Writing teachers’ perceptions of the presence and needs of second language writers: An institutional case study

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Second Language Writing 22 (2013) 68–86

Writing teachers’ perceptions of the presence and needs of second language writers: An institutional case study Paul Kei Matsuda a,*, Tanita Saenkhum b,1, Steven Accardi c,2 a

Department of English, Arizona State University, PO Box 780302, Tempe, AZ 85287-0302, USA Department of English, University of Tennessee, 404 McClung Tower, Knoxville, TN 37996-0430, USA c Department of English, Pennsylvania State University, 76 University Drive, Hazleton, PA 18202, USA

b

Abstract First-year composition in U.S. higher education has been a major site of L2 writing research. Despite the historical division between mainstream first-year composition and L2 writing, there has been an increasing interest in integrating insights from L2 writing research into the professional literature in rhetoric and composition and writing program administration. Yet, a majority of composition courses are taught by those who are not specialists in these fields, and their level of awareness is yet to be examined. To investigate writing teachers’ perceptions of the presence and needs of L2 writers, we conducted a perception survey of teachers of both mainstream and L2 sections of first-year composition courses. The findings show that writing teachers do recognize the presence and needs of L2 writers, and more than a few teachers were enthusiastic about working with this student population. At the same time, many teachers—including those who taught L2 writing sections—did not make any special provisions to address the unique needs of L2 writers. The findings also show that teachers’ ability to address L2 writers’ needs were constrained by program policies, lack of common teaching and assessment materials, and professional preparation opportunities. This study suggests the need to better understand the specific needs of teachers in order to address the needs of their students. # 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Needs analysis; Teacher perception survey; Professional development; First-year composition

Introduction In 2001, the Conference on College Composition and Communication adopted the ‘‘Statement on Second Language Writing and Writers,’’ which pointed out the presence and needs of a growing number of second language writers in U.S. higher education. Eight years later, when the statement was updated with an expanded scope, it continued to urge writing teachers and writing program administrators not only to ‘‘[r]ecognize’’ but also to ‘‘take responsibility for the regular presence of L2 writers in writing classes, to understand their characteristics, and to develop instructional and administrative practices that are sensitive to their linguistic and cultural needs’’ (CCCC Statement on Second Language Writing and Writers, 2009, para. 4). Pointing out the growing presence and needs of L2 writers has been an important agenda in U.S. higher education because, historically, composition studies and

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 480 965 6356; fax: +1 480 965 3451. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P.K. Matsuda), [email protected] (T. Saenkhum), [email protected] (S. Accardi). 1 Tel.: +1 865 974 6955; fax: +1 865 974 6926. 2 Tel.: +1 520 239 6111; fax: +1 570 450 3146. 1060-3743/$ – see front matter # 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.10.001

P.K. Matsuda et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 22 (2013) 68–86

69

second language studies developed in isolation from each other (Matsuda, 1998, 1999; Silva, Leki, & Carson, 1997; Valde´s, 1992). With the rise of the field of L2 writing circa 1990 as an interdisciplinary field situated simultaneously in composition studies and second language studies, the body of research on L2 writing in the context of U.S. first-year composition has grown exponentially. It has also found an audience in the community of mainstream rhetoric and composition scholars as well as writing program administrators, as evidenced by a growing number of L2-writing related articles and chapters in rhetoric and composition journals (e.g., College Composition and Communication, College English, Computers and Composition, Writing Program Administration, Written Communication) and edited collections (e.g., Behm, Glau, Holdstein, Roen, & White, 2012; Horner, Lu, & Matsuda, 2010; Ritter & Matsuda, 2012; Schick, Brooke Hessler, & Rupiper Taggart, in press; Severino, Guerra, & Butler, 1997). Although the awareness of L2 issues has increased in the professional literature, a vast majority of writing courses are being taught by writing teachers whose professional background is not in rhetoric and composition or writing program administration. Instead, they come with background in various other disciplines, such as creative writing, literary studies, and formal linguistics, among others. For this reason, it is not clear how much impact the current discussion of L2 writing issues in U.S. first-year composition has had on writing teachers who actually work with various types of L2 writers in first-year composition courses—both mainstream and separate L2 sections. Understanding the teachers’ perspective is important in assessing the real impact of L2 writing research in a specific instructional context and in identifying the resource and professional development needs of writing teachers. It is also important to identify teacher perceptions in the context of a specific institution in order to understand their comments in their immediate contexts of instruction and professional development. To this end, this article presents an institutional case study that explores writing teachers’ perceptions of the presence and needs of L2 writers as well as their thoughts about the needs for resources and professional development opportunities. Research on L2 writers and first-year composition Research on L2 writers has a relatively long history going back to the mid-20th century (Matsuda, 1999). The main focus of the discussion has been on the distinct needs of L2 writers and their similarities and differences when compared to native English-speaking writers (Silva, 1993), and their implications for the placement into various types of writing courses. Those focusing on the differences between L2 students and their native English-speaking counterparts often argue that L2 writers should be placed into a separate section of first-year writing courses (Hafernik, 1991; McKay, 1981) while those focusing on the similarities often argue against the separate sections (Howard, 1984; Roy, 1984, 1988). To address this apparent conflict, Silva (1994) examined placement models for L2 students in first-year writing programs. In addition to the three existing models—mainstreaming, separate ESL sections, and basic writing—he proposed crosscultural composition, a section of the first-year writing course in which native and non-native English speaking students are systemically integrated to promote ‘‘international and intercultural understandings for both US and international students’’ (Matsuda & Silva, 1999, p. 16). Instead of arguing for one option or another, Silva (1994) recommended creating as many placement options as ‘‘resources permit’’ (Silva, 1994, p. 41). Braine (1996) also suggested that L2 students should be able to choose whether they want to enroll in separate L2 writing or mainstream sections. Some studies have focused on understanding students’ preferences between mainstream and L2 sections of first-year composition (Braine, 1996; Chiang & Schmida, 1999; Costino & Hyon, 2007; Ortmeier-Hooper, 2008; Ruecker, 2011). Braine (1996) interviewed L2 students—mostly international students and some resident students—about their preferences for mainstream or separate L2 composition and found that a majority of the students interviewed preferred to enroll in L2 writing sections over mainstream sections (p. 99). His study also showed that students who enrolled in L2 writing sections performed better in an exit exam than those enrolled in mainstream sections. Chiang and Schmida (1999) and Ortmeier-Hooper (2008) found that L2 writers who are U.S. residents preferred to enroll in mainstream sections of first-year composition because they rejected the ESL label and did not consider themselves to be ‘‘ESL’’ students. Costino and Hyon (2007) identified a more complex pattern of preferences than the international-resident distinction. Students’ preferences for a mainstream section or L2 section of basic writing courses were influenced by their own perceived language proficiency. On the one hand, students who perceived themselves to have stronger language ability preferred to be in mainstream sections rather than be placed in a class with other students who were still struggling with language issues. On the other hand, students who perceived the need to improve their language proficiency preferred L2 sections that provided instruction appropriate for their needs. A more recent study by Ruecker (2011) that examined both resident and international students’ perspectives also identified a tension between the desire

