Lyudmila's entry (week 2)

(I'm posting Lyudmila's response here until we figure out the problem she has with her individual blog) The structural approach to writing was an approach largely used by my teachers of English in Russia. Thus, writing was looked at as a product of the writer’s command of grammatical and lexical knowledge. Moreover, imitating and manipulating models provided by the teacher were expected to be followed. To be honest, I liked that approach as I was highly conscientious about grammar and did not feel like that I am a creative person in that field. The instruction employed “slot and filler” frameworks, and guided compositions were provided for constructing grammatically correct texts. As for focus on text functions approach, I have experienced it when I took TOEFL preparation course. As a matter of fact, I am glad I went through that step of writing experience as it gave me some kind of an idea of how particular language forms perform certain communicative functions. As “functions are the means for achieving the ends of writing”, effective paragraph development was a big concern of my teacher. Considering that I had to deal with the structural approach so far, I think that the functional approach was just right for me at that particular time. My next step was Composition 1 at ICC which was a class with a focus on both the writing process and genre. The goal of the first approach is the development of students’ strategies for generating, drafting, and refining ideas which provide the development of metacognitive awareness of the processes of writing. Genre approach concentrates on discourse and contextual aspects of language use. The instructor skillfully combined these two approaches and incorporated the advantages of both which helped to see how to construct the different kinds of texts we had to write. If process makes the process of writing transparent, genre makes textual conventions transparent (KH 24). Thus, having had personal experience of adjusting to the Western classroom, I agree with Paul Matsuda that it is surprising that “second-language issues have not become a central concern in composition studies” (p. 637). The myth of linguistic homogeneity still perpetuates the dominant image of composition and ignores multilingualism in composition scholarship. Moreover, a L2 student is tacitly assumed to have internalized a privileged variety of English. For example, while I already had grammar knowledge, I still needed help with the rhetorical practices. However, there was no such a moment in the classroom for L2 students in Composition 1 class. Also, I certainly had to take a placement test for composition placement! It is the policy of linguistic containment at work! The article is so up-to-date because I understand exactly what the author is talking about. I was also sent to the writing center in order to get into the groove with the mainstream composition course. So, it is so true that the policy of unidirectional monolingualism is present in the English composition course. However, as the author suggests, placement practices and second-language sections of composition are not that bad. I actually greatly enjoyed the TOEFL class before I was immersed into the mainstream English speaking classroom in which I felt somewhat lonely. Such classrooms are representative of the mainstream society of the U.S. with its “ideals, aims, history, and social and political background” (Matsuda 645). So, ESL classes indeed provide sort of an intermediate period while adjusting to expectations in a mainstream classroom in the U.S.