L2 writing scholarship in JSLW: An updated report of research published between 1992 and 2015

Journal of Second Language Writing 38 (2017) 9–19

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Second Language Writing journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jslw

Short Communication

L2 writing scholarship in JSLW: An updated report of research published between 1992 and 2015

MARK

Carolina Pelaez-Morales Columbus State University, United States

AR TI CLE I NF O

AB S T R A CT

Keywords: Volume of publication Geographical distribution Countries Languages Linguistic distribution Research orientations Topics

JSLW has become an important voice in the field of second language writing. As the volume of L2 writing scholarship grows in JSLW and in other journals, it becomes important to take a systematic view of the available research. This report provides an updated analysis of the research published between 1992 and 2015 in JSLW, looking at volume of publication, geographic and linguistic distribution of the scholarship, research orientations, and topics addressed. While L2 writing researchers might have an anecdotal sense of what the journal publishes and earlier reports exist (Matsuda, 1997; Kapper 2002), researchers–and to some extent journal editors and reviewers–will find it useful to support that understanding with quantifiable and current data.

1. Introduction JSLW has become an important voice in the field, publishing a significant amount of L2 writing research. As the volume of L2 writing scholarship grows in JSLW and in other journals, it becomes important to take a systematic view of the available research. In this report, I provide an updated analysis of the research published between 1992 and 2015 in JSLW, looking at volume of publication, geographic and linguistic distribution of the scholarship, research orientations, and topics addressed. While earlier reports of the journal’s trajectory exist (Kapper, 2002; Matsuda, 1997), I include the earlier years of publication to have a comprehensive analysis of the data since earlier pieces did not provide details on methodology. This report is important for several reasons. First, a significant amount of scholarship has been produced since the most recent report on the state of JSLW research was published in 2002. Second, while L2 writing researchers might have an anecdotal sense of what the journal publishes, they will find it useful to support that understanding with quantifiable data. Third, publication patterns can provide valuable information on potential venues for research, which could be especially useful for L2 writing scholars in early stages of their scholarly careers. And last, while L2 writing researchers are the primary audience of this report, JSLW editors can also use it to reflect on history and on the direction of the journal. 2. Methodology To gather data, I reviewed sections in each original research article published between 1992 and 2015 in the following order: the author’s institutional affiliation, title, abstract, methodology, research questions, and in cases of ambiguity, the literature review and findings. When there was no methodology section, I reviewed the introduction and discussion/conclusion.1 Overall, the goal of this multi-layered review was to use what I found in each section to confirm or reject my initial observations. I discuss non-empirical articles to provide second language writing researchers a general sense of everything that has been published in JSLW and, when

1

E-mail address: [email protected]. In cases of ambiguity or when there were no distinct sections, I opted for reviewing all the sections.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.09.001 Received 23 September 2016; Received in revised form 28 August 2017; Accepted 1 September 2017 1060-3743/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Journal of Second Language Writing 38 (2017) 9–19

