the future of second language writing (in technology?)

The organization of Santos’s article is interesting, especially in that she chooses to begin pessimistically, balance that with optimism and then finally, arrive at a (in my opinion) realistic view through Matsuda. Atkinson’s pessimistic view is justly-founded, but one of the ways I see the field expanding (beside the fact that we are simply going to need more experts in L2 writing, because of the demand, as Silva points out)—and perhaps merging with other composition-related fields, as much as some researchers (like Santos here) want to keep L1 and L2 separate—is through multimodal and computer-mediated writing. Perhaps it’s not a matter of L1 composition “usurping” L2 composition, but of them meeting and mingling through a common interest in the technological advancements to be made in both fields (perhaps more like Erickson’s view).

For the book review for this class, I looked at the Canagarajah (2002) text (Critical Academic Writing and Multilingual Students) mentioned at various points throughout Casanave’s chapter. While I don’t buy into critical pedagogy 100%, I agree that it is a useful approach, when taken in conjunction with considerations for student needs (Casanave, p. 202) and sensitivity to cultural/experience-influenced differences. One of my critiques of Canagarajah’s text was how distantly he touched on technology. Even for the year it was published (2002), I think Canagarajah was too aloof in regards to technology in the classroom; one of his arguments was that something was lost in the transfer from paper and pen to computer screen, and I think at this point and with the generation that is entering college now, we cannot argue about what’s lost, just that it is different from how previous generations gained their literacies.

I was glad to see that Casanave spent a good section of her chapter talking about technology. Her book is from 2004, and in the little time since then we’ve already got a need for new discussions. We are coming to a point where the norm is to use and promote technologies in the classroom (in the US), even the L2 writing classroom. Of course, underlying my statement is the argument that technologies are unevenly distributed through the world (p. 215-6), a problematic situation which makes my assumption problematic too.

L2 writing in WAC/WID

When discussing the ways of uniting second language writing and WAC, Matsuda and Jablonski mention that “ESL specialists may be called upon as outside consultants” in WAC programs (p. 5). While this is probably how L2 issues are usually addressed in such programs, it seems to me to ignore or implicitly accept the isolation of ESL from WAC, though the authors are supporting “collaboration.” Hall seems to have a better understanding of this problem, as he points out, “Where traditionally the teaching of writing is thought to be the exclusive province of the Writing Program or the English Department, the teaching of MLLs is still generally conceived as the job of the ESL program. In both cases, of course, it’s everybody’s job” (p. 38). Just as the purpose of WAC is to make faculty and students realize that writing is not isolated to the English Dept, there needs to be pedagogies in place that promote the campus as a place for multilingual learners, not a pedestal that learners must reach after trading in local languages for English. Of course, that begins with teacher training. Both Hall’s and Matsuda and Jablonski’s articles bring up this point. Changing the program begins with opening teachers’ perceptions and making them more aware of these discussions and issues—though it’s hard not to see the path of what Hall terms “Next America,” the issue needs to be confronted directly on a regular basis.

Hall also notes that “The exact mixture [of L2 learners] will be different on every campus, and so each WAC program needs to rigorously asses local needs and trends” (p. 35). For this very reason, the authors of both articles advocate not a step-by-step model but a set of guidelines. Both articles set out similar basic principles (that WAC teachers or specialists need to notice this growing multilingual population, etc.) These are loose models of pedagogy, adjustable to unique campus needs. I am not very familiar with WAC/WID and its success (or lack of), so I’m wondering how much progress has been made for L2 writers in this pedagogy. (The articles are from 2000 [Matsuda and Jablonski] and 2009 [Hall], but I do not see many hints of advancement between the two.)

References

Hall, J. (2009). WAC/WID in the next America:: Redefining professional identity in the age of the multilingual majority.

