy classroom.

I think that it is more important, and much more feasible and efficient (time and resources wise) to focus the discussion in the way teachers should/could/would adopt multicultural attitudes to the classroom, where native languages are understood as linguistic and multicultural assets. This should be the focus of our efforts and would be a key factor in moving towards more inclusive practices in literacy development. I guess I want to suggest that professional, institutional and academic efforts should focus on these matters, rather than starting an additional debate on how code-meshing should be integrated into academic discourse. Making sure that ELL’s have access to a better quality in L2 education while maintaining and promoting their individual voices and native linguistic and cultural heritage is (while still a huge challenge) more attainable. Code-mashing and the vindication of non-dominant voices would come up as the result of such minded educational approach. It is my belief that students who have access to the tools to enter dominant academic communities but that have had a chance to maintain, recognize and be proud of their legacies will eventually not have problems adapting their academic discourse to respond to and represent their cultural richness, just like Smitherman successfully did.

In conclusion, I think:

1.  It is desirable that non-dominant languages or dialects be included in academic discourse (including code-meshing), however,
2. this should be a natural consequence (not the cause) of adopting a more multilingual approach to education where the conditions for learning English are improved and guaranteed and the cultural and linguistic heritage of ELL’s is respected, promoted and valued. Therefore,
3. promoting the use of rhetoric resources such as code-meshing is unnecessary and undesirable approach on the part of scholars. Efforts should be concentrated on the more structural goal presented in number two.  

SLW in Higher Education

One of the most conflictive issues for NNSE’s pursuing graduate studies in an English medium is probably to find out that  their voice faces many more ‘filters’ than ever before in their academic and social lives. Not only these students have to deal with individual differences in relation to their counterparts, but also with differences that lie on ideological matters, the different worldviews brought by these students, that were never questioned (at least to such an extent).  In other words, one of the first things graduate students encounter is that their voice no longer fits the ideology of the dominant culture, but is part of an ideology that belongs to a minority. Particularly, this is true for those students whose voice was somewhat appreciated in their origin countries and who, as Leki puts it ‘ …suffered a considerable loss in status from social, professional, and familial positions…’ (40).

These ideas are related with Canagarajah’s article and his idea of how ideologies come into play in the classroom, and for our respect, in the construction of texts (written and spoken). Finding ways to negotiate the principles that rule the interaction between students, faculty and their native counterparts is probably the greatest challenge.  Perhaps, one of the keys to this challenge has to do with a concept that was mentioned in all three articles: social skills and membership to discourse communities. Students who are able, and are given the opportunity to mesh easily with this new environment (departments, faculty, other students, etc.) are probably more successful in coming into terms and adapting their writing needs and goals to those of the dominant ideology without losing their own voice.  

Nonetheless, at times NNSE’s also have to deal with what Leki describes as the ‘…disparity…between their disciplinary knowledge and sophistication and their ability to write in English’ (38). We notice then that the struggle of graduate students to have their voice heard in these academic scenarios is not only external, but also internal.  Many of the messages we wish to convey are closely related to the stylistic details of our discourse. Subtle differences in the surface, may convey huge imparities between what a L2 graduate student actually means (whether in spoken or written speech). Filling those argumentative gaps may sometimes be a challenge in itself for students, not to mention the regular demands of academia. This, to me, is probably one of the reasons why L2 students crave for correction on the surface level. It is not only a matter of blending in and avoiding being ‘tagged’ as a non-native speaker. It may be because the accuracy with which the message is conveyed partially relies on the linguistic forms used. More often than not, I find that when I provided feedback to my students (and in my personal case too) slight misinterpretations relied on their mistaken lexical or syntactical choices.

However, as suggested above, this disparity is not only present for the writing genres required of students. It also comes up in class discussions where some students may experience difficulty expressing their views and keeping up with the pace of their colleagues.  In these cases, failure to match thought and text may lead not only to not succeeding in presenting a paper, but also in establishing social and academic bonds with professors and colleagues due to possible misunderstandings and conflict risen from communication breakdowns.  All these situations may lead to frustration and impact on the students’ self-esteem hindering the possibility of quick adaptation.

SLW in First Year Composition

Some of the questions posed by the articles by Matsuda and Leki have already been posed in our class discussions. The dilemma of how to best respond to second language writers in higher education settings is, as we can learn from these readings, still void of a nearly articulate response. Many different aspects overlap and make matters quite complicated for composition teachers and institutions.

