Matsuda talk

I want to start by saying that after two days filled with hearing from Paul Kei Matsuda, I was impressed with the ease and comfort with which he spoke. Between attending an informal lunch and his various talks, I felt as if his personality came out in each of these spaces. He spoke with ease and unpretentiously, even though he flies around the world to present his claims. (In fact, he's going to Iran in a couple of weeks!) Even more, his story about Taka (him) really enabled me to see how personally invested he is in the potential educational and political claims of his research (That teachers should not evaluate grammar, if they don't teach it). In many ways, his discussions were exactly want I wanted and expected. 

Now, with all this said, I have to admit that I wanted something more from Matsuda. After reading Horner et al's piece, I sense an ongoing battle to incorporate a multi/translingual approach to writing. They are, after all, calling for a "new paradigm" (303). To be sure, I do not mean to conflate Matsuda's views with those of Horner et al's but (as Chris' question pointed out), he did sign on to this project. After our readings last week, I think there is an interesting tension between knowing a translingual approach cannot happen overnight and an exigent need to transform our approaches to writing with the onslaught of "global" objectives in many universities. Matsuda gave many strategies for tutoring non-native speakers, but it seemed that the implications for universities were ambiguous: how do we promote translingualism by more than just being more patient and open-minded in writing instruction? I understand his desire to start at a micro level (one on one tutoring), showing through Taka how much WC instruction can make a difference. But what about the university? What happens with the mission of the WC (say it is to promote translingualism) largely conflicts with the ideals of a university? Northeastern may be a global university, but are teachers going to push grammar to the side? Are they going to allow students to write in different languages? (still can't wrap my head around out this would work logistically). As I said in my last post, I think there is more at stake in a translingual approach to writing: it argues for a change in perspective, a change in social interaction, a change society both within and outside of the university.  I’m not well-informed on administrative or curricular proceedings, but I’d like to know what anyone thinks about the bigger picture: what needs to be done for a translingual approach to writing to take hold? Does it need to be implemented through a program, or can it function on the level of a writing center and a couple writing courses? 

I think I was hoping Matsuda would talk more about what it would mean to be a global university—not in statistics, but in tactics. In teaching. What does it really mean for northeastern to promote themselves as “global?”