JOURNAL OF SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING, 5 (2), 91-107 (1996)

ESL Students in First-Year Writing

Courses: ESL Versus
Mainstream Classes
GEORGE BRAINE
The Chinese University of Hong Kong

In first-year writing courses, ESL students are usually mainstreamed or

placed in specially designated ESL classes. Although ESL writing specialists,
backed by research into second language writing, strongly advocate the
placement of ESL students in ESL classes, mainstreaming appears to be
the norm. This article is based on a year-long study conducted at a medium-
size university where ESL students have the option of mainstreaming or
enrolling in ESL classes in first-year writing courses. The study describes the
preferences of ESL students for ESL or mainstream classes, their perfor-
mance on a holistically scored exit examination, and the reasons for the
high rate of withdrawal of ESL students from mainstream classes. The study
shows that the majority of ESL students preferred to enroll in ESL classes and
performed better on the exit exam in these classes.

According to the latest statistics, about 450,000 international students, the

majority of whom are undergraduates, are enrolled in U.S. colleges and uni-
versities (Desruisseaux, 1994). When the large number of recent immigrants
from non-English-speaking countries who attend these institutions is added to
this number, ESL students undoubtedly form a significant percentage of the
U.S. undergraduate population. All undergraduate ESL students, like their
native speaker (NS) counterparts, are required to take first-year writing courses
at virtually every U.S. post secondary institution.
First-year writing courses are often a challenge to ESL students. When suc-
cessful completion of the course is a prerequisite for entry to higher level
courses, or when success or failure in the course is determined by an exami-
nation, these writing courses can be quite problematic to ESL students. These
problems become exacerbated unless well-informed decisions are made when
placing ESL students in these courses.
ESL students are usually placed in three types of first-year writing courses:
with NS’s in regular classes (mainstreaming), with basic or developmental
writers, and in classes designated for ESL students. A survey of the literature
shows that writing instructors have long been concerned with the placement of

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to George Braine, English Language
Teaching Unit, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong.
91
92 BRAINE

ESL students in composition classes. Chirinos, Rundquist, and Washburn

(1982), Land and Whitley (1989), Ostler (1986), Schlumberger and Clymer
( 1989). Spack ( 1994), and Scull (1982), among others, have discussed the sim-
ilarities and differences between ESL and NS writers and offered suggestions
for teaching ESL students in composition classes dominated by NS. Others,
especially Benson, Deming. Denzer, & Valeri-Gold (1992), Braine (1994a).
Leki (1992), McKay ( 198 l), and Silva ( 1994) have gone further and pointed
out the disadvantages of placing ESL students in mainstream and basic or
developmental classes. However, despite these views and more than a decade
of research showing the differences between ESL and NS writers (see Silva,
1993), many institutions continue to mainstream ESL students in first-year writ-
ing courses. Although statistics at the national level are not available, an infor-
mal survey of the 46 colleges and universities in Alabama which enroll ESL
students showed that these students are mainstreamed at 36 of the institutions.
Seven placed the students in basic or developmental writing classes, and three
in specially designated ESL classes.
If the option were offered, would ESL students prefer to enroll in ESL or
mainstream classes? What would be the reasons for their preference? Who
would perform better at exit examinations, students in ESL classes or ESL stu-
dents in mainstream classes?
These issues were addressed in a year-long study that analyzed the perfor-
mance of ESL students in a first-year writing course. This article presents sta-
tistics relating to ESL students’ preferences for ESL and mainstream classes,
describes the reasons for their preferences, and discusses their performance at
an exit examination at the end of the first phase of the program. Finally, it ana-
lyzes the reasons for the high rate of ESL students’ withdrawal from main-
stream classes.

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

The study was conducted at a medium-size university in the southeast that

enrolled 12,260 students during the 1992-93 academic year. This included 843
ESL students from 86 countries. both immigrant and nonimmigrant visa holders.
At this institution, first-year writing courses were sequenced as Composition
I and Composition II. At the time of this study, the focus of Composition I was
expressive writing. At the end of the course, students wrote a 2-hour essay test
based on a reading, and the essays were graded holistically by the English
Department faculty. If students passed. they took Composition II, where the
focus was on academic writing. Composition I and II are required courses at
the university.
First-year writing courses were taught mainly by tenured instructors who had
master’s degrees in English Literature. Many had taught two composition
courses per quarter for IS years or more. Tenure-track and tenured faculty with
PhDs also taught composition occasionally. Recently, about IO adjunct faculty,
 ES1 VERSUS MAINSTREAM CLASSES 93

some with master’s and others with doctoral degrees, have been hired to teach
composition. All but one of the English Department faculty members were
native speakers of English.
In the fall through spring quarters, three classes of Composition I and three
classes of Composition II were reserved for ESL students. Enrollment in these
classes was limited to 20 students. (Mainstream classes had a maximum enroll-
ment of 25 students.) Both immigrants and international students whose native
language is not English had the choice of enrolling in ESL or mainstream class-
es. Because of staffing problems, ESL classes were not offered in the summer.