C. Pelaez-Morales

relevant, to explain potential shifts in topics over time. However, since these pieces did not typically include information on most of the topics of interest (language under investigation, context, or research methodology), they were not the primary emphasis of the analysis. Instead, I focused on empirical research articles, referring to non-empirical pieces only when pertinent. Several decisions were made when coding the data. Following Kapper (2002) and Matsuda (1997), I tracked the authors’ institutional affiliations to gain a sense of the geographic diversity of the scholarship. For example, if an article was published by an author affiliated with a U.S. institution, I coded that article as “U.S.” While there are shortcomings to this approach, I selected it because it provided the most comprehensive information about geographic diversity since all research articles are required to list an institutional affiliation, whereas not all of them make explicit references to where a research study takes place. In cases of political shifts (e.g. Hong Kong vs. China), I followed the authors’ own identification of the location. I also tracked single-authored research and two types of collaborations: same country (e.g. three researchers affiliated with an Australian university); and multi-country collaborations (e.g. a researcher in Australia and one in Canada). The former was coded as “Australia,” while the latter was coded as “Australia & Canada.” I used the same processes when coding information on language, and when authors made general references (e.g. L1 or L2), no language was recorded. In coding data, I faced similar challenges as other researchers conducting content analysis (Belcher, 2007). For instance, research articles address more than one topic and tracking them all would have made it difficult to identify trends. Therefore, the goal in coding topics was to find what the article was primarily about—this is as opposed to tools used (e.g. computers, essays); population (e.g. elementary school students); or context (K-12, college). For example, the article “Reconsidering genre theory in K-12 schools” was coded as being about “genre” rather than as “K-12 learners.” It is important to remember that in many cases, the title alone did not provide a clear indication of topic. For instance, the article “Refugees in first-year college: Academic writing challenges,” could have been coded based on the population (refugees) or based on the context where it took place (college). However, further review of different sections of the article, as described in the methodology section, showed the piece was primarily about academic problems, and therefore, it was coded as “academic writing.” To classify methodologies, aside from reviewing sections, I created a coding system, informed by Creswell’s (2014), listing characteristics of four types of research: quantitative, qualitative, mixed methodologies, and theory/literature review. I also used research questions, when stated, to help me determine how to code an article. For example, articles investigating the effect variable x had on variable y typically used quantitative or mixed methods frameworks. For simplicity, I did not attempt to distinguish between theoretical pieces and literature reviews, coding them instead as “theory/LR.” These articles tended to discuss a topic from different angles and in some cases, they made calls for further research. To contextualize findings and to provide L2 writing researchers with a general view of what the journal has published, the next section provides an overview of all articles, both empirical and non-empirical, published in JSLW from 1992 to 2015, while all other sections focus on empirical/original research only. To facilitate comparisons to previous reviews (Kapper, 2002; Matsuda, 1997), when pertinent, I discuss the data in five or ten-year intervals. 3. Findings 3.1. Volume of publication Between 1992–2015, JSLW published 86 issues, 336 original research articles, and 202 various types of non-empirical pieces. Of the original research articles, 181 (54%) were single-authored and 155 (46%) were collaborative—125 same-country and 30 multicountry collaborations—which shows that collaborations have had an important role in the journal. These findings are somewhat consistent with previous reports. In his analysis of research published between 1992 and 1996, Matsuda (1997) found 61 scholarly articles and 3 dialogues, while Kapper (2002) reported 135 scholarly articles between 1992 and 2001, suggesting that the scholarship had more than doubled in the journal’s first 10 years.2 While it is true that the number of articles had increased significantly, going from 61 to 135, as Table 1 shows, this growth can be attributed to a substantial increase in non-empirical pieces, including dialogues, some of which drew considerable attention in the 1990s and early 2000s, and not to large increases in reports of original research. The same is seen between 2007 and 2015, when non-empirical pieces grew at a higher rate than empirical research articles. Kapper and Matsuda reported about 40% of the research published in the journal’s first ten years was collaborative, and this trend continues to date, as will be discussed. In the 2000s, the journal’s visibility grew significantly, and while no causal relationship can be established, all of the following could have been contributing factors. As Kapper (2002) acknowledges, JSLW began appearing online in 2001 and around the same time, 2002, the journal started publishing more frequently—4 issues rather than 3—and more various types of articles.3 In 2006, TESOL started a Second Language Writing Interest Section along with a listserv and an online newsletter called SLW News, and a year later, the Symposium on Second Language Writing became an annual meeting rather than an every-other-year conference, as it had been since its inception in 1998 (Symposium). Also in the 2000s, L2 writing began being recognized outside of L2 writing circles; for instance, the College Composition and Communication Conference formed a special interest group and a standing committee on L2 writing (CCCC, 2001; T. Silva, personal communication, July 31, 2017). Taken together, all of these developments, along with the large increase in scholars focusing on L2 writing-related issues in the early to mid-1990s (T. Silva, personal communication, July 31, 2 3

It is unclear from the earlier pieces what exactly was counted as a scholarly source, which might account for the differences. The first introduction to an issue appeared in 2001, reports in 2003, book reviews in 2010, and disciplinary dialogues in 2012.

