Second Language Writing in First Year Composition Classes

      The Leki and Matsuda articles seemed to encapsulate many of the issues that we have discussed in class regarding the teaching of writing in college composition courses. Leki outlines the following problems:

1) Students are required to take a composition course during the first year of the undergraduate program, which may not be the most effective time for a writing course.

2) These first-year courses are often staffed by the least experienced instructors or teaching assistants, which may not produce the best results (if the hoped-for result is better quality writing production from the students taking the courses).

3) These courses are often over-crowded, which might lead the instructor to spend less time, on average, assessing or commenting on each writing assignment, which in turn could translate into lower rates of improvement in writing skill by the students.

4) There seems to be an assumption that one year is enough time for all students (whether native English speakers or students who are non-native English speakers but have satisfied university admission requirements) to develop the necessary writing skills (or improve existing skills) to succeed in the academic environment of a university setting.

            Leki includes the above problems as “part of the negative legacy that second language (L2) English writing students and practitioners have inherited and typically must live with” (Leki 59).  This “negative legacy” might also be considered negative for some native English speaking students. For example, students who speak dialects other than “privileged varieties” (Matsuda 639) may have many of the same difficulties with composition courses as do international students and others for whom English is a second (or subsequent) language.

            In addition, Matsuda points out that “the myth of linguistic homogeneity” is not simply a problem in English composition courses; indeed, its repercussions abound in classrooms in universities throughout the United States. Many educators have realized that the majority of courses taught in America reflect, both in content and in ideology, a socio-cultural background that most native-English speakers can relate to, and can integrate new concepts with, but that many international students and many other English language learners (even at advanced proficiency levels) find difficult to understand, because they do not possess the knowledge required to connect these concepts to their existing background knowledge in the subject area.

            It seems that as the demographics of first-year composition courses in colleges and universities have changed, in many cases, the instruction has not changed. Many teachers find themselves facing students from a wide variety of ethnic and linguistic backgrounds, and despite their training, may not feel prepared to handle the challenges of teaching writing according to their notion of the “standard,” which is often what they assumed their job to be.

           Have the goals of the job changed? Or do they need to change? Should instructors of English writing courses, such as first-year composition, include other language skills (such as speaking) as part of the curriculum? Should this be a consideration only for classes offered as an option to ESL students in the university? Leki discussed briefly the fact that L2 students in American universities are typically not offered, and usually are not required to take “credit courses for any language skills besides writing…” (61). We know that it is important for all students to develop effective writing skills, especially those students who are planning to pursue further academic coursework, but should students whose first language is not English have the opportunity to register for an alternative first-year undergraduate course for credit, such as a course that combines writing and speaking toward a goal of improving L2 communication overall?