Responding to L2 Students in College Writing Classes: Teacher Perspectives

Responding to L2 Students in College Writing Classes: Teacher Perspectives DANA FERRIS University of California, Davis California, United States JEFFREY BROWN, HSIANG (SEAN) LIU, AND MARIA EUGENIA ARNAUDO STINE California State University, Sacramento California, United States Response to student writing has been a research concern for composition specialists for the past several decades However, most research to date has utilized student opinions or researcher judgments about teacher feedback, with researchers rarely consulting teachers themselves as informants Also, first language (L1) and second language (L2) response research has been completed and disseminated in separate arenas, with little consideration given to the current blurring of boundaries in many educational contexts between L1 and L2 student writers In the study described in this article, college writing instructors in both mainstream and specialized L2 writing contexts were surveyed (N 129) and interviewed (N 23) about their backgrounds (training and experience) and their philosophies and practices with regard to response In addition, samples of their commentary on student papers (3–5 papers per interview subject) were collected, discussed with the instructors, and analyzed Although most instructors were aware of adapting their approach to feedback for L2 writers, the nature of these adjustments varied dramatically across subjects, as did their overall attitude toward the endeavor of responding to L2 writers The article concludes with a discussion of practical implications of the findings for teacher response practices and for professional preparation of L1 writing instructors who work with L2 students doi: 10.5054/tq.2011.247706 riting instructors often have strong feelings about response to student writing and wonder about the efficacy and value of their own response mechanisms Largely because of the time and energy that W Portions of this article were presented at the Conference on College Composition and Communication (San Francisco, California) and the International TESOL Convention (Denver, Colorado), both in March 2009 TESOL QUARTERLY Vol 45, No 2, June 2011 207 feedback can consume and the frustration felt by many teachers (Ferris, Liu, & Rabie, 2011; Hairston, 1986; Segade, 2004), researchers in composition settings have for several decades investigated various questions surrounding response to student writing (see, e.g., Anson, 1989; Brannon & Knoblauch, 1982; Ferris, 2003; Ferris & Hedgcock, 2005; Goldstein, 2005; Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Knoblauch & Brannon, 2006; Leki, 1990a; Liu & Hansen, 2002; Sommers, 1982, 2006; Straub, 1999, 2006; Straub & Lunsford, 1995; White, 2006; Zamel, 1985) Recommendations based on these scholarly efforts have been widely disseminated and used in preservice teacher preparation and in-service workshops, but there is little evidence as to what effect those suggestions or prescriptions have had on actual teacher practice Complicating this issue further are two related facts First, there are some discrepancies or disagreements between first language (L1) and second language (L2) composition researchers’ suggestions about response For example, although it is axiomatic in L1 composition that feedback on grammar/language/form should be saved for the end of the writing process (e.g., Sommers, 1982), L2 researchers have debated whether such divisions among feedback concerns are necessary or optimal (see Ashwell, 2000; Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Ferris, 1997, 2002; Montgomery & Baker, 2007; Zamel, 1985) Similarly, although composition specialists have been urging teachers since the 1980s to privilege peer response and teacher–student conferences over teacher written feedback (e.g., Hairston, 1986; Moxley, 1989), some L2 experts have expressed concern about the appropriateness of peer feedback activities in L2 writing contexts and about the potential limitations or challenges of in-person writing conferences with L2 students (Goldstein & Conrad, 1990; Leki, 1990b; Patthey-Chavez & Ferris, 1997; Zhang, 1995) In short, among writing researchers, there is not always consensus about the best approaches to response, particularly when the target student audience consists of or includes L2 writers Second, and most significant to the concerns of the present study, in many educational contexts (particularly in the United States but elsewhere in other English-medium institutions), substantial percentages of students with L2 backgrounds are being taught in mainstream composition programs by instructors with a wide range of academic preparation or training experiences (Braine, 1996; Ferris, 2009; Harklau, Losey, & Siegal, 1999; Reynolds, Bae, & Wilson, 2009; Roberge, Siegal, & Harklau, 2009) As a result, when we as researchers refer to composition or writing courses for L2 students (and the feedback approaches utilized in those courses), we cannot always assume that those student writers are being taught by L2 specialists in classes designed specifically for L2 writers (see also Conference on College Composition and Communication [CCCC], 2001) Therefore, in examining the question 208 TESOL QUARTERLY of what writing teachers actually in responding to L2 student writing, one must also consider, at least in some contexts, the views and practices of instructors who would not identify themselves primarily as L2 or English as a second language (ESL) writing teachers In the present study, conducted in an area in which there are large percentages of L2 writers1 in college composition courses (anywhere from 40 to 60%), we investigated the response practices of college instructors, with special attention given to how the instructors described their approaches to feedback for the L2 students in their courses Unlike most of the studies previously cited, this study focused specifically on teacher philosophies and practices in response, rather than student opinions or researcher judgments about written teacher commentary It therefore adds to the previous response research by utilizing teachers as primary informants and by considering the experiences of L2 writers in both mainstream and L2-designated writing courses Its findings are thus applicable to L2 writing professionals working alongside other composition instructors in mainstream English or writing programs, as well as those working in specialized language or L2 writing programs PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON TEACHER VIEWS OF RESPONSE TO L2 STUDENT WRITING Overview of L2 Response Research Until fairly recently, most studies of feedback in L2 writing classes focused primarily on two types of inquiry The first is text analyses of written teacher commentary or transcripts of conferences or peer response groups, sometimes accompanied by analyses of student revisions or subsequent texts (e.g., Caulk, 1994; Conrad & Goldstein, 1999; Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Ferris, 1997; Ferris, Pezone, Tade, & Tinti, 1997; Goldstein & Conrad, 1990; Hyland, 1998; Hyland & Hyland, 2001; Lockhart & Ng, 1995; Mendonc¸a & Johnson, 1994; Nelson & Murphy, 1992, 1993) The second is survey research assessing student reactions to or preferences toward feedback (Arndt, 1993; Cohen, 1987; Ferris, 1995; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994, 1996; Jacobs, Curtis, Braine, & Huang, 1998; Leki, 1991; Mangelsdorf, 1992; Radecki & Swales, 1988; Zhang, 1995, 1999) This body of research has yielded many helpful insights about what teachers do, what student writers think about response, and what effects various feedback strategies We define ‘‘L2 writer’’ broadly here, meaning any writer whose primary home language was not English (or whatever L2 they are pursuing), and including international or visa students, late-arriving residents, and early-arriving or Generation 1.5 students (see Ferris, 2009; Harklau et al., 1999; Roberge et al., 2009) RESPONDING TO L2 STUDENTS IN COLLEGE WRITING CLASSES 209 appear to have on student writing However, until very recently, a gap in the research base has been consultations with teachers themselves about what they with regard to feedback and why they it (Ferris, 2006; Goldstein, 2001, 2005) Studies of L2 Teachers’ Views on Response Researchers in one early study (Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990), conducted with three teachers and nine Brazilian English as a foreign language (EFL) students, triangulated data collection and analysis by interviewing