ANALYZING THE PREPARATION OF SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING

TEACHERS: A GROUNDED THEORY APPROACH

ANALYZING THE PREPARATION OF SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING
TEACHERS: A GROUNDED THEORY APPROACH

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in Curriculum and Instruction

By

Amina M. B. Nihlawi
State University of New York at Buffalo
Bachelor of Arts in Political Science
Saint Michaels's College
Master of Arts in Teaching English SL

August 2011
University of Arkansas
 UMI Number: 3476075

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI
Dissertation Publishing

UMI 3476075
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

uest
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
ABSTRACT

This qualitative study aims at understanding how current student-teachers

enrolled in MATES OL and its related fields programs are being prepared to teach

college-level second language writing. Data collected for this study included course

syllabi, member check questionnaires, Conference on College Composition and

Communication's (CCCC) position statement, and expert interviews. The research

questions are: l)How are graduate level student-teachers enrolled in teaching second

language writing courses being prepared to teach college-level second language

composition? 2) What do researchers in the field of second language writing claim as the

most important elements when preparing future second language composition

instructors? 3) To what degree are teacher-educators implementing second language

writing researchers' perceptions about these elements in their teaching of second

language writing classes?

From the 161 institutions across the U.S. that offered a degree in MATESOL and

its related fields, 38 were found to offer a course on second language writing instruction.

Applying grounded theory approach, syllabi from some of these courses were collected

and analyzed using open coding. The process of continually collecting and analyzing data

is an essential part of developing the grounded narrative. This involved collecting a new

sample in order to establish theoretical saturation, which involved examining the 49

teaching second language reading and writing courses. When theoretical saturation of the

nine open codes was reached, the researcher used axial coding to detect the relationships

between categories. Selective coding helped determine the core category for developing
the theoretical narrative. Member checks were employed to obtain feedback from the

instructors regarding the narrative. CCCC's position statement concerning second

language writers and their texts was also analyzed to ensure triangulation of findings.

The researcher interviewed two experts in the field of second language writing.

Thirteen themes emerged from the interviews, which were later aligned with the course

syllabi and CCCC's position statement. The findings reveal that second language writing

teacher-educators were well-informed with the research regarding ESL composition and

had broad experience in the ESL classroom. The theoretical narrative offers evidence that

teacher-educators are aware that socialization into a new field involves taking on a new

Discourse. Still, the researcher recommends that the subject of second language writing

instruction be included in other classes in a second language teacher education program.

This study offers insight into what is happening in these L2 writing/ reading and writing

instruction courses.
This dissertation is approved for recommendation
to the Graduate Council

Dissertation Director:

Felicia Lincoln, Ph.D.

Dissertation Committee:

Michael J. Wavering, Ph.D.

Thomas E. C. Smith, Ph.D.

Christian Z. Goering, Ph.D.

 DISSERTATION DUPLICATION RELEASE

I hereby authorize the University of Arkansas Libraries to duplicate this dissertation

when needed for research and/or scholarship.

Agreed
Amina M. B. Nihlawi

Refused
Amina M. B. Nihlawi
 VI

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the encouragement and guidance from Dr. Felicia

Lincoln, my research advisor, throughout my doctoral studies in Arkansas. Her insightful

feedback and suggestions regarding this study provided me with great motivation to push

further. Many thanks go to Dr. Wavering for his advice and support from the initial stage

of this investigation. His observations were greatly appreciated. I thank Dr. Smith for his

willingness to give his time and share his recommendations developing this dissertation.

Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Goering for offering his knowledge concerning the

topic of my study.

I am grateful to the teacher-educators that were willing to share their time and

participate in this dissertation. Without these professionals, I would not have been able to

conduct this study.

Finally, many thanks go out to my family and friends. First, I would like to thank

my mother for her never-ending patience and support from the beginning of this journey.

To my father, who always listened intently to my discussions regarding my work. I also

thank my siblings and their families for their encouragement. Finally, many thanks go out

to my husband who was a constant motivation throughout this process. Words alone

cannot describe how much I appreciate his support leading up to this finale. Without his

continuous and unyielding guidance, this dissertation would not have been possible.
 Vll

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to the hard-working scholars in the second language

writing field.
 viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vi
DEDICATION vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS viii
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xi
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction
Background 1
Statement of the Problem 2
Purpose of the Study 3
Benefits of Research 4
Research Questions 5
Limitations 5
Conclusion 6
Definitions 7
CHAPTER TWO: Literature Review
Background 8
Second Language Teacher Education 8
Second Language Writers and their Texts 16
Preparing Student-Teachers to Teach Second Language Writing 22
Course Syllabi 29
Conclusion 33
CHAPTER THREE: Methodology
Introduction 35
Statement of the Problem 35
Purpose of the Study 35
Research Questions 36
Methodology 36
Trustworthiness 39
Sampling Method 41
Data Collection and Analysis 43
Researcher's Role 49
Protection of Participants 49
Conclusion 50
CHAPTER FOUR: Results
Introduction 51
Description of the Sample Analyzed 52
Steps in Developing the Grounded Narrative 59
Grounded Narrative and Member Checks 86
 IX

Position Statement Regarding Second Language Writers and their

Writing 101
Experts' Views on the Preparation of Future L2 Writing Teachers 104
Aligning Experts' Views with Course Syllabi 114
Conclusion 123
CHAPTER FIVE: Findings, Conclusions and Future Recommendations
Introduction 124
Overview of the Study 124
Findings 126
Discussion of Research Question #1 127
Discussion of Research Question #2 133
Discussion of Research Question #3 135
Recommendations for Improving the Preparation of Prospective L2 Writing
Instructors 138
Future Recommendations 143
Conclusions 145
REFERENCES 148
APPENDIXES
Appendix A: CCCC Statement on Second Language Writing and
Writers 158
Appendix B:Position Statement on Teacher Quality in the Field of Teaching
English to Speakers of Others Languages 167
Appendix C:Email to Participants Regarding Study 168
Appendix D:Overview of Development of Theoretical Narrative and Member
Check Questionnaire 169
Appendix E:Letter to Participants Regarding Study 172
Appendix F:Consent Form to Participants That Volunteered For Study.... 173
Appendix G:Email to Experts Regarding Study 175
Appendix FLLetter to Experts Regarding Study 176
Appendix I: Consent Form Sent To Experts 178
Appendix ^Tentative Questions for Expert Interviews 180
 LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page

Table 1 Number of course syllabi submitted 46

Table 2 Background information of L2 writing instruction 53

faculty members

Table 3 Background details of teaching second language writing 55

courses

Table 4 Open codes from teaching of second language writing 66

course syllabi

Table 5 Background information of L2 reading and writing 68

instruction faculty members

Table 6 Background details of teaching second language reading 72

and writing courses

Table 7 Required readings from both samples 78

Table 8 Relationships between open and axial codes 83

Table 9 Frequency of themes from expert interviews 115

Table 10 Missing themes from expert interviews 121

 XI

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page

Figure 1 Process of Grounded Theory Development 37

Figure 2 Data collection and analysis and timeline 42

Figure 3 Coding paradigm of syllabi for the development of 85

grounded theory
 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Background

Hirvela and Belcher (2007) observe that there is a new "identity" (p. 125)

thatresearchers have overlooked and that is of "teachers of teachers of writing" in the

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) field (p. 125). Developing

this identity requires both content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge (Shulman,

1987). Acquiring these knowledge skills requires teacher-educators to develop a

systematic approach to teaching and learning, which includes understanding of second

language acquisition (as it pertains to writing), feedback strategies, and, among other

topics, familiarity with the process writing approach. Teaching student-teachers to deal

with the array of issues that they will encounter as second language writing (SLW)

instructors is crucial to developing "subject matter expertise" (Richards, 1998) and

pedagogical skills.

The shift towards producing competent teachers that are able to teach SLW is

important in helping college-level second language (L2) learners succeed. Researchers

have found that writing teachers' feedback and assessment practices were inconsistent

(Montgomery& Baker, 2007; Goldstein, 2006). In addition, Montgomery and Baker

found that some teachers did not display consistency in the type of feedback and quantity

of written feedback that they were giving. Lee (2003) pointed out that some teachers

described frustration when grading papers. Gebhard, Gaitan, and Oprandy (1990) noted

that in order for future teachers to gain "stronger decision-making skills," they need to be
 2

"given chances to process their teaching through" investigative tasks (p. 24). As a result,

future college-level L2 composition instructors need to develop a solid understanding

concerningthe theoretical and pedagogical issues ofsecond language writing field in order

to develop "productive insights about writing and the writing process" (Grabe& Kaplan,

1996, p. 254).

Statement of the problem

Ferris and Hedgcock (2005) asserted that although research into the field of SLW

has come a long way since its infancy (Matsuda, 2003), there is still relatively little

awareness of the importance of understanding and examining how teacher-educators

prepare prospective L2 writinginstructors. Ferris and Hedgcock (2005)explained that:

As a discipline, L2 writing still is viewed by some as an emergent field.

Consequently, few resources have been produced to help pre- and in-
service teachers become experts in a discipline that is becoming
recognized as a profession in its own right, (p. x)

This realization led the Journal of Second Language to dedicate one of its 2007 issues

towards exploring "the teacher education realm of the L2 writing field" (Hirvela&

Belcher, 2007, p. 126). The editors of that special issue indicated that researchers have

"paid relatively little attention to what actually takes place in teacher education programs

with respect to how writing, and the preparation of writing teachers, is treated" (p. 125).

In an effort to fill this gap and to better understand how student-teachers are being

prepared to teach SLW at the college level, this study examined the preparation of future

SLW teachers in master's level academic programs in the teaching of English as a

Second Language (MATESOL) and its related fields (e.g., MA in Teaching English as a
 3

Foreign Language, MA in Linguistics, MA in Second Language Acquisition, MA in

Education/ ESL, MA in English with emphasis on ESL, MA in TESOL/ Bilingual

Education).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative studyusing grounded theory approach isto

investigate how current student-teachers in graduate-level second language teacher

education (SLTE) programs in the United States are being prepared to teach college-level

L2 composition. With the increase in the number of language learners coming onto

college campuses, a majority of their English as a Second Language (ESL) instructors

hold a degree in MATESOL or its related field (Nelson, 1998), since"the master's degree

is required for teaching in higher education and community colleges" (TESOL, 1996-

2007). With that, researchers must take a step back and understand how these TESOL

programs contribute to the initiation of student-teachers into the SLW field. In 2001, the

Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) approved a position

statement regarding second language writers and their texts (Appendix A). The document

offers "guidelines for instructors of writing and writing-intensive courses, for writing

program administrators, and for teacher preparation" (Conference on College

Composition and Communication, 2001, p.l). Moreover, the document specifies that

"any writing course... should be taught by an instructor who is able to identify and is

prepared to address the linguistic and cultural needs of second language writers" (p. 2).

TESOL organization also mentions that "Many positions in the field require a longer-
 4

term graduate degree, such as a Master's degree" (TESOL, 2003, p. 2) in order to teach

English language learners (ELL).

To date, no empirical study has explored how teacher-educators are preparing

current student-teachers in SLTE programs to teach L2 writing. Although not all LTE

programs offer a course in how to teach SLW, this exploratory study examinedsome

programs that offer such a class. It was hoped that through collecting course syllabi,

conducting member checks, analyzing CCCC's position statement, and interviewing

SLW experts, noteworthy results can be collected to understand the depth of attention

being given to the preparation of future college-level ESL writing teachers.

Benefits of Research

Burns and Richards (2009) acknowledged that there is an "increasing demand

worldwide for competent English teachers and for more effective approaches to their

preparation and professional development" (p. 1). The purpose of an MATESOL degree

is to equip language teachers with the essential knowledge and skills that are required to

teach ELLs. Knowing this, it is necessary that these future ESL teachers have sufficient

knowledge in the areas ranging from applied linguistics to the teaching of second

language writing. Since there are no studies that have examined the preparation of future

L2 writing instructors, this qualitative study will fill the gap in the current literature

regarding how current graduate students enrolled in MATESOL and its related fields

programs are being prepared to teach college-level second language writing.

