As I mentioned in class, I took a class with Bruce Horner
when I was a master’s student at the University of Louisville and was also
present for the October 2009 symposium that was the start of Horner, Lu,
Royster, and Trimbur’s article. Because of this, I was particularly interested
in both Horner articles this last week, especially “Language Difference in
Writing: Toward a Translingual Approach.” I’m interested in exploring their
idea of the translingual approach a bit further, having mulled over the idea
since our class discussion.
In the article, Horner, et al. call for a new
translingual approach in teaching writing to “develop alternatives to
conventional treatments of language difference” (304). This approach is meant
to go beyond the approach to language detailed in the 1974 CCCC resolution “Students’
Right to Their Own Language.” As Horner, et al. describe the translingual approach:
“It adds recognition that the formation and definition of languages and
language varieties are fluid. Further, this approach insists on viewing
language differences and fluidities as resources to be preserved, developed,
and utilized. Rather than respond to language differences only in terms of
rights, it sees them as resources” (304). As I read their description of the
translingual approach, I’m struck by their wording viewing and sees, and
then after this quote: encourages,
questions, calls for attention, acknowledges, etc (304-5). While in class I
mentioned that I would like to see what this translingual approach looks like
in practice, as I look more closely at Horner, et al., it seems that a certain
mindset and a willingness to share it with students might be the most important
part of this approach. It is a way of approaching language and writing rather
than a new pedagogy (although mindset certainly influences pedagogy).
Although Horner, et al. do not describe a pedagogy in practice,
their questions and answers at the end of the article really do help me in
coming a lot closer to coming on board with their idea of the translingual
approach. They addressed some of my own immediate concerns: No, I don’t have to
be multilingual (although that’s always a good thing), I don’t have to see
error as irrelevant, there are still standards, I don’t have to have ESL
students in my class to take this approach.
As I’ve think about the “translingual approach,” I wonder
how many of us are already teaching what Horner, et al. would consider to be a
kind of translingual approach, or at least how many of us are at least pretty
close. While I was a resistant skeptic when I first started the class I took
with Dr. Horner, I can now recognize that his class enabled me to approach
teaching writing and grading papers with a respect for students’ language. My
own thinking about language has drastically changed since 2009, and of course
my views on language certainly affect the way I teach writing. If the most important
thing about the translingual approach is the mindset we have about language(s),
then perhaps changes to pedagogy will happen without the need for an explicit
pedagogy spelled out by Horner. (Although I would still be really interested in
seeing how Horner teaches first-year composition).
So, I’m interested in everyone else’s views on the
translingual approach: Are you on board with Horner? (I’m close). Do you think
your pedagogy is anywhere close to being a “translingual approach”? Do we really have to change our pedagogy drastically to take this approach, or is it actually simple?
Matthew,
ReplyDeleteI suppose I was on board with Horner et al. from the start (mainly because I'm a sucker for these calls for "radical changes to pedagogy."
However, as for your string of worthy questions at the end of this post, I feel as if, no, we don't need to necessarily drastically change our pedagogy to take this approach. In many ways, I think that a translingual approach demands that on a fundamental level, we as instructors need have a greater tendency to "listen" to our students and their writing. Certainly, there are moves that could/should be made in the classroom as part of this approach: creating a "safe space," where students feel as if they can play with writing; and as we've said repeatedly during the course, teaching students "meta-knowledge" of "different languages" (to name a couple).
It's not as if we can stop teaching or examining "Standard English" in our classrooms (not yet anyway) because, obviously, students are going to be required to learn to compose in "Standard English" during their academic careers and beyond. Similarly, it would be a disservice, I think, to not teach our students this kind of meta-knowledge of the translingual approach, because they're going to need these "listening" skills, again, during their academic careers and beyond.
If anyone's interested, A. Suresh Canagrarajah wrote a great piece for CCC's in 2006 entitled "The Place of World Engishes in Composition: Pluralization Continued," which informs much of my thinking about this kind of approach.
I also had wondered if this approach for right now would be constrained by the classroom size. I know that's not theoretical, but the amount of personal investment it takes to ask "of writing not whether its language is standard, but what the writers are doing with language and why" (304-305) would take time. Though we may not need to be bilingual to teach this way, I do think we need to have time to understand the specific student in order to understand their use of language.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it is not necessarily the classroom size, but the level of diversity of a class. A class with a more diverse linguistic background, in my opinion, will pose a bigger problem, isnt it?
DeleteThis reading was a lot to take in for me. In class you mentioned that you wanted more from the piece. I feel the same way. I think I need to actually see it in practice in order say if I'm on board or not. It seems like a really cool approach (because it's radical, and Critical pedagogy folks love radical!). I think it's always nice (and appropriate in a composition course) to think about the language and identity of our students. Furthermore, I think it's appropriate to take those things into account when we are teaching and learning from our students. I think it helps students to negotiate their identities as well as develop their own way of writing. I also like the idea of bringing new languages into the classroom in order to facilitate interactions with students who speak other languages.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think we do need to understand each students use of language in order to fully interact with them and their work.
I agree with Matthew that we are yet to see how this approach is implemented in the classroom, and I would be very happy to be able to see such a class in the future. What is interesting, however, is that how the different languages can be viewed as resources to be preserved, developed, even utilized in the classroom. It is revolutionary since that many may see these different languages as potential source of interference. I also with Simone that we need to understand each students' use of language in order to fully interact with them and their work. The most important thing, in my opinion, is that as there are so many languages there may also be many ways of thinking and ways of writing. Embracing these differences may help us understand each other.
ReplyDeleteBoi
ReplyDelete