teachers and students, as well as examining student texts with teacher commentary They found that teacher and student opinions about teacher feedback were generally consistent with teachers’ observed responding behaviors In several recent studies, researchers have also attempted in various ways to fill the teacher-as-informant gap in the response literature In a 2007 study, Montgomery and Baker surveyed teachers and students in an intensive English program at a U.S university about the focus of teacher written commentary and compared the survey responses to teachers’ actual written commentary They also followed up the initial data analyses by discussing their findings with the teachers themselves to get their reactions They found that teachers gave far more feedback on grammar and mechanics on student papers than they claimed to in their surveys; in fact, some of their teacher participants were quite taken aback to see the disparity between their actual responses and their reported practices Investigating the relevance of feedback advice from North American composition settings for a very different context, Lee (2008; 2009a; 2009b) conducted several studies among secondary English instructors in Hong Kong, in which she asked teachers about their feedback practices, compared with best practices (Lee, 2008); assessed the teachers’ openness and willingness to change their practices (Lee, 2009a); and, similar to Montgomery and Baker (2007), examined ‘‘mismatches’’ between teachers’ stated beliefs and their actual practices (Lee, 2009b, p 13) In her studies, Lee discovered that teachers’ practices not match up well in a variety of ways with either so-called best practices (as she defined them in her 2008 article) or even their own beliefs Lee also noted that the teachers in her study claimed to be relatively open to changing their response behaviors but felt constrained from doing so by a range of external factors In particular, she found that teachers give a disproportionate amount of attention to language error in their feedback; that they primarily utilize comprehensive, direct 210 TESOL QUARTERLY error feedback rather than selective indirect feedback; and that they respond only to final, graded student papers rather than preliminary drafts (Lee, 2009b) These recent studies of real-world teacher feedback approaches suggest that some L2 writing instructors not only not practice what others (administrators, researchers, former professors) preached but even may contradict their own stated beliefs as they execute their response strategies on a day-to-day basis L2 STUDENTS IN COLLEGE COMPOSITION COURSES Besides reflecting upon what previous research has suggested about response to L2 writers, one must also consider the changing nature of the student audience in many settings Composition experts have been aware for some years of the growing and diverse population of L2 writers in college composition courses (see, e.g., Costino & Hyon, 2007; Ferris, 2009; Harklau, Losey, & Siegal, 1999; Matsuda, Cox, Jordan, & OrtmeierHooper, 2006; Ortmeier-Hooper, 2008; Roberge et al., 2009) As examples of this, nearly all composition handbooks now include ESL or multilingual sections and/or text boxes within various sections with special advice for the L2 writer (see, e.g., Lunsford, 2009) Similarly, several recent edited collections for composition teachers include a chapter or two written by an L2 specialist (see, e.g., Corbett, Myers, & Tate, 2000; Glenn & Goldthwaite, 2008; Smagorinsky, 2006) Finally, and most significantly, the primary U.S composition organization, the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC), has in recent years added an L2 writing special-interest group, and in 2001, CCCC adopted a comprehensive position statement on ‘‘Second Language Writing and Writers,’’ which has recently been revised (CCCC, 2009) Though these are encouraging signs of increasing awareness of and sensitivity to the needs of L2 writers in composition programs, most L2 specialists would caution that there is still some way to go in bridging disciplinary and philosophical gaps across composition professionals For instance, attendees at recent CCCC meetings would verify that sessions on L2 writing are sometimes attended primarily by other L2 writing specialists As a different example, in the most recent edition of the St Martin’s Guide to Teaching College Writing (Glenn & Goldthwaite, 2008), a widely used teacher preparation text, new instructors are advised in chapter to administer and evaluate a diagnostic essay, so that they can quickly counsel any ESL students out of their classes and into an appropriate ESL course alternative if one exists (see pp 47–50) In regions such as ours, in which the proportions of L2 writers are not only RESPONDING TO L2 STUDENTS IN COLLEGE WRITING CLASSES 211 substantial but diverse, advising teachers to outsource what may amount to more than half of their class is hardly a practical solution In short, despite the increased awareness in composition circles of L2 writing issues, in practice some composition instructors have been slow to take advantage of the information and resources available to better prepare them to work with L2 writers.2 TESOL scholars and practitioners, as well as composition experts, should be concerned with the experiences of L2 writers in college composition courses As demonstrated by the rapid growth of the TESOL L2 writing interest section, created in 2006 and now with over 1,700 members, many TESOL members see the teaching of L2 writers as a primary focus of their work Although some L2 writing teachers work exclusively in ESL programs, many others work in secondary and postsecondary contexts in which they—and other instructors who are not L2 specialists—teach L2 students and monolingual English speakers side by side in the same classes Not only should L2 writing professionals be aware of their own practices in responding to a diverse group of student writers, but they may have opportunities to share ideas and resources with teaching colleagues at faculty meetings, workshops, and assessment sessions Beyond the classroom, L2 writing specialists increasingly are found in teacher education and in writing program administration positions, often in positions to prepare, hire, or evaluate teachers who will work with L2 students in their mainstream writing or English classes Studies that examine the practices and attitudes of a broad range of writing instructors on an issue—response—which is so central to writing instruction can thus provide insight to researchers, teachers, teacher educators, and administrators in English or writing programs in a wide variety of contexts The present study builds on recent efforts to incorporate the teachers’ voices into conversations on response to student writing What is unique about this study compared with other recent L2 studies is that it includes teacher informants who work with L2 writers but who are not trained L2 specialists, and they not primarily teach specialized or designated L2 writing courses The research questions guiding the design of this study were: (1) Do college writing instructors report varying their feedback practices for L2 writers in their classes, compared with their responses to monolingual or native English speakers? (2) If not, what reasons they give for not doing so? (3) If so, in what ways they adjust their approach for L2 students? 