Strangers in a Strange Land

Zamel, Vivian. “Strangers in Academia: The Experiences of Faculty and ESL Students Across the Curriculum.” CCC 46.4 (1995): 506-21. Rpt. in Writing Across the Curriculum: A Critical Sourcebook. Ed. Terry Myers Zawacki and Paul M. Rogers. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2012. 246-60. Print.

As the title makes clear, this article’s focus is on both student and instructor perspectives of ESL matters, which, as Zamel argues, is especially useful given greater interest ( some may claim “concern would be a better term in some situations) in matters related to ESL students. As part of developing faculty workshops, Zamel surveyed faculty regarding their experiences with ESL students. What she found was that the main concerns of faculty across the university indicated a deficit view of ESL students, claiming they were “problems” to be “fixed.” She argues that we need to move beyond this deficit view at all levels and in every department in the university to provide more meaningful education to not only ESL students but to all students.

To illustrate the concerns she has, Zamel brings in feedback from both teachers and students. She begins with examples of feedback from two teachers to illustrate the divergent views of ESL students and their needs. The first response challenges the myth that language skills equal abilities to achieve academically, argues for attention to content instead of superficial matters, and relates significant student success in one instance. The second response highlights the deficit model of language, a view focuses on superficial elements of writing, adheres to a belief in the gatekeeping system, and claims language instruction to be someone else’s responsibility thereby separating language skills from course content.

Zamel also addresses student concerns in these matters. Many of the ESL student responses she received discuss classes that made them feel marginal and deficient. These students want recognition for the hard work they put in to learning both content and English, want instructors to view them as capable and intelligent, and want instructors to meet them halfway by working with them in terms of language and reevaluating their classroom practices. Instructors, then, must recognize the need to question their classroom and evaluative practices, which, as Zamel correctly observes, would benefit all students, not only the ESL students.

While this article may have some years on it, it is not dated, for both problematic and promising reasons. Although greater awareness and moves toward focus on student success may be changing faculty views of ESL students, some faculty, unfortunately, may still adhere to variations of the deficit models. In response, Zamel suggests we turn such problematic views into opportunities through educating our colleagues; evaluating our pedagogies through the eyes of our students, including (and perhaps especially) ESL students; and working together to develop practices that improve learning for everyone involved.

Cultural Biases of Common FYC Practices

Ramanathan, Vai, and Dwight Atkinson. “Individualism, Academic Writing, and ESL Writers.” Journal of Second Language Writing 8.1 (1999): 45-75. Print.

The authors of this article remind us how easily we take for granted certain pedagogical approaches and practices and that those practices may conflict with the backgrounds and culture of some of our students. Ramanathan and Atkinson argue here that many of the core practices of composition classes (especially required FYC courses) rely on a culturally-specific individualist mentality that may be problematic for those students whose home cultures are more communal. As a result, these students may struggle to meet the goals of the course effectively.

Ramanathan and Atkinson focus on four common composition pedagogical practices that are underwritten by individualism. They first address voice--and at some length, which was perhaps more appropriate at the time. (While voice is still a common point of focus in composition instruction today, the social turn in composition studies has certainly curtailed expressivist practices.) While maybe slightly dated now, this section does offer two interesting perspectives on the consequences of seeking one’s “authentic.” First, this may conflict with notions of the individual as part of and subservient to the goals of a community common in more communally-oriented societies (e.g., China). Second, this practice can make these students feel that they need to craft a different “self” as a way to meet the instructor’s expectations about “authentic” voice.

Perhaps of greater interest are what the authors identified as potentially problematic ideas and practices that appear on many FYC syllabi (including mine): peer review, critical thinking, and authorship issues (i.e., plagiarism). Each of these, the authors contend, has roots in Western individualistic culture. Peer review requires one to challenge the work of another; some students (Chinese students, in the authors’ examples) found this practice potentially harmful to the coherence of the peer review group and/or felt they were not in the position to judge their work. Critical thinking also relies on cultural frameworks that these students may not possess, and critical thinking’s emphasis on challenge may upset some students’ views on the need for harmony and consensus. Finally, the authors point to the Western perceptions of authorship and creativity as unfamiliar to students whose cultures value “how much [students] have internalized of the transmittable traditions of their culture” (63). Thus, plagiarism (as Westerners would define it—though the authors argue Westerners have trouble with this too [62-63]) is not viewed as necessarily wrong.

As the authors note throughout, the important matter here is not that we should make sweeping generalizations about individuals based on their particular culture. However, we should be cognizant that the practices and objectives of our classrooms, especially the more common practices, have particular cultural biases, ones that may negatively affect students who are not “insiders” in that culture. Therefore, we should examine those practices common to FYC in relation to the actual students that are in our classes in an attempt to determine which practices may be of most benefit to our students.

Introductory Post

Hello everyone, and welcome to my blog. As you can see, I have interests in a variety of pedagogy matters and am looking forward to adding a section on L2 matters.

My name is Nathan Serfling. I am currently a third-year part-time PhD student at Old Dominion University, where my emphases are rhetoric and writing studies, and writing pedagogy. I have special interests in online writing instruction, rhetorical theory and writing pedagogy, and faculty development and other administrative matters. I am also a full-time instructor at South Dakota State University (SDSU). There, I teach Composition I and Composition II, as well as the occasional Introduction to Literature.

SDSU is a mid-sized (about 12,000-13,000 students) Division I school. However, the population is relatively homogenous—mostly middle-class, white students from South Dakota and the surrounding states. My experiences with multilingual students have been relatively limited as a result. I have had only a handful of multilingual students over the years. While I did have more interactions with multilingual students as a tutor in our university’s writing center, even these were experiences were few and limited in scope. As SDSU continues to grow, though, we are attracting a much more diverse student population, and I anticipate that my limited experiences will multiply quickly.

This brings me to the focus of my blog in this section. My home department is small and consists of mostly literature faculty. These faculty teach some sections of Composition II, and GTAs, adjuncts, and full-time instructional staff teach the bulk of Composition I and Composition II courses. I am hoping to use my readings here to explore issues of faculty development (both within departments and across the university) regarding L2 pedagogy with the ultimate goal of extending the pedagogical skills and practices of my colleagues.