ITAIS Newsletter - July 2023 (Plain Text Version)
|
||
|
In this issue: |
THINKING OUT LOUD: REVISITING (AND REEXAMINING) ITA LANGUAGE POLICIES Darren K. LaScotte, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Introduction I don’t believe that it’s a secret to anyone in ITAIS that many of our ITA programs, dating back to the late 1970s, were established in response to a very real need to better support international graduate students in their TA roles. Prior to the start of these programs, and like many – if not most – TAs who are thrust in front of a classroom for the first time, these students often began in these positions with little to no training, preparation, or otherwise transferable experience. To compound this issue further, these positions also required them to use their second language to deliver important course content and information to their students. Early on, it became clear that some ITAs struggled to effectively communicate with their students, and, in response, many universities created ITA programs and other resources to help these students improve their communication skills and intelligibility. This history – well known to many of us who have worked with ITAs – carries on today, and ITA programs continue to help and support students to be the best possible teachers and communicators they can be. That said, there seems to have been a shift in the field in how we, our ITA students, and other university stakeholders perceive the work that ITA programs do. At a national level, ITAs have long been seen as resources benefitting universities and their communities, as well as U.S. economic and political interests in preparing a qualified workforce (see Harklau & Coda, 2019); and for many years, national policies and initiatives have encouraged and recruited international students to come study in the U.S., particularly in the areas of STEM. At a local level, however, policy perspectives regarding these same students have often been deficit-oriented, positioning international graduate students as an issue needing to be addressed due to the teaching roles they have held. Indeed, many of the same university-wide or state-level policies that led to the creation of ITA programs were crafted to target issues of language proficiency or complaints of “foreign accents.” The University of Minnesota, where I teach, is no exception. In 1983, representatives of the Minnesota Legislature included in a major spending bill a request that the university develop a plan for “insuring [sic] that teaching assistants are proficient in speaking, reading, and writing the English language as it is spoken in the United States” (Laws of Minnesota, 1983, sect. 6, subd. 2c, para. 5). Screening for international TAs began shortly after this request, and a version of this policy still exists today. But what of the language ideologies and perspectives that crafted these original policies? Those, it seems, have changed. Revisiting ITA Language Policies Forty years after their initial creation, what can be said about how such policies have evolved across higher education? And how have discourses surrounding these policies evolved along with them? International graduate student numbers continue to grow, and ITAs continue to teach as part of their tuition packages. At the same time, the field of TESOL has become more mindful and aware of the challenges and inconsistencies embedded in such policies, given new understandings of the linkages between language, race, and “appropriate” language (cf. Flores & Rosa, 2015). Using my home institution as a case study, I took up these questions and explored the changes to ITA policy, practices, and discourses over time – changes that I argued may very well be representative of national trends (see LaScotte, 2022). The results of this study were published in the perspectivescolumn of The Modern Language Journal, and commentaries were invited from Cynthia DeRoma, Vijay Ramjattan, Tim McNamara,Yi-Ju Lai, Stephen Looney, and Mostafa Papi. In the remaining space I have for this article, I would like to share those findings and some of the perspectives that arose from the commentaries in response (see Bigelow, 2022 for the full position paper and commentaries). Where Are We Now? Today, we no longer talk about TAs’ “foreign accents” being too thick or use the same deficit-oriented language which was more commonplace decades ago. In examination of the University of Minnesota’s language policy itself, changes to the wording of the policy seem to reflect this shift as well. Since 1983, revisions to the policy have moved to place more emphasis on language proficiency needed for effective teaching or a level of English appropriate to the “demands of their teaching assistantships,” specifically. Additions to the policy have also clarified which students are designated as “nonnative English speakers1,” though this may still be interpreted in very different ways depending on the experiences or beliefs of whoever is charged with screening these students. And, whereas in the past, all international students were additionally tested and screened upon arrival, regardless of previous test scores or educational experiences, the onus of complying with this policy now seems to be put almost entirely on departments.2 In that regard, the ultimate enforcement of this policy seems to be based largely on the subjectivity of department chairpersons and program leads, whose own ideologies can influence