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?
No comments:
Post a Comment