# data[].attributes.body
The 5th Chapter of A Guide to Composition Pedagogies, titled “Second Language Writing Pedagogy” and written by Paul Kei Matsuda and Matthew J. Hammill focused on the challenges, benefits, and practices of teaching students whose first languages are a language other than English. This chapter was particularly interesting to me because my district is currently focusing on topics such as this. Recently, at our last Professional Development day, our ELD staff led a training on best teaching practices for our ELLs in the classroom.

As a disclaimer, the way that my district functions is that ELLs will not enter the regular education English program until they have graduated from our ELD program and passed the WIDA exam. That being said, most ELLs that I come into contact with in my classroom are completely fluent in English (as opposed to a math class that may have students that are beginners in the English language). Even so, that does not mean that the practices discussed in this chapter are not beneficial for every teacher.

Often times, the lack of experience in the English language is viewed as a negative for students. I loved the section of the chapter that focused on the unique perspective that these students can bring to the classroom.

Teachers should “tap into the rich linguistic and cultural resources that L2 writers bring to the classroom” (272).

“Another important resources is the lived knowledge of various cultural values, assumptions, and practices” (272).

In other words, teachers, EVEN English teachers, should not look at a low experience level with the English language as a deficit. Instead, we should be looking for ways that our ELLs can provide an enlightening experience in our room.

Some questions that we should be asking ourselves and are pedagogy include: Who am I giving a voice to in my classroom? Am I drawing from the experiences of all my students, or just the majority? Are other languages and dialects represented in the texts that I read? Am I making my ELLs uncomfortable in my classroom?

# data[].attributes.body
The following is an extremely long quote (the reason why this is the only time that I wish that I had a digital text- so that I could copy and paste!), but I believe that the entire quote is deserving of mention. So please bear with me!

“A contact zones orientation first involves treating the identities of these students differently. We must consider these students not as ESL but multilingual. The acronym ESL treats those who speak English as their first language as the Frame of reference in assessing the proficiency of the students who speak English as a second language. The label coyotes that ESL students are trying to (or should try to) approximate the norms of native speakers. However, multilingual life in the contact zone does not enable us to easily enumerate people’s language proficiencies (at first, second, or third). People shuttle in and out of languages, freely borrowing semiotic resources for their communicative purposes and developing equal proficiency in all of them, as relevant for their purposes. Besides, a contact zone orientation makes us treat languages as always in contact, as borrowing from and influenced by each other, often in ways that are not easy to distinguish” (28).

This quote caught my attention for several reasons. First of all, I thought that it stood out from the rest of the chapter. Most of the chapter discussed actual teaching practices for these students. I found a lot of connections with the GCP chapter on this, and I felt that I talked enough about that in my post on that chapter.

Secondly, I personally do not use the term multilingual when I am referring to my students. When I read this quote, it caused me to question the language that I use. Although my school uses the term ELD/ELL, should I be pushing for a change in terminology? After reading that explanation, I really do appreciate the term multilingual. I love the way that it puts the focus on the blending and accepting of cultures and languages.

Finally, it made me think about the ways that I view my students. For my multilingual students, is the first thing that I notice about them the fact that they are not fluent in English? Based on the fact that their main label in our building is “ELL,” it would appear to be that way. How can I do a better job of seeing them as a whole?

Honestly, this post was more for the purposes of self-reflection and I am not entirely sure where to go from here, as I do not have control over the titles of our programs in my district. But, it is definitely a conversation that I can bring up.

# data[].attributes.body
For this discussion post, I am going to be using one of the author’s quotes from “The Place of World Englishes in Composition: Pluralization Continued” as a guiding question for discussion. The quote is as follows:

“But shouldn’t SRTOL also mean that students have the right to use their vernacular for formal purposes?” (596).

The premise of this article is looking at the way World Englishes are used in the Composition classroom (as opposed to solely Standard English).

