October 2020
SLW Newsletter

LEADERSHIP UPDATES

LETTER FROM THE CHAIR

Aylin B. Atilgan Relyea, Santa Rosa Junior College, Santa Rosa, California, USA


Dear SLWIS Colleagues,

It is with great pleasure that I welcome you to the second SLW News for 2020. I hope you and your families are safe and healthy. In this letter, I would like to update you on our accomplishments as Second Language Writing Interest Section (SLWIS), and preview some of the activities we will be doing in the coming year.

SLWIS, in its 16th service year, continues to be one of the largest communities of practice in TESOL, with 1,100 members. Our MyTESOL group is an interactive platform that is home to lively discussions on second language writing, calls for proposals of special issues, book projects, and other conferences related to teaching, writing, and research.

SLWIS maintains an active presence on social media including SLWIS Facebook page, SLW IS Facebook Book Club page, and our Twitter account. If you’re interested in joining us, please click on the links. You can join our SLW Virtual Book Club here. During the recent unprecedented times, we kept our social media accounts active to strengthen our community ties and engage our members in our online events. Thank you for completing our SLWIS Membership Survey, as the findings help us organize our activities based upon your needs.

As we all know, 2020 has been an unusual year with the unexpected arrival of COVID-19. With the TESOL 2020 Convention being cancelled, the SLWIS leadership team worked on ways to migrate the SLWIS academic and intersection sessions to alternative formats. As a result, we moved our academic session panel “Diversity in L2 Writing: Creating Inclusive Pedagogical and Administrative Approaches” to a webinar format to be broadcast at the end of 2020. In addition, our intersection sessions--the SLWIS-CALLIS session “Practical Approaches for Leveraging Technology in L2 Writing Instruction,” the ICCIS-SLWIS session “Exploring Good Writing, and Complexities of Cultural and Linguistics Comparison,” and the BME-NNES SLWIS session “Affirming Multifaceted Identities in TESOL” were moved to TESOL 2021 Convention.

In the month of June, we started other professional events that consisted of webinars and online discussions. Our first event was the TESOL ICIS & SLWIS joint webinar entitled “Robert Kaplan's Legacy: From Contrastive Rhetoric to Intercultural Rhetoric Research” led by Dr. Ulla Connor. Then we hosted our second joint webinar called “Advocating for Multilingual Writers through Anti-racist and Translingual Teaching and Administrative Practices” in collaboration with SLW Standing Committee at Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC). In July, our SLWIS Book Club hosted an online discussion session entitled “Changing Practices in L2 Writing: Beyond-the Five Paragraph Essay” with Nigel Caplan, Christine Tardy, Estela Ene, and Ulla Connor as featured speakers. All our online events were well-attended and productive, and if you have missed them, the recordings of these sessions can be found on TESOL YouTube Channel.

In addition to the webinars hosted by our interest section, we were also invited to the TESOL Affiliate Network webinar session to inform Affiliate members from all over the world about SLWIS goals, activities, and future plans. We shared our wish to collaborate with TESOL Affiliates to further the field of L2 writing, and focus on social justice, diversity, equality, and equity as key values for fair and effective instruction, and a peaceful world.

Last month we started an interactive discussion series “Online Writing Practices and Pedagogies.” On September 24, we had the first interactive session in this series, during which Nigel Caplan and Tanita Taenkhum talked about adapting writing assignments to online platforms. At the end of October, we will have the second session entitled "Qualitative Research Project with Genre Checkpoints in an Online Graduate Writing Course.” The presenters Veronika Maliborska and Natalya Watson will discuss how research interviews can serve as a qualitative research tool to develop analysis and synthesis skills and enhance language learning in an online graduate-level research-based writing course. Stay tuned on more information about this event.

Finally, I am excited to share that SLWIS will host an academic session “Online Writing Assessment Literacy, Strategies, and Tools for L2 Writing Instruction” at the TESOL 2021 Convention in Houston, Texas. We look forward to seeing you in this and other SLWIS sessions!

I’d also like to invite you to work with us in our interest section. We are in the process of preparing for our SLWIS leadership elections, and soon more information about the nominee process will be announced. Please let us know if you would like to join our team!

I would like to thank you, our members, very much for your engagement, support, and dedication to professional growth. It’s you who raise the quality of our field and contribute positively to the lives of our next generation.

Best wishes,

Aylin

Aylin B. Atilgan Relyea (Chair 2020–2021)

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

Elena Shvidko, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA


Greetings SLWIS Members!

Welcome to the October 2020 issue of SLW News! This year has been challenging for many of us, and we appreciate your constant support and your professional devotion to our community. Despite many challenges of both the professional and personal nature that many of the Second Language Writing Interest Section (SLWIS) have been experiencing for the past several months, we have received a great number of submissions for this fall issue of the newsletter, and we would like to express our gratitude to all of our contributors!

In this issue, SLWIS Chair Aylin Atilgan Relyea provides a brief overview of the activities that SLWIS had this past summer, outlines future professional activities, and invites members to stay connected throughout the year.

This issue features four articles on different topics related to second language writing. Aviva Ueno from Meiji Gakuin University, Yokohama, Japan discusses how writing assignments that have an important component from Japanese culture can help Japanese learners of English overcome their writing anxiety and produce more meaningful writing. Ashley Velázquez, Nina Conrad, Shelley Staples, and Kevin Sanchez from the University of Arizona, USA describe examples of corpus-informed instruction that utilize a learner corpus and facilitate students’ awareness of their language choices in the L2 writing classroom. Yanisa Scherber from the University of Alabama, USA provides a sample moves structure analysis of the undergraduate engineering lab report genre and explains how it can be implemented in a variety of settings. Beatriz Erazo from San Pablo Bolivian Catholic University, Bolivia discusses how dynamic and collaborative writing can make students’ writing process more friendly and less frustrating.

