In this article, Paul Kei Matsuda defines the term “linguistic homogeneity,” which is the idea that all students in a given college writing classroom are going to linguistically be the same, and that students by default are native speakers of English. Kei Matsuda, as the title would suggest, notes that this idea is patently inaccurate (639). Instead, he argues that the traditional definition of “good writing” as that which has been “unmarked in the eyes of teachers who are the custodians of privileged varieties of English” has deeply historical roots that are entirely unrealistic in the higher education institutions of today (640).
Kei Matsuda goes into a fairly in-depth history of the nonnative speaker rise and segregation in U.S. colleges. He notes that because most college students were homogenous and truly did have similar upbringings and linguistic backgrounds before the mid-nineteenth century (641). By mid-century, the first international students began to come to the U.S. to study in newly created research universities. Many of these students, particularly Asian students, were sent to remedial language schools with young children while they got their language up to college level (644). Many schools, ranging from Harvard to historically black colleges and universities had language proficiency exams that were the site of linguistic containment and discrimination (641-2). These exams placed students into noncredit or developmental course that made it appear that student “language differences can be effectively removed from mainstream composition courses” (642).
While some schools began offering English courses for international students as early as 1911, this was a full-scale movement following World War II (645, 647). Noncredit courses and classes for nonnative speakers were also required at Tulane, Michigan, Washington, and other major universities (647). Today, despite there being over a half million foreign students in U.S. colleges (640), many of the containment and developmental practices that segregate students exist today.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Kei Matsuda’s definition of linguistic homogeneity and the lingering historical effects are something I see each day at Northern Virginia Community College (NOVA). This term has helped me to learn about the historical precedent for why such a expectation for our students might be present. When students at colleges were only elite, white, and came from educated backgrounds, there would be a strong assumption that they would fit a non-diverse pattern of language use. However, discovering that this is not a new issue (in fact, Kei Matsuda highlights that it has existed for at least 150 years) makes me wonder what new methods have been developed to deal with international students and what methods are lingering on with little perceived benefit.
This semester I am teaching two sections of developmental English at NOVA, which are comprised of at least 75 percent nonnative speakers or generation 1.5 students. In addition to these predominantly mixed-language classes, statistics show that the general population of the school is made up of only approximately 50 percent students classified as “white,” leaving many international and minority students accounting for approximately half the student body. At NOVA, we continue to have developmental classes that are contained as well as remedial English and noncredit ESL courses which students must pass to get up to regular credit-bearing English. After reading Kei Matsuda’s account of the history of ESL English, I wonder whether or not the school is making the right decisions with the developmental sequence, as he notes that such a sequence is cause for racist containment practices.
In addition to teaching developmental English courses, I am also part of the composition assessment committee, in which we study the class outcomes of developmental versus “regular” composition courses.
[This data shows classes that were assessed by the Composition Resources Committee of which I am a member. The data is from Fall 2014 and was assessed in summer 2015. It shows that in some categories, developmental students (many of whom are ESL speakers) eventually make gains that students placed into regular sections of ENG 111 (first semester composition) do not.]
A chart of our recent findings above shows that students who take a developmental track of English eventually have greater success on several of the proscribed course outcomes. Does this then argue for why we should separate them? Do they actually do better in contained courses? While NOVA has fully contained courses, another local university, George Mason, has had success with courses that are partially contained: they are mixed during the three-credit portion of the class, but the developmental students get extra work in a smaller class (perhaps 7 out of 25 students) which gives further one-on-one time with a qualified teacher. Is this the solution?
While this article helps me frame the history and the biases that second language speaking students have faced in the composition classroom, it does not get me closer to an answer about a reasonable solution to the biases or the best practice. One of my research interests, then, lies in finding out how to best teach ESL students in a composition classroom; how they are different and how they can best be reached by the “mainstream” composition instructor needs more investigation. This brings me back to our classroom discussion on Louise Phelps’ “Practical Wisdom and the Geography of Knowledge in Composition.“ There, she highlights the frequent disconnect between theory and practice and the value of the lived experience of practice as helping to inform theory (864-5). I see some good connections to be made between what I see as an educator on the ground and using that lived experience to help me inform my own theories that can be made testable. More research surely needs to be done on this topic, and my own theories as well as the educational community I am situated in make me suitable to consider this issue further.
Works Cited
Kei Matsuda, Paul. “The Myth of Linguistic Homogeneity in U.S. College Composition.” College English 68.6 (2006): 637-651. Print.
Phelps, Louise Wetherbee. “Practical Wisdom and the Geography of Knowledge in Composition.“ College English 53.8 (1991): 863885. Print.