Division Or Integration of Labor: Exploring Course Experiences of Four L2 Students in Separated and Integrated Undergraduate Composition Courses

Mohamed Yacoub

doi:10.21070/jees.v10i1.1861

(1) * Mohamed Yacoub Florida International University in Miami, FL, USA
United States
(*) Corresponding Author

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v10i1.1861

Abstract

This study explores the narrated experiences of four L2 students enrolled in required undergraduate composition courses, ENG 101 and ENG 202. It pursues two primary purposes: first, to enrich and deepen our understanding of the participants’ narratives; and second, to draw upon these narratives to develop pedagogical implications for writing program administrators regarding the two major structures of First Year Composition (FYC) programs; integration and separation. Conducted at public university in the northeastern United States, the study employed a narrative research methodology, in which the four participants were interviewed and asked to share study materials and artifacts. The findings are presented through five salient
themes that reflect the participants’ experiences in ENG 101 and ENG 202. These themes are: 1) factors influencing the participants’ section selection, 2) L1 classmates as both a resource and a challenge, 3) the impact of section type on student engagement, 4) how participants’ perception of the curriculum influenced
their performance, and 5) the negotiation of student identity. The study concludes that writing programs should not impose a single structure on L2 students but should offer both options, thereby supporting students’ agency in making informed choices.

HIGHLIGHTS:

Offering Both Integrated and Separated Sections Supports Student Agency: The study found that L2 students benefit when they are given the choice between multilingual (separated) and mainstream (integrated) composition courses, as this supports their confidence, academic needs, and personal growth.
L1 Classmates Are Both a Resource and a Challenge for L2 Students: While some L2 students feel intimidated by native speakers and engage less in integrated classes, others see American classmates as valuable for improving their English skills and learning about local culture.
Curriculum and Engagement Are Shaped by Section Type: Participants’ perceptions of reading materials, writing assignments, and classroom discussions varied depending on whether they were in integrated or separated sections, with integrated sections offering more opportunities for cultural exchange but also presenting greater challenges for active participation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Mohamed Yacoub, Florida International University in Miami, FL, USA

Mohamed Yacoub is an assistant teaching professor in the Writing and Rhetoric Program in the English Department at Florida International University. He graduated with a Ph.D. in Composition and Applied Linguistics from the Indiana University of Pennsylvania in May 2020. His dissertation explores the narratives of multilingual Muslim students in undergraduate required composition courses and investigates how writing program structures that implement integration or separation practices affect the identity of multilingual Muslim students. Dr. Yacoub has published in different scholarly journals such as The Journal of Language, Identity & Education; Studies In Contrastive Grammar; International Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research; and The Qualitative Report. Dr. Yacoub has English teaching experience in Dalian, China; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Cairo, Egypt; Missouri, USA; Pennsylvania, USA, and now in Miami, FL.

