As I watched Writing Across Borders, I was not surprised by the ways in which culture and L1 writing conventions influence writing in an L2. I have tutored many international students in college-level writing, and many of them struggle with learning the conventions of academic English writing. Students must not only become familiar with standard academic writing, but also learn about what writing conventions are acceptable in their individual disciplines. Different citation styles, reader expectations, and organizational focuses can seriously confuse students who are trying to transfer their knowledge of L1 writing into an L2. Just yesterday, a friend of mine who is a TA in the crop science department at the U of I, mentioned how difficult it is for him to fairly assess international student writing because he often gets confused by non-linear organization and sometimes significant grammatical errors. He wants to give students a fair grade based on the content of their essays; however, writing conventions can get in the way of his ability to understand and interpret the content. Grading international student writing alongside the writing of native speakers can provide some very real challenges.
I thought the video gave some great suggestions for approaching international student writing fairly. Because American writing classrooms often deal with topics that are highly politicized and often controversial, it is important for teachers to recognize that international students might not be familiar with these issues. In other cases, dealing with these controversial topics (particularly topics which might be taboo in other countries) could make them very uncomfortable and inhibit their ability to write effectively. As a writing instructor, I hope I can give students flexibility when choosing topics to write about, as well as refer them to resources about topics, if necessary. I don’t plan to lower my standards, but as the video suggested, I will predict the difficulties that my students might have and prepare to make accommodations for them, as needed.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Blog Post #5: Cultural Discourse and Rhetoric
This week’s articles by Ryuko Kubota focus on cultural discourse and how this language can be used to establish and/or maintain power. Even though cultural determinism (emphasizing cultural differences according to an essentialist perspective) is widely accepted and difficult to escape, Kubota claims that we must “critically understand cultural representations as particular truth or knowledge constructed by discourse” (“Japanese Culture Constructed by Discourses” 15). Cultural understanding cannot exist outside of discourse, yet we can critically examine this discourse in order to understand power relationships among cultures. With an awareness of discourse, we can start to combat colonial mindsets, such as Otherness.
(I also found it interesting to learn that cultural groups can also use discourse to their own advantage, as illustrated by Japanese theories of nohonjinron and nihon bunkaron. I was aware that colonizers used discourse to maintain power, but I was surprised to see that discourse was also used in response to Western dominance.)
I agree with Kubota that English teachers need to be careful about connecting their students’ actions with social and ideological values of a certain culture. Kubota maintains that “power…is not unidirectional, nor is discourse monolithic” (“Japanese Culture Constructed by Discourses” 22). In other words, discourse is multi-facted. As English teachers, we should feel challenged to help our students develop awareness and think critically about the functions and purposes of cultural discourse. We should respect our students’ linguistic backgrounds in order to help create equality. We should give students an opportunity to critically analyze their own languages, as well as English. I believe that if we help them, they can develop an understanding of the discourse of power in order to negotiate and create their own individual identities in the midst of (and perhaps in spite of) cultural determinism and Orientalism.
I think this is where the idea of contrastive rhetoric can come into play. If we, as teachers, can understand some of the differences in writing across cultures, then we can help our students write to an English-speaking audience with specific expectations while still respecting various writing styles. Connor makes the point that “what constitutes straightforward writing depends on reader expectation” (227). I know that my students come from a wide variety of traditions where readers’ standards and expectations might differ significantly from a standard English-speaking reader’s expectations. However, writing is all about communicating effectively with a specific audience in a certain context (rhetorical situation). Students should be free to experiment with various genres, create multigenre projects, and adjust their voices to meet the needs of individual rhetorical situations. If cultures are always shifting, then writing styles and conventions can change, too. Kubota, for example, writes about pedagogical approaches to cultural differences very convincingly through using a nontraditional narrative form for his article, “Unfinished Knowledge: The Story of Barbara.” Additionally, Connor mentions that there might not be a clear English-language norm for EU grant proposals due to the diversity of Europeans reading and writing these proposals (235). That being said, I still think it’s valuable for students to develop familiarity with dominant discourses in English. If students can understand and write within the discourses of power, then they can “break the rules” and begin to challenge those discourses.
