Dangers and Promise of the L2 Metaphor in WAC

Matsuda, Paul Kei and Jeffrey Jablonski. “Beyond the L2 Metaphor: Towards a Mutually Transformative Model of ESL/WAC Collaboration.” Academic Writing 1 (2000): n. pag. Rpt. in Writing across the Curriculum: A Critical Sourcebook. Ed. Terry Myers Zawacki and Paul M. Rogers. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2012. 441-47, Print.

Even though this article is quite brief, Matsuda and Jablonski explore a worthwhile consideration regarding the relationship of WAC and ESL. They take up a common metaphor in WAC/WID: learning to write in different disciplines is like learning a new language. While this view of learning communicative practices in different disciplines and contexts has encouraged WAC scholars to develop their understanding of L2 practices, they argue this perspective may often be used without considering its effects on L2 students. As they claim, this view may simplify L2 learning and exclude these students and their needs in WAC programs. To remedy this, they advocate a closer connection of WAC and ESL instructors.

They begin by examining how the L2 metaphor has been used in composition studies, including Mina Shaughnessy’s work with basic writers. Shaughnessy’s work—and later work by other scholars—helped to establish that connection between work in ESL and in composition. The key benefit of the metaphor has been helping instructors in the disciplines recognize that their discourse is unique and that students may need helping understanding and using that discourse effectively. But as noted above, they also argue that the use of this metaphor has not reached its potential. The borrowing of L2 matters in composition studies has often been in the narrow form of error. It also fails to recognize the ethnic and cultural differences L2 students face, as well as the double difficulty they have in learning a new language and a new disciplinary language. These lapses suggest a separation of WAC and ESL (Matsuda’s notion of the division of labor) and cause missed opportunities for these fields to influence each other’s practices.

Fostering such a “mutually transformative” influence is their goal here. They argue that as the fields borrow knowledge from each other, they must recognize that the borrowing can and should change how they approach instruction. In the case of WAC borrowing from ESL, WAC scholars and teachers should recognize that the ideas they bring over should not just be for the benefit of the L1 students. Furthermore, they must understand that, though ESL courses may be separate from their own, the students who go through these programs will still face issues in WAC courses. Finally, they suggest a more collaborative approach of these programs from the outset. The programs, in other words, might consider joint efforts as opposed to working in isolation.

In spite of its brevity, this article superbly reminds us that we must consider the full implications of how we use any theories or practices in our classroom. In addition and more immediate to my concerns, I appreciate that the authors argue for a more meaningful collaboration between WAC initiatives and ESL writing programs on a campus to help keep visible the needs of L2 students as they move from their initial courses into later courses requiring different writing skills and strategies. Such collaborative efforts have the potential to bring faculty together in a common purpose of success for all students.