Lam, in her discussion of identity formation based on a case study of a Chinese student's internet communication, uses Kress's concepts of multimodality to help theorize identity formation, particularly as it relates to L2 learners. This connection fascinates me, and I enjoy thinking about how Kress's concepts of design apply to second language literacy. Lam explains that the concepts of design inform the construction of voice, which informs identity formation (461).

I have been exposed to Kress's idea of designs in a more multimodal context, which includes many modes available, such as audio, image, and more. Lam's analysis is multimodal in the sense that her research participant is creating texts digitally and communicating through the medium of the internet. However, the communication, and thus Lam's ideas on design, are still limited to written elements, including "linguistic patterns, genres, and discourses" (461).

Nonetheless, these resources can be used, combined, and remixed to create identities. Furthermore, the fact that design is limited and driven by available resources in a given community makes design socially based (461). In this way, the identity that is ultimately created by design is influenced by the creator's social community. In this sense, New Literacy Studies, multimodality, and the New Rhetorical approach to genre studies all seem incredibly similar! Lam uses Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) in particular, which is based on considering discourse as a "form of social action" (466).

Although this is probably outside the scope of this week's readings, this connection to multimodal theory makes me wonder how L2 learners would react to multimodal composing at the college level (such as making webpages, videos, art, etc.). Would some resist these practices because it would necessarily mean time directed away from writing practice? Would some be excited at the prospect to show different abilities that might not be reflected in written work? Would some be excited at having the chance to extend their creativity into realms outside of written language?

In addition to these ideas, what most fascinates me is Almon's construction of an identity via this space that is external to the classroom. This anonymous online space has allowed Almon to construct an identity that he values but that does not have to be true or even based on others' preconceived perceptions. He is not limited to labels based on other factors such as the way he looks, his actual background, his oral accent, or more. As Lam states, he constructs an identity that "is not available to him in the social environment and institutions of his adopted country" (475). The possibility for this identity construction helped Almon develop his L2 literacy, in part because it was a "safe" space for him to practice. It is also interesting that the English that Almon developed was not the standard, prescriptive English taught in classrooms, but the negotiated, global English more "relevant and appropriate" for the "World Wide Web community he sought to be a part of" (476). This makes me think that there might be significant value in asking students to engage in this type of real-life (if constructed) community in an attempt to enhance their literacy development.

Genre

The following will also be provided in a handout for class on Tuesday:

Hyland and Johns both outline the three primary genre studies approaches, which are summarized as follows:

1. Sydney School - focuses on the systematic organization of language in its contextualized use (Johns 201). This pedagogy purports a scaffolding pedagogy in which the teacher supports the student in learning and composes with the student before the student writes independently (Johns 203).

2. English for specific purposes - concentrates upon textual analysis, such as move analysis (Johns 206). This approach also considers genre with specific discourse communities, such as academic or workplace communities.

3. New Rhetorical - analyzes genre from “rhetorical, social, and ideological stances” instead of investigating “language and text organization” (Johns 209). This approach devalues explicit genre teaching in favor of situated genre learning (Johns 210).

Q: Which approach do you find most helpful for L2 learners in particular? Which do you find most problematic? Why?

Hyland and Johns both describe an approach to teaching genre that is based on Vygotsky’s work. This approach describes scaffolding, where the teacher supports the student in learning and composes with the student before the student writes independently (Johns 203). (Graphic mirrored from Johns 203.)

Q: Although discussed in L2 scholarship, this approach was not created specifically for L2 writers; do you recommend any adjustments specifically for this student demographic?

Hyland encourages a critical approach to teaching genres because solely teaching genre conventions reinforces existing power relations (25). Hyland is careful to explain, though, that students must learn the genres in order to be able to critique them. The teaching model outlined above is supposed to help limit the prescriptive teaching of genres.

Q: How do we teach genres critically (in a way that that questions hegemonic power relations) rather than prescriptively (in a way that only teaches forms and conventions)?

Sources:

Hyland, Ken. "Genre-Based Pedagogies: A Social Response to Progress." Journal of Second Language Writing 12.1 (2003): 17-29. MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. Web. 11 Feb. 2011.

Johns, Ann M. "Genre and ESL/EFL Composition Instruction." Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing. 195-217. Cambridge, England: Cambridge UP, 2003. Print.

Plagiarism

Ah, plagiarism. The bain of every teacher's existence. (Ok, perhaps that is a bit of an exaggeration.) There are a couple of things in particular that stood out to me from Casanave's chapter on Interaction. First is the idea that our concept of plagiarism is cultural. Certainly this chapter thus builds on contrastive rhetoric in its situating of textual borrowing within cultural practices. This leads to the next point: Are we to entertain those variations or teach students the rigid practices of the American academy? The conflict seems to be one of ideology versus "practical" preparation. This conflict comes up in many issues regarding writing for both L1 and L2 learners. For example, are we to teach academic discourse or not because it enforces hegemonic power relations? Or, does teaching students the language of power give them access to power?

The issue of plagiarism echoes this problem, but teaching American academic anti-plagiarism practices extends beyond issues of power. It can have serious consequences for students who violate these rules. Students can fail an assignment, a course, or even be kicked out of school for egregious plagiarism. To not teach students our (culturally-situated) ideas of plagiarism would be of a great disservice to those students trying to succeed in the academy.

