Questions and identity: Local English, global students and a tertiary entrance examination.

Farrell, Lesley

If an exam essay is well structured, grammatically coherent and displays a sound knowledge of the topic, why then does it not receive a high grade? Lesley Farrell argues that teachers and examiners bring to their reading of the exam paper an implicit view of an `ideal candidate'. While many students seem to know what these expectations are and receive high grades, students from different cultural backgrounds often fail in these endeavours. Farrell demonstrates why this might be so and poses the question as to whether we should be imposing a cultural standard on students' writing.

Debates around the effects of the globalisation of English seem remote to many Australians. If anything, monolingual English-speaking Australians greet the news of the spread of English around the globe with some degree of secret relief, grateful that the arduous task of learning another, `international', language does not fall to them. In other parts of the world, in Africa and in India, for example, the debates are fierce and immediate; the spread of English is recognised as a powerful and potentially damaging colonising strategy. Where English is accepted for historical reasons, or for pragmatic reasons associated with participation in the global economy, the debate has turned to issues around what counts as legitimate English, and who gets to decide. According to Pennycook:

The main issue of debate is whether efforts should be made to maintain a central standard of English or whether the different varieties of English should be acknowledged as legitimate forms in their own right.

(1994: p. 10)

The question, at least as it relates to varieties of English such as Indian English and African English, has for Kachru already been resolved. He argues that

native speakers of this language [English] seem to have lost the exclusive prerogative to control its standardization.

(1986: p. 30)

While the question of the standardisation of English may have been resolved as far as international Englishes are concerned, it is far from resolved in countries like Australia where the dominant language is English and the majority of the population speak English as a first language but where a significant percentage of the population speaks English as a second or subsequent language.

It is not simply that English is now, in Pennycook's terms, `in the world', evolving new varieties in specific geographical locations; it is that `the world' is now also `in English', whether we like it or not. By this I mean that in every part of the world where English is a first language, the practices of speaking and writing in English are changing as the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of English speakers become more diverse. Australian English cannot be, and has not been, quarantined from the forces of globalisation although it has been quarantined from scrutiny; what counts as `English' in the powerful institutions of Australia has generally been taken for granted.

The contestation over what counts as legitimate English in countries like Australia, and about who gets to decide, resonates with many of the same cultural and political debates as it does in countries like Africa and India, where the imposition of a standard English is more overt and obtrusive. The defining debates do not, however, generally occur in political and policy arenas. English language and literacy practices are contested locally, at particular moments and in particular places. We can describe the practices associated with the globalisation of English from a `global' perspective but it is only in particular local sites that these practices come to matter.

Educational settings are among the most important `local sites' in which questions about what counts as legitimate English, and who gets to decide, are contested, and we as educators are deeply implicated in these contests. Every day, when we respond to students' questions, and to their silences, when we mark their papers and read their stories, we are in positions where we deem certain language and literacy practices to be legitimate, and others to be illegitimate. Although these individual teaching moments hardly seem to have the authority to standardise certain forms of English and marginalise other forms, they gain that authority because they are obscured in everyday teaching practices. They do not seem to be contentious at all, just `commonsense'.

In this article I want to explore the role that educational institutions, and individual teachers, play in the standardisation of forms of English and the naturalisation of these forms of English as transparently right and fitting. I find it useful to think about standard forms of English as language practices (see Gee, 1990; Fairclough, 1989; 1992; Hodge and Kress, 1993), practices which carry specific social, cultural and political meanings. My particular concern is with the way we as teachers are implicated in the processes of standardisation at critical moments in the education of our students. My `local site' is the writing and reading of a particular examination essay, an idiosyncratic and ritualised form of literacy practice associated with tertiary entrance examinations in Australia. In making this argument I am calling on a small part of a detailed study of the way in which examiners `make grades' when they rank examination essays and the ways in which students write the essays that the examiners read and rank. The written texts I analysed included ten years of published Reports of the Examiners in Legal Studies, Australian History and Economics (Farrell, 1997b) and forty essays written by four students (two Vietnamese-Australian and two Chilean-Australian) over the year that they prepared for their final examinations (Farrell, 1996; 1997a). My focus was on discourse organisation, especially linearity, symmetry and co-ordination, and culturally situated notions of relevance and politeness. I concluded that preferences for certain kinds of discourse organisation were socially and culturally situated, that they were shaped by certain social and cultural values (certain identities), and that their preferred discourse organisation seemed, to readers and to writers, to be both `natural' and `right'.

