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?

“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.

“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.

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?

“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?