 5

Research Questions

It is within the teaching of L2 composition courses that student-teachers should be

given the knowledge and skills to succeed at teaching future college L2 writers. This

qualitative study using grounded theory approach is designed to investigate the inner

workings of graduate level teaching second language writing courses through course

syllabi, member checks, CCCC's position statement, and expert interviews. The present

study investigated the following questions:

1. How are graduate level student-teachers enrolled in teaching second language writing
courses being prepared to teach college-level second language composition?

2. What do researchers in the field of second language writing claim as the most
important elements when preparing future second language composition instructors?

3. To what degree are teacher-educators implementing second language writing

researchers' perceptions about these elements in their teaching of second language
writing classes?

The first question in the study seeks to understand the depth and breadth of what is being

covered in these teaching L2 composition courses. The second question is aimed at

understanding the important aspects of preparing L2 composition teachers from the

experts' standpoint. Finally, the third question is an attempt at examiningthe extentto

which teacher-educators are applying L2 scholars' insights regarding the key elements to

preparing prospective SLW teachers.

Limitations

In this qualitative study, the researcher alone collected data and did the analysis of

the results. Therefore, subjectivity played a role in the investigation. The study was

limited to examining graduate-level teaching of second language writing courses in

 6

MATESOL and its related field programs in the US and how student-teachers are being

prepared to teach SLW at the college level. This study did not focus on how future ESL

teachers are being prepared to teach K-12 second language learners.Since this is a

preliminary study, the researcher did not directly observe graduate classes or conduct

face-to-face interviews with the professors of these courses. The study did not examine

other graduate courses, within a specific program, that might have focused on L2 writing

issues. Because of these limitations, the results of this study cannot be generalized to all

teaching SLW courses.

Conclusion

The focus of this qualitative study is to gain insight into the "inner workings" of

graduate level teaching of second language writing courses. Through collecting course

syllabi, conducting member checks, examining CCCC's position statement, and

performing expert interviews, the researcher gained an understanding regarding the

preparation of future college-level L2 composition instructors. This study also filled a

gap in the literature on how second language teacher education programs in the US are

educating future SLW teachers. In the next chapter, the researcher will present a pertinent

review of the literature regarding this research investigation.

 7

Definitions

Applied linguistics (AL)- a field of study that "applies the findings of linguistics, among

others, in education" and other professions (Matthews, 1997, p. 22).

Second language teacher education (SLTE/LTE)- programs that specifically center on

developing teachers' ability to teach a language.

Second language writing/ writers (SLW)- pertains to the area of study that focuses on

issues regarding the teaching and learning of writing in the target language.

Second language (L2)- the new or target language that is being learned.

Student-teachers/ teacher-learners/ prospective teachers/ future teachers- used

synonymously, it relates to pre- or in-service teachers' involvement in an education

program for the sole purpose of improving/learning how to teach (Freeman, 1990, p.

104).

Syllabus- a detailed outline describing the goals, objectives, readings, assignments and

evaluation procedures of the course.

Teacher-educator- an "individual who oversees and in some way facilitates the student

teacher's learning process" (Freeman, 1990, p. 104).

Teaching (or teachers) of English to speakers of other languages (TESOL)- a

specialized discipline that equips language learners with the necessary skills to become

proficient in the English language.

1
In this study, the term student-teachers refers to interns, practicum students, teacher-
learners, prospective teachers and future teachers.
 8

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Background

In the past, language teacher education programs were viewed as a way to

transmit an expert teacher's theoretical knowledge to the passive teacher- learners (Singh

& Richards, 2006). This approach led to a disconnect between what is taught and

practiced in the classroom and what teacher-learners actually encountered in their own

teaching experiences. To this end, new classroom teachers yielded to a repertoire of

classroom practices that they were exposed to as students (Lortie, 1975).

This chapter provides an examination of the central themes for the present study,

namely: second language teacher education, second language writers and their texts,

preparing student-teachers to teach second language writing, and course syllabi. Each of

these areas will be elaborated on to provide the necessary framework that is the

foundation for the study and how it relates to the research questions.

Second Language Teacher Education

The intent of second language teacher education must be to provide

opportunities for the novice to acquire the skills and competencies of
effective teachers and to discover the working rules that effective teachers
use. (Richards, 1990, p. 15)

Language teacher education programs have greatly evolved since the 1970s

(Freeman, 2009). Initially, LTE programs paid little attention to student-teachers'

personal "experiences and perspectives" and "operated under the assumption that
 9

teachers needed discrete amounts of knowledge, usually in the form of general theories

and methods that were assumed to be applicable to any teaching context" (Freeman &

Johnson, 1998, p. 399). This notion of knowledge transmission from the expert teacher-

educators to apprentice teachers was about to change. Researchers began to recognize

that "learning to teach is... a long-term, complex developmental process that is the result

of participation in the social practices and contexts associated with learning and teaching"

(Johnson, 2009b, p. 10). Thus, learning to teach is a socially constructed process whereby

participants must be given the opportunity to negotiate meaning and guided through the

process of acquiring the necessary knowledge and skills to function as autonomous

learners (Freeman & Johnson, 1998, Johnson, 2009a, Vygotsky, 1978). Today, the field

of second language teacher education has firmly secured itself to many higher education

institutions. With the professionalization of the field, specific entrance requirements,

course work, standards, and licensure exams developed (Richards, 2008). With that, more

scholarly work and conference proceedings have focused on how best to prepare future

language teachers. In 2003, TESOL's Board of Directors approved an official Position

Statement on Teacher Quality in the Field of Teaching English to Speakers of Other

Languages (Appendix B) which states that:

Qualified ESL and EFL [English as a foreign language] educators should

be aware of current trends and research and their instructional implications
in the fields of linguistics, applied linguistics, second language acquisition,
sociolinguistics, language pedagogy and methodology,literacy
development, curriculum and materials development, assessment and
cross-cultural communication.

Awareness of the current research in TESOL and its application embodies a knowledge

base that student-teachers need to inform their classroom practices.

 10

In his seminal 1987paper, Shulman discussed different categories of knowledge

base. Content knowledge "rests on two foundations: the accumulated literature and

studies in the content areas, and the historical and philosophical scholarship on the nature

of knowledge in those fields of study" (Shulman, 1987, p. 9). In SLW, knowledge of

subject matter concepts includes developing student-teachers' theoretical knowledge of

teaching second language (L2) writing, understanding of differences between first and

second language writing, and awareness of genre theory, contrastive rhetoric, plagiarism,

technology, literacy development, as well as reading and writing connections.

Pedagogical knowledge consists largely of strategies that guide practitioner's

instructional planning and teaching (Shulman, 1987). For example, an L2 writing

instructor must have the ability to tailor written feedback according to their language

learners' needs and must also be able to clarify expectations of a writing course.

However, focusing too much on developing student-teachers' skills for teaching might

lead to the "deskilling of teachers, who are seen as the technicians responsible for

learning-delivery systems" (Edge & Richards, 1998, p. 571). Shulman's amalgamation of

content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge has led to the formation of apedagogical

content knowledge (PCK) category (Shulman, 1987), which represents "an understanding

of how particular topics, problems, or issues are organized, represented, and adapted to

the diverse interests and abilities of learners, and presented for instruction" (p. 8). This

intersection of subject matter knowledge and pedagogical knowledge is best depicted

when an L2 writing instructor understands that language acquisition takes time and is

able to address this issue by modifying instruction accordingly, since, as Tsui (2003)
 11

noted, "teachers' disciplinary knowledge... has a decisive influence on the process,

content, and quality of their instruction" (p. 55).

With PCK, future L2 writing instructors begin to take on a new Discourse (with a

capital "D") or a new "identity kit" (Gee, 2001), which entails "instructions on how to

act, talk, and often write, so as to take on a particular role that others will recognize" (p.

526). This type of Discourse cannot simply be learned through the transmission of

knowledge from an expert teacher-educator to a novice student-teacher, "but by

enculturation ("apprenticeship") into social practices through scaffolded and supported

interaction with people who have already mastered the Discourse (Cazden, 1988; Heath,

1983)" (Gee, 2001, p. 527). For SLW, it is not enough for student-teachers to learn the

underlying theories that make up the field; rather, they must be socially apprenticed into

this new field of study. That is, learning has to be seen as dialogic engagement where

socialization into the new group develops through "communities of practice" (Johnson,

2009b; Lave & Wenger, 1991).

Freeman (1994) posited that when learning to teach, "one cannot learn about it;

one must learn through it" (p. 10). Student-learners learn to teach via cognitively driven

methods that enable them to negotiate meaning while uncovering their own belief

systems about language teaching. One way to develop student-learners' awareness of

language teaching is to have them experience teaching for themselves (Grossman, 2005).

It is through microteaching, practicums, tutoring, and internships "...and receiving

feedback that the student teacher has a chance to apply knowledge and skills gained

elsewhere or to develop strategies for handling the different dimensions of a language

lesson" (Richards &Nunan, 1990, p. 101). Richards and Crookes (1988) surveyed 120
 12

graduate-level TESOL related programs in the United States to understand the training

and curriculum that teacher-educators employed. Of the participants that responded to the

questionnaire, 75% of them confirmed that their institutions required a practical

experience as part of the curriculum (Richards & Crookes, 1988). This suggests that a

teaching practicum has long been a part of LTE programs where teacher-learners prepare

lessons to teach in front of their peers or to second language learners (Richards &

Crookes, 1988). Indeed, as Fanselow (1988) advocated, experiencing teaching affords

student-teachers the opportunity to "construct, reconstruct and revise their own teaching"

(p. 115).

Gebhard (1990) conducted an ethnographic study on seven inexperienced student-

teachers enrolled in a master's level teaching English as a second language program. He

examined these graduate students' interactions and sought to understand how and

whether their teaching behaviors would change during the sixteen-week practicum. Over

the course of the practicum, he found that five of the seven student-teachers gradually

began to shift from a teacher-centered approach to instruction to a more learner-centered

teaching (pp. 156- 166). In another study, Shin (2006) described how 12 pre-service

students enrolled in a graduate-level writing methods course tutored second language

writers. Data from the study included student-teachers' journal entries as a means of

exploring and understanding their own experiences. Tutoring sessions occurred once

every two weeks for the duration of a semester. Student-teachers were required to journal

after each and every tutoring session in which they expressed the writing problems of

their tutees and how they were handled, as well as the successes of their tutoring sessions.
 13

In her analysis, she found that student-teachers developed critical analytical skills

regarding their approaches towards tutoring second language writers (Shin, 2006).

Not only did the tutoring help student-teachers apprentice into the field of SLW,

but it was also through [italics added] (Freeman, 1994) the act of reflecting on their

tutoring sessions that they became cognizant of their instructional skills. Reflective

practices (Schon, 1983) such as journaling, autobiography, case study analysis, action

research, and others, allow student-teachers to gain a deeper understanding of their

beliefs about language teaching and learning in order to make informed decisions about

teaching (Gebhard&Oprandy, 1999; Larrivee, 2000). Stenhouse (2002) notes, "It is not

enough that teachers' work should be studied: they need to study it themselves" (p.32),

which involves an active, deliberate, cyclical questioning of deeply held views of

classroom practices (Schon, 1983; Lasley, 1992; Hatton & Smith, 1995; Bright, 1996). In

Korthagen and Vasalos' (2005) article on reflective practices, they suggested the "onion

model" for helping students gain a deeper understanding of their thinking processes.

Starting with the first layer, student-teachers begin to reflect on their classroom

environments and interactions with others. Eventually, the core question in this model

leads student-teachers to recognize their mission in the teaching profession by asking

themselves the purpose for becoming a teacher. As with other types of reflective

practices, the core element of such a task is to transform student-teachers into reflective

practitioners.

In their study on transforming teachers' attitudes towards their own classrooms,

Torre and Rolon-Dow (2000) reported that teacher research altered classroom teachers'

thinking about their traditional roles in the classroom. Qualitative data of bilingual
 14

teachers' journal entries, discussions at monthly forums, and interviews with the

classroom teachers in the study were analyzed. The authors discovered that when

teachers began to examine their own approaches to classroom instruction, the classroom

instructors actively began to value the importance of critical dialogue and ongoing

observation of their own environments. Thus, the process of having teachers study and

reflect on their own classroom practices enables them to become advocates for

themselves, their classrooms and their students. This propels teachers to begin to reframe

their understanding of themselves as teachers and learners.When student-teachers are

given the tools to reflect on their own teaching and learning, they begin to make their

belief systems more explicit so as to challenge commonly held notions regarding

language pedagogy (Gebhard&Oprandy, 1999).

