October 2018
SLW Newsletter

LEADERSHIP UPDATES

LETTER FROM THE CHAIR

Dear SLWIS Colleagues,

I hope this message finds you well. As the Second Language Writing Interest Section (SLWIS) transitioned to a community of practice, I would like to thank all members for continuing to keep our interest section (IS) an active and vibrant venue for us to share the teaching and research of second language writing in different contexts, including ESL and EFL. Our members are researchers, teachers, and practitioners who come from many levels of instruction and settings across the world; this is one of the unique qualities of our IS.

At this year’s TESOL Convention in Chicago, our IS organized different sessions, including an academic session on Researching, Teaching, and Assessing Argumentation in L2 Writing. The panel was well received, and it generated great discussions and questions from audience members. Our intersection session with the Bilingual Education Interest Section on Teaching Writing from a Biliteracy Perspective in K-12 Education was also successful. At TESOL 2018, our IS’s committee members-at-large also organized two networking roundtable sessions focusing on tips for writing successful L2 writing conference proposals and getting a TESOL/SLW job in today’s market. Our IS was well represented, judging from a considerable number of other sessions on L2 writing in the program.

For this 2018-2019 year, we have planned to host multiple activities with a range of professional and academic goals and interests. These activities will take place throughout the year. Our webinar on “Multilingual Writers & Technology: 4 Ideas from the Second Language Writing Standing Group at CCCC" took place on April 27, 2018. Our next webinar, focusing on academic job search in TESOL/SLW, has been scheduled for October 19, 3-4 pm (EST). Those of you not able to attend the webinar can access the recording available shortly after this event. Along with the webinars, we plan to continue book club discussions. Our very first book club coordinated by Betsy Gilliland and Sarah Henderson-Lee took place in the spring and summer;over 100 people participated. The selected book was Christine Pearson Casanave’s Controversies in L2 Writing (second edition). The next book for our book club will be announced soon. Please stay tuned!

I’d like to end with an informal announcement. We are in the process of preparing for our SLWIS leadership elections. More information about the nominee process will be announced soon. Please let us know if you would like to join our team!

Thank you for continuing to support our community. I hope you enjoy the newsletter.

Best wishes,

Tanita Saenkhum, Chair (2018-2019)

LETTER FROM THE EDITORS


Elena Shvidko

 
Ilka Kostka

Greetings SLWIS Members!

Welcome to the October 2018 issue of SLW News! It is hard to believe that the year is drawing to a close. We appreciate your readership and article contributions and look forward to seeing you at the 2019 TESOL Convention in Atlanta, Georgia.

In this issue, SLWIS Chair Tanita Saenkhum will provide a short report on the SLWIS’s TESOL 2018 sessions and discuss ways that IS members can stay connected throughout the year.

This issue features several articles on different topics related to second language writing. Heng Hartse discusses a non-error based teaching approach to L2 writers’ texts; Nezami Nav shares a lesson plan on multimodal text analysis; Silva, Yang, Shin, Sun, and Tran provide a comprehensive review of L2 writing scholarship for 2017. We also feature an interview with Professors Dwight Atkinson and Christine Tardy, conducted by Elena Shvidko. The interview is based on their presentation given at the Symposium on Second Language Writing, which was held this past August in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Our regular section, Graduate Student Spotlight, features Tamara Roose, a doctoral student from the Ohio State University. We always like to hear from our graduate students, so if you are a master’s or doctoral student and would like to contribute to our Graduate Student Spotlight section, please contact Elena Shvidko for more details. Finally, we feature a review of the volume Engaging students in academic literacies: Genre-based pedagogy for K-5 classrooms (Brisk, 2015) reviewed by Anna Davis. We are interested in hearing your thoughts about recent books on L2 writing and we encourage you to share your opinions with the SLW News readers. For more information about book reviews, contact Steven Bookman.

We would like to thank all the authors for their invaluable contributions. We also extend our gratitude to the editorial team members for their hard work on this issue. We encourage all of you to share your teaching and research insights with the SLWIS community in the next (pre-convention) issue of SLW News, which will be published in March 2019. The deadline for submissions to this issue is January 10. For more information, please visit the Submission Guidelines in this issue.

We hope you enjoy this issue. Happy reading and have a great academic year!

Sincerely,

Elena and Ilka (on behalf of the editorial team)

SLW News Editorial Staff

Gena Bennett
Steven Bookman
Adam Clark
Ming Fang
Joel Heng Hartse
Helena Hall
Kristina Lauer
Peggy Lindsey
Elena Shvidko

ARTICLES

ON THE POSSIBILITY OF A NON-ERROR-BASED APPROACH TO SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING

In an article in the Journal of Second Language Writing, Ryuko Kubota and I (Heng Hartse & Kubota, 2014) wrote about whether a “non-error-based” approach to working with second language (L2) writers’ texts was feasible in the context of scholarly publishing. With the recent rise of sociolinguistically influenced approaches to understanding writing that recognize the reality of multilingual influences on English usage, including world Englishes (Matsuda & Matsuda, 2010), English as a Lingua Franca (ELF), (Ingvarsdóttir & Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2013), and translingual approaches (Horner, Lu, Royster, & Trimbur, 2011), we examined challenges for the acceptance of nonstandard English use in published texts, finding that even when we claim to have relatively progressive approaches to preserving the voices of multilingual scholars, the realities of the demand for polished standard written English can make this difficult.

In this short article, I would like to ask whether a non-error-based approach to L2 writing is possible in the university classroom. My question is: Can teachers of L2 writers operate with a sociolinguistic curiosity that reserves judgment about language differences, rather than using a traditional seek-and-destroy approach to looking for and correcting errors in their students’ texts? (Spoiler alert: The answer, I think, is “maybe.”)

The Subjectivity of Error Judgments

In Heng Hartse and Kubota (2014), we describe the traditional view of L2 writers’ texts as “error-based”: These texts are “usually read with an eye to how they differ from a presumed native speaker standard, often at the word and sentence level” (p. 73). Clearly, much of our work as teachers of writing involves written corrective feedback meant to help students make fewer errors, or at least write more fluently. However, what actually constitutes an error? Years of research in both first and second language writing have shown that when readers are given the opportunity to look for errors in texts, they rarely come to the same conclusions. My favorite example is Hyland and Anan’s 2006 study, which intended to examine readers’ reactions to a paragraph containing 11 errors. Most readers indeed identified the 11 errors, as well as a total of 42 additional ones.

Similarly, studies of attitudes about emerging varieties of English show that there is great variation in whether readers accept novel English usages as legitimate variations or reject them as mistakes. For instance, in Heng Hartse (2015), I found that a group of 46 experienced English language teachers, who in total identified nearly 800 usages they deemed unacceptable or incorrect in the seven L2 student essays they read, had a high level of agreement on only 3% of putative “errors.” Conversely, nearly 50% of the errors were identified as such by only one out of 46 participants; if hundreds of the “errors” were deemed so by a single teacher, perhaps the question of correctness in writing is not so simple.

This finding led me to some hard questions about my own practice as an L2 writing instructor. Although I still certainly believe there is such a thing as an “error” in English writing, I now rarely find myself using the word. The term “language difference,” which I borrow from Horner, Lu, Royster, and Trimbur’s 2011 piece advocating the translingual approach, often makes more sense to me. English usage varies for so many different reasons—language background, cultural context, genre, register, idiolect, and so on—that it may be worth reserving judgment on whether an unconventional usage is truly an error. In addition, this means that simply being the person with the red pen is not always enough to make us reliable judges of students’ language use; we have to think about what gives us the right to make certain judgments and how we explain this to students so that we earn their trust.

If so few of us can agree on what constitutes an error, and if so many of our judgments of unacceptable language seem to be idiosyncratic, what should we do? I am not always certain, but I have a few suggestions, things that I try to keep in mind when I am reading and offering feedback on a student’s text.

1. Be aware that you and other readers may have different priorities.

It is easy for writing instructors to assume that they are the ultimate arbiters of correctness, especially as native speakers or highly skilled users of the language. However, aside from agreeing on very obvious syntactic violations of the rules of English, various language experts are likely to have quite different priorities when it comes to judging which uses of language are unacceptable to readers. As a result, an inflexible insistence on one’s own personal preferences may simply lead to students’ confusion and may not be conducive to learning to write.

For this reason, I advise that instructors exercise caution and self-reflexivity when it comes to making comments, suggestions, and changes to L2 writers’ texts. Rather than making this reflexivity a source of anxiety, it should be a “teachable moment” for both students and teachers. We can all develop greater metalinguistic and metadiscursive awareness of different standards in different contexts, whether those be countries, regions, institutions, disciplines, or even classrooms. Though we may be accustomed to thinking about these differences in large-scale terms of genre and register, it is also important to think about this when it comes to the uptake of variation from standard written English, even at the grammatical level.

2. Be aware of contextual differences in varieties of English and how these affect the way texts are written and understood.

Because many of us work with students whose lives are transnational, it is also important to be aware of the varieties of English in the world. Even if one does not wholeheartedly agree with the theoretical positions of world Englishes or ELF researchers, it is important to recognize their empirical scholarship and descriptive work on varieties of languages that we are not all likely to be familiar with. Teachers and other literacy brokers would do well to familiarize themselves with the scholarship on varieties of English in the contexts their students come from. There has been descriptive work done on Englishes in many countries in Asia, Europe, and Africa, to name a few regions. It may be worthwhile to also invest in a handbook on world Englishes (such as Kachru, Kachru, & Nelson, 2006) and to keep abreast of developments in research centers like the University of Helsinki’s ELFA project and the University of Southampton’s Centre for Global Englishes.

3. Be aware of how you understand your own authority to make judgments of language use and how you communicate it to L2 student writers.

As with Point #1, some reflexivity is necessary here. As teachers, we are accustomed to being judges of language use; after all, it is part of what we are paid to do. However, there are different ways to communicate our authority to students, some more helpful than others. What lends an instructor credibility as an authority in one context (e.g., knowledge of the students’ first language in an EFL context) may not be credible in another (e.g., work experience in the students’ discipline may be more credible in some settings). We need to be more aware of the ways we can earn students’ trust by how we rhetorically position ourselves as experts who can judge their language use in ways that will ultimately be beneficial to them, rather than acting as the writing police who can “catch” writers’ mistakes.

One way of bolstering our authority is continuing professional development in our own knowledge of English (especially for native speakers, who often lack serious training in language structure), as well as educating ourselves about our students and the contexts they write in. We may be able to gain students’ trust that our judgments are legitimate with our life experience, our bilingualism, our grammatical knowledge, our deep understanding of academic institutions, or for any number of reasons. We should explore how we can strengthen our own authority in ways that benefit students, not in ways that are self-aggrandizing.

Conclusion

Research shows that teachers’ reactions to texts are idiosyncratic. Rather than allowing this to paralyze us, it should empower us to work together with our students to better understand how to prioritize feedback and error correction, be more thoughtful about the reasons for our own linguistic preferences, and learn more about how English is used in varying real-world contexts. We can keep our red pens in hand, but perhaps by attempting to shift to a non-error-based understanding of L2 writing, one that rather emphasizes variation and difference, we can wield them with more restraint and wisdom.

References

Heng Hartse, J. (2015). Acceptability and authority in Chinese and non-Chinese English teachers' judgments of language use in English writing by Chinese university students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of British Columbia, Canada.

Heng Hartse, J., & Kubota, R. (2014). Pluralizing English? Variation in high-stakes academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 24, 71–82.

Horner, B., Lu, M. Z., Royster, J. J., & Trimbur, J. (2011). Opinion: Language difference in writing: Toward a translingual approach. College English, 73, 303–321.

Hyland, K., & Anan, E. (2006). Teachers’ perceptions of error: The effects of first language and experience. System, 34(4), 509–51.

Ingvarsdóttir, H., & Arnbjörnsdóttir, B. (2013). ELF and academic writing: A perspective from the expanding circle. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2(1), 123–145.

Kachru, B., Kachru, Y., & Nelson, C. L. (Eds.). (2006).The handbook of world Englishes. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Matsuda, A., & Matsuda, P. K. (2010). World Englishes and the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 369–374.


Joel Heng Hartse is a lecturer in the Faculty of Education at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. He earned a PhD in TESL from the Department of Language & Literacy Education at the University of British Columbia. His work has appeared in the Journal of Second Language Writing, Asian Englishes, Composition Studies, and English Today. He is coauthor of Perspectives on Teaching English at Colleges and Universities in China (TESOL Press, 2015) and coeditor of the Canadian Journal for Studies in Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie.

MULTIMODAL GENRE ANALYSIS: A LESSON PLAN

Today, where technology is accessible even to very young children, written text is considered but one of the many ways through which people communicate. The affordances that technology provides give a new meaning to literacy by changing the traditional concept of writing (Elola & Oskoz, 2017; Jiang, 2018). Some of these affordances include the speed of sharing our files, the incorporation of different modes in one document, and the availability of different resources on the internet (DeVoss, 2013). These affordances also make it possible for students to include more than written alphabets in their writing in a very convenient process. This can have plenty of implications for teachers and curriculum designers specifically in second language (L2) writing, where different modes can compensate for deficiencies that L2 writers might have communicating through monomodal texts (e.g., words). That said, it is highly beneficial to design multimodal composition lessons with the goals, procedures, and assessment criteria defined and informed by empirical findings. The sources that I have found very useful for this purpose are Multimodality and Genre: A Foundation for the Systemic Analysis of Multimodal Documents (Bateman, 2008) and the first edition of Understanding and Composing Multimodal Projects: A Hacker handbook’s supplement (DeVoss, 2013).

One of the important points in DeVoss’s (2013) book is her reference to students’ need to have training in both analyzing and writing multimodal texts. Sharing the same concern, Bateman (2008) sees the importance of analyzing multimodal texts because they are complex in nature and we do not interpret the meaning that comes from multiple modes the way we do with monomodal texts. He says that multimodal documents send out a “signal” we must detect, and that we must avoid having any experiential preconceptions impact our making sense of these texts (Bateman, 2008). Inspired by this literature, my intent in this article is to describe a lesson plan for analyzing multimodal texts that I have used in my international academic writing course at Oklahoma State University. Influenced by the existing theories, I believe it is more effective for every writing endeavor to start with a kind of critical genre analysis to empower students by allowing them to understand what is expected of them in their essay writing assignments. In what follows, I describe lesson objectives and the three main steps of the plan.

The Lesson

Lesson Objectives

  1. Become familiar with the concept of multimodality.

  2. Distinguish the goals of different multimodal genres and compare them.

  3. Understand how different modes are combined in each genre to fulfill its purpose.

  4. Make connections between analysis and an essay assignment.

Step 1: Warm Up (10 minutes)

As a warm-up activity, you can show students two versions of the same essay side-by-side, projected on the screen: one with only written text and the other with some visuals accompanying the written text. Ask students, “Which text do you prefer and why?” After they respond, ask them how they think the two texts are different. Here, students usually refer to one of the texts having visuals, which can provide you with a smooth transition to the concept of multimodality.

Step 2: Introducing the Lesson (60 minutes)

Define multimodality (10 minutes): Define multimodality in a simple way for students and refer to the inclusion of more than one or two modes, such as pictures, charts, videos, and audio in the text. Ask students, “What happens when we put together all these different modes?” The response that students usually provide is that we understand the text that includes multiple modes better. Explain that texts serve different purposes and to achieve those purposes better they combine different modes, and as the purposes are different for every kind of text, the modes are combined differently.

Checklist (5 minutes): Distribute a checklist that contains the questions that guide students to identify each genre better and to be able to compare them. This checklist can serve as a tool for students to critically analyze the texts (Appendix A). Provide 3-4 minutes for students to check the questions on the checklist.

Figure 1. A poster.

 

Figure 2. A paragraph in a multimodal essay.

 

Show examples (15 minutes): Display three multimodal genres of your choice, such as a poster (Figure 1), a short instructional video, and a descriptive essay (Figure 2). Display the modes one by one and make sure to give enough time for students to fill out the checklist. Based on my experience, 5 minutes for every text is enough.

Group work (10 minutes): Depending on the number of students, group or pair students and ask them to discuss their answers to the checklist with their peers or group mates. You can devote 5 minutes to this task. After the students are done, ask them to share their analysis with the class. This last stage can take 5–10 minutes with the discussions that may arise.

Step 3: Tailoring Analysis to Assignment (20 minutes)

It is very important to tailor this lesson to students’ main assignment. In this class, students are required to write a descriptive essay. To assist them in implementing their understanding in their essay-writing process, ask them to use questions similar to the checklist to brainstorm for their own essay. Distribute the second checklist for students’ convenience (Appendix B). In fact, students can use the checklist they used to analyze different multimodal genres to decide the elements of their own multimodal descriptive essay. This activity should be done individually by students. It can take up to 10 minutes for students to think about the answers. In the last 5 minutes of the class, describe the lesson for the next session, which will be about the components of a descriptive essay. Ask students to bring their second checklist to class so you can build the next session’s lesson on this one.

Conclusion

My experience with this lesson was successful, and it engaged my students very well. I find this lesson and similar ones, in which students need to analyze texts before composing their own, highly critical. Often, writing lessons start with brainstorming and move on to the stage where students produce their own texts. However, composition courses need to incorporate sessions for text analysis before students start writing in specific genres. It seems that most composition classes skip this preliminary yet important stage. The necessity of such lessons is felt even more in teaching multimodal essays as an emerging multimodal genre. Therefore, I recommend this lesson to international composition course teachers.