212 As a further example, two recent edited collections on response to student writing (Straub, 1999; 2006) not include any articles from the extensive L2 writing response literature TESOL QUARTERLY THE STUDY Context and Participants This study took place at eight postsecondary sites—two 4-year universities and six 2-year community colleges—in Northern California The participant pool was limited to writing instructors who usually teach or have frequently taught either first-year writing courses or the developmental or basic writing course that directly precedes firstyear composition We recruited our teacher participants by making primary contact with an individual in each department (more than one department, at some sites) and asking this person to send a link to a 26-item online survey to his or her colleagues within our target audience The teachers then chose whether or not to follow the link and complete the survey The final item invited survey respondents to volunteer for an in-person interview to explore the issues raised in the survey in more depth We received 129 survey responses from local writing teachers through an online collector between September and November, 2008 Fifty-three of the responses were from instructors at the two 4-year universities, and the remaining 76 were from the six 2-year community colleges It was hard to tell at some sites exactly how many teachers received the link, but our estimate is that between 40–45% of the possible teacher respondents actually completed the survey Backgrounds of Survey Respondents The first section of the survey (Questions 1–9) asked the instructors about their own backgrounds (academic qualifications, teaching experience, and prior training) Of our 129 survey respondents, nearly 82% said they teach only mainstream courses, 9% said they teach only ESL or multilingual courses, and the remaining 9% said they teach a combination of mainstream and ESL writing courses Finally, the vast majority (over 80%) reported having taken graduate-level coursework (a seminar or a practicum) in teaching composition However, only 22% of all respondents said they had taken specific coursework to prepare them to work with L2 writers Further, fewer than 10% of those who said they teach all or primarily mainstream courses (as opposed to ESL courses) reported having taken a graduate seminar or practicum course focused on L2 writers In other words, most instructors teaching college composition courses in our region have received no substantive training in understanding and working with L2 writers RESPONDING TO L2 STUDENTS IN COLLEGE WRITING CLASSES 213 Data Collected As already noted, our first stage in data collection involved the development, distribution, and collection of an online teacher survey This survey was designed to examine a range of response issues, including how teacher practices might vary with regard to L2 writers in their writing courses The survey included one specific question about responding to L2 students (Question 23; see Table in Results and Discussion) All questions consisted of multiple-choice response items, and most also allowed space for additional written comments if the respondents chose to elaborate on their answers The second phase of data collection consisted of interviews with volunteer participants who self-identified on the final question of the survey Fifty-three of the survey respondents volunteered for interviews, and we interviewed 23 of those between October and December, 2008 We chose the interview participants from among the volunteers to represent a range of the sites and to include instructors from both mainstream and ESL courses The interviews, mostly held at the volunteers’ teaching sites, typically lasted from 30 to 45 These semistructured interviews (Beason, 2001; Kvale, 1996; Merriam, 1991) were conducted according to a standard protocol (see Appendix),3 and one of the interview questions specifically focused on the participants’ approach to responding to L2 writers Six members of the research team conducted three to four interviews each, and all interviews were captured on digital audio recorders to supplement the interviewers’ handwritten notes.4 The third piece of data collected was sample student texts with teacher commentary from each interview participant The teachers were asked to bring with them to their interviews a selection of three to five The interview protocol and procedures were piloted with two volunteers before the project began The research team listened to the interview recordings and discussed procedures with the two interviewers, making suggested adjustments to the procedures Though all six interviewers, for consistency, followed a standard protocol and set of procedures, they were also encouraged to ask follow-up questions for clarification and elaboration as appropriate in a format Mackey and Gass (2005) refer to as a semistructured interview (see also Beason, 2001; Kvale, 1996; Merriam, 1991) This ensured that the same information was covered in each interview while also allowing the researchers to ‘‘digress and probe for more information’’ (Mackey & Gass, 2005, p 173) An ethnographic approach allowed us to take full advantage of the teachers as informants, because the teachers provided descriptions of their practices and philosophies in terms of their own institutional contexts As Ramanathan and Atkinson (1999) noted, this sort of data collection provides emic perspective into the cultural practices of the participants In short, there was no expectation that all interviews would be identical but rather that similar ground would be covered in a comparable time frame (30–45 min), which was agreed upon primarily out of respect for respondents’ time constraints To protect the volunteers’ identities, all interview participants were given identification numbers, which were used in data analyses and group discussions of the findings All participants also signed consent forms before beginning the interviews 214 TESOL QUARTERLY TABLE Multiple-Choice Survey Responses for Question 23: If You Have ESL or L2 Students in Your Classes, Are You Aware of Providing Feedback Any Differently to Them Than to Other Students (Native English Speakers)? Multiple-choice option Yes Sometimes, depending on the student No, my approach is the same with all students I am not really sure I teach only ESL classes Not applicable because I rarely/never provide written feedback Skipped question Total Number of responses 25 (20.5%) 54 (44.3%) 26 (21.3%) (4.1%) 11 (9.0%) (0.8%) 129 Note ESL English as a second language; L2 second language student papers representing a range of writing abilities, written to the same topic or assignment, with the teachers’ written feedback in whatever form it took (e.g., if they had completed feedback rubrics or checklists, they were asked to provide those along with the student texts).5 One of the interview questions involved discussing the marked student papers with the instructor to gain further insight into the choices the teacher had made and the purposes or intent behind various comments Data Analysis: Surveys For the survey data, we examined frequencies and percentages of responses to all questions For the questions that included additional comments from respondents, we collated, categorized, and tabulated the comments (see Table for an example) To this, we divided the survey questions among six research team members For each set of comments attached to a question, the researcher created a chart similar to the one shown in Table below (with a descriptive heading, the number of comments in that category, and an illustrative quotation or two from one of the surveys) To double-check the accuracy of the categories, each survey question also had a second reader who looked through the comments and the first reader’s chart, suggesting any modifications (additions, deletions, merging of categories) as needed.6 The teachers obtained consent forms from the student writers prior to the interviews In each instance, the two readers discussed the charts and were told to bring any questions or disagreements to the lead researcher (the first author) for resolution However, the categorization process was quite straightforward, and there were few changes necessary; the lead researcher was never needed to resolve a dispute RESPONDING TO L2 STUDENTS IN COLLEGE WRITING CLASSES 215 TABLE Summary of Comments Added to Question 23 Responses Category Number of responses Provide more languagefocused feedback than for native English speakers Direct ESL students to campus support services (or textbook or online sources) 18 10 Provide or offer more one-onone assistance Expression of frustration or uncertainty Hold them to the same standards as everyone else Provide extra help if student requests it Provide extra encouragement about improvement Sample quotation Identify patterns of ESL language problems (verb tense problems, word usage, etc.) Typically when an ESL student’s essay has major errors I will recommend that he/she see a writing specialist at the Learning Skills Center I more conferencing and I work more on language errors one-on-one I have a mixed approach of identifying some errors and offering some modeling on how to fix them I have a hard time teaching ESL students There are some ESL students I can’t reach I usually am more tolerant of grammar problems with ESL students, but content standards remain the same for both native speakers and ESL On the first paper, they’re asked to write a memo to me second language students tend to identify themselves as such and ask for more specific feedback on language use I find my comments to non-native students to be more conscious of acknowledging even the smallest improvements Note Some respondents’ comments fell into more than one category; thus total comments in this table are greater than 40 Data Analysis: Interviews As already noted, each interviewer took handwritten notes at the interviews, and they were also audiorecorded, converted to mp3 format, and uploaded to a project web site Each interviewer summarized participants’ responses to the major interview questions along with representative quotations from each response These summaries were typed into a table, and all interviewers’ tables were uploaded to the web site so that team members could examine responses to questions across the sample of 23 interviews Data Analysis: Student Texts To examine samples of participants’ actual written feedback in light of the teachers’ self-reported philosophies and practices, we utilized an adapted version of a scheme by Ferris et al (1997; see Appendix for 216 TESOL QUARTERLY experts have recommended an approach that balances feedback on global and local issues, depending on the needs of each student, text, and task (Ashwell, 2000; Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Ferris, 2002, 2003; Glenn & Goldthwaite, 2008; Lee, 2008) Further, L2 writers’ challenges in the composition class may extend well beyond typical ESL-type markers such as verb tense or plural endings or prepositions Instead, L2 writers may have difficulties not easily identified by the untrained eye, such as problems with reading comprehension or vocabulary gaps (Ferris, 2009; Folse, 2008; Holten, 2009; Roberge et al., 2009; Schuemann, 2008) The instructors in this group appeared to be unaware of such potential needs, defined so-called ESL markers narrowly, and did not report providing the specialized guidance or resources some students might need to be successful (see Leki, 1990a; Reid, 1994) Teachers Focused Primarily on L2 Writers’ Errors Although the teachers described above perhaps were not adequately apprised of the potential needs of L2 writers, a second group of teachers, in contrast, reported keen awareness of multilingual writers in their classes However, they were reluctant to acknowledge that these students deserved any extra assistance, at least from the teacher her- or himself In fact, in some cases they firmly believed that these students ‘‘do not belong’’ in their classes and expressed resentment of the perceived extra burdens L2 writers might bring In an interview, one teacher said that, on the first day of class, she encourages L2 writers to drop her course by writing ‘‘in bold letters: ‘This is not an ESL class’ at the top’’ of her syllabus She added that if such students ‘‘insist on staying’’ in the class, then they receive the same instruction as the monolingual English speakers and are held to the same standards Others also described the directness with which they handle their ESL students: ‘‘I tell students that in order to improve beyond where they currently are, they need to begin thinking in English.’’ In short, this second group of teachers felt that multilingual students had been warned that they might have difficulties succeeding in the writing course, and that these warnings ended the instructors’ responsibilities to those students In their written commentary, teachers in this second group provided L2 students with feedback that was almost exclusively language-focused This tendency swung in the opposite direction from what was observed with the first group of teachers and also failed to strike the recommended balance between content- and language-focused feedback (Ferris, 2003; Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Zamel, 1985) For some teachers in the second group, over 70% of their written feedback was grammar-based Yet, beyond copiously marking grammar, these teachers did not accept primary responsibility for helping L2 students: ‘‘I 220 TESOL QUARTERLY understand that the needs of an ESL student differ from native speakers [ ] but the ESL department is mainly responsible for those skills.’’ What they apparently did not recognize is that, in many contexts today, there are L2 writers everywhere, including substantial percentages in mainstream composition classes (see, e.g., Costino & Hyon, 2007; Ortmeier-Hooper, 2008) They also seemed unaware that, because of the diversity and size of this group of writers, it was unrealistic to assume that traditional ‘‘ESL departments’’ would be able to address all of their needs Teachers Unsure of How Best To Help L2 Writers A third group consisted of teachers who appeared more compassionate than the previous group toward ESL writers and who attempted to understand the difficulties these students face in composition courses One teacher in this group commented, ‘‘my students are in straight English classes so I know the ESL students need an extra hand.’’ All too often, however, that ‘‘extra hand’’ availed itself only in the form of increased language-focused feedback, usually at the expense of feedback on global issues (see also Lee, 2008, 2009a; Montgomery & Baker, 2007) One teacher said: ‘‘[ESL students] tend to have a lot more language problems—I tend to focus on grammar and syntax more than content on their early drafts.’’ Another respondent noted that her adaptations for L2 students include ‘‘more grammar, sentence, usage comments Fewer development or critical thinking issues.’’ Just as the previous group tended to deemphasize global issues in their response practices to ESL students, many in this third group also had the same tendency On the other hand, what separated the third group from the second was that these teachers did not tend to perceive working with L2 students as an extra burden, and they did not resist giving individual assistance to these students Further, unlike the second group, they tended to mix positive feedback with their language-related comments In short, this group of teachers recognized the unique needs of L2 writers and tried to be sensitive to them However, compassion, while a good start, does not always translate into effective response practices On the contrary, an overly sympathetic stance may lead instructors to overlook global issues, such as content or critical thinking, that actually need attention Teachers Responsive to L2 Writers’ Varied and Individual Needs A fourth group of teachers showed a nuanced understanding of L2 writers and the issues their texts may present These teachers understood that not all L2 writers are alike and worked to understand each student as an individual: ‘‘Absolutely the first thing I when I go to respond to a paper is to see who wrote it [ ] to contextualize their needs.’’ RESPONDING TO L2 STUDENTS IN COLLEGE WRITING CLASSES 221 Teachers in this final group were also aware that not all of the difficulties L2 writers have are grammar-related or the result of translation In an interview, one teacher said, ‘‘Sometimes their whole cultural orientation to writing is different and we end up needing to a lot of that kind of really basic work with organization and just kind of conceptualizing the assignment in a different way.’’ Moreover, these teachers were the most likely among the four groups to say they provided extra individual attention to L2 students In a survey comment, one teacher wrote, ‘‘I spend more time with my ESL students who have transitioned to mainstream comp classes, focusing at first on content and development issues, and then working on grammar and mechanics.’’ As this respondent indicated, teachers in this group, unlike our first group, did not overlook or ignore their L2 students’ language-related needs; instead, they approached them in sensitive, individualized, contextspecific ways And these teachers did not neglect students’ higher-order writing concerns, as was sometimes done by the second and third groups of teachers Analysis of this final group’s written feedback revealed additional practices that have been described by previous researchers as well suited to L2 writers’ diverse needs (e.g., Lee, 2008) For instance, several in this group noted that their error marking tended to be selective rather than comprehensive so as not to overwhelm students, and we observed that their feedback consisted of a balanced mix of locally and globally focused comments Some provided examples of their feedback, which included the use of consistent error codes and detailed feedback rubrics In short, teachers in this fourth group articulated an approach to feedback that is consistent with suggestions from literature about best practices for responding to L2 writers (for reviews, see Ferris, 2002, 2003, 2004; Goldstein, 2005; Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Lee, 2008, 2009a) Finally, in reviewing our observations from the 23 case study narratives, we noted a broad range across our respondents as to teaching loads, institutional constraints, and prior experience For example, some of our participants were tenured or permanent faculty members with private offices and teaching no more than two courses per term, some were graduate student teaching assistants teaching one course for only the first or second time, and others were teaching veterans with heavy teaching loads spread across two or more campuses One interview participant explained that she taught six writing courses on four different college campuses and described holding student conferences in her parked car Though teaching load was not a topic specifically raised on either the survey or interview protocols, a number of our interview participants observed that time was a significant issue that constrained all of their response practices, including their ability and willingness to spend extra time meeting the needs of L2 students Further, the lack of training or 222 TESOL QUARTERLY preparation for working with or responding to L2 writers that some participants described indicates the need for changes in teacher preparation programs, in hiring practices, and in in-service support and supervision In short, whereas some of the attitudes and practices expressed and described by our volunteers might seem troubling, they may well be symptomatic of larger institutional problems rather than flaws of character or competence in the individual instructors CONCLUSION Summary of Findings In this study, we examined the response practices of current college writing instructors, with an eye especially to describing how or if they vary their responding approaches when working with L2 writers From analyses of multiple-choice survey responses, written survey comments, interview data, and samples of commentary on student papers, we observed that: N Most of the college writing instructors in our sample say that they have not had any substantive formal training in working with L2 writers; N nearly two-thirds of our sample reported adapting their feedback to the needs of L2 writers at least sometimes; N the nature of these adaptations varied considerably—although some instructors reported that they focused more intensively and directively on grammar or language issues, others said that they simply instructed their L2 students to go elsewhere for extra help, and still others claimed to provide extra attention, assistance, and encouragement to their L2 writers through their feedback; N attitudes or stances toward responding to L2 writers also differed substantially, and these self-reported teacher stances were often also observable through examining their feedback patterns on sample student texts These findings suggest that L2 students in college writing courses may have dramatically different experiences from one another (and from their monolingual English speaking classmates), depending on the classroom instructor’s attitude and approach toward L2 writers Implications Response Practices Although this study was designed primarily to describe teachers’ philosophies and practices and not to determine the effectiveness of RESPONDING TO L2 STUDENTS IN COLLEGE WRITING CLASSES 223 their responding behaviors, several observations can be made from the data discussed here First, many writing instructors in our sample still appear to focus heavily on grammar or language issues in feedback—especially with L2 writers There has been a great deal of controversy in composition studies as to whether error feedback is effective, harmful, or necessary for students (for reviews, see, e.g., Connors & Lunsford, 1988; Ferris, 2002, 2003, 2004; Lunsford & Lunsford, 2008; Santa, 2006; Shaughnessy, 1977; Truscott, 1996, 2007), but even those who argue for a role for judicious, selective corrective feedback for student writers (e.g., Ferris, 2002; Ferris & Hedgcock, 2005; Glenn & Goldthwaite, 2008) advise that a range of textual issues (content, organization, language, mechanics) should be addressed through feedback practices In this study, not only did we find that many of our teacher-participants focused extensively on grammar concerns in their responses to all student writers but those teachers who described adaptations to their feedback for L2 writers often highlighted directive feedback strategies that emphasized grammar or language issues over other, more global concerns Teachers of L2 writers, regardless of their particular teaching context or professional background, need to be reminded that these students and their texts represent a broad range of needs, strengths, and challenges and to structure their feedback accordingly Though composition researchers have been highlighting this point for nearly 30 years now, it is apparent from our data that this advice has not necessarily been adopted by at least some classroom practitioners Second, teachers should take primary responsibility for assessing and addressing the needs of all of the student writers in their classes Specifically, though urging students to look elsewhere for extra help is understandable when instructors not feel adequately trained to help them, teachers should not simply tell their L2 students to see a tutor or go to the writing center or read the handbook or consult a particular Web site Rather, classroom instructors should (a) ensure that the resources to which they are sending their students are appropriate and of good quality; (b) prepare students to use those resources effectively by suggesting to them specific issues to learn about or get help with; and (c) work cooperatively with tutors or writing centers by providing these other support persons with relevant suggestions about the student and specific information about the writing class (Ferris, 2009) Although encouraging students to seek additional help outside of class is certainly not a bad idea, it will be more beneficial to students if teachers take a more intentional and proactive role in connecting their own students with the most appropriate outside resources 224 TESOL QUARTERLY Teacher Preparation The above discussion touches on the need for more comprehensive and detailed preparation of all writing instructors who work with L2 students, whether they teach designated L2 writing courses or mainstream composition courses Our findings in this study provide further support for the recommendation made in the 2001 version of the CCCC ‘‘Statement on Second Language Writing and Writers’’: Any writing course—including basic writing, first-year composition, advanced writing, and professional writing as well as second-language writing courses— that enrolls any second-language writers should be taught by a writing teacher who is able to identify and is prepared to address the linguistic and cultural needs of second-language writers [emphasis added] In this study, we observed that some teachers provide extra assistance to L2 writers while others not (or so less) For example, some teachers were often unaware of how many ESL students were in their classes and had a narrow view of what those students’ needs might be Also, many appeared to be unclear about and frustrated with their approach toward L2 writers Some believed that teachers could understand L2 writers’ difficulties by completing ‘‘a quick two-hour [training] class.’’ Some appeared to simply give up, concluding that since they ‘‘have a hard time teaching ESL students; there are some ESL students [they] can’t reach.’’ All of these observations suggest the need for increased awareness and practical knowledge for writing instructors working with L2 students in their classes Although this is not necessarily a new finding, our data suggest that, even in a region with relatively high percentages of multilingual students, it cannot be assumed that teachers will have acquired the knowledge to adjust their strategies to respond more effectively to their L2 student writers For some writing instructors, acquisition of such knowledge and strategies might entail pursuing a course of study in grammar or linguistics (see Ferris, 2002) For others, it might mean learning about effective pedagogical practices with regard to response to student writing For most or all writing teachers (whether in mainstream or specialized L2 contexts), it also means becoming more aware of L2 language or literacy acquisition processes and about the diverse and complex L2 student audience that exists in many teaching contexts today (see CCCC, 2009; Ferris, 2009; Harklau et al., 1999; Roberge et al., 2009) For example, increased knowledge could help writing teachers resist stereotypes such as ‘‘L2 writers are ‘translating’ from their native languages’’ or ‘‘L2 writers know more about English grammar than their monolingual peers or even their teachers.’’ These generalizations are true for some L2 writers, but certainly not all Although it may be RESPONDING TO L2 STUDENTS IN COLLEGE WRITING CLASSES 225 unrealistic for many writing instructors to obtain additional formal training, writing programs should at least provide numerous in-service opportunities for their instructors to learn more about how to assess student needs, what steps teachers can take to help L2 writers within the context of their own classes, and how to evaluate resources outside of the classroom and to which they might send their students for extra assistance L2 writing specialists who have training in both language and composition pedagogy could be invaluable resources for such in-service preparation activities Teacher preparation issues are salient not only for mainstream composition instructors lacking advanced training in TESOL or applied linguistics but also for L2 professionals Many TESOL preparation programs not require or even offer coursework in L2 writing In addition, because L2 writers are now a much larger, broader, and more diverse category than ever before (Costino & Hyon, 2007; Ferris, 2009; Harklau, et al., 1999; Matsuda, 2006; Ortmeier-Hooper, 2008; Roberge et al., 2009), even L2 writing specialists with prior training and experience may need to reorient themselves to work effectively with a more complex student audience than they have experienced previously (see Ferris, 2009) Response strategies appropriate for a largely international or EFL student audience may be much less valuable for early-arriving resident immigrants (see Ferris, 1999; 2003; 2009) Collaboration Among Writing Professionals Because, as also noted in the CCCC (2009) position statement, ‘‘second-language writers are found in writing programs at all levels,’’ it is of paramount importance that professionals in writing programs— administrators, classroom instructors, writing center personnel—share information about all aspects of working with L2 student writers, including response strategies Writing professionals should draw on each other’s literature or research and practical experience so that the needs of all students can be addressed most effectively L2 writing professionals should think creatively about ways to share their knowledge and expertise with their mainstream composition colleagues (see Ferris, 2009) As already noted, in many contexts, L2 students are no longer the sole purview or responsibility of the ESL department, so L2 writing specialists in various departmental contexts should take more initiative to help their programs most effectively meet the needs of all L2 writers across the curriculum Suggestions for Further Research Because this study was descriptive in nature, we did not evaluate student outcomes as part of the study One direction for future research 226 TESOL QUARTERLY on responding to L2 writers would be to study groups of writers, including those in designated L2 courses and those in mainstream courses, to assess not only how their teachers’ approaches to response (and to instruction in general) or not differ from one another but also what the effects of such differences on students’ attitudes and writing progress might be Such research could include both quantitative comparisons across groups and ethnographic descriptions of classrooms, instructors, and student writers A second direction for follow-up research might involve what education and other social science researchers term ‘‘intervention studies’’ (e.g., Rosenshine, Meister, & Chapman, 1996) A number of teachers in our study had very strong opinions and emotions about response in general and about working with L2 writers in particular Some of these teachers might be amenable to having their practices studied intensively so that adaptations could be suggested, implemented, and evaluated A similar set of studies could involve before-and-after research on teacher preparation processes for developing effective response strategies To conclude, through this study and in this article, we have followed three major themes: (1) Response strategies are central to the design and implementation of writing instruction, (2) in many composition settings L2 writers are mixed with L1 peers, and (3) all writing instructors thus need to be thoughtful about and well prepared for the task of providing and facilitating effective feedback for an increasingly complex and diverse group of student writers With these principles in mind, L2 writing professionals have the opportunity, and arguably the obligation, not only to be well prepared themselves but also to share their own knowledge, experience, and expertise with other writing instructors who also work with L2 students ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors acknowledge the considerable contributions of the other members of the research team: Daina Collins, Danielle Geist Schmidli, and Brigitte Rabie, all recent master of arts graduates of California State University, Sacramento In addition, the authors are very grateful to the college writing instructors (and their students) who volunteered to participate in the study and who gave permission to use their materials in this article The authors also thank Patrick Ewing of University of California Santa Barbara for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article Finally, we are grateful to several anonymous TESOL Quarterly reviewers for their insightful comments on earlier versions of this article RESPONDING TO L2 STUDENTS IN COLLEGE WRITING CLASSES 227 THE AUTHORS Dana Ferris is Professor in the University Writing Program at the University of California, Davis, California, United States Jeffrey Brown, Hsiang (Sean) Liu, and Maria Eugenia Arnaudo Stine are all master of arts graduates in TESOL from California State University, Sacramento, California, United States REFERENCES Anson, C M (1989) Writing and response: Theory, practice, and research Urbana, IL: NCTE Arndt, V (1993) Response to writing: Using feedback to inform the writing process In M N Brock & L Walters (Eds.), Teaching composition around the Pacific Rim: Politics & pedagogy (pp 90–116) Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ashwell, T (2000) Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227–258 doi:10.1016/S10603743(00)00027-8 Beason, L (2001) Ethos and error: How business people react to errors College Composition and Communication, 53, 33–64 doi:10.2307/359061 Braine, G (1996) ESL students in first-year writing courses: ESL versus mainstream classes Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 91–107 doi:10.1016/S10603743(96)90020-X Brannon, L., & Knoblauch, C H (1982) On students’ rights to their own texts: A model of teacher response College Composition and Communication, 33, 157–166 doi:10.2307/357623 Caulk, N (1994) Comparing teacher and student responses to written work TESOL Quarterly, 28, 181–188 doi:10.2307/3587209 Cohen, A (1987) Student processing of feedback on their compositions In A L Wenden & J Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp 57–69) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Cohen, A., & Cavalcanti, M (1990) Feedback on written compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports In B Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp 155–177) Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) (2009) Statement on second language writing and writers Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/cccc/ resources/positions/secondlangwriting Connors, R J., & Lunsford, A A (1988) Frequency of formal errors in current college writing, or Ma and Pa Kettle research College Composition and Communication, 39, 395–409 doi:10.2307/357695 Conrad, S M., & Goldstein, L M (1999) ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: Text, contexts, and individuals Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 147–180 doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80126-X Corbett, E P J., Myers, N., & Tate, G (2000) The writing teacher’s sourcebook (4th ed.) New York, NY: Oxford University Press Costino, K A., & Hyon, S (2007) ‘‘A class for students like me’’: Reconsidering relationships among identity labels, residency status, and students’ preferences for mainstream or multilingual composition Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 63–81 doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.04.001 228 TESOL QUARTERLY Fathman, A., & Whalley, E (1990) Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content In B Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp 178–190) Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press Ferris, D R (1995) Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33–53 Ferris, D R (1997) The influence of teacher commentary on student revision TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315–339 doi:10.2307/3588049 Ferris, D R (1999) One size does not fit all: Response and revision issues for immigrant student writers In L Harklau, K Losey, & M Siegal (Eds.), Generation 1.5 meets college composition (p 143–157) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ferris, D R (2002) Treatment of error in second language writing classes Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press Ferris, D R (2003) Response to student writing: Research implications for second language students Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ferris, D R (2004) The ‘‘grammar correction’’ debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where we go from here? (and what we in the meantime ?) Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62 doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005 Ferris, D R (2006) Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction In K Hyland & F Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp 81–104) Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press Ferris, D R (2009) Teaching college writing to diverse student populations Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press Ferris, D R., & Hedgcock, J S (2005) Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice (2nd ed.) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ferris, D R., Liu, H., & Rabie, B (2011) ‘‘The job of teaching writing’’: Teacher views on responding to student writing Writing and Pedagogy, Ferris, D R., Pezone, S., Tade, C., & Tinti, S (1997) Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions and implications Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 155–182, doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90032-1 Ferris, D R., & Roberts, B J (2001) Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184 doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X Folse, K S (2008) Myth 1: Teaching vocabulary is not the writing teacher’s job In J Reid (Ed.), Writing myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching (pp 1–17) Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press Glenn, C., & Goldthwaite, M A (2008) The St Martin’s guide to teaching writing (6th ed.) Boston, MA: Bedford/St Martin’s Goldstein, L (2001) For Kyla: What does the research say about responding to ESL writers? In T Silva & P K Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp 73–90) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Goldstein, L (2005) Teacher written commentary in second language writing classrooms Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press Goldstein, L., & Conrad, S (1990) Student input and the negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences TESOL Quarterly, 24, 443–460 doi:10.2307/3587229 Hairston, M (1986) On not being a composition slave In C W Bridges (Ed.), Training the new teacher of college composition (pp 117–124) Urbana, IL: NCTE Harklau, L., Losey, K., & Siegal, M (Eds.) (1999) Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N (1994) Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity in second language writing Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141– 163 doi:10.1016/1060-3743(94)90012-4 RESPONDING TO L2 STUDENTS IN COLLEGE WRITING CLASSES 229 Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N (1996) Some input on input: Two analyses of student response to expert feedback on L2 writing Modern Language Journal, 80, 287–308 doi:10.2307/329437 Holten, C (2009) Creating an interdepartmental course for Generation 1.5 writers: Challenges faced and lessons learned In M Roberge, M Siegal, & L Harklau (Eds.), Generation 1.5 in college composition (pp 170–184) New York, NY: Routledge Hyland, F (1998) The impact of teacher-written feedback on individual writers Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 255–286 doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90017-0 Hyland, F., & Hyland, K (2001) Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185–212 doi:10.1016/S10603743(01)00038-8 Hyland, K., & Hyland, F (Eds.) (2006) Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press Jacobs, G M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S (1998) Feedback on student writing: Taking the middle path Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 307–318 doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90019-4 Knoblauch, C H., & Brannon, L (2006) Introduction: The emperor (still) has no clothes—revisiting the myth of improvement In R Straub (Ed.), Key works on teacher response (pp 1–16) Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann Kvale, S (1996) Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Lee, I (2008) Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 69–85 doi:10.1016/ j.jslw.2007.10.001 Lee, I (2009a) Feedback revolution: What gets in the way? ELT JournalAdvance online publication doi:10.1093/elt/ccp028 Lee, I (2009b) Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback practice ELT Journal, 63, 13–22 doi:10.1093/elt/ccn010 Leki, I (1990a) Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response In B Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp 57–68) Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press Leki, I (1990b) Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes CATESOL Journal, 3, 5–19 Leki, I (1991) The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203–218 doi:10.1111/j.19449720.1991.tb00464.x Liu, J., & Hansen, J (2002) Peer response in second language writing classrooms Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press Lockhart, C., & Ng, P (1995) Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances, functions, and content.Language Learning 45: 605–655 doi:10.1111/j.14671770.1995.tb00456.x Lunsford, A A (2009) The everyday writer (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Bedford/St Martin’s Lunsford, A A., & Lunsford, K J (2008) "Mistakes are a fact of life": A national comparative study College Composition and Communication, 59, 781–806 Mackey, A., & Gass, S M (2005) Second language research: Methodology and Design Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Mangelsdorf, K (1992) Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What the students think? ELT Journal, 46, 274–284 doi:10.1093/elt/46.3.274 Matsuda, P K (2006) Second-language writing in the twentieth century: A situated historical perspective In P K Matsuda, M Cox, J Jordan, & C Ortmeier-Hooper (Eds.), Second-language writing in the composition classroom (pp 14–30) Boston, MA: Bedford/St Martin’s 230 TESOL QUARTERLY Matsuda, P K., Cox, M., Jordan, J., & Ortmeier-Hooper, C (Eds.) (2006) Secondlanguage writing in the composition classroom Boston, MA: Bedford/St Martin’s Mendonc¸a, C O., & Johnson, K E (1994) Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745–769 doi:10.2307/ 3587558 Merriam, S B (1991) Case study research in education: A qualitative approach San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Montgomery, J L., & Baker, W (2007) Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 82–99 doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.04.002 Moxley, J (1989) Responding to student writing: Goals, methods, alternatives Freshman English News, 17 (Spring), 3–4, 9–10 Nelson, G L., & Murphy, J M (1992) An L2 writing group: Task and social dimensions Journal of Second Language Writing, 1: 171–193 Nelson, G L., & Murphy, J M (1993) Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27, 135–142 doi:10.2307/ 3586965 Ortmeier-Hooper, C (2008) English may be my second language—but I’m not ‘‘ESL.’’ College Composition and Communication, 59, 389–419 Patthey-Chavez, G G., & Ferris, D R (1997) Writing conferences and the weaving of multi-voiced texts in college composition Research in the Teaching of English, 31, 51–90 Radecki, P., & Swales, J (1988) ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work System, 16 355–365 doi:10.1016/0346-251X(88)90078-4 Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D (1999) Ethnographic approaches and methods in L2 writing research: A critical guide and review Applied Linguistics, 20, 44–70 doi:10.1093/applin/20.1.44 Reid, J M (1994) Responding to ESL students’ texts: The myths of appropriation TESOL Quarterly, 28, 273–292 doi:10.2307/3587434 Reynolds, D., Bae, K.