To further apprentice student-teachers into the second language teaching

profession, prospective SLW teachers can observe current L2 composition instructors

(Gebhard, 2009; Richards, 1998). As Richards (1998) stated, observation "can be used to

help teachers develop a terminology to describe and discuss teaching, and to provide data

with which to examine central concepts in their own teaching" (p. 19). Lortie (1975)

developed the phrase "the apprenticeship of observation," which refers to student-

learners' prior knowledge about teaching from years of observing their own teachers in

the school systems. If student-teachers do not observe how experienced SLW teachers

deal with the day-to-day tasks of classroom instruction, they will inevitably revert to a

reactionary model of teaching that they observed during their own schooling (Borg, 2004;

Crandall, 2000; Freeman & Richards, 1996).

 15

Microteaching, journaling, and observing are examples of participatory tools that

serve as the underpinnings for developing second language teachers. Still, essays

(Kovac& Sherwood, 1999; Rivard& Straw, 2000; Tynjala, 1998), exams, class projects,

class presentations (Morita, 2000), and class participation also function to assess student-

teachers' internalization of subject-matter knowledge (Davis, 1993;

McKeachie&Svinicki, 2006). These types of assessments aid teacher-educators in

recognizing whether their students have grasped the course material in order to adjust

classroom instruction (Davis, 1993, p. 239- 251). Evaluating student-teachers'

memorization of content is not the purpose of assessments; rather, assessments should

measure graduate students' deeper understanding of subject matter (Bloom, Engelhart,

Furst, Hill, and Krathwohl, 1956).

Tynjala (1998) examined the effects of assigning essays to students in an

education program. Students that participated in the study were enrolled in a semester

long educational psychology course. The class was divided into two groups: the

experimental group and the control group. Both groups received the same content

information, but differed in that the experimental group was required to compose a long

essay. After interviewing both groups, the researcher determined that those that wrote

essays were able to articulate their ideas more clearly through the development of their

thinking processes (Tynjala, 1998). Learning-by-writing has also been documented in

science education research studies (Kovac& Sherwood, 1999; Rivard& Straw, 2000)

where researchers advocated the integration of writing assignments into the curriculum.

Besides having student-teachers write papers to develop their analytical skills, class

participation is also an integral part of any classroom instruction (Davis, 1993, p. 75- 81).
 16

Class discussions serve to deepen teacher-educators' understanding of their learners'

views and any misconceptions that student-teachers might have. Morita (2000) examined

graduate students' use of oral academic presentations and found that "both nonnative and

native speakers gradually became apprenticed into oral academic discourses through

ongoing negotiations with instructors and peers as they prepared for, observed,

performed, and reviewed oral academic presentations" (p. 279). This reveals that student-

teachers are socialized into a new Discourse when they are offered the opportunity to

negotiate meaning, which goes back to Lave and Wenger's (1991) discussion on the

importance of engaging student-teachers in order to usher them into "communities of

practice."

Although professional development takes place during in-service workshops

(Richards & Farrell, 2005), SLTE programs should "provide practical experiences that

encourage prospective teachers to continue their professional development after leaving

the program" (Crandall, 2000, p. 41).As Johnson (2009a) writes, "Traditionally, the

professional development of teachers has been thought of as something that is done by

others for or to teachers" (p. 25). Tasks such as learning how to conduct an ethnographic

study, implementing an action research project, writing a conference proposal,

conducting workshops for colleagues are examples of self-directed, inquiry-based

approaches that future teachers can undertake in their own classrooms.

Second Language Writers and their Texts

The increase in the ESL population has, over the last forty years, been
paralleled by a similar growth in research on ESL writing and writing
instruction- research that writing teachers need to be familiar with in order
 17

to work effectively with ESL writers in writing classrooms of all levels

and types. (Silva & Matsuda, 2001, p. xiii)

Over the last couple of decades, the field of second language writing has seen a

surge in the number of research studies and textbooks published (Leki, Cumming &

Silva, 2008). This historical overview of SLW is important in understanding the origins

of the field (Matsuda, 2005). From the outset, it seemed that both native writers of

English and English as a second language writers implemented the process approach to

writing by producing freewrites, outlines, rough drafts, and final drafts (Matsuda & Silva,

2005). Although there are some similarities between first language and second language

writing, one cannot undermine the history of the emergence of the second language

writing field (Leki, Cumming & Silva, 2008; Grabe& Kaplan, 1996; Leki, 1992;

Matsuda, 1998).

Matsuda (1999, 2005), a historian of the SLW field, asserted that it was not until

the end of World War II that the issue of foreign students became more visible in college

composition classrooms. With this, some programs began to offer separate ESL classes at

the college level, but were mostly taught by instructors who had little or no preparation in

working with L2 writers (Matsuda, 2003). During that time, the predominant approach to

language instruction was the audiolingual method, which involved drilling certain

grammatical patterns/sentences that L2 learners had to reproduce (Leki, 1992; Matsuda,

2005). Moreover, the teaching of L2 writing was devoted to controlled composition

exercises: a behaviorist approach to writing since language learning was considered to be

habit formation (Pincas, 1962; Silva, 1990; Zamel, 1980). Still, with the continual influx

of L2 learners onto college campuses, LI (first language) composition instructors began

 18

to take a serious interest into understanding their L2 writers (Silva, 1993). Although ESL

students were either enrolled in remedial composition classes or the regular composition

courses offered by the universities, scholars began to find salient differences between

first language and second language writing, which led them to closely examine studies in

LI composition (Matsuda, 1999; Silva, 1992, 1993). To better understand these

newcomers, researchersstarted to survey the research in applied linguistics, Teaching

English as a Second Language and composition studies (Matsuda, 1998).

Traditionally, LI composition instruction focused on the reading and analysis of

various literary genres (Ferris &Hedgcock, 2005; Swales, 1990) where native speakers of

the English language were required to produce papers that reflected their analytical skills

of the readings. The dominant writing model that was in effect was the product approach

to writing, where little focus was given to the development of a writing piece. With the

advent of the process approach to writing, LI students were given the opportunity to

brainstorm ideas and revise drafts as necessary (Flower & Hayes, 1981; Matsuda, 1998).

Still, one must keep in mind that LI and L2 writers are not a homogenous group. Second

language writers bring with them their own language systems, cultural, educational and

sociopolitical identities, which meant that focusing on the theoretical and pedagogical

approaches of LI composition was not enough (Canagarajah, 2002). As Zamel (1983)

pointed out, writing is a "non-linear, exploratory, and generative process whereby writers

discover and reformulate their ideas as they attempt to approximate meaning" (p. 165).

Moreover, Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) emphasized that writing is a social,

interactional process between the writer and the readers as well as the readers'
 19

expectations (Flower, 1994). Indeed, the composing process "is a complex, recursive, and

creative process" (Silva, 1990, p. 15).

L2 writers bring with them certain predispositions (i.e. their own writing systems)

(Kaplan, 1966), and with that, teachers began to recognize that not all research in LI

composition is applicable in the SLW field. For example, Silva (1993) found that L2

writers differed from LI writers in significant ways. In his examination of 72 empirical

studies comparing LI and L2 writing, Silva found that some L2 writers had considerably

different composing techniques from their LI counterparts. Additionally, unlike LI

writers, L2 students produced texts that lacked fluency (had limited vocabulary) and

grammatical accuracy (made repeated errors) (p. 657- 677). Although research (Zamel,

1982, 1983) has shown that some highly proficient L2 students with well-developed

writing skills tend to approach the writing tasks similar to LI writers, Raimes (1985) has

also shown that the opposite is also true. In her study, Raimes (1985) discovered that in

contrast to LI writers, second language writers tended to encounter problems with word

use and idea expression.For instance, inexperienced L2 writers were found "not to revise

efficiently, [and] to focus on local concerns in their texts" (p. 231). Ferris and Hedgcock

(2005) suggested that, "L2 writers may require targeted instruction aimed at the

development of specific linguistics skills, rhetorical expertise, and composing strategies"

(p. 10). As Silva, Leki and Carson (1997) noted, the field of ESL writing was brought

about by an "intersection of second language studies and composition studies" (p. 399).

Observing that the rhetorical patterns of L2 writers was largely impacted by

transfer of knowledge of first language, Kaplan's (1966) ground-breaking article on

contrastive rhetoric was born. In that article, he pointed out that L2 writers organize their
 20

writing according to their native languages. According to his contrastive rhetoric theory,

English written discourse proceeded in a straight line, Semitic writers' work developed in

a zigzag formation, and Asian writers' compositions proceeded in a spiraling line. For

example, Hinds (1980, 1987) found that Japanese students writing in their LI tended to

use implicit statements in their compositions, where the reader was responsible for

understanding the text; whereas speakers of the English language are required to make

their points explicit when writing (e.g. the thesis statement). Although contrastive

rhetoric might be seen as an oversimplified or overgeneralized examination of L2 writers'

texts, these studies (Hinds, 1980, 1987; Kaplan, 1966) do lend an understanding into the

fact that writing is influenced by other factors, which include genre (Swales, 1990),

culture, literacy (Leki, 1991), and others. Clearly, L2 writers' social, cultural and

educational identifies must be brought into the forefront when examining their texts.

Thus, L2 writers cannot be viewed as a uniform group of language learners, since,

according to Raimes (1991), "there is no such thing as a generalized ESL student" (p.

420).

By the 1980s more and more L2 writing courses were offered at colleges and

universities across America. With that came the realization that L2 writers needed more

content-based writing instruction, since most of them were matriculating into various

college-level departmental programs (Silva & Matsuda, 2001). Consequently, institutions

of higher education began to respond to this need by offering English for Academic

Purposes (EAP), which focused on socializing ESL students into the academic discourse

community (Horowitz, 1986; Mohan, 1986). Silva (1990) points out that in these types

of courses, instruction focused on:

 21

Recreating the conditions under which actual university writing tasks are
done andinvolves the close examination and analysis of academic
discourse formats and writing task specifications; the selection and
intensive study of source materials appropriate for a given topic, question,
or issue; the evaluation, screening, synthesis, and organization of relevant
data from these sources; and the presentation of these data in acceptable
academic English form. (p. 17)

As a result, the writing portion of the EAP classes also began to focus on the reader (i.e.

the audience) (Raimes, 1991). Leki (2001) argued that ESL reading and writing courses

cannot be taught in isolation, because students' understanding is built on new information

(Bereiter&Scardamalia, 1987) and that reading involves an interaction with the text.

Exposure to reading is "a major source of new knowledge," and if it is not integrated into

the ESL writing instruction, then students cannot "develop the ability to select and

integrate new knowledge with knowledge and information they already possess and with

their analyses and reactions to that new knowledge and information" (p. 175).

Recognizing the need to better understand second language writers and their texts,

in 1992 the Journal of Second Language Writing was established. It is "dedicated to

publishing 'theoretically grounded reports of research and discussion of central issues in

second and foreign language writing and writing instruction'" (Matsuda, 1997).The

Parlor Press publishing company has also dedicated a series of textbooks on SLW

research. In 1998, the first Symposium on Second Language Writing (SSLW) was held at

Purdue University and featured such prominent speakers as IlonaLeki, Paul Kei Matsuda,

Barbara Kroll, Diane Belcher, William Grabe, Tony Silva and many others. The

symposium "is an annual international conference that brings together teachers and

researchers who work with second- and foreign-language writers to discuss important

issues in the field of second language writing" ("Symposium on Second Language

 22

Writing," 2011). Moreover, the Conference on College Composition and

Communication (CCCC) formulated an official position statement on Second Language

Writing and Writers in 2001 (Appendix A). As Matsuda (2001) stated:

This statement, which has also been endorsed by the Board of Directors of
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), recognizes
the regular and rightful presence of second language writers in institutions
of higher education across North America and particularly in writing
programs at all levels, including writing across the curriculum programs.
(P-2)

In 2005, the TESOL organization approved a second language writing interest section.

