World Englishes and the Teaching of writing

After reading the Matsuda & Matsuda article, I realized even more than before why the assessment of student writing is so problematic, and why teachers often focus on errors in punctuation, spelling, and grammar. Those are the easiest things to detect and correct! It is far more difficult to try to teach students how to write in a dominant language form. And textbook writers must really be scratching their heads when they are told to include “specific strategies for addressing language differences” (371). Teachers cannot predict which variety of English their students will need in the future, and therefore, it has historically been common for them to focus on something called “Standard Written English.”  One of the problems now is that there are several “acceptable” varieties of English, and teachers and students alike are confused. The Matsuda article outlines several teaching principles that can help with this dilemma. The goal of the implementation of these principles is to acquaint students with the dominant and nondominant language varieties and usages, to teach them what variations work and which ones don’t work, as well as how to effectively incorporate the use of nondominant varieties and usages to a specific rhetorical situation, while understanding the risks inherent in doing so. The message seems to be that in order “to prepare students adequately in the era of globalization” (373) teachers need to permit and even encourage the use of “World Englishes”; however, students need to be instructed in how to incorporate WE most effectively in a given context.

The Canagarajah piece explores this idea in greater depth, calling for the acceptance of multiple literacies in a time during which there are more non-native than native speakers of English. Canagarajah advocates “…English as a plural language that embodies multiple norms and standards. English should be treated as a multinational language, one that belongs to diverse communities, and not owned only by the metropolitan communities” (589). What seems to be of utmost importance, according to Canagarajah, is the art of negotiating differences in the various Englishes. And, what I find rather interesting is the statement that “in order to be functional postmodern global citizens, even students from the dominant community (i.e., Anglo American) now need to be proficient in negotiating a repertoire of World Englishes” (591). The article also includes a discussion of code-meshing and how its use should be encouraged, but that it should be considered carefully and with the goal of accomplishing a particular rhetorical purpose.

I agree that teachers can unwittingly “stifle the development of a repertoire that will help students style shift according to different communicative contexts” and that this is wrong. Teachers should be willing and able to train students “to negotiate grammar for their rhetorical purposes” (611), and thereby produce texts that are authoritative while conveying a clear, appropriate, and poignant message to the readers.

The article by Michael-Luna and Canagarajah discusses in much more detail the ideas of code-switching and code-meshing.  It is clear that code-meshing is an important tool in the first grade classroom that was studied, as well as a strategy that should be encouraged in higher education. The bilingual teacher (Tom) makes effective use of code-meshing in order to help his students comprehend the lessons. The teacher's pattern of instruction conveyed the implicit message that the students’ home language was not a deficit; instead, it was a highly valued resource, and in fact, the teacher comments that his students ‘don’t have all their concepts or content experiences in one language…I need to make room for different types of meaning making in my classroom…' (64).  

Again, the message to teachers is that we need to help students see their status as “multilingual” as a benefit, as a resource that can help them learn or acquire English; however, at the same time, teachers need to be aware of the forces that are not in favor of this approach. Many of the other teachers in our schools, as well as some administrators, may disapprove of this strategy modeled by “Tom,” the teacher whose class was studied. In that situation, teachers must be prepared to back up their pedagogical strategies with well-documented research that supports the use of code-meshing in an ESL context.

Sources:

Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). The place of World Englishes in composition: Pluralization continued. CCC, 57 (4), 586-619.

Matsuda, A. & Matsuda, P. (2010). World Englishes and the Teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly.

Michael-Luna, S., & Canagarajah, A.S. (2008). Multilingual academic literacies: Pedagogical foundations for code meshing in primary and higher education. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4 (1), 55-77.