In her article, Leki presents one argument I personally and closely subscribe to. I know little about the figures of US higher education on how many professionals actually become active writers, but I do agree with her when she states that it may not be within all students’ interest to become academic writers. Probably because they are not interested in becoming journal or book writers, or simply because their profession does not necessarily imply that they should become writers to be successful. Of course, there is the issue that to be successful in college you do need to achieve a quite acceptable level of academic writing. However, as Leki well puts it the types of genres and skills required to achieve this success may be different from department to department, from one field of knowledge to the other. As an evidence for this, Leki recalls the story of Yang, an undergraduate student from China who had no problems dealing with the demands of her composition classes, but who was unable to communicate at the hospital, where she was required to do her practices, and where she would eventually apply all of her knowledge and expertise. In this case, there institutional response to help her develop her linguistic skills proved inefficient.

Another factor that complicate things further for institutions and teachers is related to the diverse character of the student population attending classes at universities.  Students from very different backgrounds, different countries, different types of education, and with different needs and expectations are attending these courses. International students, NNES’s who reside in the US and whose English may not meet the features of what is deemed as acceptable, NES’s of non prestigious varieties of English are all part of the scenario, an scenario that is mainly designed to speakers of the so-called ‘standard’ variety.

In order to respond to this situation, a number of decisions have been made. One of them, however, called my attention greatly. Grouping NNES’s in separate groups, though, apparently sensitive to students needs, seems not very thoughtful to my understanding. I do believe that special consideration must be given to those whose language skills do not allow achieving the standards expected by the educational system. However, I think that what is required is much more research on the issue on how to develop methodologies that respond to these diverse populations along with the ‘mainstream’ students rather than separating ESL students from their ‘mainstream’ counterparts. I have no empirical theoretical or empirical evidence to support this claim. I base my opinion in my own personal experience. If I was to be grouped other ESL/EFL students, I would feel underestimated, downgraded and I tend to think that I would definitely be uncomfortable in that scenario and probably become an underachiever. I think that what is required is practical documented attempts to understand how all students may benefit from each other’s presence in the classroom accompanied by teacher development that help faculty move towards more inclusive practices.

Additionally, and to return to my initial argument on the different needs student may have, which often times do not include becoming a highly proficient academic writer, I tend to believe that at times ‘academia’ tend to overtly impose their belief that becoming a writer is at the core of all professions, that only those who write can actually impact and help knowledge advance. I am strongly convinced that this belief should be reflected upon. Further research on how many professionals actually become active academic writers may shed some light on the pertinence of whatever the current design of composition courses is.

P.S. One tricky question: What about the cases when non-native speakers of English become composition teachers? Last class we advanced a bit on this discussion when the issue of having only native speakers in charge of ESL classes in K-12 settings was brought up. It was argued that these students needed a model to shape their English skills. Do you think this should be the case in writing too?

Book review

I will be reviewing:

Harrington, and Erica Kenney. 2005. Approaches to Writing Instruction for Adolescent English Language Learners: A Discussion of Recent Research and Practice Literature in Relation to Nationwide Standards on Writing. The Education Alliance at Brown University.

As for where I'm at, I must say the cover is kind of green.

K-12

"I think every religion the same but we call it different name."
Jay.

One of the things that called my attention while reading Leki et al. and Wallace, was that none of them referred specifically to writing teaching phenomena. Instead, they used a much broader approach towards the inclusion of students with linguistically and culturally diverse students. The reason for this is unknown to me, but probably this is because of the difficulty itself.  The problems that underlie this circumstance are beyond any pedagogical measures that can be taken by teachers and administrators. They have to do with political administrations and the ideologies behind this. It is to my surprise that in a county like the US, in which immigration constitutes the core of its history, does not have an adequate national policy to respond to this phenomenon.

This only makes things worse for teachers. In order to respond effectively to this, teachers need to be provided with training and resources, not only for providing students with better English instruction, but also for incorporating inclusive practices that help them see ESL learners as a possibility to put up bridging discourses (Wallace) and bring multiculturalism instead of as a deficit (as Amy has so nicely and repeatedly put it) to the classroom.

Wallace’s article sheds a very bright light on how to do this.  The strands she proposes (“I come from here” identity, “back home identity,” “language identity,” and “religious identity”) may be only an example and they may be changed in order to suit other contexts. However, this study shows us how much we can get only if we provide students room for displaying their own voice, for portraying what it is that constitutes their essence. I found this article absolutely beautiful since it was the kids who had the leading voice and, although Wallace’s clarifications are obviously central, you can draw your own conclusion just by ‘listening’ to the teens and kids voices.  Of course, this is only a study, and deals with only four participants. It would be naïve to think that this very same methodology can be implemented with crowded classrooms. Nonetheless, I personally believe there are many lessons to be learned and ideas to use from this study.