70

P.K. Matsuda et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 22 (2013) 68–86

to be in L2 sections on the one hand and the desire to work with native English users. Together, these studies suggest that placement preferences are influenced by complex factors, highlighting the need to respect their own preferences (Braine, 1996; Silva, 1994). In an interview-based qualitative study of student agency in making placement decisions, Saenkhum (2012) found that students did make decisions agentively, but those decisions were constrained by various factors, such as the availability of placement options and information about those options and procedures. The complexity of placement decisions suggests that L2 writers can be found in any type of writing course within U.S. first-year composition programs. It further suggests that all writing teachers—regardless of the type of courses they teach—need to be aware of the presence and needs of various types of students in their classes and be prepared to address those needs. Although L2 writing specialists who also work in the context of U.S. college composition have been calling for an increased awareness of the presence and needs of L2 writers (e.g., Friedrich, 2006; Matsuda, 1998, 1999; Ortmeier-Hooper, 2008; Silva, 1994), the level of awareness among writing teachers has not been examined extensively. To identify ways to incorporate research insights into writing classrooms, it is important to understand writing teachers’ perceptions of L2 writers in their classes as well as the teachers’ resource needs. Understanding the perspectives of both mainstream and L2 writing teachers is also important because many of the teachers who currently teach L2 writers—regardless of the types of courses they teach—have had little or no professional preparation in teaching L2 writing (Braine, 1996; Williams, 1995). A recent study by Ferris, Brown, Liu, and Stine (2011) corroborates these findings about the lack of professional preparation among writing teachers. They surveyed 129 teachers and interviewed 23 of them—including both L1 and L2 writing instructors—about their philosophies and practices in response to student writing. While the study focused mostly on how the teachers described their approaches to commenting on L2 student writing, some of the findings pertain to the presence and needs of L2 students. Data from the interviews showed that ‘‘a few of the instructors either were almost entirely unaware of having L2 writers in their classes or, if they were aware, felt strongly that students’ language backgrounds were irrelevant’’ (Ferris et al., 2011, p. 219). Finally, one of the main findings showed that these college writing instructors did not have ‘‘any substantive formal training in working with L2 writers’’ (Ferris et al., 2011, p. 223). Echoing Williams (1995), Ferris et al. called for ‘‘the need for more comprehensive and detailed preparation of all writing instructors who work with L2 students, whether they teach designated L2 writing courses or mainstream composition courses’’ (Ferris et al., 2011, p. 225). The present study extends the findings of these studies by identifying, from the perspective of the teachers, their awareness of the presence and needs of L2 writers as well as what support and resources they need in order to work more effectively with those students. To identify whether, to what extent, and how teachers in the first-year composition program perceive the presence and needs of L2 writers, and to understand the resource needs those teachers perceived, we conducted a perception survey of first-year composition teachers in a large and comprehensive college composition program at a public research university in the United States. Our original goal in conducting this survey was twofold: 1) to improve the institutional practices within the writing program where this study took place; and 2) to document an institutional case study in order to provide an example for other institutions to follow as they also seek to improve their institutional practices. This study addresses the following research questions (RQ): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

To what extent do teachers perceive the presence of multilingual writers? How do teachers identify multilingual writers in their classes? What do teachers perceive to be the needs of multilingual writers? What are teachers’ current practices in working with multilingual writers? What resource needs do teachers perceive in working with multilingual writers?

Method The setting We conducted this study in a large, comprehensive first-year writing program at a large public university in the Southwestern United States. The institution has one of the largest international student enrollments in the United States; it also enrolls a large number of multilingual writers who are U.S. residents. The first-year writing program is part of a comprehensive undergraduate writing program, which includes first-year writing, advanced writing, business and technical writing, and senior-level courses in rhetorical theories. Each semester, the entire program offers over 500

P.K. Matsuda et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 22 (2013) 68–86

71

writing courses for about 10,000 students. The first-year writing program offers a variety of placement options. In addition to the two-semester first-year writing sequence (ENG 101 and 102) and the ‘‘multilingual’’ section of the sequence (ENG 107 and 108), the program offers both mainstream and multilingual sections of stretch first-year writing courses (WAC 101 and 107), which extends the first-semester of the first-year writing sequence (i.e., ENG 101 or ENG 107) over two semesters to allow students more time to complete the first-semester course (for a detailed description of the stretch first-year writing course, see Glau, 2007). The program also offers an advanced writing course (ENG 105), which can satisfy the first-year writing requirement with a one-semester course. ENG 111, a learning community section of the first-year writing course, provides students with an opportunity to complete the first-semester requirements in the context of interdisciplinary inquiry into a topic with a cohort of students.3 At the time of this study, the instructional staff for the writing program included about 60 full-time instructors and about 60 graduate teaching assistants, 8 full-time lecturers with Ph.D. degrees, a few tenure-track faculty members, and part-time adjunct instructors. The graduate teaching assistants were socialized in various fields at master’s and doctoral levels, including creative writing, linguistics, literature, rhetoric and composition, and TESOL. The instructional staff engaged in rigorous ongoing professional development. All new graduate teaching assistants participated in a 3-week intensive orientation, and they were mentored by lecturers throughout their tenure as a teaching assistant. In addition, the writing program conducted a one-day summer orientation for all instructional staff, and a group of instructors organized an annual local conference to facilitate professional development. Graduate students also had opportunities to take at least two graduate courses in L2 writing, one focusing on teaching and the other focusing on research (which can be repeated for credit under different titles). Two tenure-track faculty members with expertise in L2 writing (including one of the co-authors of this article) also provided ongoing consultation and mentoring for writing teachers with questions related to L2 writers. Participants The invitation to participate in this study was emailed to all 181 writing teachers who were teaching at least one section of a first-year writing course during the fall semester of 2008. Of the 181 first-year writing teachers, 74 teachers responded to the online survey (see below), yielding a response rate of 40.88%. The participants’ self-identified educational backgrounds are shown in Table 1. The responses to question 9 in the survey (‘‘Which of the following forms of training have you had?’’) suggest that many of the writing teachers had some experience or professional preparation (or both) in working with multilingual writers. Of 74 respondents, 57 (77%) indicated at least one form of preparation in working with multilingual writers, while 17 (23%) indicated that they had no background or experience. Some of them had completed relevant graduatelevel coursework, including: L2 writing (n = 15; 20.27%), methods of teaching a second language (n = 18; 24.32%), and English grammar (n = 23; 31.08%). Some respondents reported that they had participated in a workshop (n = 22; 29.73%) or had attended a conference presentation (n = 23; 31.08%) on L2 writing. Sixteen respondents (21.62%) identified their past working experience with L2 writers, such as tutoring L2 writers in the writing center, participating in an internship in teaching English as a second language, and teaching English abroad. A majority of them reported that they had read at least one article on teaching L2 writing (n = 45; 60.81%). These numbers overlap because multiple responses were possible; in many cases, the same individual had multiple forms of preparation while many of the respondents had only read an article or two about the subject. Although there were enough responses from those who had no background (23%) to suggest that the data does represent various perspectives, the overall level of preparation was much higher than we had expected. One of the possible reasons is that those who were interested in working with multilingual writers were motivated to respond to this survey, which is plausible given the response rate of about 41%. Another possible reason is the strong presence of L2 writing research and scholarship in the graduate program. At the institution where this study took place, there is a community of faculty members, graduate students, and visiting scholars who are specializing in L2 writing. In addition, the department regularly offered multiple graduate courses on L2 writing. Whatever the case may be, the findings need to be understood in the context of this particular institution.

3

After the data collection had been completed, ENG 111 was indefinitely suspended for budgetary reasons.

72

P.K. Matsuda et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 22 (2013) 68–86

Table 1 Respondents’ self-identified educational backgrounds. N = 74 Doctoral degree (n = 19) Literature Rhetoric/composition Linguistics Applied linguistics

10 6 2 1

Master’s degree (n = 56) Literature Rhetoric/composition Creative writing TESOL Applied linguistics Linguistics Other

19 11 9 6 2 1 8

Bachelor’s degree (n = 47) Literature Linguistics Creative writing English education Rhetoric/composition TESOL Other

22 3 2 1 1 1 17

Note: The total number of responses is greater than the number of respondents because they were asked to identify all degrees they held (rather than just the highest degree). However, some respondents only provided information about their graduate degrees.