The Students
The majority of ESL students (68.4%) enrolled at the university were from
Asia. Europeans (13.6%) were the next largest group, and the third largest
group (9.8%) were from Central and South America. The remaining 8% of the
students were from Africa and the Middle East. About 90% of the ESL students
were undergraduates.
Of the 2,13 1 students who took Composition I during the 1992-93 academic
year, 258 were ESL students, all undergraduates. Although exact figures are not
available, the geographical distribution of ESL students in Composition I prob-
ably corresponded to the distribution for the enrollment figures for the univer-
sity as a whole.

Teachers of ESL Classes

During the 1992-93 academic year, the nine ESL classes of Composition I were
taught by three teachers. Six classes (two per quarter) were taught by an
instructor who has a master’s degree in English literature, two classes by
an adjunct instructor with a PhD in modem American literature, and one class
by an associate professor specializing in eighteenth-century British literature.
Although experienced teachers of composition, none of the teachers had for-
mal training in ESL pedagogy. Instead, they were trained at a 3-day workshop
conducted by an ESL specialist in the English Department. (See Braine, 1994a,
for a description of a similar workshop.) The teachers volunteered to attend the
workshop and to teach ESL classes.

Syllabus and Textbooks

Both mainstream and ESL Composition I classes had similar syllabi. During a
lo-week academic quarter, students wrote four assignments each averaging 500
words in length. The emphasis of the first two assignments was on description;
the last two assignments emphasized description as well as analysis and dis-
cussion, which were also the tasks required at the written test.
Students began an assignment by prewriting in class, and they later turned in
the first draft of their papers to the teacher. The teacher then selected a few drafts
for class discussion. Following the discussion, the students read a rubric designed
for evaluating student papers (see Appendix A) and holistically scored each
94 BRAINE

other’s papers in groups of four. They later revised the assignment at home and
turned in the final version to the teacher. Typically, from prewriting to submis-
sion of the final version, an assignment was completed in seven class meetings.
During the 1992-93 academic year, the textbook used in mainstream classes
was Write to Learn by Donald Murray (1993). In ESL classes, two teachers
used In Our Own Words by Rebecca Mlynarczyk and Steven Haber (199 l), and
one teacher used weekly issues of Newsweek magazine. All teachers of Com-
position I used The Prentice-Hall Reference Guide to Grammar and Usage by
Muriel Harris (1992) as a supplement to the main text.

The Written Test

The test was administered by the director of first-year writing courses with the
support of the Freshman English Committee, which consists of the director and
five English Department faculty. The process that led to the test began with a
screening of suitable reading passages by the committee. To be considered for
the test, the readings had to be about 1,500 words long and judged accessible
to all students irrespective of linguistic or cultural background. For each test,
three readings were selected, copied, and distributed to all students about a
week before the test was administered. The Freshman English Committee then
developed prompts for each reading and selected one prompt based on one of
the readings to be administered at the test. For instance, for the fall 1992 test,
the reading was William Ouchi’s (198 1) ‘Comparing work ethics: Japan and
America”. The prompt administered in the test was:

In a well-written essay, discuss and analyze Ouchi’s view of the Japanese work
ethic (“collectivism”). Using examples from your experience, include a detailed
and well-supported account of situations when either teamwork or individualism
was more effective.

About 2 weeks before the test, English faculty members participated in a cal-
ibration session, reading sample student papers from previous tests. A rubric (in
Appendix A) was used in rating the sample papers. After the test, a few faculty
members read a sample of student papers, created a second rubric (Appendix
B) for evaluating the papers, and selected a set of range finders that related to
each level in the second rubric. The rubric and copies of the range finders were
given to the faculty along with student papers for evaluation.
The written test lasted 2 hours. Students were identified by a computer-
generated three digit number on the “Blue Book” in which they wrote. They
were allowed to use a dictionary during the test, and most ESL students did so.