According to the group's website, "The purpose of the Second Language Writing Interest

Section (SLW-IS) is to provide a forum for researchers and educators to discuss and

exchange information in the area of second language writing" ("Second Language

Writing Interest Section," p. 1). With this, the field of SLW has gained a full-grasp of its

identity under the umbrella of TESOL with subspecialists examining the history of SLW

(Matsuda, 1998), error feedback in writing (Ferris &Hedgcock, 2005), genre analysis

(Hyland, 2007; Swales, 1990) writing assessment (Weigle, 2007) and other subfields.

Preparing Student-Teachers to Teach Second Language Writing

TESOL organization's position statement regarding Teacher Quality in the Field

of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (Appendix B) states:

English language learners, whether in an English as a second language

(ESL) or English as a foreign language (EFL) setting, have the right to be
taught by qualified and trained teachers. Native speaker proficiency in the
target language alone is not a sufficient qualification for such teaching
positions; the field of teaching English to speakers of other languages
(TESOL) is a professional discipline that requires specialized training.
 23

Still, very little research can be found in the literature regarding the preparation of

prospective L2 composition instructors. In a 2005 newsletter published by TESOL

organization's Higher Education Interest Section, Crusan wrote about some of the

missing elements in a language teacher education program. Her main concern was that

there seemed to be a "lack of importance given to the teaching of second language

writing" (para. 2).Kroll (2003) asserted that preparing future SLW teachers does not

merely involve having "a set of lesson plans, an interest in... students, and strong skills...

in the target language" (p. 4). Future L2 composition teachers also need to understand

the history of SLW and the development of the field (Kroll, 2003). With this, research in

the field of SLW should drive what L2 writing teachers do in their classrooms.

Two years after Crusan's (2005) piece was published, the Journal of Second

Language Writing dedicated one of its 2007 issues to the topic of preparing future second

language composition instructors. The purpose of that issue was to "initiate a process of

drawing attention to the teacher education realm of the L2 writing field" (Hirvela&

Belcher, 2007, p. 126). The editors of that publication sought articles from key scholars

in the field on areas that included "vocabulary/grammar, genre, responding to student

writing, and assessing writing" (p. 126). Since none of the articles in that issue focused

on how, in general, current graduate students in MATESOL and its related field programs

are being prepared to teach second language writing, the authors of the articles did

provide their expertise regarding a subfield of SLW. In Coxhead and Byrd's (2007)

article, they reviewed recent research on vocabulary and grammar in writing and how

teacher-educators can incorporate this into their L2 writing instruction courses. They

assert that developing ESL writers' lexiogrammatical awareness of writing should be

 24

done through "language-in-use," which is the study of "grammar/vocabulary where the

focus is on ways that language is actually used for communication" (p. 130).

Traditionally, as the authors asserted,ESL reading courses were responsible for teaching

academic terminology. Instead, the authors recommended that teacher-educators should

encourage future SLW teachers to use authentic texts in their classrooms where language

learners are exposed to new vocabulary in different contexts. Moreover, student-teachers

should be taught to focus on "deeply situated grammar/vocabulary," and grammatical

phrases- such as in the phrase "it is possible that" (p. 134). To avoid focusing on word-

by-word grammatical analysis, L2 writing teachers can be made aware of some text-

based and computer-based resources that can help them tackle the lexiogrammatical

aspects of their ESL writing classes. For example, potential SLW instructors could

examine an authentic writing piece that is written for a specific content-based course (e.g.

a history paper), and analyze with the L2 writers the recurring vocabulary and

grammatical features occurring in that text. With that, the classroom teacher is able to

develop learning activities through the four language skills (i.e. listening, speaking,

reading, and writing) (Nation &Waring, 1997). As for computer-based resources,

prospective L2 writing instructors can turn to Academic Writing Lists (AWL). The

authors pointed to several websites for analyzing academic vocabulary in context; one of

which is concordances, which works by locating, "all uses of a particular word in a text

and then create a concordance list to show the lines of the text where the word is used"

(Coxhead& Byrd, 2007, p. 141). In all, student-teachers need to be aware of the tools that

will help their future language learners develop academic writing skills.
 25

Although genre has many different definitions (Swales, 1990), Hyland (2007)

defines genre as:

Abstract, socially recognised [sic] ways of using language... because

writing is a practice based on expectations: the reader's chances of
interpreting the writer's purpose are increased if the writer takes the
trouble to anticipate what the reader might be expecting based on previous
texts they have read of the same kind. (p. 149)

With genre pedagogy, readers from a certain Discourse come to anticipate certain textual

and lexiogrammatical structures from a writing piece. In his article, Hyland (2007) offers

his position behind the importance of equipping future L2 writing teachers with an

understanding of genre pedagogy. He reports that knowledge of genre pedagogy allows

prospective SLW instructors to "ground their courses in the texts that students will need

to write in occupational, academic, or social contexts, [and] they help guide learners to

participate effectively in the world outside the ESL classroom" (p. 149). With this

approach, writing teachers can incorporate specific, genre-based lexiogrammatical

features with the content.

Ferris (2007) stated that, "Most experienced writing instructors know that

providing feedback to their students is the most time-consuming and challenging part of

the job" (p. 165). In her article, she examined how a 20 year veteran of ESL writing

instruction responded to L2 learners' writing. The author concluded that having practical

experience is not enough to be an effective L2 writing teacher and that "solid principles,

useful techniques, and thoughtful reflection and evaluation" are more likely to produce

effective SLW instructors (p. 179). She goes on to discuss the step-by-step

"approach/response/follow-up" technique that she uses to develop her future SLW

teachers' awareness on this topic and writes that she devotes "substantial time (e.g., in
 26

my graduate course, 4 weeks of a 15-week syllabus) on response issues, including teacher

written commentary, teacher-student conference, error feedback, and peer response

options" in her L2 writing instruction courses (p. 165- 166).

Furthermore, teaching SLW courses do not spend enough time discussing

assessment strategies (p. 194). Weigle (2007) emphasized that potential SLW teachers

need to be competent regarding assessment strategies and that such knowledge cannot be

taught in isolation. She declares:

Writing teachers must be adequately prepared to construct, administer,

score, and communicate the results of valid and reliable classroom tests,
and that, similarly, they should have an understanding of the uses and
misuses of large-scale assessments so that can be critical users of such
tests and effective advocates of their students in the face of mandatory
assessments not of their own making, (p. 195)

Also, she discusses the importance of learning about how to develop assessments that are

valid, reliable, and practical. To develop tests, she explained that prospective SLW

teachers must know how to establish measurable objectives, determine how these

objectives will be measured, and, finally, be able to plan the learning tasks. As Wiggins

and McTighe (2005) stated, "lessons, units, and courses should be logically inferred from

the results sought, not derived from the methods, books, and activities with which we are

most comfortable" (p. 14). With this, L2 composition teacher-educators must weave into

their classroom instruction various opportunities for student-teachers to understand SLW

assessment. For example, student-teachers can be given sample syllabi from ESL writing

classes and asked to examine whether the objectives are measurable or if they correlate

with the classroom assessments (Weigle, 2007, p. 198). If not, the prospective L2

composition teachers are then asked to rewrite the objectives so that they are both
 27

specific and assessable. Another practical experience that Weigle (2007) suggests is to

have student-teachers "critique an existing test from the point of view of reliability,

validity, authenticity, practicality, and washback" (p. 206). Hence, assessment should be

considered a central part of any graduate-level teaching ESL writing classroom.

In 2001, the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC)

approved a position statement regarding second language writers and their texts

(Appendix A). The statement offers "guidelines for instructors of writing and writing-

intensive courses, for writing program administrators, and for teacher preparation"

(Conference on College Composition and Communication, 2001, p.l). It states that "any

writing course... should be taught by an instructor who is able to identify and is prepared

to address the linguistic and cultural needs of second language writers" (p. 2). Part four of

the document discusses the guidelines for teacher preparation and preparedness and

consists of five subsections: cultural beliefs related to writing, assignments, building on

students' competencies, response, and sustaining the conversation. The section points out

that "writing instructor preparation needs to expand instructors' knowledge of writing

issues in general, as well as how to specifically work with second language writers"

(Conference on College Composition and Communication, 2001, p. 4). With that,

"second language writing should be integrated throughout the professional preparation

and development programs of all writing teachers, whether that be through a practicum

experience, through WAC [Writing Across the Curriculum] workshops, or through

writing center training" (p. 4). This entails preparing future second language writing

teachers with knowledge regarding ELLs notions of writing and making these future
 28

teachers aware of the fact that L2 writers come equipped with their own cultural and

linguistic views about writing.

Another aspect of SLW teacher preparation is knowledge about assignments.

According to the position statement, SLW teacher-educators should provide future L2

composition instructors with "experience designing writing assignments with second

language students in mind, considering topics that are culturally sensitive to second

language writers and including directions easily understandable to multiple audiences"

(p. 4). Consideration should also be given to understanding the differences between first

language writing and second language writing. Building on students' competencies is

another aspect that teacher-educators must consider when educating prospective ESL

writing teachers. This entails having:

Teacher preparation programs...encourage [future L2 writing] instructors

to identify strengths second language writers bring to the classroom.
Instructors should look for opportunities to use students' current literacy
practices as a foundation for teaching the expectations of academic
literacy. (Conference on College Composition and Communication, 2001,
p. 4)

With this, prospective composition teachers need to understand their students'

educational and language backgrounds. An example of this that the position statement

gives is technology. Many of today's students come into the classroom with great

technological literacy and classroom teachers should try to take advantage of this type of

literacy and include it into their classroom practices.

Being able to respond to ESL students' writing and provide feedback are also

some of the skills that future teachers must develop. These writing teachers should be

mindfulof the fact that writing takes time to develop and when it comes to responding to
 29

L2 writers' work, they should focus on salient errors that inhibit understanding of the text

(Conference on College Composition and Communication, 2001, p. 5). The last point

that part four of the position statement emphasizes is "sustaining the conversation." It

claims that future "instructors will be better prepared to work with second language

students if issues concerning second language writing and writers are a consistent feature

that are re-enforced throughout their training in writing instruction" (p. 5). With this,

SLW teachers will be better prepared to reflect on their own classroom instruction and

SLTE programs will be able to produce more experienced and knowledgeable L2 writing

instructors (Williams, 1995).

Course Syllabi

A course syllabus is the foundation of every college course. It is from this document that

students get "an immediate sense of what the course will cover, what work is expected of

them, and how their performance will be evaluated" (Davis 1993, p. 14). Parkes and

Harris (2002) state that a course syllabus serves three functions: a contract, a permanent

record, and a learning tool, and that these purposes should influence what is taught in the

classroom (p. 55). As a contract, a syllabus will "set forth what is expected during the

term of the contract" and must include "responsibilities of students and of the instructor"

(p. 55). After including this in the syllabus, prospective students are allowed the

opportunity to either enroll or not enroll in a specific course. As a permanent record, the

syllabus serves two functions: for accountability and documentation purposes (p. 57).

The syllabus acts as proof of what was covered in a course to aid review committees in

deciding:
 30

If courses contain information about a topic that is appropriate in terms of

both scope and depth. They may evaluate whether or not the instructor
appears to be cognizant of the level of students in the course, the uses to
which the students will put the knowledge and skills learned in the class,
and the correspondence between the content and the current demands of
the profession or discipline. They may also consider a syllabus as evidence
of an instructor's clarity of writing, attitudes towards students, knowledge
of pedagogy, and fairness in evaluation.(p. 57)

As a learning tool, a syllabus can provide students with the necessary tools to seek out

more information about a course topic or to simply seek tutoring for the course. Thus,

with instructors being held accountable by their respective universities and students, the

course syllabus must be a clear document of the course content (Eberly, Newton &

Wiggins, 2001).

In one study that examined syllabi for the preparation of reading teachers in

education programs across America, Walsh, Glaser, & Wilcox (2006) found that teacher

educators were not well prepared to teach reading. In the study, the researchers randomly

sampled schools that required its students to take a reading course to complete the

elementary teacher certification requirements. After analyzing 223 course syllabi and

their respective textbook requirements from these reading classes, the authors concluded

that the instructional practices of some of these institutions, as described in the course

syllabi, were not adequately preparing future reading instructors due to, among other

findings, poor textbook selections and minimum exposure to the understanding of the

science of reading. Since this study only looked at one piece of evidence from the

required courses (i.e., the syllabi) to determine that future reading teachers were not being

fully prepared to teach reading, it must be noted that the authors of the study did not

conduct member checks with the instructors of these courses to seek feedback regarding
 31

the results of the study. Also, since a syllabus serves as a contract and as a permanent

record to showcase an instructor's current understanding of the field (Parkes& Harris,

2002), the study done by Walsh, Glaser, & Wilcox (2006) might suggest that the reading

professors are either not familiar with the development of a course syllabus or are not up-

to-date with the latest research on reading instruction. Hence, the syllabus should be seen

as a document that "facilitates the socialization of both students and instructors into the

academic discourse community" (Afros &Schryer, 2009, p. 225), but examining course

syllabi alone does not provide conclusive evidence for a research study.

