KEEPING CULTURE
1
Keeping Culture:
The Preservation of Cultural Identity Within Americanized Writing Pedagogies
Allie M. Browe
Michigan State University
KEEPING CULTURE
2
Introduction
Powerful writing is the product of personal experience. The influence of daily living is an
exceptional composition tool. By embracing the familiar, students can produce detailed and
individualistic narrative-based projects. Although fictional writing is a vital assessment in
student learning, so too is factual composition. Within the realm of personal experience,
students engage in self-reflective tendencies, which result in a mastery of sensory detail,
and literal and metaphorical written responses.
In American classrooms, students’ cultural identities should be preserved through
written instruction that explicitly encourages and prompts culturally-illustrative products. In
order to surpass potential cultural barriers, formative assessment must be paired with selfreflection so that students continually consider their audience. As educators, we must
develop culturally aware pedagogies. This is not an easy task. While it is clear that writing
classes assign an array of written assessments, how well is cultural identity maintained in
university writing courses geared towards English Language Learners?
Literature Review
Scholars have argued that genre-based pedagogical moves directly influence student
development, for good or for ill. In “Teaching Critical Genre Awareness,” Amy Devitt
explores the power attached to certain genres. She argues, “Genres are languages and
forms; and they are processes of developing, spreading, and learning; and they are
ideologically embedded constructs” (Devitt 344). If we are to see genres as possessors of
agency, then we must consider the cultural connotations attached to each genre we chose
to implement in the classroom. Although genres serve as outlets to student development,
we cannot ignore the hierarchical structure that rests within them. Rather than promoting
an American hegemony, why not allow students to express their culturally distinct voices
through an array of genres? A literacy narrative for example, exemplifies the boundlessness
of literacy, which exceeds far beyond the written word. By pushing our classrooms beyond
KEEPING CULTURE
3
basic persuasive essays, we can underscore our students’ social, cultural, and familial
identities.
In Stirring up Justice, Jessica Singer Early emphasizes the need for self-reflective
thinking in the classroom. She argues, “. . . metacognition, or thinking about your own
thinking, is an essential skill in becoming a writer. My goal is not only that students will
successfully write narrative, persuasive, imaginative, and expository pieces in my class, but
that they will have skills and language with which to understand and articulate their own
writing process” (Early 18). Early’s pedagogy pairs a multi-genre approach with individual
reflection. Cultural identity cannot be upheld if genre choice is limited to one area.
Metacognition results from self-awareness within the writing process, but this can only
happen if a content-based pedagogy is adopted.
In terms of language, many scholars argue that because there is an inconsistency
between home languages versus the language spoken in institutions, inconsistencies surface
when contemplating how to blend and preserve one’s mother tongue, while also introducing
one to Academic English. In “Affirming Students’ Rights to Their Own Language,” Jerrie
Scott, Dolores Straker, and Laurie Katz demonstrate how one’s primary discourse is tied to
one’s identity, arguing, “The abandonment of one’s heritage language could represent a
betrayal of one’s identity . . .” (13). English Language Learners face a relentless battle with
identity reformation. As educators, we can rewrite our students’ battles; instead of fixing
grammatical and syntactical wrongs, let us concentrate on content. In this focus, let us
praise voices of difference. Rather than diminishing a person’s mother tongue, a sturdy
foundation should be protected through a buildup of primary acquisition, eventually
resulting in secondary learning.
Developing a culturally aware pedagogy requires a complete devotion to teaching
within the realm of multiplicity. In “African American Language in Multiethnic Schools,”
Django Paris emphasizes how language and identity are interwoven. He illustrates the
importance of embracing a “pedagogy of pluralism—a stance toward teaching both within
KEEPING CULTURE
4
and across differences” (Paris 430). Adopting a multifaceted approach to teaching will allow
us to appreciate the many different discourses our students are engaged in. Dissimilarly, in
“The Place of World Englishes in Composition,” A. Suresh Canagarajah raises the problem
with allowing minority students to use their own language varieties in early drafts, but
changing it through the editing process, so that the final copy conforms to Academic English
(597). This is problematic because students would gradually lose their primary identity.