Test Evaluation
With the help of a computer program, student papers were randomly assigned
to English faculty for evaluation. The papers of ESL students were not identi-
fied as such, and no special provision was made for their grading. All papers
 ES1 VERSUS MAINSTREAM CLASSES 95

were read twice in the same day, in the morning by half the faculty and in the
afternoon by the rest of the faculty. Again, the readers were matched randomly
by the computer program. During the fall quarter, when the test was taken by
the largest number of students, each faculty member evaluated about 40 papers.
The number dropped to around 25 papers in the spring quarter. Papers receiv-
ing a score of 4 or above in the rubric passed. For a paper to pass or fail, both
readers had to agree; when a disagreement occurred, the paper was read by
a third reader on the following day. The process of calibration, adherence to a
rubric, and the availability of range finders ensured a high rate of correlation
(averaging .80) among the first and second readers.

METHOD

This study was conducted in three phases. First, at the end of each academic
quarter, after student grades had been entered in the university’s computer data-
base, I obtained data relating to students in Composition I classes. This was
done for two purposes: (1) to determine ESL students’ preferences for main-
stream or ESL classes and (2) to compare ESL students’ performance in the
written test. To compare their performance in the test, all students on main-
stream classes were classified as NS or ESL. This was possible because ESL
students are assigned a distinct student number at the university. The passing,
failing, and withdrawal rates for these students (NS and ESL) were then calcu-
lated. Finally, the passing, failing, and withdrawal rates for students in ESL
classes were calculated.
Second, I surveyed students who had taken ESL Composition I classes to
determine their reasons for taking these classes. Students enrolled in Composi-
tion II classes were given a brief questionnaire that asked how many times the
students had taken an ESL Composition I class, their reasons for taking an ESL
class, and if they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the class.
The data for fall 1992 indicated that ESL students in mainstream classes
were withdrawing at a significantly higher rate (17.6%) than NS students and
students in ESL classes. To discover the reasons for their withdrawal, I identi-
fied the students with the help of the university’s Office of Institutional
Research and began to interview them. This was the third phase of the study.
During the interview, each student was asked three open-ended questions.

1. Were you aware that special Composition I classes are available for ESL
students?
2. Why did you enroll in a (mainstream) class for native-speaker students?
3. Why did you withdraw?

RESULTS

The results are categorized according to each phase of the study.

96 BRAINE

n ESL
69 Mainstream

Fall Winter Spring

Academic Quarter

Figure 1. ESL Students preferences for first-year writing classes, 1992-93

Preferences for First-Year Writing Courses

In the fall of 1992, of the 69 ESL students who enrolled in Composition I, 52
(75.3%) preferred ESL classes. In the winter of 1993, of the 78 ESL students
in Composition I, 59 (75.6%) again preferred ESL classes. In the spring of
1993, the percentage of ESL students preferring ESL classes rose to 8 1.4, when
57 of the 70 students who enrolled in Composition I preferred ESL classes. (See
Figure 1.)

Performance at the Written Test

The data obtained at the end of each quarter indicated that 90 ESL students had
enrolled in mainstream classes during the academic year. The data relating to
ESL classes showed that 168 students had enrolled in ESL classes.
As Table 1 and Figure 2 show, of the 168 students enrolled in Composition
1 classes for ESL students, 76 (45.2%) passed the test, 84 (SO%) failed, and 8
(4.8%) withdrew from the course. Of the 1,873 NS students who took the
course, 921 (49.2%) passed, 807 (43.1%) failed, and 145 (7.7%) withdrew. Of
the 90 ESL students who enrolled in mainstream classes, 30 (33.3%) passed, 38
(42.2%) failed, and 22 (24.4%) withdrew from the course. An analysis was per-
formed using the chi-squares test of independence with 4 degrees of freedom.
The results indicate a strong relationship (I> < 0.00001) between placement (in
ESL and mainstream classes) and outcome (pass, fail, withdrawal).
 ES1 VERSUS MAINSTREAM CLASSES 97

TABLE 1
Comparison of the Performance of Students in First-Year Writing Classes,
1992-93 Academic Year

Passed Failed Withdrew

Quarter Total
and Sections Enrolled N M N M N M P
Fall
ESL 52 29 55.8 20 38.5 3 5.8 0.16182
NS in mainstream 855 500 58.5 314 36.7 41 4.8
ESL in mainstream 17 7 41.2 7 41.2 3 17.6