Here I am interested in questions of social and cultural identity. I want to consider the way the `right' kind of `candidate' identity is constituted in examination discourse; how certain ways of being in the world are realised in certain English literacy practices and read by examiners as transparent, and objective, evidence of academic ability. As Ivanic has demonstrated,

acts of writing depend on the multiple identities which writers bring to them, and ... acts of writing in themselves constitute an on-going struggle over possible identities.

(1995: p. 25)

I argue that struggles over what counts as legitimate English language practice in specific contexts (like the reading and writing of an examination essay) are struggles over identity, although they generally present more as pedagogical moments than as struggles, and they rarely seem to be about identity. I argue that these struggles have material outcomes; that the demand that students construct specific identities in examination contexts creates structural barriers for students, many of whom use English as a second or subsequent language. Such students are likely to use different English literacy practices to construct different identities which are more congruent with their cultural backgrounds.

Australia is, like most countries around the world, a multilingual nation. Immigrant students from Language Other Than English (LOTE) backgrounds comprise approximately 20 per cent of government and Catholic school populations in Victoria and New South Wales and the diversity of their backgrounds is increasing. In 1992 (the most recent figures available), 22 per cent of immigrants were born in north-east Asia, especially Hong Kong, 21 per cent in south-east Asia, 19 per cent in Europe and the former USSR, 11 per cent in southern Asia, 7 per cent in Oceania and 9.1 per cent in the Middle East and North Africa (Iredale & Fox, 1995). In terms of language and cultural background this diversity of the school population contributes to the diverse English literacy practices that develop at different schools. But as this diversity is not usually viewed as an effect of a broad social trend like the globalisation of English, the impact of the globalisation of English on schooling generally remains invisible. Difference in English literacy practice is still conveniently interpreted as a matter of individual ability or deficit, judged against an unproblematic 'standard' English. When diversity in literacy practice figures in these discussions at all it figures as a simple problem, a problem of falling school standards, a convenient scapegoat for economic and political failures. This view naturalises language practices as an unproblematic standard and obscures the ideological work that the examination does.

The ideological work that examinations do

The introduction by the Whitlam Government of free undergraduate tertiary education for candidates who secured a university place marked a turning point in Australian tertiary education. Tertiary education was no longer the exclusive province of the wealthy or those lucky few who secured scholarships; it was open to all who qualified in the competitive examinations that marked the final year of schooling. For a moment it seemed that tertiary education would be available equally to all who had the ability to benefit from it. In the process of democratising tertiary entrance it was taken for granted that, in an examination,

a candidate's social and cultural background is rendered neutral when it is not explicitly identified to the Examiners, and so the authentic academic merit' of each candidate can be discerned and the results of candidates calibrated one against the other.

(Farrell 1997b: p. 135)

However, it has become increasingly evident that the removal of material barriers to participation, although an important step, is only part of the story. The very examinations which were promoted as advancing equity unobtrusively have produced structural barriers which privilege some categories of students while disadvantaging others (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1972; Ozolins, 1981; Farrell, 1997a; 1997b). This is, perhaps, inevitable in an environment where there are simply not enough places in high status university faculties to meet the demand. The work of the examiners is no longer primarily about ensuring that only qualified candidates obtain a university place; it is about creating a plausible rank order of candidates as a basis on which scarce, and highly sought-after, places can be distributed. Some qualified candidates must miss out. It is the examiners' task to determine which ones they will be.

Academic reading and writing of the kind required by examiner and candidate in tertiary entrance examinations is governed by particular conventions and those conventions do ideological work (Gee, 1990; Fairclough, 1992). In this context I am using the concept of `ideologies' as Fairclough does:

to be significations/constructions of reality (the physical world, social relations, social identities) which are built into various dimensions of the forms/meanings of discursive practices, and which contribute to the production, reproduction or transformation of relations of domination.

(1992: p. 62)

I am particularly interested here in the discursive construction of social identities of examination candidates, identities which, I argue, may be more available to students of some social and cultural backgrounds than to those of others. Writing for these examinations is ruled by conventions, some of which are stated explicitly, many of which are not. These conventions, like others associated with academic writing, regulate `what you are allowed to say, how you are allowed to say it and who you are allowed to be' (Clark, 1992). It has become clear that a great deal is taken for granted in school discourse in general and in examination discourse in particular, and educators who see good students failing frequently demand that examiners make explicit what is valued in competitive examinations. While these calls for explicitness are understandable, there are good reasons why explicitness is not, in this case, the answer.