Our regular section, Graduate Student Spotlight, features Chau Truong, who has recently graduated from the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa. We always like to hear from graduate students in our community, 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.

Once again, we would like to thank all the authors for their invaluable contributions. 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 2021. We are particularly interested to hear how you are adapting your teaching to various online platforms. So if you have an example of an L2 writing activity that you have effectively transformed from a conventional face-to-face classroom to an online mode, we encourage you to share your idea with the SLWIS community. The deadline for submissions 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!

Best wishes,

Elena Shvidko
SLW News Editor

ARTICLES

USING NATIVE LANGUAGE CULTURE TO OVERCOME RESISTANCE TO WRITING IN THE SECOND LANGUAGE CLASSROOM

Aviva Ueno, Meiji Gakuin University, Yokohama, Japan


It seems that cultural characteristics are often made the scapegoat when learners’ responses do not meet instructors’ expectations in the EFL/ESL classroom. In Japan, learners are often known for being shy and anxious, and they are generally unwilling to take risks in the language classroom. (Doyon, 2000) This behavior is attributed to Japanese culture, which values indirectness as a form of politeness and as an important part of maintaining group harmony. In the classroom, this often translates into students being reluctant to speak out or express any opinions, particularly those that may differ from their peers.

In the academic English courses that I teach at a private university in Japan, most of my learners either stay silent to avoid making mistakes or consult with a classmate before responding to a question to ensure that their answer is “perfect.” Many learners believe that their English is not good enough and worry that if they speak out and make a mistake, they will lose face among their classmates (King, 2013). It is undeniable that being met with the “wall of silence” (Curtis, 1999) in class is unnerving and has caused many of my colleagues, particularly those who are new to Japan, to wail, “That class was a disaster! I asked questions and my students just looked at me and wouldn’t answer. What am I doing wrong?” King (2013) suggests that the lack of response from Japanese learners is due to psychological and cultural factors as well as teaching methods. Therefore, it may not be that instructors are actually doing anything wrong; perhaps it is that they have not figured out how to adjust their teaching methods vis-à-vis their learners’ cultural backgrounds.

I was as unnerved as my colleagues by my learners’ silence when I first started teaching English in Japan, but after 30 years in the classroom, I have discovered certain tricks or techniques to overcome some of the typical problems that I have encountered. When teaching communication classes, for example, to avoid putting learners on the spot, I give them 2 minutes to confer with their classmates (preferably in English, but in their first language if necessary) before answering. Although that allowance has worked wonders in terms of putting students at ease and improving participation, writing classes are a different story. Research has been conducted on second language (L2) anxiety (Horwitz et al., 1986, Horwitz, 2001), and I have observed numerous cases of L2 writing anxiety in my classes. Most of my learners are so worried about errors in their written work that they will erase an entire sentence (or sometimes the entire passage) if I point out a spelling or small grammatical error during an in-class writing task. (Now I only comment on content and structure in response to their questions, which has reduced their anxiety level.) Or, they will cover their papers as I am walking by to prevent me from seeing what they have written, even though they know it will be collected at the end of class. When asked why they are covering their papers, they say that they are embarrassed to have me see their work. These behaviors are not surprising within the Japanese cultural context, but they do make writing classes difficult, because the purpose of writing is to have your work read by others. However, because it is unproductive to bemoan the aspects of the local culture that can make teaching more challenging, why not embrace the unique aspects of the culture that can work to the advantage of both instructors and learners?

Many excellent writing projects to motivate and inspire learners have appeared in previous editions of SLW News (see, e.g., Shvidko, 2020).I would like to suggest that learner motivation in Japan can be enhanced by employing one of the core sociological features of Japanese culture: The hierarchical relationship that governs all interpersonal relationships within Japanese culture called the sempai (mentor/senior)/kohai (protégé/junior) relationship. In the context of education, one’s sempai is any upperclassman from the same institution. This relationship continues even after both sempai and kohai have graduated, and applies to anybody who has ever belonged to the same institution. Kohai rely heavily on their sempai for guidance, and sempai feel a strong sense of responsibility toward their kohai, even if they do not know each other personally. I discovered that this very powerful relationship can be an effective way to help Japanese learners overcome their writing anxiety and increase their motivation to write. It can also help instructors create more interesting and meaningful writing assignments.

The idea came to me as I was remotely teaching 17 Japanese learners who were studying abroad in eight non-English-speaking countries from September 2019 to January 2020. My teaching consisted of setting and responding to writing assignments. Rather than assigning academic essays, learners were assigned to write journal entries about different aspects of their study abroad experience. Though I thought writing journal entries would be more interesting than academic essays for my learners, I had an ulterior motive when I set the assignments. I was also teaching an on-site preparation course for learners who were planning to study abroad in the next academic year, and I wanted to gather practical information from their sempai who were currently studying abroad. I particularly wanted to know about the challenges they were facing academically and culturally and how they were coping with those challenges so that I could incorporate their experiences into my lessons as case studies. In addition to writing about their experiences, the sempai were asked to write about what kind of advice they would give to their kohaiwho were preparing to go abroad.

At first, I did not explicitly tell the sempai that I was planning to (anonymously) share their experiences and advice with their kohai, but when I received their assignments with advice for their kohai, I was pleasantly surprised and very impressed by how much effort and enthusiasm they put into their responses. Inspired by this, I wrote to the sempai and asked for their consent to share their work with their study-abroad bound kohai. I was not even sure that I would get a reply, considering how reluctant learners are to share their written work, but I was amazed to hear back from all 17 of the sempai, giving me their consent. Theywere pleased that I thought their work was worth sharing, and they were excited to be good sempai and help their kohai. Miku (all names are pseudonyms) studying in Spain, wrote “I would be very happy and honored if you use my essay for the students who are going to study abroad in the future….Hope my essay will help them to prepare for studying abroad.” Takashi, studying in Lithuania, wrote, “I’m glad to hear that my experiences would be helpful for somebody who wants to study abroad. I hope the experiences which I felt while studying abroad will be used for next challengers [sic].”