References

Bateman, J. A. (2008). Multimodality and genre: A foundation for the systematic analysis of multimodal documents. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave MacMillan.

DeVoss, D. N. (2013). Understanding and composing multimodal projects: A Hacker handbooks supplement (1st ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2017). Writing with 21st century social tools in the L2 classroom: New literacies, genres, and writing practices. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 52–60.

Jiang, L. (2018). Digital multimodal composing and investment change in learners’ writing in English as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 60–72.

Appendix A

The checklist for multimodal text analysis (Adapted from DeVoss, 2013)

Questions/Genres

Text 1

Text 2

Text 3

What kind of text do you think it is?




Which modes are represented? (e.g. written words, pictures, videos, audios, etc.)




In your opinion, which mode(s) are predominant?




What do you think is the purpose of this text?




Who is the audience of this text?




Do you think the combination of different modes help the purpose of the text to be clear?





Appendix B

The checklist for students’ brainstorming

What kind of text will you be writing?

Which modes do you think you will be using?

In your opinion, which mode will be the predominant mode in your writing?

What do you think is the purpose of your writing?

Who is your audience?

Do you think the combination of different modes helps the purpose of the text to be clear?


Sara Nezami Nav is a PhD student and teaching assistant at Oklahoma State University’s TESL program. Sara’s research interests are second language academic writing, systemic functional linguistics, discourse analysis, and genre analysis.

SCHOLARSHIP ON L2 WRITING IN 2017: THE YEAR IN REVIEW


Tony Silva


Kai Yang


Ji-young Shin


Yachao Sun


Phuong Minh Tran

Introduction

Do you have difficulty keeping up with the literature in your research area? We do. Even in a relatively small field like second language (L2) writing, staying abreast of the current literature can be difficult. Since 2010, the number of publications on L2 writing has exceeded 200 per year. 2017—with nearly 340 publications—was no exception. To address this situation, we provide below an overview of scholarship on L2 writing published in 2017.

Data for this article come from a search of databases such as ERIC (Educational Information Resources Center), LLBA (Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts), PQDT (ProQuest Dissertations and Theses), Worldcat (an online database that provides access to the collections of 72,000 libraries in 170 countries)—making it the world’s most comprehensive database of information about library collections—and Amazon.com, as well as a regular perusal of more than 60 journals that, to a greater or lesser extent, typically publish articles on L2 writing. The types of publications we address include primarily journal articles, dissertations, and books (authored and edited).

A caveat: While this search was extensive, it would not be true to say that it was all inclusive. It was limited by the tools available and by the amount of time and effort that could be devoted to it. It also needs to be acknowledged that while it is somewhat international in scope, due mostly to the tools used, it has a Western bias. In short, what was found is a lot more than the tip of the iceberg, but it is certainly not the full picture.

We reviewed the materials and categorized them by topic or focus, specifically, writers, readers, texts, contexts, instruction, and assessment. We realize that our classification system, like all classification systems, is leaky and that there are certainly other useful ways to organize this body of publications. We also apologize for any 2017 publications that we have missed.

An Overview of the Publications

Journal Articles

Journal articles account for the largest portion of publications—285 out of 336 or 85% of all publications. These 285 articles appeared in 101 different journals. This would suggest an average of 2.8 articles per journal, but the distribution is greatly skewed. The top seven journals account for a little over one third of all the articles. They include (in order of most to least articles on L2 writing) the Journal of Second Language Writing, Assessing Writing, English Language Teaching, SLW News, TESOL Journal, System, and TESOL Quarterly. The foregoing plus the next seven journals account for about half of all the articles. The next seven journals include the Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, the Journal of English for Academic Purposes, the Journal of English Language Teaching, the Journal of Language Teaching & Research, the Journal of Response to Writing, Language Learning & Technology, and the Journal of Language & Linguistic Studies.

Dissertations

Doctoral dissertations accounted for the second largest portion of the scholarship on L2 writing in 2017, 41 or 12% of all publications. These dissertations were completed at 33 universities. Seven universities produced two or more dissertations on L2 writing; these include the University of Birmingham, Arizona State University, City University of New York, Georgetown University, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Michigan State University, and Northern Arizona University. Twenty-six other universities produced one L2 writing dissertation each.

Books

Thirteen books (representing approximately 4% of all publications) on L2 writing were published. Two of these were second editions of previously published books. There were nine monographs and four edited collections. The publishers include Routledge, the University of Michigan Press, NCTE, Parlor Press, Rowan & Littlefield, Sage, Springer, and Utah State University Press.

The Scholarship

Writer

Our first category is the L2 writer. In this review, L2 writers are defined as those who are writing in a language other than their first/native language(s) or mother tongue(s). In 2017, L2 writers were studied in various contexts, such as classrooms and institutional, regional, national, and international contexts. In total, there are 77 publications in this category, which are further divided into four subcategories: L2 writers’ writing processes, the L2 writer and L2 writing strategies, L2 writer identity, and L2 writers’ challenges.

L2 writers’ writing processes. The first subcategory is L2 writers’ writing processes, which consists of 28 publications. These studies explored variables in the writing processes of L2 writers from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. The topics include how self-regulation, motivation, proficiency, and gender influence L2 first-year writing achievement (Adaros); English majors’ use of self-regulatory control strategies in academic writing and how this is related to L2 motivation (Csizér & Tankó); whether first-year college writers (both L1 and L2) of English perceive a need for language instruction and the nature of the relationship between this need and self-directed language development (Ferris, Eckstein & DeHond); the role of motivation in international ESL graduate students’ engagement with writing at the university writing center (Jones); engaging undergraduate writers through motivational dynamics in the L2 writing classroom (Evans); English native and Arab EFL graduate student writers use of personal stance to interact with readers in their writing (Menkabu); implicit theories of intelligence predicting L2 writers’ motivation and feedback orientation (Waller & Papi); the influence of learner characteristics on ESP genre-based instruction and pedagogical tasks (W. Wang); L2 writers’ beliefs in first year composition classrooms and implications of these beliefs for pedagogy and curriculum design (Yang); the influence of previous L2 French or L2 English learning on L3 German writing skills (Bartelheimer, Hufeisen & Janich); the development of Spanish-English bilingual children’s writing skills (Gillanders, Franco, Seidel, Castro & Méndez); and how Spanish-English bilinguals’ use of evidence to support and develop arguments changes over time from high school through university (Kibler & Hardigree).

The studies in this subcategory also investigate how to become confident in academic writing (Chamcharatsri, Garcia & Rodriguez); the function of authorial agency of a college ESL writer in the composing process as she turned an argumentative essay into a multimodal digital video (Cimasko & Shin); the function of the individual agency of Taiwanese EAL doctoral students in navigating scholarly writing and international publishing (Ho); the effect of metacognitive judgements on L2 graduate writers’ quality of texts (Negretti); L2 writers’ use of metaphors in the process of writing (Hoang); the way in which signed languages cooperate with written languages in the composing process (Cooper & Tiên); the effect of language experiences on heritage writers’ writing proficiency (Gatti & O’Neill); the “immigrant advantage” in the writing of L3 French learners (Knouzi & Mady); the effect of first language (L1) writing system on ESL knowledge of vowel and consonant spellings (Martin); the effects of L1 frequency on foreign language acquisition (Paquot); the effect of discursive resistance on a refugee-background student’s written and oral narrative (Shapiro & Macdonald); the way in which mind maps reveal and develop genre knowledge in a graduate writing course (Wette (b)); the relationship between composing processes and coherence/cohesion in French foreign language writing skill (Yetis); an Israeli soldier’s engagement in multilingual and multimodal composing and its effect on his ways of thinking about and doing literacy (Fraiberg); how emergent multilinguals achieve their communicative goals through translanguaging in writing (Kiramba); and international multilingual student writers’ (re)negotiation of their languages and literacy practices in a first-year multilingual composition class (Prikhodko).

L2 writer and L2 writing strategies. L2 writers’ strategy use in writing constitutes another large writer subcategory, which features 31 publications. The topics in this subcategory include using Etherpad to facilitate online collaborative writing activities and help learners with different language learning strategies (Ayan & Seferoğlu); synchronous web-based collaborative writing to mediate interaction among L2 writers (Cho); informal participation in online activities to develop complexity, accuracy and fluency of L2 written products (Kusyk); corpus-based discourse information analysis to help Chinese EFL learners’ autonomy in legal case brief writing (Chen (a)); multimodal digital literacies to help L2 writers (Christiansen; Moore); blogging to help L2 writers in online language courses (L. Lee); collaborative writing practice to help adolescent ELLs in face-to-face and online contexts (Vorobel & Kim); peer review to help L2 writers at a Saudi university (Altamimi); digital tools to help French L2 writers in peer editing (Caws, Léger & Perry; Tsai); web-based peer review to help L2 writers with revision (Leijen); automated corrective feedback to facilitate L2 learning (Alsallami); traditional and e-feedback to help L2 writers (Ariyanti & Nur); coded feedback to facilitate EFL students’ revision (Buckingham & Aktuğ-Ekinci); and using written corrective feedback to facilitate L2 Spanish composition (Caras).

The studies in this subcategory also include information on how secondary school students’ ability levels influence the relevance and accuracy of their feedback to peers (Chong (b)); how to use students’ responses to facilitate teachers’ provision of more effective written feedback (Song, Hoon & Alvin; Mahfoodh; Uscinski); how to use cognitive styles and written corrective feedback to help young adult learners (Moslemi & Dastgoshadeh); how to use critical thinking to improve L2 writing performance (Indah; Soodmand, Afshar, Movassagh & Radi Arbabi); how Indonesian authors use local style in their English research writing (Arsyad & Adila); how to use grammar problem-solving strategies to improve L2 writing (Geist); how to use reverse transfer from L2 to L1 to facilitate writing (Babaii & Ramazani); how to use scaffolding mechanisms to help L2 writers’ to individually and socially share metacognition in writing (Jafarigohar & Mortazavi); how to use writing and reading knowledge of second-generation bilinguals to improve writing performance (Ardila, Garcia, Garcia, Mejia, & Vado); how to use L2 writing strategies to facilitate the developmental process of Korean students (M. Lee); how to use needs analysis to improve classroom task implementation (Mochizuki); and how a diary self-study of learning Spanish and Chinese helps in understanding “multilingualizing” composition (Severino).

L2 writer identity. L2 writer identity was addressed in ten publications. Banegas investigated L2 creative writers’ identities and writing processes; Eick, Fields, & Matsuda discussed expertise in L2 writing; Espana explored bilingual students’ identity and language ideologies; Kibler (b) elaborated a minoritized bilingual’s development of disciplinary identities through writing; A.S.J. Lee delineated multilingual writing center tutors’ and multilingual student writers’ identity enactments; Pang depicted cross-lingual and transnational identities as writer, translator, editor, and reader; Phillips explicated multilingual graduate writers’ shifting identities; Reyes studied teachers’ ethnic and cultural identities, beliefs, and practices in writing feedback; Rompogren investigated identity positioning in mainstream and multilingual first-year composition courses; and Seltzer discussed L2 writers’ identity, language, and power in a critical translingual English classroom.

L2 writers’ challenges. L2 writers’ challenges were addressed in eight publications. Aslim Yetis studied L2 writers’ writing anxiety; Jou investigated the hidden challenges of tasks in an EAP writing textbook; Langum & Sullivan discussed the challenge of a doctoral student in Sweden in producing international academic publications; Maznun, Monsefi & Nimehchisalem explored undergraduate L2 writers’ difficulties in writing introductions for research reports; Muhammad & Nair elaborated the level of pragmatic competence of L2 writing skills among Nigerian undergraduates; Ravichandran, Kretovics, Kirby & Ghosh depicted L2 graduate students’ writing challenges in grammar, vocabulary, organization, flow of ideas, critical thinking, and plagiarism; Reichelt & Li investigated challenges faced by Saudi students’ writing at a U.S. university; and Xue discussed her own experiences and challenges as an L2 writer in a US graduate creative writing program.

Summary. We presented four subcategories with respect to the writer in the scholarship on L2 writing in 2017, which are L2 writers’ writing processes, L2 writers and L2 writing strategies, L2 writer identity, and L2 writers’ challenges. In this review, motivation, collaborative writing, corrective feedback, and peer review in L2 writing research still occupy much of the scholarship. In addition, L2 writers’ L1 and L2 learning experience are mostly viewed as resources and strategies in learning an additional language, constructing identities, and facing challenges.

Reader

Reader is the second category in our review. Reader in our definition refers to instructors and students who read L2 written texts and students who read instructors’ feedback on their writing. Among 11 publications focusing on readers, three subcategories emerged. These subcategories include teachers’ practice of giving feedback, learners’ use of feedback, and reader interaction with academic texts.

Teachers’ practice of giving feedback.This subcategory is represented in four publications that investigated different types of feedback given by writing instructors in different teaching contexts.Saliu-Abdulahi, Hellekjer, & Hertzberg interviewed EFL writing teachers in Norway and concluded that their dominant tendency was to give feedback to finished texts rather than drafts. Cao examined how instructors’ knowledge and belief-systems impacted their written corrective feedback in a Chinese university. Ahern-Dodson & Reisinger studied teacher corrective feedback on students’ French composition and suggested that teachers combine written feedback with audio comments to shift from being “graders” to more engaged “readers.” Correa & Echeverri discussed how pre-service teachers’ understanding of context, purpose and audience, and perception of grammar impacted their view of academic writing.

Learners’ use of feedback.Four publications were found in the subcategory of reader. Pashazadeh's study looked at how different options for written corrective feedback (mid-focused corrections, unfocused corrections, unfocused corrections plus revision, and no corrective feedback) delayed students’ acquisition of English grammar. Maas developed the “learner-driven feedback” approach, which allowed students to become more independent writers by directing how and on what areas of their writing they should receive feedback. Rodway (b) promoted the application of dialogic collaborative feedback, which asked students to self-evaluate and self-reflect to participate more actively in the assessment process. Lastly, Ma examined how “Mark My Words,”a kind of computer-facilitated feedback, helped students reduce their writing errors.

Reader interaction with academic texts.Three articles analyzed reader interaction with academic texts. Schieman investigated how emergent bilinguals used marginal writing on their assigned course readings to facilitate their literacy learning. Hynninen & Kuteeva conducted interviews with historians and computer scientists in Finland and Sweden to determine how they perceived and understood the rules of academic writing for journals. Finally, in an asynchronous online group review setting, Saeed & Ghazali scrutinized how Arab EFL students’ comments on argumentative essays affected their revision process.

Summary. In 2017, research on the reader in L2 writing continued to pay some attention to the role of instructor’s feedback to student writing. Different modes of feedback, from text-based to online, from written corrective feedback to electronic feedback, and different feedback contexts were explored. Another area of research was reader responses to academic texts, which enriched our understanding of how the reading process impacted the L2 writing instructor’s pedagogical choices and the L2 writer’s learning strategies.

Text analysis

The third category in our review is text analysis. A total of 58 articles focused on analyzing textual features of L2 writing from different angles; these articles were further divided into eight subcategories: lexical and lexico-grammatical analysis, syntactic analysis, text coherence and progression, genre analysis, stance, error analysis, multiple measures of textual complexity, and text analysis across languages.

Lexical and lexico-grammatical analysis.Seventeen articles addressed lexical and lexico-grammatical analysis, comprising the highest number of publications on text analysis. In this subcategory, eight articles approached lexico-grammatical analysis through the use and acquisition of particular L2 lexicons in L2 writers. Topics under investigation included the use of connector words in summaries written by secondary and university level learners of French (Rivard, Minkala-Ntade, Roch-Gagné, & Gueye), the positioning of concessive clauses in Iranian writers’ texts (Rezaee & Golparvar), the use of shell nouns in Japanese and American student writing in Japanese and American corpora (Tahara), the use of shell nouns and nominalization in creating cohesion and constructing stance in English argumentative essays written by native and Korean speakers of English (C. Yoon), and the use of noun phrases in academic writing by Chinese EFL and proficient language users (Wang & Beckett). Two publications explored the relationship between data-driven learning and the lexico-grammatical competence of L2 writers regarding the use of nouns (Yilmaz) and linking adverbials (Larsen-Walker). Also on the topic of linking adverbials, Phoocharoensil took a corpus-based approach to trace how the four adverbials of result--thus, therefore, hence,and so--were used in English academic writing.

The lexical competence of L2 writers was another line of research in the subcategory of lexical and lexico-grammatical analysis. Articles in this line discussed the construction oflexical cohesion in L2 writing texts (Johnson (a)), the contribution of lexical frequency and lexical diversity to writing scores across proficiency levels (Akbari; Gonzalez), lexical diversity and the use of academic and lower frequency words in EFL academic writing (Akbari), the use of collocations in Spanish writing (Salido & Garcia), and the use of lexical collocations of native and non-native scholars of English (Demir).

In addition to lexical competence, a separate group of publications in this subcategory focused on lexical bundles in L2 writing. Ruan studied the use of lexical bundles in academic writing by Chinese college freshmen and seniors. Bychokovska & Lee compared the common misuses of lexical bundles in argumentative writing by native and Chinese speakers of English. Lastly, Alamri compared the use of moves and lexical bundles in Saudi and international journals through genre-based and corpus-driven approaches.

