Symposium Symposium onon

SeconSeconddLanguaLanguage ge WritingWriting

..

November 5-7, 2009

Arizona State UniversityTempe, AZSymposium Chairs

Paul Kei Matsuda, Arizona State University

Tony Silva, Purdue University

Associate ChairsMark A. James, Arizona State

UniversityTanita Saenkhum, Arizona State

University

The Future of Second Language

Writing

Introduction 1

Dear Symposium Participants:

Welcome to the 2009 Symposium on Second Language Writing. As many of you know, the Symposium began in 1998 as a way of bringing together internationally-recognized experts in the field of second language writing to discuss key issues in the field. After a decade, the Symposium has grown into an annual international gathering of teachers and researchers who are working with second language writers in various capacities.

About a decade ago, Terry Santos organized a colloquium at the TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) convention in New York to discuss the future of second language writing, which was later published in the Journal of Second Language Writing. As the field of second language writing continues to grow, it seems important to take stock of the developments and accomplishments over the last decade and to reassess the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead of us. This year’s Symposium, “The Future of Second Language Writing,” is designed to help accomplish those goals.

This year’s Symposium features the following plenary speakers:

Carole Edelsky, Arizona State University (Emerita)Mark A. James, Arizona State UniversityAnn M. Johns, San Diego State University (Emerita)Gail Shuck, Boise State UniversityMark D. Warschauer, University of California, Irvine

They represent different generations of second language specialists—those who have made significant contributions over the course of their careers, those who have been leading the field into the new era, and those who are rising stars in the field who represent emerging voices in the field.

In addition, this year’s Symposium features invited colloquia that address a wide range of issues related to the future of the field. They are:

“On the Future of Second Language Writing: 10 Years Later,” organized by Terry Santos “The Future of Foreign Language Writing,” organized by Melinda Reichelt “The Future of L2 Writing Assessment,” organized by Deborah Crusan “Writing Through the Lens of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory,” organized by

Maria Estela Brisk “Teaching and Learning of Writing in Asian School Contexts,” organized by Icy Lee “L2 Writing in the Writing Center,” organized by Carol Severino “The Future of Genre in L2 Writing,” organized by Christine Tardy “Building Bridges between Second Language Writing and Teacher

Development/Education,” organized by Christina Ortmeier-Hooper “Re-Examining ‘Generation 1.5,’” organized by Dana Ferris “Technology and L2 Writing,” organized by Bryan Smith “SLA and Second Language Writing,” organized by Rosa Manchón “Institutionalizing L2 Writing,” organized by Paul Kei Matsuda

2 SSLW 2009

There also are a number of featured sessions, including ones featuring Bruce Horner and Min-Zhan Lu, Christine Pearson Casanave, and Stephanie Vandrick. On Thursday, there will be a panel consisting of faculty members who teach in doctoral programs where students can develop a specialization in second language writing. In addition, concurrent presentations will provide opportunities to engage in conversations with presenters who represent various disciplinary, methodological and geographic contexts.

The Symposium will also provide many opportunities—both formal and informal—to interact with presenters as well as other second language writing specialists. We hope that you will be able to not only learn something useful from the presenters, but also to share your perspectives and insights as well as questions and concerns with other second language writing teachers and researchers from various parts of the world.

We also hope that your stay in at Arizona State University is a comfortable and enjoyable one. If you have any questions about this Symposium, Arizona State University, or Tempe and Greater Phoenix, please feel free to ask any of the Symposium staff members who are wearing a Symposium button.

We are grateful for the hard work of the members of the 2009 Symposium Organizing Committee. Finally, we would like to extend our thanks and heartfelt welcome to the presenters and session chairs as well as participants, who are here to make valuable contributions—formally and informally—to the Symposium and to the development of the field of second language writing.

Paul Kei Matsuda and Tony Silva, Founding Co-ChairsSymposium on Second Language Writing

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the following organizations and individuals:

Bedford/St. Martin's Press for sponsoring the Opening Reception and for providing complimentary copies of Second-Language Writing in the Composition Classroom.

Assessing Writing and Elsevier for sponsoring the invited colloquium on writing assessment, organized by Deborah Crusan and featuring Liz Hamp-Lyons, Sara Cushing Weigle, Ed White, and Deborah Crusan.

Writing & Pedagogy and Equinox for sponsoring the invited colloquium on technology and second language writing organized by Bryan Smith and featuring Martha Pennington, Greg Kessler, Randi Reppen, Elena Cotos, and Bryan Smith.

Parlor Press and David Blakesley for sponsoring the plenary talk by Ann M. Johns. Deborah Crusan for sponsoring two graduate student participants.

Without their generous contributions and support, this Symposium would not have been possible.

Introduction 3

Symposium onSymposium on Second Language Second Language Writing 2010Writing 2010

Crossing Disciplinary Boundaries University of Murcia

Murcia, SpainMay 20-22, 2010

Call for Proposals

The 2010 Symposium Organizing Committee seeks proposals for 20-minute presentations that address various topics within the field of L2 writing broadly defined. Any topic related to second language writing theory, research, or teaching is welcome. We particularly encourage proposals that seek to challenge the status quo in the field by introducing new topics as well as new theoretical and methodological approaches.

As with all previous nine Symposium iterations, we are interested in L2 writing issues in any second or foreign language, at various levels of education, and in the professions. Given the theme of the Symposium, we particularly encourage proposals that connect L2 writing with other related areas of inquiry, such as computer assisted instruction, second language acquisition, sociocultural theories, linguistics, psychological and educational sciences, language testing, or rhetoric. We welcome proposals from around the world.

To submit your proposal, please use the online proposal submission form available at http://sslw.asu.edu/2010/. Proposals must include both an abstract (limited to 300 words) and a proposal summary (50 words).

Proposals must be received by 23:59:59 November 15th, 2009 (Spanish time). Proposals will be peer reviewed by a panel of experts. Notification of acceptance will be sent out by 20th December 2009.

We look forward to receiving your proposal!

Paul Kei Matsuda and Tony Silva, ChairsRosa Manchón, Local Chair

4 SSLW 2009

Table of Contents

Thursday, November 5

Workshop 1 (9 – 11:45)...........................................................................................6A Sessions (9-10:15)……………………………………………………………....6B Sessions (10:30-11:45).......................................................................................10Workshop 2 (12:45-3:30).......................................................................................14C Sessions (12:45-2)..............................................................................................14D Sessions (2:15-3:30)...........................................................................................19E Sessions (3:45-5)................................................................................................24Opening Reception (5-7): Engrained Café............................................................29

Friday, November 6

Plenary 1 (9-9:45): Ann Johns...............................................................................31F Colloquia (10-11:30)..........................................................................................31F Sessions (10-11:15)............................................................................................32G Colloquia (12:30-2)............................................................................................34G Sessions (12:30-1:45).........................................................................................36H Colloquia (2:15-3:45).........................................................................................38H Sessions (2:15-3:30)...........................................................................................39Plenary 2 (4-4:45): Mark Warschauer...................................................................40Special Reception (5-7): Engrained Café..............................................................40

Saturday, November 7

Plenary 3 (9-9:45): Mark A. James........................................................................41I Colloquia (10-11:30)...........................................................................................41I Sessions (10-11:15).............................................................................................42J Colloquia (12:30-2).............................................................................................44J Sessions (12:30-1:45)..........................................................................................46K Colloquia (2:15-3:45).........................................................................................48K Sessions (2:15-3:30)...........................................................................................49Plenary 4 (4-4:45): Carole Edelsky and Gail Shuck..............................................51Closing Ceremony: (4:45-5): William Grabe........................................................51

Publisher Exhibits

Bedford/St. Martin's Press Mouton de GruyterCambridge University Press Parlor PressElsevier RoutledgeEquinox Southern Illinois University PressHeinle/Cengage Learning University of Michigan Press

Introduction 5

6 SSLW 2009

Symposium ProgramSymposium Program

Thursday, November 5

Workshop I – Thursday, November 5, 9:00-11:45, GoldTreatment of Error in Second Language Writing

Session Chair: Tanita Saenkhum, Yuching Jill Yang, Arizona State University, USA

Presenter: Dana Ferris, University of California, Davis, USA

Abstract: As most second language writing instructors know, the treatment of error, variously known as “error correction,” “grammar correction,” or “written corrective feedback,” has been a controversial topic for some years. Though researchers have not resolved all of the questions surrounding this pedagogical issue, the field is further along in its understanding than it was 15 years ago. Meanwhile, while researchers stew and argue, most teachers in the trenches still provide some form of feedback on errors to second language writers in their classes. This workshop will begin with a review of the issues and their implications for teaching but will focus most of its attention on the “how-tos”: what techniques, approaches, and principles might teachers try (or have they tried), what seems to work (or not work) and why, and what questions remain unresolved or at least under-explored? Extensive time will be allowed for discussion and for practice/application activities that participants can share in around the tables. This workshop is designed to be interactive and hands-on and to allow participants to contribute their experiences, their questions, their frustrations, and their concerns. While it is not quite a group therapy session for frustrated and burned-out writing teachers, it should be stimulating, thought-provoking, and practical.

A Sessions – Thursday, November 5, 9:00-10:15

A.1 Thursday, November 5, 9:00-10:15, Yuma Session Chair: Jiraporn Dhanarattigannon, Kasetsart University, Thailand

A.1.1 Politeness, Cuteness and Conflict: Cultural and Philosophical Identity Clashes and Convergences for a Japanese Doctoral Student in Biophysics

Presenter: Marcia Buell, Northeastern Illinois University, USA

Abstract: Through textual analysis and interview data, this study explores how a Japanese doctoral student studying biophysics in the United States challenged discourse conventions in her ESL writing class and in a biophysics course, and how the resulting textual hybridity indexed a complex interplay in her ways of knowing.

Introduction 7

A.1.2 White Prestige Ideology and Identity: ESL Composition Class as a Site of Resistance and Accommodation

Presenter: Pei-hsun Emma Liu, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA

Abstract: This paper studies the role of identity and white prestige ideology as they impact ESL writers’ resistance to teaching authority in composition classes. The presenter qualitatively describes the process and factors forming oppositional tendencies as well as resources and resistance strategies against dominant authority employed by Taiwanese students in composition classes.

A.1.3 Stop Babying Me! Using Authentic and Challenging Popular Culture Texts to Foster Proactive ESL Writers in the First-Year Composition Classroom (CANCELLED)

Presenter: Ebru Erdem, Arizona State University, USA

Abstract: Authentic and challenging popular culture texts should be used in the ESL first-year composition classroom, because they help students be more involved with the cultural events surrounding them and with the written texts that are reflective of these debates as well as the American writing traditions. Such engagement will lead to self-sufficient and proactive ESL writers.

A.2 Thursday, November 5, 9:00-10:15, Pinal Session Chair: Christina Ortmeier-Hooper, University of New Hampshire, USA

A.2.1 Intervening to Help in the Bilingual Elementary Classroom: Researcher-Teacher Collaboration for Developing Metacognitively-Strong ESL Writers

Presenters: Lawrence Jun Zhang, National Institute of Education, Nanyan Technological University, Singapore

Donglan Zhang, National Institute of Education, Nanyan Technological University, Singapore

Abstract: Developing metacognitively-strong ESL writers in elementary schools has been highly regarded as an invaluable pedagogical goal in writing instruction. This paper reports a study describing the processes/strategies for: i) ESL teacher professional development; and ii) implementing a large-scale intervention project for helping ESL writers in elementary classrooms. Implications for other contexts are discussed.

A.2.2 Teaching Elementary Writing Within (Socio)Linguistic Spaces

Presenter: Deborah Horan, University of Texas at Austin, USA

Abstract: This paper presents findings from a sequential mixed methods study which utilized survey (N=274) and case study (N=12) methodology to examine the ways in which composition theories from applied linguistics could inform the teaching practices and beliefs of elementary teachers across six states. Findings focus on teaching English language learners.

8 SSLW 2009

A.2.3 Second Language Writing in New Mainstream Secondary Classrooms

Presenter: Kerry Enright, University of California, Davis, USA

Abstract: This paper examines “new mainstream” secondary classrooms as contexts for L2 writing development across subjects and tracks. It also considers how the presence of L2 writers in these classes influenced uses and roles of writing across the curriculum. Implications suggest reconceptualizing “mainstream” to reshape practices in teaching and research.

A.3 Thursday, November 5, 9:00-10:15, Yavapai Session Chair: Anthony Adawu, University of Maryland, College Park, USA

A.3.1 Trained Peer Feedback: Low-Intermediate ESL Writers’ Revision Types

Presenter: Qi Zhang, University of South Florida, USA

Abstract: This study investigates low-intermediate ESL writers’ types of revisions and progress in adopting peer written feedback in a naturalistic ESL reading/writing classroom. The presenter talks about influence of peer feedback training, guided response sheets, and teachers’ comment on reviewers’ feedback on students’ revisions, and the pedagogical implications of findings.

A.3.2 The Effect of Trained Peer Review on Argumentation and Fluency (CANCELLED)

Presenter: Lilian Mina, Cairo University, Faculty of Engineering, Egypt

Abstract: In the university argumentative writing classroom, peer review has been perceived as a way of improving students’ writing. This paper shows that trained peer review can improve students’ argumentative skills. The presenter will introduce new instruments, describe them and show how they can help in this regard.

