DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

Student Linguistic Identity in Freshman Composition Classes: Sources for Instructor Reference

by Nicholas Hayes

 

In their study Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature, Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari position minor literature within a widespread language. In contextualizing Kafka’s writing, they underscore the position that Czech and Yiddish had for the writer’s German composition. For Deleuze and Guattari, the home languages of the Jewish community of Prague are important in understanding the use of the official language in Kafka’s writing. Essentially, they discuss how a first language (L1) influences second language (L2) writing. One of the keys to understanding this is that in minor literature, “…language is affected with a high coefficient of deterritorialization” (16).  This key implies the shifting and permeable relation an L2 writer has to the language they have learned and are learning. As freshman composition instructors, we must be aware of the complex relationship our L2 students have to written English.

 

Even instructors of mainstream composition classes cannot anticipate that a class will have a homogenous population. In moving beyond the simplicity of monolingual assumptions, there is a vast network of possibilities. A composition instructor should anticipate every student has a unique relation to language and this relationship shapes his or her identity as a writer.

 

This annotated bibliography and introductory statement provide resources for composition instructors so that they can explore the relationship between student language(s) and identity, as well as suggestions for theories of text selection.

 

Composition instructors frequently adapt to the changing populations of their mainstream students. This can be seen in the selection of texts that seem culturally relevant to the students. However, even with this willingness to adapt, instructors often frame mainstream composition classes as being for monolingual students. If multilingual students are enrolled, they are expected to write with the same fluency as their peers who speak English as a first language. This expectation is especially challenging when looking at Generation 1.5 students, who as ear-learners of English are not readily recognized as English Language Learners (ELLs). Linda Blanton calls attention to the problem Generation 1.5 students face by indicating that when they are placed in classes to help strengthen their writing and literacy skills, they are either placed with undereducated native speakers of English who may lack their academic sophistication, or they are placed with international students who have vastly different needs from and relations to English (110).

 

While discussing the complexities of the linguistically diverse student population, Blanton states that, “More beyond belief, imagine college-level composition instructors thinking they could use their usual methods of teaching, same course materials, and same evaluation standards to teach such students” (113). Instructors who do not adapt set their students and themselves up for failure. Instructors err when they approach a course with this assumption. Anticipating that the student population will have ELLs helps address the changing needs of a diverse population.

 

Understanding student linguistic backgrounds can help instructors negotiate between the necessities of course requirements and the needs of the student population. Instructors will never have a complete picture of the multifarious relations between students and their language(s). Benesch in his chapter “Interrogating In-Between-Ness” in Generation 1.5 in College Composition suggests that postmodern understandings of the relationship between student and language “…require a re-imagining of language users, not as those who must acquire a fixed system, one tied to a particular place and time, but, rather as speakers who are simultaneously interpellated by dominant discourses and creative inventors of newly formed discourses born of the postmodern diaspora” (70). In using this perspective, instructors can better conceptualize the relationship between student and language as not one in need of correction, but a network that can be encouraged to adapt to new genres.

 

In her section of “Changing Currents in Second Language Writing Research,” Linda Harklau argues that as instructors gain understanding of the students’ relationship to language(s), they can gain understanding of “how students and educators resist [and] accommodate…” (155). In anticipating the varied needs of a multilingual classroom, instructors must start to see these complexities. Ultimately, they are recognizing the diversity already inherent in their classroom dynamic. In recognizing this dynamic, they will make their own instruction more efficient. They will create a classroom dynamic in which they recognized the complexities of language and will not necessarily approach writing as a homogenous and homogenizing process. Instructors are most effective when they consider the complex dimensions of student identity when choosing course materials to promote literacy and when they consider how the relation between identity and literacy should guide the evaluation of student writing.

 

Recognizing student diversity is not readily apparent. Because this diversity is not always clear, instructors should not make assumptions based solely on previous preparatory courses the students may have taken or languages they may identify with.