The advice for their kohai ranged from urging them to study English and the local language intensively (for those planning to study in non-English-speaking countries) before studying abroad to advice about coping with differences in climate and cuisine, how to stay safe, the best forms of money to use (e.g., cash in Cambodia, credit cards in Korea), and a reminder that the outlets and voltages are different, depending on the country. Moreover, they urged their kohai to make friends with local people and learners from other countries besides Japan and to research their destination country and university beforehand. A comment that I found particularly interesting was from Nobu, studying in Spain. He wrote:

Regarding communication with other foreign students, you do not need to feel inferiority if you do not have confidence in your English skills. At first, I hesitate to speak English because I did not have confidence in my English. Even though I determined not to hesitate to communicate with other international students before I got here, I got nervous and became shy when I face this situation. However, while I talked with many international friends, I found that no one demand accurate pronunciation and perfect grammar from me, so now I can enjoy talking with many friends. (Nobu, Spain)

Thank you, Nobu! I often say words similar to those written by Nobu, particularly about pronunciation and grammar, but the reaction from my learners is almost always “No! I can’t do it! I am too shy! My English is not good enough!” But when these words came from their sempai,they were much more meaningful and impactful.

Sadly, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all study abroad programs in Japan have been suspended, preventing me, for now, from following up on how effective the sempai’s advice was in helping their kohai prepare for studying abroad. However, the enthusiasm that the sempai displayed in these assignments and their willingness to let me share their work with their kohai shows that giving Japanese learners writing assignments with an important purpose and an authentic audience, within the sempai/kohai relationship, can help learners overcome their writing anxiety and make their writing assignments more meaningful.

References

Curtis, A. (1999). The sound of silence. English Teaching Professional, 10, 12–13.

Doyon, P. (2000). Shyness in the Japanese EFL class: Why it is a problem, what causes it, and what to do about it. The Language Teacher, 24(1). https://jalt-publications.org/articles/24571-shyness-japanese-efl-class-why-it-problem-what-it-iswhat-causes-it-and-what-do-about

Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, (21),112–126.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M., & Cope, J. A. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125–132.

King, J. (2013). Silence in the second language classrooms of Japanese universities. Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 325–343.

Shvidko, E. (2020, March). Course projects to help students write for audiences beyond the classroom. SLW News.http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/tesolslwis/issues/2020 03-16/3.html


Aviva Ueno is an assistant professor in the Faculty of International Studies at Meiji Gakuin University in Yokohama, Japan. Her main areas of interest are using technology to facilitate language acquisition, maintaining learner motivation, and promoting reflective practice. She holds a master’s in TESOL from Anaheim University (California).

APPLYING LEARNER CORPUS DATA IN SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING COURSES


Ashley Velázquez


        Nina Conrad


      Shelley Staples


Kevin Sanchez

Corpus-Based Instruction and Crow

Corpus-based methods for teaching (writing) provide instructors with opportunities to heighten students’ awareness of language patterns through exposure to authentic texts (Charles, 2011; Shin et al., 2018); such exposure allows students to make contextually and rhetorically appropriate choices when writing in a given register/genre. Exposing students to corpora can aid in building students’ lexical variety and their ability to communicate successfully in academic contexts by providing students with examples of phrases, frequency lists, and lexicogrammar commonly used in particular contexts (e.g., nursing, engineering, business), or within particular genres. For example, if students are learning how to incorporate sources, corpora can provide developing writers with authentic examples of phraseology used for rhetorical conventions such as reporting from sources (e.g., reporting verb forms and functions).

While there are quite a few corpora available for educators and researchers to utilize (e.g., COCA, BAWE, MICUSP), there are limited learner corpora available focused on Foundations Writing (composition and writing classes specific to the early undergraduate experience). In this article, we showcase Crow (the Corpus and Repository of Writing), which is a unique learner corpus compiled of texts written by first-year students from the University of Arizona, Northern Arizona University, and Purdue University. A learner corpus is one comprised of learners of any given language, whether they are L1 or L2 students, as opposed to a corpus comprised of published journal articles, newspapers, or published stories by expert users.

Like any corpus, a learner corpus aims for balance and representativeness of the domains it is trying to mirror. Learner corpora include texts that are representative of the genres/registers that students are asked to engage with; in Crow there are 26 genres, representing the variety of assignments that students are asked to write at our research sites including argumentative papers, literature reviews, literacy narratives, and genre redesigns. Learner corpora have a variety of benefits for the SLW classroom including representation of topics that interest first-year writers, and accessibility to the writing level; notably, in both projects outlined below, the texts that were used for corpus-informed instruction were produced by and read by students of the same context.

From our corpus, we have been able to both conduct research and generate evidence-based pedagogical materials that target learners’ needs. Two such projects are detailed below.

The Reporting Verb Project

Based on results from an empirical study on L2 learners’ uses of reporting verbs in the Crow corpus (Kwon et al., 2018), we developed pedagogical materials using literature reviews from Crow. The goal was to observe whether or not corpus-informed instruction would increase students’ variety of reporting verbs and improve their functional understanding and use of reporting verbs. Using these corpus-informed materials, we conducted a 45-minute workshops in three international sections of Foundations Writing courses.

The workshops took place after students wrote their first draft, but before they began revising. We measured the effectiveness of our workshop by examining changes between drafts, and compared changes in the workshop group to drafts from three randomly selected sections of the same course from the same semester that did not receive corpus-informed instruction. We coded for lexical variety using four main categories: Argue, Show, Find, and Think (access Charles, 2011), and we coded functional uses under three main categories: reporting, self-reference, and uncited generalizations (access Shin et al., 2018).