The participants’ level of professional development also corresponds with their level of confidence in working with multilingual writers. They were asked to read the statement ‘‘I feel confident in my ability and preparation to teach multilingual writers in my classes’’ and provide their responses on the Likert scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The responses ranged from 1 to 6, with a median of 4 (somewhat agree). According to the responses, a majority of the participants (67.39%) felt confident in working with multilingual writers, while only 15 (32.61%) indicated that they did not feel confident (see Table 2). Data sources To answer the research questions guiding the study, we designed a web-based online survey for writing teachers (see Appendix). The survey instrument included ten questions, asking for the following information: number and type of classes that respondents taught; number of multilingual students (both international and resident) in each class; how multilingual students were identified; what the respondents did (differently) when working with multilingual writers; what the respondents thought were the needs of multilingual writers; what resources and support the respondents needed; their experience in working with multilingual writers; their educational backgrounds; their training experiences; and their preparedness in teaching multilingual writers on a six-point Likert Scale. Table 2 Teachers’ confidence level in working with ML writers (N = 46). Response 1 2 3 4 5 6

Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree

n

%

1 7 7 12 13 6

2.17 15.22 15.22 26.09 28.26 13.04

Note: Due to technical errors with the online survey, only 46 valid responses were obtained for this question.

P.K. Matsuda et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 22 (2013) 68–86

73

For the purpose of this survey, we used the term ‘‘multilingual writers’’ as a catch-all term for a wide range of students who are actively developing proficiency in the English language. We realize that no term is without its problems, and that the term ‘‘multilingual’’ is no exception—our implicit definition excluded native English users who were also multilingual. Nevertheless, we chose to use this term because it seemed to be the most widely accepted euphemism for L2 writers among U.S. college composition teachers at the time. To ensure that all participants had a shared sense of what we meant by multilingual students, we provided the following definition at the beginning of the survey: multilingual students are ‘‘students who grew up using languages other than English and are acquiring English as an additional language. Multilingual students include international students who hold student visas and resident students who are non-native English speakers.’’ Data analysis Written comments provided by the respondents from open-ended questions 4–7 in the survey (see Appendix) were first coded for emerging themes independently by each of the three co-researchers and then the results were consolidated through discussion. The findings were then sorted into three broad categories based on the research questions: teachers’ perceptions of multilingual writers’ needs, teachers’ current practices of teaching multilingual writers, and teachers’ resource and support needs in working with multilingual writers. The data analysis was recursive and continued throughout the process of writing this article. Results RQ 1. To what extent do teachers perceive the presence of multilingual writers? In Fall 2008, when the data collection for this study took place, the first-year writing program offered 547 sections of first-year composition courses, including 531 mainstream sections and 16 multilingual sections. Of those sections, 144 (26.33%)—including 134 mainstream sections (25.24%) and 10 multilingual sections (62.50%)—were taught by participants in this study. Table 3 shows the number of mainstream sections where the presence of multilingual writers was perceived as well as the maximum number of multilingual writers identified by the teachers in each section. Based on the teachers’ perceptions, 71 out of 134 mainstream sections surveyed (52.99%) enrolled one or more multilingual writers; one of the sections included 8 multilingual students, which amounts to 42% of the 19 seats in the class.4 In WAC 101 mainstream stretch composition, almost 80% of sections enrolled at least one multilingual student; the maximum number of multilingual students in those sections was 6. The results also indicated that resident multilingual students tended to be placed in mainstream sections while international multilingual students were more likely to be in multilingual sections (Table 4). Resident multilingual students comprised about 91% (n = 141) of multilingual students enrolled in mainstream sections, whereas international students accounted for about 78% (n = 123) of enrollment in multilingual sections. The split between resident and international students along the distinction between mainstream and multilingual sections is not surprising given the current placement practices. At the institution where this study took place, students are placed based on their standardized test scores, and the placement into multilingual sections are based on the scores of the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), which is required of international students whose native language is other than English. Resident students who graduated from U.S. high schools are not required to submit TOEFL scores, and they are placed on the basis of SAT or ACT scores. Although students can choose mainstream or multilingual sections on their own, international multilingual students are placed into multilingual sections by default, whereas resident multilingual students are automatically mainstreamed. Another aspect of the placement practice that may have influenced the distribution of multilingual students is the course titles. Although we are using the term ‘‘multilingual sections’’ in this study to describe sections that are designed for nonnative users of English, the official course titles at the time of data collection were ‘‘English for Foreign Students’’ for ENG 107 and ‘‘Introduction to Academic Writing for International Students’’ for WAC 107, reflecting the dominant population and nomenclature of the historical periods in which these courses were created.

4

At the time of the study, the maximum enrollment for each first-year composition class was 19 students.

74

P.K. Matsuda et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 22 (2013) 68–86

Table 3 Multilingual (ML) writers in mainstream first-year composition (FYC) sections. Courses

Sections with ML writers

Total # of sections

%

Max # of ML writers/section

WAC 101 (Stretch FYC) ENG 101 (FYC I) ENG 102 (FYC II) ENG 105 (Advanced FYC) ENG 111 (Learning Community)

11 36 16 8 5

14 69 27 16 8

78.57 52.17 59.26 50.00 62.50

6 8 7 4 4

Note: The number of multilingual writers shown in this table is based on the number identified by the respondents. Table 4 International and resident multilingual (ML) students in each course. Courses

International ML students

Resident ML students

Mainstream sections WAC 101 ENG 101 ENG 102 ENG 105 ENG 111 MS Total

6 7 1 0 0 14

22 66 39 14 14 155

Multilingual sections WAC 107 ENG 107 ENG 108 ML Total

37 37 49 123

0 0 35 35

These titles clearly suggest that these courses are for international students and not for resident students. The anomaly in the data, then, is the presence of 35 resident multilingual writers in ENG 108, the second course in the first-year writing sequence. There are a number of possible explanations based on our informal conversations with instructors and students over the years. First, these students may have heard through the grapevine that multilingual sections are more appropriate for them or that the instructors are better prepared to work with multilingual writers. They may even have heard that those sections are easier, although it is not necessarily the case (in fact, some of the multilingual sections cover more material than mainstream sections). Another possibility is that their mainstream composition (ENG 101) teachers told them that they should enroll in the multilingual section if they were to continue on to the next level. To understand students’ decisions, these and other possible explanations need to be investigated further. RQ 2. How do teachers identify multilingual writers in their classes? The respondents were also asked what characteristics they used to identify multilingual students in their classrooms. For this question (‘‘What characteristics have you used to identify multilingual students?’’), the respondents were asked to choose from several options provided. The characteristics, which were derived from an unpublished pilot study conducted by one of the coauthors, included ‘‘appearance,’’ ‘‘spoken language,’’ ‘‘written language,’’ ‘‘self-disclosure,’’ ‘‘report from other students,’’ and ‘‘other.’’ For the ‘‘appearance’’ and ‘‘other’’ options, we provided a space for the respondents to include their explanations or clarifications to their answers. The ‘‘spoken language’’ and ‘‘written language’’ options were broken down into more specific categories. Under the spoken language option, there were six additional options, including: fluency of speech, level of formality, vocabulary, grammar, accent, and other. Under the written language option, there also were eight additional options, including: content, organization, vocabulary, the level of formality, grammar, spelling, handwriting, and other. For the ‘‘other’’ options for the spoken and written language, we provided a space for the respondents to provide their answers. The responses to this question (Table 5) suggest that the majority of respondents identified multilingual writers in their classes by students’ own self-disclosure (64.86%), followed by the students’ spoken language (50%)— particularly accent (48.65%), fluency (37.84%), spoken grammar (35.14%), spoken vocabulary (32.43%), and the level of formality (14.86%). Some respondents identified multilingual writers by their written language features