Winter
ESL 59 23 39.0 35 59.3 1 1.7 0.00006
NS in mainstream 529 216 40.8 268 50.7 45 8.5
ESL in mainstream 19 8 42.1 4 21.1 7 36.8

Spring
ESL 57 24 42.1 29 50.9 4 7.0 0.54618
NS in mainstream 343 134 39.1 164 47.8 45 13.1
ESL in mainstream 13 5 38.5 5 38.5 3 23.1

Summer
ESL 0 -
NS in mainstream 146 71 48.6 61 41.8 14 9.6
ESL in mainstream 41 10 24.3 22 53.7 9 21.9

Total
ESL 168 76 45.2 84 50.0 8 4.8 <0.00001
NS in mainstream 1,873 921 49.2 807 43.1 145 7.7
ESL in mainstream 90 30 33.3 38 42.2 22 24.4

Reasons for Taking ESL Classes

Of the students in Composition II who responded to the questionnaire, 183 had
taken an ESL Composition I class. Although 52% of these students had failed the
final examination at least once, 95% stated that they were satisfied with the class
they had taken. When asked to state the main reason for their satisfaction, the
majority of the students referred to feeling “comfortable” or “at ease” in the ESL
classes. Although they could not all agree on what caused this feeling, many stu-
dents mentioned not being self-conscious of their accents, thereby gaining more
confidence to ask questions of the teacher and to take part in class discussions.
They also stated that the teachers paid them individual attention, appeared to be
aware of their special problems, and were “understanding” and “caring.”

Reasons for Withdrawing from Mainstream Classes

Of the 22 students who withdrew during the academic year, I interviewed 20.
(At the end of spring, 1993, two had transferred to other schools and could not
be interviewed.)
Responding to the first question at the interview, all 20 students stated that
they were aware of the availability of ESL classes. Explaining why they
98 BRAINE

n Passing
H Failing
so - WithdraM/ing

50 -

40-

30 -

20 -

lo-

0-F
Es_ Mainstream

Figure 2. The passing, failing, and withdrawal rate of ESL students in ESL and main-
stream first-year courses, 1992-93 academic year.

enrolled in a mainstream class, 7 said that when they tried to register, all the
ESL classes were full; 6 said that they thought they could cope in a mainstream
class; and 7 said that ESL classes were not offered, because they had taken
Composition I in the summer.
Explaining why they withdrew, 3 students replied that they did so on their
teachers’ advice. The remaining 17 students replied that they did not feel “com-
fortable” in mainstream classes. When asked to elaborate, the students replied
that they were afraid to ask questions or speak out in class, fearing that their
accents and errors in speech would cause embarrassment. Some students admit-
ted that they had not “spoken up” even once in a mainstream class. Many stu-
dents stated that, generally, the NS students did not help them or even speak to
them in class and that the teacher did little to encourage conlmunication. Dur-
ing peer review of papers in groups, these students felt that the NS students were
impatient with them, and one student said that he overheard a NS student com-
plain to the teacher about her inability to correct the numerous grammatical
errors in his paper. Several students said that when they sought help from their
teachers during office hours, they were asked to visit the writing lab instead.
Although they revised their papers with the help of writing lab tutors, the revi-
sions often did not satisfy the teachers. According to two students, one main-
stream teacher remarked on the first day of class that ESL students “soaked up”
all her office hours: the students interpreted this as a warning not to visit the
teacher during office hours. According to one student, his mainstream teacher
did not understand his response to a question, even after he had repeated the
 ES1 VERSUS MAINSTREAM CLASSES 99

answer a number of times. As a result, he had to use gestures, which embar-

rassed him deeply and led him to withdraw from the class. (This student had
studied English for nearly 10 years in his country and was a junior in business
management with a CPA of 3.5.) Another student, who was the only ESL stu-
dent in her class, said that all her drafts were read aloud by the teacher for class
discussion and that each time an error was noted, the NS students “laughed.”