A.3.3 Assessing the Impact of Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategy Use on Performance on Three Academic Writing Tasks

Presenters: Robert Edwards, University of Sherbrooke, CanadaFrançoise Bleys, University of Sherbrooke, Canada

Abstract: Part of a larger test development project aimed at providing a battery of diagnostic tests for students applying to undertake university studies in their second language, this paper presents a study of the effect of test taker control over a number of cognitive and metacognitive strategies on the completion of academic writing tasks.

A.5 Thursday, November 5, 9:00-10:15, Coconino Session Chair: Anita Chaudhuri, Arizona State University, USA

A.5.1 Course Labels and Identities: A Study of Second Language Writing Classrooms

Presenter: Anita Chaudhuri, Arizona State University, USA

Abstract: The proposed study questions the usefulness of varied linguistic labels for first year composition courses that – (i) L2 learners are unfamiliar with, (ii) have negative connotations, (iii) do not match their abilities, and (iv) may conflict with

Introduction 9

their identities. It also considers what role linguistic labels play in placement practices.

A.5.2 Discourse Patterns in G1.5 Student Writing: A Corpus-Based Comparison

Presenter: Mary Connerty, Penn State Erie, The Behrend College, USA

Abstract: This presentation will focus on results of a corpus linguistic study analyzing salient semantic and lexico-grammatical features in G1.5 student essays as compared to traditional ESL and NES student writing. Results indicate that G1.5 students show marked discourse features in their writing, different from the other student groups.

A.5.3 The Relationship Between Advance Planning and ESL Writing

Presenter: Mark Johnson, Northern Arizona University, USA

Abstract: Students’ writing plans were examined to determine features of planning associated with writing quality. Results indicated significant relationships between several planning features and components of teachers’ evaluation of students’ writing. The findings suggest that explicit instruction in planning positively influences students’ writing.

A.6 Thursday, November 5, 9:00-10:15, Apache Session Chair: Kathryn Aguilar-Trejo, Arizona State University, USA

A.6.1 Lexical Bundles in Second Language Writing (CANCELLED)

Presenters: Myung Hye Huh, Korea University, KoreaSeonghee Choi, Kyonggi Institute of Technology, Korea

Abstract: This study analyzes a corpus of second language (L2) writing to identify four-word lexical bundles used by college students. Specifically, this study provides structural analyses of four-word bundles identified in the corpus of L2 writing as well as an analysis of the functions performed by these bundles with the examples of their use in context.

A.6.2 Lost for Words? The Strategic Use of the L1 in Lexical Searches in L2 Composing

Presenters: Liz Murphy, Universidad de Murcia, SpainJulio Roca de Larios, Universidad de Murcia, Spain

Abstract: This study explored the strategic use of the L1 by an advanced group of Spanish EFL learners solving lexical problems in two different tasks. We analyzed the effect of task difficulty on the number and type of lexical problems tackled and categorized the purposes for which the L1 was used.

A.6.3 Faculty Expectations of Writing in Content-Area Classes

Presenter: Nur Yigitoglu, Georgia State University, USA

Abstract: This study investigates specifics of assignments in writing assignments in content-area classes at a large U.S. university and examines requirements and faculty expectations in writing assignments given across curriculum. The intent is to inform

A.7 Featured Session:Thursday, November 5, 9:00-10:15, Navajo Session Chair: Ryan Skinnell, Arizona State University, USA

Teaching Towards Diversalité in English: Putting English in Translation

Presenters: Bruce Horner, University of Louisville, USAMin-Zhan Lu, University of Louisville, USA

Abstract: The presenters will use recent scholarship on ELF communication (Canagarajah, Higgins, House, Rubdi and Saraceni, Sifakis) to argue for, and identify principles of, English writing pedagogy aimed at directly countering students’ and teachers’ monolingualist dispositions. We describe strategies by which, alternatively, English writing instruction can develop dispositions embracing diversalité (Confiant) by treating English as always already “in translation” (Pennycook).

10 SSLW 2009

ESL teachers on how to best prepare students for writing assignments at U.S

universities.

B Sessions – Thursday, November 5, 10:30-11:45

B.1 Thursday, November 5, 10:30-11:45, Yuma Session Chair: Brian Guthrie, Purdue University, USA

B.1.1 Writing Collaboratively: a Peek into the Complexity of Molding a Single Text

Presenter: Joan Valenzuela, Universiti Teknologi Petronas, Malaysia

Abstract: This case study paints a vivid picture of the scenes unfolding within a group of novice writers in English as they attempt to compose a single text. It probes the identity negotiation and power relations that naturally occur in collaborative writing and present implications for second language writing teaching practices.

B.1.2 Using Ethnography to Teach English Academic Writing in China

Presenter: Kyle McIntosh, Purdue University, USA

Abstract: This paper highlights the rewards and challenges of using ethnographic practices such as observation, conversation, and documentation to help undergraduate English students at a Chinese university develop better planning, research, and overall academic writing skills, as well as provide insight into the beliefs and practices of other “small” cultures.

B.1.3 Nurturing Independent Writers in an Introductory Composition Course for International Students: A Case Study of Multimodal Learning Environments, Course Outcomes, and Student Self-Assessment

Presenters: Elena Lawrick, Purdue University, USAFatima Esseili, Purdue University, USA

Abstract: This presentation reports on a one-semester case study of instruction in an introductory composition course for international students. Findings show that

Introduction 11

multiple modes of instruction and teacher’s familiarity with rhetorical and textual features of World Englishes create confident and independent writers capable of making informed, effective rhetorical and linguistic choices.

B.2 Thursday, November 5, 10:30-11:45, Pinal Session Chair: Tony Cimasko, Miami University, USA

B.2.1 Learning What to Look for: Genre in First Year EAP

Presenter: Hyunju Lee, The Ohio State University, USA

Abstract: This presentation will describe genre learning in first year graduate-level EAP classes. The cases reveal what aspects of genre writing were initially visible to the students, what were not, and how they progressed from there. By showing the rich and complex nature of learning genre, the study gives much needed insight for ESP/EAP writing instruction (Cheng, 2006).

B.2.2 Core and Periphery: Opportunities for Innovation by L2 Writers in a Disciplinary Genre

Presenter: Tony Cimasko, Miami University, USA

Abstract: Engaging with established discourse norms, L2 writers may also find opportunities to successfully incorporate features from their home languages into research papers. Instances of successful use of L1 in L2 writing can help identify where adherence to norms is required in research writing, and where writer innovation is possible.

B.2.3 Exploring Genres and Mediated Actions in EFL Students’ Blog Writing

Presenter: Ching-Fen Chang, National Chiao Tung University, TaiwanAbstract: The paper reports a case study examining 30 Taiwanese college students’ blog writing from genre analysis and Activity theory. Data were collected from students’ blogs, a questionnaire, and an interview. The results showed that their English proficiency and the situated factors highly affected their blog writing.

B.3 Thursday, November 5, 10:30-11:45, Yavapai Session Chair: Flurije Salihu, Arizona State University, USA

B.3.1 Powers: Peer Online Writing EFL Reviewers

Presenter: Christine Rosalia, New York University, USA

Abstract: This presentation examines the benefits that EFL peer reviewers received when they gave feedback on academic writing in a peer online writing center. A mixed-method approach compares how electronic advice co-construction improved POWERS’ persuasive writing proficiency, self-regulation and the quality of the feedback they gave over a comparison group.

B.3.2 Comparing Type of Feedback and Processing Mode: Pair Versus Individual Processing of Feedback on Writing

Presenter: Neomy Storch, University of Melbourne, Australia

Abstract: Our study investigated the effect of type of feedback (reformulations versus editing symbols) and how feedback is processed (individually versus in pairs)

12 SSLW 2009

on learners’ writing. Our findings suggest that pair processing of feedback promotes greater accuracy in the long term and when the feedback is in the form of reformulations.

B.3.3 Writing Together for the Future

Presenters: Kyung-Hee Bae, University of Houston, USABobbie Chun, University of Houston, USA

Abstract: Using results from pre- and post- course surveys and objective assessment, the presentation discusses the effects of using near-peer tutors in collaborative work in a discipline-specific writing course. Preliminary results suggest that utilizing near-peers may empower L2 writers to engage critically in their chosen discourse community and become successful members.

B.4 Thursday, November 5, 10:30-11:45, Santa Cruz Session Chair: Melinda Reichelt, University of Toledo, USA

B.4.1 A Comparative Study of ESL and EFL University Students’ Writing Goals

Presenter: Florentina Nicolás Conesa, Murcia University, Spain

Abstract: This paper presents a study about writing goals of University EFL students with a view to comparing them to the goals reported in ESL contexts. Data collection and analysis base on the protocols and operationalisation of ESL studies. Our findings may be relevant from a theoretical and pedagogical standpoint.

B.4.2 The Influence of Study Abroad Periods on EFL Writing Processes and Products

Presenter: Sonia Lopez-Serrano, Murcia University, Spain

Abstract: This study explored the influence of study abroad and at home learning contexts on EFL students’ L2 writing processes and products. Results indicate that the development of writing competence is more dependent on how students learn to write and what type of writing practice they engage in than on the learning context itself.

B.4.3 Between Englishes: Chinese Students Preparing to Study in North America & What They Want from Writing Instruction

Presenter: Joel Hartse, University of British Columbia, CanadaAbstract: This qualitative project seeks understand what Chinese college students who plan to go on to graduate studies in North America want from English writing instruction in China. It consists of data gathered at a major university in China, and offers an analysis of these student perspectives from a World Englishes framework.

B.5 Thursday, November 5, 10:30-11:45, Coconino Session Chair: Rachel Reed, Auburn University, USA

B.5.1 Towards a Better—and More Useful—Understanding of English Articles via Corpus Analysis

Presenter: Heather Robinson, York College/City University of New York, USA

Abstract: This presentation explores the semantics of English’s system of definiteness, using the American National Corpus of spoken and written texts. In

B.6 Featured Session:Thursday, November 5, 10:30-11:45, Apache Session Chair: Ann Corney, Elsevier Ltd.

How to Write for Academic Journals

Presenters: Liz Hamp-Lyons, Assessing Writing, Journal of English for Academic Purposes

Ilona Leki, Journal of Second Language WritingRosa Manchon, Journal of Second Language Writing

Abstract: This Publishing Workshop aims to provide guidance and insights on how to get published in academic, peer reviewed journals. It will also address the peer-review process and provide an opportunity for a question and answer session with the journal Editors of Journal of Second Language Writing, Assessing Writing and Journal of English for Academic Purposes.

Introduction 13

addition to providing a more detailed understanding of the English article system in speech and writing, I also explore the pedagogical implications and usefulness of this type of analysis.

B.5.2 An Investigation of Metaphors in L2 Writing: A Corpus-Based Approach

Presenter: Lingxia Jin, University of Arizona, USA

Abstract: The study aims to test the metaphor theory proposed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980) by using a learner corpus and a native English speaker corpus. Two most frequent verbs in the learner corpus are examined: MAKE and GET. The study sheds light on how learners express abstract concepts in L2 writing.

B.5.3 Linguistic Features and Writing Quality of EFL Essays

Presenter: Masumi Narita, Tokyo International University, Japan

Abstract: The relationship between twelve linguistic features and L2 writing quality was investigated. The linguistic features were selected from developmental indices in fluency, complexity, and accuracy measures of L2 text. Positive predictors of L2 writing quality were text length, average sentence length, and Guiraud index as a lexical diversity measure.

B.7 Thursday, November 5, 10:30-11:45, Navajo Session Chair: Gail Steele, Universiti Teknologi Petronas Malaysia

B.7.1 EFL Versus L1 Writing Instruction in Brazil: Convergences and Divergences

Presenter: Isabela Villas Boas, Casa Thomas Jefferson, Brazil

Abstract: This paper describes an educational ethnography with teenage intermediate-level learners in an ELT Institution in Brazil. The goal was to document and analyze the learners’ writing development in a social-interactional and process-oriented approach, and compare it to these learners’ writing instruction in their native language, in their various regular schools.

14 SSLW 2009

B.7.2 Comparing Content and Organization in L1 and L2 Academic Writing: Statistical Evidence from One Colombian University

Presenters: Diana Cuervo Escobar, Universidad de los Andes, ColombiaGerriet Janssen, Universidad de los Andes, Colombia

Abstract: Using Jacob’s 1981 analytic rubric and the Michigan Writing Assessment Scoring Guide, this investigation presents new statistical evidence comparing perceived problems in student writing in Spanish and English (L1= Spanish), evaluating both organizational features and development of content. Similar results are projected for the languages according to these two features.

Workshop II – Thursday, November 5, 12:45-3:30, GoldPlagiarism vs. Legitimate Textual Borrowing

Session Chair: Matt Hammill, Yuching Jill Yang, Arizona State University, USA

Presenter: Christine Tardy, DePaul University, USA

Abstract: Issues of plagiarism continue to provoke discussion among writing teachers and researchers, and they pose particular questions for second language writing professionals. How can teachers distinguish transgressional acts of copying from legitimate (and developmentally important) acts of textual borrowing? Perhaps more importantly, how can we help students make these distinctions? In this workshop, we will probe the murky middle ground between plagiarism and textual borrowing through interactive discussions and activities. Participants will share and develop an array of activities for helping students to develop effective strategies for borrowing. We will also examine a multi-step writing assignment that introduces formal citation conventions, practices effective borrowing skills, and draws on the cultural and linguistic strengths of multilingual writers.

