|
Articles Conference Reviews |
C.12 Beyond “L1” and “L2”C.12 Beyond “L1” and “L2”: Toward an Interdisciplinary Synthesis in Multilingual Writing Research and Pedagogy As a scholar of rhetoric, composition, and second language writing, I have always found the intersections between these fields not only highly productive in thinking about theory and pedagogy, but essential for understanding the dynamics of the composition classroom. Old models of thinking about multilingual writing are quickly breaking down in the rapidly changing writing classroom. In this session, both presenters provide multiple ways of “contesting” these models, both in disciplinary practice and in the research we do. Jonathon Hall, “The New Writing Research: Toward a Synthesis of L2 Writing Research and Rhetoric/Composition” Hall nicely embeds results from an extensive education and language background survey within discussions of disciplinarity in the field, which tends to be constructed around the binary between "L1 and L2” (categories that are quickly dissolving). The driving force behind Hall’s research endeavors begins with his own questions about his professional identity. Is he a L1 compositionist, or is he an L2 compositionist? When looking at the education and background of his classes, this professional identity cannot be defined by classroom demographics. As can be seen in Figure 1, students in Hall’s writing program come from varied backgrounds.  Figure 1. Hall attributes the L1 and L2 divide not to classroom demographics, but to “persistent disciplinary differences,” such as epistemologies and methodologies. Myths about writing also reinforce this divide. For example, writing is often seen as a separable skill and with the assumption that there is a homogenous baseline or “prototypical student.” Contradictions arise when “L1 compositionists” find themselves teaching international students and “L2 compositionists” find themselves teaching domestic students. Hall proposes that we consider the multilingual student as the mainstream or prototypical student. Course design for any writing course should assume “multilinguality,” and Hall believes that the monolingual student should become the anomaly. This notion ultimately changes how we frame our teaching: “How can we help multilingual students develop their total communicative repertoires in all their languages? How can we find ways to help monolingual students compensate for their linguistic--and thus cultural--deprivation?” Framed by these questions, Hall presented a portion of research he has done at his own university. He attempted to connect educational and language background to writing competency and investigated both multilingual and monolingual students together. The most compelling result of this research was that writing competencies were evenly distributed among the different categories in figure one. His point is that being multilingual is not a predictor of poorer writing skills. Why have we not seen such research before? Perhaps because of the disciplinary divide designated by the labels “L1 and L2.” Shawna Shapiro, “WAC/WID and ESL: Beyond the Deficiency of Multilingualism” One issue that came to mind during Hall’s presentation was the difference between City University of New York and Miami University of Ohio, the “public ivy” where I am currently doing my Ph.D. work. Though Hall certainly makes a strong case for redefining the boundaries between multilingualism and monolingualism, how does that work at a university where most students would label themselves “monolingual”? Shapiro extends the conversation started by Hall into this context. According to Shapiro, WAC/WID models provide a model and infrastructure that can support programs that want to move away from the “deficiency model” of second language writing. Shapiro claims that the deficiency model sees linguistic diversity as an obstacle to be overcome, rather than an asset. Institutional policies and attitudes reinforce this “remediation” mindset, preferring to gate-keep rather than advocate for multilingual students, thus fragmenting academic support. For example, when Shapiro first arrived at her university, the ESL program was so physically marginalized that it could not be found within the boundaries of the map. And, of course, many programs restrict academic support to the first year. The disciplinary divide simply grows because second language writing is often not included in L1 models of WAC/WID. The research presented by Shapiro focuses on identifying the disciplinary mechanisms that perpetuated the deficiency model at a West coast “public ivy,” and how an alliance between ESL and WAC/WID might help advance these ideologies. Using a variety of methods, including surveys, interviews, and participant observation, Shapiro found that schools tended to “alienate” U.S. residents from U.S. citizens by invalidating previous academic achievements and interrupting “students’ academic, financial, and social integration.” Coursework further contributed to this alienation by offering no academic credit for ESL support classes, often charging more than the usual tuition. These courses also tended to focus on ”basic skills” and relied on testing for assessment, rather than writing. For other faculty throughout the school, this need for remediation was often translated into lack of resources. Professors who “don’t teach writing,” don’t have the time or staff resources to “deal” with ESL students. Even the description of the ESL program used words like “excessive burden” and “up to a level.” Such institutional frameworks were often perceived by students as not only discouraging, but actually deceptive and just end up “trying to get more money out of international students.” As a result of her research, Shapiro is attempting to foster collaboration between the ESL program and WAC/WID, looking to move from “remediation” to “mediation.” In other words, instead of “fixing” the ESL student “problem,” a mediation model supports students by integrating research and curriculums from both programs, providing advocacy and resources across the university. According to Shapiro, if we can change the discourse and institutional structures bit by bit, perhaps we can shift the overall ideology from deficiency to diversity, where multilingual students are seen as an asset, not as a problem to be solved. Overall, the two presenters for this session provided two compelling models for contesting the institutional and disciplinary boundaries between “L1 and L2.” Both Shapiro and Hall help us perceive the multilingual classroom and advance the research we perform as scholars. Working with more interdisciplinary models like these will help composition in the university not only remain relevant, but actually serve a crucial role in fostering diversity both inside and outside of the university. |