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to determine the preference of ESL students for
mainstream or ESL classes in first-year writing courses, the reasons for their
preference, and to compare their performance at exit examinations in the two
types of classes.
The enrollment figures clearly indicate that, when given the option, an over-
whelming majority of ESL students preferred to enroll in ESL Composition I
classes. In fact, of the 180 places available in these classes during the academic
year, all but 12 were filled. As indicated at the interviews, some ESL students
who enrolled in mainstream classes may have chosen ESL classes if more places
had been available. However, it must be noted that ESL students at all institutions
may not show a similar preference for ESL classes. For instance, in an informal
study conducted at California State University-Northridge, the majority of ESL
students who enrolled in mainstream classes reported that, regardless of the dif-
ficulty of competing with NS, they preferred the “challenge” of interacting with
NS students, which they felt helped with their overall assimilation to campus life.
In addition, several students who enrolled in ESL classes regretted their choice
because they felt their English had not improved enough.1
As shown in Table 1, students in ESL Composition I classes had a better
passing rate overall on the written test than ESL students in mainstream classes.
On the other hand, ESL students enrolled in mainstream classes had the lowest
overall passing rate for all three groups. However, it must be noted that ESL
students who chose to remain in mainstream classes did have a lower failure
rate (42.2%) than students in ESL classes (50%). Another significant statistic
was the high withdrawal rate of ESL students from mainstream classes, which
was almost 5 times the withdrawal rate of students from ESL classes and thrice
the rate for NS students.
The high withdrawal rate is significant for a number of reasons. First,
because Composition I was recorded only as “pass/fail” in academic transcripts,
a failure did not affect a student’s GPA. Second, most of the students who with-
drew did so late in the academic quarter, thereby forfeiting the tuition they had
paid for the course; this would cause some hardship for ESL students, many of
whom are on a tight budget. Finally, students in Composition I classes were
encouraged by their teachers to stay on and take the final exam, because there
was no limit on the number of attempts, and practice in taking the test increased
the chance of future success.
100 BRAINE

In fact, the high withdrawal rate of ESL students from Composition I paral-
leled their withdrawal rate from mainstream Composition II classes at the same
institution. In the 1992-93 academic year, for instance, the withdrawal rate
for ESL students from mainstream Composition II classes was 28.6%. The
withdrawal rate for NS from mainstream classes was 14.9%, whereas the with-
drawal rate for students from ESL classes was the lowest, at 8.3%.
During the interviews, ESL students expressed their fear and embarrassment
about speaking up in mainstream classes and the lack of teacher support in these
classes. Spack (1994) who surveyed 13.3 ESL students on what they wanted
teachers to know about their academic needs, reports that many students were
concerned about “expressing their thoughts completely and comfortably in spo-
ken English” (p. 15) and, wishing to participate actively in discussions, wanted
to be encouraged and drawn out by their teachers. However, Harklau ( 1994),
who conducted a j-year study comparing ESL students in ESL and mainstream
classes at a high school in the San Francisco Bay area. observed only a few
instances of participation by ESL students and little support from mainstream
teachers. Over one l2-day period, Harklau observed only eight instances where
ESL students took part in class discussions. She also observed that mainstream
teachers seldom used strategies that increase student comprehension. such as
reducing the speed and complexity of speech, increasing repetition, and pausing.
Teachers rarely conducted comprehension checks to make their input compre-
hensible to ESL learners, and despite the lack of interaction, made little effort to
elicit output from ESL students, probably because they did not wish to embar-
rass learners who were “extremely timid about speaking and who were subject
to teasing and mockery” (p. 261) by NS students. Harklau also noted that in
mainstream classes, ESL students found the teachers’ puns, sarcasm, or irony
especially difficult to understand, and the teachers were often unable to deal with
the grammatical problems of ESL writers.
How do mainstream teachers react to the presence of ESL writers in main-
stream classes? Joseph (I 992) conducted detailed interviews with IO teachers
of mainstream first-year writing classes at the university where this study was
conducted, asking a series of wide-ranging open-ended questions. When asked
what problems they encountered in teaching ESL students in mainstream classes,
the teachers responded that ESL students were reluctant to talk in class. did not
let the teachers know if they understood instructions, had different proficiency
levels from NS students, and needed more explanations, which the NS students
found tedious. Some teachers said that they had difficulty in understanding the
(English) dialects spoken by the ESL students. which caused miscommunica-
tion to occur quite often. The teachers said that ESL students expected the
teachers to do most of the talking during conferences, and that some students
found the one-to-one interaction with the teacher difficult to handle. According
to some teachers, the difficulties during conferences only magnified the prob-
lems in the classroom. As for rhetorical differences, most of the teachers had
no idea how ESL students would organize a paper in their languages. One
 ES1 VERSUS MAINSTREAM CLASSES 101