First, it is not possible exhaustively to describe the valued features of a high scoring examination script, and even if it were possible, it would not be very useful because the specific features that enable examiners to discriminate between scripts do not remain stable when the cohort changes. Examiners routinely attempt to make explicit in general terms what they expect and value in examinations scripts but the precision is often spurious (Farrell, 1997b).

Second, being explicit is not enough. In her study of black bilingual women writing academic essays in a higher education setting, Lillis (1997) explains that:

... even though the students had been given what were considered to be detailed descriptions of what was required in their writing they needed to repeat the same questions time and again at specific moments of meaning making in their writing in order to make sense of academic writing conventions ... [The] notion of explicitness is hugely problematic and only seems to make sense to students as they explore it in the context of specific moments of meaning making.

(p. 187)

Writing in academic settings is not about observing explicitly stated linguistic conventions, it is about adopting new ways of being in the world, new writing identities. In standardising certain forms of English we standardise certain ways of being in the world, certain identities, and we marginalise others. In contexts like tertiary entrance examinations, the cost of failing to assume those identities, or refusing to do so, can be very great.

The student

Hang is a student in the final year of her secondary schooling, preparing to sit her tertiary entry examinations. She and her family came as refugees to Australia from Vietnam when she was twelve years of age. Hang and her family live in a part of Melbourne that has a strong Vietnamese community; she speaks Vietnamese to her family and Vietnamese friends and fluent English with her English-speaking friends, schoolmates and teachers.

Hang's school, an average-sized high school with about 900 students aged between twelve and twenty years, reflects the ethnic diversification that attends globalisation. The students in the final years of schooling are a little older than might be expected because many of them are refugees and have had their schooling interrupted. At any time, between 70 per cent and 90 per cent of the students at this school speak a first language other than English, reflecting the many different countries of origin represented. Almost all the teachers speak English as a first language; in fact, nearly all the teachers are Anglo-Australian, and nearly all are monolingual.

In terms of language background this diversification of the student cohort is reflected in the English literacy practices with which the students accomplish their intellectual and cognitive work (Farrell, 1997a; Farrell, 1996a). Academic literacy is, like any other literacy, a social and cultural practice, and the school literacy practices of the students in this school are partly shaped by the social and cultural practices they bring to school. Another way of saying this is that the effects of globalisation, the pressures of diversity, are written into the literacy practices at this local site. However, while English literacy practice is diversifying at this local site, within the formal framework of the education system a highly idiosyncratic `Standard English' applies. Within this framework variations in literacy practices remain invisible; they are acknowledged only as deficit practices, practices which fail to measure up against the standard and therefore indicate a writer of inferior academic merit.

The examination

Hang is preparing to sit for her tertiary entrance examinations, examinations which are externally set and assessed. Hang's teachers will have very little say in determining her final grade. In assessing these written examinations the examiners each year enshrine as standard the idiosyncratic literacy practices in which the intellectual and cognitive work is made visible (Farrell, 1997b). In the published Reports of Examiners they state explicitly how important it is for students like Hang to use the literacy practices the examiners recognise as appropriate.

Markers [examiners] reported that while many answers showed evidence of a satisfactory level of economic knowledge, far too often this was not adequately displayed, and therefore rewarded, due to poor writing skills and inability to structure answers appropriately.

(Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Board [VCAB]: Economics, 1990: p. 1)

Examiners regard standardised literacy practice as important, not because they are testing the students' control of specific English literacy practices but because they believe that these practices are intimately and inevitably associated with academic ability. `Academic ability' is naturalised in these practices.

Even if their [the able students'] information is thin, they do not relent on the task in hand. They persevere with thinking, rather than writing tons of coherent but irrelevant stuff, all `glued together' by a trite conclusion which fools no marker who has a list of discriminators in front of her or him. Few of the discriminators are attempted. They are absent from the essay.