P.K. Matsuda et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 22 (2013) 68–86

75

Table 5 Features teachers used in identifying multilingual students. Feature

Frequency

%

Self-disclosure Spoken language features Accent Fluency Spoken grammar Spoken vocabulary Level of formality Content Other (e.g., asked students)

48 37 36 28 26 24 11 17 2

64.86 50.00 48.65 37.84 35.14 32.43 14.86 22.97 2.70

Written language features Written grammar Written vocabulary Content Level of formality Spelling Handwriting Other (e.g., reading comprehension)

28 34 32 13 14 21 1 2

37.84 45.95 43.24 17.57 18.92 28.38 1.35 2.70

7 4

9.46 5.41

Appearance (hair color, dressing style, etc.) Other (e.g., last name in the class roster)

(37.84%), the most popular subcategories being written grammar (45.95%) and vocabulary (43.24%). Additionally, seven respondents (9.46%) indicated that they identified multilingual writers by their appearance, such as hair color and their clothing. One respondent wrote ‘‘Latino looking’’ as a criteria for identification. Only four respondents (5.41%) checked ‘‘other.’’ One of those respondents explained that, in addition to students’ spoken language features, using students’ last names from the class roster could help in identifying multilingual students; the same respondent wrote: ‘‘I wouldn’t use written evidence to ‘identify’ these students, because I’ve already found out from their self-disclosure.’’ One instructor indicated that multilingual students were not identified because he or she taught all courses online. RQ 3. What do teachers perceive to be the needs of multilingual writers? Five of the respondents pointed out that multilingual writers in general were competent or even excellent students who need more patience and understanding from the teacher. As one mainstream composition (ENG 101) teacher with a master’s degree in TESOL pointed out: Multilingual students are as smart as native English speaking students. Teachers need to be more patient in working with them. They just need time to adjust themselves to the US academic discourse. I believe that once they understand how the discourse works, they will be able to excel it. An online mainstream composition (ENG 102) teacher—a current doctoral student in American Studies with no background in TESOL—even wrote that multilingual students were ‘‘my favorite students to teach’’ because ‘‘I have noticed a greater ‘hunger’ for learning than in some native [English-speaking] students.’’ These teachers made efforts to communicate their understanding to students in various ways. For example, the aforementioned ENG 101 teacher with a master’s degree in TESOL wrote that ‘‘when I hold individual conferences with multilingual students, I tend to be friendlier with them, and they always tell me about their Hispanic culture. They enjoy sharing their culture with someone who shows his/her interest in their culture.’’ Similarly, an advanced composition (ENG 105) teacher wrote: ‘‘I acknowledge their effort and the fact that I realize they have to work harder than their classmates to produce academic writing.’’ In contrast, three teachers indicated that they did not know what multilingual students’ needs were. One of them wrote: ‘‘I have no idea. I guess the same sort of attention that any student needs to be successful.’’ This teacher, who at the time of the survey was teaching mainstream composition (ENG 102) and advanced composition (ENG 105), indicated that there were no multilingual writers in his or her classes. Another teacher stated that ‘‘I am not trained in ESL, so I really have no idea,’’ but did not indicate which classes he or she was teaching. One respondent, who was

76

P.K. Matsuda et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 22 (2013) 68–86

teaching ENG 105, wrote: ‘‘They all speak English fluently. There is no difference between multilingual students in my class and the rest of the class.’’ Some of these responses came from among 10 teachers who taught advanced composition (ENG 105), which means the multilingual students in the class would already have a high level of writing proficiency. Since these teachers did perceive the presence of multilingual writers, it is possible that advanced multilingual writers do not need special provisions. RQ 4. What are teachers’ current practices in working with multilingual writers? When asked what they did differently in working with multilingual writers, 10 respondents—who were either unaware of multilingual writers’ presence or did not perceive any salient differences—predictably indicated that they did not do anything differently. They wrote: ‘‘Not a thing, really.’’ ‘‘Nothing.’’ ‘‘Nothing.’’ There were others who perceived the presence and needs of multilingual writers but took no action. One of them indicated that multilingual students needed to develop ‘‘the ability to ask questions, to work hard, and to collaborate,’’ but the same teacher said he or she changed ‘‘nothing [about my teaching] that I am aware of’’ to address those needs. Two other teachers also wrote ‘‘Nothing really’’ and ‘‘No change.’’ Instead of modifying their own teaching, they preferred to outsource language instruction by referring them to ‘‘one[-]on[-]one tutors to help them with mechanics’’ or to ‘‘outside assistance from a native English speaker.’’ Both of these teachers seemed to think that multilingual writers do not belong in their classes. One of them suggested: ‘‘screening prior to admission to ensure students will be able to meet course competencies.’’ The other teacher wrote: ‘‘Maybe put them all in one class.’’ Another respondent, who believed that students needed to be appropriately placed, said: ‘‘All students need to be placed in the appropriate classroom in order to have the best chance in succeeding in college.’’ This respondent also gave an example of his/her student who had a hard time understanding ‘‘very very basic language concepts’’ in a 300level course. This student, according to the respondent, ‘‘should have never made it past 102. . . and he has told me he was born and raised in the United States.’’ Four of the respondents suggested that, in addition to better placement practices, better admission practices were called for. One of them, a teacher of a multilingual section, said: . . . . some students’ language proficiency is not enough for them to undertake college education in the U.S. So we should figure out more effective placement/admission options. That said, I also have had some good students who are good writers and are proficient in English. The bottom line is first, we need to sieve through the language proficiency of these students before admission. And then once admitted, as teachers, we should be more sensitive toward their special needs. These comments from teachers of both mainstream and multilingual sections of first-year composition seem to indicate that teachers have certain expectations about students’ language proficiency before they can be enrolled in first-year composition courses or even before they are admitted into the university. Twenty-two teachers perceived the presence and needs of multilingual writers and said they took specific actions to address those needs, although the degree to which they made adjustments varied from teacher to teacher. A teacher who was teaching multilingual composition (ENG 107) wrote that he or she treated multilingual writers more or less the same as their native-English-speaking counterparts, but made some adjustments as needed: I teach multilingual students and native English speaking students in pretty much the same way. From time to time, if necessary though, I do address specific written language issues that appear to be more relevant to multilingual students (e.g. preposition use, article use). That said, from time to time, I also address specific written language issues with native English speaking students, if necessary (e.g. noun clauses, relative clauses). Another teacher, in contrast, approached multilingual writers with a different set of expectations: My approach to teaching is different. My expectations from them are also different. I expect them to be coming to my office more for help/assistance with their projects. Also, I thought they are more serious with their studies, and likewise, persistent with the improvement of their grades, even though almost all the time their writing is not at par.