Syntactic analysis.The second subcategory of text analysis is syntactic analysis, the topic of seven articles. Three out of these six studies adopted a corpus-based approach to explore the use of different syntactic structures in L2 writing. Larsson developed a functional classification of the introductory “it” pattern across three parameters: academic discipline, native/nonnative speaker status, and level of achievement (lower graded vs. higher graded nonnative student texts). Chen (b) examined the use of the subordinating conjunction although of Chinese EFL learners, while Uçar & Yükselir studied the employment of the logical connector thus in Turkish EFL learners’ academic writing. Two publications looked at the use of sources by L2 writers. Ma & Qin investigated citation competence of Chinese ESL college students by identifying four factors--cognitive proficiency of source use, academic reading proficiency, academic writing proficiency, and citing motivation--in their L2 academic writing whereas Wette (a) studied the use of sources by undergraduate post-novice L2 writers in disciplinary assignments.

Text coherence and progression.Another subcategory of text analysis was research on text coherence and progression, which was addressed in five publications. Shen analyzed factors that led to text readability in L2 writing by Chinese writers. Issitt identified and measured written linguistic feature development in L2 writing by postgraduate students. Written discourse analyses were conducted in two studies to observe the thematic progression patterns in recount texts (Safitri & Bahri) and in analytical exposition texts (Setiawati, Hapsari, & Priyatmojo) produced by Indonesian L2 students. Finally, Xie examined the utilization of moves in thesis literature reviews by Chinese English-major MA students.

Genre analysis. Genre analysis continued to be a constant scholarly interest in L2 writing, which is reflected in 11 publications in our review. In 2017, L2 writing scholars approached genre analysis from varying perspectives. Argumentation as a genre in L2 writing was the topic of investigation of four publications. Hirvela (a) pointed out the fact that argumentative writing skill is important to L2 writers in various assessment contexts, from standardized tests to classroom assignments, yet argumentation in L2 writing remained an under-researched area. In the same vein, Kirkpatrick contemplated how argumentation should be taught differently in L1 and L2 classroom settings whereas Johns highlighted the need to raise students’ awareness of addressing context and audience in argumentative writing tasks. H. Yoon (a) studied argumentative essays written by Greek EFL students and concluded that textual voice elements contributed to the overall argumentative strength of a piece of writing. Other scholars were concerned with the nuances of how Polish and English native speaker linguists write differently in academic research articles (Hryniuk), and how grammatical accuracy and syntactic complexity do not change in L2 writing across the genres of narrative and argumentative writing (Yoon & Polio). Other genres under investigation are the rhetorical analysis, which was discussed via students’ creation of an infomercial (Larotta), multimodal composition and how students transitioned from print to multimodal composing (Warschauer), language description in an English for specific purposes context (Flowerdew), blog posts (Elgort), and articles written in Japanese and English (Mueller).

Stance.The next subcategory of text analysis is research on stance, represented by five publications. Stance in L2 writing was studied from multiple approaches, from intercultural comparison and analysis of metadiscourse markers to analysis of metaphor and hedging strategies. Deveci & Hmida documented a study that compared and contrasted how native speakers of English and of Arabic employed speech acts in formal emails.Duruk conducted a corpus-based study that looked at the frequency of interpersonal metadiscourse markers in academic writing by Turkish Master’s students, whereas Liardét scrutinized the use of interpersonal grammatical metaphors in Chinese EFL learners. Crosthwawite & Jiang showed through their study that explicit teaching of stance greatly facilitated persuasive academic writing. Chen & Zhang conducted an intercultural analysis of texts produced by Chinese and Anglophone academic English writers to compare their frequency of use of hedges and pragmatic competence.

Error analysis. Error analysis has also been of steady interest in the category of L2 text analysis. Studies in this subtopic examined errors in student essays in a Ghanian context (Amoakohene), error patterns in texts produced by Generation 1.5, L1 and L2 first year writing students (Doolan), errors in definite and indefinite article use in Saudi EFL writing (Alhaisoni, Gaudel, & Al-Zuoud), mistakes in subject-verb agreement and construction of complex sentences by Malaysian tertiary students (Singh; Singh, Singh, Razak, & Ravinthar), and language errors that Thai English major students tend to make, with an emphasis on the importance of explicit teacher feedback (Sermsook, Liamnimit, & Pochakorn).

Multiple measures of textual complexity. Seven publications approached text analysis through assessing linguistic complexity in L2 written products, using multiple measures. Vandommele, Van Den Branden, Van Gorp, & De Maeyer conducted multilevel analyses of the impact of collaborative multimodal writing produced by Dutch as a second language students. H. Yoon (c) analyzed essays by Chinese EFL learners in terms of topic effects, development across proficiency levels, and complexity. Two studies focused on written syntactic complexity (Mancilla, Polat, & Akcay; Mao & Jiang) and others looked at CAF (complexity, accuracy, fluency) metrics in L2 written products, either alone (Raish) or in relation to task complexity (Johnson (b); H. Yoon (b)).

Text analysis across languages. Research on text analysis across languages is represented by four publications in our review. Scholars in these studies delineated the differences in texts produced in different languages by the same multilingual writer. Jahangard & Holderread traced the process of L2 writers translating from their L1 and concluded that the translation method did not produce better writing than writing directly in the L2. Smith, Pacheco, & De Almeida depicted how 8th grade students used multimodal codemeshing in their composition process. Lindgren, Westum, Outakaski, & Sullivan explicated the meaning making in the writing of 15-year-old students composing in Finnish/Norwegian/Swedish and English. And lastly, Cuenat studied how German speaking seventh graders in Switzerland wrote in French and English as foreign languages.

Summary. In 2017, L2 writing texts were analyzed for both local and global issues. Analyses of local issues were conducted at different levels, from syntactic to lexical and lexico-grammatical, and erroneous instances, in which lexical and lexico-grammatical analysis generated the largest body of research. Global issues under examination included text coherence and progression, genre analysis, and stance analysis in which genre analysis accounted for the highest number of publications with special attention paid to argumentation in L2 writing. Compared to L2 writing scholarship in 2016, research in 2017 took a new direction in examining texts produced in different languages by the same multilingual writer. This vein of research helped to reveal both the cognitive processes and writing choices of multilingual writers.

Instruction

The field of L2 writing is deeply rooted in classroom instruction. Therefore, it is not surprising that the category of instruction is the largest in our annual review. In 2017, there were a total of 110 publications related to various aspects of L2 writing instruction. To better organize these publications, we further divided them into five subcategories: pedagogical practices, response to student writing, technology in the writing class, teacher development, and translingualism.

Pedagogical practices. In the category of instruction, considerable attention was paid to various pedagogical techniques, approaches, and curricula, whose effectiveness was investigated and reported in 67 publications.

Pedagogical techniques and strategies seem to be the smallest unit that writing teachers can implement in their pedagogical practice. How does the usage of certain techniques or strategies in classrooms improve students’ writing skills and prepare them for different writing contexts? This question has been investigated by 25 publications. The techniques/strategies under examination include Group Grid and Round Table techniques (Urunami, Bharati, & Faridi), clustering techniques and peer assessment (Widyawati & Trisanti), peer scaffolding (Ranjbar & Ghonsooly), observation journaling (Randolph), prewriting techniques such as synectics (Balkır & Topkaya) and transferring and manipulating a context (Alkhatnai), inclusive strategies (Ortmeier-Hooper), Google search techniques (Han & Shin), literacy narratives (Finn), cognitive and metacognitive writing strategies (Pitenoee, Modaberi, & Ardestani), meaning-focused pre-tasks (Abrams & Byrd), short story reading (Bartan), authentic picture books and illustrated book usage (Birketveit & Rimmereide), teaching and learning circles (Caplan & Farling), photo description and writing about their communities (Chong (d); Martinez-Álvarez & Ghiso), fanfiction (Vale), data-driven learning (DDL) (Cotos, Link, & Huffman), translation-based activities (Mbeudeu), and the Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) technique (Ibriza). Strategies also include how experienced teachers teach IELTS candidates’ writing (Ostovar-Namaghi & Safaee), how teachers organize a two-way dual language classroom (Lozano), how to develop metacultural writing competence for online intercultural communication (Xu), how to treat EAL writers ethically (Tardy & Whittig), and how to enhance multilingualism in academic writing (Menghini).

How a certain type of instruction enhances students’ writing skills has also been investigated. Research results have been reported in 18 publications. The issues addressed by these studies include how to use STEM topics and tasks to teach academic writing (Torrie), how to use student-led talk to support argumentative writing (Ossa Parra, & Proctor), how to use a Systemic Functional Linguistics conceptualization of argumentation to examine emergent arguments (Pessoa, Mitchell, & Miller), how to teach writing based on reading in an EFL context (Ren), how to provide content support to reduce L2 writers’ process burden and facilitate linguistic encoding (Révész, Kourtali, & Mazgutova), and how to add context to EFL instruction to improve writing outcomes (Tang). Issues also include how thematic progression instruction affects college students’ writing (Wei), how explicit language instruction impacts students’ writing (Wiley & McKernan), how teaching a prescriptive paragraph structure model influences L2 writers’ argumentation (Rodway (a)), how strategy instruction (Göy; C. Han), teaching based on product and process writing (Jouzdani, Biria, & Mohammadi), and different types of scaffolds (Hemmati & Mortazavi) impact students’ writing and writing regulatory skills, how metacognition-based intervention affects coherence and cohesion in EFL students’ writing production (Briesmaster & Etchegaray), how source-based writing practice impacts EFL learners’ writing abilities (Gholami & Alinasab), and how flipped instruction affects students’ foreign language writing skills differently from a lecture-based writing class (Ekmekci). In addition, Hsu investigated the instructional input and students’ uptake of high school EFL writers’ writing processes. Fernandez, Peyton, & Schaetzel surveyed writing instruction in adult ESL programs to see if teaching practices met adult learner needs.

Investigations of the effectiveness of different teaching approaches constitute another important part of pedagogical practices. Teaching approaches investigated by L2 writing scholars in 2017 included a tutoring approach (Wu & Guerra), a reading-writing integration approach (Malova; Hirvela (b)), a genre-based approach (Abdel-Malek; Gómez Burgos), a principled eclectic approach (Alharbi), a flipped learning approach (Lee & Yilmaz), a product approach (Gardner), a context model-based approach (Lin), and approaches with critical thinking embedded (Chason, Loyet, Sorenson, & Stoops) and with systemic functional linguistic-based genre pedagogy and task-based language teaching combined (Yasuda). In addition, four books investigated and synthesized approaches that can be implemented in L2 writing classrooms. For example, Bitchener investigated approaches that can be employed by supervisors to help address the writing issues that may emerge during the thesis/dissertation journey. Bitchener, Storch, and Wette reviewed instructional approaches in teaching writing for academic purposes to multilingual students. Polio (a) reviewed the activities, approaches, and real-life writing tasks and genres that are the most applicable and useful for the language teaching classroom. And Mott-Smith, Tomaš, and Kostka introduced approaches for teaching effective source use. Among all pedagogical approaches investigated in the literature, the topic of collaborative writing and its impact on students’ writing skill development stood out and was discussed in four publications. The issues around collaborative writing include how peer-mediated/collaborative writing and individual writing modes affect students’ writing fluency, accuracy, and complexity (Soleimani, Modirkhamene, & Sadeghi); how student-selected and teacher assigned pairs worked differently while students were engaged in collaborative writing (Mozaffari); whether students’ independent writing improved after whole-class collaborative writing (Caplan), and how collaborative work affected students’ L2 writing achievement (Isnaini).

Finally, a number of studies investigated how a specific curriculum impacted students’ L2 writing and enhanced students’ writing skill development. Curriculum works as the largest unit in pedagogical practices. The curricula under investigation include an essay writing course (Seçer & Ҫeliköz), an EAP course with critical thinking instruction (Tanaka & Gilliland), a collaborative course, which paired a science communication course and language course (Welsh, Shaw, & Fox), and an audience-focused writing curriculum (Durán). In addition, Elola & Oskoz argued that L2 curriculum must incorporate broader notions of literacies that are associated with the development of new digital genres.

Response to student writing. Although approaches to teaching composition have changed dramatically, a focus on response to student writing has remained constant. Both teachers and students think that feedback on student writing is essential in L2 writing instruction. This explains why responding to student writing constitutes another large subcategory under instruction in L2 writing scholarship. The question of how to provide the most effective feedback is investigated by 13 publications.

L2 writing scholars have examined the effectiveness of a variety types of feedback. They include text-based interactional feedback (Warsidi), comprehensive corrective feedback (X. Zhang (b)), multimodal feedback (Debbek), translation plus oral corrective feedback (Ito), and peer review (Kurihara).

Other scholars made comparisons among different feedback types to investigate which is more effective. These comparisons were made between direct written feedback and direct written feedback combined with written reasons behind the errors (Moradian, Miri, & Nasab), between feedback from EssayCritic and feedback from collaborating peers (Mørch, Engeness, Cheng, Cheung, & Wong), between video feedback and written feedback (Özkul & Ortaçtepe), and between oral feedback and written feedback (Chamcharatsri).

Scholars concerned with response to student writing also related corrective feedback to writers’ individual differences and to the use of technology. For example, one study investigated the role of grammatical knowledge in moderating the effectiveness of both direct and indirect written corrective feedback (Brown). Another study examined students’ peer feedback using Turnitin as peer review tool in first-year writing classes (Li & Li). Others examined the general effectiveness of corrective feedback in an EFL context by drawing from both quantitative and qualitative evidence (X. Wang) and learners’ and teachers’ preferences for types of written corrective feedback in an EFL context (Li & He).

Technology in the writing class. As technology rapidly develops, its widespread implementation in L2 writing instruction is not surprising. In 2017, writing teachers’ optimism and enthusiasm about the use of computer-assisted tools to facilitate students’ writing processes and improve their written products continued. In this study, we found 14 publications that addressed various topics related to the computer-assisted teaching of L2 writing. For example, studies have been conducted on reviewing the practical ways educators can implement the use of technology in their English and language arts classrooms (Alrubail) and on investigating how mobile learning and the use of a range of apps can foster peer and self-editing (Hojeij & Hurley).

Besides this type of general review, researchers also took a narrower approach to investigate how technology revolutionizes L2 writing instruction by focusing on the implementation of specific types of computer-assisted tools. Among these studies, three investigated the effects of wikis in developing students’ writing skills, reducing their writing anxiety, and shaping their interactions (Kassem; Li & Zhu (a); Li & Zhu (b)). Many scholars investigated how other techniques, such as computer-generated feedback (Z. Zhang), digital handwriting apps (Chen, Carger, & Smith), podcasts (Popova, Kirschner, & Joiner; Quaddour), computer-based multimodal composition (Dzekoe), On-Line Discussion Forum (ODF) (Akmal), “ScribJab” (a multilingual iPad application and website) (Dagenais, Toohey, Bennett Fox, & Singh), data-driven and web-based practical support tools (Mizumoto, Hamatani, & Imao), and Writing Online Workshop (Kunkel), facilitated students’ writing and reviewing processes.

Teacher development. How teachers perceive their pedagogical practices and how they develop professionally have significant impact on L2 writing instruction. In 2017, eight studies investigated issues related to writing teacher practice and development. For example, research has been conducted to investigate how expatriate English writing instructors in Chinese universities teach and reflect on their roles (Shi), how instructors reflect on the teacher-student relationship in tutoring conferences (Shvidko (d)), how writing tutors utilize gesture and manipulate pen and paper to scaffold L2 writers (Kim & Cho), how mainstream teacher candidates’ evaluation of ESL writing is influenced by the ethnic identity of a writer and the background of a rater (Kang & Veitch), how novice Chinese EFL teachers’ writing beliefs and practices affect students (X. Zhang (a)), how writing teachers of multilingual students conceptualize their pedagogical practices (Racelis), how Saudi EFL teachers support, apply, and understand the theory of integration between reading and writing (Almalki & Soomro), and how ESL teachers explain their pedagogical decisions for L2 writing instruction (Chenowith).

Translingualism. Translingual writing continues to be an important theme in the category of instruction. In addition to discussing translingualism solely at theoretical and conceptual levels, L2 writing scholars try to apply translingualism to pedagogical practices. For example, scholars have investigated the possibility of using translingual identity as pedagogy by international teaching assistants (Zheng), how English as a Lingua Franca and translingualism in EAP and ESP classes can benefit from intercultural rhetoric (McIntosh, Connor, & Gokpinar-Shelton), how writing center tutors can help translingual writers to recognize, define, understand, and expand their linguistic choices (Newman), how translanguaging can work as a practice and as a pedagogical tool to defy the monolingual tradition (Musanti & Rodríguez), how a teacher’s use of “buddy pairs” created a classroom environment where students could task risks and participate in translanguaging (Bauer, Presiado, & Colomer), how a Japanese student and her instructor negotiated voice in a translingual classroom (Canagarajah & Matsumoto), and the practices of pedagogizing translingual practices (De Costa, Wang, Singh, Fraiberg, Milu, & Canagarajah; Horner & Tetreault).