In a study that utilized course syllabi and questionnaires, Grosse (1991) conducted

an in depth analysis of 94 second language teacher preparation programs in order to

understand the content of the TESOL methods courses. She found that the course goals

fell into four major categories: language learning- theory and practice, teaching second

language skills, program design and materials, and research and technology. For the

content/sequence of the syllabi, it was found that classroom instructors focused on three

areas: innovative and traditional methods, the theory of second language learning, and

approaches to the teaching of the four language skills (i.e., reading, writing, speaking and

listening). From the ten categories of course requirements that Grosse found in the

syllabi, the three requirements were exams, papers, and reading-related activities. For

course texts, the author concluded that course packets were the most commonly used

reading material for the courses. Those that responded to Grosse's questionnaire noted

five areas that needed improvement: more observations of skilled teachers, more

videotaping of students for feedback, more emphasis on solving classroom problems,

separate classes for pre- and in-service teachers, and improved teaching materials. Grosse
 32

concludes by pointing out that some teachers spent too much class time focusing on dated

instructional methods. She also discusses the importance of developing future ESL

teachers' metacognitive skills in order to help them tackle future problems that they

might encounter in their classrooms. According to Grosse (1991), some other areas that

teacher educators need to note are reflective teaching, classroom-based research,

technology, and the connection between research and teaching.

Wang (2003) analyzed 23 course syllabi and 39 self-reporting questionnaires of

pedagogical grammar courses in MATESOL programs to understand how pedagogical

grammar is being approached in these courses. From the data, the author reviewed course

titles, course requirements, required texts and readings, course objective and

requirements, instructor's perception of the pedagogical grammar course, course

content/emphasis, instructor's rating of the course, and instructor's suggestions for

improving the grammar course. Her results showed that there are inconsistencies among

the syllabi with regard to content and structure of the courses, which as the author

contends, jeopardizes establishing future teachers' knowledge base of pedagogical

grammar.

Murphy (1997) examined phonology courses offered by MATESOL programs.

The author examined course syllabi and questionnaires to closely examine the content,

learning objectives, and tasks presented in these classes. He found that there were

differing degrees of phonology-centeredness instruction (i.e., phonology-centered

instruction or phonology-inclusive instruction), course titles varied from one institution to

the next, bulk of the instruction focused on the needs of future adult and adolescent ESL

learners, also great emphasis was given to segmental levels of analysis, mastery of a
 33

system of transcription, and suprasegmental levels of analysis. For class activities/ tasks,

close to 50% of the courses required student-teachers to develop speech-pronunciation

materials. Unlike Grosse (1991), Murphy (1997) found that there was at least one

required text in all of the phonology courses. When instructors were surveyed regarding

recommendations for improving their respective courses, Murphy categorized 13 areas

that needed improvement with the need for more authentic samples of ESL learners'

speech being at the top. The author concludes with discussing six areas that need further

development: involving student-teachers in L2 classes, providing student-teachers with

authentic case studies of language learners' and teachers' experience in the classroom,

discussing appropriate technologies, linking pronunciation teaching to current

understanding of second language teaching and learning, equipping future teachers with

the necessary tools to document learners' pronunciation needs, and incorporating

different teaching styles in these graduate courses. Thus, using syllabi along with other

forms of data collection methods has been shown to provide insightful results into an

investigation.

Conclusion

This chapter presented a review of the literature for the current study: second

language teacher education, second language writers and their texts, preparing future

second language writing instructors, and course syllabi. Freeman and Johnson (1998)

contend that "learning to teach is a long-term, complex, developmental process that

operates through participation in the social practices and contexts associated with

learning and teaching" (p.402). Current teacher educators must equip prospective
 34

language teachers with not only the necessary knowledge and skills that are required to

teach ESL students, but they also need to develop student teachers' awareness of the

current research in TESOL, instructional strategies, technology and reflective teaching.

Moreover, with the influx of ESL students onto college campuses, student-teachers need

to have a keen insight into their learners' writing needs and educational backgrounds.

Although there has been no single empirical study that has examined how current

student-teachers are being prepared to teach L2 composition, experts have discussed

some key areas that must be featured in these classes, vocabulary and grammar, genre

analysis, assessment, and feedback. Since this qualitative study using the grounded theory

approach is the first of its kind to analyze the preparation of prospective SLW instructors

in the United States, the researcher will analyze course syllabi, member check

questionnaires, CCCC's position statement, and expert interviews to recognize the depth

and breadth of teaching second language writing courses. In the next chapter, the

researcher will discuss the research methodology that was used to collect and examine

the data for the current study.

 35

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

Chapters one and two explained the purpose, problem, and background for the

analysis of the preparation of prospective second language writing (SLW) instructors.

This chapter presents the research design used to collect and analyze the data for the

current study. It describes the research approach, data collection, and data interpretation

procedures.

Statement of the Problem

To understand how current student-teachers enrolled in graduate level second

language (L2) writing instruction courses are being prepared to teach SLW, this

qualitative study using grounded theory approach examined course syllabi, member

checks questionnaires,Conference on College Composition and Communication's

(CCCC) position statement and expert interviews.

Purpose of the Study

This research investigated how student-teachers enrolled in MATESOL and its

related field programs are being prepared to teach L2 composition. By uncovering what is

taught in these courses, one can start to recognize the depth and breadth of the
 36

preparation that teacher-learners are receiving. Moreover, this study will fill a gap in the

current literature review concerning how teaching second language writing courses are

contributing to the education of future L2 writing instructors.

Research Questions

The research questions developed to describe how student-teachers are being

prepared to teach SLW were:

1. How are graduate level student-teachers enrolled in teaching second language writing
courses being prepared to teach college-level second language composition?

2. What do researchers in the field of second language writing claim as the most
important elements when preparing future second language composition instructors?

3. To what degree are teacher-educators implementing second language writing

researchers' perceptions about these elements in their teaching of second language
writing classes?

Methodology

To address the apparent gap in the literature involvingthe preparation of

prospectiveSLW instructors, a qualitative approach was employed to generate a

comprehensive contextual account and narrative of the variables being explored. Denzin

and Lincoln's (2005) definition of qualitative research will be applied, which reads:

Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the

world. It consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make the
world visible. These practices transform the world. They turn the world
into a series of representations, including field notes, interviews,
conversations, photographs, recordings, and memos to the self. At this
level, qualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to
the world. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their
natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in
terms of the meanings people bring to them. (p. 3)
 37

Due to the types of qualitative questions being asked, a grounded theory approach

(Strauss & Corbin, 1998) was employed to explore the preparation of future L2 writing

instructors. In Figure 1, a general guide to the grounded theory approach is presented.

The diagram outlines the grounded theory approach as an interconnected approach to

theory development. Grounded theory approach involves the development of theoretical

interpretations from data that are simultaneously gathered and compared (Strauss &

Corbin, 1998). As Strauss and Corbin (1990) point out, the theory "is inductively derived

from the study of the phenomenon it represents" (p. 23). Rather than having pre-existing

ideas about the data, grounded theory approach generates theoretical explanations that are

grounded in the research findings.

Figure 1. Process of Grounded Theory Development

*•
2. 03*3 2. Open coding \ l * ^ * . 3. Mem oi rig
collection (data analysis!
^ p J w_

WO
S. Theory
saturation?
r 4. Theoretical
sampling
YES L

6, Axial coding 7, Selective 8. Theory

(data analysis] coding generation
 38

To develop a theory about the findings, data analysis occurs in three steps: open

coding, axial coding, and selective coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In open coding, text

is broken down, analyzed, and coded line by line at paragraph level or whole document

level. Similar codes are grouped into a specific category that contain multiple

perspectives or are dimentionalized. During this process, memo writing is important to

keep track of connections between categories and their dimensions. As Glaser (1978)

notes, memos "are the theorizing write-up of ideas about codes and their relationships as

they strike the analyst while coding" (p. 83). To enhance theoretical sensitivity of the

data, the researcher must have an understanding of the appropriate literature of the topic

of study, and maintain a reflective approach to the data by constantly questioning it

(Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1998). After identifying the initial sample and analyzing the

data, the researcher identifies new samples to examine. The process of continually

gathering and analyzing data is an important aspect of grounded theory methodology,

which is called theoretical sampling. Glaser and Strauss (1967) have described theoretical

sampling as "the process of data collection for generating theory whereby the analyst

jointly collects, codes, and analyzes his data and decides what data to collect next and

where to find them, in order to develop his theory as it emerges" (p. 45). When no new

significant insights about the data are found, theoretical saturation is said to occur and the

theoretical sampling approach ceases.

After reviewing all the data and coding it, the researcher begins to identify the

relationship between categories and this process is called axial coding. Strauss and

Corbin (1988) defined axial coding as the "process of relating categories to their

subcategories, termed 'axial' because coding occurs around the axis of a category, linking
 39

categories at the level of properties and dimensions," which entails developing a coding

paradigm (p. 123). In the third step towards theory development, selective coding is used

to focus in on the core category that can help develop a central theory or narrative about

the data. Thus, the theoretical interpretation that is developed "should be grounded in the

data, not in the procedure" (Breckenridge & Jones, 2009, p. 116).

Trustworthiness

According to Van Maanen (1979), "When making sense of field data, one cannot

simply accumulate information without regard to what each bit of information represents

in terms of its possible contextual meanings" (p. 548). Trustworthiness, "establishing

confidence in the findings'" (Jones, Torres &Arminio, 2006, p. 121), is an important

aspect of qualitative research (Lincoln &Guba, 1985). To establish this, Guba's (1981)

constructs of credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability were employed.

In credibility, triangulation is the process of validating data source or method of research

by comparing and contrasting the findings against the findings derived from two or more

other data sources or methods of research (Denzin, 1970; Merriam, 1998). Credibility of

course syllabi was ensured through member checks and examination of CCCC's position

statement (Lincoln &Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1998). Member checks facilitated

participants' feedback on the researcher's interpretation of findings. Merriam (1998)

maintains that member checks involve "taking data and tentative interpretations back to

the people from whom they were derived and asking them if the results are plausible" (p.

204). This technique also helped to verify of the researcher's developing theoretical
 40

interpretations. In this study, interviews of experts in the field of SLW were conducted to

corroborate the research findings.

Gay and Airasian (2000) write that "transferability...is concerned with

transferring or generalizing the results of a study to other contexts" (p. 253). In order for

the new theoretical interpretations to be applicable to other contexts, the researcher is

responsible for "providing sufficient descriptive data to make such similarity judgments

possible" (Davis 1992, p. 606). The researcher accomplishes this by providing rich and

thick descriptions for the findings to be transferred to other contexts.

Dependability was established using audit trails (Lincoln &Guba, 1985). Rice and

Ezzy (2000) confirm that "maintaining and reporting an audit trail of methodological and

analytic decisions allows others to assess the significance of the research" (p. 36). It

allows for traceability of the investigator's strategic development of the study as well as

theory generation. To do this, the researcher maintained descriptive textual

documentation of the steps taken to accomplish this study from start to finish. This

included specifying what was planned, how it was planned and how the study was

executed.

The final construct used to establish trustworthiness was confirmability (Lincoln

&Guba, 1985). Confirmability refers to the degree that the research findings can be

confirmed by others. To accomplish this, the researcher interviewed experts (as

mentioned above) in the field of SLW to corroborate the results of the investigation.

Also, the researcher's role in this study was presented in order to provide personal

perspective and identify any biases towards the investigation. As Denzin and Lincoln

(2000) assert that to better understand the study, readers must know "the personal
 41

biography of the researcher, who speaks from a particular class, gender, racial, cultural,

and ethnic community perspective" (p. 18).