(Victorian Institute of Secondary Education [VISE]: Australian History, 1984: p. 2)

It is not only in the rarefied atmosphere of the examining board that these literacy practices have been naturalised as signifying academic ability. This view has permeated the public domain, providing fodder for acrimonious public debates about falling academic standards. In a bitterly fought election campaign, in which tertiary entrance examinations were a major issue, the Victorian Labor Government argued that the emphasis on written examinations should be reduced because they disadvantaged certain groups of students. The Conservative Opposition argued that:

Surely it is time for Mrs Kirner [the Premier] to clarify the situation. Does she believe in merit and performance as the basis for tertiary selection? Does she believe that some students should be given a free ride into university places just because of their background, and not solely due to their academic performance?

(Richardson, 1989, in Gill, 1994: p. 17)

In supporting examination reform, the government lost the election.

As Hang is the kind of student that Richardson (quoted above) believed was likely to receive a `free ride' to university, it is worth looking closely at what happens when her non-standard literacy practice meets the demands of the standardised literacy practice of the examination.

The essay

Hang's examination preparation consists of taking essay questions from the examination papers from previous years and preparing answers to them in the time allowed (about 45 minutes). Her teacher responds to the essay as he believes an examiner would, and then Hang tries again. For example, Hang takes the proposition, `All that remains of our federal system is the name. In fact it is unitary,' Discuss. and writes an essay answer that begins as follows.

A federated system is one where powers are shared by the Commonwealth and the State Government. Since Federation, 1901, the Commonwealth government has taken on more powers than originally decided. This has been achieved through; the 1942 Uniform Tax agreement Act, S96, S109, recent High Court decisions, referenda and referral powers S 51 (37). This suggests that our system is unitary, i.e. one where there is a central ruling government, however this in fact is not true. State Governments still control residual powers, examples education, health and transport.

In 1942 the Uniform Tax Agreement Act was passed the Commonwealth government were given the country's major source of revenue. The states thought that after World War II the power would be returned, but it was not. In 1946 and 1957 the states challenged the Commonwealth to the High Court, but High Court ruled in favour of the Commonwealth. Commonwealth government further extended their financial dominance by using s96. Under S96 of the Constitution the `special Purpose Grants' states that the states have to spend money given by the Commonwealth in selected areas. Examples, in 1973 -- 37% of states money had to be used in areas which Commonwealth thought fit. In 1985 the number increased to 51 per cent. Not only does the Commonwealth have the power to collect major revenues but it also has the power (s96) to use it as it wants. In this respect our system is unitary.

She continues her essay in this manner until her final paragraph.

The Commonwealth have extended powers and moved the Federal System towards a unitary one through; the 1942 Uniform Tax Agreement Act, S96, S109, recent High Court decisions, referenda and referral powers. However, states have retained residual powers which are important also. Evidently our system is not unitary, however arguments that it is unitary are stronger. I believe that even though in actual fact our system is not unitary, we are heading very close to being one. The important question remains, was the constitution intentionally written to favour the Commonwealth Government?

Standardising English

Literacy practice is not simply about ways of stringing words together, it is about ways of being in the world, about identity. What is being contested here, entirely through literacy practice, is the appropriate way for a student/candidate to be `in the world'. Hang's teacher knows that certain kinds of writing signal to the examiner that the candidate is a certain kind of person, a person like themselves, who is capable of analysis, who thinks logically, who will, given the opportunity, become the right kind of university student. The task of ranking candidates, and in doing so providing the basis for the distribution of highly sought after places in elite university faculties, is not taken lightly. The examiner scrutinises the examination scripts for a `good student', and in this context that student seems straightforward and obvious. A `good' student is one who assumes equality and is ready to argue with the question, a student who is prepared to put a point of view independently, even if they aren't too sure about it or don't know a great deal about the topic, a student who is prepared to `have a go'.

Hang is writing the wrong kind of essay to convey this message. Despite her best efforts, her essay tells the examiners that she is not the kind of person who should be offered one of the scarce places in the elite universities. Her teacher is aware of the ways in which Hang's essay will be read by the examiner. He has told Hang repeatedly that she must take sides in her essays, she must make an argument, she must be explicit, she must resolve contradictions. He has explained how to do it. On this essay, for instance, he writes the following comments.

Why introduce such a major question in the last sentence?

Previously you said the states lost power over these areas! You are aware of all the major issues, but have not taken a clearly distinguishable line in your essay. There are also contradictions that need to be dealt with.