10

Journal of Second Language Writing 38 (2017) 9–19

C. Pelaez-Morales

Table 1 Publications in 5 year intervals. Year

Research Articles

Introduction to issues

Reports

Dialogues

Editorials

Book reviews

Annotated bibliographies

Disciplinary dialogues

Other

Total

1992–1996 1997–2001 2002–2006 2007–2011 2012–2015 Totals

63 55 65 71 82 336

0 1 4 1 2 8

0 0 3 1 5 9

4 10 5 4 0 23

0 0 1 3 3 7

0 0 0 8 30 38

12 sets 12 sets 19 sets 20 sets 16 sets 79 sets

0 0 0 0 33 33

0 1 1 2 1 5

79 79 98 110 172 538

2017), could be assumed to have raised the visibility of L2 writing and thus its dissemination vehicles: JSLW, TESOL and other conferences. 3.2. Geographic distribution JSLW has become an increasingly diverse journal, publishing 336 original research articles by authors affiliated with academic institutions in 31 different countries. As Matsuda (1997) reported, between 1992 and 1996, JSLW authors were from 6 countries: the United States, Brazil, South Africa, Canada, Hong Kong, and Japan. By 2001, JSLW authors originated from 10 more countries for a total of 16, as Kapper (2002) reported, indicating that the geographic diversity of the scholarship had more than doubled in 10 years. These countries were those reported by Matsuda as well as Singapore, Australia, Colombia, Iran, Israel, Mexico, Spain, Taiwan, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. A similar pattern is seen between 2002 and 2015, when the journal saw an increase in participation from 15 more countries for a total of 31. These countries are Argentina, Belgium, Croatia, Egypt, Germany, Ireland, Korea, Peru, Malaysia, New Zealand, Netherlands, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, and United Arab Emirates. In a 13-year period, 2002–2015, the representation of countries almost doubled once more, which shows that the journal has gained international recognition over time. My on-going research on the geographic representation of L2 writing scholarship suggests that while many studies take place in the same location as that of the authors’ academic institutions, not all of them do, and studies on this other angle of geographic diversity can help us gain an even more comprehensive picture of how diverse the L2 writing scholarship is and of ways to strengthen our research methodology, as will be discussed. Despite diversity, the representation of individual countries has been uneven. The U.S., Hong Kong, Japan, and Canada have not only maintained a steady presence in the journal, but research by authors from these countries have produced most of the scholarship: 79% of the single-authored research and 71% of the collaborative research written by authors from the same countries.4 However, articles originating in other countries have only appeared in the journal sporadically. For instance, since the early 2000s, no articles have originated from Colombia, Brazil, Iran, Israel, Mexico, South Africa, or Ukraine. While research emerged from Argentina, The Netherlands, Sweden, and Turkey, each country was represented by only 1–5 articles. Two notable examples of growth are China and New Zealand, which have more than doubled their publication output in JSLW since the early 2000s. These findings suggest that the internationalization of the journal continues to date, but that there could be more consistent inclusion of international scholarship. L2 writing researchers can use this list to identify underexplored contexts since research tended to be conducted in the same location(s) as the authors’ institutions. Shifts in authorship have occurred over time, including a reduction in single-authored publications and an increase in collaborations since the early 2000s. To illustrate, the percentage of single-authored research decreased from 63% in 2002–2006 to 56% in 2007–2012 and to 38% in 2012–2015, with corresponding increases in collaborations. As Appendix A shows, the countries that have maintained a steady presence in the journal have also produced most of the single-authored research: The U.S., Hong Kong, Japan, and Canada, but they also have produced most of the collaborations. For example, of the 125 same-country collaborations, the majority involved authors working in the U.S., Canada, Japan, and to a lesser degree, Hong Kong. As this list shows, the same countries lead the way in terms of geographic representation, although others have become more visible, for instance, China, the U.K, Spain, New Zealand, Australia, and Taiwan. This indicates that while collaborations have been on the rise, and they increase the geographic diversity of the journal, there continue to be geographic pockets of research given that most research articles originate from a handful of countries, which increases the visibility of some regions but not others. Collaborations, especially multi-country collaborations or those involving researchers working in distinct geographic areas, have increased significantly in the last four years. To illustrate, there were a total of six multi-country collaborations between 1992 and 2001 and nine between 2002 and 2011, with an average of 1–2 published every year—this contrasts with the 15 found between 2012 and 2015, an average of four per year, indicating that multi-country collaborations have more than doubled. Collaborations can increase the diversity of the journal, and they also allow researchers from outer circle and expanding circle countries to publish in JSLW. Some examples include Brazil, South Africa, Peru, Egypt, and Germany, all separate collaborations with U.S. scholars. These and other collaborations are encouraging in that they suggest a continued trend toward internationalization as well as an interest in collaborative research, which has been on the rise, perhaps given pressure placed on academics to publish (Canagarajah, 2002). 4 Multi-country collaborations (#30) are excluded from these percentages but as readers can see in Appendix C, several of these research articles involved researchers from these four countries.

11

Journal of Second Language Writing 38 (2017) 9–19

C. Pelaez-Morales

Readers can see Appendices B and C for specific counts of collaborations. 3.3. Linguistic distribution Although all research articles in JSLW have been written in English, the journal has published research articles about 13 languages: English, French, German, Japanese, Persian, Spanish, Dutch, Korean, Swedish, Turkish, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Italian. While this list is encouraging because it suggests a trend towards broader coverage of L2 writing, a closer look at the research shows that the scholarship published in JSLW has been linguistically homogeneous. Out of 336 original research articles, 2755 identified a language under investigation and 72% (or 241) were studies about English, 7% compared English to another language(s), and 5% were about other languages. In this sense, English has been the most common language addressed in research published in JSLW, and this pattern is not only consistent with previous research (Ortega, 2004), but it has continued over time. The claim that most L2 writing research is about English writing is not new (Reichelt, 1999), but it is important to understand the degree to which this is the case. To give readers perspective, here are the top focal languages in terms of publication frequency in a 23year period in JSLW: English (241 articles), followed by English & Chinese (5), German (5), English & Japanese (3), English & Korean (3), French (3), English & Dutch (2), and Spanish (2) with all other languages represented by just one article. As this list shows, differences in linguistic representation are immense, and therefore, opportunities to publish L2 writing research about more diverse languages abound. For instance, one study has been published in JSLW on Persian, Turkish, and Swedish, and only two studies have compared languages other than English: one in Italian and French, the other comparing Mandarin, Vietnamese, and Spanish. The perception that research published in JSLW is primarily research about English writing has implications for the field. For example, it can lead to the impression that L2 writing research in other languages belongs in foreign language journals only. Foreign language journals, on their part, might also assume that research about writing is better suited for a writing journal such as JSLW. This divide produces what I call a bouncing publication effect that might put L2 writing researchers interested in languages other than English in a difficult position to publish their research and share their findings with the larger L2 writing community. The over- representation of English writing in JSLW is a missed opportunity for the journal to truly be an all-inclusive journal of L2 writing, not just English L2 writing, and for researchers and practitioners alike to have a more encompassing view of L2 writing. This is not to suggest that research on English writing is no longer important, but to re-emphasize the need for more linguistic diversity in the second language writing scholarship, including that published in the field’s flagship journal. Monolingual L2 researchers can find research opportunities in various L2s via collaborations with speakers of/experts on that language, while JSLW should strive to include linguistically diverse research. There is also room for more research comparing multiple languages since most studies (253 articles) investigated a single language, while fewer compared two (17) or three or more languages (5). Since linguistic diversity was limited, there were no noticeable shifts over time. Readers can consult Appendix D to see counts of languages reported upon in JSLW articles. 3.4. Research orientations Both Matsuda (1997) and Kapper (2002) acknowledged the variety of methodological perspectives in JSLW, and this is partially consistent with my findings. Out of 336 research articles, 80.6% were empirical, while the remaining 19.3% were theoretical discussions or literature reviews. Of the 271 empirical articles, 138 (51%) have used qualitative frameworks, 78 (29%) were quantitative, while 55 (20%) used mixed methods.6 Therefore, while there has been some methodological variety, empirical research published in JSLW has been predominantly qualitative. Interest in qualitative research increased in the late 1990s and has grown since, especially in the last four years. The high number of qualitative studies could be due to the topics researched, to the need to understand phenomena comprehensibly, or to the use of convenience samples. It is also possible that disciplinary differences play a role in the incidence of qualitative research in JSLW. For instance, many composition scholars are not trained or expected to conduct quantitative research, unlike researchers in other fields, including applied linguistics, psychology or even education. A close look at the scholarship reveals shifts in methodological variety occurring over time. As Table 2 shows, between 1992 and 1996, the number of articles that represented the different methodological types were very similar across the board, indicating balance in methodological approaches. Quantitative research had a more important role in the early scholarship. However, interest in this methodology seems to have declined in subsequent years, although there was a slight increase between 2012 and 2015, partially driven by some quantitative studies on corpora. Interest in qualitative research has increased over time, which has created an imbalance in methodological variety of articles appearing in the journal. Surprisingly, theoretical discussions have been predominantly featured in the journal, surpassing mixed-methods studies in most 5-year periods, except one (2012–2015), and at times, they have also surpassed quantitative studies (2002–2011). Theoretical pieces are typically written by established L2 writing scholars, many of whom have also written introductions to volumes, editorials, or disciplinary dialogues, which acknowledges their expertise and also gives them visibility in the journal. As this discussion demonstrates, second language writing researchers can conduct more mixed-methods and quantitative studies, while editors can make efforts to feature these studies in the journal perhaps via special issues, all of which would balance methodological perspectives. 5

