TEACHING IN THE LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE WRITING CLASSROOM: VOICES OF OUR STUDENTS

Eileen Kennedy

Although many college educators face the challenge of teaching increasingly linguistically and dialectically diverse students in the monolingual English writing classroom, for the education professor, the problem is even more complex. The Black and Hispanic student population continues to grow in this country, and yet K-12 writing teachers are mostly white and English-speaking.1 The No Child Left Behind Act mandates that a certified teacher be placed in each public school classroom, but this mandate has not been met.2 The teacher candidate must pass a state assessment, with an essay component, to become certified, yet many teacher candidates fail these written assessments, particularly the written portion. According to the public interest group Education Trust the national picture is pretty bleak, in that a number of states have responded by lowering the bar, so that you do not really have to do very much to meet the highly qualified standard.3 Teachers are increasingly being asked to write essays as part of the interview process. The New York City Department of Education recently initiated a two-essay application requirement for teachers entering the system.4 There is a shortage of bilingual teachers in many parts of the country. Teachers must learn academic writing and teach it to their students.

THE STUDY

Where are the linguistically and culturally diverse student teachers who will teach and relate to these linguistically and culturally diverse students in the future? This question drove and informed the research I did in spring 2007.5 My students are linguistically diverse teacher candidates who will become tomorrow’s teachers, paraprofessionals, teachers aids, and childcare workers in public early childhood programs and schools. Historically, the Hispanic student population of our college exceeds 80%. Of the other 20%, many dialects and languages other than Spanish are spoken. Among the participants in my study, 20 spoke Spanish, two spoke Vernacular Englishes, two spoke French Creole, one spoke Hindi, and one spoke Portuguese (see Table 1).

Table 1: Language/Gender of Participants in Freewrite/Case Story, Symposium and Control Classes

I wanted to study my linguistically diverse students’ writing process. I hoped to learn how to help them develop strategies to write academic essays in standard-form English. I had participated in three symposiums on writing with Peter Elbow at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and knew that many scholars recommended drawing on the oral skills students possess to help apply those skills to writing.6 I had done my own study with education students from the Anglophone Caribbean in which students wrote in their native vernacular Englishes to access their academic voice with some success.7 I did another study with graduate education students in which a structured discussion methodology was contrasted with a control and used successfully as a prelude to writing an essay.8 A third study I did drew on the home languages of linguistically diverse students to write poetry.9 I drew on all of this research to design the following study.

In three education courses, I designed a study in which two discussion methodologies, Symposium and Freewrite/Case Story, were contrasted with a control as a prelude to academic writing. I had a PSC CUNY Research Award to fund independent raters on the essays and a small stipend to participants. I hoped that these structured methodologies would serve to bring oral competency as a prelude to writing. All three classes were given a prompt to write from on secrecy and a pre- and post- survey.10 The two experimental classes wrote the essay before and after the discussion methodology, and the control wrote from the prompt twice.

The first class, a child development class, used the Freewrite/Case Story methodology, a reflective collegial learning method that draws on Freewriting11 and Case Study merged with individual stories.12 The discussion group broke into triads. Stu- dents had the opportunity to talk in English and Spanish. Eight participants out of a possible 14 completed both sessions and gave consent for their data to be used. After discussing the prompt in two sets of triads, I elicited discussion points and wrote them on a chart tablet in English in front of the room.

The second class, studying the teaching of creative arts, used the Symposium methodology.13 This group had eight participants out of a possible 14. This group used this basic discussion in four groups, one of which was Spanish-speaking and wrote their thoughts on chart tablets in English. Then they wrote the post-essay.

The third class, a class studying social studies methods, served as the Control Group. They wrote the pre-essay in one class and the post-essay in class a week later. Out of 11 possible students, 10 completed both sessions and gave consent for their data to be used.

The results of the experiment follow in Table 2. The Symposium Group went up 21.9% in their essays scores from pre- to post-essay and the Freewrite/Case Story Group went up 16.3%. The Control Group showed a modest gain of .025%, which would take into account the practice effect of writing the same essay twice.