(I also found it interesting to learn that cultural groups can also use discourse to their own advantage, as illustrated by Japanese theories of nohonjinron and nihon bunkaron. I was aware that colonizers used discourse to maintain power, but I was surprised to see that discourse was also used in response to Western dominance.)
I agree with Kubota that English teachers need to be careful about connecting their students’ actions with social and ideological values of a certain culture. Kubota maintains that “power…is not unidirectional, nor is discourse monolithic” (“Japanese Culture Constructed by Discourses” 22). In other words, discourse is multi-facted. As English teachers, we should feel challenged to help our students develop awareness and think critically about the functions and purposes of cultural discourse. We should respect our students’ linguistic backgrounds in order to help create equality. We should give students an opportunity to critically analyze their own languages, as well as English. I believe that if we help them, they can develop an understanding of the discourse of power in order to negotiate and create their own individual identities in the midst of (and perhaps in spite of) cultural determinism and Orientalism.
I think this is where the idea of contrastive rhetoric can come into play. If we, as teachers, can understand some of the differences in writing across cultures, then we can help our students write to an English-speaking audience with specific expectations while still respecting various writing styles. Connor makes the point that “what constitutes straightforward writing depends on reader expectation” (227). I know that my students come from a wide variety of traditions where readers’ standards and expectations might differ significantly from a standard English-speaking reader’s expectations. However, writing is all about communicating effectively with a specific audience in a certain context (rhetorical situation). Students should be free to experiment with various genres, create multigenre projects, and adjust their voices to meet the needs of individual rhetorical situations. If cultures are always shifting, then writing styles and conventions can change, too. Kubota, for example, writes about pedagogical approaches to cultural differences very convincingly through using a nontraditional narrative form for his article, “Unfinished Knowledge: The Story of Barbara.” Additionally, Connor mentions that there might not be a clear English-language norm for EU grant proposals due to the diversity of Europeans reading and writing these proposals (235). That being said, I still think it’s valuable for students to develop familiarity with dominant discourses in English. If students can understand and write within the discourses of power, then they can “break the rules” and begin to challenge those discourses.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Blog Post #4: Cultural Stereotypes
Kumaravadivelu’s article “Problematizing Cultural Stereotypes in TESOL” reveals cultural stereotypes regarding Asian students which often permeate the TESOL profession. He outlines and debunks three common stereotypes: 1) Asians give deference to authority, 2) they lack critical thinking abilities, 3) they do not participate in class activities (710). These three characteristics can also be found in North American language learners, and research suggests that the reason for this type of behavior lies in the complex relationships among “social, cultural, economic, educational, institutional, and individual factors” (714). Kumaravadivelu then addresses the question of why TESOL teachers subscribe to these stereotypes about Asians. He claims that it could be due to aversive racism, social identity, orientalism and/or the simple fact that TESOL educators feel the need to simplify the sometimes overwhelming complexity of teaching English.
I resonated with the issues in this article, as I realized that I sometimes stereotype my students in order to simplify what seems to be so complex. Teaching a language and reacting to cultural issues at the same time can seem overwhelming. Even though I consciously choose to get to know my students as individuals, I realize that prior to our first class, I often develop preconceptions about them due to their cultural background. (These preconceptions are usually replaced with specific information about individuals after a couple weeks of getting to know students.) Particularly with regards to East Asian students, I understand the collectivistic tendencies of their societies and recognize a lot of similarities among students that I might unconsciously use to promote stereotypes. I have never subscribed to the stereotypes that Kumaravadivelu mentions, yet I have my own list of assumptions: most Asian students are highly motivated to learn English, many Asian students are often unfamiliar with Western teaching styles, and the majority of Asian students like to avoid direct confrontation or conflict. Even though I’ve based my assumptions on working with East Asian students and interacting with Asian friends, they may still be faulty ideas and would not prove true in every case. Even though it’s good to have a frame of reference for relating to students, I agree with Kumaravadivelu that I must more fully develop a “critical awareness of the complex nature of cultural understanding” (717).