Some, but not all 271 of empirical articles identified a language under investigation. The same applied to theoretical pieces. These percentages are based on the 217 empirical articles only. Accounting for the total database (336 articles), the distribution will be as follows: 41% qualitative, 23% quantitative, and 16% mixed methods, as Table 2 shows. 6

12

Journal of Second Language Writing 38 (2017) 9–19

C. Pelaez-Morales

Table 2 Research Methodologies. Years

Quantitative

Qualitative

Mixed

Theory/LR

1992–1996 1997–2001 2002–2006 2007–2011 2012–2015 Totals

19 15 12 11 21 78 (23.2%)

19 23 25 35 36 138 (41.1%)

10 7 11 12 15 55 (16.4%)

15 10 17 13 10 65 (19.3%)

While it is possible that the different ratios of research methodologies are a result of the writers’ disciplinary orientations, and the journal does not control the types of work researchers submit, methodological variety could be beneficial, especially given the multidisciplinary origins of the field (Matsuda, 2003; Silva & Leki, 2004). 3.5. Topics The diversity of topics in the JSLW scholarship is significant, and yet only eight account for over half of the total original research published between 1992 and 2015. These topics are feedback (14%), genre (9%), writing processes (6%), assessment (6%), use of sources (5%), academic writing (5%), revision (4%), and writing for publication (3.6%). The most popular subtopics among these investigations included error correction, the importance of genre for L2 writing, cognitive process, placement, plagiarism, and challenges in academic writing and in writing for publication. Several studies also looked at revisions made as a result of tutors’ or peers’ intervention. As this list shows, most subtopics demonstrate an interest in pedagogical or pragmatic issues, which is not to say that the journal has been pedagogically oriented but to point out that over half of the scholarship has addressed how to help learners succeed. The fact that fewer than 10 topics have represented over 51% of the empirical articles produced in 23 years highlights the importance of these topics, but it also signals a need to continue diversifying the scholarship. For instance, as Appendix E shows, only a handful of studies have been conducted on topics like linguistic accuracy, fluency, and complexity; ideology; sociopolitical/sociocultural issues; writing instruction abroad7; and transfer. More research should be conducted on topics that were represented by fewer than five articles in the same 23-year period too, and these include: the role of personal factors on writing performance, for instance, anxiety or motivation and identity, including the role gender plays in L2 writing. Last, L2 writing scholarship can continue to be strengthened by research on topics that while not relevant in contexts where the language is used daily (e.g. a study of English in an English-speaking environment), might be of interest to L2 practitioners and researchers in foreign language contexts, including the role of dictionary use, and the role of study abroad, among others. It is possible, as will be discussed, that some of the topics that have not been predominantly featured in JSLW are appearing in other journals too; for instance, an article on writing program administration might be more appealing to a journal such as the WPA Journal, which might explain the low incidence of research articles on this topic. Topics have fluctuated over time too, which can be partially attributed to JSLW special issues, to efforts by professional organizations, and to other factors. Not surprisingly, topics consistently featured in the journal are also those with a high number of publications, and they include feedback, writing process, academic writing, and revision. Other topics have been common at distinct periods of time. For instance, between 1992 and 2001, there were 12 studies on assessment, and this contrasts with nine published since then, although this number could increase since the 2017 Symposium on Second Language Writing focused on assessment (Symposiumon Second Language Writing, 2017). Other topics common in the same period fell into disfavor later, and they include technology, voice, and coherence. The growth in studies on voice could be partially attributed to a JSLW 2001 special issue on the topic, and while several researchers used technological tools in their studies, very few focused on the technology itself, which might explain the low number of articles on the topic.8 As mentioned, studies on genre and writing for publication have been common in the JSLW literature, but most studies on these topics appeared between 2002 and 2011, which corresponds to special issues or to conference themes. As Table 3 shows, in 2011, JSLW published a special issue on genre, while the Symposium on Second Language Writing focused on disciplinary issues and writing for publication in 2010 and 2011 (Symposium). Last, 2012–2015 has seen an increase in publications on use of sources, disciplinary writing, and syntax/syntactic complexity, and at least two of these topics correspond to special issues: textual appropriation in 2012 and L2 writing complexity in 2015. As this description shows, the journal has had a direct impact in shaping the JSLW scholarship, and this happens not just via special issues, but also through discussions among scholars. For instance, early research on feedback focused on peer feedback or teacher feedback, but since 2001, two years after a series of published exchanges in JSLW (Ferris, 1999; Truscott, 1999), most studies have been about error correction.9 Other shifts could also depend on various factors, 7