-H., & Wilson, J (2009) Individualizing pedagogy: Responding to diverse needs in freshman composition for non-native speakers In M Roberge, M Siegal, & L Harklau (Eds.), Generation 1.5 in college composition (pp 185–202) New York, NY: Routledge Roberge, M., Siegal, M., & Harklau, L (Eds.) (2009) Generation 1.5 in college composition New York: Routledge Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S (1996) Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies Review of educational research, 66, 181–221 Santa, T (2006) Dead letters: Error in composition, 1873–2004 Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press Schuemann, C M (2008) Myth 2: Teaching citation is someone else’s job In J Reid (Ed.), Writing myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching (pp 18– 40) Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press Segade, G (2004) Review of the book Response to student writing, by D R Ferris Retrieved from http://www.writingproject.org/cs/nwpp/lpt/nwpr/1990 Shaughnessy, M (1977) Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic writing.Oxford, England: Oxford University Press Smagorinsky, P (2006) Research on composition: Multiple perspectives on two decades of change New York, NY: Teachers College Press Sommers, N (1982) Responding to student writing College Composition and Communication, 33, 148–156 doi:10.2307/357622 Sommers, N (2006) Re-visions: Rethinking Nancy Sommers’s ‘‘Responding to student writing,’’ 1982 College Composition and Communication, 58, 246–256 RESPONDING TO L2 STUDENTS IN COLLEGE WRITING CLASSES 231 Straub, R (1999) A sourcebook for responding to student writing Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press Straub, R (2006) Key works on response: An anthology Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Straub, R., & Lunsford, R F (1995) Twelve readers reading: Responding to college student writing Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press Truscott, J (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes Language Learning, 46, 327–369 doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x Truscott, J (2007) The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272 doi:10.1016/ j.jslw.2007.06.003 White, E M (2006) Assigning, responding, evaluating: A writing teacher’s guide (4th ed.) New York, NY: Bedford/St Martin’s Zamel, V (1985) Responding to student writing TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79–102 doi:10.2307/3586773 Zhang, S (1995) Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 209–222 doi:10.1016/10603743(95)90010-1 Zhang, S (1999) Thoughts on some recent evidence concerning the affective advantage of peer feedback Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 321–326 doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80119-2 APPENDIX Research Instruments A Online Survey (26 items, multiple-choice + optional comment boxes) For length and space reasons, this survey is not included Please contact the first author, Dana Ferris (drferris@ucdavis.edu), for a copy B Interview Protocol 232 Please briefly describe your background & experience as a writing teacher Do you have any specific experience or training in working with ESL student writers? Describe your philosophy or approach to responding to student writing How does your approach to response fit into your overall philosophy of how to teach writing? How would you say your philosophy or approach has been formed? Has it changed over time? What have been your most successful or effective response strategies? (Note: clarify that responses to this question not have to be limited to written teacher feedback— they can also cover conferences, peer feedback, etc.) What is most frustrating or challenging to you about response to student writing (same note as for question 4)? Do you have (m)any ESL/multilingual students in your classes? Do you think that their needs as writers differ from those of the monolingual (native English speakers) students? If so, how? Do you adapt your response strategies in any way with those students, and if so, how? TESOL QUARTERLY Follow-up on any questions or comments from the subject’s survey responses Look at the marked student papers together If the interviewer has any questions or needs clarification about the purpose, meaning, or intent of a comment, discuss it Ask the interview subject to discuss how s/he approached these various student papers, and why (e.g., did s/he respond differently because of perceived differences in student abilities? Were the comments tailored to the particular task and assignment? Etc.) Also discuss how specific contextual factors such as the length of the term, online teaching, the stage of the writing process, etc., might have impacted the instructor’s responses to these students and response practices in general C Analysis Procedure for Teacher Commentary on Student Texts Number each verbal comment consecutively Ignore nonverbal feedback such as underlining or cross-outs If the teacher adds a word or phrase or provides a grammar code or rule reminder, number those and label them as ‘‘grammar/mechanics’’ comments (see below) For end notes, divide comments into propositions For example, if the note begins with three sentences of praise, number that as one ‘‘positive’’ comment (see below) Use your best judgment as to where the propositions begin and end After numbering the comments (both in the text and in end notes), analyze each comment for a) length, b) type, and c) text-specificity See analysis scheme below for definitions and examples Complete the chart [Chart not included for space reasons.] Use a separate chart for each student paper Keep the charts organized by teacher/subject identifier We will use them as part of the case study analysis/narratives Objective Analysis Scheme for Teacher Commentary Comment Length (Number of Words) 15 25 35 45 Short (1-5 words) Average (6-15 words) Long (16-25 words) Very Long (26+ words) Comment Types 15 Ask for Information/Question EXAMPLE: Did you work out this problem with your roommates? 25 Suggestion/Question EXAMPLE: Can you provide a thesis statement here—What did you learn from this? 35 Suggestion/Statement or Imperative EXAMPLE: This paragraph might be better earlier in the essay EXAMPLE: Mention what Zinsser says about parental pressure 45 Give Information/Question or Statement EXAMPLE: Most states allow a waiting period before an adoption is final—Do you feel that all such laws are wrong? RESPONDING TO L2 STUDENTS IN COLLEGE WRITING CLASSES 233 EXAMPLE: Iowa law favors parental rights Michigan and California consider the best interests of the child 55 Positive Comment/Statement or Exclamation EXAMPLE: A very nice start to your essay! You’ve done an impressive job of finding facts and quotes to support your arguments 65 Grammar/Mechanics Comment/Question, Statement, or Imperative EXAMPLES: *Past or present tense? Text-Specific Comment 05 Generic comment (could have been written on any paper) EXAMPLE: Nice Intro 15 Text-Specific Comment EXAMPLE: Why is the American system better for children, in your opinion? [Analysis procedures & categories adapted from Ferris et al (1997).] D Case Study Narrative Essay Procedures 2 2 2 234 Review all materials for each subject: Survey responses including written comments; Interview recording and interveiwer notes; sample student texts with commentary + objective analysis charts Write a 2-3 page (1200-1500 word) narrative describing what you learned about this teacher/subject Use specific details and quotations as appropriate, noting the source of the information (survey, interview, etc.) Organize the narrative according to the following headings (1-4 paragraphs per heading): Background Philosophy & Practices Successes & Struggles Working with ESL Students Analysis of Student Papers Post your narrative on the project web site Second readers should review the subject’s materials and the first reader’s narrative, making additional suggestions and possible corrections Any disagreements between readers should be brought to [the lead author/researcher] The first reader should finalize the narrative and post it on the web site All team members read all narratives, noting themes, convergences, and differences across the case study subjects Each researcher’s notes should be posted on the web site and discussed at a future team meeting TESOL QUARTERLY