Summary. In this section, we reviewed the scholarship on L2 writing related to instruction. We created five major subcategories: pedagogical practices, response to student writing, technology in the writing class, teacher development, and translingualism. From this overview we can see that, as in previous years, instruction continues to attract the greatest amount of scholarly attention from L2 writing specialists. Scholarship on instruction has covered a wide range of topics, especially in the subcategory of pedagogical practices. As for scholarship in the future, we expect more studies investigating the effectiveness of various computer-assisted tools and more studies examining the applicability of translingualism in L2 writing classrooms.

Assessment

There are 46 studies that focus on writing assessment, accounting for approximately 14 percent of publications on L2 writing in 2017. We divided these studies into six subcategories. The subcategories related to measurement and validation have the largest number of studies, 21 out of 46, but subcategories that emphasize assessment from pedagogical or/and learning perspectives also stand out, comprising 14 studies. Other subcategories focus on rating, technology, and course/program assessment.

Measurement. Measurement is a classic theme in the category of writing assessment, and three studies paid focal attention to measuring writing competence. The topics include the measurement of the complexity, accuracy, and fluency of written Arabic (Raish), lexical richness and formulaic competence in writing assessment (Bestgen), and an integrated approach to measuring achievement in writing development (Abdulmajeed).

Validation. Validation is the largest subcategory, accounting for 18 studies. The majority of the studies in this group investigated relationships among different constructs or variables. For example, general English proficiency was examined in relation to writing productive ability (Benzehaf), disciplinary writing performance (Biber, Reppen, & Staples), or vocabulary knowledge (Karakoç & Köse), or as a predictor of international business students' English writing performance (Wong, Delante, & Wang). Writing proficiency or scores were also explored in terms of their relationships with specific features, such as syntactic complexity (Park), organization (Plakans & Gebril (b)), or voice (H. Yoon (a); Zhao), and with different genres, narrative versus expository writing (Jeong).

In addition to other constructs, writing proficiency was studied in relation to various variables. Deygers, Van den Branden, and Peters compared L1 versus L2 performance while Isbell looked into examinee age and rater effects. Other studies investigated characteristics of testing contexts, for example, the effects of keyboard type (Ling (a); Ling (b)), and task related features, such as planning time (Tabari).

Other validation studies examined English with a writing strategy inventory or scale (Hwang & Lee; Raoofi, Gharibi, & Malaki), computer literacy and the construct validity in CBI writing assessment (Jin & Yan), or a local placement test in a higher education EFL program (Johnson & Riazi).

Assessment for teaching and learning. One noticeable trend in the writing assessment category is the effort to situate assessment in learning and teaching contexts. Six studies addressed the issue of testing embedded in teaching and learning. Sadegi & Rahmati proposed integrating assessment as, for, and of learning in a large-scale exam preparation course, and Llosa & Malone explored students’ and instructors’ perceptions of writing tasks and performance on TOEFL iBT versus university writing courses. In particular, formative assessment and feedback were centered around assessment for teaching and learning as well. Naghdipour suggested various ways to incorporate formative assessment in Iranian EFL writing. Two studies emphasized feedback for learning-oriented assessment by discussing classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts (I. Lee) and the impact of instructor feedback in a task that integrates reading and writing (Kim & Kim). Dlaska & Krekeler looked at the effect of grades on the effectiveness of corrective feedback.

More specifically, eight studies paid focal attention to how learner-centered assessment facilitates assessment for learning. Three studies provided insights into understanding peer and teacher assessment by comparing various feedback practices (Ayachi; Yu & Hu) or focusing on a specific tool, for example, assessment dialogues using e-writing portfolios (Chong (a)). Other studies put more emphasis on student voices and perceptions of tests, such as placement tests (Ferris, Evans, & Kurzer) and the TOEFL iBT writing section (E. Kim (a)), or in a very particular context, as the Saudi EFL context (Obeid). Other studies add insight into assessment by focusing on learners’ agency and their active engagement in writing as a process. Zarei, Pourghasemian and Jalai examined learners’ writing task representation in an EAP course, and found that students with process-oriented task representation outperformed students with a product-oriented perspective on writing while Jayne presented the design and implementation of processfolio as an alternative assessment to promote teaching and learning.

Rating. In the scholarship on writing assessment, rating continued to attract considerable attention. Studies on rating were conducted with two different foci, rating scales rubrics and rater-related variables. Kuiken & Vedder proposed functional adequacy in L2 writing as the basis for a new rating scale, and Rakedzon & Baram-Tsabari discussed a rubric for assessing academic and popular science writing skills. Studies on raters covered inexpert EFL raters’ rating and decision-making behaviors (T. Han), the impact of rater negotiation (Trace, Janssen, & Meier), and the relationship between textual characteristics and rating quality (Wind, Stager, & Patil).

Technology in assessment. The use of technology for assessment continued to be studied as a main subcategory in the digitalized age. Automated scoring and measurement in L2 essays were investigated with such specific populations as Chinese engineering students (Liu, Wang, Xu, & Liu) as well as with syntactic complexity in corpus-based L2 writing research (Lu). Computerized feedback was also analyzed for various purposes, such as the effect on self-correction (Chacón-Beltrán) and the comparison between teacher, peer, and computer-generated feedback (Chong (c)).

Course/Program assessment. The last subcategory, the assessment of a course or a program is another topic in L2 writing assessment. Aryadoust evaluated a tertiary-level writing course based on Kirkpatrick’s model while Cheatle elucidated the relationship between ELL students and writing centers for meaningful/effective assessment.

Summary. Studies on writing assessment in 2017 addressed a wide range of issues, encompassing both canonical areas of interests (e.g., measurement, validation, rating, course/program assessment) and topics constructing a new paradigm for writing assessment, assessment for learning and teaching. Aligned with this trend, technology was explored not only to enhance the validity and reliability of writing assessment but also to empower writer agency and promote learner-centered assessment. Future studies are expected to continue to probe these topics with more contextualized and sophisticated methods and topics.

Context

The last category for the 2017 yearly review is context, which includes 34 studies. We divided this category into three subcategories, language learning contexts, non-conventional institutional contexts, and disciplinary dialogues.

Language learning contexts. The studies in this subcategory highlighted the importance of learning contexts in understanding current issues in L2 writing. Issues in EFL settings were frequently addressed, such as secondary schools in Korea (E. Kim (b)), higher education in Korea (S. E. Lee), and content and language integrated learning contexts (Roquet & Pérez-Vidal). ESL settings served as a meaningful resource as well. Hsin & Snow argued for a benefit of bilingualism in social perspective-taking acts, and Olson, Matuchniak, Chung, Stumpf, & Farkas recommended using cognitive strategies to reduce achievement gaps in writing for Latino ELLs, with both studies in the K-12 context. Similarly, You studied multilingual international students’ writing in a business school from a translingual perspective. Two studies dealt with multiple settings. Wu & Zhang compared the effects of language environment (EFL and ESL) on Chinese graduate students’ perceptions of English writing and their writing performance, while Gruber & Tonkyn made a comparison of secondary schools in England and Germany in terms of writing in French.

Non-conventional institutional contexts. Some scholars were more interested in L2 writing in less canonical institutions. Schreiber & Đurić expounded on issues in an EFL writing center outside the university, while Smith looked into a workbook for writing centers in multilingual settings. Online writing has become another essential non-conventional writing context. Li & Storch investigated affordances, multimodality, and collaboration in L2 writing as computer-mediated communication. Yim & Warschauer reviewed web-based collaborative writing in L2 contexts and suggested methodological applications from text mining.

Disciplinary Dialogues. In our review, disciplinary dialogues refer to the broad discussion of topics within the field of L2 writing. This subcategory includes interviews of graduate students and experts in the field of L2 writing (Shvidko (a)-(g)); research synthesis, for example, publications on research methods and agendas in L2 writing (Polio (b); Polio (c)); and a review of scholarship published in 2016 in L2 writing (Silva, Yang, Shvidko, & Shin). We included short pieces from the Disciplinary Dialogues section in the Journal of Second Language Writing (JSLW), which are discussions of various current issues in L2 writing. We also included discussions encompassing general topics from a comprehensive perspective, such as controversies in L2 writing (Casanave), a review on the 16th Symposium of Second Language Writing (Matsuda, Chinokul, & Sukavatee), and L2 writing scholarship in the JSLW (Pelaez-Morales). In addition, there were more focused discussions, addressing such topics as scholarship on argumentative writing (Atkinson; Kibler (a); Plakans & Gebril; Stapleton) and explicit language instruction based on systemic functional linguistics (Pessoa). Notably, 2017 scholarship paid focal attention to multimodal composition and computer-mediated communication, refining digital literacy in L2 writing in relation to pedagogical impact, learning processes, and disciplinary identity (Belcher; Manchón; Miller-Cochran; Qu; Xu & Matsuda; Yi; Zheng & Warschauer). Lastly, disciplinary writing was focused also on discipline-specific writing (Flowerdew & Costley) and the professionalization of L2 writing (Matsuda, Snyder, & O’Meara).

Summary. Scholarship on writing context in 2007 was notably diversified in terms of the range of its focal discussion. The topics and issues were broadened to encompass areas which received little attention in the previous literature, such as foreign language writing, K-12 learning contexts, and other non-conventional L2 writing settings. Disciplinary discussion was also enriched by linking discipline-wide core issues to contexts with cutting-edge technology or to language learning theories and practices. This diversification is expected to continue, promoting useful insights into the role of context in L2 writing.

Conclusion

It is clear from the foregoing that L2 writing continues to be a vibrant and growing area of study overall. This growth is most evident in the number of journal articles on L2 writing as well as the number of journals in which these articles appear. In addition, the production of L2 writing dissertations and books (both edited and authored) remains strong. With regard to topic and focus, the ranking of the categories of publications on L2 writing remains fairly consistent. From most to least publications, we have the categories of instruction (with accounts of pedagogical practices being most common), writer (with a primary focus on L2 writers’ processes and strategies), text (led by lexical and syntactic analysis), assessment (concentrated on the issue of validation), context (dominated by disciplinary dialogues), and reader (focused on teacher feedback and its use by students).

References:

Abdel-Malek, M. (2017). A genre-based approach to teaching the written recount in Arabic: A mixed methods investigation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.

Abdulmajeed, H. (2017). An integrated approach to achievement: Measuring the development of writing skills in Kurdish learners of English as a foreign language (EFL). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham.

Abrams, Z., & Byrd, D. (2017). The effects of meaning-focused pre-tasks on beginning-level L2 writing in German: An exploratory study. Language Teaching Research, 21(4), 434-453.

Adaros, A. (2017). The influence of self-regulation, motivation, proficiency, and gender on L2 first-year writing achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University.

Ahern-Dodson, J., & Reisinger, D. (2017). Moving beyond corrective feedback: (Re)engaging with student writing in L2 through audio response. Journal of Response to Writing, 3(1), 129-152.

Akbari, N. (2017). Lexical diversity and the use of academic and lower frequency words in the academic writing of EFL students. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 40(1), 3-18.

Akmal. (2017). Impact of web based learning on EFL: Using On-Line Discussion Forum (ODF) to enhance students’ writing skill. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(8), 1345-1348.

Alamri, B. (2017). Connecting genre-based and corpus-driven approaches in research articles: A comparative study of moves and lexical bundles in Saudi and international journals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of New Mexico.

Alhaisoni, E., Gaudel, D., & Al-Zuoud, K. (2017). Article errors in the English writing of Saudi EFL preparatory year students. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 8(1), 72-78.

Alharbi, S. (2017). Principled eclecticism: Approach and application in teaching writing to ESL/EFL students. English Language Teaching, 10(2), 33-39.

Alkhatnai, M. (2017). Transplanting and manipulating context from a corpus: A pre-writing strategy. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(3), 516-522.

Almalki, M., & Soomro, A. (2017). Practitioners’ perspectives on the application of integration theory in the Saudi EFL context. English Language Teaching, 10(6), 93-102.

Alrubail, R. (2017). Digital writing for English language learners. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Alsallami, N. (2017). L2 learners’ perceptions and preferences of automated corrective feedback. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University.

Altamimi, R. (2017). The efficacy of peer review in EFL writing classes: The case of undergraduate students in a Saudi university. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Memphis.

Amoakohene, B. (2017). Error analysis of students’ essays: A case of first year students of the University of Health and Allied Sciences. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(4), 54-68.

Ardila, A., Garcia, K., Garcia, M., Mejia, J., & Vado, G. (2017). Writing and reading knowledge of Spanish/English second-generation bilinguals. Reading and Writing, 30(2), 387-400.

Ariyanti, A., & Nur, D. (2017). Correcting feedback on essay composition: EFL students’ preferences between traditional and e-feedback. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 2(3), 191-200.

Arsyad, S., & Adila, D. (2017). Using local style when writing in English: The citing behaviour of Indonesian authors in English research article introductions. Asian Englishes, 1-16.

Aryadoust, V. (2017). Adapting Levels 1 and 2 of Kirkpatrick’s model of training evaluation to examine the effectiveness of a tertiary-level writing course. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 12(2), 151-179.

Aslim Yetis, V. (2017). Sources of writing anxiety: A study on French language teaching students. International Education Studies, 10(6), 72-86.

Atkinson, D. (2017). Disciplinary Dialogues section: Arguing about argumentation in Second Language Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 68.

Ayachi, Z. (2017). Peer and teacher assessment in EFL writing compositions: The case of advanced English major students in Jendouba, Tunisia. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 17(1), 156-168.

Ayan, E., & Seferoğlu, S. (2017). Using Etherpad for online collaborative writing activities and learners with different language learning strategies. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 205-233.

Babaii, E., & Ramazani, K. (2017). Reverse transfer: Exploring the effects of foreign language rhetorical patterns on L1 writing performance of Iranian EFL learners. RELC Journal, 48(3), 341-356.

Balkır, N. & Topkaya, E. (2017). Synectics as a prewriting technique: Its effects on writing fluency and lexical complexity. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 325-347.

Banegas, D. (2017). Second language creative writers: Identities and writing processes. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 16(1), 59-61.

Bartan, Ö. (2017). The effects of reading short stories in improving foreign language writing skills. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 17(1), 59-74.

Bartelheimer, L., Hufeisen, B., & Janich, N. (2017). Do L2 French or L2 English learners write better L3 German texts? The influence of prior foreign language study on L3 German writing skills: the GaE/F Project. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht, 22(1), 208-216.

Bauer, E., Presiado, V., & Colomer, S. (2017). Writing through partnership: Fostering translanguaging in children who are emergent bilinguals. Journal of Literacy Research, 49(1), 10-37.

Belcher, D. (2017). On becoming facilitators of multimodal composing and digital design. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 80-85.

Benzehaf, B. (2017). Comparing learners’ general proficiency levels with their writing productive ability: How correlated are they?. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 43-58.

Bestgen, Y. (2017). Beyond single-word measures: L2 writing assessment, lexical richness and formulaic competence. System, 69, 65-78.

Biber, D., Reppen, R., & Staples, S. (2017). Exploring the relationship between TOEFL iBT scores and disciplinary writing performance. TESOL Quarterly, 51(4), 948-960.

Birketveit, A., & Rimmereide, H. (2017). Using authentic picture books and illustrated books to improve L2 writing among 11-year-olds. The Language Learning Journal, 45(1), 100-116.

Bitchener, J. (2017). A guide to supervising non-native English writers of theses and dissertations: Focusing on the writing process. London: Taylor and Francis.

Bitchener, J., Storch, N., & Wette, R. (2017). Teaching writing for academic purposes to multilingual students: Instructional approaches. New York, NY: Routledge.

Briesmaster, M., & Etchegaray, P. (2017). Coherence and cohesion in EFL students’ writing production: The impact of a metacognition-based intervention. Íkala, 22(2), 183-202.

Brown, D. (2017). The interaction between grammatical knowledge and explicitness in L2 written corrective feedback. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University.

Buckingham, L., & Aktuğ-Ekinci, D. (2017). Interpreting coded feedback on writing: Turkish EFL students’ approaches to revision. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 26, 1-16.

Bychkovska, T., & Lee, J. (2017). At the same time: Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 university student argumentative writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 30, 38-52.

Canagarajah, S., & Matsumoto, Y. (2017). Negotiating voice in translingual literacies: From literacy regimes to contact zones. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(5), 390-406.

Cao, P. (2017). ESL teachers’ knowledge of and experience with written corrective feedback. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.

Caplan, N. (2017). The contributions of joint construction to intermediate-level ESL students' independent writing: A mixed-methods analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware.

Caplan, N., & Farling, M. (2017). A dozen heads are better than one: Collaborative writing in genre‐based pedagogy. TESOL Journal, 8(3), 564-581.

Caras, A. (2017). “Why are these underlined?” Depth of processing and type of written corrective feedback in L2 Spanish compositions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.

Casanave, C. (2017). Controversies in second language writing: Dilemmas and decisions in research and instruction. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Caws, C., Léger, C., & Perry, B. (2017). Peer editing in French using digital tools: A micro-analysis of learner-computer interactions. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 77-97.

Chacón-Beltrán, R. (2016). Free-form writing: computerized feedback for self-correction. ELT Journal, 71(2), 141-149.

Chamcharatsri, B. (2017). “I could express feeling completely”: Inviting L2 writers to use L1 in peer responses. Journal of Response to Writing, 3(2), 63-73.

Chamcharatsri, B., Garcia, M., & Rodriguez, F. (February 2017). Becoming confident in academic writing: Lessons learned from undergraduate L2 writers. SLW News.