An increase in this topic was seen in 2008 when there was a special issue on foreign language contexts. However, most of the research was about English writing. Although outside of the scope of the review period in this report, the 2017 special issue on L2 writing in computer-mediated contexts could be a partial response to the low incidence of articles on this topic in the journal. 9 There has been at least one study published on the topic of error correction every year since 2001, and here they are listed by date rather than alphabetically. Those marked with an asterisk are non-empirical studies. While many of these studies have been published by the researchers initiating the discussion in the 1990s, many others are not: Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Yates & Kenkel, 2002; Chandler, 2003; Ferris, 2004; Lee, 2004; Truscott, 2004*; Chandler, 2004*; Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005; Guenette, 2007; Truscott, 2007; Bitchener, 2008; Truscott & Yi-ping Hsu, 2008; Chandler, 2009*; Truscott, 2009*; Bruton, 2009*; Xu, 2009*; 8

13

Journal of Second Language Writing 38 (2017) 9–19

C. Pelaez-Morales

Table 3 JSLW Special Issues and Symposium on Second Language Writing topics: 1992–2015. Year(s)

JSLW Special Issues

Symposium on Second Language Writing Topic and location

1992–1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

N/A No theme (U.S.) N/A Contexts of L2 writing (U.S.) N/A Approaches to inquiry in L2 writing (U.S.) N/A L2 Writing Instruction in Context(s): The Effects of Institutional Policies and Politics (U.S.) N/A Practicing theory in L2 writing (U.S.) L2 writing in the Pacific Rim (Japan) Foreign language writing instruction: principles and practices (U.S.) The future of L2 writing (U.S.) Crossing disciplinary boundaries (Spain) Writing for scholarly publication: beyond “publish or perish” (Taiwan)

2013

None None None None Voice in L2 writing Early L2 writing L2 writing in the post-process era - Conceptualizing Discourse/Responding to Text - Writing centers None None Teacher educators/education Writing in Foreign Language contexts None None The future of genre: a North American perspective Adolescent L2 writing in U.S. contexts - Text Appropriation and source use in L2 writing - Exploring L2 writing-SLA interfaces Writing as meaning-making? Teaching to mean

2014 2015

Corpus L2 writing complexity

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Graduate study in L2 writing (U.S.) L2 writing in the global context: represented, underrepresented, and unrepresented voices (China) Professionalizing second language writing (U.S.) Learning to write for academic purposes (New Zealand)

including researchers’ interests, their access to populations, gaps in knowledge, and quality of the research, as well as the availability of other specialized journals such as Assessing Writing. 4. Discussion Given its exclusive focus on L2 writing, JSLW has become a central voice in the field, which is far from the journal’s humble origins (Silva, 2012). The journal’s online availability has contributed to JSLW‘s visibility outside the U.S, which has helped sustain and expand the journal’s authorship and readership. The more visible the journal becomes, the more likely authors are to want to publish in it, which increases its prestige, and this is seen in the journal’s standing among other Applied Linguistics and writing journals. For instance, currently, JSLW has an overall impact factor of 1.591, a 5-year impact factor of 3.000, and a SCImago Journal rank of 1.985 (JSLW). The impact factor represents the average number of citations by articles published in the journal during the two preceding years, while the SCImago Journal Rank shows the journal’s rank based on the number of citations the journal receives in the previous three years, hence, indicating the journal’s impact and prestige. But JSLW’s growth and current prestige would not have been possible without the journal’s own efforts to internationalize and expand its content to appeal to a broader audience. Conference themes and professional meetings and organizations have contributed to the growth of the scholarship and to its considerable geographic diversity. For instance, the Symposium on Second Language Writing was held in Japan, Spain, Taiwan, China, New Zealand, and Thailand (Symposium), while the International Society for the Advancement of Writing Research has held conferences in France and Colombia (ISAWR, 2017). These meetings provide networking opportunities with scholars outside one’s geographic areas, hence contributing to internationalization and to collaborative research. International students often retain professional connections, and these connections coupled with an increasingly competitive publication market support the growth of collaborations and of geographic diversity, too. The geographic diversity of the (JSLW, 2017) scholarship is undeniable, but given the vast differences in the number of articles by U.S. vs. non-U.S. authors, more inclusion of diverse countries is desirable. For example, research opportunities are available in Africa, Central and South America, and Europe, and in some parts of Asia. The spread of English as a lingua franca has contributed to the linguistic homogeneity in the JSLW scholarship. English is the most commonly taught language abroad, and there is increasing pressure for academics in the periphery to publish their findings in English (Canagarajah, 1996; Crystal, 2012). While this is true, it is possible for L2 writing scholars to research different languages while continuing to publish in English. This is important because if most L2 writing research is, in fact, research on English writing in English-speaking countries, we only have a partial understanding of L2 writing. Therefore, L2 writing researchers should conduct more research on diverse languages, including non-alphabetic languages, and consider JSLW as publication outlet. This is especially important because a significant number of international students coming to the U.S. are users of non-alphabetic L1s (Open doors, 2016). It is possible that L2 writing research in other languages is being sent and published in language-specific journals, such as Hispania or French Review. If this is the case, JSLW editors should continue making explicit efforts to promote, welcome, and support