P.K. Matsuda et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 22 (2013) 68–86

77

Some of the major differences between mainstream and multilingual writers identified by these and other teachers included the need for 1) more time and attention and 2) the need to work on language and rhetorical issues. More time and attention While multilingual writers are considered to be hard-working and as competent as native-English-speaking students, eight teachers also recognized that working with these students requires more time and attention on the part of the teachers—both inside and outside the classroom. A mainstream composition (ENG 101) instructor, a graduate teaching assistant with a B.A. in English wrote: ‘‘I don’t think they have any problems fulfilling the requirements, I just think they need a little more time and allowance from the instructor.’’ And spend more time they do. One respondent, a mainstream composition teacher, said: I spend more time commenting on and responding to [multilingual writers’] drafts. I look at both content and organization, and use of grammar. With native English speaking students, I only respond to their drafts’ content and organization. Another stated: ‘‘I try to take some time out to give them background about the English language and I recommend books and resources to them beyond my own course.’’ Seven teachers also mentioned using their office hours and the writing center to increase the amount of feedback multilingual students receive. A mainstream composition (ENG 101) teacher wrote: ‘‘For students having a lot of trouble, I offer more office hours, if desired by students; and in some cases I require the students to use [the university’s] Writing Center tutors.’’ Another teacher wrote: ‘‘I try to encourage them to visit me during office hours for additional help with their work, or to see tutors at the writing center.’’ Three teachers provided some rationale for spending more time with multilingual students. One respondent said that multilingual students ‘‘need a great deal of guidance from [the] teacher in order to write more effectively [because] many of them write the way they speak English and need to be taught about College English.’’ Another teacher who is currently teaching mainstream composition (ENG 102) and learning community composition (ENG 111) also indicated classroom dynamics as a factor: ‘‘For multilingual speakers who seem more reserved or shy in class, I try to make extra time to ensure they understand the assignments and requirements.’’ Another teacher wrote: When I have multilingual students, I try to provide more opportunities for them to meet in groups to utilize the English language with their peers and get and give feedback—both oral and written—on their papers. I also provide more visuals to express written concepts to help bridge the language gap. This teacher also commented that the extra time and attention also helps native English users in the class: ‘‘But the fact is, I do these things with my native English speakers as well. It helps everyone.’’ One of the teachers also offered the following as a way of summarizing the sentiment that their efforts are not wasted: ‘‘More attention = More learning.’’ Others, however, felt differently about the attention-learning equation. Two respondents indicated their frustration in working with multilingual students. The first one wrote that ‘‘it’s very tiring/frustrating to teach multilingual students at times, especially when you have struggling students (who are not proficient enough to undertake college education in the first place) in your class.’’ Another mentioned: ‘‘It can be frustrating because even when mistakes are repeatedly highlighted and explained, they continue to show up in future assignments.’’ Language and rhetorical issues Predictably, the teachers in this study recognized the language issues that multilingual students face. Comments on this point included: ‘‘Better skills in grammar, syntax, diction’’ and ‘‘Discussion of recurrent grammatical and mechanical issues, in situ.’’ Nine teachers said they felt compelled to address language issues in multilingual student writing. A mainstream composition (ENG 102) teacher, who does not currently have multilingual writers in his or her class, wrote: ‘‘I focus more on explaining grammatical issues.’’ The same teacher also mentioned that, ‘‘in the past, I have met with multilingual students more frequently outside of class [than I do with native English speakers] to address issues of grammar and mechanics in addition to writing.’’ In contrast, two teachers said that, instead of trying

78

P.K. Matsuda et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 22 (2013) 68–86

to teach the language, they tried not to focus on language issues. As one teacher wrote: ‘‘I do not emphasize grammar in my comp course.’’ Another wrote: ‘‘More than anything I try to be understanding and look past the grammar or other surface errors that they may make.’’ Three other teachers suggested that they recognize language issues but take a different approach to addressing them in the composition classroom. Their strategies included suggesting students to find peer editors and tutors and to use multilingual dictionaries. Although the discussion of multilingual students’ needs tends to focus on language issues, teachers who responded to this survey mentioned the importance of focusing on a wide variety of issues for multilingual students. For example, one respondent, a multilingual composition (ENG 107) teacher with a master’s degree in TESOL, mentioned a range of issues that all students, including multilingual writers, need to be aware of: One thing all students, multilingual and native English speaking, need is to raise their awareness of ‘‘good’’ academic writing. That means, they need excellent research skills and critical reading skills, and the ability to analyze a variety of academic written communication to ‘‘see’’ the strong features related to content, organization, language, and mechanics. They then need to apply these same critical reading and analysis strategies to their own writing. A mainstream composition (both ENG 101 and ENG 102) teacher with a master’s in Creative Writing mentioned that multilingual students, in addition to ‘‘lots of practice in writing,’’ need ‘‘some discussion of expectations in American classrooms in terms of organization/format of papers.’’ Another teacher with a master’s in TESOL, who at the time was teaching mainstream composition (ENG 101) and multilingual composition (ENG 108), mentioned the need to develop a broader knowledge of resources available outside the classroom: ‘‘The knowledge of how to use campus resources such as instructor contact outside the classroom, using the [university’s] library, going to the Writing Center, and other sources of help when they have difficulties along the way.’’ The rhetoric-linguistic dilemma In the context of this particular program, the emphasis on rhetorical issues and larger literacy resources is appropriate in light of the goals and objectives of the program, which is based on the WPA Outcomes Statement (2000). Written primarily with native English users in mind, the Outcomes Statement focuses largely on rhetorical issues rather than language issues (Matsuda & Skinnell, 2012). Yet, because of the monolingual assumption behind the document, it does not account for aspects of language and writing development that are important for L2 writers—such as the acquisition of the dominant variety of English and an understanding of English-dominant audiences—both in mainstream writing courses (e.g., ENG 101 and 102) and in their multilingual counterparts (e.g., ENG 107 and 108). In fact, two of the respondents raised questions about the effectiveness of the curriculum that focuses almost exclusively on rhetorical issues. For example, one teacher with a Ph.D. in Rhetoric wrote: It can feel to me that my rhetorical background is more confusing than helpful to multilingual students. I know that doesn’t have to be the case. But I’m not always/ever sure how to discuss with multilingual students who are struggling in college the more abstract ‘‘rhetorical’’ issues of audience and purpose, etc. OR how to talk in any way that makes sense about the idiosyncrasies of the English language. Two of the teachers also found it frustrating that, although they recognized the need to address language issues, they felt they were not able to because the stated goals and objectives of the program would not allow them to do so. One of them was even under the impression that the program frowns upon addressing lower-order concerns, as one instructor with a master’s in TESOL and a doctorate in Literature wrote: When I try to teach mechanics or grammar or vocabulary, the [writing program] here at [this university] tells me not to. This is very sorely needed information for first-semester writers, so I have to do it outside of class or let the students go without learning—which is very unprofessional. Although the program currently does not have an official policy against addressing language issues, which is a problem that needs to be addressed by the program (Matsuda, 2012), it is evident that this impression was created and conveyed to teachers at some point in the recent history of the program. While some teachers seem to deal with this dilemma by not addressing language issues or by addressing them outside the classroom context, one of the teachers reported having used another strategy—providing resources but not

P.K. Matsuda et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 22 (2013) 68–86