Chason, L., Loyet, D., Sorenson, L., & Stoops, A. (2017). An approach for embedding critical thinking in second language paragraph writing. TESOL Journal, 8(3), 582-612.

Cheatle, J. (2017). Challenging perceptions: Exploring the relationship between ELL students and writing centers. PRAXIS: A Writing Center Journal, 14(3), 21-31.

Chen, C., & Zhang, L. (2017). An intercultural analysis of the use of hedging by Chinese and Anglophone academic English writers. Applied Linguistics Review, 8(1), 1-34.

Chen, J. (2017a). A corpus-based discourse information analysis of Chinese EFL learners’ autonomy in legal case brief writing. English Language Teaching, 10(4), 150-164.

Chen, J. (2017b). A corpus-based study of Chinese EFL learners’ employment of “although”. English Language Teaching, 10(8), 51-62.

Chen, Y., Carger, C., & Smith, T. (2017). Mobile-assisted narrative writing practice for young English language learners from a funds of knowledge approach. Language Learning & Technology, 21(1), 28-41.

Chenowith, N. (2017). A multicase study of second language writing instruction for emergent multilingual adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kent State University.

Cho, H. (2017). Synchronous web-based collaborative writing: Factors mediating interaction among second-language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 37-51.

Chong, I. (2017a). Assessment dialogues between teachers and students using e-writing portfolios. TESOL Journal, 8(1), 240-243.

Chong, I. (2017b). How students’ ability levels influence the relevance and accuracy of their feedback to peers: A case study. Assessing Writing, 31, 13-23.

Chong, I. (2017c). Reconsidering teacher, peer, and computer-generated feedback. TESOL Journal, 8(4), 886-893.

Chong, I. (2017d). Teaching students how to write a description with photos. English Teaching Forum, 55(2), 32-37.

Christiansen, M. (2017). Multimodal L2 composition: EAP in the digital era. International Journal of Language Studies, 11(3), 53-72.

Cimasko, T., & Shin, D. (2017). Multimodal resemiotization and authorial agency in an L2 writing classroom. Written Communication, 34(4), 387-413.

Cooper, A., & Tiên, N. (2017). Composing with signed and written languages: Our process. Composition Studies, 45(1), 13-18.

Correa, D., & Echeverri, S. (2017). Using a systemic functional genre-based approach to promote a situated view of academic writing among EFL pre-service teachers. How, 24(1), 44-62.

Cotos, E., Link, S., & Huffman, S. (2017). Effects of DDL technology on genre learning. Language Learning & Technology, 21(3), 104-130.

Crosthwaite, P., & Jiang, K. (2017). Does EAP affect written L2 academic stance? A longitudinal learner corpus study. System, 69, 92-107.

Csizér, K., & Tankó, G. (2017). English majors’ self-regulatory control strategy use in academic writing and its relation to L2 motivation. Applied Linguistics, 38(3), 386-404.

Cuenat, M. (2017). Trilingual text production for secondary school children with different learning conditions. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht, 22(1), 152-166.

Dagenais, D., Toohey, K., Bennett Fox, A., & Singh, A. (2017). Multilingual and multimodal composition at school: ScribJab in action. Language and Education, 31(3), 263-282.

De Costa, P., Wang, X., Singh, J., Fraiberg, S., Milu, E., & Canagarajah, S. (2017). Pedagogizing translingual practice: Prospects and possibilities. Research in the Teaching of English, 51(4), 464-472.

Debbek, J. (2017). ELL teachers’ and students’ perceptions and use of multimodal feedback on written work. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington State University.

Demir, C. (2017). Lexical collocations in English: A comparative study of native and non-native scholars of English. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(1), 75-87.

Deveci, T., & Hmida, I. (2017). The request speech act in emails by Arab university students in the UAE. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(1), 194-214.

Deygers, B., Van den Branden, K., & Peters, E. (2017). Checking assumed proficiency: Comparing L1 and L2 performance on a university entrance test. Assessing Writing, 32,43-56.

Dlaska, A., & Krekeler, C. (2017). Does grading undermine feedback? The influence of grades on the effectiveness of corrective feedback on L2 writing. The Language Learning Journal, 45(2), 185-201.

Doolan, S. (2017). Comparing patterns of error in Generation 1.5, L1, and L2 First-Year Composition writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 1-17.

Durán, L. (2017). Audience and young bilingual writers: Building on strengths. Journal of Literacy Research, 49(1), 92-114.

Duruk, E. (2017). Analysis of metadiscourse markers in academic written discourse produced by Turkish researchers. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(1), 1-9.

Dzekoe, R. (2017). Computer-based multimodal composing activities, self-revision, and L2 acquisition through writing. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2), 73-95.

Eick, T., Fields, G., & Matsuda, P. K. (2017). Expertise in second language writing: The 15th symposium on second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37, 59-60.

Ekmekci, E. (2017). The flipped writing classroom in Turkish EFL context: A comparative study on a new model. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 151-167.

Elgort, I. (2017). Blog posts and traditional assignments by first-and second-language writers. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2), 52-72.

Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2017). Writing with 21st century social tools in the L2 classroom: New literacies, genres, and writing practices. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 52-60.

Espana, C. (2017). Escribiendo para desahogarme: Release and resistance in a middle school bilingual writing workshop. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York.

Evans, K. (2017). Engaging undergraduate writers: A study of motivational dynamics in the second language writing classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Davis.

Fernandez, R., Peyton, J., & Schaetzel, K. (2017). A survey of writing instruction in adult ESL programs: Are teaching practices meeting adult learner needs?. Journal of Research and Practice for Adult Literacy, Secondary, and Basic Education, 6(2), 5-20.

Ferris, D., Evans, K., & Kurzer, K. (2017). Placement of multilingual writers: Is there a role for student voices?. Assessing Writing, 32, 1-11.

Ferris, D., Eckstein, G., & DeHond, G. (2017). Self-directed language development: A study of first-year college writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 51(4), 418.

Finn, H. (2017). Linking the past to the present: Using literacy narratives to raise ESL students’ awareness about reading and writing relationships. Teaching English in the Two Year College, 44(3), 276-288.

Flowerdew, J. (2017). Corpus-based approaches to language description for specialized academic writing. Language Teaching, 50(1), 90-106.

Flowerdew, J., & Costley, T. (2017). Discipline-specific writing: Theory into practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Fraiberg, S. (2017). Pretty bullets: Tracing transmedia/translingual literacies of an Israeli soldier across regimes of practice. College Composition and Communication, 69(1), 87.

Gardner, S. (2017). Counting words: Successful sentences for beginning ESL adult learners using the product approach. TESOL Journal, 8(2), 367-384.

Gatti, A., & O'Neill, T. (2017). Who are heritage writers? Language experiences and writing proficiency. Foreign Language Annals. 50(4), 734-753.

Geist, M. (2017). Noticing grammar in L2 writing and problem-solving strategies. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 471-487.

Gholami, J., & Alinasab, M. (2017). Source-based tasks in writing independent and integrated essays. International Journal of Instruction, 10(3), 127-142.

Gillanders, C., Franco, X., Seidel, K., Castro, D. C., & Méndez, L. (2017). Young dual language learners’ emergent writing development. Early Child Development and Care, 187(3-4), 371-382.

Gómez Burgos, E. (2017). Use of the genre-based approach to teach expository essays to English pedagogy students. HOW, 24(2), 141-159.

González, M. (2017). The contribution of lexical diversity to college‐level writing. TESOL Journal, 8(4), 899-919.

Göy, N. (2017). An action research on the development of self-regulated writing strategies of Turkish EFL students. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 191-204.

Gruber, A., & Tonkyn, A. (2017). Writing in French in secondary schools in England and Germany: Are the British really ‘bad language learners’?. The Language Learning Journal, 45(3), 316-335.

Han, C. (2017). The effectiveness of application of writing strategies in writing instruction. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(2), 355-361.

Han, S., & Shin, J. (2017). Teaching Google search techniques in an L2 academic writing context. Language Learning & Technology, 21(3), 172-194.

Han, T. (2017). Scores assigned by inexpert EFL raters to different quality EFL compositions, and the raters’ decision-making behaviors. International Journal of Progressive Education, 13(1), 136-152.

Hemmati, F., & Mortazavi, M. (2017). The effect of different types of written scaffolds on EFL learners’ perception of writing self-regulatory skills. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33(1), 71-81.

Hirvela, A. (2017a). Argumentation & second language writing: Are we missing the boat?. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 69-74.

Hirvela, A. (2017b). Connecting reading & writing in second language writing instruction. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Ho, M. (2017). Navigating scholarly writing and international publishing: Individual agency of Taiwanese EAL doctoral students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 27, 1-13.

Hoang, H. (2017). Researching writing process: The case of foreign language learners' metaphor production. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hojeij, Z., & Hurley, Z. (2017). The triple flip: Using technology for peer and self-editing of writing. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(1), 1-7.

Horner, B., & Tetreault, L. (2017). Crossing divides: Exploring translingual writing pedagogies and programs. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

Hryniuk, K. (2017). Linguistics research articles written in English: Comparing native English speakers and Polish writers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 3-23.

Hsin, L., & Snow, C. (2017). Social perspective taking: a benefit of bilingualism in academic writing. Reading and Writing, 30(6), 1193-1214.

Hsu, Y. (2017). Input and uptake in high school EFL students’ multiple-draft writing process: A case study of a Taiwanese high school EFL classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.

Hwang, M., & Lee, H. (2017). Development and validation of the English writing strategy inventory. System, 68, 60-71.

Hynninen, N., & Kuteeva, M. (2017). “Good” and “acceptable” English in L2 research writing: Ideals and realities in history and computer science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 30, 53-65.

Ibriza, K. (2017). The effectiveness of cooperative integrated reading and composition (CIRC) to improve writing in descriptive texts. Journal of English Language Teaching. 6(1). 83-91.

Indah, R. (2017). Critical thinking, writing performance and topic familiarity of Indonesian EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(2), 229-236.

Isbell, D. (2017). Assessing C2 writing ability on the certificate of English language proficiency: Rater and examinee age effects. Assessing Writing, 34, 37-49.

Isnaini, H. (2017). The effectiveness of collaborative work in developing students’ L2 writing achievement across social orientation. Language in India, 17(5). 84-105

Issitt, S. (2017). Evaluating the impact of a presessional English for aademic purposes programme: A corpus based study.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham.

Ito, K. (2017). The efficacy of translation and oral corrective feedback in promoting language proficiency development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Binghamton.

Jafarigohar, M., & Mortazavi, M. (2017). The impact of scaffolding mechanisms on EFL learners’ individual and socially shared metacognition in writing. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33(3), 211-225.

Jahangard, A., & Holderread, S. (2017). Translation from L1 to L2 vs. direct writing. Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts, 3(2), 210-228.

Jayne, P. (2017). Processfolio: Uniting academic literacies and critical emancipatory action research for practitioner-led inquiry into EAP writing assessment. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 14(2-3), 158-181.

Jeong, H. (2017). Narrative and expository genre effects on students, raters, and performance criteria. Assessing Writing, 31, 113-125.

Jin, Y., & Yan, M. (2017). Computer literacy and the construct validity of a high-stakes computer-based writing assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly, 14(2), 101-119.

Johns, A. (2017). Augmenting argumentation in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 79-80.

Johnson, M. (2017a). Improving cohesion in L2 writing: a three-strand approach to building lexical cohesion. English Teaching Forum, 55(4), 2-13.

Johnson, M. (2017b). Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37, 13-38.

Johnson, R., & Riazi, A. (2017). Validation of a locally created and rated writing test used for placement in a higher education EFL program. Assessing Writing, 32, 85-104.

Jones, A. (2017). The role of motivation in international ESL graduate students’ engagement with writing at the university writing center. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University.

Jou, Y. (2017). Hidden challenges of tasks in an EAP writing textbook: EAL graduate students’ perceptions and textbook authors’ responses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 30, 13-25.

Jouzdani, M., Biria, R., & Mohammadi, M. (2017). The effect of product-based and process-based teaching on writing efficiency of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 6(2), 93-98

Kang, H., & Veitch, H. (2017). Mainstream teacher candidates’ perspectives on ESL writing: The effects of writer identity and rater background. TESOL Quarterly, 51(2), 249-274.

Karakoç, D., & Köse, G. (2017). The impact of vocabulary knowledge on reading, writing and proficiency scores of EFL learners. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(1), 352-378.

Kassem, M. (2017). Developing business writing skills and reducing writing anxiety of EFL learners through wikis. English Language Teaching, 10(3), 151-163.

Kibler, A. (2017a). Pursuing SL argumentative writing scholarship as a synergistic endeavor. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 75-76.

Kibler, A. (2017b). Becoming a “Mexican feminist”: A minoritized bilingual’s development of disciplinary identities through writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 26-41.

Kibler, A., & Hardigree, C. (2017). Using evidence in L2 argumentative writing: A longitudinal case study across high school and university. Language Learning, 67(1), 75-109.

Kim, A., & Kim, H. (2017). The effectiveness of instructor feedback for learning-oriented language assessment: Using an integrated reading-to-write task for English for academic purposes. Assessing Writing, 32, 57-71.

Kim, E. (2017a). The TOEFL iBT writing: Korean students’ perceptions of the TOEFL iBT writing test. Assessing Writing, 33, 1-11.

Kim, E. (2017b). Academic writing in Korea: Its dynamic landscape and implications for intercultural rhetoric. TESL-EJ, 21(3), 1-15

Kim, S., & Cho, S. (2017). How a tutor uses gesture for scaffolding: A case study on L2 tutee’s writing. Discourse Processes, 54(2), 105-123.

Kiramba, L. (2017). Translanguaging in the writing of emergent multilinguals. International Multilingual Research Journal, 11(2), 115-130.

Kirkpatrick, A. (2017). How important is argument?. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 81-82.

Knouzi, I., & Mady, C. (2017). Indicators of an “immigrant advantage” in the writing of L3 French learners. Canadian Modern Language Review, 73(3), 368-392.

Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2017). Functional adequacy in L2 writing: Towards a new rating scale. Language Testing, 34(3), 321-336.

Kunkel, M. (2017). Excelsior college’s English as a second language writing online workshop (ESL-WOW). CALICO Journal, 34(2), 276-284.

Kurihara, N. (2017). Do peer reviews help improve student writing abilities in an EFL high school classroom?. TESOL Journal, 8(2), 450-470.

Kusyk, M. (2017). The development of complexity, accuracy and fluency in L2 written production through informal participation in online activities.Calico Journal, 34(1), 75-96.

Langum, V., & Sullivan, K. (2017). Writing academic English as a doctoral student in Sweden: Narrative perspectives. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 20-25.

Larrotta, C. (2017). Creating original products and infomercials to study rhetorical analysis. Adult Learning, 28(2), 47-53.

Larsen-Walker, M. (2017). Can data driven learning address L2 writers’ habitual errors with English linking adverbials? System, 69, 26-37.

Larsson, T. (2017). A functional classification of the introductory it pattern: Investigating academic writing by non-native-speaker and native-speaker students. English for Specific Purposes, 48, 57-70.

Lee, A. (2017). Multilingual institutional discourses of negotiation and intertextuality in writing center interactions in Macao.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

Lee, I. (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Singapore: Spring Singapore.

Lee, L. (2017). Learners’ perceptions of the effectiveness of blogging for L2 writing in fully online language courses. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT), 7(1), 19-33.

Lee, M. (2017). Activity theoretical approach to L2 writing: A case study of Korean university students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University at Buffalo.

Lee, S. (2017). A research-based proposal for EFL writing instruction in Korean higher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University.

Lee, Y., & Yilmaz, T. (October 2017). Flipping elementary preservice teachers’ ESL coursework: Focus on teaching writing for English language learners. SLW News.

Leijen, D. (2017). A novel approach to examine the impact of web-based peer review on the revisions of L2 writers. Computers and Composition, 43, 35-54.

Li, H., & He, Q. (2017). Chinese secondary EFL learners’ and teachers’ preferences for types of written corrective feedback. English Language Teaching, 10(3), 63-73.

Li, M., & Li, J. (2017). Online peer review using Turnitin in first-year writing classes. Computers and Composition, 46, 21-38.

Li, M., & Storch, N. (2017). Second language writing in the age of CMC: Affordances, multimodality, and collaboration. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 1-5.

Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2017a). Explaining dynamic interactions in wiki-based collaborative writing. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2), 96-120.

Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2017b). Good or bad collaborative wiki writing: Exploring links between group interactions and writing products. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 38-53.

Liardét, C. (2017). ‘As we all know’: Examining Chinese EFL learners’ use of interpersonal grammatical metaphor in academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 50, 64-80.

Lin, Z. (2017). Teaching EFL writing: An approach based on the learner’s context model. TESOL Journal, 8, 142–165.

Lindgren, E., Westum, A., Outakoski, H., & Sullivan, K. P. (2016). Meaning-making across languages: A case study of three multilingual writers in Sápmi. International Journal of Multilingualism, 14(2), 124-143.

Ling, G. (2017a). Are TOEFL iBT® writing test scores related to keyboard type? A survey of keyboard-related practices at testing centers. Assessing Writing, 31, 1-12.