(footnote continued) Bitchener, 2009*; Bitchener & Knoch, 2010; Bitchener, 2012; Polio, 2012; Shintani & Ellis, 2013; Ferris, Liu, Sinha , & Senna, 2013 ; Liu & Brown, 2015; Han & Hyland, 2015). It is worth noting that this list excludes studies on other types of feedback like teacher or peer feedback.

14

Journal of Second Language Writing 38 (2017) 9–19

C. Pelaez-Morales

diverse submissions, while continuing to brand JSLW as a journal about L2 writing in any language, not only English. While this is stated in the journal’s description, a quick glance at the literature the journal actually publishes demonstrates a linguistic imbalance of sorts, which might inadvertently deter authors writing about other languages from submitting to JSLW. It is also possible that the lack of linguistic representation in JSLW is a result of the quality of the research editors receive. JSLW has published research with different methodological traditions, but most of it has been qualitative. Qualitative research is important for the journal and field as are theoretical pieces, but L2 writing researchers should also conduct more mixed methods and quantitative studies to help increase methodological variety. While JSLW editors and reviewers cannot control the methodologies authors use, they do control which manuscripts eventually get published, and in this sense, much like L2 writing researchers, they have some ability to increase methodological variety in the journal too. For instance, they can reduce the number of theoretical pieces they publish, especially considering that other sections, such as the disciplinary dialogues, stimulate theoretical discussions, to make room to publish studies using other methodologies. Because content tends to be more controlled by the editors, special issues also offer an opportunity to balance methodological approaches more intentionally. While the purpose of this review was not to assess congruence; for instance, if an author had used a methodology that matched the population or variables under study, the following suggestions can also help authors contribute toward methodological variety. First, authors can use collaborations to increase methodological perspectives. Second, research questions as well as gaps in the field’s knowledge should continue driving methodological choices. Although more research would be required to confirm this observation, the low number of mixed methods studies could be partially attributed to the use of similar datasets in different publications (e.g. when an author publishes a quantitative study and then uses one participant as the focus of a case study for a different article) and/or to reviewers’ familiarity and/or comfort with mixed methods. And last, authors should be explicit about the methodology they use (quantitative, qualitative, etc.) as well as the specific type of study they are conducting (for instance, case study vs. ethnography). Taken together, these suggestions can help writers contribute to the methodological variety and precision seen in the JSLW scholarship. The topics featured in the journal have been diverse, but most of the scholarship has been about one of eight topics of pedagogical/pragmatic importance, including feedback, assessment, revision, and use of sources. These topics are important, but given the amount of scholarship available, we have a better understanding of these topics than of others. Therefore, there should be more variety of topics as well as more studies on topics that have only appeared in the journal a few times, including gender, reading, motivation, and study abroad, to name a few. Special issues offer an opportunity to increase topic variety as well. The presence (or lack of thereof) of topics in JSLW could be due to the availability of other publication venues, and as new journals appear, the number of articles on specialized topics can be reduced. For instance, researchers might choose to submit their work to the new Journal of Response to Writing, which could result in a reduction in the research on feedback JSLW receives in the future. If it happens, this change will be consistent with other changes in publication venues and frequency of L2 writing research featured in them. For instance, there was a sharp reduction in the number of research articles on L2 writing published by TESOL Quarterly after JSLW began publication (Silva, 2011).10 Researchers could also be finding publication venues that acknowledge concerns in their immediate contexts; for instance, a study on the use of dictionaries or translation could be more relevant to researchers working with beginner learners in foreign language environments. These topics might not be as appealing to a writing journal, given the discipline’s current views on the differences between composing vs. translating. Therefore, another way to increase topic variety would be by articulating a more inclusive view of what writing means, a view that acknowledges that not all L2 writers see writing as composing. 5. Conclusion JSLW has been successful in internationalizing its scholarship, and in this sense, the journal should continue shaping the direction of the field. Overall, increased visibility, explicit efforts to grow and internationalize, as well the journal’s exclusive focus on L2 writing, have all helped JSLW increase its publication output and the geographic diversity of its scholarship, and gain recognition as an international and competitive journal. Collaborations have also had a positive impact on the scholarship since they often involve researchers with different fields of expertise or working in distinct geographic areas; hence, they contribute to not just geographic diversity, but to diversity in topics and methodologies. This report is ideally useful to L2 writing researchers, and to some degree to JSLW editors, editorial board members, and reviewers. It is possible that the types of topics, languages, contexts, and methodologies featured in JSLW have little to do with researchers’ interest in the topics themselves and more to do with the quality of the submissions, which highlights the role second language writing researchers have in the process of diversifying the scholarship. In this sense, L2 writing researchers can use this report to examine their own role in this diversification process, which can ideally prompt them to make their research more diverse, but also competitive and rigorous, as to increase the chances of publication. Not only does this report provide quantifiable information to support the trends L2 writing researchers, including those who have been following the journal for a number of years, might have known intuitively, but it can also provide potential direction for new and existing research projects. For their part, while they cannot predict what research will be submitted to the journal, JSLW editors and editorial board members can use information from this report to decide what changes (if any) would benefit the journal as well as its readership and to make adjustments to render 10 According to Silva’s presentation at the 2011 TESOL convention, TESOL Quarterly used to publish the largest amount of L2 writing research before JSLW’s inception, followed by English Teaching Forum, and ELT. These journals saw a sharp decline in L2 writing research beginning in the 2000s.