Matsuda, P. & Jablonski, J. (2000). Beyond the L2 Metaphor. Towards a mutually transformative model of ESL/WAC Collaboration: http://wac.colostate.edu/aw/articles/matsuda_jablonski2000.pdf

NNESs and the writing center

I found both Thonus’s and Matsuda and Cox’s articles intriguing and useful. At this point in the semester and in our discussion, much of what the authors suggest seems to be common sense: help students negotiate/accommodate, not assimilate (Matsuda & Cox 45), look at the rhetorical structures instead of grammar (Thonus 21), and avoid putting students on the spot in terms of what they ‘should’ know (Thonus 22). However, the context for these principles is important. I don’t know how it is at all universities, but at least here at ISU I know that the writing center likes to hire students (especially grad students) who have some specialization or familiarity in a certain area of writing—but has neither the resources ($) nor the applicant pool to staff a center of budding Matsudas. So, tutors are often undergraduate (or sometimes graduate) students and the pay reflects a job that requires no more skill than repeating “Can I take your order?” Tutors aren’t teachers (though sometimes teachers are tutors). They don’t have to have the specialized knowledge that (some [kinds of]) teachers are expected to have when working with NNSs. Hm. I’m interested to hear any of your experiences tutoring in writing centers, and how the training process is for ESL.

Thonus’s five suggestions did not seem limited to Generation 1.5 students; though she made the distinction between them and EFL and ESL writers, I think the general principles can be adapted to any NNES student. The key there, I think, is adapted. The first step for many teaching is not reading student texts but reading students—being able to identify, through conversation and cues, the needs opf the students. I know that sounds hard, but I really do think the best teachers (or tutors) are perceptive to students and their needs.

I really don’t know much about writing centers or labs, though I’m very intrigued with how student writing is handled by tutors. I recently talked the Visor Center here about tutoring writing; I asked about their training for tutors in regards to ESL or NNSs. I was told that they have various training sessions, some of which deal specifically with tutoring NNSs (but were open to developing more!).

References:

Matsuda, P. and M. Cox. (2009). Reading an ESL writers’ text. In S. Bruce & B. Rafoth (Eds.) ESL Writers. A guide for writing center tutors.

Thonus, T. (2003). Serving Generation 1.5 Students in the University Writing Center.

WE and literacy/composition studies

Here are the questions I'll be handing out in class tomorrow:

Canagarajah – The Place of World Englishes in Composition: Pluralization Continued

1. Canagarajah argues that “ME” (standard) speakers need to be able to negotiate WE “in order to be functional postmodern global citizens” (591). How true is that? Does he ignore or downplay any issues with that statement and throughout this article?

2. He advocates teaching “communicative strategies” rather than “grammatical rules” (593). How would that be enacted in a composition classroom? (Would it differ if the class has only nonnative speakers or mixed background students? standard or nonstandard speakers?)

3. What do you think of “code meshing” in the classroom? What can it serve to do? In which situations does it not function?

a. What do Canagarajah’s examples or Michael-Luna & Canagarajah’s examples show?

b. Could code meshing go beyond lexicon and syntax to rhetorical style and overall organization? Would it have to be explicated and defended every time it was used?

Matsuda and Matsuda – World Englishes and the Teaching of Writing

4. The authors seem to be setting up their principles under the assumption that L2 writing or composition teachers have some basic/working knowledge of WE. Do they? Have you ever received teacher training on WE/local varieties of a language? When/where/how should such training happen?

5. Looking at Matsuda and Matsuda’s third principle (372): How will/can teachers know the difference between an error and a choice? What about the rest of the world or academia, considering that the text or structure might not be isolated only to that class? (Think also of Canagarajah’s example of the Malaysian student’s “can able to,” p. 609, and how the class addressed that construction.)

Michael-Luna and Canagarajah – Multilingual Academic Literacies: Pedagogical Foundations for Code Meshing in Primary and Higher Education

6. Consider Canagarajah’s (2006) claim that “we permit WE only in certain well-defined contexts,” including “WE for literary texts; ME for ‘serious’ texts” (594). Then look at the texts used in the elementary classroom (61-3). Is code meshing only appropriate in “literary”—not academic—texts? (Or am I too cynical?) What can we see from examples of students’ written uses of code meshing?

7. How could the attempt at enabling code meshing in higher education—a failed experience, in the authors’ own words—be adjusted to successfully promote students’ local languages?

Applications

8. Does teaching WE/teaching about WE belong in ESL classroom, college composition, or both? (Perhaps related: Where do we place students who speak a variety of WE as their L1? L2?)

9. Do you have any success stories/strategies of integrating students’ local languages into classroom writing? What about teaching monovarietal students WE or about WE?

I'm looking forward to this discussion!