Ling, G. (2017b). Is writing performance related to keyboard type? An investigation from examinees’ perspectives on the TOEFL iBT. Language Assessment Quarterly, 14(1), 36-53.

Liu, M., Wang, Y., Xu, W., & Liu, L. (2017). Automated scoring of Chinese engineering students English essays. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 15(1), 52-68.

Llosa, L., & Malone, M. (2017). Student and instructor perceptions of writing tasks and performance on TOEFL iBT versus university writing courses. Assessing Writing, 34, 88-99.

Lozano, L. (2017). Tejer – The biliteracy threads: Home language, identity, early literacy, and the construction of dual language students as early writers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at San Antonio.

Lu, X. (2017). Automated measurement of syntactic complexity in corpus-based L2 writing research and implications for writing assessment. Language Testing, 34(4), 493-511.

Ma, R., & Qin, X. (2017). Individual factors influencing citation competence in L2 academic writing. Journal of Qualitative Linguistics, 24(2-3), 213-240.

Ma. B. (2017). The effectiveness of anonymous written feedback from peers and the teacher on revisions in China. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Durham.

Maas, C. (2017). Receptivity to learner-driven feedback in EAP.ELT Journal, 71(2), 127-140.

Magali, P. (2017). L1 frequency in foreign language acquisition: Recurrent word combinations in French and Spanish EFL learner writing. Second Language Research, 33(1), 13-32.

Mahfoodh, O. (2017). “I feel disappointed”: EFL university students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback. Assessing Writing, 31, 53-72.

Malova, I. (2017). Integrated reading-writing instruction for elementary school emergent bilingual students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Miami.

Manchón, R. (2017). The potential impact of multimodal composition on language learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 94-95.

Mancilla, R., Polat, N., & Akcay, A. (2017). An investigation of native and nonnative English speakers’ levels of written syntactic complexity in asynchronous online discussions. Applied Linguistics, 38(1), 112-134.

Mao, Z., & Jiang, L. (2017). Exploring the effects of the continuation task on syntactic complexity in second language writing. English Language Teaching, 10(8), 100-106.

Martin, K. (2017). The impact of L1 writing system on ESL knowledge of vowel and consonant spellings. Reading and Writing, 30(2), 279-298.

Martínez-Álvarez, P., & Ghiso, M. (2017). On languaging and communities: Latino/a emergent bilinguals’ expansive learning and critical inquiries into global childhoods. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(6), 667-687.

Matsuda, P., Chinokul, S., & Sukavatee, P. (2017). Assessing second language writing: The16th Symposium on Second Language Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37, 61.

Matsuda, P., Snyder S., and O’Meara, K. (2017). Professionalizing second language writing. Anderson, SC. Parlor Press.

Maznun, M., Monsefi, R., & Nimehchisalem, V. (2017). Undergraduate ESL students’ difficulties in writing the introduction for research reports. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 8(1), 9-16.

Mbeudeu, C. (2017). Introducing translation-based activities in teaching English as a foreign language: A step towards the improvement of learners’ accurate use of words and expressions in writing. Research in Pedagogy, 7(1), 76-89.

McIntosh, K., Connor, U., & Gokpinar-Shelton, E. (2017). What intercultural rhetoric can bring to EAP/ESP writing studies in an English as a lingua franca world. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 29, 12-20.

Menghini, M. (2017). Supporting multilingualism in academic writing. International Journal of Language Studies, 11(4), 107-130.

Menkabu, A. (2017). Stance and engagement in postgraduate writing: A comparative study of English NS and Arab EFL student writers in linguistics and literature. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Essex.

Miller-Cochran, S. (2017). Understanding multimodal composing in an L2 writing context. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 88-89.

Mizumoto, A., Hamatani, S., & Imao, Y. (2017). Applying the bundle-move connection approach to the development of an online writing support tool for research articles. Language Learning, 67(4), 885-921.

Mochizuki, N. (2017). Contingent needs analysis for task implementation: An activity systems analysis of group writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly, 51(3), 607-631.

Moore, J. (2017). Digital literacy and composing practices of second language students: A student perspective on writing, technology, and privilege. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University.

Moradian, M., Miri, M., & Nasab, M. (2017). Contribution of written languaging to enhancing the efficiency of written corrective feedback. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 406-426.

Mørch, A., Engeness, I., Cheng, V., Cheung, W., & Wong, K. (2017). EssayCritic: Writing to learn with a knowledge-based design critiquing system. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 213-223.

Moslemi, N., & Dastgoshadeh, A. (2017). The relationship between cognitive styles and young adult learners’ preferences for written corrective feedback. How, 24(2), 11-34.

Mott-Smith, J., Tomaš, Z., & Kostka, I. (2017). Teaching effective source use: Classroom approaches that work. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Mozaffari, S. H. (2017). Comparing student-selected and teacher-assigned pairs on collaborative writing. Language Teaching Research, 21(4), 496-516.

Mueller, C. (2017). A Comparison of introductions in Japanese-authored Japanese articles, Japanese-authored English articles, and articles by English native speakers, JALT Journal, 39(1), 29.

Muhammad, A., & Nair, S. (2017). Evaluating pragmatic competence in Nigerian undergraduates’ language errors within descriptive ESL writing. International Journal of Instruction, 10(01), 255-272.

Musanti, S., & Rodríguez, A. (2017). Translanguaging in bilingual teacher preparation: Exploring pre-service bilingual teachers’ academic writing. Bilingual Research Journal, 40(1), 38-54.

Naghdipour, B. (2017). Incorporating formative assessment in Iranian EFL writing: A case study. The Curriculum Journal, 28(2), 283-299.

Negretti, R. (2017). Calibrating genre: Metacognitive judgments and rhetorical effectiveness in academic writing by L2 graduate students. Applied Linguistics, 38(4), 512-539.

Newman, B. M. (2017). Tutoring translingual writers: The logistics of error and ingenuity. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 14(3), 5-9.

Obeid, R. (2017). Second language writing and assessment: Voices from within the Saudi EFL context. English Language Teaching, 10(6), 174-181.

Olson, C., Matuchniak, T., Chung, H., Stumpf, R., & Farkas, G. (2017). Reducing achievement gaps in academic writing for Latinos and English learners in grades 7-12. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(1), 1-21.

Ortmeier-Hooper, C. (2017). Writing across culture and language: Inclusive strategies for working with ELL writers in the ELA classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Ostovar-Namaghi, S., & Safaee, S. (2017). Exploring techniques of developing writing skill in IELTS preparatory courses: A data-driven study. English Language Teaching, 10(3), 74-81.

Özkul, S., & Ortaçtepe, D. (2017). The use of video feedback in teaching process-approach EFL writing. TESOL Journal, 8, 862-877.

Pang, H. (2017). Intercultural and transnational negotiation of English academic written discourse: A few cases in the USA, Korea and Russia. Changing English: Studies in Culture and Education, 24(1), 34-41.

Paquot, M. (2017). L1 frequency in foreign language acquisition: Recurrent word combinations in French and Spanish EFL learner writing. Second Language Research, 33(1), 13-32.

Park, J. (2017). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of second language writing proficiency and writing quality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

Pashazadeh, A. (2017). The effect of mid-focused and unfocused written corrections on the acquisition of grammatical structures. Journal of Response to Writing, 3(1), 56-82.

Pelaez-Morales, C. (2017). L2 writing scholarship in JSLW: An updated report of research published between 1992 and 2015. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 9-19.

Pessoa, S. (2017). How SFL and explicit language instruction can enhance the teaching of argumentation in the disciplines. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 77-78.

Pessoa, S., Mitchell, T., & Miller, R. (2017). Emergent arguments: A functional approach to analyzing student challenges with the argument genre. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 42-55.

Phillips, T. (2017). Shifting supports for shifting identities: Meeting the the needs of multilingual graduate writers. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 14(3), 41-48.

Phoocharoensil, S. (2017). Corpus-based exploration of linking adverbials of result: Discovering what ELT writing coursebooks lack. 3L, Language, Linguistics, Literature, 23(1), 150.

Pitenoee, M., Modaberi, A., & Ardestani, E. (2017). The effect of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use on content of the Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ writing. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(3), 594-600.

Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2017a). An assessment perspective on argumentation in writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 85-86.

Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2017b). Exploring the relationship of organization and connection with scores in integrated writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 31, 98-112.

Polio, C. (2017a). Teaching second language writing. New York, NY: Routledge.

Polio, C. (2017b). Second language writing development: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 50(2), 261-275.

Polio, C. (2017c). Understanding, evaluating, and conducting second language writing research. New York, NY: Routledge.

Popova, A., Kirschner, P., & Joiner, R. (2017). Effects of primer podcasts on stimulating learning from lectures: How do students engage? British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(2), 330-340.

Prikhodko, M. (2017). International multilingual student writers’ (re)negotiation of their languages and literacies in a First-Year multilingual composition class. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.

Qu, W. (2017). For L2 writers, it is always the problem of the language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 92-93.

Quaddour, K. (2017). The use of podcasts to enhance narrative writing skills. English Teaching Forum, 55(4), 28-31.

Racelis, J. (2017). Exploring teacher knowledge in multilingual first-year composition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.

Raish, M. (2017). The measurement of the complexity, accuracy, and fluency of written Arabic. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.

Rakedzon, T., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2017). To make a long story short: A rubric for assessing graduate students’ academic and popular science writing skills. Assessing Writing, 32, 28-42.

Randolph, P. (October 2017). Using observation journals to awaken observation skills and increase comfort with writing. SLWIS Newsletter.

Ranjbar, N., & Ghonsooly, B. (2017). Peer scaffolding behaviors emerging in revising a written task: A microgenetic analysis. Iranian Journal of Language teaching Research, 5(2). 75-90.

Raoofi, S., Miri, A., Gharibi, J., & Malaki, B. (2017). Assessing and validating a writing strategy scale for undergraduate students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(3), 624-633.

Ravichandran, S., Kretovics, M., Kirby, K., & Ghosh, A. (2017). Strategies to address English language writing challenges faced by international graduate students in the US. Journal of International Students, 7(3), 764-785.

Reichelt, M., & Li, S. (October 2017). Challenges faced by Saudi students writing at a US. university. SLWIS Newsletter.

Ren, J. (2017). College English writing instruction for non-English majors in mainland China: The “Output-Driven, Input-Enabled” hypothesis perspective. English Language Teaching, 10(7), 150-157.

Révész, A., Kourtali, N., & Mazgutova, D. (2017). Effects of task complexity on L2 writing behaviors and linguistic complexity. Language Learning, 67(1), 208-241.

Reyes, L. (2017). Improving pofessional development by examining teachers’ identities, beliefs, and practices in writing feedback .Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University.

Rezaee, A., & Golparvar, S. (2017). Conditional inference tree modelling of competing motivators of the positioning of concessive clauses: The case of a non-native corpus. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 24(2-3), 89-106.

Rivard, L., Minkala-Ntadi, P., Roch-Gagné, M., & Gueye, N. (2017). Analyse des mots connecteurs dans les résumés produits par des élèves FL1 et FL2. The Canadian Modern Language Review / La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 73(1), 48-76.

Rodway, C. (2017a). Opening up dialogic spaces: Rethinking the prescriptive paragraph structure in L2 writing pedagogy. Asian EFL Journal, 19(1), 136-164.

Rodway, C. (2017b). Encouraging active participation in feedback through assessment as learning. Journal of Response to Writing, 3(2), 74-92.

Rompogren, J. (2017). Identity positioning in mainstream and multilingual first-year composition courses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.

Roquet, H., & Pérez-Vidal, C. (2017). Do productive skills improve in content and language integrated learning contexts? The case of writing. Applied Linguistics, 38(4), 489-511.

Ruan, Z. (2017). Lexical bundles in Chinese undergraduate academic writing at an English medium university. RELC Journal, 48(3), 327-340.

Sadegi, K., & Rahmati, T. (2017). Integrating assessment as, for, and of learning in a large-scale exam preparation course. Assessing Writing, 34, 50-61.

Saeed, M., & Ghazali, K. (2017). Asynchronous group review of EFL writing: Interactions and text revisions. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2), 200-226.

Safitri, I., & Bahri, S. (2017). Thematic progression on students’ recount texts. Journal of English Language Teaching, 6(1), 69-82.

Salido, M., & Garcia, M. (2017). Comparing learners’ and native speakers’ use of collocations in written Spanish. De Guyter Mouton, 55(1), 1-26.

Saliu-Abdulahi, D., Hellekjer, G. & Hertzberg, F. (2017). Teachers’ (formative) feedback practices in EFL writing classes in Norway. Journal of Response to Writing, 3(1), 31-55.

Sang, Y. (2017). Investigate the "issues" in Chinese students' English writing and their "responses": Revisiting the recent evidence in Chinese academia. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(3), 1-11.

Schieman, B. (2017). Reading from the margins: A study of emergent bilingual students' written responses to text, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Schreiber, B., & Đurić, S. (2017). Alternative venues: An EFL writing center outside the university. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 14(2), 37-43.

Seçer, Ş., & Çeliköz, N. (2017). The role of essay writing course, given along with comprehension-based instruction, on the writing skill development of high school students. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 297-312.

Seltzer, K. (2017). "Resisting from within": (Re) Imagining a critical translingual English classroom, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York.

Sermsook, K., Liamnimit, J., & Pochakorn, R. (2017). An analysis of errors in written English sentences: A case study of Thai EFL students. English Language Teaching, 10(3), 101-110.

Setiawati, N., Hapsari, I., & Priyatmojo, A. (2017). Thematic development on students’ analytical exposition texts: A case of the fourth semester students in the academic year 2014/2015. Journal of English Language Teaching, 6(2), 142-154.

Severino, C. (2017). “Multilingualizing” composition: A diary self-study of learning Spanish and Chinese. Composition Studies, 45(2), 12-31.

Shapiro, S., & Macdonald, M. (2017). From deficit to asset: Locating discursive resistance in a refugee-background student’s written and oral narrative. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(2), 80-93.

Shen, Y. (2017). On improving text readability by creating a personal writing style. English Language Teaching, 10(3), 95-100.

Shi, L. (2017). Two expatriate English instructors in China: Their experiences, and perspectives of local students and teachers. Canadian Modern Language Review, 73(1), 1-23.

Shvidko, E. (February 2017a). Graduate student spotlight: Shyam B. Pandey. SLW News.

Shvidko, E. (February 2017b). Graduate student spotlight: Zhaozhe Wang. SLW News.

Shvidko, E. (February 2017c). Meet the expert: An interview with professor Alister Cumming. SLW News.

Shvidko, E. (February 2017d). Reflection on the teacher-student relationship in writing conferences. SLW News.

Shvidko, E. (October 2017e). Graduate student spotlight: Hadi Banat. SLW News.

Shvidko, E. (October 2017f). Graduate student spotlight: Joseph Wilson. SLW News.

Shvidko, E. (October 2017g). Graduate student spotlight: Kelly J. Cunningham. SLW News.

Silva, T., Yang, K., Shvidko, E., & Shin, J. (October 2017). Scholarship on L2 writing in 2016: The year in review. SLW News.

Singh, C., Singh, A., Razak, N., & Ravinthar, T. (2017). Grammar errors made by ESL tertiary students in writing. English Language Teaching, 10(5), 16-27.

Singh, M. (2017). International EFL/ESL master students' adaptation strategies for academic writing practices at tertiary level. Journal of International Students, 7(3), 620-643.

Smith, B., Pacheco, M., & De Almeida, C. (2017). Multimodal codemeshing: Bilingual adolescents’ processes composing across modes and languages. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 6-22.

Smith, E. (2017). Writing centers in multilingual settings: A workbook. americanenglish.state.gov.

Soleimani, M., Modirkhamene, S., & Sadeghi, K. (2017). Peer-mediated vs. individual writing: Measuring fluency, complexity, and accuracy in writing. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 86-100.

Song, G., Hoon, L., & Alvin, L. (2017). Students’ response to feedback: An exploratory study. RELC Journal, 48(3), 357-372.

Soodmand Afshar, H., Movassagh, H., & Radi Arbabi, H. (2017). The interrelationship among critical thinking, writing an argumentative essay in an L2 and their subskills. The Language Learning Journal, 45(4), 419-433.

Stapleton, P. (2017). Ability to argue: Rooted in nature. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 83-84.

Tabari, M. (2017). Investigating the effects of planning time on the complexity of L2 argumentative writing. TESL-EJ, 21(1), 1-25.

Tahara, N. (2017). The use of shell nouns in Japanese and American student writing, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham.

Tanaka, J., & Gilliland, B. (2017). Critical thinking instruction in English for Academic Purposes writing courses: A dialectical thinking approach. TESOL Journal, 8(3), 657-674.

Tang, G. (2017). Contextualization: An experimental model for EFL writing instruction in China. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Portland State University.

Tardy, C., & Whittig, E. (2017). On the ethical treatment of EAL writers: An update. TESOL Quarterly, 51(4), 920-930.

Torrie, H. (February 2017). Preparing students for academic writing by using STEM topics and tasks. SLW News.

Trace, J., Janssen, G., & Meier, V. (2017). Measuring the impact of rater negotiation in writing performance assessment. Language Testing, 34(1), 3-22.

Tsai, M. (2017). Negotiating power in L2 synchronous online peer response groups. L2 Journal, 9(1), 21-38.