Sampling Method

The study contained several parts. For the first part of the investigation, the

participants that submitted their course syllabi and volunteered to complete member

check questionnaires were teacher-educators in United Statesteacher education programs.

Since this study examined the preparation of future SLW teachers, the researcher

analyzed course syllabi from teaching second language writing classes. As Jones, Torres

and Arminio (2006) point out, "in qualitative research a sample is purposefully drawn

with an emphasis on information-rich cases that elicit an in-depth understanding of a

particular phenomenon" (p. 65). With this, the researcher began the sampling process by

referring to TESOL organization's online list of MATESOL and its related field degree

programs (referred to as TESOL's Website from here on in) (TESOL, 1996- 2007).

Schools outside of the United States were excluded from the study as well as training

programs that did not lead to a master's level degree, since"the master's degree is

required for teaching in higher education and community colleges" (TESOL, 1996-2007).

From TESOL Website's record of online programs, each program that was listed

contained some brief information concerning program requirements, courses offered,

names of staff, tuition information and contact information. Since the data about each one

of these programs did not contain extensive and up-to-date information regarding the

master's level degrees, the author visited each program's official website that was

provided on the TESOL's website. After this, the researcher carefully examined each
 42

program's course offerings to find any courses that related to the teaching of second

language writing. When such a course was found, a review of each school's posted class

schedule was analyzed to obtain information on when a similar course was last taught and

by whom. E-mail addresses and phone numbers of each professor were then obtained by

going back to each program's staff directory. After approval from the University of

Arkansas' Institutional Review Board (IRB), the researcher e-mailed each instructor that

had taught or would be teaching a class on teaching SLW. Between May 2010 and

August 2010, instructors of these classes were invited, via e-mail, to submit a recent copy

of their course syllabus. In that same e-mail (Appendix C) participants were also asked to

volunteer for an interview to establish member checks. The member check

questionnaires, which also contained an overview of the development of theoretical

narrative,(Appendix D) were collected and analyzed between August 2010 and October

2010.The e-mails contained information pertaining to the study (Appendix E) as well as

the consent form (see Appendix F).During that time, the Conference on College

Composition and Communication's position statement (Appendix A) regarding second

language writers and their texts was also analyzed. Figure 2 below displays the data

collection and analysis timeline.

Figure 2. Data collection and analysis and timeline

May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 Aug. 2010 Sep. 2010 Oct. 2010 Nov. 2010

• •
Syllabi collection & analysis # #
Collection & analysis of member check questionnaires
• •
Expert interviews
 43

The next part of the study involved interviewing specialists in the field of SLW,

which occurred during the month of November 2010. Specialists whose names or works

were considerably mentioned in the course syllabi, member checks, and/or CCCC's

position statement were contacted via e-mail (Appendix G) to participate in an e-mail or

phone interview. They were informed about the study (see Appendix H) and were e-

mailed a copy of the consent form (Appendix I). Also enclosed in the e-mail was an

attachment containing a list of tentative questions for the experts (Appendix J). This

allowed the researcher to gain insight into what elements of a teaching second language

writing class are important for the preparation of college level L2 writing instructors.

Finally, after the expert interviews were conducted, the researcher began to align the key

elements that the scholars considered important for preparing future SLW instructors

with the course syllabi and CCCC's position statement. This was done by analyzing the

position statement, assembling the pertinent aspects of it, and summarizing them.

Data Collection and Analysis

To provide a clear description of the correlation between the research questions

and data collection and analysis, the researcher will present each question and provide a

detailed account of the data collection process as well as how the findings were analyzed.

Research Question 1
How are graduate level student-teachers enrolled in teaching second language writing

courses being prepared to teach college-level second language composition?

For this first research question, three types of data were collected: course syllabi,

member check questionnaires, and CCCC's position statement. To collect course syllabi,

160 academic programs related to the field of TESOL were examined. All of the program
 44

names were found on TESOL's Website and all of them are in the United States. After

close inspection, two programs were disqualified and a new one was added to the list.

The first program omitted from the list was Soka University of America, located in Aliso

Viejo, California. After contacting the program, the researcher was informed that the

Master's level program in Second and Foreign Language Education was no longer being

offered and, thus, this particular degree program was closed. The second school that was

excluded from the list of 160 academic programs was Washington Academy of

Languages found in Seattle, Washington. This particular school does not offer a program

that leads to a master's degree. Finally, during the data collection process, the researcher

received a flier in the mail regarding California University of Pennsylvania's master of

education in ESL located in California, Pennsylvania. Since this school was not on the

original list of programs from TESOL's Website, the researcher added it to the roster.

Moreover, during the researcher's online examination of MA programs, two other

programs were discovered that were not mentioned on TESOL's website. They are

University of Texas- Arlington and Stony Brook University which both offered an

MATESOL degree, thus making the total number of schools surveyed 161.

Using stratified purposeful sampling where specific "individuals [or cases are]

selected to represent particular subgroups of interest" (Hatch, 2002, p. 98), the researcher

confirmed38 courses that specifically focused on the teaching of second language

writing. Of these 38 classes, 24 (63.1%) were classified as being a required course and 14

(36.8%) were designated as being an elective. Beginning May2010 to August 2010,

instructors of those classes were contacted and asked to submit a recent copy of their

class syllabus. The researcher e-mailed participants between one to four times or
 45

phonedthem in order to solicit participation in the research project. Those that responded

to the e-mail request submitted a copy of their syllabus in an e-mail attachment, others

directed the researcher to a copy of the document online, and, in some cases, the

researcher found a copy of the syllabus posted online as public information. In total 13

(34.2%) course syllabi were submitted. Of these 13 syllabi,5 (38.4 %) were marked as

being required, 7 (54%) were marked as being an elective, and 1 (7.69%) was considered

as either required or an elective.

Since the grounded theory approach involves analyzing data before data

collection is complete, the researcher began the analysis process as soon as participants

began submitting a copy of their course syllabi. All of the documents were analyzed

using Strauss and Corbin's (1990) three stage coding scheme: open coding, axial coding

and selective coding. As they point out, this method "represents the operations by which

data are broken down, conceptualised [sic], and put back together in new ways," which is

a "central process by which theories are built from data" (1990, p. 57). The purpose of

coding and categorizing in grounded theory is, for this study, to develop a theoretical

understanding of how student-teachers are prepared to teach SLW. To begin with, the

researcher began line-by-line and paragraph level coding of course syllabi (Strauss &

Corbin, 1990, 1998). Constant comparison of different syllabi was undertaken to

maintain consistency in coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). A code was either a single

word or a phrase developed by the researcher; and in some cases phrase(s) were used

from the text to produce an in-vivo code (Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

Moreover, similar concepts that related to the same phenomenon were grouped together
 46

to form a category. Memos were maintained to keep track of the researcher's thoughts

and reflections as data were being categorized.

When the main categories were beginning to develop, the grounded theory was

starting to take shape, which guided the researcher towards new data collection using

theoretical sampling (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). To understand and extend the emerging

theory, the researcher sought to examine Teaching of Second Language Reading and

Writing courses that focused on both L2 writing and reading. The process of data

collection and data analysis for these courses were conducted similarly to the classes

mentioned above. From the 161 master's level programs, 49 of them offered a course in

the teaching of L2 reading and writing. Of these 49, 25 (51%) were required, 15 (30.6%)

were electives, and 9 (18%) were either required or elective. In total, 13 course syllabi

were submitted. Of the 13 (26.5%) syllabi submitted, 7 (53.8%) were required, 3 (23%)

were elective, and 3 (23%) were required or elective. Table 1 displays the figures

regarding the number of syllabi submitted.

Table 1

Number of course syllabi submitted

Teaching second language writing Teaching reading & writing course
course syllabi (n=13) syllabi (n=13)

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Required 5 38.4 % 7 53.8%

Elective 7 54% 3 23%

Required/ 1 7.69% 3 23%

Elective
 47

In the second step of data analysis is axial coding. As the categories were starting

to emerge, the researcher began to explore the relationships between these categories as

to reduce any similarities between them. To enhance theoretical sensitivity, data was

thoroughly examined and broken down by asking what, where, when, why, how, and how

much. A dominant category was placed at the center of the model and all other categories

developed during the coding process were related to it. Again, memos were maintained to

keep track of evolving categories and the interrelationships between them. Finally,

selective coding was used to establish a core category that can help develop the principal

narrative concerning the data.

To further answer the first research question regarding how current student-

teachers are being prepared to teach L2 composition, the researcher sought to ensure

credibility and corroborate the findings of the study via member checks (Lincoln &Guba,

1985; Merriam, 1998). Data were collected using open-ended questions that were

conducted via e-mail correspondence. Some questions pertained to the emerging

grounded theory, while others referred to a specific instructor's course syllabus. When

the researcher was not clear about a participant's answer, a follow-up e-mail was sent

asking that person to elaborate on their response. Moreover, CCCC's position statement

(Appendix A) was also analyzed to ensure triangulation of findings.

Research Question 2
What do researchers in the field of second language writing claim as the most important

elements when preparing future second language composition instructors?

To establish confirmability, the researcher interviewed experts in the field of

second language writing. Those experts whose names or works were prominently
 48

mentioned in the syllabi or the member checks were contacted via e-mail (Appendix G)

to participate in a phone interview. Information about the study (Appendix H), a copy of

the consent form (Appendix I), and a list of tentative questions (Appendix J)were sent to

participants. Two experts were willing to be interviewed for the study and each interview

took on average 45 minutes. As Miles and Huberman (1994) point out, interview

questions should proceed directly from the research questions. Open-ended as well as

semi-structured questions were used to survey experts' feedback on the findings of

Research Question #1. The phone interviews were transcribed verbatim by the researcher

to avoid any misinterpretations regarding the conversations. Transcripts were analyzed

using grounded theory (similar to above) to look for emerging themes.

Research Question 3
To what degree are teacher-educators implementing second language writing
researchers' perceptions about these elements in their teaching of second language
writing classes?

Using grounded theory, emerging theories from Research Question #1 and

Research Question #2 were aligned to establish an understanding of how student-teachers

are being prepared to teach L2 composition. After the expert interviews were conducted,

the key themes from the interview transcripts were placed in a table. Later, the researcher

calculated the frequencies and percentages of these key themes that occurred in the

course syllabi. Moreover, the researcher also analyzed CCCC's position statement and

aligned it with the main themes from the expert interviews. The results of these

comparisons are discussed in chapter five of this study.

 49

Researcher's Role

Denzin and Lincoln (2000) point out that when describing a qualitative study,

there "stands the personal biography of the researcher, who speaks from a particular

class, gender, racial, cultural, and ethnic community perspective" (p. 18). Since the

researcher of this study is the sole data collector and analyzer, it is important to make

readers aware of her perspective on the study and put forth her role as the main

investigator in this dissertation (Merriam, 1998). After earning her master's in teaching

English as a second language (MATES OL), she was offered a position to teach college

composition at a local university in Arkansas. In these mixed-level classes, there were

always a couple of ESL students struggling to keep up with the writing demands of the

course. Knowing this, the researcher began examining various issues on SLW in TESOL

Quarterly's journal and Journal of Second Language Writing. After reading several

articles related to the theoretical and practical approaches towards teaching L2 writing,

the researcher noticed a gap in the literature regarding the current preparation practices of

SLW teacher-educators.

Protection of Participants

Instructors that submitted their syllabi and completed member check

questionnaires as well as those experts who were interviewed were informed that their

names and the names of their respective colleges/universities would be kept confidential.

Information regarding the study along with consent forms was sent to all participants.

Only the researcher knows participants' and institutions' names, but will not divulge it or
 50

identify it to anyone. All information is held in the strictest of confidence. Results from

the research are reported as aggregate data.

Conclusion

This chapter laid out the procedure that the researcher undertook to collect data

and analyze the results. The purpose of this qualitativestudy is to investigate how student-

teachers enrolled in graduate level teaching second language writing are being prepared

to teach L2 composition. A grounded theory approach using open coding, axial coding

and selective coding stages was employed as it provides the best instrument for theory

generation from the findings. In total, the researcher obtained 26 syllabi: 13 from

teaching SLW courses and 13 from teaching L2 reading and writing. The course syllabi,

member check questionnaires, and CCCC's position statement were used to analyze the

preparation of future L2 composition instructors. Experts in the field were interviewed to

examine their views on the most important elements for preparing SLW teachers.

