L2 Writers and University Writing Centers: Tutors and Tutees

The articles by Thonus and Matsuda & Cox brought out several interesting points regarding the differences and similarities among second language writers in the United States.  First, the Thonus article categorizes these L2 writers as follows:

1.      EFL writers who were educated in their mother tongue (L1) and are learning English as their L2 (often referred to as foreign or international students)

2.      ESL writers who are recent immigrants to the United States, often with educational backgrounds in their L1

3.      Generation 1.5 writers who are long-term U.S. residents and English learners fluent in spoken English (Thonus, p. 17).

Next, the writer discusses how tutors at university writing centers can help Generation 1.5 writers to develop and improve their writing skills. Thonus points out that writing center personnel need to be trained on how Generation 1.5 English learners differ from international students or recent immigrants who are also English learners. It was obvious from the excerpts included in the article that tutors must be adequately trained to work with these specific populations. I wonder how much training tutors typically receive at college or university writing centers. I have always assumed that writing center personnel would focus their tutoring attention on sentence-level issues, such as grammar and punctuation, since those are “quick fixes.” It makes sense, however, to focus instead on the five general principles outlined in Thonus’ article, in order to provide English learners with a more comprehensive methodology that they can adopt for future writing endeavors.

The Matsuda & Cox article discusses how important it is that writing center tutors understand the various features that ESL writers’ texts may contain.  The authors point out that “one of the important factors” in understanding second language writing “is the ESL writer’s L2 proficiency” (p. 44).  However, it is interesting to note that when the ESL writer falls in the category of a Generation 1.5 writer, the teacher or tutor may find it challenging to approach the student’s writing limitations because the student communicates orally at a high level of proficiency. And, [a]lthough language proficiency affects the overall quality of ESL texts, the relationship between language proficiency and writing proficiency is not simple; the ability to speak English does not necessarily correspond directly with the quality of texts they produce” (Matsuda & Cox, p. 44). Teachers, tutors, and colleagues may tend to assume a higher level of written proficiency because of verbal interactions with the writer.

Another statement in this article that I found interesting is a quote from Ilona Leki: “ESL students can become very fluent writers of English, but they may never become indistinguishable from a native speaker, and it is unclear why they should. A current movement among ESL writing teachers is to argue that, beyond a certain level of proficiency in English writing, it is not the students’ texts that need to change; rather it is the native-speaking readers and evaluators (particularly in educational institutions) that need to learn to read more broadly, with a more cosmopolitan and less parochial eye” (p. 46).  Is this likely to happen in academia? How would professors of content area courses respond to a mandate that they ‘need to learn to read more broadly, with a more cosmopolitan and less parochial eye’? How would we explain these terms?

References:

Matsuda, P. and M. Cox. (2009). Reading an ESL writers’ text. In S. Bruce & B. Rafoth (Eds.) ESL Writers. A guide for writing center tutors. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton Cook Publishers.

Thonus, T. (2003). Serving Generation 1.5 Learners in the University Writing Center. TESOL Journal. 12 (1).