15

Journal of Second Language Writing 38 (2017) 9–19

C. Pelaez-Morales

the scholarship even more diverse—whether this is done in the form of new special issues, adding or deleting sections. Reviewers can also contribute to the diversification of the literature through their review process; for instance, by becoming more familiar with mixed methods, by accepting different topics that might not be of relevance to their immediate context, but could be relevant to others, etc. Last, although to a lesser extent, this report could also be useful to readers of L2 writing research, including those who are interested in staying up-to date on shifts in the scholarship, even if they do not conduct research themselves. Appendix A. Single-authored research, 1992–2015

Country

Number of articles

% single authored research

Argentina Australia Canada China Colombia Hong Kong Germany Iran Japan Korea Netherlands New Zealand Singapore Spain Sweden Taiwan Turkey Ukraine U.S. U.K. United Arab Emirates TOTAL

1 3 10 7 1 16 1 1 20 1 1 3 2 2 1 5 1 1 97 5 1 181

0.5% 1.6% 5.5% 3.8% 0.5% 8.8% 0.5% 0.5% 11% 0.5% 0.5% 1.6% 1.1% 1.1% 0.5% 2.7% 0.5% 0.5% 53.6% 2.7% 0.5% 99%

Appendix B. Same Country Collaborations, 1992–2015

Country

Number of articles

% of total same country collaborations

% of total collaborations (155)

Australia Belgium Canada China Croatia Hong Kong Ireland Israel Japan Netherlands New Zealand Singapore Spain Sweden Taiwan U.S. U.K. TOTAL

3 2 7 6 1 4 1 1 6 3 3 3 4 2 2 72 5 125

2.4% 1.6% 5.6% 4.8% 0.8% 3.2% 0.8% 0.8% 4.8% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 3.2% 1.6% 1.6% 57.6% 4% 100%

1.9% 1.3% 4.5% 3.9% 0.6% 2.6% 0.6% 0.6% 3.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 46.4% 3.2% 80.6%

Note: this chart shows the number of articles published by authors affiliated with institutions in same country. While each author’s institutional affiliation as well as number of authors were tracked, for the purposes displaying trends, only the country and 16

Journal of Second Language Writing 38 (2017) 9–19

C. Pelaez-Morales

number of articles are presented here. For instance, there were 3 separate articles written by researchers in Australia—this is regardless of the number of authors writing each piece. Appendix C. Multi-country collaborations, 1992–2015

Countries

Number of articles

Australia & Netherlands Australia & Singapore Canada & Japan Canada, U.S., & Thailand Canada & U.S. China & U.S. China & U.K. China, Singapore, New Zealand Hong Kong & Canada Hong Kong & U.K. Japan & Hong Kong Japan & U.S. Malaysia & New Zealand New Zealand & Australia Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan Singapore & New Zealand South Africa & U.S. Sweden & Australia Taiwan & U.S. U.S. & Australia U.S. & Brazil U.S., Canada, UK, & Australia U.S. & Egypt U.S. & Germany U.S. & Japan U.S., Malaysia, & New Zealand U.S. & Peru U.S. & Taiwan U.K. & Hong Kong U.K. & Mexico TOTAL

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 30

Note: this chart shows the number of articles published by authors who were affiliated with institutions in different countries. While each author’s institutional affiliation was tracked, for the purposes displaying trends, only the number of articles representing a collaboration (aka an article) is presented here. For instance, there was one article with a collaboration between a researcher(s) in Australia and in the Netherlands. Each article accounts for 3.3% of all multi-country collaborations, and for 0.6% of total collaborations (155). Appendix D. Linguistic distribution, 1992–2015

Language

Number

% of total data (336)

English English and Chinese English and Dutch English and Japanese English and Korean English and Spanish English and Sweden English and Turkish English, Chinese, Japanese English, French, Spanish, and German