Some of the chapters that we read this week (as well as readings, theories, and practices that I have studied in the past) attempt to tackle the same issue, but they do it in a very different manner. I would venture to argue that most approaches to including multiple dialects and languages in the classroom strive to allow those ways of speaking and writing to come out in free writes, poetry, or maybe research projects. When it comes to “formal writing,” however, Standard English remains mandatory, no matter how progressive a classroom may be.

Author A. Suresh Canagarajah challenges teachers to take a different approach, however. They challenge us to even incorporate non-standard English in formal writing. This would include the texts that are read in the classroom and the way that students write their formal papers.

Now, that is definitely easier said than done. Looking at the literature that we bring into a classroom, that may be the first and easier step. I would venture to say that almost no English classrooms read only novels written in Standard English. The second you have a narrator, you enter into their way of teaching. For example, I teach Monster by Walter Dean Myers to my 9th graders. We are in the mind and journal of a teenage boy, and he talks as a teenage boy would talk, grammar mistakes and all. That was an intentional choice on my end to help students relate to what we are reading in class.

Writing, on the other hand, may be a challenge for us. I could guess that I am not the only one who has Standard English engrained in me since I was a student myself. It seems impossible to ignore when a student writes “gonna” instead of “going too.” Furthermore, I can imagine that it would be difficult to grade writing that we are unfamiliar with.

Pluralizing the English language is not easy. But it is well worth it.

# data[].attributes.body
In Lydiah Kananu Kiramba’s article, “Translanguaging in the Writing of Emergent Multilinguals,” they explain to the reader the process of a study that was conducted in Kenya. This study followed the writing samples of a 4th grade Kenyan classroom. What is interesting about this classroom that caused it to be the subject of this study is that students in Kenya are discouraged to use their primary language in school, specifically at this age. They are given no formal instruction in their primary language and, beginning in 4th grade, the transition to formal English teaching and practicing begins.

Kiramba was not satisfied with taking this at face value. She wanted to dive into the effects that this practice has on the children.

She begins her article by discussing Monolingual Habitus, which is “a set of assumptions that are built on the fundamental myth of uniformity of language and culture” and a focus on “unitary language and language homogenization” (116). From the onset, it is clear that this is not a fair and equitable teaching practice. By taking away a primary language entirely, students are unable to draw on the wealth of knowledge that they already possess.

Instead, Kiramba argues for “opening up spaces for children by acknowledging the different languages as a resource, to bring into dialogue their individual repertoires to engage in metalinguistic discussion and negotiation, with a goal of transforming the enforced monolingual habitus into a multilingual habitus” (117).

This relates back to my discussion posts on the GCP and FYC chapters for this week. As teachers, we should not look at background knowledge and experience as a deficit. It is an incredible gift when students bring those to our classrooms. Why are we so hesitant to make space for them?

Kiramba concluded her study with results that supported her initial beliefs- students are drawing from their backgrounds, so why are we so hesitant in allowing them to do so?

# data[].attributes.body
In Paul Kei Matsuda’s “The Myth of Linguistic Homogeneity in U.S. College Composition,” he talks about the assumption of language in composition classrooms. In my opinion, his overall argument is summed up perfectly in his concluding sentence:

“To work effectively with the student population in the twenty-first century, all composition teachers need to reimagine the composition classroom as the multilingual space that it is, where the presence of language differences is the default” (649).

Throughout the article, Matsuda talks about different reasons why we got to this situation that we are in today. The reason that stood out to me the most was the lack of teacher preparation. Teachers and professors are not taught and trained how to address multilingualism in their classroom. Instead, they are encouraged (although mostly indirectly) to use the “English Only” approach. If they have learned practices, it has been “often on their own initiative” (638).

Matsuda is not okay with keeping things the status quo. “What I want to call into question is why the issue of language differences has not become a central concern for everyone who is involved in composition instruction, research, assessment, and administration” (638).