teacher commented that she “never dreamed they would organize a paper
differently” (p. 5).
In contrast, teachers who have taught both ESL and mainstream classes, and
who were in a position to compare the behavior of ESL students in these set-
tings, have made different observations. According to these teachers, ESL stu-
dents, who were usually withdrawn and silent or huddled in isolated groups in
mainstream classes, became actively involved in classroom activities and dis-
cussions in ESL classes, and often asked questions (Braine, 1994b).
Nevertheless, how does feeling “comfortable” or “at ease” in ESL classes
translate to success as writers? First, what is apparent from the statements of
the students is the lack of anxiety and inhibition in ESL classes. The affective
domain, the emotional side of human behavior such as anxiety, inhibition, and
self-esteem, plays a crucial role in second language acquisition. In the main-
stream classes described by Harklau (1994) and by the students in this study,
many ESL students appear to be frozen into silence, because of their accents,
unsympathetic or critical teachers, or derisive classmates. As Brown (1987)
argues, learning a second language necessitates the making of mistakes, and if
students would risk speaking only when they were certain of correctness, they
would probably remain silent and withdrawn in class. When a student’s self-
esteem is threatened, as when he or she must resort to gestures in place of
language, the result could be apathy, silence, or flight-a quick withdrawal
from the class.
Anxiety, which is associated with feelings of uneasiness, self-doubt, and
worry, can be especially debilitating to student writers. As Rose (1985) has noted,
the response of others, such as classmates and teachers, “can foster or limit the
development of mechanical, grammatical, and rhetorical competence” (p. 233).
According to Rose (1984), the level of anxiety a writer feels in a particular situ-
ation could lead to confusion, frustration, and anger, resulting in writer’s block.
In contrast, a “comfortable,” nonintimidating environment leading to positive
social interactions in the ESL classes could produce better writers.
The second reason for the success of the students in ESL classes could be
the truly collaborative nature of these classes. As seen by the comments of
teachers who had taught both ESL and mainstream classes (stated earlier in this
article), students in ESL classes became actively involved in classroom activi-
ties and discussions instead of being withdrawn and silent as in mainstream
classes. When students’ anxiety and inhibition are lowered, they may pool their
language resources to practice and master the language.

CONCLUSION

Arguing for a pluralistic rhetoric in U.S. classrooms, Land and Whitley state
that ESL writers face a hidden agenda in our writing classes. Even when their
essays are free of surface-level errors, NS evaluators often find fault with other
formal features of writing. To be considered fluent, ESL students must write
102 BRAINE

essays that are “not only g~m~latically and syntactically, but also rhetorically
indistinguishable from those written by NY (1989, p. 285). This is especially
true of classes where ESL students compete directly with native English speak-
ers. However, despite such obstacles, the students in ESL classes considered for
this study not only performed well in tests. but sometimes had a better passing
rate than their NS counte~arts.
Although this study is a strong indication that ESL students may prefer to
enroll in first-year ESL writing classes and perform better as a result, it only
describes the situation at one institution during a single year. This study also
relied mainly on statistical analysis relating to student enrollment and perfor-
mance in first-year writing courses, and anecdotal reports of students who were
dissatisfied with mainstream classes. Clearly, similar studies at other institutions
as well as long-term, closely detailed ethnographic studies, such as that of Hark-
lau (1994), are needed before generalizations can be drawn. Nevertheless, this
study may be useful to ESL specialists who need to increase the awareness of
mainstream teachers and writing program administrators to the needs of ESL stu-
dents, and to justify the placement of ESL students in first-year writing courses.
One significant factor in this study is that the teachers of ESL classes had vol-
unteered to attend the ESL workshop and to teach these classes. Their natural
empathy for ESL students, 4Lunderstanding” and “caring” in the students’ words,
appears to have paid off, attracting more students to ESL classes, retaining them
at a higher rate, and turning them into more successful writers. Perhaps at other
institutions, too, in-service workshops for mainstream writing teachers would
help to raise their awareness of ESL writing pedagogy and the need to collabo-
rate with ESL specialists. With the ever increasing influx of ESL students to the
United States, the presence of a sprinkling of ESL students in first-year writing
courses is now the norm. However, as Kroll (1993) points out, many mainstream
teachers of writing, even those with academic credentials in writing pedagogy.
may not be knowledgeable about ESL writers and how they learn.
For many ESL students, first-year writing courses are a formidable obstacle
to reaching their academic objectives. This is best seen in the large number of
ESL students who, despite excelling in their academic ma,jors. choose to post-
pone first-year writing courses to their junior or senior year. In fact, this study
suggests that their experience in mainstreamed classes, as Siiva (1994) has
argued, could lead to “resentment, alienation, loss of self confidence, [and] poor
grades” (p. 39), ultimately resulting in academic failure.
If the statistics for Alabama. cited earlier in this article, are any reflection of
the national trend, specially designated ESL writing classes appear to be the
exception rather than the norm at many colleges and universities. Braine
(1994a) points out a number of reasons for this situation: the lack of sufficient
numbers of ESL students to justify special classes, ESL classes being seen as
remedial and subordinate to mainstream classes or as segregating ESL students,
and the logistical problems associated with creating new classes. Braine argues
 ES1 VERSUS MAINSTREAM CLASSES 103