241 5 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1

71.7% 1.5% 0.6% 0.9% 0.9% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

17

Journal of Second Language Writing 38 (2017) 9–19

C. Pelaez-Morales

English, Spanish, Japanese French German Japanese Japanese, English, Chinese Persian Spanish Italian and French Mandarin, Vietnamese, Spanish TOTAL Not specified/not clear

1 3 5 1 1 1 2 1 1 275 61

0.3% 0.9% 1.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 81.8% 18.1%

Note: there were 271 empirical articles, including those using qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methodologies. Some, but not all empirical articles explicitly identified a language under investigation. Some theoretical pieces made explicit reference to language, and in all but one case, they were said to be about English Appendix E. Topics accounting for 90% of the research published, 1992–2015

Topic

Number of articles

% total data set (336)

Feedback Genre Assessment Writing process (including cognitive processes) Source use/textual borrowing Academic writing Revision Writing for publication TOTAL

46 29 21 19 16 16 14 12 173 articles

13.7% 8.6% 6.2% 5.6% 4.7% 4.7% 4.1% 3.6% 51.2%

Literacy/literacies Disciplinary writing (including content area writing) Lexis (including, lexical proficiency) Technology Contrastive rhetoric, critical contrastive rhetoric, intercultural rhetoric L1-12 or L1-L3 comparisons/effect Voice Teacher education Collaborative writing Task complexity Coherence Tutoring and Writing Centers Syntax and syntactic complexity TOTAL

11 11 9 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 104 articles

3.3% 3.3% 2.7% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 1.8% 1.8% 31.2%

Linguistic accuracy/fluency/complexity Sociopolitical/cultural issues Ideology Writing instruction abroad Transfer TOTAL GRAND TOTAL

5 5 5 5 5 25 302

1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 7.5% 89.9%

References Belcher, D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 1–22. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205. Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. Bitchener, J. (2009). Measuring the effectiveness of written corrective feedback: A response to “Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Bitchener

18

Journal of Second Language Writing 38 (2017) 9–19

C. Pelaez-Morales

(2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 276–279. Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on the language learning potential of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 348–363. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207–217. Bruton, A. (2009). Designing research into the effects of grammar correction in L2 writing: Not so straightforward. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(2), 136–140. Conference on College Composition and Communication (2001). Statement on Second Language Writing and Writers. [Retrieved from] http://www.ncte.org/cccc/ resources/positions/secondlangwriting. Canagarajah, S. (1996). Nondiscursive requirements in academic publishing, material resources of periphery scholars, and the politics of knowledge production. Written Communication, 13, 435–472. Canagarajah, S. (2002). A geopolitics of academic writing. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–269. Chandler, J. (2004). A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 345–348. Chandler, J. (2009). Response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 57–58. Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Crystal, D. (2012). A global language. In P. Sergeant, & J. Swann (Eds.). English in the world: History, diversity, change (pp. 152–177). New York: Routledge. Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11. Ferris, D. (2004). The Grammar correction debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime…. ?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 49–62. Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? [Retrieved from] Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161–184. Ferris, D., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307–329. Guenette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct?: Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40–53. Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31–44. International Society for the Advancement of Writing Research (ISAWR). [Retrieved from] http://www.isawr.org. Journal of Second Language Writing (JSLW). [Retrieved from] https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-second-language-writing/. Kapper, J. L. (2002). The first 10 years of the Journal of Second Language Writing: An updated retrospective. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 87–89. Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 285–312. Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66–81. Matsuda, P. K. (1997). The first five years of the JSLW: A retrospective. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, iv–v. Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Second language writing in the twentieth century: A situated historical perspective. In B. Kroll (Ed.). Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 15–34). New York: Cambridge University Press. Open doors (2016). Fast facts. [Retrieved from] https://www.iie.org/Research-and-Insights/Open-Doors/Fact-Sheets-and-Infographics/Fast-Facts. Ortega, L. (2004). L2 writing research in EFL contexts: Some challenges and opportunities for EFL researchers. Newsletter: The Applied Linguistics Association of Korea (ALAK). Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 375–389. Reichelt, M. (1999). Toward a more comprehensive view of L2 writing: Foreign language writing in the U.S. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 181–204. Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286–306. Silva, T., & Leki, I. (2004). Family matters: The influence of applied linguistics and composition studies on second language writing studies—Past, present, and future. The Modern Language Journal, 88(1), 1–13. Silva, T. (2011). Journal publications in L2 writing: 1950–2010. New Orleans, LA: TESOL [2011]. Silva, T. (2012). JSLW@20: The prequel and the inside story (with several previously unpublished bonus texts). Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 187–194. Symposium on Second Language Writing. [Retrieved from] http://sslw.asu.edu. Truscott, J. (1999). The case for the case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111–122. Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 337–343. Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255–272. Truscott, J. (2009). Arguments and appearances: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 59–60. Truscott, J., & Yi-ping Hsu, A. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305. Xu, C. (2009). Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Ellis et al (2008) and Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 270–275. Yates, R., & Kenkel, J. (2002). Responding to sentence-level errors in writing. Journal of Second Language Writin, 11(1), 29–47. Carolina Pelaez-Morales is Assistant Professor of Writing & TESOL at Columbus State University, where she teaches courses in TESOL and first-year composition and coordinates a TESOL certificate and an ESOL en¬dorsement program. Her research interests include second language writing development in different educational contexts, bilingualism, and foreign language and K-12 education.

19