The Future of L2 Writing

I thought that the discussion about ideology and critical thinking in Ch. 6 of Cassanave's book was interesting. I agree with the argument that all writing is social, political, and ideology. It seems patronizing and offensive to me to say that L2 students are "not ready" for critical thinking and that women are uncomfortable with it. That argument just serves to maintain a status quo which marginalizes minorities and women. Moreover, I don't think that EAP can be excused from social, political, and ideology issues. Critical thinking  is an expectation in many academic disciplines, so it is required for successful writing in that community. Critical thinking may be more of a Western concept (I'm not entirely convinced of this) but without it international students would have to accept all of the other Western ideas learned in a U.S. education without questioning them. I believe that we should lay out the opportunities of critical thinking to our students but let them decide what their specific learning goals are. Instruction needs to be more of a negotiation.

As for the future of L2 writing scholarship, I think that there is more than one pathway to becoming an L2 writing specialist. Studying in a PhD program under any of the scholars mentioned would be a great learning opportunity, but I don't think that it is necessary. There are many excellent practioners in all levels of education preparing themselves by searching out the research and strategies that will best meet the needs of the students before them. I believe that L1 and L2 scholars need to work more closely together to meet those student needs and to offer more heterogenous learning experiences. I don't think that the categorizations of students into language categories is particularly helpful. Rather, teachers should work together to change instruction so that it can meet the needs of diverse students in the same classroom in ways that students can learn from one another and develop the communication skills necessary for living in a global society.

Writing Centers

I thought Thonus' article was very interesting. I appreciated the transcripts of actual tutor/student conversations. Although I have never worked in a writing center, I thought that her suggestions would be very helpful for writing center tutors working with diverse groups of students. I also think that her suggestions would transfer well to other situations such as for general education teachers in K-12 classrooms who conduct writing conferences with their students. I agree that it is important to consider the specific needs of L2 writers in writing conference situations, but I question her grouping of all 1.5 generation students into one general category. I am always uncomfortable with monolithic categorizations of students, but I realize that there is a need to consider the needs of particular groups of students and to have some guidelines for appropriate instruction. Perhaps more careful language such as "many 1.5 generation students" would help teachers to remember that there is great variation in any given group of students. Matsuda & Cox alluded to this in their article when they warned that overgeneralization should be avoided. I think that their approach of balancing accommodationist and separatist stances allows for more flexibility in working with individual students rather than applying the same techniques to all L2 writers.

World Englishes and Code Meshing

I am absolutely fascinated by Canagrajah's article. He makes so many convincing arguments about the value of language diversity. It is also inspiring to think of the possibilities code meshing can open up for students so that they can resist and change dominant structures that might be holding them back or blocking their voice. However, I think that asking students to be subversive in their writing can also be risky. I think that it is great for teachers to offer a space in which students can code mesh and to hold up examples of successful instances of codemeshing. But this should be an invitation rather than a requirement because this sort of writing requires a lot of bravery. I think teachers have to acknowledge that within the best intentions of "giving" students a voice, there is the risk of rejection within the academic community.

I was also excited to see code meshing discussed in the context of an early childhood classroom because much of the research that I have read focuses on  code switching in a way that often deems children's home languages as inappropriate for school. The Michael-Luna article sent me searching for other work on codemeshing at the primary level, but I didn't find much else. According to Google Scholar, the article has only been cited once. I'm a little confused about why this issue isn't being picked up by literacy scholars to a greater extent. If anyone knows of any other work on code meshing, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

EFL Settings

I was most interested in Lei's article about writing strategies as a social process within the framework of activity theory. A point that consistently comes up in our readings about second language writing is that learning often occurs outside of the classroom. Many of the writing strategies that the students in this article used were implemented outside of the classroom and, most likely, without the teacher's knowledge. I'm wondering how teachers can capitalize on the varied strategies of home/social literacy practices rather than narrowly focusing on more traditional, academic based writing strategies. I'm also wondering how much teachers should attempt to learn about literacy practices that occur outside the classroom. I firmly believe that those literacy practices are valuable and should be considered by teachers, however, can our views into students' private writing practices become an encroachment at somepoint especially for adult learners?