Hang's teacher has tried every way he knows to shape her essays into a form that will signal to the examiners that Hang is smart, analytical and independent; just the kind of person who should be offered a university place. Hang is a good student, she knows her teacher has her interests at heart and she tries to do what he tells her. He tells her to make a clear argument, to write a conclusion. She thinks that this is what she has done.

Hang's written English contains very few mistakes and she knows her material thoroughly. When she presents herself as a good student, however, she presents herself as a student who is subtle and sophisticated rather than brash and obvious, one who understands that important issues cannot be easily resolved in favour of one side or another, one who knows that some contradictions can never be resolved. She presents herself as a student who knows her place, she knows that examiners are more knowledgable than she and that it is a ridiculous pretence to assume equality. Hang is not alone in finding the subject position she is offered in the examination unacceptable; Matalene (1985) found that the Chinese students she taught judged the explicit spelling out of connections between ideas and statements of opinions `rude', `aggressive' and `illmannered' (p. 802).

Acts of writing, such as Hang's act of writing this essay in preparation for an examination, do constitute, as Ivanic says, an ongoing struggle over possible identities.

Conclusion

The effects of globalisation, and of the globalisation of English, permeate the institutions, the schools, the courts, the workplaces, of all communities although they may not be recognised as such by the people dealing with them. It seems important for us to teach, and to learn, what it means to say that English is a social and cultural practice that is dynamic and deeply embedded in context and does political work, work which has a direct bearing on people like Hang. As English teachers we are implicated in the standardisation, and the naturalisation, of English. At the very least we need to make explicit that the criteria for inclusion and exclusion, in school and in workplaces, are not neutral linguistic technologies but that they are about being, or pretending to be, a certain kind of person.

Whose English is Hang's teacher to teach, and how is he to do it? It is clear that a certain kind of essay signals to the examiners that a candidate deserves a place in the university but it is not easy to teach this kind of essay simply by teaching the rules. Hang's teacher, if he is to be successful, must teach Hang to become someone else. The alternative is, of course, to challenge the idiosyncratic local standard. This is difficult because the standard has, as we have seen, been naturalised. Certain kinds of literacy practices have come to `go proxy' for certain kinds of intellectual and moral qualities; to challenge the standard is understood to be synonymous with lowering the standard. It is resisted all the more because, if the standard were to be successfully challenged, then the whole question of which students should be allocated which scarce and highly sought after university places would be opened for debate.

REFERENCES

Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J. (1977). Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: Sage.

Clark, R. (1992). Principles and practice of CLA in the classroom. In N. Fairclough (ed.), Critical Language Awareness. London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Farrell, L. (1996). A case study of discursive practices and assessment processes in a multi-ethnic context. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, pp. 267-89.

Farrell, L. (1997a). Doing Well ... Doing Badly: An analysis of the role of conflicting cultural values in judgements of relative `academic achievement'. In A. Duszak (ed.), Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse (pp. 63-85). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

Farrell, L. (1997b). Making grades. Australian Journal of Education, 41, 2, pp. 134-49.

Gee, J. (1990). Social Literacies. London: Falmer Press.

Hodge, R. & Kress, G. (1993). Language As Ideology. (2nd ed.) London: Routledge.

Iredale, R. & Fox, C. (1995). Immigration, Education and Training in NSW. Melbourne: Bureau of Immigration and Population Research.

Ivanic, R. (1995). Writer identity. Prospect, 10, 1, pp. 8-31.

Kachru, B. (1986). The Alchemy of English: The spread, functions and models of non native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English.

Lillis, T. (1997). New voices in academia? The regulative nature of academic conventions. Language and Education, 11, 3, pp. 182-99.

Matalene, C. (1985). Contrastive rhetoric: An American writing teacher in China. College English, 47, pp. 789-807.

Ozolins, U. (1981). Victorian HSC Examiners' Reports: A study of cultural capital. In H. Bannister and L. Johnson (eds), Melbourne Working Papers (pp. 142-84). Melbourne: University of Melbourne, Department of Education.

Pennycook, A. (1994). The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. London: Longman.

Lesley Farrell is a Senior Lecturer in language and literacy in the Faculty of Education at Monash University. Her research interest lies in the broad area of language and social change in educational settings. Her work currently focusses on language, cultural difference and schooling, and language and literacy practice in restructuring workplaces.

Address: Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3168.

Email: lesley.farrell@education.monash.edu.au