CCCC Guideline on the National Language Policy
Students' Right to Their Own Language:
http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Groups/CCCC/NewSRTOL.pdf
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
This week I would like to look at the other side of the controversy of teaching ELL or NSE speakers in the classroom. Truth be told, I used Stanley Fish in the last post to be provocative; no one stirs it up more than Fish, well, perhaps E.D. Hirsch, but that is another post. This week, I would like to approach the controversy through the lens of critical pedagogy. Norton and Toohey state in the intro of their book "Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning" that "language is not simply a means of expression or communication; rather, it is a practice that constructs, and is constructed by, the ways language learners understand themselves, their social surroundings, their histories, and their possibilities for the future" (1). With this in mind, how can we carefully consider students' home/private/intimate language in the writing classroom? Too often, testing, especially high stakes testing, eradicates the possibility of pedagogy that sees language as identity. Students must find a way to become fluent in the dominant discourse, at times at the expense of their primary discourse. Of course, these are the times when the relationship between power and discourse become most prominent.
I think about my students who come to the writing classroom with alternative discourses or epistemologies. I also think about my position within an institution that perpetuates power structures through pedagogy. How can I resist the power structures as a teacher; how can I help my students see the power structures and hope that they will resist? At times like these, Anzaldua's works always come to mind. Linguistic domination is all too real, especially in education. My goal with these marginalized students is not to further their marginalization, but then what am I doing?
So this week's driving question is:
At what point does acculturation/assimilation into the dominant/academic discourse become violent oppression?
I think about my students who come to the writing classroom with alternative discourses or epistemologies. I also think about my position within an institution that perpetuates power structures through pedagogy. How can I resist the power structures as a teacher; how can I help my students see the power structures and hope that they will resist? At times like these, Anzaldua's works always come to mind. Linguistic domination is all too real, especially in education. My goal with these marginalized students is not to further their marginalization, but then what am I doing?
So this week's driving question is:
At what point does acculturation/assimilation into the dominant/academic discourse become violent oppression?
Monday, October 27, 2008
Driving Question #2
As usual, I have been thinking alot about my responsibility as a writing instructor. This semester I have had the opportunity to teach a first year writing course directed at students who fall into a certain set of criteria. Perhaps they did not do well in high school English courses, they may have had a low score on their SATs, or an overall low GPA. So they are enrolled in a composition course that also has a studio component. Our class meets Tuesday and Thursday for the regular hour and a half; in addition, we meet on Mondays in a studio session, with one half of the class meeting from 8-9:15, and the second half meeting from 9:30-10:45. To teach writing in a class of 12 offers a unique opportunity to workshop and have meaningful discussions on student writing. And that is the content of my course - student writing - argument, audience, style, grammar.
But there are many of my colleagues who feel strongly that we are also teaching citizenship or social awareness. I agree to the extent that writing works within a social context as much as teaching at a public university works within a social context. In addition, students who are ELL or NSE speakers must learn this social context as well as learning usage. Do these specific students need to learn to be good citizens? Is FYC the place to learn good citizenry? Or even the place which instills social awareness? Do we discuss social constructs or not?
I remember a Stanley Fish lecture I attended where he was arguing against politics in the classroom. He felt that too many personal politics in the classroom as a result of teachers wanting to save the world by encouraging social awareness/change. I asked him how a writing teacher can avoid talking about politics when using Anzaldua as the text. He replied, "What is Anzaldua doing in a writing classroom?" His mantra was "Do your job. Don't do anyone else's job. Don't let anyone else do your job." In his October 22, 2006, NYT's blog, Fish elaborates: "I am trained and paid to do two things (although, needless to say, I don’t always succeed in my attempts to do them): 1) to introduce students to materials they didn’t know a whole lot about, and 2) to equip them with the skills that will enable them, first, to analyze and evaluate those materials and, second, to perform independent research, should they choose to do so, after the semester is over. That’s it. That’s the job."
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/tip-to-professors-just-do-your-job/
Now, I agree that part of our job is to NOT participate in the perpetration of hegemonic discourse and the proliferation of English as a global dominant language. But when students want to learn to write academic discourse, what is our responsibility? Do we say, I will teach you, but know that this may influence your perception of the value of your native language in some way? I think the answer maybe in teaching rhetorical situations, i.e. your native language or dialect has value somewhere, but here, right in this classroom and perhaps all the other classrooms you enter, academic discourse is valued. But that answer certainly does not address the complex relationship between power, identity, and language. So the controversy continues, and my driving question for the week, after all that, is:
Some writing programs and classrooms encourage FYC students to express/perform in their home language. While this is a refreshing new way to allow students to communicate and create a space for their home language in schools, does this prepare them for the rest of their academic career?