Question: I wonder what kind of cultural stereotypes Asian students might have about North American teachers…
I resonated with the issues in this article, as I realized that I sometimes stereotype my students in order to simplify what seems to be so complex. Teaching a language and reacting to cultural issues at the same time can seem overwhelming. Even though I consciously choose to get to know my students as individuals, I realize that prior to our first class, I often develop preconceptions about them due to their cultural background. (These preconceptions are usually replaced with specific information about individuals after a couple weeks of getting to know students.) Particularly with regards to East Asian students, I understand the collectivistic tendencies of their societies and recognize a lot of similarities among students that I might unconsciously use to promote stereotypes. I have never subscribed to the stereotypes that Kumaravadivelu mentions, yet I have my own list of assumptions: most Asian students are highly motivated to learn English, many Asian students are often unfamiliar with Western teaching styles, and the majority of Asian students like to avoid direct confrontation or conflict. Even though I’ve based my assumptions on working with East Asian students and interacting with Asian friends, they may still be faulty ideas and would not prove true in every case. Even though it’s good to have a frame of reference for relating to students, I agree with Kumaravadivelu that I must more fully develop a “critical awareness of the complex nature of cultural understanding” (717).
Question: I wonder what kind of cultural stereotypes Asian students might have about North American teachers…
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Blog Post #3: Identity, Language, and Power
The readings for this week focused on how an individual’s identity is influenced by language abilities and vice versa. These chapters and articles explore issues of group membership, the effects of linguistic competence on cross-cultural communication, and the effects of language on social and individual identity construction. Hall utilizes interactional sociolinguistics to claim that identity is always changing yet still subject to the bounds and influences of surrounding culture. Both Holliday et al. and Peirce take this idea a step further to examine the ways in which language and power structures co-exist and affect students as they acquire a new language. Peirce tells of female language learners who reframe power relationships and claim the right to speak despite the power imbalance in the dominant culture. She claims that the key to their success was dependent on investment rather than motivation.
As I completed the readings this week, I felt overwhelmed by the realization that no language, speaker, or listener can be truly “culture free.” As Hall states, “in our every communicative encounter we are always at the same time carriers and agents of culture” (46). This means that every time I greet a friend, meet a stranger, or smile at someone in line at the grocery store, I am operating under specific cultural assumptions, exhibiting cues that point to these assumptions, and spreading my culture to others. Yet at the same time I spread my own culture through communication, others are doing the same thing. I find this fact both encouraging and discouraging at the same time. I am encouraged to realize that my identity is not fixed, so communication with others exposes me to assumptions and perspectives that I may find useful. I am free to pick up pieces of other cultures that I value as I construct my own identity. However, on the flip side, I am discouraged to recognize the negative aspects of culture that can be disseminated through communicative encounters. Particularly in the United States, language is viewed as a defining aspect of culture, so non-native speakers of English are often otherized and viewed as inferior. These attitudes can be communicated either directly or indirectly through communication and cause language learners to occupy a second-rate social position. Peirce presents Eva as an example of this situation: “Eva accepted the subject position immigrant; she accepted that she was not a legitimate speaker of English....she assumed that if people treated her with disrespect, it was because of her own limitations” (24). Rather than encouraging Eva to develop a multicultural identity, the cultural communication of her coworkers took away her right to speak.
As an English teacher, I want to develop sensitivity to these experiences that my students might go through. I am fascinated with the idea Holliday et al. present about language learners experiencing a phase of loss (loss of agency, loss of former identity, loss of primary language, etc.) prior to reconstructing a new identity that they can use to respond to their new culture. However, at the same time, I am deeply saddened by the thought that students may view this transformation into a multicultural identity as a loss of oneself instead of an “adding to” of oneself. Although I have experienced being a racial, religious, cultural, and linguistic minority at various points in my life, I have always come from a culture of power (white, middle-class, American) which makes it hard for me to truly empathize with the struggles my students face. Understanding more about the connections between language and culture allows me to think more critically about what I communicate to students, as well as how I respond to them. I want to continue to develop this understanding in order to successfully care for my students and teach them to use language in a way that encourages, not discourages, their social agency, multicultural identities, and right to speak.