C Sessions – Thursday, November 5, 12:45-2:00

C.1 Thursday, November 5, 12:45-2:00, Yuma Session Chair: Mary Connerty, Penn State Erie, The Behrend College, USA

C.1.1 Negotiating Assessment in the L2 and Generation 1.5 Classroom Through the Use of Student-Generated Grading Rubrics

Presenter: Andrew Golden, Florida International University, USA

Abstract: Student-generated grading rubrics bridge the gap between Universal Design and programmatic learning outcomes. These rubrics provide a forum where expectations about writing are negotiated. Leading students toward meta-cognition as they articulate writing goals, rubrics help students assume greater ownership of their text. Most importantly, students believe instructors will more fairly assess their writing.

Introduction 15

C.1.2 International and US-Educated L2 Writers Attending to Features of Language and Writing in Oral Conferences

Presenter: Sarah Nakamaru, Borough of Manhattan Community College, USA

Abstract: This presentation analyzes oral feedback addressing six features of language or writing: rhetorical, lexical, grammatical, phonological, orthographical, and academic skills/conventions. The presenter discusses the relative attention paid to each of these features in writing center tutorials with two international and two US-educated multilingual writers. Profiles of each writer are presented.

C.1.3 Generation 1.5 Students and Linguistic Patterns in Their Writing

Presenter: Stephen Doolan, Northern Arizona University, USA

Abstract: This presentation is a second exploratory analysis with new data and adjusted methodology, following-up on a study presented at AAAL, 2009. This presentation establishes a rationale for identifying Generation 1.5 students for research purposes and analyzes their writing samples for linguistic patterns (e.g. errors, prepositional phrases) found in their writing.

C.2 Thursday, November 5, 12:45-2:00, Pinal Session Chair: Judith Hertog, Dartmouth College, USA

C.2.1 Analyzing Voice in Two Languages: A Case Study

Presenter: Barbara Pamela Olmos Lopez, Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Mexico

Abstract: Finding one’s academic voice is difficult, especially when writing in a foreign language. This presentation reports on the analysis and comparison of a writer’s voice expression in two languages supporting the claim that L1 culture influences L2 writing. The implications of this finding for teaching L2 writing are also discussed.

C.2.2 Minor Hybridized Rhetorics: Challenging Essentialist Notions of Identity from the L2 Writing Classroom

Presenter: Ana Milena Ribero, DePaul University, USA

Abstract: This presentation examines the role of “minor” hybridized rhetorics in destabilizing hegemonic systems of exclusion. The presenter shares tools for encouraging hybridized rhetorics in second language writing classrooms and strategies for transforming pedagogies to adopt nonbinary definitions of identity.

C.2.3 Young Children’s Interpretation of EFL Writing

Presenter: Yueh-Hung Tseng, National Dong-Hwa University, Taiwan

Abstract: This study uses a social perspective to investigate the process by which children who are beginners in EFL learning interpreted English writing in a functional learning context created by the author as a teacher-researcher. This study found that learners interpreted English writing as resources, specific knowledge of the given community, and power changed their positions.

16 SSLW 2009

C.3 Thursday, November 5, 12:45-2:00, Yavapai Session Chair: Steve Simpson, University of New Hampshire, USA

C.3.1 Incorporation of Service Learning in College English: Impacts on L2 Writers’ Invention Process

Presenter: Yichun Liu, National Chengchi University, Taiwan

Abstract: To encourage students to situate their writing texts in real contexts, S-L method is incorporated into a L2 writing course curriculum in Taiwan. This study aims to research the impacts of S-L on writers’ invention of writing and attempts to answer the following research questions: 1. What are the advantages/disadvantages of S-L on L2 writers’ invention? 2. Does S-L have varied impacts on students’ invention in different writing modes?

C.3.2 Concept-Based Instruction and Second Language Writing: Theory and Practice

Presenter: Neil Johnson, University of Aizu, Japan

Abstract: Concept-based instruction, based upon a sociocultural theory of mind, has recently gained attention in applied linguistics and second language academic writing specifically. In this presentation, I describe the theoretical framework, present classroom materials, and offer analysis of spoken peer interaction and written texts. Implications for second language writing pedagogy are discussed.

C.3.3 Email Dialogue in Task-Based L2 Writing Classroom: Writers’ Rhetorical Awareness and Language Development

Presenter: Sachiko Yasuda, University of Hawaii at Manoa, USA

Abstract: This study examined how Japanese EFL undergraduate students develop their rhetorical awareness and language ability via email dialogue in the 15-week task-based writing course. Results showed that the course helped the students to use a wider variety of linguistic and rhetorical choices to interact with the instructor. Moreover, the students exhibited an ability to differentiate registers, depending on the rhetorical context.

C.4 Thursday, November 5, 12:45-2:00, Santa Cruz Session Chair: Jay Jordan, University of Utah, USA

C.4.1 The Effectiveness of Checklists for Connecting Reading and Writing in an EFL Writing Course

Presenter: Fumiko Yoshimura, Tohoku Gakuin University, Japan

Abstract: This presentation reports on the effectiveness of checklists for connecting reading and writing in an EFL writing course. Two checklists for reading model texts and students’ own drafts were created and implemented in the course. One semester’s instruction changed students’ reading and writing behavior and improved their writing performance.

Introduction 17

C.4.2 The Relationship Between Writing and Speaking: An Effect of Pre-Task Planning

Presenter: Hiep Chau, Michigan State University, USA

Abstract: For further empirical evidence of the writing-speaking connection, this study investigated whether L2 learners can carry over what they write during pre-task planning into speaking. The findings revealed significant correlations of the learners’ writing and speaking in terms of complexity and accuracy, but not fluency.

C.4.3 Silence and Listening as L2 Rhetorical Arts (CANCELLED)

Presenter: Jay Jordan, University of Utah, USA

Abstract: While native-English-speaking students and instructors may attribute L2 students' silences to misunderstanding or underconfidence, my research reveals a range of reasons for silence. I draw on scholarly work on the rhetorical value of silence and listening to reframe L2 students' participation in many US-based writing courses.

C.5 Thursday, November 5, 12:45-2:00, Coconino Session Chair: Bonnie Quinn, Arizona State University, USA

C.5.1 Second Language Feedback and Revision Research: Where Do We Go from “Here”?

Presenter: Lynn Goldstein, The Monterey Institute of International Studies, USA

Abstract: This presentation will argue for and describe an L2 research agenda that allows for an understanding of feedback and revision processes using research methodologies that will allow us to soundly address the complex and situated nature of L2 feedback and revision.

C.5.2 Feedback in L2 Writing: Synthesizing Synthesized Research

Presenter: Elena Poltavtchenko, Northern Arizona University, USA

Abstract: Whether feedback is beneficial to L2 writers has been a subject of debate for over a decade. The present study compares several meta-analyses and synthesis papers on the role of feedback in L2 writing, analyzes the decisions that authors of such papers are facing, and provides recommendations for future research.

C.5.3 Who Gives Feedback to Multilingual Writers?

Presenter: Elisabeth Kramer, University of New Hampshire, USA

Abstract: Who sponsors feedback and revision in the ESOL writing classroom? This case study explores sponsorship of writing and response both in and outside of the composition classroom. Implications from this study suggest ways to integrate multiple sponsors of response and revision into a resource-rich reserve from which students can draw.

18 SSLW 2009

C.6 Thursday, November 5, 12:45-2:00, Apache Session Chair: Tony Silva, Purdue University

C.6.1 A Genre Analysis of Essay and Letter Writing in the FL College Literature Classroom (CANCELLED)

Presenter: Cori Crane, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA

Abstract: This paper presents a genre analysis of two common text types found in college-level FL programs: academic essays and personal letters. Texts written by 12 advanced L2 learners enrolled in an introductory German literature course are analyzed to show the preferred lexico-grammatical choices L2 writers make across the two genres.

C.6.2 Exploring the Activity of Writing: a Cross-Case Study of Two College Foreign Language Classes

Presenters: Adrian Reynolds, The Ohio State University, USAMing Fang, The Ohio State University, USAYunyan Zhang, The Ohio State University, USA

Abstract: We attempt to explore the activity of writing in two college-level FLW classes (Spanish and Chinese) at a large Mid-western university in the U.S. Through comparative analysis, we examine how both teachers and students co-construct and perceive the activity of writing as a sociocultural, cognitive, and textual activity.

C.6.3 Promoting FL Collaborative Writing Though the Use of Web 2.0 Tools

Presenter: Idoia Elola, Texas Tech University, USA

Abstract: This study examines the benefits of combining wikis and chats for FL collaborative writing regarding accuracy, fluency, complexity, content and structure. The analysis of the essays, drafts in the wikis, chats and questionnaires provide significant information about students’ negotiations and awareness about aspects of FL writing.

C.7 Thursday, November 5, 12:45-2:00, Navajo Session Chair: M. Sidury Christiansen, The Ohio State University, USA

C.7.1 The Interrelationship Between L1 Writing, L2 Writing and L2 Proficiency in Narrative and Argumentative Essays: a Case of Chinese Graduate Students in the U.S.

Presenter: Hsin-I Chen, University of Arizona, USA

Abstract: This study examines the interrelationship between L1 writing, L2 writing and L2 proficiency among 24 Chinese graduate students in the U.S in both narrative and argumentative writing. A difference is identified across two genres. The findings indicate that instruction, discipline, and length of stay in U.S. affect L2 writing competence development.

Introduction 19

C.7.2 The Effect of Protocol-Aided Revision Training on Korean College Students’ Argumentative Writing in English

Presenter: Yeon Hee Choi, Ewha Womans University, Korea

Abstract: The present study aims at developing a revision training model for Korean college students’ writing in English, based on the results of analyzing the effects of protocol-aided revision training compared with those of revision utilizing teacher feedback and the improvement in writing quality.

C.7.3 L1 Transfer in the Writings of Chinese EFL Learners: A Comparison of L1 and L2 Descriptive Papers

Presenter: Xiaoling Ji, Shanghai Normal University, China

Abstract: The present study aims to examine how the writing of Chinese descriptive essays influences that of English descriptive papers. 14 pairs of descriptive papers are compared in the aspects of presence/absence of and location of thesis statement, topic sentence, and paragraph unity. Preliminary data analysis suggests that Chinese writing is not necessarily less logic.

D Sessions – Thursday, November 5, 2:15-3:30

D.1 Thursday, November 5, 2:15-3:30, Yuma Session Chair: Todd Ruecker, University of Texas at El Paso, USA

D.1.1 Pedagogy 2.0: Cross-Cultural Composition Courses in the 21St Century’s Glocalized World

Presenter: Marohang Limbu, University of Texas El Paso, Texas, USA

Abstract: Traditional composition course is hegemonic, ideological, and political since it marginalizes ESL and EFL students from composition courses culturally and linguistically. Now, we have to deconstruct the old hegemonic composition course and reconstruct pedagogy 2.0 oriented composition course that validates peripheral student’s cultural materials, prior academic knowledge, and individual experiences.

D.1.2 Authenticity in the Composition Classroom: Literacy and the Global Voice

Presenter: Michelle Steil, Northeastern Illinois University, USA

Abstract: Through close examination of student essays on texts in translation covering topics such as families, social groups, and global politics, the presenter argues that the notion of a linguistics approach to global Englishes in the Composition classroom is specious, and presents a new approach to authenticity through global voice.

20 SSLW 2009

D.2 Thursday, November 5, 2:15-3:30, Pinal Session Chair: Christine Pearson Casanave, Temple University Japan

D.2.1 Credibility, Identity, and Values: Personal Narratives on Electronic Bulletin Boards in China and Japan

Presenter: Xiaoye You, Penn State University, USA

Abstract: Focusing on personal narratives posted on electronic bulletin boards, I compare and contrast how Chinese and Japanese narrators interact with respondents to negotiate their credibility, identity, and values through English. The study sheds light on how non-native speakers of English perform situated learning and produce, circulate, and consume local knowledge.

D.2.2 Negotiating Identity from Autoethnography: Second Language Writers’ Perspectives

Presenter: Pisarn Chamcharatsri, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA

Abstract: The purpose of this presentation is to illustrate the use of autoethnography in second language (L2) writing classroom and how it essentializes L2 writers/learners’ background and their identities. Autoethnography, for L2 learners, is a valuable task that allows them to value and essentialize their own cultural background and identities.

D.2.3 Composing Lives: Bilingual Literacy Autobiographies of University Freshmen

Presenter: Kai-lin Wu, Tunghai University, Taiwan

Abstract: This presentation first describes a process-based approach to incorporating bilingual literacy autobiographies into a first-year college English composition classroom in Taiwan and then explores the development of students as writers in Chinese and English. Pedagogical implications for second language writing will also be discussed.

D.3 Thursday, November 5, 2:15-3:30, Yavapai Session Chair: Sachiko Yasuda, University of Hawai‘i, USA

D.3.1 L1 Involvement in L2 Writing: Which Way Works Better? Translation vs. Direct L2 Writing

Presenter: Jing Xia, Arizona State University, USA

Abstract: This study investigates the effect of L1 involvement in L2 writing. Results suggested that L1 plays a decisive role in predicting writers’ L2 text quality, and the effect L1 involvement casts on L2 writing is dependent on writers’ L2 language proficiency.