Furthermore, the findings from the syllabi were aligned with the position statement and

with the expert interviews to triangulate the data and generate a theoretical understanding

of the results. In the following chapter, the researcher reports the results of the research

questions.
 51

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

Introduction

In Chapter one, the researcher provided background information about the study,

detailed the statement of the problem, discussed the purpose for examining the

preparation of second language writing (SLW) teachers, presented the benefits of the

research study, developed the research questions guiding this study, and offered the

limitations of doing this study. The literature review in Chapter two presented the

background for this study, which helped ground the research and describe what is already

known about preparing prospective SLW instructors. In chapter three, an explanation of

methodology used, trustworthiness techniques, sampling method, data collection and

analysis procedures, researcher's role, and information about protection of participants

were presented.

In this chapter, the researcher discusses the findings that emerged from data

analysis and triangulation techniques. The purpose of this study was to develop a

grounded theoretical understanding to better understand how current student-teachers

enrolled in teaching second language writing (SLW)/ reading and writing are being

prepared to teach L2 composition. Data analyzed in this study included course syllabi,

member check questions, Conference on College Composition and Communication's

(CCCC) position statement, and expert interviews. The research questions that motivated

this study:

1. How are graduate level student-teachers enrolled in teaching second language writing
courses being prepared to teach college-level second language composition?
 52

2. What do researchers in the field of second language writing claim as the most
important elements when preparing future second language composition instructors?

3. To what degree are teacher-educators implementing second language writing

researchers' perceptions about these elements in their teaching of second language
writing classes?

Description of the Sample Analyzed

For the first part of the study, the researcher sought to answer the question

regarding how student-teachers are being prepared to teach second language composition.

After receiving approval from University of Arkansas' Institutional Review Board (IRB),

the researcher e-mailed 38 institutions that offered a course on teaching L2 composition

and 49 programs that offered a class on teaching second language reading and writing.

From each data set, 13 syllabi were collected: 13 from teaching L2 writing and 13 from

teaching L2 reading and writing. In total, 26 syllabi were examined for this study. Of

those that submitted a course syllabus, information regarding their education level was

found online. There was 1 participant that held a master's degree, 1 was a PhD candidate

and the rest of the 11 participants held doctorate degrees. The number of times that each

teacher-educator taught a course on teaching second language writing ranged from 2 to

12 times and 5 people did not respond to the question. As for each participant's

experience in teaching writing to ESL students, it ranged from 8 to 15 years with some

teaching overseas, K-12, high school levels, undergraduate and graduate levels, native

and non-native speakers, adult literacy centers, and/or community colleges; however, 5

people did not respond to this question. Table 2 below displays data about the teacher-

educators that submitted a syllabus from their L2 writing instruction courses. Each
 53

instructor whose syllabus was used in this study was given the "SLW" abbreviation,

which specifies a teacher-educator from the Second Language Writing field. The number

next to each abbreviation is an indication of the order in which the syllabus was received.

Table 2

Background information ofL2 writing instruction faculty members

(n=13)
Name Submitted Volunteered Highest Number Experience
syllabus for member degree times teaching
check attained taught writing to
course lang.
learners
SLW1 yes no Master's No No response

response

SLW2 Found NA Doctorate No No response

online response

SLW3 yes yes Doctorate 2 8 years

SLW4 yes yes Doctorate 4 15 years

SLW5 yes no Doctorate No response No response

SLW6 yes yes Doctorate 7 or 8 High school

overseas,

undergrad LI

& L2 courses,

grad level

writing courses
 54

SLW7 yes yes Doctorate 6 years At every level,

but not "US K-

12 contexts"

SLW8 yes yes PhD 5 Adult literacy,

candidate community

college, four-

year college

SLW9 yes yes Doctorate 3 College level

since '92

SLW10 yes no Doctorate No No response

response

SLW11 yes yes Doctorate 3-4 Undergrad &

grad levels

SLW12 yes yes Doctorate 12 Various

levels

SLW13 Found NA Doctorate No No response

online response

The researcher reviewed each syllabus twice. During the initial review of the

syllabi, some general information from these documents emerged about the courses.

Details such as course title, course type, required books, and meeting times are presented
 55

in the table below. Documenting the course title is important, since it is the first piece of

descriptive information that a student sees when enrolling in a class. Course type

indicates whether the course is an elective (E), a requirement (R), or both (R/E). A course

is considered R/E when students are given a choice between several required courses and

when the course also happens to be an elective. With this, 5 courses were found to be

required, 7 were categorized as an elective, and only 1 was considered either a required

course or an elective course. A list of required textbooks display which books professors

are using to reflect course content (Davis, 1993). The class meeting times indicates the

number of contact hours dedicated to the course's workload. Course credits ranged from

2 credit hours to 4 credit hours. The specifics about these courses provide basic

descriptions of the graduate courses being examined. There are no parallels between the

information in Table 2 and Table 3. In fact, the researcher purposely did this as to not

reveal any identifying information about a certain professor or his/her university

program. For anonymity purposes, the data presented in the table below were organized

alphabetically using the course titles.

Table 3

Background details of teaching second language writing courses

Course title Course Required books Meeting
type times

Issues in ESL writing E Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, Tues. &

process, and practice- Ferris and Thurs.,

Hedgcock 12:30-
1:45
•other handouts & readings
 56

Literacy and ESOL R .ESL Composition Tales: Reflections on Thurs.,

writing Teaching- Blanton &Kroll 7:00-

'..Literacy and Bilingualism - Brisk & 9:45

Harrington

'.Teaching Second Language Writing-

Campbell

k Understanding ESL Writers: A Guide

for Teachers- Leki

i. When English Language Learners

Write: Connecting Research to

Practice, K-8. Samway

).Multilingual Education in Practice-

Schecter& Cummins

•other handouts & readings

Methods of teaching R/E A synthesis of Research on Second Tues.-

Language Writing in English- Leki,
writing in ESL Thurs.,
Cumming, & Silva
2:10-
Understanding ESL Writers: A Guide
for Teachers- Leki 5:05
•Other handouts & readings

Research and R Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, Tues.:

practice in academic process, and practice- Ferris 4:55-

writing &Hedgcock 6:35

Fri.:
 57

•Any text that covers APA style 9:00-

•Other handouts & readings 10:00

Second Language R . Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, Wed.

process, and practice- Ferris
Composition 6:50-
&Hedgcock
9:30
. Second-Language Writing in the

Composition Classroom-Matsuda and

etal.

Second language No specific textbook NA

writing pedagogy

Seminar in second Packet of readings Mon.,

language writing Wed.,

Fri.,

2:30-

3:20

Teaching ESL R Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, Wed.,

Academic Language process, and practice- Ferris 3:30 -

Skills &Hedgcock 6:00

Exploring the dynamics of second

language writing- Kroll

•Other handouts & readings

Teaching ESL R Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, Tues. &

writing process, and practice- Ferris Thurs.,

 58

&Hedgcock 4:30-

5:45
Second-language writing in the

composition classroom- Matsuda, Cox,

Jordan, &Ortmeier-Hooper

•other handouts & readings

Teaching ESL Teaching college writing to diverse Mon. &

writing student populations- Ferris Wed.,

12:00-
Teaching ESL composition: Purpose,
13:50
process, and practice- Ferris

&Hedgcock

•other handouts & readings

Teaching L2 writing Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, Tues.,

process, and practice- Ferris 4:40-

&Hedgcock 7:30

•other handouts & readings

Teaching second Second language writing- Hyland Mon.,

language 6:00-
Controversies in second language
composition 8:50
writing- Casanave

•other handouts & readings

 59

Teaching second E Second language writing- Hyland Tues.,

language writing 12-2

Reading Writing and Learning in ESL:

A Resource Book for K-12 Teachers-

Peregoy& Boyle
•other handouts & readings

Steps in developing the grounded narrative

As the researcher examined the course syllabi again, memos were kept throughout

the three coding stages, which is a key element in grounded theory development. As

Glaser (1978) points out, "Memos are the theorizing write-up of ideas about codes and

their relationships as they strike the analyst while coding" (p. 82). For this study, memos

included the researcher's ideas and understanding of text. They helped in maintaining

connections between developing codes in order to establish the core category for

theoretical understanding of how student-teachers are prepared to teach SLW. Below are

examples of lines analyzed and their respective memos.

Sample lines from a syllabus:

You will observe an L2 writing class, interview the teacher, and develop
materials for a week-long lesson sequence for a group of L2 writers. The
assignment includes a mandatory peer review workshop in the final week
of classes.

Researcher's memos:
Practical experience- includes observing classroom for the purpose of
learning about teaching, analyzing teacher talk, student-teacher
interactions, scaffolding of lesson, presentation of material. Developing
materials/lesson plans- authentic practical experience.
 60

These memos were later entered into an Excel spreadsheet and organized according to the

instructor that sent the syllabus. This technique helped create a trail of descriptive memos

that the researcher could later retrieve for member checks.

As the researcher began receiving the syllabi via e-mail, open coding of the

documents immediately began. Nine concepts emerged from the close examination of

course objectives, goals, class description, course topics, standards, class readings,

weekly schedule and assignments. The nine categories included; content knowledge,

pedagogical knowledge, experiencing teaching, learning tasks, observation, developing

student-teachers' writing skills, professional development, reflection and self-reflection.

The first open code that was developed, content knowledge, is used to describe the

discipline's concepts and knowledge areas on which the teacher-educators focused. For

example, SLW13's course description includes the following statement:

In this graduate seminar, prospective and in-service teachers reflect on a

number of pertinent issues in teaching academic writing to linguistically
and culturally diverse learners. Through a comprehensive overview of the
research base in academic writing in the field of English as a Second
Language (ESL), the members of the class explore the pedagogical
implications of second language writing theories and research findings by
engaging in critical reading and interactive discussions, individual and
group projects, and reflective activities.

SLW7 writes in her syllabus that the course "explores various theories of early literacy,

composition and rhetoric, especially as these relate to second/additional language writers

and the teaching of writing to these students." SLW10 states that one of his course

objectives includes "understanding the scope of L2 writing as a field." Furthermore,

SLW13 mentions that the student-teachers will come to "understand similarities and

differences between first and second language composition." With this, the first code
 61

reveals the conceptual underpinnings of the L2 composition field that teacher-educators

consider to be important for student-teachers to possess.

The pedagogical knowledge code emerged as a result of teacher-educators

expressing the importance of applying theory into practice. SLW7 addresses this category

by saying, "We will examine the pedagogical implications of these theories for writing

teachers in a variety of settings, and we will explore and critically reflect on the practical

applications of these approaches in the classroom." Another example comes from SLWl

where he mentions that:

By the end of the term, students will be able to

[a] Explain, and apply to writing course lesson plans, the "modals" of
written text (narrative, cause and effect, comparison and contrast,
observation, taking a stand, defending a position, proposing a solution,
explaining a process) as they relate to communicative theories of language
acquisition.

[b] Apply pedagogical theories for teaching writing to create a teaching

unit: a series of ESL lesson plans that integrate reading, critical thinking,
and writing for a target learner level: beginner, intermediate, or advanced.

SLW8, states that one of the objectives of her class is to "Analyze different teaching

techniques." Not only will future SLW instructors be equipped with the necessary

instructional approaches, SLW8 clarifies that it is also important to understand "the

problems that these techniques may have for specific writing communities." These

examples reflect SLW teacher-educators' emphasis on equipping their students with the

tools to facilitate the application of theoretical knowledge.

In the course syllabi that were evaluated, the experiencing teaching code arose

from the different types of preparation that student-teachers had to undertake in order to
 62

prepare them to teach SLW. Participant SLW6 has his student-teachers

"provide.. .written feedback to two people" as a way for the class to practice feedback

strategies. SLW 12 gives his class the option to "provide six hours of tutoring assistance

to an L2 student writer," "conduct at least two observations of an ESL writing course," or

"prepare an ESL writer profile." For SLW9, she finds it important that her class engage

with English language learners and apply their understanding of course material. In her

class, she requires student-teachers to "meet with one or more multilingual writers to

assist them with their writing and complete two short projects for this class; (a) an L2

writer profile; (b) either a response to student writing or an error conference." Another

code that developed from the syllabi was learning tasks. This open code emerged as a

representation of projects and assignments that the class was required to complete in

order to evaluate and draw out their comprehension of class material. SLW2 has his

students either write about a topic in the SLW field or write "A research proposal or

prospectus, a report of empirical research, a critical review of research on a particular

topic, a profile of the work of a prominent second language writing scholar, a book

review article, or any other comparable work." Another example is from SLW5's

syllabus, which details to students some of the course requirements for the class:

1. Course Requirements
- Weekly Essays 40 % Section 2
- Presentation 10 % Section 3
- Weekly Assignments (Participation) 10 % Section 4
- Final paper 40 % Section 5

2. Weekly Essays
- Read weekly assigned articles beginning week 2, and submit a paper
copy of an essay discussing main points. (See the schedule).
- The essays will be used for discussion points for classes.
- Each essay should be 1000 characters (use a fillable pdf document).
 63

- Submission of each essay is worth 5 points toward the final grade.

