by Andrew Paul, Anthropology
In 1999, English professor Peter Elbow wrote of the “instructor’s dilemma” in diverse classrooms: how can we make our courses safe for diverse varieties of English, while at the same time fostering students’ ability to write according to the conventions of their profession?
This quandary is as relevant today as it was 25 years ago. Fostering student writing is a laudable goal. But as we promote academic writing according to our disciplinary conventions, do we risk marginalizing other ways of expressing knowledge? Although mastery of standard written English may still be a mark of student success, this arguably reinforces racist and colonizing structures that privilege one form of English as the “standard”—or English over other languages for that matter.
To be sure, writing conventions often exist for a reason. Standard formats may permit more seamless communication among papers in the field. For example, scientific papers follow a standard format of introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusion—every time! These papers are also written in passive voice to maintain an air of objectivity.
In a recent paper, Sri Lankan-American scholar Suresh Canagarajah argues that imposing Eurocentric writing practices as the academic standard is a form of epistemic injustice. As Canagarajah began graduate studies in the US, his professors demanded essays with a thesis statement, topic sentences, and so on, which was not how Canagarajah learned to write in Sri Lanka. Writing in Sri Lanka draws the reader in and invites them to participate in making meaning; similarly, Cree scholar Shawn Wilson addresses his academic research text to his sons as a way of building a relationship with his readers. The dry objectivity of a scientific paper or the mechanical structure of an academic essay recede into the background.
The point is not that some forms of writing are superior to others—each serves a purpose. But, as Mya Poe writes, it is important to ask ourselves why certain conventions exist. Whose interests do these conventions serve? In what situations might linguistic variation be acceptable?
So, how might we make our classroom a safe place for linguistic diversity?
Focus on the writing process! Elbow describes his method: encourage students to work in their own English dialect as they arrange their ideas. Only in the final draft does Elbow require his students to conform to the grammar of standard written English.
Similarly, Canagarajah urges instructors to focus what he calls the process of entextualization, that is the myriad processes and relations that interact to create emerging meanings and texts. In this process, Canagarajah encourages instructors to provide space for students to negotiate standards as they cultivate their own writing voice. Thus, the process of entextualization becomes a dialogue between students and instructors rather than unilateral imposition of rules. This also allows students to draw on the values and resources of their own cultures and dialects of English (Yosso), even if the end result is a paper in standard written English.
Working in non-English settings, one is further confronted by the primacy of English as the language of academia, and the exclusions and inequities this entails. I teach environmental studies to Karen (kuh-REN) undergraduate students on the Thai-Burma border in Southeast Asia. I use bilingual instruction, with some English sources but primarily Karen language instruction. Karen students in my classes can complete their writing assignments in either English or Karen—most prefer Karen, as they can more fully express themselves, even as I help them engage difficult English texts.
Finally, as instructors we should review the place of writing in our course goals. Depending on these goals students’ needs, we might explore alternative ways to express learning. It doesn’t always have to be written. We can provide opportunities for art, voice recordings, and so on to open space for students to express their learning beyond the written word. This allows diverse talents to shine where writing might otherwise be a barrier.
Question the standards, question the rules: who benefits and who is harmed?
In the words of Canagarajah, “While colonizing pedagogies adopt a one-way strategy of teachers “giving” multilingual students the language and knowledge they don’t have, a decolonizing pedagogy builds knowledge and resources together—relationally” (23).
Sound advice: here’s to decolonizing writing pedagogy!
Works Cited
Canagarajah, Suresh. “Decolonizing Academic Writing Pedagogies for Multilingual Students.” TESOL Quarterly, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3231.
Elbow, Peter. “Inviting the Mother Tongue: Beyond ‘Mistakes,’ ‘Bad English,’ and ‘Wrong Language.’” Journal of Advanced Composition, vol. 19, no. 3, 1999, pp. 359–88.
Poe, Mya. “Re-Framing Race in Teaching Writing Across the Curriculum.” Across the Disciplines, vol. 10, no. 3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.37514/atd-j.2013.10.3.06.
Wilson, Shawn. Research Is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Fernwood Publishers, 2008.
Yosso, Tara J. “Whose Culture Has Capital? A Critical Race Theory Discussion of Community Cultural Wealth.” Race Ethnicity and Education, vol. 8, no. 1, 2005, pp. 69–91, https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006.