Xin Chen, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA

The sharp rise in the number of international students in the U.S. in recent years has warranted more research into the academic literacy development of multilingual students. How to fit themselves into the new discourse communities at the university is a challenge for many international students who just come to study in the U.S. The translingual orientation to literacy development suggests that multilingual students bring with them the awareness of intercultural communication and the competence of translanguaging between different discourse communities (Canagarajah, 2010; Lu & Horner, 2013), as they navigate their ways through the new linguistic and rhetorical forms of writing in their L2. However, most students from EFL countries (e.g. China and Korea) subconsciously abide by the norms of Standard English, which seems to have run counter to the translingual pedagogy, which emphasizes the writer’s agency and responsibility in reproducing and challenging standardized language conventions. Is the translingual pedagogy applicable to the writing classes for multilingual students in college, after all? For students from the countries where English training relies fundamentally on the grammar-translation approach, their English writing is heavily influenced by their L1 at sentence level as well as rhetorical level. If so, how can writing teachers address those students’ needs of adapting to standardized academic English writing while also cultivate their ability to negotiate language differences and write proficiently in different contexts? These are the questions that primarily drive this study.

This paper argues that the translingual pedagogy does not mean to neglect the conventions of Standard English writing. Instead, it encourages multilingual writers to draw upon all their linguistic and rhetorical repertories (including their emergent knowledge of their L2) to negotiate with the mainstream conventions and write proficiently in different contexts. Therefore, it is necessary to familiarize the novice English writers with the mainstream conventions while encouraging their effective translingual writing. By interviewing two writing teachers of multilingual students in college and analyzing their comments on students’ writing drafts, this study discusses how a translingual approach can be adopted in teacher feedback to pertinently help those students with their English writing. It is proposed that rather than explicitly teaching translingual practices to multilingual students in academic settings, it will be more useful for teachers to integrate a translingual orientation into their writing pedagogy so as to equip the students with the meta-knowledge of language use for writing in different contexts.

Teacher Feedback With a Translingual Approach

Despite the skepticism about the value of introducing translingual writing in academic settings, a great deal of research on teacher feedback to students’ writing has come up with the arguments that accord with the ideology of translingualism (e.g., Anson, 1989; Kroll, 1980; Williams, 1981). A translingual pedagogy aims to make it transparent to language learners that there are competing ideologies of English language use so as to prepare them with the critical awareness of their own writing practices as well as rhetorical strategies in different contexts. Accordingly, this paper proposes that fostering linguistic awareness and translingual communicative competence requires students’ understanding of the standard language conventions, which is also essential for their academic success at university. In the context of writing classes, teachers can help students further develop translingual competence by giving them the meta-knowledge to critique different language use and inform the students that they can make decisions for their own writing. In this study, I presented two case studies in which two writing teachers of multilingual students at a research university in the U.S were interviewed on how they facilitate their students navigating the complex translingual relationships among languages, cultures, and academic success. They both teach the same First-year Writing course, which has the objective to help multilingual students learn “the conventions related to academic writing in western traditions and consider how those conventions function cross-culturally” (the course description). The two teachers are from different cultural backgrounds and they adopt different types of teacher feedback, which represent their ideology of writing as well as teaching style. Their comments on students’ writing drafts were also examined and compared. The findings reveal the possibility of integrating a translingual approach into different types of teacher feedback to substantively benefit multilingual students at college.

Case Study 1

Carrie (pseudonyms of the teachers are used for private purposes) is from China and learned English as a foreign language in her home country, where she was trained with a grammar-translation approach in English. Her past experiences make her believe that most multilingual students, especially those from East Asia countries, like China and Korea, will expect teachers to correct their grammatical errors and to comment on their writing in an authoritative tone. That said, rather than telling the students how to correct their sentence-level errors, Carrie usually just points out the problems with very brief comments like “Grammar” or “Problem with the language” and asks the students to revise their language themselves (See Appendix A for an example of Carrie’s comments on her student’s essay). Moreover, she often uses questions in her commentary to provoke the students to rethink about their linguistic and rhetorical forms, e.g., “[w]hat do you mean by Arabic?” and “[h]ow would you prove this?” Even when she explicitly makes suggestions to the students, e.g., “[i]t would be better if you can show your readers some images to prove your point,” she speaks from the perspective of a reader rather than a dictatorial instructor. Carrie explained in the interview that she felt sympathetic for those students who were struggling to pursue the “nativeness” of English writing but she would still prioritize the goal of familiarizing them with the conventions of Standard English academic writing.

