L2 and Writing Centers

Terese Thonas writes about how the writing center can be a space where Generation 1.5 students can get help in a safe place. She defines Gen. 1.5 students as "writers who are long-term U.S. residents and English learners fluent in spoken English" (17). That definition is probably only understood in relation to the other two categories: international students and recent immigrants, both with higher literacy in their L1 and learning L2. Gen. 1.5, on the other hand, have spent more time in the US and thus are further along in their English acquisition (or are bilingual).

Thonas argues that writing instructors should be sensitive to the unique needs of these students. Once again, L2 scholars are revealing the problematic assumptions behind pedagogy. Assuming that students can articulate their needs, think through their problems, and express themselves in English is not accurate for all students. Thonus also points out that L2 attention to this issue still leaves a gap for attention to Gen 1.5 students specifically (16).

Some of the key differences for these students are that these students may not have high literacy in their L1 due to the push for assimilation to English only, they may have been routed into remedial writing courses, and they may have exposure to the expectations of mainstream composition courses (17). Part of the solution to tutoring Gen 1.5 students is to teach them metalanguage for discussing language and "sociopragmatic conventions" for tutoring sessions (18). The examples are helpful in illustrating her points.

These ideas all sound reasonable to me and from the different examples, it sounds like being sensitive to student needs and not making assumptions is the underlying principle for successful interactions with Gen 1.5 and all students. Respecting students at all levels and of all capabilities seems to be the heart of the issue. Matsuda and Cox echo this statement at the end of their article when they point out how important listening is for respecting tutors as individuals and scholars.

One thought I have about the "I bet we'll hear the errors" comment from the writing tutor, which Thonus applauds for being aware of Gen. 1.5 as ear learners, is that it might be dangerous to place people in categories because it does not seem to allow for variation in learning styles. Matsuda and Cox acknowledge this issue when they suggest that the tutor reading the paper aloud might be more effective (47).

Furthermore, how are tutors supposed to identify students as Gen 1.5 in the first place? Are tutors supposed to interrogate the students to begin? I doubt there would even be time if it were appropriate. Perhaps asking students what they want to work on would give some indication; perhaps consultants could also ask about how comfortable they are with different things. This issue also applies to Matsuda and Cox's article, as they do not articulate how the tutor knows that the student is L2. It almost seems there there are obvious characteristics about these writers, like errors in their papers or their accents, but these characteristics are only going to reveal so much about identity and ability.

World Englishes

World Englishes - a new topic for me but sure to be one of my favorites. I'm going to start with the Matsudas' piece because it reads to me like a manifesto about how English language teachers should present English(es). They identify the problem as follows: despite the wide variation in the many Englishes spoken around the world, both natively and non-natively, textbooks and teachers purport the notion of a single, "correct" English. The focus of English language teaching, then, tends to focus on teaching "features of standardized written English" (371).

To address this problem, the authors encourage teachers to "help students understand the privileged status that certain dominant varieties of English (and their users) enjoy, as well as some of the possible consequences of not using those varieties - and to do so without valorizing the privileged varieties" (372). The first premise fits in quite nicely with ideas of critical pedagogies and students' right to their own language movements. The authors do not address valorizing students' own languages, but I hope that this idea is implicit and that it was overlooked due to their focus on English language learners.

I am struggling, though, with the latter half of their claim. While I agree with educating students about which varieties of English are dominant and why, I think it is counterproductive to teach students that they must learn these dominant varieties so that they are not marginalized. The problem is that 1) they are already marginalized due to their positionality as English language learners and 2) that simply enforces the dominance of those varieties. I think a more responsible approach is to leave the discussion at which varieties are dominant and why, and allow students to decide for themselves when and where they will choose to employ which varieties of English. A good model of this approach is evidenced in June Jordan's "Nobody Mean More to Me Than You and The Future Life of Willie Jordan," where she educates her students about their own dialect and lets them choose which variety to use in certain situations.

Canagarajah's ideas of code-meshing definitely answer my complaint because he argues for the use of multiple codes in all types of writing. His approach does not prioritize just the dominant discourse. I'm a little bit confused as to what his theory looks like in practice, because the examples from the K-12 study look like code-switching to me. Here are some other questions about C.'s approach:

1. What do these other varieties of English look like? What does Sri Lankan English look like? I have a hard time conceptualizing code-meshing when I am unfamiliar with other varieties of English around the world.
2. Why does he still choose to write (mostly) in standard written English? I know that he makes a humble acknowledgment of his failure to engage in his own pedagogy, but I think he is doing a disservice to his argument by not demonstrating it himself.
3. While I find it interesting that C. analyzes published articles, such as Smitherman's and Zu's articles, for examples of code-meshing in the field of composition, how do those examples translate to students?
   
4. The Michael-Luna article illustrates an example of C.'s pedagogy in a K-12 setting, but I'm not yet convinced of his praxis. Sure, the authors explain definitions of their terms in contrast to code-switching and code-mixing, but in the examples, I have trouble seeing the different. The difference actually seems to be in the ideology and intent of those definitions. For example, if code-switching connotes that one code is better than another, than that is the ideological difference, even if in practice, code-meshing might look similar to various forms of code-switching and borrowing.