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.