Uçar, S., & Yükselir, C. (2017). A corpus-based study on the use of the logical connector "Thus" in the academic writing of Turkish EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 10(2), 64-72.

Urunami, S., Bharati, D., & Faridi, A. (2017). Group grid and roundtable for teaching writing of descriptive text. Journal of English Language Teaching, 6(2), 176-183.

Uscinski, I. (2017). L2 learners’ engagement with direct written corrective feedback in First-Year composition courses. Journal of Response to Writing, 3(2), 36-62.

Vale, L. (2017). The case for fanfiction in the ESL classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universidad de Puerto Rico.

Vandommele, G., Van Den Branden, K., Van Gorp, K., & De Maeyer, S. (2017). In-school and out-of-school multimodal writing as an L2 writing resource for beginner learners of Dutch. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 23-36.

Vorobel, K., & Kim, D. (2017). Adolescent ELLs' collaborative writing practices in face-to-face and online contexts: From perceptions to action. System, 65, 78-89.

Wagner, C., Ossa Parra, M., & Proctor, C. (2017). The interplay between student-led discussions and argumentative writing. TESOL Quarterly, 51(2), 438-449.

Waller, L., & Papi, M. (2017). Motivation and feedback: How implicit theories of intelligence predict L2 writers' motivation and feedback orientation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 54-66.

Wang, S., & Beckett, G. (2017). "My excellent college entrance examination achievement"— Noun phrase use of Chinese EFL students' writing. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(2), 271-277.

Wang, W. (2017). Learner characteristics in an EAP thesis-writing class: Looking into students' responses to genre-based instruction and pedagogical tasks. English for Specific Purposes, 47, 52-61.

Wang, X. (2017). Effectiveness of corrective feedback on L2 writing: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives in an EFL context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University.

Warschauer, M. (2017). The pitfalls and potential of multimodal composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 86-87.

Warsidi, W. (2017). The effect of Texts-Based Interactional Feedback (TIF) on the students’ EFL writing. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 2(3), 245-258.

Wei, J. (2017). Effects of instruction on Chinese college students’ use of thematic progression in English essays. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(8), 84-97.

Welsh, A., Shaw, A., & Fox, J. (2017). Research and teaching: The pairing of a science communications and a language course to enrich First-Year English language learners’ writing and argumentation skills. Journal of College Science Teaching, 46(5), 64-72.

Wette, R. (2017a). Source text use by undergraduate post-novice L2 writers in disciplinary assignments: Progress and ongoing challenges. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37, 46-58.

Wette, R. (2017b). Using mind maps to reveal and develop genre knowledge in a graduate writing course. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 58-71.

Widyawati, E., & Trisanti, N. (2017). Clustering technique and peer assessment in teaching writing recount text to junior high school students. Journal of English Language Teaching, 6(1), 37-48.

Wiley, A., & Mckernan, J. (2017). Examining the impact of explicit language instruction in writers workshop on ELL student writing. The New Educator, 13(2), 160-169.

Wind, S., Stager, C., & Patil, Y. J. (2017). Exploring the relationship between textual characteristics and rating quality in rater-mediated writing assessments: An illustration with L1 and L2 writing assessments. Assessing Writing, 34, 1-15.

Wong, C., Delante, N., & Wang, P. (2017). Using PELA to predict international business students' English writing performance with contextualised English writing workshops as intervention program. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 14(1), 1-21.

Wu, H., & Guerra, M. (2017). Examination of pre-service teacher’s training through tutoring approach. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(2), 1-9.

Wu, H., & Zhang, L. (2017). Effects of different language environments on Chinese graduate students' perceptions of English writing and their writing performance. System, 65, 164-174.

Xie, J. (2017). Evaluation in moves: An integrated analysis of Chinese MA thesis literature reviews. English Language Teaching, 10(3), 1-20.

Xu, F., & Matsuda, P. (2017). Disciplinary Dialogues section: Perspectives on multimodal composition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 79.

Xu, Z. (2017). Developing metacultural writing competence for online intercultural communication: Implications for English language teaching. TESL-EJ, 20(4), 1-10.

Xue, G. (2017). A personal reflection: Caught in the American writing workshops as a second language writer. TESOL International Association SLW News.

Yang, Y. (2017). A theoretical framework for exploring second language writers' beliefs in First Year Composition, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.

Yasuda, S. (2017). Toward a framework for linking linguistic knowledge and writing expertise: Interplay between SFL-based genre pedagogy and task-based language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 51(3), 576-606.

Yetis, V. (2017). The role of composing process and coherence/cohesion in FFL writing. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(1), 336-351.

Yi, Y. (2017). Establishing multimodal literacy research in the field of L2 writing: Let’s move the field forward. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 90-91.

Yilmaz, M. (2017). The effect of data-driven learning on EFL students' acquisition of lexico- grammatical patterns in EFL writing. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 75-88.

Yim, S., & Warschauer, M. (2017). Web-based collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Methodological insights from text mining. Language Learning & Technology, 21(1), 146-165.

Yoon, C. (2017). The use of This + Noun by Korean EFL writers: Focusing on shell nouns and nominalization. Language Research, 53(1), 135-161.

Yoon, H. (2017a). Textual voice elements and voice strength in EFL argumentative writing. Assessing Writing, 32, 72-84.

Yoon, H. (2017b). Investigating the interactions among genre, task complexity, and proficiency in L2 writing: A comprehensive text analysis and study of learner perceptions, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

Yoon, H. (2017c). Linguistic complexity in L2 writing revisited: Issues of topic, proficiency, and construct multidimensionality. System, 66, 130-142.

Yoon, H., & Polio, C. (2017). The linguistic development of students of English as a second language in two written genres. TESOL Quarterly, 51(2), 275-301.

You, X. (2017). Mapping academic literacy networks: Multilingual international students writing in a business school, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New Hampshire.

Yu, S., & Hu, G. (2017). Understanding university students’ peer feedback practices in EFL writing: Insights from a case study. Assessing Writing, 33, 25-35.

Zarei, G., Pourghasemian, H., & Jalali, H. (2017). Language learners' writing task representation and its effect on written performance in an EFL context. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46(3), 567-581.

Zhang, X. (2017a). Exploring a novice Chinese EFL teacher’s writing beliefs and practices: A systemic functional perspective. International Journal of Language Studies, 11(1), 95-118.

Zhang, X. (2017b). Reading-writing integrated tasks, comprehensive corrective feedback, and EFL writing development. Language Teaching Research, 21(2), 217-240.

Zhang, Z. (2017). Student engagement with computer-generated feedback: A case study. ELT Journal, 71(3), 317-328.

Zhao, C. (2017). Voice in timed L2 argumentative essay writing.Assessing Writing, 31, 73-83.

Zheng, B., & Warschauer, M. (2017). Epilogue: Second language writing in the age of computer-mediated communication. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 61-67.

Zheng, X. (2017). Translingual identity as pedagogy: International teaching assistants of English in college composition classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 101(S1), 29-44.


Tony Silva is a Professor of English and the Director of the Graduate Program in Second Language Studies at Purdue University.

Kai Yang is a doctoral student in the Graduate Program in Second Language Studies at Purdue University, where he also teaches introductory composition for undergraduate students and classroom communication for international teaching assistants. His research interests include theoretical and methodological aspects of second language writing, translingual writing, and World Englishes.

Ji-young Shin is a PhD student in the Second Language Studies program at Purdue University. With her diverse background as a secondary education EFL teacher, textbook writer, and national exam writer, Ji-young researches issues in language testing/assessment and corpus linguistics, especially their interfaces with second language writing.

Yachao Sun is a PhD student in Second Language Studies at Purdue University. His research interests are in second language writing, translingual writing, a sociocognitive approach to SLA/SLW, and second language writing assessment.

Phuong Minh Tran is a second year PhD student in the Second Language Studies Program at Purdue University. She also works as a Graduate Instructor for the Introductory Composition at Purdue (ICaP) Writing Program where she teaches mainstream and second language freshman composition. Her research interests encompass second language writing, assessment, writing center studies, cultural studies, and identity research.

MEET THE EXPERTS: AN INTERVIEW WITH PROFESSORS DWIGHT ATKINSON AND CHRISTINE TARDY

Elena: You had a very interesting presentation at the Symposium on Second Language Writing in Vancouver—both in format and content. During this presentation, which you organized as a dialog, you discussed two dominant trends that, from your perspective, seem to be affecting the field of second language writing: translingualism and written corrective feedback. Could you briefly tell our readers how the idea to create such a dialogue was born?

Christine Tardy, professor of English, University of Arizona

Christine: I think it arose out of numerous conversations that we’d had over the past few years, just musing about the field, the Journal of Second Language Writing (JSLW), and various conferences. Research on written corrective feedback (WCF) has played a pretty prominent role in publications for a while, and translingualism had started to play a role in the relationship between second language writing (SLW) and composition studies. We were interested in how these two areas of work were so different yet both impacting the field (albeit in distinct ways). We wanted to share these ideas as a dialogue, rather than an article, because we thought a dialogue had more potential for showing the complexities. Traditional scholarly articles and conference presentations tend to represent ideas in a unified and conclusive manner. We hoped a dialogue could better capture the struggles and uncertainties in our conversations and also represent the ideas as a conversation, an exchange of ideas that build off each other.

Elena: In your presentation, you both mentioned that you worry about the future of the field of SLW. What are particularly your worries?

Christine: Speaking for myself, I think my worries are more tied to the U.S. context and the role that SLW can play in the teaching of writing in higher education, which of course is just one part of the larger field. I worry that the attention to translingualism in composition studies may displace the role of SLW teachers and scholarship in composition studies. I think there is room for both, but I fear that SLW—which is rooted in scholarship that is less familiar to many people in composition studies—may take (or is taking) a backseat to translingualism. SLW is certainly less represented in journals like College Composition and Communication and College English or conferences like the Conference on College Composition and Communication, compared with translingualism. Our 2015 open letter (Atkinson et al., 2015) was written because of this concern. We had seen and heard about numerous academic jobs asking for specialists in translingualism to direct second language writing courses in writing programs. Just to clarify, I agree with the values that underlie translingualism, and I see the role it can play in teaching writing, but translingualism has little to say about language development, which is a very important component of supporting second language writers in the classroom. I think the scholarship on multilingualism and biliteracy has been more productive in bridging attention to linguistic resources and language development (e.g., Gentil, 2018; Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2017).

Dwight Atkinson, professor of English, University of Arizona

Dwight: I am less positive about translingualism than Chris is. As expressed in the coauthored JSLW paper our symposium presentation was based on and which will hopefully appear soon, I see translingualism—and much of what passes for knowledge-making in composition studies these days—as a rather typical creation of neo-Marxist-origin "critical theory" perspectives, which are problematic in various ways: 1) They are produced purely from the top-down by academic theoreticians rather than bottom-up from students themselves; 2) They assume reductive dichotomies, especially oppressed versus oppressor, with the SLW teacher usually assigned the role of oppressor as standard language teacher; and 3) Because they are so top-down theory-based, critical theory-based approaches have little to say about the actual teaching of writing.

More generally, I worry that our rather new, rather small, and rather fragile little SLW field is in danger of being colonized by older, larger, and more powerful fields, from two main directions: 1) composition studies, which seems to want to replace SLW with translingualism, as represented by some of that field's most influential voices (e.g., Canagarajah, 2013b, 2015); and 2) cognitivist second language acquisition, which has substantially influenced the WCF movement and may be actively trying to move into new areas of research because it has lost dominance in its own right.

Christine: I think we agree that translingualism represents a kind of threat to the field. As Dwight says, we are not a big, powerful field with a long history, and in general we work at the periphery of other fields.

Elena: What do you see as the biggest problem with each of these two trends?

Christine: I am not sure if I would characterize this as a “problem” so much as a “danger,” but with WCF, I worry that its traditional focus on discrete language error is just a poor representation of writing, which is a much more complex construct. To be fair, I do not think that the scholars working in this area equate language error with “writing”; the danger is more about overrepresentation of this area of work in comparison with other areas, which may inadvertently magnify the importance of error treatment in writing. Writing entails so much that we need to always be considering how various dimensions of writing are part of a bigger picture. I suspect that we have already seen the peak of WCF scholarship though, in terms of quantity, so I’m not sure how much of a danger this really is, looking forward.

As for translingualism, my concerns are more about how it impacts our relationship with the related field of composition studies. It seems like it has created a wedge between our fields rather than helping to bridge our conversations and areas of expertise. I certainly support a more multilingual perspective within second language writing, and I think that translingualism and translanguaging have helped bring more attention to multilingualism within composition studies. However, teachers also need knowledge and tools for supporting student writers in developing their linguistic repertoires.

Dwight: I already described some of my problems with translingualism and to a lesser extent WCF, in terms of how they could impact SLW's professional survival, but let me try to problematize them both briefly from a different perspective, which is how they conceptualize writing. From what I can tell, translingualism conceptualizes writing as a kind of open-ended performance. It's how we blend and embrace all forms of language and multimodal phenomena in performing ourselves—in expressing our identities and our voices in multimodal meaning-making. It's not a big believer in linguistic form, per se—for example, "Grammar is incidental to meaning-making" (Canagarajah, 2013a, p. 147). I find this hard to accept and not very coherent—language is a symbol system, and the only way it really works as language per se is as a symbol system wherein conventional signs are assigned conventional meanings. Certainly, these finite tools are used to produce infinitely new and different meanings, and writing is fundamentally about making meaning. But to do so we must have forms.

My problem with WCF is almost the opposite: Due to its relentless focus on form, WCF effectively suggests that SLW is simply and fundamentally about form: If you get the right forms in the right order, then you automatically have good writing. I don't believe this is true. SLW, as I stated above, is about making meaning with form, not about correct form equaling or automatically expressing meaning. So, to make a long story short (too short, really, to be fully understood) both of these approaches seem to me to misrepresent, either directly or indirectly, what SLW should be about. In my opinion, SLW should be about expressing new and always personal meaning in largely preexisting, socially shared form, and teaching writing should be about helping students to learn to do this. This claim extends at least to most academic and special purposes writing, but it doesn't extend (at least to the same extent) to what is traditionally called "creative writing," which deals with altering the written conventions themselves. All writing is creative in a sense, but I think the scope for creativity, and the types of creativity encompassed in both forms of writing, are rather different, and that's not a bad thing.

Elena: Who are we as a field now? And how do you see the field in the future?

Christine: I suspect that you would get different answers to these questions from nearly every scholar! My impression from publications and conferences is that SLW is an active field with a lot going on in various parts of the world. I am a little pessimistic about our role in and relationship with composition studies, but at the same time, I think SLW is thriving as a field in multiple contexts around the world.

Dwight: I think we're at a point where we don't really know what we have in common, or if we have anything in common beyond teaching and researching people who fall under some definition of "second language writers." And if a field doesn't spend a good bit of time seriously talking together and getting to know and agree on what makes it distinctive and different from other fields, then it is open to colonization. One need go no farther for evidence of this possibility than Canagarajah's (2013b), "The End of Second Language Writing?" or colloquia or special issues that seek to unite SLW and second language acquisition.

Elena: And finally, what is something that we, SLW professionals, can do in order to help the field stay diversified and avoid the dominance of individual trends?

Christine: What a great question! I do think that journals (especially JSLW) and conferences play a big role in giving voice to diverse perspectives. As SLW professionals, though, it is also our responsibility to read broadly (and critically), to become familiar with different perspectives on and contexts of teaching L2 writing, and to be open to the various approaches that can be taken to studying and teaching L2 writing. As a field, we are teaching a pretty diverse set of learners and in a wide range of institutions and geographical areas, and we come out of a range of academic traditions around the world, so we should expect to have diversity in our scholarship. Sometimes that diversity may lead to disagreements, but that is not a bad thing. Disagreement can be very healthy in an academic field, though of course it can also lead to splintering. I am reminded of Silva’s (2005) paper on paradigms, in which he advocates for a “humble pragmatic rationalism” as a guiding paradigm to inquiry in SLW, and “humble reflecting the limits of one’s knowledge and pragmatic in the sense of a pluralistic and eclectic approach that accommodates different worldviews, assumptions, and methods in an attempt to address and solve specific problems in particular contexts” (pp. 8–9).

Dwight: I agree with Chris. I would add that I think we need to sit together, talk together, and, to some extent, agree together on what SLW actually is, at least if we hope to have a field which can grow strong and healthy and stand on its own two feet in a dangerous world. I may be exaggerating here, as I'm certainly trying to express my feelings strongly to attract further attention to these issues, but I don't think I'm just imagining.

References

Atkinson, D., Crusan, D., Matsuda, P. K., Ortmeier-Hooper, C., Ruecker, T., Simpson, S., & Tardy, C. (2015). Clarifying the relationship between L2 writing and translingual writing: An open letter to writing studies editors. College English, 77, 383–386.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2013a). Negotiating translingual literacy. In Translingual practice (pp. 127–152). New York, NY: Routledge.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2013b). The end of second language writing?Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 440–441.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2015). Clarifying the relationship between translingual practice and L2 writing: Addressing learner identities. Applied Linguistics Review, 6, 415–440.

Gentil, G. (2018). Multilingualism as a writing resource. In J. Liontas (Series Ed.), D. Belcher, & A. Hirvela (Eds.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (Vol. 4: Teaching reading, teaching writing). New York, NY: Wiley.