After coding the data, we observed differences in students’ lexical variety and functional uses between the first and final drafts. Our study provided evidence that corpus-informed instruction leads to students using more variety of reporting verbs; however, to see a more meaningful difference in students’ understanding of the functional uses of reporting verbs, students would need to be engaged in ongoing instruction.

The Reporting Verb Pedagogical Materials

The materials created for our workshop serve as a model for corpus-informed instruction that can be easily adapted and used within most L2 writing classes. For this article, we wanted to provide a walkthrough of how to create these types of materials and implement them into classroom instruction.

We chose to use literature reviews since we expected that students would be citing sources in these texts. We selected excerpts of literature reviews from academic articles as well as from learners in our corpus. For each sample, we bolded the reporting verbs. Figure 1 shows an example handout created for this activity. Before handing out this activity, we provided a general introduction to reporting verbs including their uses, purposes, definition(s), and example sentences from the Crow corpus. Next, students were asked to identify the reporting verbs in the excerpts we provided. For each of the excerpts, students identified and observed the placement of reporting verbs, then noted and unpacked differences between the academic articles and student writing. It should be noted that we included a positive example from the learner corpus, so that students could see how writers at their level successfully implemented reporting verbs. Finally, students applied this knowledge to their own writing by highlighting the reporting verbs in their drafts, identifying which ones they used more frequently, and choosing new ones from the list (Figure 2) we provided focusing on revising for appropriateness, variety, and accuracy.


Figure 1. Published and student excerpts of literature reviews with reporting verbs bolded.


Figure 2. Reporting verb table with definitions and examples.

The CUES Project

The aim of the second project, sponsored by the Center for University Educational Scholarship, is to harness corpus tools to advance the teaching, learning, and assessment of writing in Foundations Writing courses at the university. In year one of the multiyear project, we chose to develop, implement, and assess materials for English 107, a genre-based writing course developed for first-year international students.

The project advanced in two phases. First, we held focus groups with instructors teaching English 107 to conduct a needs analysis. We then used their feedback to develop corpus-based activities to accompany units focusing on two different genres that are typically taught in English 107 and for which we had a sufficient number of texts in the corpus: literacy narratives and genre analyses. We explored the two genres using multiple types of corpus analysis, including word frequencies, keywords, phrases, and concordance lines. Based on the patterns of language use that we identified in these genres and the instructors’ suggestions and feedback, we then designed activities to accompany each project.

In Phase 2, the instructors implemented the corpus-based activities in their classes, and we conducted classroom observations of the activities in use, surveyed instructors and students about their perceptions of the materials’ effectiveness, and collected examples of students’ writing to assess the efficacy of the materials. Students’ texts were added to Crow, where they are available to include in future corpus-based analysis and materials development.

CUES Pedagogical Materials

One affordance of corpus-based materials is that they can be used to raise students’ awareness of choices for language use without being prescriptive or error focused, which was a priority for us and our participating instructors. For example, instructors told us that their students often used sentence-initial transition words repetitively in their genre analysis papers; though they did not want to treat repetitiveness as an error, they requested materials that could help expand students’ repertoire of linguistic choices. We then explored Crow for different kinds of transitions used in genre analysis texts and developed a sequence of three activities focused on using transitions for exemplification, using “this” plus a summary word as a transition, and varying transitions throughout a text. Modeled on activities in Swales and Feak (2012) and Grammar and Beyond (Bunting et al., 2013) but modified for the Foundations Writing context, these activities made use of multiple types of excerpts, including a chart quantifying instances of different transition words, one-paragraph excerpts, concordance lines (Figure 3), and what we call “Crowcordance lines” (Figure 4). Crowcordance lines are two-sentence excerpts illustrating the use of a keyword in its surrounding context. We developed them in response to participating instructors’ concerns that traditional concordance lines do not provide enough context for exploring word placement at the sentence level.


Figure 3. Example of concordance lines.


Figure 4. Example of “Crowcordance” lines.

Students and instructors responded positively to the materials; most students reported that the activities helped them with their writing projects. From classroom observations, we confirmed that corpus-based activities work best when integrated with other types of activities. Students also expressed that they appreciated multiple chances to work with corpus-based activities, since it took some time to adjust to them, especially activities based on quantitative corpus data. We are creating videos to provide a better introduction to the materials and the corpus so students understand how the quantitative data were generated and why they are meaningful to analyze.

Conclusion

Our projects demonstrate the value and importance of evidence-based teaching while also providing opportunities for students to engage with texts that are both accessible and representative of the types of writing they encounter during their undergraduate studies, particularly in a first-year writing context. We invite readers to learn about Crow here https://writecrow.org/, and to consider using our web-based tool for their teaching purposes https://crow.corporaproject.org/. Access is freely available to instructors and researchers after filling out a short survey.

References

Bunting, J. D., Diniz, L., & Reppen, R. (2014). Grammar and beyond Level 4. Cambridge University.

Charles, M. (2011). Adverbials of result: Phraseology and functions in the Problem–Solution pattern. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(1), 47-60.

Kwon, M. H., Staples, S., & Partridge, R. S. (2018). Source work in the first-year L2 writing classroom: Undergraduate L2 writers' use of reporting verbs. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 34, 86-96.

Shin, J., Velázquez, A., Swatek, A., Staples, S., & Partridge, R. (2018). Examining the effectiveness of corpus-informed instruction of reporting verbs in L2 first-year college writing. L2 Journal, 10(3), 31-46.

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students (3rd ed.). University of Michigan.


Dr. Ashley Velázquez is an assistant professor in the School of Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences at the University of Washington, Bothell.


Nina Conrad is a PhD student in second language acquisition and teaching at the University of Arizona.

Dr. Shelley Staples is associate professor of English applied linguistics and director of second language writing at the University of Arizona.

Kevin Sanchez is an undergraduate student at the University of Arizona, studying English and creative writing.

