The Impacts of Adapting to the Common Conventions of American Academia

By Abbie Gale Lemmon

Introducing nonnative speakers of English (NNS) to the common conventions of American writing and rhetoric is a multidimensional phenomenon. Perceptions of “good” academic writing are as vast and varied as the students we work with and the professors who evaluate the product. Some professors expect NNS students to fully assimilate into American academic discourse while others accommodate and celebrate the differences of NNS student writing. At the University of Michigan-Flint, I work with a large international student body in one-on-one tutoring sessions and developmental workshops facilitated by the Marian E. Wright Writing Center. In multiple conversations with our students, I have observed that most wish to reach a level of writing and rhetorical style that is based on their perception of “good” academic writing. The NNS student’s ability to successfully communicate within a rigid perception of good academic writing is often difficult because it challenges their fledgling command of the English language and American culture. Writing center tutors assist NNS students in navigating American college culture and (hopefully) reshape perceptions of good academic writing. As tutors guiding NNS students in the process of learning successful communication in academic discourse, we need to be aware of the ways that cultural voice will be reshaped because of the cultivation of academic voice. More importantly, we need to share this awareness with the students as we lead them through academic integration.

The ability for an NNS student to effortlessly communicate in a foreign language and maintain an authentic cultural voice creates intriguing challenges for the tutor. As we guide NNS students through the culture of American academia, we should evaluate the ways in which we assist the students’ conceptualizations of their authentic cultural voice. Often, the ability to effectively communicate in American academia, which is regulated and policed by faculty perceptions of “good” academic writing, is valued by the NNS student as superior and in turn becomes a desirable skill. In tutorial consultation, a tutor gives the NNS student access to the common conventions of academic writing and American culture by translating for the student the perceived expectations of good academic writing. In other words, tutors translate the professor’s academic assignment sheet through colloquial conversation. In conversation, a tutor should advise students of the potential for their authentic cultural voice to be repressed as they grow in their novice scholarly voice. If we don’t engage students in conversation, we risk inadvertently assisting students in homogenizing their differences rather than celebrating their unique perspectives. If we overlook advising NNS students of the implicit effects of a tutor’s guidance in cultivating command of the English language, we may risk changing the meaning of their message and exercising control of their voice. We should aspire to be humanitarian tutors. We should guide our students in questioning conversations as a way to show the students that their voice has the potential for variability. Consequently, the process of adapting an academic voice may have ramifications of reshaping the students’ heritage and native cultural identity.

Any student, native to the United States or not, has the potential to lose part of their authentic cultural voice as they integrate into the common conventions of academic writing and rhetoric. Academic writing is expressed through an institution’s stylized standardization of lexicon, syntax, and rhetorical conventions of writing. That standardization is further influenced by American culture and Western rhetoric. In seeking a scholarly voice, most students share a goal to become diverse, yet integral members of American academic culture. In order to achieve this all-inclusive goal, students must demonstrate a command of academia’s perception of good writing. In conversations with students, I have learned they value broad lexicons, advanced syntax, and innovative rhetorical argument because they feel this is the singular foundation of good academic writing. However, they have yet to conceive the possible limiting factors of academia’s perspective of good writing. Any student has the potential to be reshaped and redefined by the evaluative process of academia. As students master their academic voice, it is reasonable to believe part of their authentic cultural voice will be lost in the process of creating scholar identity. Reshaping the student’s public, academic identity may have the potential to reshape private, cultural identity.

I support tutor awareness of the multifaceted, long-reaching effects of cultivating academic voice, and I support sharing with students the awareness of this phenomenon. Most students are seeking betterment of personhood through scholarship, yet they overlook potential loss of heritage and identity. In becoming a member of the American academic culture, students may lose touch with native rhetorical conventions of argument and cultural perspectives of critical analysis. I promote the celebration of cultural difference as we work towards cohesive goals of universal cultural scholarship within the common conventions of American college culture. Yet, because I am not an evaluator of the product, I am limited in my advocacy. Rather, I must focus upon guiding students as they navigate creation of scholarly voice. In doing so, I will be wary to not mold students in my perception of “good” academic writing.

Writing tutors are guides within the common conventions of American college culture. I believe it is our responsibility to share with students what we have learned regarding the development of personal scholarly voices and to share how we have navigated the expectations of academia. We tutors should share with students the ways in which we remain true to our identity as we integrate into the rigid standardization of good academic writing. One way I believe this may be achieved is through collaborative conversation. Through conversations with students, we can share with them the ways that stylistic word choices, rhetorical moves, and sentence structure in academic writing will potentially change their personhood and may erase their unique, authentic, and personal cultural voice. The way the message is written influences how the message is received, in turn creating a different voice. As I applied my fledgling insights of theory to my tutoring sessions, especially sessions in which I watched non-native speakers struggle to find words to express their ideas, I realized my ability to speak for the student is easily accomplished if I eagerly jump into their conversation with my definitive answer. I must remember to remain collaborative in conversation by guiding students through discussion because this will assist students in exploring the possible choices they have within the common conventions of writing. In turn, as a tutor, I will empower NNS students to become confident in final decision-making of how to effectively communicate their meaning and message.

What I had once believed as an humanitarian act of tutorship, giving NNS students a voice by putting my words in place of their thoughts, is actually upholding dominant control over the cultivation of scholarly voice and identity. If I am not giving NNS students options and choices of how they would like to reinvent themselves in academia, then I am not allowing them to become empowered in identity.

When thinking of how to honor the integrity of NNS voice, insights from Carol Severino’s article “Avoiding Appropriation,” will assist tutors in cultivating conversations as a means to empower the NNS student—or any student for that matter. We should remember when working with any writer that it is our ethical responsibility to give the writer an explanation of their lexical choices and to share insights of the rhetorical significance of navigating American academic culture. Giving multiple examples to the student and explaining the rhetorical significance of each lexical choice and then guiding the student in elevation of syntax will allow the student to cultivate his or her own unique academic voice. Leading by example—multiple examples—through collaborative conversation and explaining our experiences in developing our scholarly voices can empower students to choose their own path in the development of their scholarly voice. If tutors help NNS writers make their own informed choices, then navigating the common conventions of academic English language can empower the student with a new knowledge of themselves and their writing.

______________________________________________

Work Cited

Severino, Carol. “Avoiding Appropriation.” ESL Writers: A Guide for Writing Center Tutors. 2nd ed. Ed. Shanti Bruce and Ben Rafoth. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook Publishers, 2009. 51-65. Print.

______________________________________________

Sidebar