As I completed the readings this week, I felt overwhelmed by the realization that no language, speaker, or listener can be truly “culture free.” As Hall states, “in our every communicative encounter we are always at the same time carriers and agents of culture” (46). This means that every time I greet a friend, meet a stranger, or smile at someone in line at the grocery store, I am operating under specific cultural assumptions, exhibiting cues that point to these assumptions, and spreading my culture to others. Yet at the same time I spread my own culture through communication, others are doing the same thing. I find this fact both encouraging and discouraging at the same time. I am encouraged to realize that my identity is not fixed, so communication with others exposes me to assumptions and perspectives that I may find useful. I am free to pick up pieces of other cultures that I value as I construct my own identity. However, on the flip side, I am discouraged to recognize the negative aspects of culture that can be disseminated through communicative encounters. Particularly in the United States, language is viewed as a defining aspect of culture, so non-native speakers of English are often otherized and viewed as inferior. These attitudes can be communicated either directly or indirectly through communication and cause language learners to occupy a second-rate social position. Peirce presents Eva as an example of this situation: “Eva accepted the subject position immigrant; she accepted that she was not a legitimate speaker of English....she assumed that if people treated her with disrespect, it was because of her own limitations” (24). Rather than encouraging Eva to develop a multicultural identity, the cultural communication of her coworkers took away her right to speak.
As an English teacher, I want to develop sensitivity to these experiences that my students might go through. I am fascinated with the idea Holliday et al. present about language learners experiencing a phase of loss (loss of agency, loss of former identity, loss of primary language, etc.) prior to reconstructing a new identity that they can use to respond to their new culture. However, at the same time, I am deeply saddened by the thought that students may view this transformation into a multicultural identity as a loss of oneself instead of an “adding to” of oneself. Although I have experienced being a racial, religious, cultural, and linguistic minority at various points in my life, I have always come from a culture of power (white, middle-class, American) which makes it hard for me to truly empathize with the struggles my students face. Understanding more about the connections between language and culture allows me to think more critically about what I communicate to students, as well as how I respond to them. I want to continue to develop this understanding in order to successfully care for my students and teach them to use language in a way that encourages, not discourages, their social agency, multicultural identities, and right to speak.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Blog Post #2: Culture + Language + Self-Identity = ?
This week, Aneta Pavlenko’s article, “‘The Making of an American’: Negotiation of the Identities at the Turn of the Twentieth Century” outlines the differences between American immigrant narratives during the Great Migration (1880-1924) and current times. Pavlenko examines sociohistoric circumstances that affect these narratives and draws connections among identity, assimilation, Americanization, and English as a cultural carrier.
As I read this article, I was struck by the power of language to define and “otherize” speakers of different languages, as well as influence them. Language, a powerful cultural carrier, shaped the personal and national identities of immigrants. In the case of American English, English transformed from a language of national unity used to help immigrants assimilate to American life to a language that now entails that new English speakers in the U.S. must lose significant parts of their identities associated with their native languages and cultures. In other words, English in contemporary America implies that the idea of monolingualism is part of America’s national identity. This article reminded me of my grandmother, who was a first-generation American. Her parents, who immigrated from Sweden in the late 1800s, often spoke Swedish at home, yet they forced their children to speak English. As a result, my grandmother could understand several Swedish expressions, but she never developed any fluency in speaking the language. She and her parents viewed speaking English as an essential part of becoming American, and even today, she mentions her dad’s fluent English ability with pride. English was not only practical for conducting daily life in America, but it also became a status symbol, similar to the immigrant narratives described in Pavlenko’s article. However, I can’t help but think that a significant part of a person’s heritage is lost with the rejection of his or her native language. Language is a link to previous generations and can form an important part of someone’s personal or community identity. This history leads me to question how we teach English in an American-based ESL context today. What are some practical ways that we, as educators, can teach our students to utilize the power of English without rejecting their other cultural and linguistic heritages?
Holliday et al. also examine the role that culture can play in self-identity. The authors believe that people create and negotiate personal and cultural identity through communication, so we must view a person’s identity according to “thick description—seeing the complexity of a social event by looking at it from different aspects” (9). In addition, this non-essentialist perspective requires individuals to carefully consider their choices in the “cultural supermarket” in order to “attain maximum…credibility” (99). Identity, culture, and behavior are all interrelated. Because of the complexity of this relationship, I believe that we, as teachers, need to be careful to not only see our students as individuals, but also to see them as part of a social network in which they are using cultural elements in order to influence how they (and others) view themselves. Students may choose to assimilate to or deviate from social norms, depending on their own sense of identity. Thinking about the various elements that go into one’s self-identity can seem overwhelming, so I think it is important to make sure that students realize that their identities are always changing. Our classroom environments should provide places where they feel free to express themselves authentically, experiment, and ask questions.
