1. Myth of Transience

Research shows that many administrator and faculty decisions regarding ESL students are underlined by the belief that if only the right courses were offered, in the right sequence, then ESL writers' problems would be overcome before they would move into content-area courses. Many refer to this as the "myth of transience," the belief that problems with learning English as a second language, and problems with writing in a non-native language, are transient or temporary. According to Matsuda, many teachers and administrators believe that the responsibility for teaching language and writing lies solely with those who teach ESL courses. He argues that this division of labor is based on the "myth of transience" which is based on "the assumption that ESL can be broken down neatly into a linguistic component and a writing component and that the linguistic problems will disappear after some additional instruction in remedial language courses" (714-5).

Thus when planning ESL programs and writing courses, many teachers and administrators envision a sequence of courses that ESL students might take which will ensure these students will emerge from such courses writing error-free prose. Yet research shows that even after students have completed special courses before taking required writing courses, and then have moved into courses in their disciplines, some problems with the English language remain. Matsuda reminds us that even years of study in English will not ensure that students will avoid error: "Even when ESL students are enrolled in special courses before taking required writing courses, the unique difficulties that ESL writers encounter in English composition are not likely to disappear completely after a semester-or even a few years-of additional language instruction" (715). Leki also points out that "after ten years of studying English in classrooms abroad, ESL students still may have trouble writing effectively in English…and students who recite grammar rules…are not always able to use those rules in producing language" (23).

Zamel observes that it is a commonly held belief that "language must be in place and fixed in order to do work in the course" (509). It is this belief that often results in a demand for stronger ESL programs to "fix" the students' grammar problems, or in complaints against writing courses that pass students who still make mistakes in their writing. Zamel describes an assumption that underlies a teacher's comments on a student's paper, an assumption commonly held by many teachers: "If students had been prepared appropriately, if the gatekeeping had kept students out of her course until they were more like their native counterparts… students would be able to do the required work" (509-10).

After studying professor's comments on ESL students' writing, Zamel concludes, "What we see here is an illustration of the 'myth of transience,' a belief that permeates institutions of higher education and perpetuates the notion that these students' problems are temporary and can be remediated-so long as some isolated set of courses or program of instruction, but not real courses in the academy, takes on the responsibility of doing so" (510). Zamel emphasizes that this belief ensures that faculty across the curriculum will rely on ESL language and writing courses to take care of the language and writing problems so that content-area professors can focus on delivering course content. She concludes, "Such a belief supports the illusion that permanent solutions are possible, which releases faculty from the ongoing struggle and questioning that the teaching-learning process inevitably involves" (510).

There are several reasons why ESL students who move into content-area courses after having successfully completed ESL and writing courses will still make many errors in their writing. This can be a result of the ever-increasing complexity of material that might demand the attention of students who may fall into old patterns of error as they are take on the challenges of the discipline-specific language, concepts, and conventions. After studying faculty responses to ESL writers, Zamel concludes about some content-area faculty: "There is little sense of how the unfamiliar terms, concepts, and ways of seeing that are particular to [a] course can be acquired. Nor is there any appreciation for how this very unfamiliarity with the course content may be constraining students' linguistic processes" (509-10).