A SAMPLE MOVES STRUCTURE ANALYSIS OF THE UNDERGRADUATE ENGINEERING LAB REPORT GENRE FOR SECOND LANGUAGE WRITERS

Yanisa Haley Scherber, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA


According to Open Doors (2019), which is a research organization funded by the U.S. Department of State, engineering is the number one university major chosen by international students in the United States. Despite this fact, many universities do not offer or require academic writing courses specifically catered to the unique needs of international engineering students, who may have limited exposure to the academic writing requirements expected of undergraduates in the United States.

It is with this in mind that I have developed the following moves structure analysis, which is a detailed analysis of a particular genre intended to acquaint learners with the prototypical structure expected of that genre and is broken down into specific steps or “moves” (Swales, 1990). In this analysis, I have examined the undergraduate engineering lab report genre. It is my intent that this analysis helps deconstruct the undergraduate-level lab report genre for future use in a university setting. Ideally, the forthcoming analysis would be used to contribute to an Academic Writing for Engineers course or an entire English for EngineersBridge/Pathway program that is intended for second language writers within a university’s College of Engineering; however, the analysis and information provided in this article may be adapted to meet varying curricular needs, on which I will elaborate.

Structure of Moves

To facilitate the creation of this moves structure analysis, authentic lab reports within the fields of mechanical, civil, and environmental engineering were sampled from the Michigan Corpus of Upper-Level Student Papers, which consists of student papers from undergraduates in upper division courses or graduate students in their early years of graduate study. For this specific analysis, two undergraduate reports and one graduate report were sampled. An outline of the moves structure condensed from these documents follows:

1. Title Page (optional)

a. Title of report

b. Memo-style (optional)

2. Summary/Abstract (optional)

a. Background/motivation for completing the experiment

b. Brief summary and description of the experiment and procedures

c. Concluding statement(s) with the findings and interpretation of these findings

3. Introduction

a. Heading labeled as Introduction

b. Motivations for completing this experiment

c. Review of literature and current understanding (optional)

i. Recent or relevant findings

ii. Figures (if necessary)

d. Experiment design (required overall, but optional to be contained within the introduction section)

i. Detailed procedure/steps completed in the experiment (required overall, but optional in the introduction section—the level of detail of this procedural information should be congruent with the following Procedures section so that a detailed account is included but not redundant)

ii. Information on the lab members and their roles in the experiment (optional)

iii. Statement of purpose of the document (optional)

4. Experiment Design and Procedures (required overall, but information on the experiment design may optionally be included in the introduction section instead)

a. Heading

i. Various titles accepted, but they must label the structure of the following section appropriately (e.g. Procedures, Methodology)

b. Reference to previous methods/research (optional)

c. Methodology/official standards and specifications followed (optional)

i. Heading (optional)

ii. Name of corresponding specifications (e.g., ASTM C-193, ASTM C-196)

iii. Additional details on how the specifications were used for this particular experiment (optional)

d. Procedures (required overall, but optional here if it has been provided in the introduction section)

i. Numbered or bulleted (optional)

e. Formulas used and explanations of these formulas (optional)

f. Calibration of instruments (optional)

g. Proposed new method/research design (if necessary)

5. Data Results and Analysis

a. Heading

i. Various titles accepted, but they must label the structure of the following section appropriately (e.g., Data Results, Data Results & Analysis)

b. Figures and tables with required in-text descriptions; optionally included below-figure/table descriptions

c. Clear statement of results

d. Discussion of findings (required overall, but optional in the results section)

i. Researcher interpretation of the results

ii. Limitations (if any)

6. Discussion of Findings (required overall, but optional as a new section—the level of detail of this discussion information should be congruent with the preceding Results and following Conclusion sections so that a discussion of the findings is included overall but not redundant)

a. Heading labeled as Discussion

b. Researcher interpretation of the results

c. Limitations (if any)

7. Conclusion

a. Heading labeled as Conclusion or Conclusions

i. An additional topic (e.g., Conclusion & Recommendations) (optional)

b. Reiteration of the experiment goal(s) and findings

c. Recommendations for future research (optional)

8. References (optional)

As can be observed from the preceding structure analysis, this genre is customizable within somewhat established bounds, and many of the elements of the undergraduate lab report are listed as optional. However, I would like to emphasize that this structure should be viewed from a more integrated (rather than sequential) perspective. By taking an integrated approach (i.e., looking at the structure holistically and not as a list of individual items), this configuration of optional and required components can be negotiated to fit the needs of the specific experiment and wants of the individual student, in order to develop a cohesive lab report. Additionally, many of the components listed as optional are, in fact, required somewhere within the document, but the locations of such information can vary, which results in the “optional” classification of many components. For example, Section 4d (information on the experiment’s procedures) is required in either Section 3 (Introduction) or Section 4 (Experiment Design and Procedures), but it is optional in this specific location (Section 4d). On the other hand, there are some components which appear truly optional, such as a title page (Section 1).

Though having such a detailed structure with many optional components may create a challenge for students to determine which (if any) optional steps to include and where to include certain information, I believe this is a useful challenge for this group of students, as it will likely help develop students’ critical thinking skills and get them into an “engineering mindset.” Additionally, this would also give students an opportunity to have more agency in their writing, which can help implicitly teach these students that there is more than one way to complete their future lab reports.

Teaching Suggestions

As stated previously, this moves structure analysis was originally developed for an English for Engineers Bridge/Pathway program or an Academic Writing for Engineers standalone course, but I believe this analysis could also be used in academic writing courses of differing programs and needs, such as for intensive English programs throughout the United States, regular one-on-one tutoring for international engineering students, or EFL programs designed to prepare engineering students to attend universities in the United States or another English-dominant country. Within these programs or tutoring settings, the analysis could be used to facilitate a career exploration into the engineering field for younger students or as a supplementary guide for students who may already have an engineering background but are looking to take engineering coursework in English or to work for an engineering company that communicates in English. This analysis would likely be beneficial for high-intermediate or above level students who are interested in using English in their future engineering pursuits.