 

Chiang and Schmida discuss another facet of this issue in their essay “Language Identity and Ownership Conflicts” (found in Generation 1.5 Meets College Composition) that, “these [Generation 1.5] students identify with their heritage language even if they do not speak it” (87).  This indicates that even if a Generation 1.5 student has learned English as a primary language, they may not feel it is part of their identity. Cross-identifying with a heritage language reveals the networks of identity can at times conflict with practical literacy. In addition, Costino and Hyon argue that labels cannot indicate the most appropriate class for a student and that this should be weighed against other factors in student placement. The complexity of a student’s relationship with language is lost in these placements, and instructors should take the initiative to find out more about their classroom's linguistic diversity by introducing a writing styles questionnaire early in the term, as suggested by Dana Ferris and John S. Hedgcock in  Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process and Practice (84-87). By asking students to evaluate their relationship to English and any home language, instructors can get information on student’s “classroom work styles,” their evaluation of their writing skills, and their self-assessed compositional and literacy deficiencies (78). Such activity will help fill in the unknown quantities of student identity and their relationship with language.

 

Having a clearer understanding of the dynamic dimensions of this relationship will help instructors promote the development of writing. In looking at the complexities of student success, altering strategies might be effective. However ultimately aligning an evaluation process within a larger cultural and philosophical framework will engage a more effective manner of encouraging college composition. In evaluating student work, instructors must move beyond the strictures of the monolingual ideal. Punitive interpretations of student mistakes are not helpful. Assignment preparation must also take into account the various perceptions of work. In asking why so many Generation 1.5 students fail, Blanton concludes this is “[b]ecause they are not at the point of being able to profit from composition instruction. They are not yet literate enough” (113).

 

In her chapter “Difficulties for Generation 1.5 Learners” in Generation 1.5 in College Composition, Crosby  says, “As we saw in this study, some of the academic literacy task the generation 1.5 learners completed assumed background knowledge and strategies that they neither possessed nor were taught” (117). Understanding that students may not have the skills will help prepare the instructors. Crosby suggests that to more accurately adjust to students' needs, the skill level can be more thoroughly addressed in a needs assessment.

 

Instructors can use this understanding to help develop readings that meet the needs of both monolingual and multilingual students.  According to Blanton, to prepare students, instructors must, “Aim for literacy immersion.” They must also understand that  “connections need to be created between [spoken and written language]” (117). Facilitating these connections will help both native English speakers and ELLs develop a richer relationship with essay composition.      

 

Instructors should consider what outcomes selected texts will have in regards to writing. In Generation 1.5 Meets College Composition, Ann Johns uses her essay “Opening Our Doors” to argue for socioliterate approaches in writing classrooms. Through use of such techniques, instructors can encourage their students to develop a meta-discourse on literature. This approach to text selection can be compared to the use of traditional literature that Belcher and Hirvela examine. The use of this approach is contentious because some see it as an indulgence for the instructor, while others see it as a way to empower students by reader-response.

 

In their essay “Transnational Identifications”, Jarratt, Losh and Puente explain their decision to move beyond a simple and static understanding of student identity. They adopt Roz Ivanic’s concept of “identification” as opposed to “identity.” This concept focuses on the dynamic but not inherently conscious development of identity. As teachers understand and adapt their classrooms to this dynamism, they will better serve their students.

 

Annotated Bibliography

 

Blanton, Linda Lonon. “Student, Interrupted: A Tale of Two Would-Be Writers.” Journal of Second Language Writing. 14.2 (2005): 105-121. Web. 26 Sept. 2010.

 

Blanton examines the academic histories of two ELLs, Meseret and Tran, and how it influences their writing and academic success. She identifies both students as having “textual interactions” primarily in their L2 while they were gaining Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills. These students, and those in Generation 1.5, are often underserved because of our lack of understanding of the relationship between incomplete literacy in L1 and incipient literacy in L2. Many students do poorly because their skills are not developed to the point to fully thrive in the composition setting.

 

Costino, Kimberly A., and Sunny Hyon. "A Class for Students Like Me": Reconsidering Relationships among Identity Labels, Residency Status, and Students' Preferences for Mainstream or Multilingual Composition.” Journal of Second Language Writing. 16.2 (2007): 63-81. Web. 26 Sept. 2010.

 

Costino and Hyon examine the relationships between university students in basic writing classes and their reaction to demographic labels: identity, residency and preference for mainstream and multilingual writing. Although no consistent patterns of self-identification emerged, students preferred “their section” of the course because they felt it addressed their needs. Their findings suggest that students, instructors, and administrators should all have the same understanding of the terms applied to students.