Table 2: Results of Pre-Essay and Post-Essay Ratings

STUDENTS’VOICES

I know I had done a study that supported the use of discussion in any familiar language, as a prelude to on-demand academic writing, but something was missing. It was the voices of the students. What did they have to say about the experience of writing academically in mainstream English and having a different home language? So, I interviewed the students to find out. Sixteen students allowed me to tape and interview them one on one and all the students filled out written surveys. Here are the results. [Note: student comments and written works are quoted in the students’ own words to preserve their integrity, without correction.]

Students voiced a lot of anxiety around writing the academic essay: “I feel nervous on edge, not prepared for this essay to be written.” They also indicated fears of inadequacy about writing in English: “I find [it] difficult writing in English…I like to write but my first language is Spanish and my second is English.” But they saw a positive future: “I can always improve.” This trend is found throughout my research studies and in this study and was reflected in the comments of the students.

Students particularly liked the discussion in both groups as a prelude to writing: “It opened to my eyes to different ideas and how people view things differently… some people thought secrets were a danger to society. I thought differently.” One student observed: “The first on [essay writing] was difficult. I was glad to discuss [the essay topic] individually. The second time [essay writing] was easier.” Students also voiced over and over an appreciation of a discussion model as a prelude to writing, rather than writing cold in isolation. Spanish-speaking students who did discussion in Spanish found it helpful: “Some Spanish discussion was helpful to clarify ideas… it made it more easy to discuss and write in English.” Another student noted: “I like to discuss in English and Spanish because some words I don’t understand.” One concluded: “It helps me to think in two languages.” Students also alluded to the fact that it was helpful to discuss concepts in their home language before writing in English: “I like to speak in Spanish…it helps me to write in English…I understand more specifics in Spanish…Spanish discussion and English writing is best.” Not all Spanish speaking students opted to discuss in Spanish: “I think it’s easier to discuss and writ[e] English.”

The Freewrite/Case Story was a methodology the students preferred to Symposium: “I talk to the paper [Freewriting].” Another student commented: “The free- writing help[s] us to express our emotions and thought[s] easier.” Freewrite/Case Story was probably more popular than the Symposium because of the smaller group, more personal approach of discussing in groups of threes and opening with a free- write. Symposium, which is a more traditional, structured methodology, however, produced a larger increase in post-essay scores.

Students also commented on their overall opinion. Some students assumed the role of mentor to help other students negotiate English: “Sometimes students who speak Spanish don’t understand the teacher. I help them out.” Some students found writing ideas on chart tablets in English helpful: “Summary is interesting—the level of spelling and writing is better than before.” Students found having the concepts in English before them, particularly the English Language Learners, a comfortable bridge to a more effective essay. Students’ reactions overall were positive, although some complained of not having enough time to complete the essay: “I’m glad for the opportunity—I hope it will be used in the future.” Another suggested: “Everyone should experience this and get ideas on how to write an essay.” Some, however, did write about their concerns: “There was not enough time to complete the essay.”

WHAT I LEARNED ABOUT TEACHING CLASSROOM WRITING TO STUDENTS

The students represented here brought different cultural and linguistic back- grounds to the classroom. In listening to them, I learned that as teachers we need to provide more opportunities for our students to voice opinions, control classroom activities that are student-centered, and discuss, the issues they are learning and writing about. Students articulated a need to write better and appreciated the student- centered discussion methodology as a prelude to writing.