that except for insufficient enrollment of ESL students, no other reason justifies
mainstreaming ESL students in first-year writing courses.
Perhaps the key word here is “choice.” Instead of being compelled to enroll
in ESL or mainstream classes, the choice should be left to the students. Those
who feel that special classes provide a more productive environment, allowing
them to develop a sense of community with peers and thereby improve their
writing, will choose to enroll in ESL classes. Others may prefer the challenge
of mainstream classes. It is ironic that, whereas some mainstream teachers are
unable to cope with ESL students in their classes, many ESL students see
required writing courses, especially mainstream classes, as the main obstacle to
their academic success. By encouraging our institutions to provide students with
a choice, we could earn the gratitude of our students as well as that of our col-
leagues in English departments.

Notes
1. Barbara Kroll, personal communication.

REFERENCES

Benson, B., Deming, M., Denzer, D., & Valeri-Gold, M. (1992). A combined basic writing/English
as a second language class: Melting pot or mishmash? four-nal of Basic Writing. II, 58-70.
Braine, G. (1994a). ESL students in first year writing courses: An evaluation of the placement
options. TESL Reporter, 27, 4149.
Braine, G. (1994b) Starting ESL classes in freshman writing programs. TESOL Journal, 3, 22-26.
Brown, H.D. (1987). Principles qf language Iearning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Chirinos, S.L., Rundquist, S., & Washburn, L. (1982). Adaptations in the teaching of composition
to non-native speakers of English. Alfernative Higher Education: The Journal of Non-
Traditional Studies, 6, 184192.
Desruisseaux, P. (1994, November 23). U.S. enrolls record number of foreign students. The Chron-
icle of Higher Education, p. A 38.
Harklau, L. (1994). ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2 learning environments. TESOL
Quarterly, 28, 241-272.
Harris, M. (1992). Prenke-Hall reference guide to grammar and usage. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Joseph, J. (1992). Survey of c,omposition teachers at the University qf South Alabama. Unpublished
manuscript, University of South Alabama, Mobile.
Kroll, B. (1993). Teaching writing IS teaching reading: Training the new teachers of ESL compo-
sition. In J. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Readin<? in the composition classroom: Second lan-
guage perspectives (pp. 61-81). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Land, R.. & Whitley, C. (1989). Evaluating second language essays in regular composition classes.
In D. Johnson & D. Roen (Eds.), Richness in +vritingc Empo~~ering ESL students
(pp. 284-293). New York: Longman.
Leki. 1. (1992). Understanding ESL M,riters. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann.
McKay, S.L. (198 1). ESL/Remedial English: Are they different? English Language Teaching Jour-
nal, 35, 310-315.
Mlynarczyk, R.. & Haber, S. (1991). In our oM,n Mvrds. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
104 BRAINE