In particular, I do recommend using this moves structure analysis as a medium for more detailed instruction, as opposed to solely providing this as a guide without instruction or explanation. Perhaps the latter method would be beneficial for some students, but overall, I believe the highest level of success can be achieved from using this moves structure analysis as a starting point for introducing this new genre, with instruction supplemented by authentic undergraduate lab report or academic writing samples.

From a practical perspective, one of the most important considerations to remember when teaching this genre is to avoid teaching it too formulaically. Given that the format of the structure analysis already implies a very formulaic nature to the genre, it is important that teachers communicate how choice, agency, and creativity can still be incorporated to avoid any inaccurate interpretations of the steps as rigid rules by early learners. This can be managed by showing samples of lab reports that differ in structure, writing style, language proficiency, experiment type, and/or length.

This structure analysis could be used for units of varying length. For example, a shorter unit (e.g., 1–2 weeks) could focus on the lab report genre as a whole and how it is used in the engineering field; a full unit (e.g., 3–5 weeks) could add additional focus to academic writing and language; and a full course (e.g., one semester) could be designed to contain three units: academic writing and language overview as Unit 1, Sections #1–4 (Title Page, Summary/Abstract, Introduction, Experiment Design and Procedures)as Unit 2, and Sections #5–8 (Data Results and Analysis, Discussion of Findings, Conclusion, References) as Unit 3, culminating to the final course project of a full lab report. In my example of the full course, Sections 1–4 and 5–8 were separated because Sections 1–4 are conducted prior to the experiment, and Sections 5–8 are conducted postexperiment; however, the exact direction of instruction could vary based on the needs of the students. Additionally, following are some sample activities which could be adapted to any of the above unit lengths:

  • Peer review of sections or an outline of a lab report
  • Cut up sections of sample lab reports and have students rearrange them in small groups, then go over each sample as a class
  • Provide sections of a lab report to small groups and have them identify where the various moves are, and if any (optional or required) moves are absent
  • Explain or conduct a sample experiment and have students outline which moves should be used and in what order, either individually or in small groups
  • Small group discussions on which optional moves would be required in which types of experiments


Conclusion

This article provided a sample moves structure analysis of the undergraduate lab report genre for international engineering students to be used in the classroom. In addition, I provided some elaboration and suggestions on how to utilize this analysis in the classroom. This analysis may be beneficial in multiple teaching environments, and I suggest that it be used as a material which is expanded upon in a classroom environment, ideally incorporating many samples of authentic undergraduate or academic writing.

References

Open Doors. (2019, November 18). Fields of study. https://www.iie.org/Research-and-Insights/Open-Doors/Data/International-Students/Fields-of-Study

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.


Yanisa Haley Scherber is working on her MA in applied linguistics and TESOL at the University of Alabama. Her experience includes working as a writing center tutor; teaching first-year composition; teaching ESOL at a community college, university, and community-language program; and teaching in an international teaching assistant (ITA) program.

DYNAMIC AND COLLABORATIVE WRITING: MAKING THE ACADEMIC WRITING PROCESS FRIENDLY

Beatriz Erazo, San Pablo Bolivian Catholic University, Bolivia


Some teachers face anxiety and frustration when their EFL/ESL students work on academic writing projects (Gugin, 2014) and fail to produce appropriate paragraphs or essays—imagine what students feel. This feeling is noticeable when students come from educational backgrounds where academic writing is not appropriately taught in their first language (L1). The situation gets worse when English becomes their third language.

Years ago, I taught advanced courses at a binational center, an autonomous institution that offers English instruction while promoting cultural exchange between Bolivia and the United States. Most of my students passed their final exams, even though their writing performance was poor. I had to accept that following the traditional style of writing academic essays (explaining the process, providing examples, and writing several drafts) was unproductive. The students did not know how to use this process effectively, and their essays did not have good quality.

Students needed to learn how to navigate through the different stages of academic writing successfully. Moving from a traditional approach, which focuses on the product, to a process approach (Giridharan & Robson, 2011) is believed to help students to "engage…in the process of writing" (p. 580) by allowing them to work on each stage of the process while getting "feedback for continuous improvement" (p. 580). When students focus on the process, they can find their voice and "become more self-directed" (Giridharan & Robson, 2011, p. 580). Emphasizing the process over the product helps students see this process as a creative activity. It also promotes a feeling of owning the final product, which reduces the levels of frustration that I somewhat perceived in my students' past writing projects. Furthermore, the process approach represents an adequate scaffolding tool.

As described by Akella (2010), the experiential learning cycle has four stages: "concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation" (p. 101); learners have to follow that sequence when entering at any point in the cycle. Based on that principle, I developed a writing project, divided into various stages, named "a thread project." This "thread project" should happen in different sessions as part of the regular classes for 3–7 days (maybe more), depending on the students' needs and level, and the writing genre. Each stage would happen in a different session (a different day, as part of their regular class). Students would first write and subsequently learn about the theory behind the process.

This thread project presents a variation to the academic writing process, including a freewriting stage combined with collaborative work principles. Freewriting helps students improve their writing fluency (Hwang, 2010), which, in my opinion, provides students with confidence as accuracy is revised later in the process.

Laal and Ghodsi (2012) have compiled various authors' opinions regarding the benefits of collaborative learning. According to them, "Student-centered instruction increases students' self-esteem; cooperation reduces anxiety…collaborating learning promotes critical thinking skills and involves students actively in the learning process" (p. 487). They also list other positive aspects, such as providing students with training opportunities to develop "the social skills needed to work cooperatively" while developing "social interaction skills" (p. 488). Therefore, this is an opportunity for students to focus on academic writing while practicing listening, speaking, and reading.

