By Anna Dean
“Writing centers may be the ideal learning environment for students whose first or strongest language is not English” (Leki, 2009, p. 1). In this sentence—the first in her article on ESL students and writing centers—Ilona Leki grants writing centers special status in their work with second-language (L2) learners. Indeed, the affordances of one-on-one sessions and writing-centers’ focus on meaning-making tasks provide a unique, individualized opportunity to exploit each multilingual writer’s strengths and to hone their skills.
While at some universities, working with ESL students constitutes more of an exception than a rule, consultants at the Baruch College Writing Center, like myself, work with ESL writers on a daily basis. In fact, according to the Office of Institutional Research at Baruch, 56% of Baruch’s student population identify as non-native English speakers or English language learners. At our writing center, approximately 69% of appointments in 2016-2017 were with one of these students.
ESL learners are not a single, monolithic group—far from it. Their varying sociolinguistic backgrounds make for a seemingly chaotic spectrum of language-learning experiences, abilities, and styles. As Leki puts it, “perhaps the only characteristic linking them is the fact that they can function, to a greater or lesser degree, in a language other than English” (2009, p. 2). These multilingual writers are often categorized into two main groups: (1) U.S. resident ESL writers and (2) international student writers (Cox, 2016; Reid, 1998).
Joy Reid (1998) aptly names this first category “ear” learners since they rely on how the language “sounds” to inform their writing. Known more broadly as “generation 1.5,” the children of first-generation immigrants, these learners have completed all or part of their schooling in the United States (Cox, 2016; Leki, 2009; Reid, 1998). Despite their U.S. education, they have learned English primarily by listening to spoken English and communicating with peers. Their language is more informal and is complicated at times by their proficiency in their heritage language, or their parents’ native language, which they use to varying degrees in their daily lives. Their writing tends to mirror the informal style of their speaking, and they often have not received much formal grammar instruction. Most have developed their own rich system of rules for spoken English, which may make it difficult for them to adapt to the demand for absolute accuracy in writing. In fact, they “may not really perceive […] the difference between what they produce and the target forms or correct language expected of them in writing” (Leki, 2009, p. 6).
On the other end of the spectrum are “eye” learners (Reid, 1998). International students whose native language is not English tend to have studied it formally in school and are highly motivated to succeed (Leki, 2009). They are generally familiar with grammar terminology, which writing consultants can use to their advantage. However, their innate sense of what “sounds right” is generally less developed, and interference from their native language may be more prevalent (Reid, 1998). In addition to this language barrier, they may also face cultural barriers, such as difficulties adapting to North-American writing norms (e.g., essay structure, explicitness) and unfamiliarity with the Socratic methods of higher-education institutions and writing centers in particular.
Identifying who is who at the beginning of a session can be challenging. Previous session records can provide hints in the case of recurring students, but more often than not, like in many writing center contexts, consultants do not have a great deal of information about a student’s background. In some cases, at the beginning of a session, students might voluntarily offer this information: “I came here six months ago, and English is not my first language. Can you tell me my grammar mistakes?” If they do not offer this information, though, asking explicitly about their background may seem too forward or make them feel pigeonholed as second-rate writers. In my own experience, I find it most effective to avoid prior assumptions about the students and allow their individual strengths and weaknesses to arise organically from the conversation and from their written text.
In a recent session, I was working with a student—let’s call her Amy—who at first glance seemed to be a native speaker of English: almost imperceptible accent, fluency in her speech, and ease with informal small talk. I soon realized, though, that she displayed some of the telltale signs of U.S. resident ESL writers. As we were reading through her paper, I noticed that she used the word “when” in place of “went.” We paused at the end of the sentence, and I pointed out that there was something going on with the word “when.” She considered the word for a few moments, then looked at me, puzzled. To her, “when” sounded exactly the same as “went”— she didn’t pronounce the t in her speech. I explained the difference between the two, providing some basic metalanguage (e.g. verb, conjunction) and she was then able to identify the issue in other parts of the essay. Beyond this error, her writing displayed other issues with spelling, sentence fragments, and verb tense. What was particularly helpful for her was that I provided a basic explanation, terminology, and examples of some of the repeating issues I noticed. We talked about the difference between an independent clause and dependent clause and created a timeline on which we placed different verb tenses she was using, so that she could check her tenses as we went through the essay. Not all U.S. resident ESL writers are as receptive to metalanguage as she was, but in general, being able to explain the logic behind a certain correction and to connect it to recurring patterns in the text can help writers become aware of the discrepancies between their own set of internalized rules (their interlanguage) and the target forms they are trying to employ.
In the case with Amy, the important point to remember is that we should not succumb to generalizations. Amy’s high level of oral fluency might mistakenly lead us to think she is a native-speaker who doesn’t need or want language support; her ease with grammatical metalanguage is much less typical of “ear learners” such as herself, and more common to “eye learners.” Michelle Cox warns against “the danger of using [any of these terms] as the sole identifier of the student” (2016, p. 63). These labels can help orient our sessions, but should not be taken as molds for all students to fit into. As consultants, it is our job to operate within the grey area and embrace each ESL student’s unique strengths when dealing with grammar— while this may seem straightforward to some, selecting an appropriate approach is not so simple: it requires a multitude of split-second decisions about the complex layers of a multilingual writer’s identity.
References
Cox, M. (2016). “Identity Construction, Second Language Writers, and the Writing Center.” In Bruce S. & Rafoth B. (Eds.), Tutoring Second Language Writers (pp. 53-77). University Press of Colorado.
Leki, I. (2009). “Before the Conversation: A Sketch of Some Possible Backgrounds, Experiences, and Attitudes Among ESL Students Visiting a Writing Center.” In Bruce S. & Rafoth B. (Eds.), ESL Writers: A Guide for Writing Center Tutors (pp. 1-17). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Reid, J. M. (1998). “‘Eye’ Learners and ‘Ear’ Learners: Identifying the Language Needs of Interational Student and U.S. Resident Writers.” In Byrd P. & Reid J. M. (Eds.), Grammar in the Composition Classroom: Essays on teaching ESL for College-Bound Students (pp. 3-17). New York, NY: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Published April 9, 2018
