Hem Paudel

ENGL 674
Response, October 4
French education system seems to be distinctly different from the other five nations in
terms of providing a smooth transition from secondary to postsecondary education. And this
transition is also connected with early specialization in French schools. The students begin to
learn writing conventions of their disciplines from their secondary education in France whereas
this seems to happen much later in other nations, especially in the US. Does this early separation
of disciplines lead to greater compartmentalization of knowledge? Does late specialization in the
US offer a better chance for students to see knowledge in any discipline as complex and
anchored in different discursive contexts? Similarly, how can address the issue of equity and
opportunity in centralized/standardized educational practices in France and more decentralized
system in the US? The French logic for standardized/centralized system is that it offers equal
opportunity for all. But the logic of the US system is that the French provision is undemocratic.
Which one addresses the issue of access well? Does mere standardization of tests and curriculum
ensure the access of the marginalized groups to equal opportunity for education? How about the
logic of individual choice of the US system? Do they (French and the US) address inequality in
material conditions in their claim that their system is more ‘democratic’?
One central difference of the US system is that “students specialize (choose major) very
late compared to students in other nations” (Russell and Foster 8). This late specialization seems
to justify the need of general writing courses like Freshman Composition. What assumptions can
we see in the provision of general writing courses: the same components of writing instruction to
all the students whatever the disciplines they may choose? Does this assume that writing is a
neutral, transferrable skill irrespective of disciplinary conventions and ideologies? In many of the
US universities, especially the technical universities, there has been a tendency to teach “writing
in the disciplines”? There are courses like “business communication” or “technical writing”
geared towards providing disciplinary conventions of writing and making students competent
communicators in their field. How do these WID programs compare to systems in other
countries with early specialization? Which system, general writing instruction or a specialized
instruction in writing, seems to offer better chances for students for their writing development?
Academic literacy orientation focuses on writing as a “variable, developing
accomplishment that is central to the specialized work of the myriad disciplines of higher
education and to the professions and institutions students will enter and eventually transform”
(Russell and Foster, p.14). The idea here is that writing is not a transferrable, neutral skill. Then,
is the assumption here that if students learn how discourses work, if they can understand the
“rhetorical situation” in whatever professional or disciplinary situation they are, they are capable
to successfully communicate (write) with others in that rhetorical situation? Again there lies a
crucial question: Does the knowledge of how discourse works make students capable of adapting
to new disciplinary conventions and become successful writers?
Roz Ivanic and Mary Flo Lea say that teaching of writing in the UK is different from that of the
US as it is taken merely as a part of “study skills” program.
Because of the history of the teaching of writing outlined above, it has developed as a
form of support provision rather than as a subject in the main curriculum in UK
universities. The common pattern has been for the teaching of ‘study skills’, ‘academic
literacy’ and writing to be provided by separate units such as ‘study skills centers’ or
learning support units, or as part of Councelling, Student Services or the Library. A
 consequence of the separation of the teaching of writing from academic departments is
that it has been treated as a low-status area of work in the university, and therefore has
been minimally resourced, and marginalized in the hierarchy of activities of the
university. (p.10)
How much do these support provisions look similar to our freshman writing programs and
writing centers (which are sometimes called writing labs, communication labs) associated with
them? Do both of them have an implicit assumption that students have some defects, some
deficiencies, some forms of illness that need to be tested in labs and cured instead of taking the
problems in writing in terms of disciplinary requirements?