D.3.2 Pre-Service Teachers’ Written Communication of Math Understanding in a Second Language: What re the Language Demands?

Presenter: Alberto Esquinca, University of Texas at El Paso, USA

Abstract: This is a study of L2 writers in a mathematics class emphasizing math communication. Data was gathered from participant-observation, study sessions, written assignments, and interviews with the three participating pre-service teachers.

Introduction 21

Without explicit guidance, participants made use of English knowledge, math content, school math genres, and writing models.

D.3.3 Writing for Publication in Peripheral Countries: A Case Study of Taiwanese Multilingual Scholars

Presenter: Yi-hui CHIU, National Taipei College of Business, Taiwan

Abstract: Little is known about how non-Anglophone science scholars struggle to write for scholarly publication in English. Drawing on Lave and Wenger’s (1991) concept of legitimate peripheral participation, this study will report on how the locally-trained emerging science professionals enculturate into the academic community in Taiwan.

D.4 Thursday, November 5, 2:15-3:30, Santa Cruz Session Chair: Erik Johnson, Arizona State University, USA

D.4.1 Tracing a Process of Learning to Write a Research Paper: Proposing a Genre Knowledge Domains (CANCELLED)

Presenter: Hyechong Park, Ohio State University, USA

Abstract: By mainly employing spoken discourse analysis among four undergraduates in and out-of-classroom settings for two academic quarters, this paper proposes a model of four meta-domains of genre knowledge required to write a humanities research paper at the undergraduate level: information literacy, language use, subject knowledge, and writing skills.

D.4.2 Prestige Writing in Biology: Investigating Stance in High and Low Impact Journals

Presenter: Rachel Koch, Northern Arizona University, USA

Abstract: This paper investigates persuasion in biology journals. Articles (n=38) from high and low and low inpact journals were analyzed in terms of the occurrence of stance modals. Findings indicate that stance modals are more common in high impact journals and are discussed in terms of pedagogical implications.

D.4.3 Success in Thesis Writing: An L2 English Writer’s Participation in a Research “Community of Practice”

Presenter: Mayumi Fujioka, Kinki University, Japan

Abstract: Situated in the “Community of Practice” (CoP) framework, this study explores a Japanese student’s master’s level disciplinary literacy development. The interview and written data indicate that the student’s intellectual and social participation in a research CoP with multiple experts and peers led him to successful thesis writing in English.

22 SSLW 2009

D.5 Thursday, November 5, 2:15-3:30, Coconino Session Chair: Yichun Liu, National Chengchi University, Taiwan

D.5.1 Investigating Preservice and Experienced ESL Writing Teachers’ Written Feedback Practices and Beliefs

Presenter: Seongmee Ahn, Michigan State University, USA

Abstract: This study investigates if and how teaching experience influences written teacher feedback techniques and beliefs. Do the amount and type of written teacher feedback differ depending on teaching experience? Are there similarities and differences in teachers’ beliefs and reflections on their written feedback among teachers of different levels of experience?

D.5.2 Students’ Journey Through Written Feedback

Presenter: Emel Çağlar, Istanbul Technical University, Turkey

Abstract: This paper reports on a study which was designed to identify the nature and source of students’ difficulties in interpreting and utilizing feedback on their writing, to investigate how students cope with these difficulties, and to what extent the students’ drafts correlate with the teacher’s actual comments.

D.6 Thursday, November 5, 2:15-3:30, Apache Session Chair: Kagnarith Chea, Arizona State University, USA

D.6.1 “I Want My Leo and Babelfish”: FL-Learners of German and Online Resources

Presenter: Julie Larson-Guenette, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA

Abstract: This study investigated ways in which university learners of German use online resources and more specifically when writing in German. Data consists of open-ended surveys (n=71) and face-to-face interviews (n=13). Results reveal how and why these learners use online resources along with pedagogical implications for the foreign language classroom.

D.6.2 Academic Literacy in Spanish University EFL Writing

Presenters: JoAnne Neff, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, SpainCaroline Bunce, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, SpainEmma Dafouz, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, SpainJuan Pedro Rica, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, SpainMarta Genís, Universidad de Antonio Nebrija, SpainAnne McCabe, Saint Louis University, Spain

Abstract: This paper presents the conclusions drawn from several 37-hour courses in academic writing (AW) instruction for Spanish university EFL students. The tasks targeted the structuring of arguments and various rhetorical features, with a view to proposing guidelines for the CEFR Bank of Descriptors for self-assessment of AW in EU Portfolios.

Introduction 23

D.6.3 Tracking the Morphological Development of Written L2 French: How Do You Learn to Write What You Cannot Hear?

Presenters: Malin Ågren, Lund University, SwedenJonas Granfeldt, Lund University, SwedenSuzanne Schlyter, Lund University, Sweden

Abstract: This paper deals with the morphological development in written L2 French by Swedish learners. The study is focusing on the L2 acquisition of number agreement, which is particularly interesting in French where number morphology is often silent in the oral language and thus potentially difficult to produce in writing.

D.7 Thursday, November 5, 2:15-3:30, Navajo Session Chair: Ricky Lam, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong, China

D.7.1 Teacher Raters’ Reaction to the Use of Metadiscourse in Chinese EFL Learners’ Argumentative Essays

Presenter: Lu Lu, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Abstract: This study aims to examine the teacher raters’ reaction to Chinese EFL learners’ performance on metadiscourse markers in argumentative essays. Four teacher raters’ retrospective verbal reports of their rating processes, text-based interviews and semi-structured interviews in relation to the students’ use of metadiscourse have been examined. The research findings demonstrate that the teacher raters commented more on the fulfillment of the cohesive and the rhetorical functions of metadiscourse rather than upon the pragmatic functions of metadiscourse per se.

D.7.2 Exploring the Relationship Between the Linguistic Features of Academic Register and Chinese EFL Students’ Argument Essays

Presenter: Cui Zhang, Northern Arizona University, USA

Abstract: This study examined the relationship of Chinese EFL university students’ writing proficiency and their use of phrasal-level linguistic features related to academic written register. Participants were 98 intermediate-proficiency undergraduate students from a university in Northern China. Results showed significant correlations between their holistic essay scores and several linguistic features.

Special Session Thursday, November 5, 3:45-5:00, Gold Session Chair: Paul Kei Matsuda, Arizona State University, USA

Doctoral Programs and Second Language Writing

Presenters: Dwight Atkinson, Purdue University, USA Diane Belcher, Georgia State University, USAJay Jordan, University of Utah, USAJun Liu, University of Arizona, USA Kate Mangelsdorf, University of Texas, El Paso, USAPaul Kei Matsuda, Arizona State University, USA Christina Ortmeier-Hooper, University of New Hampshire, USABen Rafoth, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USATony Silva, Purdue University, USA Fredricka Stoller, Northern Arizona University, USAXiaoye You, Pennsylvania State University, USAWei Zhu, University of South Florida, USA

Abstract: Doctoral programs provide an important institutional means of reproducing second language writing specialists of the future. This session features established second language writing specialists who work with doctoral students to talk about opportunities their programs have to offer to students who wish to develop their expertise in second language writing theory, research and instruction. The session will serve as a way of sharing ideas about various ways in which second language writing can be integrated into doctoral education as well as an opportunity for prospective doctoral students and their current advisors to learn about different options for doctoral studies.

24 SSLW 2009

E Sessions – Thursday, November 5, 3:45-5:00

E.1 Thursday, November 5, 3:45-5:00, Yuma Session Chair: Catherine Smith, Arizona State University, USA

E.1.1 The Myth of Revising By Ear: Does It Help Second Language Writers?

Presenter: Soo Hyon Kim, Michigan State University, USA

Abstract: This study examines whether reading aloud helps L2 writers improve their texts during revision, and to what extent language proficiency plays a role in this process. The presentation opens up a venue for re-examining a pedagogical practice perhaps being implemented in L2 writing instruction without much scrutiny.

E.1.2 Revisions in Real Time: Spanish Heritage Language Learners’ Writing Processes in English and Spanish

Presenters: Idoia Elola, Texas Tech University, USAAriana Mikulski, Arizona State University, USA

Abstract: This study presents 12 SHL learners’ revision processes and evidence of fluency, planning and composing when writing in English and Spanish. Analyses

Introduction 25

suggest their fluency, composing time and sentence level revision were greater in English, but they revised more at the lexical level and used more planning time in Spanish.

E.1.3 Future of Heritage Language Instruction in College Korean Courses: The Role of Heritage Media in Enhancing Heritage Language Literacy Engagement

Presenters: Youngjoo Yi, Georgia State University, USAJayoung Choi, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA

Abstract: The presentation reports a qualitative study of Korean heritage language (HL) literacy instruction and practices in an Advanced Korean course in an American university. The presentation will focus on the role of heritage culture and media in enhancing advanced HL learners’ writing skills and engagement in HL.

E.2 Thursday, November 5, 3:45-5:00, Pinal Session Chair: Lawrence Jun Zhang, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

E.2.1 A Meta-Analysis of Strategy Instruction for L2 Writing

Presenter: Luke Plonsky, Michigan State University, USA

Abstract: This meta-analysis provides a quantitative measure of the cumulative effects of strategy instruction on L2 writing. Following a contextualized interpretation of the overall results, suggestions for developing a model of strategy instruction for L2 writing are provided, and theoretical, methodological, and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

E.2.2 Prompt Equivalence in a High-Stakes Test of Second Language Writing

Presenter: Mark Chapman, University of Michigan, USA

Abstract: The aim of this paper is to investigate the equivalence of different writing prompts employed in a high-stakes test of English as a foreign language. It reports on the early stages of a project to investigate the relationships between differences in prompt variables and discourse features of the responses.

E.2.3 Learning and Unlearning Writing Practices: Reshaping the Notion of Transfer in SLW

Presenters: Qian Du, The Ohio State University, USAM. Sidury Christiansen, The Ohio State University, USA

Abstract: By investigating how international undergraduate students negotiate and apply previously acquired knowledge of English academic writing to handle similar but more challenging tasks, this presentation challenges the traditional view of transfer as simply “carrying over” and reconceptualizes the notion as a dynamic and ongoing process for L2 writers.

26 SSLW 2009

E.3 Thursday, November 5, 3:45-5:00, Yavapai Session Chair: David Schmidt, Kennesaw State University, USA

E.3.1 Writing Center Tutors’ Questions with L2 Writers: How Effective They are

Presenter: Youn-Kyung Kim, Spalding University, USA

Abstract: Writing center tutors’ questions used with L2 students are analyzed to examine whether tutors’ questions help L2 students self-formulate their own revision plans. The results indicate that revision plans are often suggested by tutors, rather than self-generated by students. The tutor-student interaction structure constitutes the exchange of Initiating-Responding-Suggesting moves.

E.3.2 Learners Helping Learners in an EFL Writing Center

Presenter: George Hays, Tokyo International University, Japan

Abstract: This presentation reports the ongoing findings of native and non-native speaking tutor/tutee dyads in a writing center at a Japanese university. Data, consisting of interviews, written reports by tutors, and a questionnaire submitted by tutees were gathered. Analysis showed need for NNS tutors, an undeveloped resource in Japanese EFL environment.

E.3.3 The Writing Center and Better ESL Writers

Presenter: Scott Chien-Hsiung Chiu, Michigan State University, USA

Abstract: Writing Centers provide a unique environment and new learning experiences for L2 learners to improve their writing. This study examines this phenomenon and investigates how writing center pedagogy impacts L2 learners’ beliefs, contributes to developmental changes in writing, and better prepares ESL writers for academic success.

E.4 Thursday, November 5, 3:45-5:00, Santa Cruz Session Chair: Steve Simpson, University of New Hampshire, USA

E.4.1 Re-Appropriating the Amen Corner: A View of L2 Writing Beyond the Classroom

Presenter: Rachel Reed, Auburn University, USA

Abstract: This study explores what literate practices ESL students already have and how those abilities inform their actions. Drawing on observations, formal and informal interviews, samples of school and non-school writing collected from a year-long case study of Jane, an L2 student, my presentation traces her extensive engagement in church and how these experiences inform and complicate her writing.

E.4.2 A Meta-Synthesis of Multilingual Students’ Home and Family Literacies

Presenter: Bong-gi Sohn, University of British Columbia, Canada

Abstract: This meta-synthesis study integrates research findings from multiple qualitative studies to examine multilingual children’s use of literacy at home and investigate its complexities.

Introduction 27

E.4.3 Explicitness in Computer-Based Feedback for Improving ESL Learners’ Persistent Grammatical Errors in Academic Writing

Presenter: Doe-Hyung Kim, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA

Abstract: The purpose of this presentation is to present the findings of a dissertation study that examined the effectiveness of feedback that vary in its explicitness in a computer-assisted language learning (CALL) tutorial environment designed to help international students reduce persistent grammatical errors found in their academic writing.