their interpretation (and follow through) of university policy. In addition to changes to the wording of the policy itself, shifting away from a focus on general spoken language proficiency and towards a focus on teaching, it seems that the public discourses surrounding this policy have also moved in this same direction. Whereas early in the 1980s and 1990s there were reports of the “foreign TA problem,” often depicting TAs as linguistically deficient, with thick accents and a general lack of proficiency, the discourses surrounding this policy and the ITA program more generally have shifted to a need for improving communication between TAs and their students, with the ultimate goal being high-quality instruction. Obviously, someone can be very easy to understand regardless of accent or mistakes in syntax or lexicon. Likewise, though, another might grow up speaking English and may even share the same dialect and accent as the listener, but may still nevertheless be quite difficult to understand in course lectures or conversations. Such a move, then, begs the questions: If the policy can now be interpreted as ensuring high-quality communication and the necessary pedagogical skills for effective teaching and learning, why should this policy not extend to all TAs – international and domestic? If this policy remains, at its core, a language policy, then what policies are in place for domestic students who may speak one language (English) but who nevertheless have trouble communicating with the students? These are questions that I still have today, and so I would like to invite you to think about them as well. In the meantime, I would also like to share some of the thoughtful commentaries3 that were included in response, as I believe these can help us think of where we may find ourselves in the years to come. Where Do We Go From Here? It is my honest opinion that it’s time to revisit and reexamine the university-wide or state-level language policies that led to the development of ITA programs and other university resources, even though these programs continue to serve a real need. I understand that many readers may not readily agree, but I think it’s worth taking a step back and reassessing the extent to which current policies and practices are being applied consistently and fairly across higher education contexts. As Tim McNamara and Yi-Ju Lai noted (see Bigelow, 2022 for this and subsequent commentary mentions), successful teaching requires a lot more than spoken language, and valid testing measures for ITAs should take this into account. In many cases, current standardized testing procedures may not be equipped to this extent. Vijay Ramjattan and Mostafa Papi also pointed to the fact that current policies ask ITAs to do aesthetic and emotional labor – that is, to act and speak a certain way – with higher-stakes risks if they do not. In a time where universities across many states (not all, I know) are creating and implementing DE&I initiatives and plans to promote internationalization of the campus curriculum, these policies seem out of step with movements going forward. Finally, as Cynthia DeRoma and Stephen Looney noted in their commentaries, revisiting such policies is important in that it may direct us to shift our attention away from “the foreign TA problem” and towards “the American listener problem” and a reflection on the potential role we may have in legitimizing and perpetuating harmful linguistic ideologies. Whereas current policy may drive ITA practice, it’s not always informed by relevant research, and on-the-ground ITA researchers and practitioners can be agents of change in that regard. Notes: 1. In its current form, the policy describes a nonnative speaker of English as a person whose first language in the home during childhood was not English, and whose K-12 and undergraduate education was completed mostly outside of the U.S. 2. Since conducting my case study research in 2021, it appears the policy has been updated to include responsibilities of several different administrators, including those in graduate admissions, the ITA program, and the admitting program’s office. This update was made in April 2022. 3. The reader is reminded to see Bigelow (2022) for the full position paper and commentaries if interested. References Bigelow, M. (Ed.) (2022). International teaching assistants in higher education: New perspectives and possibilities. Editor’s introduction to Perspectives, The Modern Language Journal, 106(2). Position paper and commentaries, 469–502. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12783 Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.17763/0017-8055.85.2.149 Harklau, L., & Coda, J. (2019). Situating ITAs in higher education and immigration policy studies. In S. D. Looney & S. Bhalla (Eds.), A transdisciplinary approach to international teaching assistants (pp. 136–153). Multilingual Matters. LaScotte, D. (2022). The “foreign TA problem” forty years on. The Modern Language Journal, 106(2), 470–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12784 Laws of Minnesota. HF1283. § 258-6. (1983). https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/1983/0/Session+Law/Chapter/258/ Darren K. LaScotte, Ph.D., is a Teaching Specialist in the Minnesota English Language Program at the University of Minnesota, where he teaches English as a second language to international students. He is a recipient of the 2023 TESOL Award for Excellence in Research. |
|