But there are many of my colleagues who feel strongly that we are also teaching citizenship or social awareness. I agree to the extent that writing works within a social context as much as teaching at a public university works within a social context. In addition, students who are ELL or NSE speakers must learn this social context as well as learning usage. Do these specific students need to learn to be good citizens? Is FYC the place to learn good citizenry? Or even the place which instills social awareness? Do we discuss social constructs or not?
I remember a Stanley Fish lecture I attended where he was arguing against politics in the classroom. He felt that too many personal politics in the classroom as a result of teachers wanting to save the world by encouraging social awareness/change. I asked him how a writing teacher can avoid talking about politics when using Anzaldua as the text. He replied, "What is Anzaldua doing in a writing classroom?" His mantra was "Do your job. Don't do anyone else's job. Don't let anyone else do your job." In his October 22, 2006, NYT's blog, Fish elaborates: "I am trained and paid to do two things (although, needless to say, I don’t always succeed in my attempts to do them): 1) to introduce students to materials they didn’t know a whole lot about, and 2) to equip them with the skills that will enable them, first, to analyze and evaluate those materials and, second, to perform independent research, should they choose to do so, after the semester is over. That’s it. That’s the job."
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/tip-to-professors-just-do-your-job/
Now, I agree that part of our job is to NOT participate in the perpetration of hegemonic discourse and the proliferation of English as a global dominant language. But when students want to learn to write academic discourse, what is our responsibility? Do we say, I will teach you, but know that this may influence your perception of the value of your native language in some way? I think the answer maybe in teaching rhetorical situations, i.e. your native language or dialect has value somewhere, but here, right in this classroom and perhaps all the other classrooms you enter, academic discourse is valued. But that answer certainly does not address the complex relationship between power, identity, and language. So the controversy continues, and my driving question for the week, after all that, is:
Some writing programs and classrooms encourage FYC students to express/perform in their home language. While this is a refreshing new way to allow students to communicate and create a space for their home language in schools, does this prepare them for the rest of their academic career?
Monday, October 20, 2008
Driving Question #1
The controversy as I see it applies to teaching English Language Learners (ELL) and Non-Standard English (NSE) speakers in the writing classroom. What responsibility do teachers of writing have in assimilating/acculturating (I am still working out the differences in my mind) students into academic discourse? For a more detailed description of this responsibility, please see the conversation started by Cassie in her comments to post #1. Thanks in advance to all contributors.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
What do we teach when we teach writing?
What do we teach when we teach academic writing to students who are non-native English speakers or who are non-standard English speakers? I am not looking for a list of best practices, but rather I am hoping to create a space where interdisciplinary voices can discuss the relationship between language, writing, and teaching.
Scholars have continually defined the various roles and expectations of the writing classroom (see Bartholomae, Elbow, Murray):
1. the introduction of students to academic/dominant discourse
2. the learning of discipline specific writing expectations
3. the application of rhetorical devices
4. the practice of writing as communication and seeing oneself as a writer
Matsuda, et al state in Second Language Writing in the Composition Classroom (2006), that the US composition classroom is the “gateway for the vast majority of students to higher level work in most academic disciplines” (3). I feel the term gateway may be an apt metaphor for academic writing classrooms as success in the writing classroom dictates if students ‘move on’ to higher level coursework, but many teachers are uncomfortable with the term “gatekeeper.”
So, how do we as teachers of academic writing, address language issues in the classroom? How do we transfer what we value in US higher education institutions – clear, concise argument and support – when our student may be struggling with sentence structure? Can knowledge of contrastive rhetorics help teachers successfully negotiate the linguistic heterogeneity in classrooms today?
In order to encourage sustained engagement in this discussion, I plan on posting driving questions each Tuesday for the next four weeks.
Scholars have continually defined the various roles and expectations of the writing classroom (see Bartholomae, Elbow, Murray):
1. the introduction of students to academic/dominant discourse
2. the learning of discipline specific writing expectations
3. the application of rhetorical devices
4. the practice of writing as communication and seeing oneself as a writer
Matsuda, et al state in Second Language Writing in the Composition Classroom (2006), that the US composition classroom is the “gateway for the vast majority of students to higher level work in most academic disciplines” (3). I feel the term gateway may be an apt metaphor for academic writing classrooms as success in the writing classroom dictates if students ‘move on’ to higher level coursework, but many teachers are uncomfortable with the term “gatekeeper.”
So, how do we as teachers of academic writing, address language issues in the classroom? How do we transfer what we value in US higher education institutions – clear, concise argument and support – when our student may be struggling with sentence structure? Can knowledge of contrastive rhetorics help teachers successfully negotiate the linguistic heterogeneity in classrooms today?
In order to encourage sustained engagement in this discussion, I plan on posting driving questions each Tuesday for the next four weeks.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