Murray, D.M. (1993). Write to lawn (4th ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovlch.
Ostler, S.E. (1986). Writing problems of international students in the college composition class-
room. The Writin,q Instr-uctor, 5. 177-l 89.
Ouchi, W. (I98 I). Theory Z: HOM.American husir~~ss cob mwt thu .lqurwsr c~hullenge (pp. 47-S I.
64-66). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Rose, M. (1984). Writu’x block: The uqnitive dimension. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University
Press.
Rose. M. (1985). Complexity, rigor, evolving method, and the puzzle of writer’s block: Thoughts
on composing-process research. In M. Rose (Ed.). When o writrr- un’t wit?. New York:
Guildford Press.
Schlumberger. A.. & Clymer, D. (1989). Tailoring composition classes to ESL students’ needs.
Teuchin,q English in the, T~wYur Co/lr,qc. Ih. 12l-l 28.
Scull. S. (1982). English as a second language: Tactic5 for teaching composition to college level
non-native students. In P. Taylor, F. Peitzman, & J. McCuen, (Eds.). !!I the twnc4w.s: Hrlp
for the neu.ly wwuitcd, shrll-shocked, und huttle firti,qd tcwhws of witinp (pp. 97-l 14).
Los Angeles: UCLA Press.
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research
and its implications. TESOL Quurtd~. -77, 627dS6.
Silva, T. (1994). An examination of options for the placement of ESL students in first year writing
classes. Wrrtiq P r-qycrm Administt.f~tior,. IX. 3743.
Spack. R. ( 1994). En,q/ishOS(I scwd la~~gucrg~: R/air r~~(‘so~~~~~.s
,fiw truc,hitl$~lvVtin,y.
Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
 ES1 VERSUS MAINSTREAM CLASSES 105

APPENDIX A

Rubric for Use in Composition I Classes

A 6-point essay
. establishes a context for the essay by providing background and purpose and
a distinct subject.
is rich in detail.
is well organized, easy to follow, easy to read.
is virtually free of spelling, punctuation, sentence, and paragraph errors.
operates on a high level of significance.
answers all the reader’s basic questions.
has a first sentence that makes you want to read the second.
presents a clear and significant position.

A 5-point essay

establishes a context for the essay by providing background and purpose and
a distinct subject.
has many details.
is generally well organized and easy to read.
is easy to follow.
is generally free of spelling and punctuation errors, and free of sentence and
paragraph errors.
answers most of the reader’s basic questions.
has a subject that may be fuzzy.
has a good first sentence, but it may lack originality.
has a clear but not necessarily significant position.

A 4-point essay

l answers some but not all of the reader’s basic questions.

l establishes a context for the essay by providing background and purpose and
a distinct subject.
l has some details.
l is organized, although not as easy to follow as a Spoint essay.
l has occasional errors in punctuation, spelling, sentences, and paragraphs.
. shows that the author seems to be holding more than one position.
l has an uninteresting first sentence.

A Spoint essay

l doesn’t answer nearly enough questions.

l fails to establish a context by providing background information.
l is not very detailed.
l has frequent errors in spelling, punctuation, sentences, and paragraphs.
l doesn’t have a subject; the writer may be attempting the impossible.
l has a boring first sentence.
106 BRAINE

A 2-point essay

l will significantly compound the problems of a 3-point essay.

l doesn’t have a subject.

A l-point essay

l lacks background.
l lacks purpose.
l lacks detail.
. may be off topic.
. is trivial with regard to composition.
l is unorganized and hard to follow.
l has serious surface errors in spelling and punctuation and/or in sentence and
paragraph structure.
 ES1 VERSUS MAINSTREAM CLASSES 107

APPENDIX B

Rubric For Evaluating Student Papers at the Exit Examination

EH 101 Exam Scoring Guide

Fall, 1992

Excellent discussion and analysis of Ouchi’s view. Excellent details in the

personal account. Few if any writing mistakes. Originality and insight. The
discussion engages the text on an intellectual plane. It’s not a report. Focus,
order, and development are excellent.

Good discussion and analysis of Ouchi’s view. Solid focus, order, and
development. Not the same level of analysis and discussion as a 6. Person-
al account is detailed and relevant to the discussion. A few but not critical
writing mistakes.

Fair discussion and analysis of Ouchi’s view. Discussion of Ouchi’s view

must be present for passing; this is necessary to fulfill the demands of the
topic. Focus, order, and development are adequate and reflect competence.
Writing mistakes are more numerous than a 5 paper.

Weak discussion of Ouchi’s view. In fact, there may be no discussion at all

and the personal account dominates the paper. Or there may be a discussion
but no personal account. Few details. Not working well (or at all) with the
text. Or a paper that may otherwise be a 4 except for numerous writing mis-
takes.

Seriously deficient discussion and personal account. Few if any details.

Writing needs remediation.

Titanic.

Attached to scoring guide are six anchor papers, chosen as “range-finders” to

help you see distinctions between papers. A passing paper would earn a 4 or
above; obviously, a failing paper would receive a 3 or below.