79

punishing students for language issues in their writing. The teacher, a doctoral student in rhetoric and composition who was teaching mainstream stretch composition (WAC 101) and advanced composition (ENG 105), wrote: I try to follow the mission of the Writing Program; I do not think that grading students on the basis of grammar is a part of that mission, so it is my policy not to penalize multilingual students for the grammatical aspects of their writing. My experience tutoring second language learners has been that tutoring them directly in grammar does not necessarily improve their performance in that category, and my own experience as a second-language learner tells me that there is no reason to think they are, in any way, inferior as students. This solution is in line with the position advocated by the second-language writing specialist (one of the co-authors of this article) who was the writing program director at the time (Matsuda, 2012). This position also seemed to resonate with the research literature on error feedback for multilingual writers, which indicates that language-based feedback is important as a way of raising language awareness but does not necessarily result in improvement in grammatical accuracy overtime (Ferris, 2003). RQ 5. What resource needs do teachers perceive in working with multilingual writers? To understand what the writing program might do to help teachers work with multilingual writers who are in their classrooms, we asked what resources and support they needed. As we mentioned before, five teachers felt that some of the multilingual writers were not adequately prepared—linguistically or otherwise—for first-year writing courses and wished to see better placement or admission procedures to keep what they considered to be underprepared students from their classrooms. Others who recognized the presence and needs of multilingual writers mentioned some specific resources that would help them work effectively with multilingual writers, including: 1) more professional preparation opportunities; 2) more help with curriculum design and materials selection; 3) placing multilingual writers in separate sections; 4) sending multilingual writers to the writing center; and 5) improving the placement practices. Professional preparation opportunities Seven respondents indicated the need for more professional preparation opportunities. As one respondent, an ENG 101 teacher with a master’s degree in TESOL, suggested: ‘‘I also think that teachers who have not had experience working with multilingual students need to go through training so that they have an idea of how this group of students look like.’’ More specifically, the same teacher mentioned the need for a ‘‘periodic training for teachers’’ as well as guidelines for ‘‘text selection’’ and for ‘‘curriculum design and development.’’ The need for more professional preparation was echoed by some of the participants who had less experience or expertise in working with multilingual writers. For example, a teacher with a Ph.D. in Rhetoric wrote: ‘‘I don’t have any multilingual students in my class at this time. But as a teacher, I would love, absolutely love, more training in this area.’’ Another teacher also pointed out the need for ‘‘[m]ore teacher training to begin with.’’ Similarly, a mainstream composition (ENG 101) teacher with a Ph.D. in Composition wrote that ‘‘I would love to see a workshop at [this university] directed toward learning how to effectively respond to writing of multilingual students in FYC.’’ Three teachers provided more specific ideas about what those professional preparation workshops might entail. A doctoral student in American Studies who was teaching online sections of mainstream composition (ENG 102) also wrote: ‘‘More knowledge and information about what multilingual students encounter in these situations.’’ The same teacher wrote: ‘‘It would also be helpful to have more strategies to use when working with this population.’’ Another respondent, a master’s student with a bachelor’s degree in Linguistics, wrote that it would be useful to have some ‘‘information about how to help multilingual students develop strategies to identify [their own] commonly made errors.’’ Curriculum design and materials selection Another suggestion was to develop a common curriculum and a set of teaching materials, as a multilingual stretch composition (WAC 107) teacher with a master’s degree in TESOL wrote: One area of resources and support when working with multilingual and native English speaking students is the writing programs curriculum. On a program level, I think a unified approach (i.e. a strong writing curriculum)

80

P.K. Matsuda et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 22 (2013) 68–86

that includes standardized assignments (e.g. all sections include the same number of assignments and the same types of assignments), assessment (e.g. all sections include the same types of assessment goals and tools), and program goals and objectives (e.g. all sections share the same goal of preparing students for writing in the university academic discourse community) is one way for all teachers to use professional resources and feel program support. (Please note that this does not mean that academic freedom is thrown out the window; it means that a teacher is free to execute tasks in his/her own way or style in his/her own course, and that the tasks ultimately fit within a structured, consistent, unified, program curriculum framework.) The pedagogical benefits of this approach are many for student and instructional success. A mainstream composition (ENG 101) teacher with bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees in Linguistics also suggested the need for ‘‘textbooks and readers designed [e]specially for ESL students.’’ Separate multilingual sections While some teachers recognized the need for professional preparation as well as help with curricular decisions, other teachers expressed the need to move multilingual students out of mainstream classrooms (i.e., WAC 101, ENG 101 and 102). Some teachers suggested separate placement for multilingual writers because they are not prepared to work with this population of students. For example, one of the teachers mentioned the need for ‘‘[t]eachers with training and willingness to work with multilingual students’’ (ENG 101 mainstream composition teacher with a Ph.D. in Composition). Another teacher, a doctoral student in Rhetoric and Composition who self-identified as a nonnative English user, wrote that ‘‘I know next to nothing, unfortunately, about TESOL, second-language writing, etc., and those who have such training could probably accommodate ESL students better.’’ Other teachers who suggested separate placement for multilingual writers focused on the specific needs of the students. A writing teacher with a master’s degree in Creative Writing argued for a separate section for the sake of students: ‘‘Honestly, I don’t think they should be in traditional 101 especially. It’s unfair to them to be grouped among students who need more advanced instruction.’’ The same teacher explained: I think that their [multilingual writers’] concerns about ‘‘correctness’’ aren’t as much of a focus in a traditional 101-level course as they should be. Instructors have to teach to the majority for the most part, though. If they [multilingual writers] were in a section that allowed for these issues to be more central, I think they’d be more successful. Another teacher with a master’s in Creative Writing wrote that ‘‘non-native speaking students, who have not assimilated English fluently, might benefit by being in a classroom where English is taught as a foreign language, rather than mixed with native speaking students.’’ In contrast, a comment by another mainstream composition (ENG 101) teacher, who had a master’s degree in Composition, seemed to suggest a different reason: ‘‘Put them [multilingual students] all in one class, so that those teachers that know how to work with them can and the rest of us that teach mainstream classes will have an easier time.’’ Another teacher, who had a master’s degree in Literature, wrote: ‘‘They have to take ENG 107 instead of ENG 101, so I don’t worry about it much.’’5 The writing/language center Eight respondents suggested that multilingual writers work with an individual tutor—a ‘‘tutor who can work with ESOL students’’; some even suggested that multilingual writers work with a ‘‘native English speaker.’’ As one teacher wrote, ‘‘I ask them to find editors amongst friends and tutors to review their work before submitting it.’’ Five teachers indicated that they work with their students and provide feedback before sending them to the writing center. As one teacher put it: ‘‘I point out the problems in writing, work with them if they want and encourage them to go to the Writing Center—especially if they are doing rewrites.’’ Twelve other teachers, however, simply outsource instruction

5

This teacher seems to be under the impression that multilingual writers were required to take a separate section. While this institution does offer multilingual sections, multilingual students are not required to take it; students can choose to enroll in either mainstream or multilingual section.

P.K. Matsuda et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 22 (2013) 68–86

81

by sending students to the writing center, as one teacher wrote that he or she does ‘‘[n]othing really’’ differently for multilingual writers ‘‘except send them to the Writing Center.’’ The results, however, may not be satisfactory in some cases. As one of the teachers noted, ‘‘not everyone working in the Writing Center is good at this.’’ Another suggestion that came from the participants was to create a dedicated ‘‘ESL support center (in addition to the Writing Center).’’ The same teacher continued: I used to work at an ESL Center in another university where students could come for help with speaking, listening, reading, and writing skills. Conversation classes were also very popular. Being a successful student is about more than just writing acceptable papers. The teacher also mentioned that an ESL center could ‘‘provide a library of resources that would be beneficial to students and teachers.’’ Improving the placement practice Another possibility mentioned in the responses was to improve the placement procedures to screen students according to their language and writing proficiency. At this institution, placement has been based on the scores of standardized tests such as SAT, ACT, the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) and the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) as well as ACCUPLACER. Typically, issues with misplacement is adjusted on a case-by-case basis upon student request. Students may come to the writing program office on their own initiative or at the suggestion of the teacher, and the identification is left up to the teacher’s discretion. In response to this current situation, two teachers mentioned the need for developing a universal diagnostic tests to be administered in all writing classes during the first week of the semester. One of the teachers wrote: I feel that there needs to be a universal diagnostic test that helps find students who have been misplaced, and then there should be some sort of option to help these students so they don’t feel like they have failed within the first week of school. It should be made clear that they need a different type of class in order to help them succeed. (ENG 101 mainstream composition, master’s in Literature and Secondary Education) Another respondent wrote: The problem for me as both an instructor of WAC 101 and of ENG 102 is that there is not a proper, universal diagnostic at the beginning of the semester to identify a struggling writer—not just a ‘‘multilingual’’ writer, but anyone who struggles with the conventions of writing, and that is not limited to students with a multilingual background. One teacher took a broader perspective and pointed out the importance of ‘‘screening prior to admission to ensure students will be able to meet course competencies.’’ Another wondered whether ‘‘high stakes tests such as TOEFL are an effective/reliable gate-keeping tool for admission.’’ Discussion Despite the return rate of about 41%, the data included a wide range of perspectives, attitudes and experiences. Overall, teachers in the writing program we surveyed recognize the presence and needs of L2 writers and have a positive attitude toward them. Nineteen of the teachers who have encountered L2 writers showed genuine concern for this population of students and made efforts to address their unique needs. Seven of them even indicated the desire to receive more training in working with those students. Yet, seven other teachers indicated that they made no adjustments to their teaching, even when they recognized the presence and needs of those writers. Eight teachers who did address the unique needs of L2 writers tended to spend more time with them, providing comments on content and rhetorical issues as well as language issues. Two writing teachers—including one who had a Ph.D. in rhetoric— pointed out that the exclusive focus on rhetoric was counterproductive for L2 writers and advocated for more attention to language issues. Teachers who responded to this survey identified various resource needs, including more professional preparation opportunities, common curriculum and materials, and common diagnostic tools to be used at the beginning of the semester. Twenty-one respondents noted the importance of having L2 sections of composition as well as writing