Case Study 2

Susan (pseudonym) is from Singapore with English as her first language. Different from Carrie, she comments less on the sentence-level issues in students’ essays but gives more feedback on students’ rhetorical strategies, which indicates the different emphasis of teachers in their commentary on students’ writing (See Appendix B for an example of Susan’s comments on her student’s essay). Nevertheless, Susan would also ask questions about the student’s language use when the meaning making is not successful. For instance, she put a question mark on the word “fellowship” to give a hint to the student that she had some problem understanding the expression. In addition, as Carrie, Susan responded to students’ writing more as a reader than as an instructor. The comment “[y]our readers can tell that this point counter-argues the previous one” would serve to help reinforce the student’s audience awareness. Another thing to be noted is that the majority of Susan’s feedback is positive. Her intention is to make the students more confident in their writing and more comfortable to employ their writer’s agency.

As can be seen from the examples, questions were used in both teachers’ feedback to suggest the potential problems of meaning communication in their students’ essays, but none of the teachers commented in an authoritative tone. Both of them responded as a reader rather than an authority in writing. The purpose of such an approach is to give students the meta-knowledge to analyze their own writing and make better choices in language use. Carrie and Susan also reported that in the follow-up conferences with the students on their writing drafts after the teacher feedback was received, most students seemed very willing to discuss the points that the teacher as a reader failed to get and then make decisions for revision themselves. It proves that such a dialectic approach in teacher feedback encourages students to reconsider their choice of language use and to negotiate meaning with the audience, which aligns with the translingual orientation in writing pedagogy.

Conclusion

Canagarajah (2013) contended that meaning had to be co-constructed through collaborative strategies so we should treat texts “as affordances rather than containers of meaning” (p.43). A writing pedagogy with a translingual orientation should also include teacher feedback that “allows students to question their choices, think critically about these choices and their assessment, and develop metacognitive awareness” (Marshall & Moore, 2013, p.494). In this light, making the unconscious translingual competence conscious to the students will help them be more critical about their own writing strategies and equip them with the skills to shuttle between different languages. Horner, Lu, Royster and Trimbur (2011) have called for a translingual approach in writing instruction, which “acknowledges that deviations from dominant expectations need not be errors; that conformity need not be automatically advisable; and that writers’ purposes and readers’ conventional expectations are neither fixed nor unified” (p.304). In the two writing teachers’ classes, revising drafts based on teacher feedback is an essential way for multilingual students to improve their writing. The teachers would point out the “problematic” sentences or ask questions to push student writers to think for themselves what the problems are and whether it is necessary to revise them. Besides, individual writing conferences also give the students the opportunities to explain or defend their “unique” use of English and negotiate meaning with the audience. Furthermore, translingualism sees the linguistic deviation from mainstream expectations not as problems but as resources for meaning production and it corresponds to the current situation of academic writing where more and more multilingual writers are striving in the field. Thus, the writing instruction to multilingual students should aim to develop students’ ability to negotiate language differences and to write across contexts with all the linguistic resources available. This paper suggests that a translingual approach can be integrated into different-styled writing pedagogy through teacher feedback and pertinently help multilingual students. Although most of them are novice writers of English academic writing with the prior need to adapt themselves into the new discourse communities of non-conforming Standard English, a translingual approach in teacher feedback recognizes those students’ efforts to comply with the standardized norms and at the same time leaves them with the space to negotiate the dominant conventions, which prepares them to become proficient writers across contexts.

References

Anson, C. M. (1989) Response Styles and Ways of Knowing. In C. M. Anson (Ed.), Writing and Response: Theory, Practice, and Research (pp. 336-366), National Council of Teachers of English, U.S.A.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2010) A Rhetoric of Shuttling between Languages. In B. Horner, M-Z. Lu and P.K. Matsuda (Eds.), Cross-language Relations in Composition (pp.158-182). Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2013) Negotiating Translingual Literacy: An Enactment. Research in the Teaching of English, 48(1), 40-67.