 

Harklau, Linda, Kay M. Losey and Meryl Siegal. Generation 1.5 Meets College     Composition: Issues in the Teaching of Writing to U.S. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence             Erlbaum Associates, 1999. Print.

 

This book offers many chapters that deal with literacy and identity. In particular, Chiang and Schmida’s essay “Language Identity and Ownership Conflicts” explores the complexity between language and identity.

 

Ferris, Dana R., and John S. Hedgcock. “Syllabus Design and Lesson Planning”    Teaching ESL: Purpose, Process, and Practice. 2nd Ed. New York: Routledge, 2005.  72-123 Print.

 

Ferris offers many practical suggestions for planning classes, including guidelines for a preliminary class questionnaire. In general, the book this text is from provides practical advice for addressing the needs of ESL students through course design and class preparation.

 

Matsuda, Paul Kei, A. Suresh Canagarajah, Linda Harklau, Ken Hyland, and Mark           Warschauer. “Changing Currents in Second Language Writing Research: A   Colloquium.” Journal of Second Language Writing. 12.2 (2003): 151-179. Web.            26 Sept. 2010.

 

This colloquium addresses the American Association for Applied Linguistics. They discuss trends that shaped L2 writing instruction in the ‘90s and early ‘00s. They examine web-based writing as an identity driven medium that encourages students to develop agency and a sense of voice. There is advocacy for “metadisciplinary inquiry” in part as a tool for self-reflection.

 

Roberge, Mark and Meryl Siegal and Linda Harklau, eds. Generation 1.5 in College          Composition: Teaching Academic Writing to U.S.-Educated Learners of ESL.           New York: Routledge, 2009. Print.

 

The three sections of this book cover Frameworks, Student Characteristics and Schooling Paths, and Curricular and Pedagogical Paths. Of particular interest are the sections critiquing the perception of Gen 1.5 as being in an in-between state (chapter 5), looking at the transition from High School to College Composition (chapter 6) and developing individualized pedagogy in response to diverse needs (chapter 13).

 

Jarratt, Susan C., Elizabeth Losh, and David Puente. “Transnational Identifications: Biliterate Writers in a First-Year Humanities Course.” Journal of Second    Language Writing. 15.1 (2006): 24-48. Web. 26 Sept. 2010.

 

In compiling information collected through questionnaires, focus groups, student responses to the writing process, and writing produced in a humanities course, the writers examine the transnational experiences and identifications that re-form composition strategies.

 

Ferris, Dana and Barrie Roberts. “Error Feedback in L2 Writing Classes: How explicit Does It Need To Be?” Journal of Second Language Writing. 10.3 (2001): 161- 184. Web. 26 Sept. 2010.

 

Ferris and Barrie examine how explicit error feedback needs to be. They examined students' ability to correct papers with errors indicated with codes from five categories, with papers errors from the five categories marked but where the categories were not indicated, and papers without errors indicated.

 

Belcher, Diane and Alan Hirvela. “Literature and L2 Composition: Revisiting the Debate.” Journal of Second Language Writing. 9.1 (2001): 21-39. Web. 26 Sept.  2010.

 

The authors examine the topic of literature in the L2 composition classroom. They survey L1 arguments on the subject as well as L2 views on the subject. The author’s reference “a number of L2 composition specialists [who] justify their use of literature” (28) and contrast this with Ann Johns’s call for a socioliterate approach in L2 writing classes. They also examine those who view literature as a way of discovering voice through reader-response analysis. The paper cautions composition instructors to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks when deciding to use of literature (whether canonical or popular).

 

Wang, Lurong. “Switching to First Language among Writers with Differing Second-Language Proficiency.” Journal of Second Language Writing. 12.4 (2003): 347-375. Web. 26 Sept. 2010.

 

This paper uses both qualitative and quantitative evidence in exploring how students switch from L1 and L2 in composition. The study followed eight Chinese-speaking ESL learners and examined the mechanics of how switch occurs.  There is some evidence to support an understanding that switching to L1 can have some positive impact on L2 composition.

 

Work Cited

 

Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari. Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature. 1975. Trans. Dana Polan. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1986. Print.

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.