Although drafting should be a main focus for English Language Learners, it should not be
done at the expense of their personal voices.
In “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers,” Nancy
Sommers examines the roll of revision in the writing process. She considers the
instructional impact on writers, “The anticipation of a reader’s judgment causes a feeling of
dissonance when the writer recognizes incongruities between intention and execution . . .”
(Sommers 385). To expel dissonance, we must stress the harmony that exists between
each assignment. Assessments should overlap and blend into one another by continually
working to build English Language skills. In “Books Like Clothes,” David Kirkland explores
the notion of “ideological self” (200). To preserve culture, we must protect our students’
interests and acknowledge their past experiences. Rather than placing them in “academic
purgatory,” Kirkland pushes us to get our students to use texts as an “extension of the
self,” which results in self-expressive learning (202, 205).
In “Self-Orientation in Expressive Writing Instruction,” Janine Reed illustrates the
ambiguities attached to the value and execution of expressive writing pedagogies. Rather
than favoring authentic products, Reed encourages generated ideas, which result in
meaning-making forms of expression (Reed 110). Reed argues that the search for “self”
should not take precedence over the engagement of self; by emphasizing discovery through
drafting, new forms of expression arise, in which purely authentic, self-based writing would
not produce (121). In terms of self-actualization, Reed’s argument is flawed. She argues
that an overemphasis on the value of “natural language” and a “unique voice” will result in
KEEPING CULTURE
5
“self-absorbed” student tendencies (122). Personal voice (which is directly linked to cultural
identity) however, should be stressed above all else—without it, student writing would be
duller than a solipsism convention, if that were possible. Student writing must begin with
the student, proceed with the student, and end with the student, for even when one reaches
a heightened state of objectivity within written composition, the subjective will always be an
underlying, yet equally imperative factor.
Research Design
In order to examine the preservation of cultural identity within university writing courses, it
was essential to engage in observational and procedural fieldwork. As a Pre-Service teacher
for the MSU Department of Writing, Rhetoric, and American Cultures, I observed, instructed,
and worked alongside both the students (English Language Learners) and Professor Z1 for a
total of 4.5 months, every Tuesday and Thursday from 8:30am-9:50am. I conducted my
study through classroom observation and instruction, meetings with Professor Z, a review of
student work, and individual interaction with the students. Each day, I took field notes in
my notebook, which included dialogue from the students and Professor Z; classroom
conversation notes were written verbatim.
Findings
According to my research, cultural identity is well maintained in university writing courses
geared towards English Language Learners. More specifically, in “WRA 1004-011” (Prep for
College Writing), students’ identities are preserved through a series of summative
assessments aimed to maintain primary identities, while also introducing Americanized
writing techniques.
The course is broken down into four writing units: Literacy Memoir (5%), Cultural
Contexts (30%), Collaborative Project (10%), and Career/Discipline (25%), with classroom
In order to protect my mentor professor’s identity, I will refer to this person as
Professor Z.
1
KEEPING CULTURE
6
work, participation, revision, and the final exam making up the other 45%. It is important
to note that Unit Two (focused on cultural contexts) is valued the highest, which exemplifies
a pluralistic pedagogical approach. Professor Z’s methodology favors the needs of English
Language Learners through the use of both verbal and written directions, reflection writing,
and the implementation of peer review and revision. When teaching English Language
Learners, it is essential to offer both verbal and written directions. When students received
directions in this fashion (along with a significant amount of time to reflect on the
readings/their own writing practices), they felt more comfortable participating and
responding to the self-reflective writing prompts. Examples of in-class prompts included
(but were not limited to):
1. “What decision did you make to meet the needs of the audience?”
2. “What did you learn about you as a writer?”
3. “What did you learn about you as a reader?”
4. “What phase of culture shock was the author in?” (In relation to their reading)
5. “Why do you say this? What in the story proves this?”
