|
Ann
M. Johns |
|
In the worlds inhibited by linguistically-diverse students, there have
traditionally been two distinguishable teaching environments: the English
as a Second Language (ESL) contexts (e.g., United States, Australia,
the United Kingdom), where English is the language of the country and
the medium of instruction in its colleges and universities; and the English
as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts (e.g., France, Egypt, Mexico), in
countries where other languages are dominant, and English is taught as
a foreign language, much as French or Arabic is taught in the United
States. Though as I will note later, these distinctions have become somewhat
blurred over time, especially in English-speaking countries, historically,
different kinds of curricular and pedagogical choices have been made
for the two types of contexts. Why
did ESP, a WAC-related movement for the linguistically-diverse student,
thrive in EFL contexts? There are several reasons. EFL students
needed to have
rapid, focused access to the language and discourses of their academic disciplines;
and in the sciences, technology, and medicine, in particular, current disciplinary
research and textbooks were available principally in English. Though writing
was important in some contexts (see, e.g., Swales, 1971), reading, grammar,
vocabulary, and critical thinking tended to be more central to EFL student
needs in other situations . In addition, many of the international post-secondary
institutions in which the students were enrolled, and the students themselves,
viewed English as the language of imperialism, so there was little encouragement
to study the “general” language and cultures of the English-speaking
world. In
North America, where English is the medium of instruction, a different
history
unfolded. David Russell (1994) notes that since the
Progressive Movement
in
the early 20th Century, there has been a tension in post-secondary educational
goals for all students between “the pressure to increase specialization
of knowledge and professional work” (the focus of ESP curricula) and “the
pressure to integrate more fully an ever-widening number of citizens into intellectually
meaningful activity within mass society” (p. 3). The WAC movement was
designed to assist in resolving that tension, “born out of a desire to
make the mass education system more equitable and inclusive but, at the same
time, more rational in its pursuit of disciplinary excellence and the differentiation
of knowledge and work that drives modern (and postmodern) society” (Russell,
1994, p.3). Not surprisingly, the tensions remain in post-secondary education,
taking on a particular salience in the many North American institutions
that enroll a number of linguistically-diverse students. What
is the nature of current tensions in and with ESL post-secondary education
in North America? At this point, many types
of linguistically-diverse students
with a variety of needs are enrolled in our educational institutions
(See, e.g., Leki, 1992), and this variety requires, ideally, a collection
of
classes. We can no longer take one approach to the teaching of ESL literacies.
The
international students remain, though there has been a slight decline
in their numbers since
9/11 (See http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=29115). However, our colleges
also enroll an increasing number of immigrant and refugee students, some
of whom are not fully academically literate in their first languages
or in English,
though many have experienced their formal education in English-medium
schools. Scarcella (1996), attempting to discover reasons for this educational
dilemma,
notes that in the recent past, K-12 classes in the United States have
de-emphasized linguistic form (grammar) and corrective feedback as Whole
Language and
other top-down approaches to literacy have become popular (See, e.g.,
Grabe & Stoller,
for a discussion of top-down and bottom-up approaches). Therefore, learners
may come to college with fossilized linguistic forms and a grammar and vocabulary
inadequate for post-secondary academic reading and writing. Harklau, Losey,
and Seigal refer to these American-educated students caught between two languages
and cultures as “Generation 1.5” (1999). In
addition to the multiplicity of student groups and needs, the tensions
mentioned
by Russell (1994) between “the specialization of knowledge” and “intellectually
meaningful activity” are also in play. Some ESL composition teachers
have taken a strong stand against the teaching of specialized discourses from
the disciplines advocated in ESP. In “Initiating ESL Students into Academic
Discourse Communities: How Far Should We Go?”, Spack argues that an ESL
composition course should “be a humanities course: a place where students
are provided the enrichment of reading and writing that provokes thought and
fosters their intellectual and ethical development” (1988, p. 46). Spack
also implies that ESL instructors cannot, and should not, assist students or
faculty with writing across the curriculum issues, for “writing tasks
are fundamentally situated and multiple” (p. 47) and thus must
be dealt with in authentic academic contexts. Disagreements about the
functions
of
ESL undergraduate writing classes persist in our professional organizations
(e.g.,
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages/TESOL) and in the
literature (see Casanave, 2004). Though some ESL professionals have been
involved
in developing cross-curricular content-based instruction in K-12 education