E.5 Thursday, November 5, 3:45-5:00, Coconino Session Chair: Elisabeth Kramer, University of New Hampshire, USA

E.5.1 Korean EFL Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Own Written Feedback

Presenters: Hohsung Choe, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, KoreaHo Jung Yu, Arizona State University, USA

Abstract: This study investigates Korean EFL teachers’ experiences providing feedback to students about writing. Forty teachers at the university level participated in this study. In order to capture general patterns in participants’ experiences, this study employed a mixed-method research design: quantitative data through a questionnaire and qualitative data through semi-structured interviews.

E.5.2 Teacher and Student Feedback in Written Commentary

Presenter: Hui-Tzu Min, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan

Abstract: Research on peer and teacher written feedback seldom converge. This study is designed to fill this void by comparing and contrasting teacher and student written commentary on student compositions and the stances they take in providing feedback in an EFL writing class.

E.5.3 Electronic Feedback—From Students’ Perspectives

Presenter: Chung-chien Karen Chang, Arizona State University, USA

Abstract: As electronic feedback on writing assignments becomes popular among writing instructors, this study examines students’ acceptance level towards this format of feedback provision. Moreover, the researcher provides specific feedback on content development and grammar mechanics through marginal and in-text comments to see how students respond to the comments for revision.

E.6 Thursday, November 5, 3:45-5:00, Apache Session Chair: Yi-hui Chiu, National Taipei College of Business, Taiwan

E.6.1 The Use of Source Texts in Chinese EFL University Argumentative Writing

Presenters: Jingjing Qin, Northern Arizona University, USAErkan Karabacak, Northern Arizona University, USA

Abstract: Academic writing tasks in English-medium universities often necessitate the use of readings (Campbell, 1990; Zhu, 2004). This study investigated how 80 Chinese EFL university students majoring in English used information from two pre-

28 SSLW 2009

selected texts with opposing views to write an English argumentative paper. Pedagogical implications are discussed.

E.6.2 How Do University Students Attempt to Avoid Plagiarism? A Grammatical Analysis of L1 and L2 Paraphrasing Strategies

Presenter: Casey Keck, San Francisco State University, USA

Abstract: This study analyzed 255 paraphrases composed by L1 and L2 writers. It was found that paraphrases that avoided copying shared a common grammatical strategy: Students identified key clause elements (e.g., the Subject) and changed their grammatical form (e.g., by condensing a that-clause to a noun phrase). Pedagogical implications are discussed.

E.7 Thursday, November 5, 3:45-5:00, Navajo Session Chair: Linda Henriksen, Southeast Missouri State University, USA

E.7.1 Uncovering the Linguistic Diversity in a Writing Program

Presenter: Angela Dadak, American University, USA

Abstract: The presenter illustrates efforts to uncover the multilingual nature of the student population – often hidden under assumptions and lack of data – in an undergraduate US college writing program in order to promote greater incorporation of second language writing research and practices in instructor development and student support.

E.7.2 “No Such Thing as Success”: L2 Students in a Mainstream Freshman Composition Course

Presenter: Christian Stuart, University of Washington, USA

Abstract: This qualitative research study explores the expectations, challenges, and successes of three L2 students in a mainstream freshman composition course. Findings show that the participants and their L1 classmates shared a lot of the same struggles in the class, but that their strategies for dealing with these struggles differed noticeably.

E.7.3 Learning to Play the Part: Second Language Writers Socialized into Academic Discourse Through Teacher-Student Conferences

Presenter: Betsy Gilliland, University of California, Davis, USA

Abstract: This study examines the ways students are socialized into the academic discourse community through writing conferences between two bilingual Latino ninth grade students and their mainstream English language arts teacher as the students work to revise drafts of an essay.

Introduction 29

Opening Reception – Thursday, November 5, 5:00-7:00, Engrained Café

Chair: Paul Kei Matsuda, Arizona State University, USA Presenters: Debby Losse, Dean, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Arizona State

UniversityMaureen Goggin, Chair, Department of English, Arizona State

UniversityChristine Pearson Casanave, Temple University, Japan CampusLinda Lonon Blanton, Anatolia Elementary & Secondary/American

College of Thessaloniki

Sponsored by Bedford/St. Martin's Press

30 SSLW 2009

Second Language Writing at Arizona StateSecond Language Writing at Arizona State UniversityUniversity

Graduate students can focus on second language writing in a number of programs, including:

Master’s Program in TESOL http://english.clas.asu.edu/gradstudies-mtesol

Ph.D. Program in Applied Linguisticshttp://appliedlinguistics.asu.edu/

Ph.D. Program in Rhetoric, Composition and Linguisticshttp://english.clas.asu.edu/gradstudies-rhetcompling

ASU regularly offers courses on second language writing research and second language writing instruction, which are open to students in any of the programs. Students can also choose from a wide variety of related courses offered by world-class faculty members from across ASU campuses.

Faculty members who specialize in second language writing include Mark A. James and Paul Kei Matsuda. In addition, there are numerous faculty members in related fields across the University, including (but certainly not limited to): Karen Adams, Akua Duku Anokye, Patricia Boyd, Patricia Friedrich, James Paul Gee, Elly van Gelderen, Carrie Gillon, Maureen Daly Goggin, Peter Goggin, Elisabeth Hayes, Sarah Hudelson, Barbara Lafford, Elenore Long, Roy Major, Aya Matsuda, Keith Miller, Don Nilsen, Alice Robison, Duane Roen, Shirley K. Rose, Bryan Smith, Doris Warriner, Terrence G. Wiley, and many others.

ASU is one of the largest, top-tier research institutions in the United States, enrolling a large number of international students as well as resident students who bring a rich array of multilingual and multicultural experience and resources. Graduate students will find a wide variety of opportunities for teaching, research and professional development. Many students teach in ASU’s well-established and comprehensive writing programs; others find teaching and administrative positions in various programs. With the presence of linguistic diversity both on and off campus, graduate students will find a plenty of research opportunities in the Writing Programs, courses across the disciplines, American English and Culture Program (an intensive English program), community colleges, heritage language programs, and workplace language programs.

For more information about ASU, visit: http://www.asu.edu/.

Friday, November 6 31

Friday, November 6

Plenary I – Friday, November 6, 9:00-9:45, ArizonaThe Future of Second Language Writing (and Reading) Instruction: Plus ça change;

plus c’est la même chose

Chair: Ilona Leki, University of Tennessee, USA Presenter: Ann Johns, San Diego State University, USA (Emerita)

Abstract: No doubt the teaching of writing (and reading), and our students' experiences with literacies, have changed radically in the past few years as multi-modalities have become increasingly prevalent and writing has become more collaborative, informal, and global. However, for a number of reasons, the teaching of second language literacies has not kept up with this fast-paced change. In this presentation, I will discuss five goals for the second language writing classroom that acknowledge and embrace change while drawing from the extensive pedagogical accomplishments and research during the past 20 years or so. The five goals for our classrooms should be: 1) Fostering student literacy research, that is, research into genres and literacy practices in a variety of contexts; 2) Encouraging the interaction of reading, writing, and technology and the extensive use of technologies to promote different types of reading and writing; 3) Modeling literacy practices for multiple texts and contexts, and encouraging writing for these contexts; 4) Promoting student reflection and metacognition as integral to student literacy research and writing practices, and 5) Re-assessing student assessments to value writing (and reading) for the 21st century. Handouts related to these goals will be distributed.

Sponsored by Parlor Press

F Colloquia – Friday, November 6, 10:00-11:30

FC.1 Friday, November 6, 10:00-11:30, Arizona Session Chair: Terry Santos, Humboldt State University, USA

FC.1 On the Future of Second Language Writing: 10 Years Later

Presenters: Terry Santos, Humboldt State University, USADwight Atkinson, Purdue University, USAMelinda Erickson, University of California, Berkeley, USATony Silva, Purdue University, USAPaul Kei Matsuda, Arizona State University, USA

Abstract: At TESOL 1999, a group of second language writing specialists contemplated the future of the emering field of second language writing. In this colloquium, the same group of presenters will consider the changes that have taken place over the last decade and to reconsider the future of the field of second language writing in light of those changes.

32 SSLW 2009

FC.2 Friday, November 6, 10:00-11:30, Turquoise Session Chair: Melinda Reichelt, University of Toledo, USA

FC.2 The Future of Foreign Language Writing

Presenters: Melinda Reichelt, University of Toledo, USANatalie Lefkowitz, Central Washington University, USAJean Marie Schultz, University of California, Santa Barbara, USACarol Rinnert, Hiroshima City University, Japan

Abstract: The presenters will focus on foreign language (FL) writing instruction, discussing FL writing in the following languages: Spanish, French, English, Japanese, Chinese, German, and Russian. The discussion will be relevant to writing instruction in other FLs as well. The presenters will address the following questions: What role should writing play in the overall FL curriculum, and how much time should be devoted to FL writing instruction? What constitute appropriate purposes for students writing in FLs, especially in contexts where students’ real-life needs for FL writing are not immediately obvious? How is FL writing different from other types of L2 writing (e.g., ESL writing)? What does FL writing have in common with other types of L2 writing? How should L2 teacher education programs prepare future teachers for teaching FL writing? What directions should FL writing research pursue: Which issues should be investigated, which research methodologies are most appropriate, and how can the field of FL writing form a community to support an emerging research agenda

FC.3 Friday, November 6, 10:00-11:30, Gold Session Chair: Marilyn K. Rahilly, George Mason University, USA

FC.3 Studies of Multilingual Writers’ Experiences at a U.S. University

Presenters: Melissa Allen, George Mason University, USALaurie Miller, George Mason University, USATerry Myers Zawacki, George Mason University, USAAnna Habib, George Mason University, USA

Abstract: Four presenters report on two research studies of MLL writers: one tracks former IEP students who've completed one year of university study; the other investigates graduate/undergraduate students and faculty on experiences with writing across the curriculum. They discuss how findings from both studies inform WAC/writing center/IEP program assessment and improvement.

F Sessions – Friday, November 6, 10:00-11:15

F.1 Friday, November 6, 10:00-11:15, Lapaz West Session Chair: Elaine Zaragoza, Arizona State University, USA

F.1.1 Rules on the Fly: Writing Center Tutors as L2 “Grammar” Instructors

Presenter: Terese Thonus, University of Kansas, USA

Abstract: How successful are writing center tutors as “grammar” instructors? Transcripts of 18 tutorials with L2 writers were examined for “language-related episodes” (Swain & Lapkin, 2002) and pragmatic structure of the evaluation-

Friday, November 6 33

suggestion-response sequences (Thonus, 2004). These interventions are discussed in terms of L2 writer expectations, tutor authority, and language acquisition.

F.1.2 Aynchronous Online Tutoring, Face-to-Face Tutoring, and Second Language Learning

Presenter: Carol Severino, University of Iowa, USA

Abstract: Challenging the prevailing writing center orthodoxy of indirect tutoring based on the face-to-face paradigm, the author argues the value of asynchronous online tutoring, a mode noted for its directness, because it contributes more to second language (L2) learning than face to face (f2f) tutoring because of the stable visual representations of the tutor’s scaffolding and reformulated language, which the student reads, considers, and implements rather than base revisions on notes and memory from the aural/oral exchanges of f2f tutoring.

F.1.3 Casting a Vision: Next Generation Writing Centers for Multilingual Graduate Students

Presenter: Talinn Phillips, Ohio University, USA

Abstract: As L2 writing specialists look to the future, I consider how a Next Generation Writing Center could effectively support multilingual graduate writers. Based on a survey of writing centers’ services, I discuss several models for working the multilingual graduate writers in the context of these writers’ unique needs.

F.2 Friday, November 6, 10:00-11:15, Lapaz East Session Chair: Ryan Skinnell, Arizona State University, USA

F.2.1 Planning Subprocesses and Second Language Writing

Presenter: Mark Johnson, Northern Arizona University, USA

Abstract: The effect of planning sub-processes (idea generation, organization, and goal setting) on fluency and textual features of L1 and L2 novice writers was examined in order to determine how planning affects second language writing. Organizational activities led to greater fluency and greater use of grammatical features associated with academic prose.

F.2.2 The Positive Role of L1 on L2 Writing

Presenter: Echo Pittman, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada

Abstract: This paper, based on Vygotsky's theory, schema theory, and affective filter theory, argues that insisting students to think in English only may not be a sound pedagogical advice. It advocates that higher cognitive skills in one's native language can be utilized to help one tackle writing difficulties in L2.

F.2.3 Writing Handbooks, L2 Writers, and the Selective Tradition

Presenter: Maria Jerskey, LaGuardia Community College, USA

Abstract: This case study examines editorial decisions made during the production of a college writing handbook in addressing the learning needs of L2 writers. Adapting the selective tradition as an interpretive framework, this study sheds light on hidden

34 SSLW 2009

value systems embedded in editorial decisions offering implications for developing materials for L2 writers.

F.3 Friday, November 6, 10:00-11:15, Coconino Session Chair: Bong-gi Sohn, University of British Columbia, Canada

F.3.1 Error Correction in ESL Writing: Context and Methodology Matter

Presenters: Norman Evans, Brigham Young University, USAK. James Hartshorn, Brigham Young University, USADiane Strong-Krause, Brigham Young University, USA

Abstract: Based on research involving ESL students in university and IEP contexts, two studies show how a methodology for error correction can significantly improve the accuracy of ESL writers in one context but not in others. Findings suggest that different teaching, learning, and research contexts may substantially affect L2 writing accuracy.