82

P.K. Matsuda et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 22 (2013) 68–86

centers and language centers staffed by trained tutors who can address language issues effectively. Although some of those teachers argued for these resources in addition to their own instruction, four of the comments also seemed to reflect the policy of containment, in which language differences were to be ‘‘contained’’ by admission and placement procedures (Matsuda, 2006). This assumption seems to go against the university’s mission to achieve ‘‘access and quality for all’’ by ‘‘expanding university access to match [the state’s] diversification and growth.’’ The findings of this study also suggest that there are various reasons that limited these writing teachers’ ability to address issues that are specific to L2 writers, including: the need for more time and attention on the part of the teachers; the perception that those issues were outside the scope of the first-year composition curriculum; the limitation of professional preparation opportunities; the lack of instructional materials that are suitable for L2 writers. These are the issues that need to be addressed not only at the programmatic policy level but also at the national level as institutions that have similar curricula work together to identify common goals and outcomes. In fact, the WPA Outcomes Statement has recently been reexamined by a group of researchers (Behm et al., 2012), and it may be revised in the near future. The professional preparation opportunities are also lacking—especially those that are designed specifically to prepare writing teachers who have additional expertise in L2 issues. To address this gap, more work needs to be done in revising graduate programs in rhetoric and composition and in strengthening in-service professional development opportunities. It is also important to develop textbooks and other teaching resources that can cut-across the L1/L2 divide; we need textbooks that can be used for both L1 and L2 writers but are sensitive to the diverse linguistic needs of students. The results of this online perception survey show that writing teachers in this program do recognize the presence of L2 writers in their classrooms. Yet, seven teachers, including those who are teaching L2 sections, reported that they did not make any special provisions to address the unique needs of L2 writers. If it is the case, the discussion needs to focus not just on raising their awareness but on identifying the specific issues that these teachers encounter and ways to address them. Assessing the direct impact of this study on the actual administrative and instructional practices is not easy because institutional changes are influenced and constrained by various factors. Yet, having concrete information about the writing teachers’ awareness of the presence and needs of multilingual writers as well as professional development needs have certainly helped in arguing for resources and opportunities. One of the most important changes that has taken place since this study was the creation of a new administrative position within the writing program dedicated to addressing L2 writing issues. This position, which is held by a tenured faculty member who specializes in L2 writing, entails the following responsibilities: mentoring teachers of multilingual sections; conducting workshops on L2 writing instruction for all writing teachers; offering consultations to writing teachers as well as to the program director; and conducting or facilitating institutional research related to L2 writing. In addition, the graduate course on L2 writing, which had been offered every other year, is now offered every year. That course and a one-semester practicum for first-time teachers of L2 writing, taught by a tenure-track faculty with a specialization in L2, have been added as requirements for first-time teachers of multilingual sections. A project to develop a textbook that is designed to address the linguistic and cultural needs of both L1 and L2 writers at the institution is also underway. Conclusion This study is an institutional case study and the findings cannot be generalized for other institutions of U.S. higher education. More studies are needed to establish the patterns of teachers’ awareness and practices across different institutional settings; this goal can be accomplished through conceptual replication studies and through larger-scale, multi-institutional surveys. The particular issues discussed in this article are specific to U.S. higher education, which has a unique history of college-level writing instruction (Knoblauch & Matsuda, 2008). Yet, these issues will likely become relevant in other countries as well in years to come. In many countries, the need for academic writing in English has become apparent because of the globalization of economy and because of the dominance of the English language for international scholarly communication. As a result, English writing instruction is being integrated into college curricula in many countries—not as remedial measures, as it has traditionally been assumed, but as a response to the new literacy demands that are being imposed on the current and future generations of students (Green, Fangqing, Cochrane, Dyson, & Paun, 2012). Many of those writing courses are currently being taught not by L2 writing specialists but by teachers who have degrees in other fields, and this trend will likely continue, since the infrastructure for producing trained L2 writing teachers is still seriously lacking—even in the United States. This study may not yet

P.K. Matsuda et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 22 (2013) 68–86

83

be directly applicable to those contexts; yet, given the changes that are taking place in various parts of the world, this study may contribute a glimpse into the future of writing instruction and program administration beyond North American higher education. Appendix

Thank you for choosing to participate in this study, which aims to improve the quality of language support for multilingual students. For the purpose of this survey, we are defining multilingual students as students who grew up using languages other than English and are acquiring English as an additional language. Multilingual students include international students who hold student visas and resident students who are non-native English speakers. 1. How many writing classes are you teaching this semester? (Please check all that apply) □ WAC 101 □ ENG 102 □ ENG 108 □ WAC 107 □ ENG 101 □ ENG 105 □ ENG 107 □ ENG 101 2. For each of the classes you are teaching this semester, please provide the following information: □ Courses □ N/A □ WAC 101 □ WAC 107 □ ENG 101 □ ENG 107 □ ENG 102 □ ENG 108 □ ENG 105 □ ENG 111 □ Number of students [dropdown menu: 0-19] □ Number of multilingual students [dropdown menu: 0-19] □ Number of international multilingual students [dropdown menu: 0-19] □ Number of resident multilingual students [dropdown menu: 0-19] 3. What characteristics have you used to identify multilingual students? (Please check all that apply.) □ Appearance (please explain) _______________ □ Spoken language □ Fluency of speech □ Level of formality (e.g., bookish language, slang, colloquialism) □ Vocabulary (e.g., word choice, wrong word) □ Grammar (e.g., structure, articles, prepositions, etc.) □ Accent (e.g., pronunciation, intonation) □ Other (please explain) ___________________ □ Written language □ Content (e.g., personal details, use of examples, use of metaphors) □ Organization (e.g., arrangement of ideas, development, transition) □ Vocabulary (e.g., word choice, wrong word)

84

P.K. Matsuda et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 22 (2013) 68–86