(See,
e.g., Brinton,
Snow and Wesche, 2003), and a few post-secondary ESL instructors have
collaborated in the development of cross-disciplinary programs (See,
e.g., Johns 1997,
2001a), the majority of ESL instructors in North America appear to have
isolated themselves
(or been isolated from) the WAC/WID movements and related cross-disciplinary
enterprises . There
are other reasons for the tensions in North American ESL. Many linguistically-diverse
students object to, or are intimidated
by, the
subjugation of their linguistic
lives and habits to academic languages and discourses. As Canagarajah
notes (2002), the multilingual student is particularly sensitive to the
ways
in which established literacies function “to maintain the power of the academic
community” (p. 145). This power is imposed upon linguistically-diverse
students by disciplinary faculty and composition instructors in distinct ways,
e.g., through faculty distaste for “foreign” grammatical errors
(Vann, Meyer, and Lorenz, 1984) and through what many ESL students consider
to be inappropriate penalties for “plagiarism” (Pennycook,
1997). Finally, many linguistically-diverse undergraduates realize that
extended
writing is seldom assigned in their general education classes or their
majors, most
of which are in the sciences, computer sciences, or engineering; thus
they resist both composition classes and some WAC/WID approaches (see
Leki,
2003). When conducting a cross-disciplinary academic survey many years
ago (1981),
I found that listening and reading were more central to undergraduate
ESL (and monolingual) student success than was writing. The situation
has not
changed,
according to my ESL students. The picture in graduate school is considerably
different because course papers and theses are required; fortunately,
the Swales and Feak volumes (2000, 2004) exist for both ESL students
and their
instructors
at advanced levels. Different
concerns related to the linguistically-diverse students are on the
minds of literacy instructors in Europe and other
parts of the
world
at this
time. Until recently, most international post-secondary institutions
did not see a need for WAC/WID or for academic writing instruction because
their programs
were highly selective, limiting enrollment through examination to those
students who were linguistically proficient, generally in more than one
language.
However, changes are taking place as many countries witness an influx
of
immigrants
who require additional instruction in both local languages and English,
the international language. Though many international institutions continue
to
resist the establishment of writing classes, especially at the undergraduate
level, a growing number are building writing centers and web-based assistance
as well as working with faculty across the disciplines to encourage WAC/WID
initiatives (See Björk, Bräuer, Rinenecker, & Stray Jörgensen,
2003 and Johns, 2003 for discussions of work in European universities.) It would be impossible to summarize the considerable literature or histories
of ESL/ EFL or ESP in a short introduction of this type. Suffice it to say
that most international scholars and faculty have been much more interested
in the analysis and production of specialized languages and discourses, whereas
North American ESL has concentrated more upon the nature and content of undergraduate
writing courses, particularly at the freshman level. However, there are parallels
between the international contexts and the North American ones, the most significant
of which is that in all parts of the world, post-secondary faculty across the
disciplines are discovering linguistically-diverse students in their classes.
We are all immersed in linguistic diversity at this point, whether or not we
are prepared for the teaching challenges that result. Contents of this issue Five additional articles from ESL and EFL teaching contexts will complete this
issue. In one, the author will discuss research among ESL graduate students
in the United Kingdom to identify the pedagogical practices that enhance learning
within their discipline. A second article is from Australia, where the author
is conducting research into the use of the literature review for introducing
ESL engineering undergraduates to their discipline. A third has been written
by scholars in the United States as they develop curricula and train secondary
school teachers who are experiencing an influx of ESL and Generation 1.5 students
into their classrooms for the first time. English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts are also represented in this issue.
Three scholars from Singapore will report on research relating to the use of
technology in EFL history and social science classes as part of a larger Digital
Curricular Literacies project. In another article, faculty from the University
of Groningen will discuss their assessment of the writing needs (professional,
academic, everyday) experienced by EFL students in a program designed for international
humanitarian assistance professionals. Selecting, critiquing, and publishing these articles has been a enriching experience.
I am particularly grateful for the guidance and support offered by Sharon Quiroz,
the ATD editor. The expert reviewers assisted the authors to revise their work
for this publication. And, of course, a special thanks to the contributors
for their research and insights.
Home | Professional Activities | Teaching | Consulting & Service | Suggested Reading |