Though by this point in our discussion it seems natural, I was glad to see Ilona Leki made a distinction between the purpose of FYC classes and the needs of NNS students attending many universities (as in the case with Yang, 61-2). Leki suggests that L2 writing classes cannot and should not be set up in the same way as an FYC class. She examines the way in which FYC and L2 writing courses have become essential and how students’ success can depend on the ability to pass these classes, pointing out also the uselessness of the “first year” part of FYC: “students are learning something about writing at a time when they cannot even put that learning into practice outside the writing course” (66-7).
Like Leki, Matsuda points out that FYC classes are not made for everyone; his article deals with the fact that US composition classes assume and thus are built for English monolingualism. Based on the history and development of FYC, this assumption is unsurprising—but, based on the statistics Matsuda gives (more than half a million international students in the US in some recent years, and one out of six Americans using languages other than English at home), this is unfortunate and detrimental to students (640-1). The situation of the “myth of linguistic homogeneity” is not isolated to FYC or L2 writing courses; it seems that it should be the responsibility of the university as a whole, and though required or supplementary writing classes should certainly be viewed as resources on improving language skills, they should not be depended on as the sole source of those skills. A single semester is not enough time to introduce students to all of the writing skills they need to succeed in various university careers and courses, especially when the courses are taught by TAs, as Leki points out (who often do not want to argue with a set system or do not have the proper training to be able to argue with that system).
We’ve discussed in class before the idea of regarding a different L1 as a unique circumstance, as sort of a “handicap” in the university classroom, but I think this idea is worth returning to. Some questions: Based on Leki’s and Matsuda’s arguments, is it desirable to separate composition classes based on the students’ L1s? Especially looking at Matsuda’s main point—that students may not come from the same language (or variety) background—what problems does a separation create? On the other hand, what benefits does it engender?
Sources:
Leki, I. (2008). The legacy of first year composition. In P. Matsuda, C. Ortmeier-Hooper, X. You.(Eds.) The politics of second language writing. In search of the promised land.
Matsuda, P.K. (2006). The myth of linguistic homogeneity in U.S. College composition. College English. 68 (6), 637-651.
One benefit of having separate classes is that instructors familiar with second language learning and students can be assigned to those classes. Conversely, uninformed instructors may fixate on grammar to the neglect of genre and rhetorical considerations.
ReplyDeleteA second benefit is that ELLs tend to participate more (at least in my experience) in separated classes than in integrated ones. Conversely, by participating less, they do not take advantage of the opportunity offered in smaller and frequently workshop-style classes to improve their conversational skills.