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.