Graduate Students and Academic Writing

I related to these articles on a personal level. Even though I am a native speaker of English and I recognize the privilege that comes with that, I was raised within a community that speaks with a marked dialect (southern and poor). As a graduate student, I feel a lot of the cultural and linguistic insecurity that was highlighted in Braine’s article.  Specifically, I struggle (as I’m sure many graduate students do) with situating myself with my research especially within ethnographic research. It sometimes seems like too great of a risk to reveal viewpoints that may not be in line with the status quo of a department or with larger power structures. Occasionally, I feel in danger of “outing” myself as “the other”, and I imagine that L2 learners might experience similar worries.  

I think that this speaks to the hybridity of both L1 and L2 communities. Canagarajah argued that “difference has to be redefined in more complex terms” (p. 10).  I agree, and I wonder why educators remain so intent on sorting, separating, and labeling learners whether by language skills or by other indicators.  As Braine illustrated, labeling students as lacking in English proficiency and placing them in ESL courses can be demoralizing. Teachers may intend to “help” students through such placements but making these decisions for students based on the institution’s values serves to isolate and control. Through assessment, placement, and instruction, institutions are deciding who gets to count as a student, as a scholar, or even as a person. I strongly agree with Canagarajah that teachers need to move towards negotiating with students and towards recognizing differences as resources.

1st Year Writing

     What stood out most to me from this week’s readings was how the tacit nature of our understandings of language leads to hegemony and an imbalance of power in writing courses. Leki spoke of “the assumption of the power to define writing’ (p. 64). Matsuda argued that the ideology of unidirectional monolingualism that is inherent in composition courses works to separate and keep out those who do not speak a privileged form of English. He also argued that nonnative speakers and speakers of unprivileged forms of English are held accountable for skills that are not being taught. Harklau highlighted how teachers’ tacit understandings of immigration and bilingualism affect their instructional decisions, relationships with students, and contribute to the identities of 1.5 generation students. Harklau also pointed out that teachers are all susceptible to holding “common sense” notions which can negatively affect our students. How can teachers uncover their tacit understandings in order to work towards a more equitable learning environment?  What can teacher educators do to assist with this process? How can we increase communication and connections between K-12 schools and institutions of secondary education.

     Matsuda’s article also made me wonder about how American students are treated when they study as international students. Do other countries require language proficiency tests? Are American international students placed in remedial classes? Are remedial classes or writing classes even offered in foreign universities? I would be interested to know more about higher education in other countries.

K-12 Discussion

In Lam’s article, Almon constructed an identity as a competent writer in English within an internet environment. This web-based communication space reminded me of Gee’s (2001) conception of an “affinity space.”  An affinity group is devised of people who may be situated across a large space but share “allegiance to, access to, and participation in specific practices” (p. 105). According to Gee (2005), affinity spaces are defined by the following characteristics.

1.        Common endeavor, not race, class, gender or disability, is primary.

2.       Newbies and masters and everyone else share common space.

3.       Some portals (points of entry to a social semiotic space) are strong generators.

4.       Internal grammar is transformed by external grammar.

5.       Encourages intensive and extensive knowledge.

6.       Encourages individual and distributed knowledge.

7.       Encourages dispersed knowledge.

8.       Uses and honors tacit knowledge.

9.       Many different forms and routes to participation.

10.   Lots of different routes to status.

11.   Leadership is porous and leaders are resources.

Do any of these characteristics relate to Almon’s web experiences? How did these characteristics support Almon’s identity construction and development of English writing proficiency?

How do affinity spaces differ from common classroom practices and educational policies? How might some of these characteristics be adopted in the classroom and what consequences might that have for English language learners?

Lam conducted the research for this article in 1997. Since then the internet has increasingly become part of our everyday lives. What implications does the prevalence of technology have for teaching English language learners in the 21^st century? Is there still a “digital divide”?

Gee, J.P. (2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. In W.G. Secada (Ed.), Review of  research in education (pp. 99-125). Washington D.C.: American  Educational Research Association.

Gee, J.P. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: From the Age of Mythology to today’s schools. In. D. Barton & K. Tusting Beyond communities of practice: Language, power and social context (pp. 214-232). New York: Cambridge Press.

Questions related to Fu and Matoush article

How do teachers make room for bilingualism and biliteracy in current educational contexts in which teachers and students are under close surveillance to ensure the dominance of English in instruction?

What can be done to improve the current educational policies in ways that are more conducive to bilingualism and biliteracy? What can individual teachers do to resist monoglossic ideologies?

What about multilingual environments or schools without bilingual teachers? How can teachers assess the content of writing if they do not understand the student’s first language?