F.3.2 Are We Doing It Right? Assessment of Grammatical Ability in Second Language Writing

Presenter: Heike Neumann, McGill University/Concordia University, Canada

Abstract: To what extent is the academic essay an effective tool to assess second language writers’ grammatical ability? This mixed methods study examines what indicators academic writing teachers attend to in the assessment process. The results point towards the construct of grammatical ability that is assessed in writing classrooms.

F.3.3 Balancing the Dual Functions of Portfolio Assessment: Lessons from a Case Study

Presenters: Ricky Lam, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong, ChinaIcy Lee, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Abstract: Drawing upon a case study, this paper aims to investigate how the summative and formative functions of portfolio assessment (PA) could be duly balanced through its formative potentials and how PA can integrate teaching and assessment to benefit students’ learning of writing.

G Colloquia – Friday, November 6, 12:30-2:00

GC.1 Friday, November 6, 12:30-2:00, Arizona Session Chair: Deborah Crusan, Wright State University, USA

GC.1 The Future of L2 Writing Assessment

Presenters: Deborah Crusan, Wright State University, USASara Weigle, Georgia State UniversityLiz Hamp-Lyons, University of Bedfordshire, United KingdomEdward White, University of Arizona

Sponsored by Assessing Writing and Elsevier

Friday, November 6 35

GC.2 Friday, November 6, 12:30-2:00, Turquoise Session Chair: Rosa Manchón, University of Murcia, Spain

GC.2 SLA and Second Language Writing

Presenters: Charlene Polio, Michigan State University, USAJessica Williams, University of Illinois-Chicago, USARosa Manchón, University of Murcia, Spain

Abstract: This colloquium will explore the contribution that research on L2 writing can make to current theorizing on second language acquisition (SLA), as well as the way in which SLA theory and research can inform L2 writing research.

GC.3 Friday, November 6, 12:30-2:00, Gold Session Chair: Jiraporn Dhanarattigannon, Kasetsart University, Thailand

GC.3.1 Writing Process and Thai EFL Learners: Looking for the Future

Presenter: Jiraporn Dhanarattigannon, Kasetsart University, Thailand

Abstract: This case study explores how Thai EFL college students perceive the nontraditional process-based writing instruction especially the revision process and teacher-student conference. The findings should be the legitimate guidance for ESL/ EFL teachers and researchers to provide the more effective instruction to promote the optimal performance of these writers.

GC.3.2 The Cultural Schema and EFL Student Writers

Presenter: Pataraporn Tapinta, Kasetsart University, Thailand

Abstract: This case study of Thai EFL student writers investigates how their classroom learning culture influences their perceptions and writing behaviors. It focuses on the factors hindering their effective performance during the process of producing multiple drafts. Knowing the role of writer’s cultural schema should enhance effective EFL writing instruction.

GC.3.3 Persistent Difficulties of EFL Learners in a Process-Product Based Writing Instruction: Exploring for the Future

Presenter: Bussba Tonthong, Kasetsart University, Thailand

Abstract: This case study explores the perception and performance of EFL students in a process-product-based writing class. It was found that the learners perform their writing with tremendous difficulties. This presentation offers an insight into why the difficulties are persistent. Implications for scaffolding EFL/ESL learners in the future are discussed.

36 SSLW 2009

G Sessions – Friday, November 6, 12:30-1:45

G.1 Friday, November 6, 12:30-1:45, Lapaz West Session Chair: Ju Zhan, Jilin University, China

G.1.1 Helping NNES Engineering Graduate Students Better Understand Plagiarism

Presenter: Dawn Bikowski, Ohio University, USA

Abstract: This presentation will highlight research on the computer-mediated communication (CMC) of 75 NNES graduate students from a variety of countries in a scientific writing course. Class observations and student interviews supplement the discourse analysis of the CMC. Findings on students’ understandings and misunderstandings will be discussed, as will pedagogical implications.

G.1.2 Improvements in L2 Writers’ Paraphrasing Skills for Academic Summary Writing

Presenter: Choon Kim, St. Cloud State University, USA

Abstract: This study examines L2 academic summaries. What is the nature of developmental changes in paraphrasing skills? What is the relationship between two evaluation methods: analysis of paraphrases vs. instructors’ holistic rating? The findings have implications for teaching and assessment in college-level academic writing and training future teachers in MA-TESL programs.

G.1.3 A Comparison of Japanese and Taiwanese Students’ Summary Writing Operations

Presenter: Masumi Ono, University of Essex, United Kingdom

Abstract: The present paper investigates whether there are any differences between Japanese and Taiwanese students’ summary writing operations. Written summaries were analysed by using macrorules and the results showed no cultural differences between the two groups although individual differences were found in the use of additional information in summaries.

G.2 Friday, November 6, 12:30-1:45, Lapaz East Session Chair: Mira Bekar, Purdue University, USA

G.2.1 Examining Sojourners’ Academic Literacy Socialization: An Ecological Perspective

Presenter: Sandra Zappa-Hollman, University of British Columbia, Canada

Abstract: This multiple-case study explores the second language academic literacy socialization of Mexican exchange student at a large Canadian English-medium university. The findings demonstrate that to achieve an ecological perspective of students’ academic literacy development, a model that integrates the analysis of feedback, resources, institutional support, and their social networks is needed.

Friday, November 6 37

G.2.2 What’s the Task? On the Significance of Task in Teaching Writing

Presenter: Lukasz Salski, University of Lodz, Poland

Abstract: The present paper reports on a pilot study which uses think-aloud protocols to investigate the impact of task on both the process and product of writing. It is hoped that the results of the study will shed light on how a task should be constructed in order to direct, rather than restrict, EFL writers.

G.2.3 Raising College Students’ Real Voice Through Online Dialogue Journal Writing

Presenter: Ai-Ling Wang, Tamkang University, Taipei, Taiwan, Taiwan

Abstract: This study investigates how communicative writing and the use of computers in writing may affect EFL college students’ perception of writing in English and may provide student with opportunities to express themselves. The analysis of an online dialogue journal writing activity in a college junior composition class, suggests that dialogue journal writing does not replace but complement traditional writing instruction.

G.3 Friday, November 6, 12:30-1:45, Coconino Session Chair: Masumi Narita, Tokyo International University, Japan

G.3.1 Rhetorical Features of L2 College Students’ Argumentative Essays That Used Source Texts

Presenter: Hae Sung Yang, San Francisco State University, USA

Abstract: The present study identified the rhetorical moves that L2 university student essays used to take a stance on an issue they had read about in multiple source texts. Most essays included main moves, but low-scored essays did not follow a consistent submove structure within each main point.

G.3.2 Linguistic Markers of Higher and Lower Quality Student Writing

Presenters: Stephen Doolan, Northern Arizona University, USADonald Miller, Northern Arizona University, USA

Abstract: This presentation describes a study investigating the predictive value of linguistic markers (e.g. errors, clausal structures) in relation to quality of L2 writing. Findings from the current study also compare the predictive value of these linguistic markers when applied to two distinct adult L2 populations: Generation 1.5 and international students.

G.3.3 Challenging Stereotypes about Academic Writing: Complexity, Elaboration, Explicitness

Presenter: Doug Biber, Northern Arizona University, USA

Abstract: The present talk challenges the stereotypes that academic writing is grammatically complex, with elaborated structures, and with meaning relations expressed explicitly. On the one hand, the study shows that conversation is structurally complex and elaborated, to an even greater extent than academic writing for some grammatical features. At the same time, the study shows that academic writing does not make extensive use of the structures that are stereotypically associated with complexity (especially dependent clauses). Rather, the grammatical

38 SSLW 2009

complexities of writing tend to be phrasal rather than clausal, resulting in a compressed rather than elaborated discourse style.

H Colloquia – Friday, November 6, 2:15-3:45

HC.1 Friday, November 6, 2:15-3:45, Arizona Session Chair: Bryan Smith, Arizona State University, USA

HC.1 Technology and L2 Writing

Presenters: Greg Kessler, Ohio University, USAElena Cotos, Iowa State University, USAMartha C. Pennington, Georgia Southern University, USARandi Reppen, Northern Arizona University, USABryan Smith, Arizona State University, USA

Sponsored by Writing & Pedagogy and Equinox

HC.2 Friday, November 6, 2:15-3:45, Turquoise Session Chair: Carol Severino, University of Iowa, USA

HC.2 L2 Writing in the Writing Center

Presenters: Paula Gillespie, Florida International University, USABen Rafoth, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USACarol Severino, University of Iowa, USATerese Thonus, University of Kansas, USA

HC.3 Friday, November 6, 2:15-3:45, Gold Session Chair: Tony Silva, Purdue University

HC.3.1 Spanish and Portuguese Writing-Enriched Curriculum Project: A Joint Project

Presenters: Maria Emilce Lopez, University of Minnesota, USASusan McMillen Villar, University of Minnesota, USA

Abstract: Presentation of the process through which the Department of Spanish and Portuguese at the University of Minnesota coordinated with the University’s Writing-Enhanced Curriculum Project to design a plan to more efficiently integrate writing into the undergraduate curriculum and assess the plan’s efficacy while providing instructional support.

HC.3.2 Online Writing System and Portfolio for First-Year Spanish

Presenter: Frances Matos-Schultz, University of Minnesota- Twin Cities, USA

Abstract: This session will discuss a web-based writing environment developed to facilitate the delivery of meaningful feedback. The system also sustains online writing communities in first-year language classes, in which the writers/learners take ownership over the text and share the task as collaborators and critics with minimal instructor’s administrative intervention.

Friday, November 6 39

H Sessions – Friday, November 6, 2:15-3:30

H.1 Friday, November 6, 2:15-3:30, Lapaz West Session Chair: Shawna Shapiro, Middlebury College, USA

H.1.1 Multilingual Students, Their Views of Identity Labels, and First Year Composition Placement Preferences

Presenter: Todd Ruecker, University of Texas at El Paso, USA

Abstract: This presentation is based on the results of surveys administered to 215 students in mainstream and ESOL FYC classrooms. The surveys explored the connections between English usage, multilingual status, self-identification with linguistic identity labels, attitudes towards these labels, and satisfaction with FYC placement.

H.1.2 Improving Placement Practices for Diverse Multilingual Writers: An Institutional Case Study

Presenters: Tanita Saenkhum, Arizona State University, USASteven Accardi, Arizona State University, USAPaul Kei Matsuda, Arizona State University, USA

Abstract: Multilingual writers—both resident and international students—are often misplaced in first-year composition sequences in US colleges and universities. Through an institutional case study, the presenters will identify some of the possible reasons and discuss what a writing program can do to improve placement practices to better accommodate these students.

H.1.3 Mainstreamed L2 Writers: Are Their Instructors “Ready” for Them?

Presenter: Stefan Frazier, San Jose State University, USA

Abstract: On many campuses, L2 writers are “thrown in” with everyone else throughout their undergraduate writing careers. But how well are their instructors prepared for them? The presenter offers the results of a survey of basic writing and FYC instructors on L2 writing students and issues.

H.2 Friday, November 6, 2:15-3:30, Lapaz East Session Chair: Yuching Jill Yang, Arizona State University, USA

Featured Session: The Role of Qualitative Dissertation Advisors in Contributing to Future Changes in Academic Discourse

Presenter: Christine Pearson Casanave, Temple University, Japan Campus

Abstract: In this talk I speculate about the role of qualitative dissertation advisors in helping to shift future academic discourse from its (stereo)typical impersonal formulaic style to a style that is more personal, engaging, and readable. Can dissertation writers contribute to such changes, or does change best come from the top-down?

40 SSLW 2009

H.3 Friday, November 6, 2:15-3:30, Coconino Session Chair: Ryan Skinnell, Arizona State University, USA

H.3.1 “What Am I Supposed to Say?” ESL Students’ Expectations of Writing Conferences

Presenter: Yingliang Liu, Georgia Gwinnett College, USA

Abstract: This study examines the ESL students’ expectations of teacher-student writing conferences. Results show that ESL students, not familiar with the dynamic feature of the conference, expect direct instructions from the teacher without planning to explain their own thoughts. These expectations are shaped by factors beyond individual preferences.

H.3.2 Using the Four Questions to Focus Student Writing

Presenter: Louise Green, University of Nouakchott, Mauritana

Abstract: Teaching students with educational backgrounds in either French or Arabic has led to some difficulties in teaching students how to choose a research topic and how to give it an “argumentative edge”. Sometime in my second term of teaching a massive class of 250 students, I realized the significance of the “four questions.”

Plenary II – Friday, November 6, 4:00-4:45, ArizonaThe Future Ain’t What it Used to Be

Chair: Bryan Smith, Arizona State University, USA Presenter: Mark Warschauer, University of California, Irvine, USA

Abstract: Less than two decades ago, new forms of socially constructed multimedia were believed to be devaluing writing, marginalizing the essay, and contributing to a postmodern death of the author. But today, writing is more important than ever before in human history, the essay is critical to success in schools and influence in society, and, as Chris Chesher has noted, “the author is alive and well, and has a blog.” This paper briefly summarizes the history of computers and writing, surveys its current terrain, and examines its future, particularly in relationship to second language teaching and learning. Issues addressed included the development and diffusion of low-cost wireless mobile devices such as netbooks and smartbooks; the expanding role of open source software, open educational resources, and cloud computing, especially in conjunction with these devices; the affordances of Web 2.0 tools such as blogs and wikis and their impact on writing; the evolution of artificial intelligence-based software to score and respond to writing and the increased use of such software in schools; and the social and economic context that shapes who has access to all these tools and how they are used inside and outside the classroom.