Diana and James Oblinger refer to the new generation of college students as “the net generation” and ascribe to them a “tendency to work in teams or with peers.” Student-centered paradigms where students take control of their own learning, such as the paradigm used in this study, are also preferable to more lecture-oriented traditional techniques.14

Overall, the experience of using discussion as a prelude to writing worked well for my students. The Symposium method was more effective than the Freewrite/Case Story in raising essay scores, but students liked the informality to the triads in this methodology and the Freewrite better than the more structured Symposium method. (See Table 2.) I have also used the Nominal Group Technique successfully as a pre- lude to writing in a study with teacher candidates.15

Students voiced much anxiety, fear and confusion around academic writing that we as educators should strive to dispel. Students questioned their competence as writers and clearly indicated they wanted help, even in content-laden courses, with academic writing. Giving students a chance to perform on-demand writing, exploring the vocabulary and concepts of whatever topic is being presented, is clearly indicated here. Framing the writing classroom discourse in terms of the communicative and linguistic competences that our students already possess rather than on deficits of form and structure are directions that we as educators need to take.

Additionally, we should strive to allow our students’ home languages to enter our monolingual classrooms in a more open way. Students clearly appreciated having their cultural and linguistic backgrounds honored and respected in the classroom, even if they did not avail themselves of discussion in their home languages.

This was a small ethnographic study with limited generalizability. Clearly more research needs to be done with student-centered teaching that may empower and inform academic writing and discourse, especially among linguistically and culturally diverse students. One student articulated it well: [After the discussion] I had … something to write down…It was a thesis I could follow…it was eye opening.”

Eileen Kennedy

Education Department

ENDNOTES

1. Ramirez, L. and Gallardo, O. “Beyond Multicultural Education: Transformation in America.” In Portraits of Teachers in Multicultural Settings: A Critical Literacy Approach. Ed. L. Ramirez and O. Gallardo. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon, 2005. 1-8.

2. United States Department of Education. Fact sheet: The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved April 14, 2003. http://ww.ed.gov/offices/OSE/esea/factsheet.\ 2003.

3. Jordan, J.S.D. “‘Highly Qualified’ Teachers Draw Criticism.” The Providence Journal September 6, 2001.

4. Goodman, E. “Coming Soon, An Essay Requirement for Teachers.” The New York Times http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0216/coming-soon-an-essay-requirement for teachers.

5. I would like to thank Peter Elbow for his gracious help with the research paradigm, Christine Mangino for her assistance with facilitating the study, Magali Figueroa-Sanchez, Wanda Santiago and Raymond Torres-Santos for their generous lending of class time, and the education students of Hostos Community College for sharing their time and thoughts. The study was funded by a grant from the Professional Staff Congress Research

6. Author, Janet Bean, Maryann Cucchiara, Robert Eddy, Peter Elbow, Rhonda Grego, Rich Haswell, Patricia Irvine, Ellie Kutz, Al Lehner and Paul Kai Matsuda. “Should We Invite Students to Write in Home Languages? Complicating the Yes/No Debate.” Communication Studies 31.1 (2003): 25-42.

7. Author. “Writing in Home Dialects: Choosing a Written Discourse in a Teacher Education Class.” The Quarterly of the National Writing Project 25.2 (2003): 2-6.

8. Author. “The Academic Writing of Teacher Candidates: Connecting Speaking and Writing.” L1: Educational Studies in Language and Literature 7.2 (2007): 141-172.

9. Author. “Literacy Development of Linguistically Diverse First Graders in the Mainstream English Classroom: Connecting Speaking and Writing.” Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 6.2 (2006): 163-190.

10. College Board. SAT Reasoning Test {Brochure}Princeton, NJ: College Entrance Board and Educational Testing Service, 2005.

11. Elbow, P. A Community of Writers. New York: McGraw Hill, 1995.

12. Christensen, C.R., G.S. Garvin, and A. Sweet. Education For Judgment: The Artistry Of Discussion Leadership. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1991.

13. Sisco, B.R. “Forum, panel and symposium.” In Adult learning methods. Ed. M.W. Galbraith. 3rd Ed. Malabar, FL: Krieger, 2004. pp. 405-424.

14. Oblinger, Diana and Oblinger, James. “Is It Age or IT: First Steps Toward Understanding the Net Generation.” In Educating the Net Generation. Eds. Diana Oblinger and James Oblinger. Washington, DC: Educause, 2005. 2.1-2.20.

15. Author. “The Academic Writing of Teacher Candidates.”