Engaging students in reflection encourages original thinking, thus producing confident,
controlled writers, who also possess a unique voice. Moreover, reflection is a vital step in
the process of self-discovery, which is fundamental in the preservation of cultural identity.
Although Professor Z argues that students need to learn how to write for an audience—in
different tones for different purposes—she constantly encourages personal experience based
responses. Since Unit Two consists entirely of culturally based papers, students were
encouraged to use a plethora of details when presenting aspects of their culture to an
American audience. Self-discovery was paired with peer review, which emphasized process
over product; by deemphasizing grammatical perfection, students were able to focus on the
content of their pieces and describe their cultures free of a fear of judgment.
Culture was celebrated through multiple written assessments on Hometowns, Culture
Shock, Festivals, and Food. In these papers, students explained their birthplaces, reactions
to American life, traditions, and everyday cuisine. Although students’ primary focus rested
on illustrating their cultures, an emphasis on tone and style went uncompromised. The
KEEPING CULTURE
7
Hometown papers for example, were modeled after a Travel and Leisure magazine article.
These papers focused on aspects of students’ hometowns that would attract tourists.
Through this mode of delivery (travel magazine), students learned how to write for a
specific audience (an exuberant tourist). In doing so, they developed persuasive,
stimulating tones. In this instance, modeling was an effective technique that allowed
students to be detailed and fairly colloquial. Ultimately, their home countries were
exemplified in beautiful and intriguing ways.
The Culture Shock and Food papers were equally successful in keeping students’
cultural identities intact. Similarly to the model-based instruction used in the Hometown
papers, students modeled their assessments off of an article from Bon Appetite magazine.
Descriptions of their favorite cuisine (predominately Asian), were highly detailed, and
successfully kept an adult audience in mind by using a broad vocabulary. Culture Shock
papers on the other hand, were geared towards a high school demographic and modeled off
of a scholarly article. By writing on American customs, students were able to reveal the
complexities of a universal hegemonic ideal: assimilation.
On a more lighthearted level, the Festival papers, which were written for an online
children’s magazine titled Pitara Kids, offered a tangible representation of student progress.
After reviewing student work, it was clear that authenticity rang loud.2 For example, one
student explained the uses of “Mugwort and Calamus” leaves: potpourri, bathing in them for
health/protection from mosquitoes, and hanging them on the door to ward off evil spirits
during Spring Festival (a Chinese festival). Another student wrote about the Nian (a
monster, which means “year” in Chinese) and its role in Spring Festival. According to the
student’s recollection of the legend of Nian, Nian was a water monster that preyed upon
village people, but a group of children scared it off with red colors, so villagers put red on
their doors in celebration of their victory over Nian. Another student illustrated the juicy
All student work examples consist of summaries or quotes taken directly from student
work.
2
KEEPING CULTURE
8
dumplings and Zongzi (rice and other goodies wrapped in bamboo) served during Spring
Festival. Each paper possessed a strong narrative voice, which demonstrated student
growth. For example, when describing the Lantern Festival, a student wrote, “Lantern
Festival to Spring Festival is just like dessert to principle food.” Through this complex and
beautiful simile, we can see a shift into new pedagogical territory, where play and creativity
are highly encouraged. As students began to take academic risks in their tone, they
effectively appealed to a young demographic. In a written reflection, one student described
the desire to write in “attractive and vivid” ways. In doing so, we can see that although
student work possessed many grammatical issues, the overall style was still compelling and
confident. Stories on lantern lighting, running through the streets with red bags from
grandparents, rolling Zongzi with grandmothers, and finding lucky coins in dumplings, were
written in confident and genuine ways, which would not have happened without the
implementation of an expressive writing approach.