As I read this article, I was struck by the power of language to define and “otherize” speakers of different languages, as well as influence them. Language, a powerful cultural carrier, shaped the personal and national identities of immigrants. In the case of American English, English transformed from a language of national unity used to help immigrants assimilate to American life to a language that now entails that new English speakers in the U.S. must lose significant parts of their identities associated with their native languages and cultures. In other words, English in contemporary America implies that the idea of monolingualism is part of America’s national identity. This article reminded me of my grandmother, who was a first-generation American. Her parents, who immigrated from Sweden in the late 1800s, often spoke Swedish at home, yet they forced their children to speak English. As a result, my grandmother could understand several Swedish expressions, but she never developed any fluency in speaking the language. She and her parents viewed speaking English as an essential part of becoming American, and even today, she mentions her dad’s fluent English ability with pride. English was not only practical for conducting daily life in America, but it also became a status symbol, similar to the immigrant narratives described in Pavlenko’s article. However, I can’t help but think that a significant part of a person’s heritage is lost with the rejection of his or her native language. Language is a link to previous generations and can form an important part of someone’s personal or community identity. This history leads me to question how we teach English in an American-based ESL context today. What are some practical ways that we, as educators, can teach our students to utilize the power of English without rejecting their other cultural and linguistic heritages?
Holliday et al. also examine the role that culture can play in self-identity. The authors believe that people create and negotiate personal and cultural identity through communication, so we must view a person’s identity according to “thick description—seeing the complexity of a social event by looking at it from different aspects” (9). In addition, this non-essentialist perspective requires individuals to carefully consider their choices in the “cultural supermarket” in order to “attain maximum…credibility” (99). Identity, culture, and behavior are all interrelated. Because of the complexity of this relationship, I believe that we, as teachers, need to be careful to not only see our students as individuals, but also to see them as part of a social network in which they are using cultural elements in order to influence how they (and others) view themselves. Students may choose to assimilate to or deviate from social norms, depending on their own sense of identity. Thinking about the various elements that go into one’s self-identity can seem overwhelming, so I think it is important to make sure that students realize that their identities are always changing. Our classroom environments should provide places where they feel free to express themselves authentically, experiment, and ask questions.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Blog Post #1
Two main ideas in the readings stood out to me this week:
1. Culture is dynamic and amorphous.
2. Language and culture are connected, but not inextricably.
I have experienced life in various international and American communities, and I strongly agree that culture is always changing and difficult to capture. There are so many perspectives and nuances of culture! As Holliday, et al suggest, we must embrace a complex view of culture in which diversity is the norm (54). I believe that maintaining this view will allow us to not only develop solid relationships with students based on true understanding of their individual personalities (individual cultures!), but it will also help us avoid stereotypes that could isolate a student as “the other.” As Atkinson says, “knowing students individually also involves knowing them culturally” (643). Just this morning, I met a student at ELI who is a Brazilian of Japanese ethnicity. She was quite talkative, and I found myself surprised at her outgoing nature. Without consciously realizing it, I had stereotyped her due to her Japanese heritage and assumed that she would be quiet and reserved. (Ironically, I didn’t even consider any stereotypes associated with Brazilians!) Even though I recognize the flaws in the essentialist view of culture, I realize that this view influenced my first impressions. This experience reminded me of Atkinson’s third principle that “social group membership and identity are multiple, contradictory, and dynamic” (643). Everyone belongs to a variety of social and cultural groups, and it is impossible to pigeon-hole someone based solely on his/her membership to a single cultural group. I think that we, as both educators and learners, need to foster this idea that the concept of culture is dynamic and somewhat amorphous. That being said, I agree with Kumaravadivelu’s assertion that culture exists outside the bounds of definition; however, I also believe it still exists within the bounds of description. I think the trick is being able to describe patterns of behavior in order to talk about culture without perpetuating negative or limiting stereotypes. Believing that culture is diverse will allow us to build meaningful relationships in the classroom and take away limitations we might have due to cultural (mis)understandings.