To explain this thread project, I will use writing a fable as an example. The project follows these steps:

Stage 1: Working in groups, students should read and analyze traditional fables, connecting this practice to what they learned in their L1 (activating students' schemata). They should also identify the title, characters, place, time, and moral of each fable. To scaffold this knowledge, students will read or watch videos about modern fables. In the meantime, the teacher encourages critical analysis of the fables, their storyline, and morals.

Stage 2: In new groups of three or four members, students discuss a fable they would create. They first decide on a topic, title, characters, time, and place. All of the team members must agree on these features. As homework, students should draw (not print) something representing everything they have agreed on regarding their fable.

Stage 3: In the next session or next class, to refresh their memories, students describe their assigned drawings to their teammates and make sure they are talking about the elements they decided on. The objective is to reinforce the ideas regarding topic, title, characters, time, and place. Later on, individually, using sticky notes or small pieces of paper, they write as many ideas as possible to write their fable. As a team, they put all their ideas together, keeping the most useful ones, deleting or adding others. They decide on the chronological order of events while moving the sticky notes. To finish the session, students copy their outline and, and as an assignment, they have to improve it.

Stage 4: Students explain the improved versions of their outlines, and the team puts all of them together, giving reasons for the changes they made and creating a final, definitive version of their outline. They divide it into three or four parts, depending on the number of members in each team, and decide who will write what. After studying their part of the outline, the students have 5 minutes to write without stopping or making any corrections. They should focus on writing and covering the outline information, and not on grammar or vocabulary. They may use their L1 if needed. Their assignment for the next session is to correct their piece using the corresponding rubric.

Stage 5: The team now has a peer review activity. Using the same rubric, students work on their classmates' writing pieces, focusing on accuracy, vocabulary, and mechanics. They also have to make sure that each piece follows the outline. For the next session, students improve their pieces based on the feedback received by their peers.

Stage 6: Each team puts all their pieces together, adding the title and the moral. They should work on making it a cohesive, easy-to-read piece. They prepare a copy for the teacher to edit. The teacher decides if the group needs to write one or two more drafts.

Stage 7: Once the teacher has provided appropriate feedback, students are ready to publish their work. This could be by creating a poster containing their drawings, sticky notes, drafts, and the final piece. They could also use Padlet, an online tool, to publish their fable, uploading pictures of the elements they created.

The teacher and students read the fables and vote for their favorite ones. Afterward, students reflect on the process, describing it step-by-step. The teacher explains what academic writing process is (i.e., brainstorming, outlining, writing, editing, and publishing). The students identify which activities belong to each part of the process and share their experiences.

To complete the experiential cycle, the teacher and students should reflect on the process. The students comment on their feelings, what they liked the most, what they have learned, and suggestions on how to improve the process. The following writing projects may follow the same guideline with variations depending on the learning objectives. Accordingly, it is advisable that at first, students work on paragraphs and simple narrations to focus on learning the writing process stages. Afterward, they can move on to descriptions, argumentations, and other more complex genres.

From this experience, students learned some other lessons, including committing to the team, working on self- and peer correction, and listening actively. There are advantages to teachers as well. They are able to promote autonomy, encourage creativity, have fun, and get fewer writing assignments to correct—a great advantage when they have more than 50 students in their class.

Teachers may devote either the entire class period or only the last 20–30 minutes to work on this project. It can also easily be adapted to an online environment using different technological tools. Teachers may use, for example, Zoom for the discussion sessions or text messaging apps to decide on the topic, setting, and plot of the fable. Students may work on Jamboard to brainstorm and outline their ideas, and Google Docs to compose drafts. The teacher can provide feedback during each stage. Students may work in smaller groups until they finally do it individually.

From my perspective and the opinions of some of my students, other advantages may arise from this project, including working in a friendly environment, strengthening friendship among students, and reducing anxiety and frustration.

I would like to conclude with the words of one of my students, who generously permitted me to cite her words:

It is really nice to see (and feel) how everyone is working as a team, listening to the opinions of their classmates, their stories, and their feelings. Something that I really like is when we correct each other, not with the intention of making someone feel bad, it is just for improving together. It feels very good! I like group work!

References

Akella, D. (2010). Learning together: Kolb's experiential theory and its application. Journal of Management & Organization, 16(1), 100–112.

Giridharan, B., & Robson, A. (2011). Identifying gaps in academic writing of ESL students. In Enhancing Learning: Teaching and learning conference 2011 proceedings. Enhancing Learning: Teaching and Learning Conference 2011, Curtin University Sarawak.

Gugin, D. (2014). A paragraph-first approach to the teaching of academic writing. English Teaching Forum, 52(3), 24–29.

Hwang, J. (2010). A case study of the influence of freewriting on writing fluency and confidence of EFL college-level students. Second Language Studies, 28(2), 97–134.

Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 31, 486–490.


Beatriz Erazo works at San Pablo Bolivian Catholic University as a professor of English, and at Mayor de San Andres University where she teaches applied linguistics. Her interests involve encouraging motivation, reflective learning-teaching, and critical thinking within the experiential learning framework.

GRADUATE STUDENT SPOTLIGHTS

CHAU TRUONG

Interview by Elena Shvidko, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA



Chau Truong


Elena Shvidko

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

Chau: I am from the Central of Vietnam, where I first earned my BA Degree in English, majoring in Translation, back in 2014. Interestingly, I ended up teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL) at a local vocational college thereafter. Although I had grown in the educational system as a student and working as a private English tutor for quite a while before starting teaching at school, my first year as an EFL teacher was a huge challenge. I taught classes of more than 50 students each, across disciplines with varied levels of proficiency and motivation, and very limited access to learning resources. That experience greatly inspired me to advance my learning in the field of EFL teaching, especially in less conditioned contexts. After some ups and downs of applying for scholarships to continue my graduate study, I was fortunate to start my Masters’ in Second Language Studies at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa in 2018, where I also worked as a Graduate Assistant. My duties were to teach academic reading and writing courses for international undergraduate and graduate students at the English Language Institute and providing writing counseling for the university’s faculty and students at the writing center. I finished my MA in Summer 2020.

