from Kory, with love: Maybe more BartholoYOU than BartholoME?

I didn’t hate the article. I even think it made some very valid points about our educational system. Also, DISCLAIMER: I’m going to keep relating the article to ESL because… that’s my jam. I’m looking at it from a perspective more as “English as a language” than “English writing”. Bear with me.

I agree that it’s unfair to have unrealistic expectations of students and their writing skills when they’re entering an unknown environment. It’s true that the way we are expected to write an analysis of an article is different from what’s expected for a creative writing piece which is different from a lab report. Having unrealistic expectations of students or grading them based on outside knowledge is very dangerous for a teacher.

This is a problem that’s vital when having ESL students in a classroom of native speakers. A word problem in a math class is not just a test of math skills for an ESL student. In one of my EDSL classes, we watched a video about a boy who was facing that exact problem. The word problem included “walking six blocks”. Native English speakers understand that blocks refer to a certain measure of distance. However, he kept thinking of building blocks being walked like dogs on a leash. His math test scores suffered for reasons that didn’t reflect his actual math skills.

Teachers need to be hyper-aware of what they are asking of students. Students must know what expectations are supposed to be met and how to meet them. As Bartholomae writes,  “Expert writers… can better imagine how a reader will respond to a text and can transform or restructure what they have to say around a goal shared with a reader. Teaching students to revise for readers, then, will better prepare them to write initially with the reader in mind.” Having students write “blind” with the possibility of a negative outcome can make a student anxious or worse, decide it’s not worth trying at all.

I agree with Bartholomae that using words like “think”, “argue”, and “describe” are too general and examples of what is both good and bad are key in helping students reach a position of authority. Honestly, this seems a little obvious from the standpoint of an ESL teacher. We’re pounded with the idea of creating clear goals and objectives for our learners. “Students should be able to describe X,Y, and Z” is NOT in any way sufficient. “Students should be able to identify and list three ways in which X is different from Y and Z using the given chart” is much clearer and therefore, much better.  If a teacher can’t sufficiently describe what they want, they have no business asking students to meet those expectations.

Now, here’s the part where he loses me. From what I gather, he’s trying to point out a flaw in our educational system that students’ progress is “marked by their abilities to take on the role of privilege” before they really know how.

Maybe it’s my lack of English writing knowledge, but the writing samples and his assessment of them just don’t make sense to me. While reading his explanation, I just wanted to scream, “WAIT! WHAT WAS THE CONTEXT? HOW WAS THE ESSAY PRESENTED? WHY IS ONE BETTER THAN THE OTHER?!?!? WHO ARE THE WRITERS? IS IT EVEN FAIR TO COMPARE THEM?” They were different. They weren’t perfect. Does he agree that one is better than the other or is he saying that one shouldn’t be considered “better”? Why is he making this argument only to end without giving any actual suggestions on how to change the problem? How does he want to change it? Does he want to change the system or just the way students are taught? What exactly are his expectations? I was completely distracted by how often they used, “I”. Is that not one of his expectations? What about other types of writing? Does he say the problem exists across the board? Did he just choose self-reflective pieces because they helped move his point along? I was clearly not the reader Bartholomae was writing for because I was distracted the entire time I was reading.

ESL can have such a different outlook. In part because it doesn’t necessarily have to be framed around an academic institution. Some want to learn “survival English”. They want to be able to order food and reserve a plane ticket. I taught children in Korea who were between the ages of 3 and 13. This meant I was thrilled when my Mom n Tots student said “red” and my 12 year old was able to communicate how she felt about plastic surgery in Korean culture in her journal. I know some programs are a lot more structured and the goal is to get a high score of the TOEFL. They have to learn to read, write, and speak in a very specific way, but I shy away from those programs because… well, I hate them, honestly. I’ve had students who are placed into classes that are either above or below their level. I’ve fought to put them in the most ideal environment. BUT in ESL teaching, it’s pretty standard for teachers to have groups of students who range significantly in their abilities. It’s also tricky because a student might have fantastic speaking skills, but no idea how to communicate on paper. Another student might have perfect syntax and a rich vocabulary when writing, but can barely ask to go to the bathroom without a significant internal struggle.

Maybe I’m talking unnecessarily and Bartholomae and I actually agree; that students should be taken as they are. If that’s what he’s saying than I guess I’m on board after all. My teaching philosophy revolves around making my students better regardless of their starting level. But even more than that, I want them to love the English language and see it as a powerful tool for communication and a wider self-awareness. If he’s saying that students need to change and write a specific way to succeed, then it just makes me sad. I don’t want my students to change their writing to fit what a reader wants to hear. I want them to be able to hear themselves in their writing and be able to convey that to whoever will listen. If he’s saying that the system needs to change, I’m left asking, “How?”