The “Remix Project” served as another protector of culture. In this project, students
worked in small groups to analyze a music video of their choice. Each student was required
to write an individual paper, which contributed to the group lecture (presented to their
fellow classmates). I worked alongside a group of three, who analyzed “You’re Not Really
Happy” by MayDay (a Chinese pop/alternative band). During this time, I asked students a
series of questions; I started with basic inquiries on wardrobe choice, colors, facial
expression, sound, etc., and moved onto more symbolic questions surrounding purpose and
content. These open-ended questions allowed students to think on a metaphorical level:
What is happiness? How does the artist convey happiness? How do we get it? How does the
video make the audience feel? Our discussion on happiness was comfortable, inspiring,
truthful, and inquisitive (in a nonintrusive way). Together, we decided that the artist asks us
to reevaluate our idea of happiness and pushes us to question how we truly acquire this
happiness. By analyzing the changes of expression and environment, we learned that the
purpose of the video was to inspire others to do what they love, and never forget how to
KEEPING CULTURE
9
attain happiness. Professor Z and I encouraged interpretation, which motivated students to
view the video as a mode of communication. Since students picked their own music videos,
they were granted with the power and freedom to work through familiar ideologies. Without
the hindrance of language barriers, students easily engaged with the text. Giving students a
choice in their learning instilled equality and opportunity within the classroom.
Implications for Education to the Teaching of Writing
Although my research was limited to one specific classroom, the structure, modes of
learning, and pedagogical moves can be implemented in any writing class, especially one
consisting of English Language Learners. Cultural identities were well maintained, but
dialogic discussion and interactive learning were scarcely used. While self-reflection and
narrative based projects are necessary genres, they should never override group learning.
As educators, we must find a way to equally blend discussion with reflection; we must
bridge the divide between the student “self” and the student “collective.” In other words, we
must acknowledge that as individual students progress (as separate individuals), so too
does the classroom (as an ever-evolving unit). The question is not whether student
progression should override classroom progression, but rather, the question is how to link
student development to classroom development? The two must coincide. It is not enough to
write without talk, or to produce without action. If students had engaged in daily dialogic
discussions surrounding the content of their papers, the classroom environment would have
progressed in unison with solitary student learning.
To share culture is to share identities, but students were limited in their classroom
talk. Yes, culture was respected and maintained, but it was done so on individual levels. To
combat this, “hands-on-learning” and discussion-based projects should be weaved into the
curriculum. Students analyzed a music video of their choosing, but why not assign them to
film their own videos? Why not analyze each other’s work? Educators are inventors, truthseekers, believers, change-makers, and risk-takers . . . so why are we playing it safe? If we
KEEPING CULTURE
10
are going to preserve culture, let us preserve culture in tremendously original ways. We
need to go further. We need to enter a space of academic possibility, one where students
eat Zongzi rather than simply write about it, where analysis extends to creation, and where
descriptions of a Light Festival lead to a kinesthetic demonstration on how to build the
perfect paper lantern.
KEEPING CULTURE
11
Works Cited
A. Suresh Canagarajah. “The Place of World Englishes in Composition.” National Council of
Teachers of English 57.4 (2006): 586-619.
Devitt, Amy. “Teaching Critical Genre Awareness.” Genre in a Changing World. Bazerman,
Charles, Bonini, Adair, and Figueiredo, Débora (Eds.). (2009). Genre in a Changing
World. Perspectives on Writing. Fort Collins, Colorado: The WAC Clearinghouse and
Parlor Press. 337-351.
Early, Jessica. Stirring Up Justice. Portsmouth: Heinemann, 2006.
Kirkland, David. “Books Like Clothes.” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 55.3 (2011):
199-208.
Paris, Django. “African American Language in Multiethnic Schools.” Harvard Educational
Review 79.3 (2009): 428-447.
Reed, Janine. "Self-Orientation in Expressive Writing Instruction." Journal of Teaching
Writing 13.1 & 2 (2010): 109-126.
Scott, S.C., Straker, D. Y., & Katz L. “Cross-Currents in Language.” In: (ed), Affirming
Students' Right to Their Own Language. 1st ed. New York: Taylor & Francis, Inc., 2008.
Sommers, Nancy. “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers.”
National Council of Teachers of English 31.4 (1980): 378-388.