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

Chau: The broad topic of L2 writing that I am currently motivated to learn more about is L2 writing teacher education, especially for teachers working in EFL contexts. While there are many studies that focus on helping students cope with difficulties as they learn to write in English, the content and pedagogic knowledge that EFL writing teachers themselves find essential remains under-researched ( Casanave, 2009; Reichelt, 2009). Adding to that, while teaching EFL has proven to be context-driven, EFL teacher education programs in Asia have been heavily informed by ESL curriculums from English speaking countries (Casanave, 2009). This raises the concern of how transferable ESL pedagogies are in preparing EFL teachers for their actual teaching contexts (Ferris & Hedgcock, 2014). And, very recently, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, schools at all levels are moving online as much as possible, so I am quite curious to learn about supporting EFL/ESL teachers in the condition of lack of in-person interaction while teaching writing and providing writing support.

Elena: Could you share one way that research informs your teaching and/or vice versa?

Chau: I was very lucky to be able to teach academic writing courses and working at the writing center while taking graduate coursework in L2 pedagogy. That way I was urged to reflect on applying the techniques and theories from my graduate courses to teaching, and at the same time exposing to teaching situations where I found motivational research topics for my studies.

In particular, studying the variety of student populations and the EFL educational contexts have helped me to be more sensitive teaching international students and supporting my clients at the writing center in enhancing not only their writing techniques but more importantly their comfort level of writing in another language. My students enjoyed it very much when I implemented the peer-feedback activity in class using smiley faces to show different levels of satisfaction for each category in student-made rubrics for all major papers in my writing classes.

Regarding the influence of teaching on my research, as much as I recognized how influential the knowledge acquired from graduate studies have had on my teaching, I started considering more deeply how to help EFL teachers who do not have the educational privilege as I do. That has inspired me to conduct my Master’s research project entitled “EFL Writing Teacher Education and Development in Vietnam.” The research’s utmost aim was for EFL teachers across Vietnam to have their voices heard in regards of the effectiveness of teacher education programs in the country and the urging needs of EFL in-service teachers. The paper was presented virtually at the TESOL 2020 MA Graduate Student Forum and was awarded the departmental prize for Scholarly Excellence.

I have also been very grateful for an extensive access to technology in the student and instructor modes, and the practice of resilience during stressful times. Thus, when my work and study were suddenly switched to 100% online in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, I was prepared with the knowledge of technology, and I also had the mental strength to manage finishing the semester effectively while also helping colleagues and students in need.

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

Chau: As I mentioned previously, the opportunity to study in such an advanced graduate program has greatly empowered me to explore the obstacles that EFL students and especially student-teachers in less privileged environments are facing. I am now more grounded with the theoretical and pedagogical methods to move forward to supporting other EFL teachers in raising their voices while reflecting on their own learning and teaching. While I acknowledge that there is no one perfect answer to the difficulties that EFL educators are dealing with, having the opportunities to identify and discuss such issues is the important starting point to any resolutions that may come. If I have a chance to embark on a doctoral study, my next step will be to work more on pedagogies that support L2 writing teacher education, focusing not only on English but also on other less commonly studied languages.

References

Casanave, C. P. (2009). Training for writing or training for reality? Challenges facing EFL writing teachers and students in language teacher education programs. In R. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 1-19). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. (2014). Teaching L2 composition: Purpose, process, and practice (3rd edition). New York: Routledge

Reichelt, M. (2009). A critical evaluation of writing teaching programmes in different foreign language settings. In R. Manchon (Ed.), Learning, teaching, and researching writing in foreign language contexts (pp. 183-206). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.


Chau Truong recently earned her MA degree in second language studies at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, where she also worked as a writing consultant at the Writing Center and an instructor of academic English courses for international students. She’s particularly interested in researching second language writing instruction development.


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.

ABOUT THIS COMMUNITY

SLW NEWS: CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS


Abstract:

SLW News is soliciting articles on second language writing (SLW) theory, research, and pedagogy in all ESL/EFL settings. Consider sharing your ideas with SLW colleagues by submitting a piece for the next issue.

Full text:

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 second language 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 (pre-K–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

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

General Submission Guidelines

Articles should

  • be no longer than 1,750 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 seventh edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (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, SLW News Managing Editor

E-mail: slwisnewsletter@gmail.com

See the following 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 (7th edition) format
  • be 600–900 words in length
  • include a 50-word (maximum 500 characters) abstract and a two- to three-sentence author biography


Computer-Assisted Language Learning Submissions

SLW News welcomes computer-assisted language learning (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


Abstract:

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. We invite you to join the conversation—contact a SLWIS leader for details.

Full text:

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

https://my.tesol.org/communities/community-home?CommunityKey=dd272c2e-ec58-451b-ab03-6d2fae6eace5

SLWIS Community Leaders 2020-2021

Chair: Aylin Baris Atilgan

Chair-Elect: Sarah Henderson Lee

Past Chair: Betsy Gilliland

Secretary: Özge Yol

Newsletter Editor: Elena Shvidko

Community Manager: Ashley Velazquez

External Web Manager: Charles Nelson

Steering Committee

2016-2019: Sandra Zappa-Hollman

2017-2020: Sarah Henderson Lee

2018-2021: Estela Ene, Megan Siczek

2019-2022: Veronika Maliborska, Julie Riddlebarger, M. Sidury Christiansen

Newsletter Editorial Staff

Managing Editor

Elena Shvidko

Book Review Editor

Steven Bookman

Development Officer: Deborah Crusan

Past Chairs

2019-2020: Betsy Gilliland

2018-2019: Tanita Saenkhum

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