References

Alavi, S., Nemati, M., & Dorri kafrani, J. (2020). Error gravity analysis of IELTS students’ academic writing task 2. International Journal of Language Studies, 14(1), 141–154. doi:10.17507/tpls.0711.19
Altınmakas, D., & Bayyurt, Y. (2019). An exploratory study on factors influencing undergraduate students’ academic writing practices in Turkey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 37, 88–103. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2018.11.006
Beck, A. (2005). A place for critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(5), 392-400. doi:10.1598/JAAL.48.5.3.
Blanton, L. L. (1999). Classroom instruction and language minority students: On teaching to ‘smarter’ readers and writers. Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to US-educated learners of ESL, 127-52.
Blumenthal, A. J. (2002). English as a second language at the community college: An exploration of context and concerns. New directions for community colleges, 2002(117), 45-54.
Casal, J. E., & Lee, J. J. (2019). Syntactic complexity and writing quality in assessed first-year L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 44, 51-62. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2019.03.005
Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Computational assessment of lexical differences in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 119– 135. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.002.
Eckstein, G., Chariton, J., & McCollum, R. M. (2011). Multi-draft composing: An iterative model for academic argument writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(3), 162–172. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2011.05.004.
Eckstein, G., & Ferris, D. (2018). Comparing L1 and L2 Texts and Writers in First‐Year Composition. TESOL Quarterly, 52(1), 137-162. doi:10.1002/tesq.376
Ferris, D. & Thaiss, C. (2011). Writing at UC Davis: Addressing the Needs of Second Language Writers. Across the Disciplines: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Language, Learning, and Academic Writing.
Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. (2014). Teaching L2 Composition. New York: Routledge, 2014. Print.
Garrett, N., Bridgewater, M., & Feinstein, B. (2017). How student performance in first-year composition predicts retention and overall student success. In Ruecker T., Shepherd D., Estrem H., & Brunk-Chavez B. (Eds.), Retention, Persistence, and Writing Programs (pp. 93-113). Boulder, Colorado: University Press of Colorado. doi:10.7330/9781607326021.c006
Harklau, L., Losey, K. M., & Siegal, M. (1999). Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to US-educated learners of ESL. Routledge.
Higginbotham, G., & Reid, J. (2019). The lexical sophistication of second language learners’ academic essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 37, 127-140. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2018.12.002
Huster, K. (2012). The grammar and vocabulary challenges of generation 1.5 among college women in academia. Hmong Studies Journal, 13(1), 1–30. doi:10.1017/cbo9781107415324.004
Kwon, S. H. (2009). Lexical richness in L2 writing: How much vocabulary do L2 learners need to use? English Teaching, 64(3), 155–174.
Larsson, T., & Kaatari, H. (2020). Syntactic complexity across registers: Investigating (in)formality in second-language writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 45. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100850
Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers. Portsmouth, NH:Boynton/Cook.
Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing in English. New York, NY: Routledge.
Liberal Studies English LSE (2019). Western Pennsylvania Public University (WPPU). Retrieved from https://www.wpps.edu/english/liberal-studies
Liberal Studies English LSE (2019). Annual Report. Western Pennsylvania Public University (WPPU).
Matsuda, K & Silva, T. (1999) Cross-Cultural Composition: Mediated Integration of US and International Students. Composition Studies, 27(1): 15-30.
Narayan, K. & George, K. M. (2003) Personal and fold narratives as cultural representation. In J. Gubrium & J. A. Holestein, Postmodern Interviewing (pp. 123-139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781412985437.n7
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00136
Ortmeier-Hooper, C. (2008). English may be my second language, but I’m not ESL. College Composition and Communication, 59(3), 389-419.
Preto-Bay, A. M., & Hansen, K. (2006). Preparing for the tipping point: Designing writing programs to meet the needs of the changing population. Writing Program Administration, 30(1-2), 37-58.
Friedrich, P. (2006). Assessing the needs of linguistically diverse first-year students: Bringing together and telling apart international ESL, resident ESL and monolingual basic writers. WPA: Writing Program Administration, 30(1-2), 15-35.
Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled EL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 229–258. doi:10.2307/3586828
Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 45–75. doi:10.1016/ S1060-3743(99)80112-x
Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roberge, Mark, Siegal, Meryl, & Harklau, Linda. (Eds.) (2009). Generation 1.5 in college composition. New York, NY: Routledge.
Schwartz, G. (2004). Coming to terms: generation 1.5 students in mainstream composition. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 4(3), 40-57.
Silva, T., & Leki, I. (2004). Family matters: The influence of applied linguistics and composition studies on second language writing studies—past, present, and future. Modern Language Journal, 88, 1–13. doi:10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.00215.x
Staples, S., & Reppen, R. (2016). Understanding first-year L2 writing: A lexicogrammatical analysis across L1s, genres, and language ratings. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, 17–35. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2016.02.002
Thonus, T. (2003). Serving generation 1.5 learners in the university writing center. 17–24.
Wolfe-Quintero, K. & Segade, G. (1999). University support for second-language writers across the curriculum. In L. Harklau, K. M. Losey, & M. Siegal (Eds.), Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to US-educated learners of ESL (pp. 191-209). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.