□ Level of formality (e.g., bookish language, slang, colloquialism) □ Grammar (e.g., structure, articles, prepositions) □ Spelling, use of punctuation marks □ Handwriting □ Other (please explain)______________________ □ Self disclosure □ Report from other students □ Other (please explain) __________________________ 4. What, if any, do you do differently when you work with multilingual students (as opposed to working with native English speakers)? [Space left for text] 5. What do you think your multilingual students need in order to successfully fulfill the firstyear writing requirements? [Space left for text] 6. What resources and support, if any, do you feel you need to work with multilingual students in your classes more effectively? [Space left for text] 7. If there is anything else that you would like to mention about your experience in teaching multilingual students, please do so below. [Space left for text] 8. What is your educational background? (Please check all that apply.) □ Doctoral Degree in _______ □ Rhetoric/Composition □ English Education □ Linguistics □ TESOL □ Applied Linguistics □ Creative Writing □ Literature □ Education □ Other ________________________ □ Master's Degree in _______ □ Rhetoric/Composition □ English Education □ Linguistics □ TESOL □ Applied Linguistics □ Creative Writing □ Literature □ Education □ Other_____________ □ Bachelor's Degree in _______ □ Rhetoric/Composition □ English Education □ Linguistics □ TESOL □ Applied Linguistics □ Creative Writing □ Literature

P.K. Matsuda et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 22 (2013) 68–86

85

□ Education □ Other__________ 9. Which of the following forms of training have you had? □ Completed a graduate course in second language writing □ Completed a graduate course in TESOL Methods □ Completed a graduate course in English grammar □ Participated in a workshop on teaching second language writing □ Attended a conference presentation on teaching second language writing □ Read an article on teaching second language writing □ Other (please explain) _________________ 10. How would you rate your answer to the following statement? "I feel confident in my ability and preparation to teach multilingual writers in my classes." Strongly agree Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree

References Behm, N., Glau, G. R., Holdstein, D. H., Roen, D., & White, E. M. (Eds.). (2012). The WPA outcomes statement: A decade later. Anderson, SC: Parlor Press. Braine, G. (1996). ESL students in first-year writing courses: ESL versus mainstream classes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(2), 91–107. CCCC Statement on Second-Language Writing and Writers. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/secondlangwriting. Chiang, Y. D., & Schmida, M. (1999). Language identity and language ownership: Linguistic conflicts of first-year university writing students. In L. Harklau, K. M. Losey, & M. Siegal (Eds.), Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL (pp. 81–96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Costino, K. A., & Hyon, S. (2007). A class for students like me: Reconsidering relationships among identity labels, residency status, and students’ preferences for mainstream or multilingual composition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 63–81. Ferris, D., Brown, J., Liu, H., & Stine, M. E. A. (2011). Responding to L2 students in college writing classes: Teacher perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 207–234. Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Friedrich, P. (2006). Assessing the needs of linguistically diverse first-year students: Bringing together and telling apart international ESL, resident ESL and monolingual basic writers. WPA: Writing Program Administration, 30(1/2), 15–35. Glau, G. R. (2007). Stretch at 10: A progress report on Arizona State University’s stretch program. Journal of Basic Writing, 26(2), 30–48. Green, A., Fangqing, W., Cochrane, P., Dyson, J., & Paun, C. (2012). English spreads as teaching language in universities worldwide. University World News. Retrieved from http://universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20120621131543827. Hafernik, J. J. (1991). Relationships among English writing experience, contrastive rhetoric, and English expository prose of L1 and L2 college writers, doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from UMI. 9114840. Horner, B., Lu, M., & Matsuda, P. K. (Eds.). (2010). Cross-language relations in composition. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Howard, R. M. (1984). Language philosophy in composition theory and its pedagogical implications for native and non-native speakers of English, doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from UMI. 8417557. Knoblauch, A. A., & Matsuda, P. K. (2008). First-year composition in the 20th century U.S. higher education: An historical overview. In P. Friedrich (Ed.), Teaching academic writing (pp. 3–25). New York, NY: Continuum. Matsuda, P. K. (1998). Situating ESL writing in a cross-disciplinary context. Written Communication, 15(1), 99–121. Matsuda, P. K. (1999). Composition studies and ESL writing: A disciplinary division of labor. College Composition and Communication, 50(4), 699–721. Matsuda, P. K. (2006). The myth of linguistic homogeneity in U.S. college composition. College English, 68(6), 637–651. Matsuda, P. K. (2012). Let’s face it: Language issues and the writing program administrator. WPA: Writing Program Administration, 36(1), 141–163. Matsuda, P. K., & Silva, T. (1999). Cross-cultural composition: Mediated integration of US and international students. Composition Studies, 27(1), 15–30. Matsuda, P. K., & Skinnell, R. (2012). Considering the impact of the WPA outcomes statement on second language writers. In N. Behm, G. R. Glau, D. H. Holdstein, D. Roen, & E. M. White (Eds.), The WPA outcomes statement: A decade later. Anderson, SC: Parlor Press, 230–241. McKay, S. (1981). ESL/remedial English: Are they different? English Language Teaching Journal, 35(3), 310–315. Ortmeier-Hooper, C. (2008). English may be my second language, but I’m not ‘ESL’. College Composition and Communication, 59(3), 389–419. Ritter, K., & Matsuda, P. K. (Eds.). (2012). Exploring composition studies: Sites, issues and perspectives. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. Roy, A. M. (1984). Alliance for literacy: Teaching non-native speakers and speakers of nonstandard English together. College Composition and Communication, 35(44), 439–448. Roy, A. M. (1988). ESL concern for writing program administrators: Problems and policies. WPA: Writing Program Administration, 11(3), 17–28. Ruecker, T. (2011). Improving the placement of L2 writers: The students’ perspective. WPA: Writing Program Administration, 35(1), 91–117.

86

P.K. Matsuda et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 22 (2013) 68–86

Saenkhum, T. (2012). Investigating agency in multilingual writers’ placement decisions: A case study of The Writing Programs at Arizona State University, doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from UMI. 3505626. Schick, K., Brooke Hessler, H., & Rupiper Taggart, A. (Eds.). A guide to composition pedagogies (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, in press. Severino, C., Guerra, J. C., & Butler, J. E. (Eds.). (1997). Writing in multicultural settings. New York, NY: Modern Language Association of America. Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657– 675. Silva, T. (1994). An examination of writing program administrators’ options for the placement of ESL students in first year writing classes. WPA: Writing Program Administration, 18(1/2), 37–43. Silva, T., Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). Broadening the perspective of mainstream composition studies: Some thoughts from the disciplinary margins. Written Communication, 14(3), 398–428. The WPA Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition. (2000). Retrieved from http://wpacouncil.org/positions/outcomes.html. Valde´s, G. (1992). Bilingual minorities and language issues in writing: Toward professionwide responses to a new challenge. Written Communication, 9(1), 85–136. Williams, J. (1995). ESL composition program administration in the United States. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(2), 157–179. Paul Kei Matsuda is Professor of English and Director of Second Language Writing at Arizona State University, where he works closely with doctoral and master’s students in Applied Linguistics, Rhetoric and Composition, and TESOL. He is co-founding chair of the Symposium on Second Language Writing and editor of the Parlor Press Series on Second Language Writing. He has edited numerous books, including Exploring Composition Studies, Cross-Linguistics Relations in Composition, Practicing Theory in Second Language Writing, The Politics of Second Language Writing, Second Language Writing in the Composition Classroom, and Second Language Writing Research. Tanita Saenkhum is Assistant Professor of English at University of Tennessee, Knoxville, where she teaches courses related to teaching English as a second/foreign language. She specializes in second language writing with a focus on writing program administration for multilingual writers. She has published in WPA: Journal of the Council of Writing Program Administrators, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, and WPA-CompPile Research Bibliographies. Steven Accardi is Assistant Professor of English at Pennsylvania State University, Hazleton, where he teaches courses in rhetorical theory, discourse analysis, and professional writing. His research interests include public rhetoric, agency, the politics of undocumented immigration, and second language writing. His work has appeared in Teaching English in the Two-Year College and The Writing Lab Newsletter.