Distributed Cognition - Matsuda = X

Sitting in French class, I think I realized exactly why I was so disappointed with Matsuda. And it may or may not have to do with my issues in the post below with how we frame or think about a problem. Matsuda spent most of his time doing one or two things. One, giving us the language for what we do (i.e. direct instruction, indirect instruction, socratic methods, etc.) and connecting that with how it is percieved and recieved by second language users. Two, pointing out that we need to change how we interpret second language user's responses to our strategies because we are too likely to judge them as inferior, unintelligent, or untalented because of miscommunications or poor choice of strategies for their particular needs. Neither of these really suggests changes to the processes of tutoring or teaching composition. They both largely raise awareness. If someone is to blame for second language user difficulties, the location of the blame is with the individuals and their social relations. (Though, I admit that in his example of himself and his tutor, Kim was it?, he said that she was doing everything by the book [i.e. Lerner, et. al.'s book]. He also explicitly connected our harsh grading of grammar without teaching it to how teachers think about students, other disciplines, and the job market, and he argued multiple times that we are too quick to judge second language users as inferior or unintelligent because of their responses or lack of responses (both written and verbal) in class.)

This fits most clearly into the second of the three approaches to framing the problem of writing and publishing within Western conventions that I talked about in the last post: (1) apolitical/free market, (2) social relations, and (3) systems theory/distributed cognition. Framing the problem in terms of social relations would make the strategy of raising awareness effective because largely the problem isn't with the tools or processes (though these can always be improved). Instead, the problem lies with how the tools are used and how the feedback is interpreted. However, if the third approach I talked about (distributed cognition) were applied here, raising awareness would only be part of the solution. The biases against second language users and the drive to interpret their feedback in the way that we do is not solely because of who we are or the culture that we grew up in. It would also be fostered within us by the system/tools/processes - as these are the first thing that elicit and filter feedback from students. If we teach a specific thing, we are asking for a specific thing. And we measure that thing in specific ways. If the process of translating thoughts into the written page is complicated by writing in a second language, why would the process of translating thoughts into written English be further complicated by the purpose that demands the writing's creation and the tools through which we gather and interpret it? Getting rid of grammar instruction and evaluation might be a radical idea that addresses part of this, but we are still left with the stated goals of the teaching of American academic writing that we find in texts like WoR by ol' Barty and Petrosky. We teach to fit in to a specific group's genres. How can we expect a prejudice against students to disappear when we keep taking diverse students, some of whom grew up navigating these genres and some of whom are first experiencing them, and molding them to fit what we think American academic writing is? It seems to me parts of the system itself would need to change to eliminate prejudice and discrimination. It can't just be raising awareness.