Multilingual Students’ Academic Literacy Needs in Composition Classes

In light of the findings reported above, it seems that composition classes – with their focus on genres less common in other discourse communities and grammar and mechanics, especially in ‘ESL composition classes’ – may not be preparing undergraduate students in

general and multilingual students in particular for the writing demands of courses across the curriculum or classes in their majors. Additionally, certain literacy skills have been argued to be universal in successful written communication, such as knowledge of discourse communities, subject matter, genre, rhetoric, and writing processes (Beaufort, 2005; Johns, 1997), yet these do not appear central to the curricula of most composition classes as previously suggested. It should be noted, however, that research also shows that even though ESL writing classes may not adequately prepare students for college demands, multilingual writers tend to find ESL writing classes friendly and low stakes and believe that these courses help them practice their English (Leki, 2007; Leki & Carson, 1997).

In addition, most composition courses for multilingual writers are actually designed by ESL writing programs to meet the needs of international students and not those of generation 1.5 students (Harklau, 2000; Harklau, Siegal & Losey, 1999; Matsuda, 2008). As Matsuda (2008) explains, the foundations of these courses were developed over half a century ago when the majority of multilingual writers were indeed international students. However, with the 1965 Immigration Act, which allowed “more equitable distribution of visas to applicants throughout the world” (Roberge, 2009, p. 8), and the beginning of open admissions at community and urban

colleges (Matsuda, 2008), the influx of generation 1.5 students in postsecondary settings in the U.S. has increased rapidly. Nevertheless, as Matsuda (2008) pointedly argue, “ESL writing

programs and teacher education programs are only beginning to explore the implications of the changing demographics” (p. 163).

Ferris et al. (2011) indicate that this is a problem not only in ‘ESL writing programs’, but in first-year composition programs as well. In their study on the backgrounds, philosophies, and practice of college writing instructions, both in mainstream and in ‘ESL’ composition courses,

Ferris et al. found that many multilingual students take general first-year composition courses but that instructors are not well prepared to deal with these students’ needs. Specifically, their

general results revealed that most instructors, in attempting to adapt to responding to L24 writers’ texts, provided detailed feedback on language errors. Additionally, many teachers believed they were addressing these students’ needs by referring them to external resources, such as sending

them to ESL composition sections or to the writing center. Still some instructors were

completely oblivious to the fact that they had L2 students in their classes, and some were aware

4

L2 is the terminology used in Ferris et al. (2011), and whether these are international or generation 1.5 students is not clear, although a combination of both is the most likely scenario.

of it but did not believe that students’ language background are relevant and that they have

specific needs. These findings seem to reflect prevailing monolingual assumptions in composition studies, which, according to Matsuda (2006), enable a ‘myth of linguistic homogeneity’.

Although these findings may seem disconcerting, Belcher (2012) remind us, however, that “the picture is by no means completely bleak” (p. 133) when we consider the promising

possibilities documented by researchers of their own classroom efforts. For example, in John’s (1990, 1997, 2009a, 2009b) ‘socioliterate approaches’, students can explore, as trained genre

analysts or ethnographers, genres and demands of subject-area courses linked to their English for academic purposes (EAP) classes. Benesch (2001), as cited in Belcher (2012) also reports on similar approaches with linked classes although in her courses she emphasizes a “more critical

theoretical perspective, arguing for not just needs but ‘rights’ analysis” (Belcher, 2012, p. 134). Another published account of linked classes is found in Murie and Fitzpatrick (2009) in which the authors describe in great detail the ‘Commanding English program’ at the University of

Minnesota where they teach. This is a first-year writing program tailored to generation 1.5 students that offers, through linked courses, reading support courses connected to introductory college courses. These linked courses also provide a learning community to students as they normally enroll as a cohort in several subject-area courses that are linked to the writing program. Similarly, Holten (2009) and Reynolds, Bae and Wilson (2009) report on their efforts to create writing courses designed to meet the needs of generation 1.5 students at the University of

California Los Angeles and University of Houston, respectively. Both chapters provide extensive information from needs analysis and placement procedures to curriculum and syllabus design, and Reynolds et al. (2009) also offer samples of first-semester assignments in their appendices.

Tardy (2011) is another scholar who shares her attempts to identify language practices and raise awareness of multilingual writers’ needs at the first-year writing program at her own

institution for she hopes to “provide strategies for others who may wish to examine their own local contexts with an eye toward self-reflection and potential change” (p. 639).

While these are encouraging endeavors of the type we hope to see more in both ESL and first-year composition courses, they have obviously been pursued by specialists established in the field and experienced practitioners but to what extent regular composition instructors apply similar pedagogical approaches is a question that remains unanswered. I now discuss several more pedagogical implications put forth by scholars on how to meet multilingual students’

academic literacy needs.