I would argue that he could take this question one step further and question why everyone (meaning everyone- no matter the profession) does not have this as a central concern.

As I was reading this text, it made me have a sort of crisis of thoughts in regard to the way that I was trained to be a teacher. Who came up with the curriculum that I was taught through? Who decided what the norms would be and what would be swept under the rug? Why has it taken us so long to ask these questions?

# data[].attributes.headline
A Commentary on Literacy Narratives as Sponsors of Literacy

# data[].attributes.subject
A Commentary on Literacy Narratives as Sponsors of Literacy

# data[].attributes.body
At first glance, Brandt's article "A Commentary on Literacy Narratives as Sponsors of Literacy" feels like a bit of a response to a critique. When I first dove into the reading, I was confused as to why we were assigned this reading. However, I think the operative idea in Brandt's article can be found in her defense of her study, which I'll briefly explain.
In her study, Brandt took the testimonies of 80 individuals who were taught literacy by various individuals between 1895 and 1985. These testimonies were collected as stories of how these 80 individuals came to be literate in their lives, and who it was that impacted the individuals giving testimony in their journey toward literacy. Various others critiqued the nature of her study by comparing it to other studies of human experience conducted by other researchers. In their view, Brandt's study was essentially not pedagogical enough.
To defend herself, Brandt had in particular a line that draws parallels to everything else we have been reading: "By way of explanation, I made a deliberate decision to treat people's testimonies factually in order to make something of the facts they presented to me. This approach is in keeping with the realistic tradition of narrative inquiry" (332). In this line, I believe Brandt is stating that she created her different form of study because of her desire to highlight the human experience in literacy and appreciate how they got to be where they are. This is just like our question on multilingualism. Rather than centering the English language as the "correct" language - or centering one narrative of learning literacy as the "correct" narrative - Brandt instead focuses on the different paths taken to approaching literacy. So too must we learn to focus and appreciate each path taken toward multilingualism, rather than the "correct" path.

# data[].attributes.body
I felt like this chapter did a pretty good job of maintaining a level of practicality. I appreciated the strategies offered for composition teachers to assist students in developing their English grammar in the midst of the course; strategies including: focusing on the effects of their  text on readers (effect vs. rules), reading aloud (either the teacher doing so or the student) to catch errors, collaborative activities, online feedback or supplemental resources, etc. (276-277). None of these are so terribly complicated that any teacher, regardless of their training in teaching English as a language, should feel unable to attempt them. The section on assessment was also a good reminder to not over-emphasize grammar in the grading of composition if I am not proportionally emphasizing it in my teaching. If I only address grammar in the editing/revision stage of the composition process, then it really isn't fair to deduct significantly from the final score-- regardless of whether I feel greater grammatical application should be possible (277-278). I appreciated that Matsuda and Hammill also included the professional development section at the conclusion of the article-- pointing to specific resources that teachers could use to facilitate their own development in this is helpful. It did make me wonder, though, at what point a course addressing this will become standard in English education courses at the collegiate level. Especially since, as the authors point out, the academic community is increasingly multilingual within the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Isaac; Kaitlyn did a thorough job of responding to this article. I also instinctively wanted to quote the last few lines of the article--they are powerful. Really, this problem, the "English only ideal" (637), is an institutional problem (Brandt would call the overall U.S. College Composition a sponsor). It is not the teachers' responsibility to take it upon themselves to accommodate these students, though that is a step that is helping tremendously. It is also not the responsibility of the peers in the writing center, as they are even less prepared. Most importantly, if a student is assumed to be having a difficult time with composition because they are second-language learners, it is not their fault.
I actually agree with having separate sections of composition classes for second-language learners. They are not a segregation, but an accommodation.
We must remember that composition scholarship exists outside of English.