In Chapter 2 of Cultural Globalization and Language Education, Kumaravadivelu shared information about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that language determines thought and vice versa. Until my reading of this chapter, I had basically agree with this idea; however, Kumaravadivelu points out that if this theory were true, people would not be able to successfully translate languages or use English to communicate information from a variety of sociocultural perspectives (22). I also recognize that people who are bilingual are able to think and function effectively in two different languages without fundamentally changing their opinions or self-identities. So after learning about this information, I feel it is safe to say that language and culture are linked, but they don’t determine each other. Atkinson mentions that “language…cannot be developed without…developing knowledge of the sociocultural contexts in which that language occurs and for action in which it exists” (647). As an educator, I think it is important to teach students about the cultures of English-speaking communities insofar as it is useful for communication, but I do not need to pressure them to adapt their individual cultures to fit the expectations that some English speakers might have.
Question: All this discussion of culture got me to thinking…how much should we, as educators, directly engage issues of culture with our students?
1. Culture is dynamic and amorphous.
2. Language and culture are connected, but not inextricably.
I have experienced life in various international and American communities, and I strongly agree that culture is always changing and difficult to capture. There are so many perspectives and nuances of culture! As Holliday, et al suggest, we must embrace a complex view of culture in which diversity is the norm (54). I believe that maintaining this view will allow us to not only develop solid relationships with students based on true understanding of their individual personalities (individual cultures!), but it will also help us avoid stereotypes that could isolate a student as “the other.” As Atkinson says, “knowing students individually also involves knowing them culturally” (643). Just this morning, I met a student at ELI who is a Brazilian of Japanese ethnicity. She was quite talkative, and I found myself surprised at her outgoing nature. Without consciously realizing it, I had stereotyped her due to her Japanese heritage and assumed that she would be quiet and reserved. (Ironically, I didn’t even consider any stereotypes associated with Brazilians!) Even though I recognize the flaws in the essentialist view of culture, I realize that this view influenced my first impressions. This experience reminded me of Atkinson’s third principle that “social group membership and identity are multiple, contradictory, and dynamic” (643). Everyone belongs to a variety of social and cultural groups, and it is impossible to pigeon-hole someone based solely on his/her membership to a single cultural group. I think that we, as both educators and learners, need to foster this idea that the concept of culture is dynamic and somewhat amorphous. That being said, I agree with Kumaravadivelu’s assertion that culture exists outside the bounds of definition; however, I also believe it still exists within the bounds of description. I think the trick is being able to describe patterns of behavior in order to talk about culture without perpetuating negative or limiting stereotypes. Believing that culture is diverse will allow us to build meaningful relationships in the classroom and take away limitations we might have due to cultural (mis)understandings.
In Chapter 2 of Cultural Globalization and Language Education, Kumaravadivelu shared information about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that language determines thought and vice versa. Until my reading of this chapter, I had basically agree with this idea; however, Kumaravadivelu points out that if this theory were true, people would not be able to successfully translate languages or use English to communicate information from a variety of sociocultural perspectives (22). I also recognize that people who are bilingual are able to think and function effectively in two different languages without fundamentally changing their opinions or self-identities. So after learning about this information, I feel it is safe to say that language and culture are linked, but they don’t determine each other. Atkinson mentions that “language…cannot be developed without…developing knowledge of the sociocultural contexts in which that language occurs and for action in which it exists” (647). As an educator, I think it is important to teach students about the cultures of English-speaking communities insofar as it is useful for communication, but I do not need to pressure them to adapt their individual cultures to fit the expectations that some English speakers might have.
Question: All this discussion of culture got me to thinking…how much should we, as educators, directly engage issues of culture with our students?
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Who I am...
My name is Alice, and I'm really excited about teaching English because I love meeting and hanging out with internationals. It's a great opportunity to learn, teach, and experience new cultures. Plus, I've lived and worked overseas, so I often feel a connection with people who are learning a new language or expanding their cross-cultural understanding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)