I also want to point out that plagiarism in the age of the Internet is of high interest to me. I had a student who copied and pasted from a movie review into her paper. She claimed that she didn't realize she couldn't take ideas from the Internet. While I didn't really believe her claim of innocence (she took more than "ideas"), she did help me understand that students' often have different percpetions than I do about the Internet. Some might see it as a vast resource for them, something quite separate from the scholarly "research" sources they know they are supposed to cite. And as we encourage students to compose multimodal texts, this concern becomes even more prominent. I have begun familiarizing myself with Fair Use policies even for my own scholarship, and I see the value of having these conversations with students as well. Copying and pasting becomes even looser of a concept as we move from text into photos, videos, and more. An example of this is that my students created Facebook pages for their 101 topics last semester, and they just nabbed images off of a Google search to put on their pages without looking into whether those images were available for Fair Use and without attributing the source of those images. As Casanave points out, "We do not yet know how to conceptualize authorship in an age of electronic multiliteracies" (178).

Group Discussion

The largest point that I recall from our group discussion in class is the following question, although we did not arrive at sufficient answers.I think it is unfair to expect students to adjust to a specific, American English "self"; however, I can't help but wonder if there are L2 learners who want to learn the cultural implications that come along with this culture's language. One group member even suggested that it is not possibly to learn another language and not incorporate more than just the words into one's identity. So perhaps the answer is to not necessarily decide on a pedagogy and that enforce that upon our students, but to give them agency in determining what they want to learn. Regardless of the ultimate pedagogy enacted, we should be aware of the assumptions behind the pedagogy, which include cultural biases.

Voice

The article that spoke to me the most for this week's readings on Voice is Vai Ramanathan and Dwight Atkinson's "Individualism, Academic Writing, and ESL Writers." I understand that this 1999 article's primary purpose is to foreground the Journal on Second Language Writing's 2001 special issue on voice, from which a number of our readings came. However, the 1999 article was the most eye-opening for me. I have come to take a number of composition pedagogies for granted, including process, and this article has enabled me to question much of what I have tacitly assumed.

The authors point out that voice is strongly linked to identity and that the US has a largely individualistic conception of identity. Other cultures can be more communal, so behaviors that focus on the individual can make some L2 learners uncomfortable. Things like talking in class and asking questions can feel unnatural to students from different cultures (48).

Process pedagogy, under which expressivist pedagogies have often been placed, values students' finding their personal voice through writing. The problem is that an individualistic idea of voice might only work for a Western-based individualistic society such as the US. By asking students to find their own voices, we might not truly be asking them to express their own identity, since we are looking for a culturally specific identity. We ask students to express themselves, but the self we expect actually has parameters. One Chinese student that the authors interviewed explained that he had to create a new, false self in order to meet his teachers' expectations according to this pedagogy (55-56).

As some authors we read this week point out, this problem applies to more students than just L2 learners. Students who have not been socialized according to the US's white, middle-class culture may not have the expected sense of self to then express in composition. Students are expected to express themselves, but only as long as those selves reflect confidence and assertion.

This difference in cultures is also related to decentered pedagogy. Many students, and not just L2 students, might be uncomfortable with the superficial notion of decentralized authority. I have never been fully comfortable with decentralized authority in my own teaching, so I must admit that I am a bit relieved to hear that some scholars find that approach unnecessary and unproductive.

Writing Across Borders

This video, available on YouTube, is a fascinating introduction to the cultural differences that international students often experience upon writing in an American English classroom. I particularly enjoy Ana Sanchez's (Ecuador) story of "going around" the story, which contrasts to Americans' getting straight to the point. I also appreciate Pablo Zapata's (Colombia) comments about politeness and directness in face-to-face and email correspondence. I chuckle every time I hear him say that someone might ask him how he's doing but not wait for an answer before passing by. I recognize the truth in that statement, and I also appreciate how that might be an American convention. I often don't expect people to respond to that question, and when I respond, I recognize that I am supposed to give a curt "good," rather than an actual answer. But hearing Zapata describe the exchange makes me realize how behavior that could be considered rude to someone else.

Despite my appreciation of these stories, I am troubled by the essentialism issue that Kubota and Lehner and other scholars discuss. While these stories function as entertaining anecdotes, they also carry some essentialist messages. Not everyone in the United States speaks in a direct fashion or doesn't wait to hear a response to How are you doing? And certainly not all genres (not even all academic genres) of writing in America reflect that direct methodology. So in much the same way that traits of other cultures are erroneously essentialized, the habits of Americans are essentialized in these stories. They support the cliche that all Americans are rude. The messages don't allow for social and cultural variation within the United States. Although I am essentializing a bit myself here, we tend to think of Southerners as more polite and requiring more pleasantries before getting down to business, so to speak. People on the East coast, on the other hand, have a reputation for being direct (which can be considered rude to Midwesterners, etc.).

So while this video is fascinating and useful, I feel like we should recognize the critical implications of the thoughts and make sure we recognize the limitations of the messages.

Event re: International Students

This event seemed pertinent to our class!

Illinois State University and Illinois Wesleyan University present a collaborative faculty workshop:

“Working with International Students: Rewards, Challenges, and Opportunities”
Saturday, March 5, 2011; 9:00 a.m. to Noon
Center for Teaching, Learning, and Technology (CTLT at Illinois State University 301 South Main Street)

http://www.ctlt.ilstu.edu/resources/theLINK/vol5no2/news01_ISU_IWU_Workshop_article.php