Special Reception – Friday, November 6, 5:00-7:00, Engrained CaféA Special Reception in Honor of JSLW Editors and Board Members

Chair: Paul Kei Matsuda, Arizona State University, USA Presenter: Ilona Leki, University of Tennessee, USA

Saturday, November 7 41

Saturday, November 7

Plenary III – Saturday, November 7, 9:00-9:45, ArizonaExploring Learning Transfer in Second Language Writing Education

Chair: Tanita Saenkhum, Arizona State University, USA Presenter: Mark A. James, Arizona State University, USA

Abstract: A fundamental goal of second language writing education is that learners develop knowledge and skills that they can apply beyond the learning context. In other words, if learning occurs in a L2 writing classroom but students cannot apply that learning outside that classroom, instruction has limited value. This goal involves learning transfer, which refers to the application of learning in novel situations. In some education circles, assumptions have been made that if learning occurs, learning transfer inevitably follows; however, a century of research on learning transfer in experimental and educational psychology suggests that learning does not automatically lead to learning transfer, and that learning transfer can, in fact, be difficult to stimulate. This presentation will explore learning transfer in L2 writing education through a discussion of the following questions: What is learning transfer in L2 writing education? In what ways is learning transfer relevant in this area? How has learning transfer in L2 writing education been investigated, and what has been learned? Finally, what directions might be taken in future research on learning transfer in this area?

I Colloquia – Saturday, November 7, 10:00-11:30

IC.1 Saturday, November 7, 10:00-11:30, Arizona Session Chair: Icy Lee, Chinese University of Hong Kong, China

IC.1 Teaching and Learning of Writing in Asian School Contexts

Presenters: Icy Lee, Chinese University of Hong Kong, ChinaKyoko Oi, Chiba University, JapanKai-lin Wu, Tunghai University, TaiwanLawrence Jun Zhang, National Institute of Education, Nanyan

Technological University, Singapore

Abstract: While much existing L2 research focuses on writing instruction in college contexts, teaching and learning of school writing has received less attention. The presenters of this colloquium will explore the teaching and learning of writing in Asian school contexts, highlighting a range of issues including learners’ motivation for writing, the use of literacy autobiographies, the development of critical thinking skills through teaching writing, and scaffolding the writing process through text-type based instruction. By drawing upon research and experience in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan and Singapore, the presenters will highlight some common issues that face teachers and learners in Asian school contexts. Implications for teaching, learning and teacher education will be discussed.

42 SSLW 2009

IC.2 Saturday, November 7, 10:00-11:30, Turquoise Session Chair: Dana Ferris, University of California, Davis, USA

IC.2 Re-Examining “Generation 1.5”

Presenters: Dana Ferris, University of California, Davis, USAMark Roberge, San Francisco State University, USAKay Losey, Grand Valley State University, USAMargi Wald, University of California, Berkeley, USA

IC.3 Saturday, November 7, 10:00-11:30, Gold Session Chair: Fredricka Stoller, Northern Arizona University, USA

IC.3.1 “Who Did You Get for Freshmen Comp?” Instructor Differences in Feedback and Grading

Presenter: Victoria Clark-Sanchez, Northern Arizona University, USA

Abstract: Which elements of writing skill are most salient to freshmen English writing instructors? How does instructors’ written feedback on student papers reflect these values? This study uses mixed methods to examine how ‘good writing’ is characterized in a corpus of written feedback to 100 L1/L2 English students and interviews with 10 instructors.

IC.3.2 The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback on Chinese EFL Learners’ Grammatical Accuracy Improvement

Presenter: Dongmei Cheng, Northern Arizona University, USA

Abstract: This study explores the long-term effectiveness of teacher-provided indirect corrective feedback on Chinese EFL writers’ accuracy improvement. Sixty participants were randomly assigned to three groups: underlining, underlining with codes, and no grammatical feedback. Preliminary results showed the positive effect of both types of indirect feedback. Pedagogical implications will be discussed.

IC.3.3 Teacher and Student Feedback on L2 Student Writing

Presenter: Jonathan Smart, Northern Arizona University, USA

Abstract: This study compares how teachers and students respond to L2 student writing. Four participant groups (university faculty, English language teachers, native English undergraduates, and ESL students) provided feedback on an essay authored by an ESL student. The presentation describes the important differences and similarities among the participants’ written feedback.

I Sessions – Saturday, November 7, 10:00-11:15

I.1 Saturday, November 7, 10:00-11:15, Lapaz West Session Chair: Marna Broekhoff, University of Oregon, USA (Emerita)

I.1.1 Bridging the Gap: Composition and Applied Linguistics in the Writing Center

Presenters: Chloe de los Reyes, California State University, San Bernardino, USAGina Hanson, California State University, San Bernardino, USA

Saturday, November 7 43

Carol Peterson Haviland, California State University, San Bernardino, USA

Deanna Hernandez, California State University, San Bernardino, USAAldo Lewis, California State University, San Bernardino, USAErika Macias, California State University, San Bernardino, USA

Abstract: This session will offer a critical comparison of how TESOL/applied linguistics and composition studies inform the tutoring of L2 writers in writing centers. It examines the spaces where the two fields intersect and diverge and thus identifies knowledge each can gain from working with the other.

I.1.2 Writing Centers and the Resident ESL Writer: Mapping New Routes

Presenters: Jennifer Ritter, Westminster College, USAJenny Staben, College of Lake County, USA

Abstract: The presenters will discuss pedagogical approaches to tutoring resident ESL writers in our writing centers, in particular at open-enrollment institutions. These challenges include literacy and language learning experiences that do not adequately prepare students for the challenges of college-level writing.

I.1.3 Espionage and My Failed Attempt to Start a Writing Center in Namibia

Presenter: Marna Broekhoff, University of Oregon, USA (Emerita)

Abstract: My expectations of the challenges I would face in starting a college writing center in the impoverished country of Namibia scarcely resembled the realities I experienced, which included charges of espionage. The term, “contact zone,” gained new meaning. This presentation aims to open the eyes of anyone contemplating a similar assignment.

I.2 Saturday, November 7, 10:00-11:15, Lapaz East Session Chair: Matt Hammill, Arizona State University, USA

Featured Session: Writing Groups for Academics: Benefits, Logistics, and Privilege

Presenter: Stephanie Vandrick, University of San Francisco, USA

Abstract: Writing groups provide support and practical assistance to academic writers; such groups can be powerful and effective. The presenter offers guidelines for forming and maintaining useful writing groups, with various versions for various purposes and situations. She discusses the role of privilege, and provides examples from her own experience.

I.3 Saturday, November 7, 10:00-11:15, Coconino Session Chair: Pataraporn Tapinta, Kasetsart University, Thailand

I.3.1 Teaching Coherence and Cohesion in Writing

Presenter: Sheila Mayne, University of Pennsylvania, USA

Abstract: The presenter will begin with an overview of the linguistic theories used to explain coherence and cohesion. She will explain how she matched these theories with the needs of her L2 writing students. Finally, she will show lessons she uses to teach coherence: reader/writer based, cohesive ties, and more.

44 SSLW 2009

I.3.2 Connective Adverbials: a Source of Cohesion in Learner Writing?

Presenter: Mark Shea, Michigan State University, USA

Abstract: The present study analyzed the use of connective adverbials as cohesive devices in a learner corpus consisting of timed writings rated on a multiple-trait scale. No significant correlation was found between adverbial use and text quality. An analysis of “deeper” cohesive ties (e.g., lexical repetition) is currently being conducted.

I.3.3 New Intercultural Rhetoric Approaches in Second Language Writing

Presenter: Amanda Hobmeier, DePaul University, USA

Abstract: This presentation uses a newly adapted Intercultural Rhetoric methodological approach to evaluate the autobiographical essay genre written by a Swiss ESL class. Through text analysis and a survey study, the presenter highlights the role of gender identity in L2 writing, extending a previous L1 study to an intercultural context.

J Colloquia – Saturday, November 7, 12:30-2:00

JC.1 Saturday, November 7, 12:30-2:00, Arizona Session Chair: Christine Tardy, DePaul University, USA

JC.1 The Future of Genre in L2 Writing

Presenters: Christine Tardy, DePaul University, USASunny Hyon, California State University, San BernardinoAn Cheng, Oklahoma State UniversityGuillaume Gentil, Carleton UniversityDiane Belcher, Georgia State University

Abstract: Genre has become an important component of second language writing theory and practice, evidenced by its presence in the classrooms and conversations of the field. In this colloquium, genre scholars look to future directions of such work. Christine Tardy will begin with a brief history of genre in L2 writing, highlighting some of the key developments in the past three decades of scholarship. Next, Sunny Hyon will consider genre as a construct that can create common pedagogical ground for L1 and L2 compositionists, breaking through some of the terminological differences that often hinder productive cross-disciplinary conversations. An Cheng then turns to the relationship between language awareness and genre awareness, exploring how research in this area can suggest new directions for theory, methodology, and pedagogy in genre and L2 writing. Next, Guillaume Gentil will explore the potential of research that goes beyond binaries of L1 and L2 genre learning by considering the fruitful area of biliteracy and genre learning, addressing the needs of bilingual writers. Finally, Diane Belcher will illustrate how critical discourse analysis and corpus analysis can be used to study the power of genres, offering a methodological approach to investigating the under-investigated claim that genres provide access to power.

Saturday, November 7 45

JC.2 Saturday, November 7, 12:30-2:00, Turquoise Session Chair: Christina Ortmeier-Hooper, University of New Hampshire, USA

JC.2 Building Bridges between Second Language Writing and Teacher Development/Education

Presenters: Michelle Cox, Bridgewater State UniversityChristina Ortmeier-Hooper, University of New HampshireYoungjoo Yi, Georgia State University

Abstract: In this colloquium, we take up Hirvela and Belcher’s (2007) call for attention to L2 writing specialists’ third identity as “teachers of teachers of writing.” The first presenter, Youngjoo Yi, addresses the role of L2 writing pedagogy in TESOL teacher education and discusses preliminary findings from a study of in-service and pre-service teachers’ sense of (un)preparedness to teach L2 writing, their prevalent opinions about challenges for L2 writing instruction and their perceived significant factors influencing L2 writing instruction. Christina Ortmeier-Hooper, the second presenter, furthers this discussion by addressing the role of L2 writing pedagogy in the teacher training of content-area teachers at the secondary level, sharing preliminary findings on in-service teachers and teacher education faculty, and their preparedness to work with L2 writers in secondary school settings. She concludes by describing her recent work on a grant-funded initiative, as one possible model for collaboration and research with content-area teacher educators. Finally, Michelle Cox, a Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) director, considers what it means to be a teacher of higher education faculty who teach (with writing) in core courses and majors. This talk will explore how advocacy for L2 student writers can be integrated into WAC programming, drawing on universal design as a pedagogical framework that builds on students’ strengths as writers and rhetoricians. The colloquium will end with time for questions and further discussion.

JC.3 Saturday, November 7, 12:30-2:00, Gold Session Chair: Yin Ling Cheung, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

JC.3.1 Understanding the Process of Publishing Journal Papers from a Socio-Cultural Perspective: The Case of Hong Kong

Presenter: Yin Ling Cheung, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Abstract: This study investigated the perceptions of Hong Kong non-native English speaking doctoral students as writers of journal articles, their difficulties in getting papers published in refereed journals, the strategies they use to cope with difficulties ranging from writing to publishing, and their perceptions of their training on research publications.

JC.3.2 Situated Learning, Systems Thinking, and the Ecology of Publishing as an International Doctoral Student

Presenter: Steve Simpson, University of New Hampshire, USA

Abstract: Drawing from a case study of an international doctoral student writing for publication in an environmental studies journal, this presentation provides a more holistic framework for researching advanced academic literacy by synthesizing socio-

46 SSLW 2009

historic learning theory with systems thinking, a method used to study interrelated phenomena within ecosystems.

JC.3.3 Understanding How Students’ Learning-to-Write Process is Mediated by Their Teachers in the Chinese EFL Context

Presenter: Xiao Lei, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Abstract: This paper explores how students' learning-to-write process is mediated by teachers. Data include interviews of eight participants’ learning-to-write experience, process logs of their writing process of two after-class assignments, and interviews of their reflections on these assignments. Findings show that participants' wiritng is mediated by teachers via the sociocultural milieu.

J Sessions – Saturday, November 7, 12:30-1:45

J.1 Saturday, November 7, 12:30-1:45, Lapaz West Session Chair: Tanita Saenkhum, Arizona State University, USA

J.1.1 A Communities of Practice Perspective on ESL Graduate Student Socialization into Academic Writing

Presenters: Andrea Stiefvater, Mohawk Valley Community College, USAGulbahar Beckett, University of Cincinnati, USA

Abstract: The purpose of this presentation is to provide a communities of practice perspective on ESL graduate student socialization into academic writing. The presentation reports on how students are socialized into the mode (symbolic organization) metafunction of texts, and how this impacted students’ participation in their chosen communities of practice.