Horner, B.; Lu, M-Z.; Royster, J. J. & Trimbur, J. (2011) Language Difference in Writing: Toward a Translingual Approach. College English, 73 (3), 303-321.

Kroll, B. M. (1980) Developmental Perspectives and the Teaching of Composition. College English, 41, 741-52.

Lu, M-Z & Horner, B. (2013) Translingual Literacy, Language Difference, and Matters of Agency. College English, 75 (6), 582-607.

Marshall, S. & Moore, D-L. (2013) 2B or Not 2B Plurilingual? Navigating Languages Literacies, and Plurilingual Competence in Postsecondary Education in Canada. TESOL Quarterly, 47 (3), 472-499.

Williams, J. (1981) The Phenomenology of Error, College Composition and Communication, 31, 152-168.

Appendix A: An Example of Carrie’s Comments on Her Student’s Essay

An excerpt from a student’s essay:

Graffiti makes great contribution to the society as it has been transited from “underground art” to “ground art” (Whitehead, 2004). EL Seed, a famous graffiti artists (1) who has been learned (2) about how to write and read Arabic which is a small language from south Africa (3) and attract more people from other places to know this culture by drawing vivid images on walls to translate the message of hope and peace and making every people feel connected (El seed, 2015). Another example of the graffiti contribution can be seen from Ferrell’s (1995) article, graffiti artists helped governments to advocate maintaining the society order, like painting suggestions about war, AIDS and drug to make people have awareness about those things (4). Thus, the graffiti now not only are visual enjoyment, but also people will get benefits from the information in those images (5). At the same time, graffiti artists cooperated with business to sell T-shirt and pants which had the tag of graffiti to promote the deep social bonds with society (6). Therefore, with the rise of graffiti art, it brings lots of benefits to the society, spreading people’s belief, keeping society order (7).

Teacher Feedback

(1) Grammar

(2) Why using passive voice?

(3) Really? What do you mean by "Arabic"? Are you talking about one dialect in Arabic?

(4) It could be better if you can show your readers some images to prove your point.

(5) Grammar

(6) How would you prove this? Any sources or examples?

(7) Problem with the language

Appendix B: An Example of Susan’s Comments on Her Student’s Essay

An excerpt from a student’s essay:

Selfie activism encourages contribution by allowing everyone to raise his or her voices for a cause. With online activism, anyone can easily form an organization, become a leader and obtain a sense of accomplishment and emotion of making an impact. Haudan (2014) reveals four essential roots of engagement in his article. According to his article (1), people in an organization are motivated to engage when they feel fellowship (2), a sense of belonging, wish to achieve meaningful purpose and when they know they are making a difference. Online activism ultimately provides these four essential factors that motivate people by offering them opportunities to easily build a community, promote message, and make an impact. It therefore mobilizes general and public participation. By displaying a selfie on the social media, it is seen by a great number of people who are able to see others’ commitment to a cause and are inspired engage themselves which in turn builds a network and a force of collaboration among people. This makes activism towards a cause to be stronger and wider (3). Nevertheless, some people view online activism as a lazy, naïve, and token away of supporting an issue and does not display passion compared to traditional activism even though online activism entices people’s commitment (4). Hill (2014) claims that any type of online activism such as petition and campaign does not display passion compared to traditional activism (5). He states that traditional activists in the 1940’s and 50’s were doers, not watchers like today’s activist. He further claims that in the 60s’ and 70’s, streets were full of protesters risking their lives for civil rights and changes that they yearned for. However, this claim does not dispel the vitality of online activism especially as it is being increasingly demonstrated in present times. Online activism is rapidly producing positive results and overwhelmingly engaging the public more than the traditional medium (6).

Teacher Feedback

(1) Delete

(2) ?

(3) Great point!

(4) Your readers can tell that this point counter-argues the previous one.

(5) Good!

(6) You’ve reinforced the ideas as expressed in the evidence.