Rinnert, C., & Kobayashi, H. (2017). Multicompetence and multilingual writing. In R. Manchón & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), The handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 365–366). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.

Silva, T. (2005). On the philosophical bases of inquiry in second language writing: Metaphysics, inquiry paradigms, and the intellectual zeitgeist. In P. K. Matsuda & T. Silva (Eds.), Second language writing research: Perspectives on the process of knowledge construction (pp. 3–16). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.


Elena Shvidko is an assistant professor at Utah State University. Her research interests include multimodal interaction in language teaching/learning, interpersonal aspects of teaching, second language writing, and teacher professional development.

NEW BOOKS

REVIEW OF ENGAGING STUDENTS IN ACADEMIC LITERACIES

Brisk, M. E. (2015). Engaging students in academic literacies: Genre-based pedagogy for K-5 classrooms. New York, NY: Routledge.

Brisk, the author of Engaging Students in Academic Literacies: Genre-Based Pedagogy for K-5 Classrooms (2015), is a professor at Boston College and is originally from Argentina. She is an expert in bilingual education, literacy development, and writing instruction, and has a vast number of book and journal article publications in the field of teaching English as a second language. In her book about genre-based pedagogy, she writes from the context of a school whose writing curriculum was extremely lacking, and about how a switch to genre-based pedagogy provided students with many skills that helped them succeed for future writing tasks in various genres. She argues that genre-based pedagogy rooted in systemic functional linguistics (SFL) is a more holistic approach to teaching writing while integrating content from students’ other subject courses. Her book serves as a road map for teachers who are looking for a fresh, new approach to writing instruction that is rooted in empirically researched theories.

The book is intended for K–5 teachers to teach them the value of writing instruction through genre-based pedagogy and how to implement this pedagogy into their classrooms by collaborating with other content teachers. It is tied to theories from research in writing instruction and is packed with lesson plans for genres common in K–5 classrooms. It contributes knowledge to the field of second language writing because it gives practical ideas on how SFL and genre theories belong in writing classrooms, with some consideration given to young second language English learners and the challenges that they might face. The book is targeted toward classrooms primarily comprising native English speaking children; however, the author specializes in bilingual education, so there is some information in each chapter regarding nonnative-English-speaking children and the specific difficulties that they may encounter in each genre.

The book is divided into three parts. The first is dedicated to giving a general overview of SFL theory and genre-based pedagogy, explaining the need for a change in the way writing is currently instructed, and providing a breakdown of the organization of the following chapters. The main argument of SFL is that language must be contextualized and focused on meaning. This book supports this theory well in that it intends to supplement teachers’ current curriculum by providing lessons that make language contextualized by recalling genres that students are exposed to in other subject courses, which in turn provides meaning to the writing assignments that students are asked to complete. Part 1 provides a strong justification as to why this pedagogy is useful and effective for K–5 writing classrooms by citing numerous studies in the field of writing instruction.

The second part includes chapters that explain common genres taught in K–5 writing instruction across various subjects, such as procedures, recounts, reports, explanations, arguments, and fictional narratives. The chapters about genre include descriptions about uses, language, grammar, and difficulties that students may encounter. After the description, there are dozens of lesson plans to use from the beginning stages of writing to the conclusion of a writing assignment. Lesson plans are labeled according to their appropriate age group and are comprehensive and easily replicable. Within some of the lesson plans, Brisk provides anecdotes from teachers who have used the lesson plans before and how they adapted them to fit their classroom settings; these are helpful and make lessons more accessible. Some of the anecdotes provide perspectives of the teachers using these sample lessons which makes each of the lessons more engaging for teachers. Some challenges that teachers have overcome in their classrooms while implementing these lessons are also included so that teachers know what to expect if they decide to make the switch to genre-based pedagogy.

Part 3 is merely three pages long, and it is intended to describe how a school-wide genre based writing curriculum could be applied throughout other schools. It includes a chart about which genres are best for specific age groups, as well as a chart about which genres occur in specific subjects. The charts have extremely useful information, but this section falls short in providing information on how teachers should meet to discuss lesson plans throughout the school year. It is difficult for teachers to coordinate their own class’s content, let alone coordinate all teachers’ lesson plans so that every course that students have is linked according to language criteria. It would be beneficial if this book provided more information about how teachers should collaborate in lesson planning in order to emphasize the genres taught in each of their classes. Another consideration is that some teachers of subjects other than writing may not see a value in changing their curriculum, or they may see no value in genre-based pedagogy for writing in general. More information about the challenges to expect regarding working with content teachers of science, mathematics, and history, among others, should be included in Part 3 for it to truly be helpful to teachers interested in using this curriculum.

Even if teachers do not necessarily understand the theory behind the practice of genre-based pedagogy, they could still pick up this book and be able to teach in a genre-centered curriculum. The lessons are clear and concise, and they thoroughly walk teachers through each stage of the writing process specific to the genre. Within each genre, there is some mention of issues to expect with English language learners, but from a second language writing class standpoint, the lessons may not be sufficient because that is not necessarily the purpose of the book.

Furthermore, the book is not always rhetorically accessible or convincing to an audience of teachers who may not necessarily be research oriented. The audience is intended to be elementary school teachers; however, the summary of theory behind the pedagogy would be difficult for teachers to digest if they have no background in reading or understanding research writing and research design. The overall prose seems a bit impractical for the audience that the author is trying to reach. On the contrary, teachers who are familiar with reading research theory or are interested in understanding research theory should find this book to be extremely informative, concise, and practical.

Another shortcoming of the book is the overall organization of content. Sometimes there is a lack of transition from topic to topic throughout the chapters that makes it difficult for the reader to follow, especially in the first part where research theories are introduced. Furthermore, there are many areas of prose that could benefit from a table to display information in a clear and visually appealing way. In the places where tables were present, some seem cluttered and difficult to comprehend. For example, the first page of each chapter about genres provides a table called a chapter map. It is difficult to understand the purpose of these tables as they are not clearly labeled and they contain too many words without sufficient organization. Aesthetically, the content throughout the book can sometimes be a bit overwhelming and disorganized.

However, with these shortcomings, Engaging Students in Academic Literacies: Genre-based Pedagogy for K-5 Classrooms is still an innovative guide for bringing a new perspective of writing to schools that prioritizes genre theory. It converts empirically researched theories into practical classroom applications for teachers to easily be able to blend into their writing instruction.


Anna Davis has a BA in Spanish and is an MA student in teaching English as a second language at Oklahoma State University. She has worked as a writing center tutor for native and nonnative speakers of English, has taught international composition courses at the university level in the United States, and is currently an English instructor at a university in China.

GRADUATE STUDENT SPOTLIGHTS

TAMARA ROOSE

Elena: Where are you from, and what are you studying?

Tamara: I am from Southern California, where I earned my BA in English and MA in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) at Azusa Pacific University. I taught in the academic English program there for five years and cultivated a love for working with international students. In particular, I discovered a passion for teaching composition courses because I felt so honored to have the opportunity to hear all students’ voices in the writing classroom. I recently lived in Seoul, South Korea for three years and taught English Composition at Sejong University. I returned to the U.S. to pursue my doctorate, and I am a second-year Ph.D. student at the Ohio State University (OSU) in the Department of Teaching and Learning with a specialization in Foreign, Second, Multilingual Language Education.

E: What topics in second language writing research excite you right now?

T: I am particularly excited about researching how teacher reflexivity and critical listening can lead to co-construction of ESL composition course curriculum. I have been conducting classroom-based research rooted in the principles of culturally sustaining pedagogy (CSP) in order to cultivate learning spaces that better sustain international students’ diverse linguistic and cultural identities. During my first year at OSU, while taking a course in CSP under Dr. Timothy San Pedro, I discovered a gap in the literature in that the Asian student experience is largely absent from the conversation, and more specifically, there is minimal research on applying CSP to the international student population, and even less so on the ESL writing context. As I teach ESL Composition courses at the Ohio State University, I continuously seek to listen and learn from my international students as we co-construct the curriculum to bring in more humanizing and culturally sustaining practices (Kinloch & San Pedro, 2014; Paris & Alim, 2017; San Pedro & Kinloch, 2017).

E: Could you share one way describing how research informs your teaching and/or vice versa?

T: During my first year at OSU, I read extensively on transfer of learning in a seminar course under Dr. Alan Hirvela. Although many studies expose a critical gap between teacher’s expectations and students’ ability to apply what they learn to new contexts and tasks, I was drawn to the authors who address specific techniques that can lead to more effective teaching for transfer (James, 2006; Perkins & Salomon, 1988). Throughout my teaching this semester, I have intentionally tried to create a positive transfer climate in my writing classroom (James, 2010) and implemented techniques to lead to more positive application of writing skills, such as through hugging and bridging strategies (James, 2006; Perkins & Salomon, 1988). Since transfer is at the heart of all learning, this research has opened my eyes and challenged me to become more aware of the transfer dilemma and more intentional about supporting my students’ transfer of learning.

E: What have you learned in your graduate courses that, in your opinion, will lead you to accomplishing your professional goals?

T: One of the most challenging and beneficial learning experiences I have had was during my first semester in a course entitled “Theorizing and Researching Teaching and Learning” under Dr. George Newell. In this course, I was exposed to many different conceptual frameworks, and we had to apply one to design and analyze the results of our own pilot study. I used sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1987) to study how the social interaction and talk of the teacher and students in an ESL writing classroom facilitated their procedural knowledge of critical analytical writing (Launspach, 2008; Wilkinson et al., 2016). I think this hands-on learning experience with collecting and analyzing data through the lens of a specific conceptual framework will help me to develop as a researcher and scholar.

References

James, M. A. (2006). Teaching for transfer in ELT. ELT Journal, 60, 151–159.

James, M. A. (2010). Transfer climate and EAP education: Students’ perceptions of challenges to learning transfer. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 133-147.

Kinloch, V., & San Pedro, T. (2014). The space between listening and storying: Foundations for projects in humanization. In Paris, D., Winn, M. (Eds.), Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities (pp. 21-42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Launspach, S. (2008). The role of talk in small writing groups: Building declarative and procedural knowledge for basic writers. Journal of Basic Writing, 27(2), 56-80.

Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (Eds.) (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Perkins, D. N. & Salomon, G. (1988). Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership, 46, 22-32.

San Pedro, T., & Kinloch, V. (2017). Toward projects in humanization: Research on co-creating and sustaining dialogic relationships. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1), 373-394.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. Rieber & A. Carton (Eds.) The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, vol. 1 (pp. 39-285). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Wilkinson, I. A G., Reznitskaya, A., Bourdage, K., Oyler, J., Glina, M, Drewry, R. … Nelson, K. (2017). Toward a more dialogic pedagogy: Changing teachers’ beliefs and practices through professional development in language arts classrooms. Language and Education, 31(1), 65-82.


Tamara Roose is a Ph.D. student in the Teaching and Learning department at Ohio State University, specializing in Foreign, Second, and Multilingual Language Education. She currently teaches in the ESL Composition program and works for the Center for the Study and Teaching of Writing in the Writing Across the Curriculum program. Her research interests are centered around ESL composition and international student language and culture identity.

Elena Shvidko is an assistant professor at Utah State University. Her research interests include multimodal interaction in language teaching and learning, interpersonal aspects of teaching, second language writing, and teacher professional development.

ABOUT THIS COMMUNITY

SLW NEWS: CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS


SLW News
is soliciting articles on second language writing theory, research, and pedagogy in all ESL/EFL settings.

SLW News welcomes articles that focus on L2 writers and characteristics and text features, classroom materials and practices, placement and assessment issues, writing program administration, teacher development, and other related areas. SLW News encourages submissions related to any educational setting, especially traditionally underrepresented contexts (preK-12, 2-year colleges, community programs, international K-12 schools, etc.). In light of the newsletter’s electronic format, authors are encouraged to include hyperlinks.

Deadlines

June 30 for the October issue and January 10 for the March issue.

General Submission Guidelines

Articles should

  • be no longer than 1750 words (including the 50-word abstract, tables, bios, and references)
  • contain no more than five citations
  • include a 50-word (maximum 500 characters) abstract and two- to three-sentence author biography
  • be accompanied by an author photo (.jpg)
  • follow the style guidelines in the fifth edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th Edition (APA style)
  • be in an MS Word (.doc/.docx) document

All tables, graphs, and other images should be submitted as separate .jpg files.

Please direct your submissions and questions to

Elena Shvidko and Ilka Kostka, SLW News Managing Editors

E-mail: slwisnewsletter@gmail.com

See below for more information concerning book reviews and submissions related to specific topics and contexts.

Action Research Projects

SLW News welcomes summaries of classroom-based action research projects. Submissions should include a discussion of the following items:

  • statement of the problem
  • research design
  • proposed solutions
  • analysis of results
  • final reflections

Please include any relevant classroom materials that emerged from the research.

Book/Media Reviews

SLW News welcomes reviews of teacher resource books and student texts dealing with second language writing, teaching, research, and administration. Anyone interested in writing a review for SLW News may choose a recently published book in the field and contact the editor for approval and review copies. Reviews will be considered for publication based on the quality of the reviewer’s evaluation and description of the book as well as the book’s relevance and importance to the field.

Reviews should

  • be in APA format
  • be 600–900 words in length
  • include a 50-word (maximum 500 characters) abstract and a two- to three-sentence author biography

CALL Submissions

SLW News welcomes CALL-related articles, announcements, reports, and reviews in the following categories:

  • Software/Hardware (e.g., organizing systems or integrating software/hardware in learning environments to enhance writing instruction, assessment, or program evaluation)
  • Materials Design (e.g., using software such as Flash or MonoConc to design language-learning activities or materials that address specific language-learning goals, including discovery activities, practice exercises, storybooks, quizzes, or games)
  • Curriculum Design (e.g., using course management software such as Blackboard or eCollege to design e-courses, e-programs, or hybrids for second language writing)
  • Applied Writing Research (e.g., writing computer programs to identify lexicogrammatical features, discourse patterns, or errors/learner variation in writing, i.e., corpus linguistics).

EFL Submissions

SLW News welcomes submissions focusing on EFL contexts. Topics include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • statements of instructional problems
  • summary of research
  • literature review with pedagogical implications
  • book/media review
  • lesson plans
  • handouts and activity sheets
  • proposed joint research projects

In order to ensure diversity of interest and coverage of as many areas of instruction in the field of EFL writing as possible, SLW News encourages submissions on the following themes:

  • university writing classrooms
  • pre-K–12 writing instruction
  • learner communities in the writing classroom
  • computers and the Internet in the writing classroom
  • writing for tests (e.g., TOEFL, IELTS)
  • technical writing as a genre in the EFL context
  • EFL writing instructors’ professional development

Writing Center Submissions

Given that many ESL/EFL students need (and want) more individualized or in-depth assistance with their writing than instructors can understandably provide, these students look to the writing center for support. This phenomenon has been reflected in the increasing number of writing-center-related sessions at professional conferences, as well as discussions on various e-lists.

To share information on this topic with a wider audience, SLW News encourages submissions highlighting

  • research,
  • programming,
  • administration, and/or
  • best practices.

Articles can focus on

  • tutor development,
  • one-on-one tutorial sessions,
  • writing groups,
  • workshops, and/or
  • other models.

SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING IS CONTACT INFORMATION


TESOL’s Second Language Writing IS provides a forum for researchers and educators across grade levels and institutional settings to discuss and exchange information in the area of second language writing.

Discussion E-List

Visit the TESOL membership page to manage your SLWIS membership status. You can also read past e-list messages here.

Websites

SLWIS myTESOL Community

SLWIS Community Leaders 2018-2019

Chair: Tanita Saenkhum

Chair-Elect: Betsy Gilliland

Past Chair: Nigel Caplan

Secretary: Veronika Maliborska

Newsletter Editors: Elena Shvidko and Ilka Kostka

Community Manager: Ashley Velazquez

External Web Manager: Charles Nelson

Steering Committee



2015-2018

Hee-Seung Kang

hee-seung.kang@case.edu

2015-2018

Betsy Gilliland

egillila@hawaii.edu

2016-2019

Aylin Baris Atilgan

aarelyea@gmail.com

2016-2019

Sandra Zappa-Hollman

sandra.zappa@ubc.ca

2016-2019

Soo Hyon Kim

soohyon.kim@unh.edu

2017-2020

Sarah Henderson Lee

sarah.henderson-lee@mnsu.edu

2018-2021

Estela Ene

eene@iupui.edu

2018-2021

Megan Siczek

msiczek@gmail.com


Newsletter Editorial Staff

Managing Editors

Elena Shvidko and Ilka Kostka

Associate Editors

Gena Bennett

Adam Clark

Ming Fang

Helena Hall

Joel Heng Hartse

Kristina Lauer

Peggy Lindsey

Book Review Editor

Steven Bookman

Development Officer: Deborah Crusan

Past Chairs

2017-2018: Nigel Caplan

2016-2017: Ryan Miller

2015-2016: Silvia Pessoa

2014-2015: Todd Ruecker

2013-2014: Gena Bennett

2012-2013: Lisya Seloni

2011–2012: Ditlev Larsen

2010–2011: Danielle Zawodny Wetzel

2009–2010: Christine Tardy

2008–2009: Gigi Taylor

2007–2008: Deborah Crusan

2006–2007: Jessie L. Moore

2005–2006: Christina Ortmeier-Hooper