J.1.2 Secondary English Teachers’ Views on Writing Instruction in EFL Context: A Case of Korea

Presenter: Eunsook Shim, Sangji University, Korea

Abstract: The purpose of the study is to investigate secondary English teachers’ views on writing instruction and practices of teaching writing in EFL contexts. Eighty secondary school teachers of English in Korea participate. Several obstacles in teaching writing in EFL contexts and suggestions on teacher training programs are discussed.

J.2 Saturday, November 7, 12:30-1:45, Lapaz East Session Chair: Rae Lin, University of British Columbia, Canada

J.2.1 What Multilingual Students Need to Know About College Writing: A Metacognitive Approach

Presenters: Jonathan Hall, York College, City University of New York, USANela Navarro, Rutgers University, Newark, USA

Abstract: This panel presents a rationale for our project addressing first-year multilingual college students. Using a structure of Recognition-Metacognition-Application, our goal is helping multilingual students develop self-reflective

Saturday, November 7 47

awareness of their language learning process, identify and understand pedagogical approaches in a specific writing course, and adopt active engagement strategies for success.

J.2.2 Differences Between Vietnamese, EFL and English Argumentative Essays: Pedagogical Implications for EFL Academic Writing Classes

Presenter: Vu Ho, Georgetown University, USA

Abstract: This research compared argumentative TOEFL essays by Vietnamese students with native expert writings in L1 and L2, examining both text-centered and user/context-centered features. Explanations for findings were sought by considering L1 influence and local cultural/educational/political practices. A three-stage contrastive module was developed and incorporated into regular EFL academic writing classes.

J.2.3 Initiation and Development of Academic Literacy Through Scholarly Texts: A Case Study of a Japanese EFL Learner

Presenter: Yutaka Fujieda, Maebashi Kyoai Gakuen College, Japan

Abstract: This investigation is to explore how a Japanese EFL undergraduate student develops her academic literacy through the negotiation of meaning with the scholarly texts and examines how this acquisition of academic literacy promotes her development of academic writing in English.

J.3 Saturday, November 7, 12:30-1:45, Coconino Session Chair: Linda Lonon Blanton, Anatolia Elementary & Secondary/American College of Thessaloniki

J.3.1 Problematizing “Scaffolding” in Adolescent Second Language (L2) Writing: An Interactive View from the Content Areas

Presenter: Amanda Kibler, Stanford University, USA

Abstract: This case study of an adolescent L2 writer analyzes teacher scaffolding during a series of informal writing conferences in a mainstream high school history class. Interactional sociolinguistic analysis reveals that teacher and student co-create highly explicit scaffolding, leading participants to the conclusion that the teacher “wrote it for him.”

J.3.2 Enabling Children to Write Better: a Case for Learner-Chosen Topics

Presenter: Chintan Modi, English and Foreign Languages University, India

Abstract: This paper makes a case for learner-chosen topics in ESL writing classrooms in India, in order to utilise the real life experiences, interests and background knowledge of learners as resources to support their learning. This will enable them to approach writing with greater openness and enthusiasm, and show gains in terms of length, elaboration, number of complex sentences, conceptual links between paragraphs, and variety of word use.

48 SSLW 2009

K Colloquia – Saturday, November 7, 2:15-3:45

KC.1 Saturday, November 7, 2:15-3:45, Arizona Session Chair: Maria Estela Brisk, Boston College, USA

KC.1 L2 Writing Through the Lens of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory

Presenters: Maria Estela Brisk, Boston College, USAMeg Gebhard, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, USADaniel Kies, College of DuPage, USASandra Gollin Kies, Benedictine University, USA

Abstract: This colloquium focuses on research and practice in second language writing informed by systemic functional linguistics (SFL). Four research papers address writing and teaching strategies in elementary, high school, and college levels. More specifically, they (1) explore the development of voice among elementary students through control of person in relation to genre; (2) analyze the use of SFL in designing curriculum and tracking changes in students’ textual practices in grades K-8; (3) examine strategies used by generation 1.5 students to organize information in their texts (i.e., Theme/Rheme patterns) and show how those strategies often work against their best interests as they transition to first-year writing programs in college; and (4) evaluate the role of explicit instruction in assisting international graduate students to develop control over thematic development and information focus in their discipline-based academic writing.

KC.2 Saturday, November 7, 2:15-3:45, Turquoise Session Chair: Paul Kei Matsuda, Arizona State University, USA

KC.2 Institutionalizing L2 Writing

Presenters: Kevin Eric De Pew, Old Dominion University, USAPaul Kei Matsuda, Arizona State University, USASusan Miller-Cochran, North Carolina State University, USAJessie Moore, Elon University, USAChristina Ortmeier-Hooper, University of New Hampshire, USA

Abstract: The purpose of this colloquium is to bring together leaders who have been active in promoting second language writing within larger professional organizations to collectively reflect on their involvements in the efforts to institutionalize second language writing. Focusing on two major organizations—the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) and Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL)—the presenters will discuss why institutionalization is important, how second language writing can be integrated into larger organizational structures, what second language writing specialists active at other organizations might learn from their experience. The presenters will also share their thoughts on some of the challenges and pitfalls of institutionalization efforts as well as strategies for overcoming them.

Saturday, November 7 49

KC.3 Saturday, November 7, 2:15-3:45, Gold Session Chair: Sabina Nowak, Higher Vocational School, Poland

KC.3.1 Academic Blogging: a Case Study of Generation 1.5 College Students’ Experiences of Weblog Writing in a First-Year College Writing Course

Presenter: Sun Yung Song, the Ohio State University, USA

Abstract: This presentation reports the findings of an ongoing study examining the impact of blogging on the academic writing development of Generation 1.5 college students in a first-year college writing course. It then discusses pedagogical implications of how blogging can contribute to the academic writing development of Generation 1.5 college students.

KC.3.2 Negotiating Intersubjectivity in English Blogging (CANCELLED)

Presenter: Yu-Feng (Diana) Yang, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Taiwan

Abstract: This presentation reports a working research project, exploring how college English language learners of different culture backgrounds negotiate and co-construct rules of English blogging. It hopes to bring in discussions regarding English language learners’ online writing practice framed in the view of writing as social construction.

KC.3.3 Web-Blogging in ESL Writing: Weaving a Class into a Community

Presenter: Sin I Miranda Ma, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, USA

Abstract: This presentation examines the idea that the essence of learning isn’t based only on content material absorption, but also in a constant generation of output. The example used is how a traditional teacher-centered ESL writing classroom was transformed into a student directed classroom through the introduction of a class weblog.

K Sessions – Saturday, November 7, 2:15-3:30

K.1 Saturday, November 7, 2:15-3:30, Lapaz West Session Chair: Louise Green, University of Nouakchott, Canada

K.1.1 The Impact(?) of Second Language Writing Research on U.S. University Foreign Language Instruction

Presenter: Michael Hubert, Washington State University, USA

Abstract: In order to describe the extent to which mainstream L2 writing theory is utilized by U.S. university foreign language (FL) instructors, this paper reports the results of a survey asking 1000 U.S. university FL professors to detail their knowledge and implementation of several of the most important L2 writing theories.

K.1.2 Third Culture Identity Expressed in Online Communities: “Life is a Suitcase, Half-Packed”

Presenter: Sonja Lind, University of California, Irvine, USA

Abstract: This paper explores intercultural identity in online spaces. Participants were "Third Culture Kids," adults who were raised abroad. In an online TCK

50 SSLW 2009

community, participants posted sentences defining their “life in six words.” Text analysis was conducted and emergent themes included feelings of displacement, loss, and wonder and excitement.

K.1.3 The L2 Learner’s “Reduced Identity” in Writing

Presenter: Soomin Jwa, The University of Arizona, USA

Abstract: This study is designed to see how rhetorical choices reflect the negotiation of voice construction and how consistent their expected identity is as perceived by readers. The researcher explores the L2 learners’ ‘mis-constructed’ voices expressed in firmer assertions in various aspects.

K.2 Saturday, November 7, 2:15-3:30, Lapaz East Session Chair: Subrata Bhowmik, Arizona State University, USA

K.2.1 In Search for “Robust Knowledge”: L2 Writing Pedagogy in EFL Contexts

Presenter: Subrata Bhowmik, Arizona State University, USA

Abstract: The paper looks at the mismatch between current L2 writing theories and their application in EFL contexts. Surveying literature on L2 writing in EFL contexts, various contextual variables are discussed. It is argued that mainstream L2 writing theories should integrate more research findings and theoretical discussions drawn from EFL contexts.

K.2.2 Cultivation of a Mosaic: a Canadian Approach to Multilingualism

Presenter: Julia Kiernan, University of Louisville, USA

Abstract: Despite Canada’s self-description as not a melting pot—but a mosaic of diversity—citizen diversity is not always cultivated. This presentation will draw upon ethnographic research collected from students enrolled in first-year writing at the University of Windsor, Canada and discuss how the researcher and the student participants see the many languages and cultures of Canada colliding and manifesting in students’ writing and students’ perceptions of their writing ability.

K.2.3 From the Border: Latino/a Graduate Education Students Writing Their Way into the Academy

Presenters: Kerrie Kephart, University of Texas at El Paso, USAErika Mein, University of Texas at El Paso, USAAna Huerta-Macias, University of Texas at El Paso, USA

Abstract: To many beginning graduate students, native- and non-native speakers alike, academic discourses seem foreign, and scholarly writing is mysterious. Yet graduate curricula rarely explicitly teach the values, expectations, and key genres of disciplinary discourse communities. In this presentation we describe the origins, approach, challenges, and impact of a course in scholarly writing for graduate students in education that is designed to address this gap.

Saturday, November 7 51

K.3 Saturday, November 7, 2:15-3:30, Gold Session Chair: Jimmy Fleming, Bedford/St. Martin's Press

Discussion Session: Writing Textbooks

Presenter: Jimmy Fleming, Bedford/St. Martin's Press

Plenary IV – Saturday, November 7, 4:00-4:45, ArizonaSecond-Language Writing Research Across the Generations: It's All in the Family

Chair: Sarah Hudelson, Arizona State University, USA Presenters: Carole Edelsky, Arizona State University, USA (Emerita)

Gail Shuck, Boise State University, USA

Abstract: Edelsky and Shuck will present a view of research on second language writing across 30 years. This mother-daughter pair will examine how some of the theoretical frameworks and research questions have shifted from “Then” to “Now” and how some frameworks and questions persist. They will look together and separately at a sample of second-language writing using various Then and Now lenses—how would mama Carole have analyzed the sample close to the beginning of her career, and how would daughter Gail analyze the same sample now, near the beginning of her own career? What lenses would they bring to bear? To what extent would their research questions move beyond the writing of individual students and what frameworks would they draw on to do so? Relying on fluid notions of Then and Now, they will ask questions such as these: How does scholarship Now challenge scholarship Then? What does Now owe to Then? What was Then reaching for but couldn’t quite grasp because Now hadn’t yet happened? Woven through each analytic “take” will be references to—and sometimes longer discussions of—such issues as context, genre, discourses, normativity, identity, language ideologies, and institutional practices.

Closing Ceremony – Saturday, November 7, 4:45-5:00, ArizonaTo the Future of Second Language Writing

Chair: Paul Kei Matsuda, Arizona State University, USA Presenter: William Grabe, Northern Arizona University, USA

52 SSLW 2009

53

Parlor Press Series on Second Language WritingSeries EditorPaul Kei MatsudaArizona State University

Second language writing emerged in the late twentieth century as an interdisciplinary field of inquiry, and an increasing number of researchers from various related fields—including applied linguistics, communication, composition studies, and education—have come to identify themselves as second language writing specialists. The Second Language Writing series aims to facilitate the advancement of knowledge in the field of second language writing by publishing scholarly and research-based monographs and edited collections that provide significant new insights into central topics and issues in the field.

This Series seeks submissions that expand, refine or challenge the existing knowledge in the field by using various modes of inquiry, such as philosophical, historical, empirical (quantitative and qualitative) and narrative. Some of the possible topics include, but are not limited to:

the nature, backgrounds, and characteristics of second or foreign language writing and writers; issues in second language writing instruction, assessment, and program administration; the experience of second language writers, writing teachers, and writing program administrators; institutional policies, politics, and practices that affect second language writers; instructional practices in various institutional and disciplinary contexts; implications of technological innovations on second language writing; the relevance of theories developed in other fields; the definition and historical development of the field and its relationship with other fields; and approaches to inquiry in studying second language writing and writers.

Manuscripts that explore the implications of second language writing issues in other related fields are also welcome. Following the common practice in the field, submissions to this Series should follow the current APA style.

Queries should be directed to: Paul Kei Matsuda, Arizona State University, Department of English, Box 870302, Tempe, AZ 85287-0302 USA, Email: pmatsuda@asu.edu.

For complete submission guidelines, see: http://www.parlorpress.com/submissions

Books in the Series

Practicing Theory in Second Language Writing edited by Tony Silva and Paul Kei Matsuda (forthcoming)

Building Genre Knowledge by Christine M. Tardy (2009)

The Politics of Second Language Writing: In Search of the Promised Land edited by Paul Kei Matsuda, Christina Ortmeier-Hooper and Xiaoye You (2006)