# data[].attributes.body
Isaac, I am glad you began our discussion on this piece. To further clarify, "sponsors" are any agent forms our literacy in some way, either supporting it or suppressing it--so agents can be mandate curricula, corporations that require us to write according to standards, etc. Another key quote is "sponsors are entities who need our literacy more than we do." Essentially, sponsors can be problematic because literacy is how we are made into pawns in capitalism (331). There are also good sponsors, such as supportive writing teachers who genuinely appreciate writing. We know that rhetoric is undeniably influential because it affects us ideologically and psychologically. How were we taught to write? What memories of learning do we have? What percentage of our love for language comes from our privilege? In what ways have sponsors separated us from our peers? In what ways does literacy deem people "other"?

# data[].attributes.headline
Habitus, Translanguaging, Envoicing... Oh my! 

# data[].attributes.subject
Habitus, Translanguaging, Envoicing... Oh my! 

# data[].attributes.body
I was struck by one of the introductory sections, where in the process of contextualizing the study, Kiramba  addresses how "language constructs, indexes, and reveals an individual's identity" (117). Kiramba also cites García and Leiva in expressing that translanguaging "acknowledges the complex relationships among language, identity, and sociopolitical power" (117). I was particularly intrigued by this last statement because it emphasizes the power of language. As English teachers, we're confronted by the clear statement that "words matter" or "language matters" -- but this more critical/theoretical acknowledgment made me pause and reflect. If all of that is true, it seems a grave injustice to not be finding ways to better navigate language inclusion in classrooms-- especially with the greater access we have for decently accurate online translation tools.

And that sentiment about injustice is echoed by Kiramba, who, again citing García and Leiva, points out that the "use of language flexibly is a practice of social justice because [translanguaging] serves a role in releasing voices and new prejudices" (117). Kiramba closes the section on translanguaging with the constraints that the current monolingual paradigm place upon the study of writing: "Language homogenization policies position learners as acquirers of skills that are useful for basic function and accepting predetermined roles about identities" (118). This positions multilingual writers as receivers of a system, a knowledge base, which has already been established, whereas multilingual writing positions them as actively creating and navigating language in order to best suit that particular writing task. How much more empowering is the latter?

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Teachers need better training for teaching multilingual students

# data[].attributes.headline
The Ubiquity of Language Diversity in English Classrooms

# data[].attributes.subject
The Ubiquity of Language Diversity in English Classrooms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teachers need better training for teaching multilingual students

# data[].attributes.body
I found this article both fascinating and puzzling. At first, I couldn't quite wrap my brain around what "translingual" meant in the context of this article, so I (admittedly) googled it: translingual means "existing in more than one language." This was actually incredibly helpful to understanding Lee and Jenks' main points of the article.
On the one hand, Lee and Jenks are making many of the same points as various other authors we have read for the week: "A translingual disposition, a general openness to language plurality and difference, is requisite to the development of skills" (318). Similar to the other readings, Lee and Jenks first argue that being translingual (similar, in many aspects, to Canagarajah's point about being "multilingual") can help you gain skills needed in an increasingly-global world. This is the same general tone being expressed in the other readings, so I won't go too deeply into it.
However, what I found fascinating was the experiment they created. They "established an online classroom partnership between a US-based composition course (C1) and a similar course delivered in Hong Kong (C2). Students in both classes were asked to share drafts of their work with their international peers via Google Docs and to provide written feedback on each others' work" (325). The students in these two courses from opposite sides of the world worked together to dive into different assignments, and the results spoke for themselves. One student who generally identified himself as monolingual could identify his experience of code switching while on the basketball team with a Hong Kong student's experience of code switching between English and Mandarin. In a reflection, the student wrote that he recognized the similarities because "we both know that if we fail to competitively speak our language well we won't be accepted or perform as well in our area of hobby or choice" (332). This self-awareness is astonishing, and I think it is a great example of how translingual dispositions work in the classroom and in the world: if we encourage students to make these connections, they can continue to work together, grow as learners and writers, and be continuously successful in the globalized world.