- Eight out of 9 submissions will be included in your final grade.

3. Presentation (April 21, 2010)

- Articles selected from Matsuda et al. 2006
- See the schedule for presentation dates.
- Details will be to be announced [sic] later during the semester.

4. Weekly discussion assignments

- Prepare a weekly assignment from the textbook (Ferris &Hedgcock).
- You are expected to share your answers in class.
- Please prepare the assignment for discussion, so your participation grade
will not be lowered.

Other faculty members factor class participation, exams, and essays as part of the course

grade in order to assess student-teachers' comprehension of course objectives.

The observation code that emerged from the data denotes the experiences that

student-teachers go through in order to gain insight into authentic SLW classroom

experience. SLW4 has her students "engaging in two hours of observation per week."

One of SLW6's course assignments includes:

Class Observation Report (Blackboard + 1 hard copy). Observe an L2

writing class and write a brief report, focusing on an issue that has been
discussed in this class or in the readings. Begin with a brief statement
about the aspect of L2 writing you are focusing on, and describe how it
played out in the class you observed. Conclude your report with your
reflective commentary.

Having student-teachers observe an L2 composition classroom enables them to "develop

a terminology to describe and discuss teaching, and to provide data with which to

examine central concepts in their own teaching" (Richards, 1998, p. 19).

Developing students' writing skills materialized from 2 out of the 13 course

syllabi that were examined. In SLWl's syllabus, the professor informs his class that one

of the goals of the course will be "To learn to implement process-oriented writing
 64

procedures and activities for ESL writing courses through the process of experiencing

writing as a student." SLW8 explicitly states in her course description that student-

teachers enrolled in the class "will sharpen their academic writing by producing multiple

drafts of their work and receiving extensive instructor feedback." She expands on this by

informing students that the "Friday morning class will be predominantly used for

individual writing conferences. Students may use this time to either ask questions about

their own writing or to practice giving feedback on academic papers." This point of

having her students go through the writing process is reiterated several more times

throughout her course syllabus. With this, these two syllabi were very specific in their

course descriptions regarding having prospective L2 writing teachers experience the

writing process approach.

Professional development was the seventh code that emerged from the data and is

defined as giving prospective SLW teachers the tools and opportunities for ongoing

discussions about the field. SLW4 has her student-teachers develop a handbook on

language writers for teachers and she also has her class work on an ethnographic study on

L2 composition. SLWIO's course syllabus informs student-teachers that one of their

major assignments involves being "responsible for leading the class through a 75-minute

lesson or workshop on a L2 writing-related topic;" and goes on to say "you will want to

treat your audience as pre-service or in-service instructors." He also requires his students

to read about how research is done in the SLW field:

Topic:Doing Research in Second Language Writing

Assignments Due:
[1] Read Hyland "Researching writing and writers" [BB]
[2] Read Polio "Research Methodology in Second Language Writing
Research" [BB]
 65

[3] Read Silva "On the philosophical bases of inquiry..." [BB]

[4] Read Brice "Coding data in qualitative research on L2 writing" [BB]

Moreover, SLW8 realizes the importance of having her class stay current with the

research on second language writing and conveys this in her syllabus by stating: "By the

end of the term, each student will be able to... understand current debates and key issues

in the field of L2 writing."

Reflection is the eighth open code that arose from the data and it represents

student-teachers' critical analysis of readings or certain class topics. As part of SLW2's

description of coursework, he informs his class that when maintaining journal entries,

they "should focus on issues raised in readings and class discussions." Other faculty

members require their student-teachers to participate in online discussions of class

readings, which counts towards the final course grade. Self-reflection defines the last

code that was developed during the open coding process of the grounded theory

development. It denotes student-teachers' personal evaluation of their own identities as

writers, learners, and/or as future ESL writing teachers. For example, SLW13 requires his

class to:
Write a 5-page autobiography either as an L2 writing teacher or as an L2
writer. The purpose of this assignment is to enable you to gain insights by
(i) reflecting on your own experience as an L2 writing teacher or writer,
(2) examining your own beliefs and assumptions about teaching writing
and learning to write in a second language, and (3) exploring personal
conflicts, problems, and strategies in the development of L2 writing skills.

In a subsequent assignment, the instructor has his student-teachers re-evaluate their

autobiographies by reconsidering their "beliefs/assumptions and [their] philosophy about,

and approach to, teaching and learning L2 writing, based on your experience in this

course" in order "to reflect on [their] own learning and development within the context of
 66

this course."The table below presents the nine codes developed as well as examples of

each from the data

Table 4

Open codes from teaching of second language writing course syllabi

Open codes Examples

Content Theories of SLW literacies, history of SLW, history of

knowledge composition & rhetoric, linguistics, SLW acquisition, genre

theory, LI vs. L2, feedback approaches, error correction,

assessment, contrastive rhetoric, grammar, text and context,

technology, writing centers, multilingual writers, culture,

plagiarism, reading & writing connection

Pedagogical Different pedagogical and instructional approaches, strategies of

knowledge teaching SLW in different contexts, responding to errors,

tutoring, syllabus & curriculum design

Experiencing Micro-teaching, tutoring, developing a profile of a second

teaching language writer, conferencing with language learners,

Learning tasks Exams, essays, developing lesson plans, curriculum and material

analysis, class participation

Observation Observing classmates teach, observing a language classroom and

keeping notes

Developing Producing multiple drafts of essays, attending mandatory

students' writing student-teacher conferencing sessions

skills
 67

Professional Writing a profile of a scholar, book review, developing booklet

development for future language teachers, conducting workshop, writing a

conference/research proposal, coding data, writing a literature

review, facilitating class discussion on a topic, writing an

ethnography, staying current with latest debates in field

Reflection Journaling, blogging, online discussion of readings, case study

analysis, writing a reflection paper on a topic

Self-reflection Included such tasks as self-evaluation, writing a position

statement, and composing an autobiography

After the nine codes were established, the researcher used theoretical sampling, a

critical component to developing a grounded theory, to saturate all the categories. As

previously noted, theoretical sampling involves determining which group to sample next

in order to develop the substantive theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). With this, graduate

level teaching reading and writing English as a second language courses were found to be

the next appropriate sample to examine. Similar to the initial sample, the teacher-

educators of these courses were contacted and asked to submit a recent copy of their

course syllabus. In all, 13 syllabi were submitted and one was found online. Of the 13

syllabi, 9 agreed to participate in member checks, two did not reply, one declined and the

instructor whose syllabus was found online could not be reached. The number of times

that each teacher-educator taught a course on teaching second language reading and

writing ranged from 1 to 18 times and 5 people did not respond to the question. As for

each participant's experience in teaching ESL students, it ranged from 10 to 35 years

 68

with some teaching overseas, tutoring MA and international PhD students, community

colleges, literacy, immigrant community centers, and/or intensive English programs;

however, 5 people did not respond to this question. Table 5 below provides biographical

information of the faculty members that submitted a course syllabus for their course on

teaching reading and writing English as a second language. Table 6 offers a general

overview of the courses. Data in Table 6 were alphabetically organized and there is no

correlation between the order of information in Table 5 and Table 6.

Table 5

Background information ofL2 reading and writing instruction faculty members (n=13)

Name Submitted Volunteered Highest Number Experience

syllabus for member degree times teaching
check attained taught writing to
course lang. learners

RW1 yes yes Master's 15 35 yrs. K-

grad school in

US and

overseas

RW2 yes yes Doctorate 15 10 or 12

RW3 yes yes Doctorate 1 College level

ESL & Non-

ESL,

community

college,

tutoring
 69

international

MA & PhD

students

RW4 yes yes Doctorate 10 English

literacy in

graduate

school,

immigrant

community

centers,

intensive

English

programs,

academic

writing

RW5 yes no Doctorate No No response

response

RW6 yes no Doctorate No No response

response

RW7 yes yes Doctorate No No response

response

RW8 yes yes Doctorate 6 Adult learners,

 70

intensive

English

programs,

community-

based

programs,

university

matriculated

programs

RW9 yes yes Doctorate 18 22 years

RW10 yes no Master's No No response

response

RW11 yes yes Doctorate Adult ELLs

since 1980

from

beginning to

advanced, as

well as ESP

RW12 Found NA Doctorate NA NA

online

RW13 yes yes Doctorate University

settings- both
 71

ESL and EFL,

functional

ESL writing at

adult

education

centers
 72

Table 6

Background details of teaching second language reading and writing courses

Course title Course Required books Meeting
type times
Advanced R . ESL writers: A guide for Mon.,

second writing center tutors- Bruce 5:30-

language &Raforth 8:15

literacy '..Exploring the dynamics of

second language writing-

Kroll

Generation 1.5 in college

composition: Teaching

academic writing to U.S.-

educated learners ofESL-

Roberge, Siegal, &Harklau

•other handouts & readings

ESL methods R/E I.Interactive Approaches to Mon.,

II: Reading Second Wed., &

and writing Language Reading- Carrell, Fri.,

Devine, &Eskey 11:30-

l.Teaching ESL composition: 12:20

Purpose, process, and

practice- Ferris &Hedgcock

•other handouts & readings

 73

Issues in ESL R I.Teaching second language Thurs.,

reading and reading- Hudson 4- 6:50

writing 2.Second Language Writing-

Hyland

•other handouts & readings

Literacy 1. Ways with Words- Heath Tues.

development 2. Language Literacy and &Wed.,

for English Power in Schooling- McCarty 5:00-

language 3. Literacy from Day One- 9:00

learners Dragan

4. Reading L2 English:

Getting to the Bottom- Birch

5. Preparing our Teachers:

Opportunities for Better

Reading Instruction-

Strickland & Snow

•other handouts & readings

Reading and 1. Teaching Second Language Mon.

Writing for Reading. Oxford- Hudson &Wed.,

Adult Second 2. Second Language Writing- 9:30-

Language Hyland 10:45

Learners •other handouts & readings

 74

Reading and R/E 1. Exploring Second Tues.,

writing Language Reading- Anderson 6- 8:50

pedagogy in 2. Second Language Writing-

TESL Hyland

•other handouts & readings

Teaching ESL R I.Closing the achievement Taught

through gap: How to reach limited- online

reading and formal schooling

writing and long-term English

learners- Freeman & Freeman

I.Reading, writing, and

learning in ESL-

Peregoy& Boyle

3. When English language

learners write: Connecting

research to practice, K-8 -

Samway

4. Supporting the literacy

development of English

learners: Increasing success

in all classrooms- Young

&Hadaway
 75

5. The learning strategies

handbook-

Chamot, Barnhardt, El-

Dinary, & Robbins

6. Teaching reading and

writing in Spanish in the

bilingual Classroom-Freeman

& Freeman

7. English learners: Reaching

the highest level of English

literacy- Garcia

•other handouts & readings

Teaching ESL: R/E 1 Mow to teach writing-

Reading and Harmer

writing l.Simple Reading Activities &

Simple Writing Activities-

Hadfield & Hadfield

3.Making it happen: From

interactive to participatory

language teaching-Richard-

Amato

•other handouts & readings

 76

Teaching I.Teaching and Researching Wed.,

reading and Reading- Grabe and Stoller 4:15-

writing in a l.Teaching ESL composition: 6:55

second Purpose, process, and

language for practice- Ferris &Hedgcock

the literate •other handouts & readings

student

Teaching R Reading, writing, and learning Tues.,

reading and in ESL: A resource book for 4- 6:50

writing to ESL teaching K-12 English

students learners-Pevegoy& Boyle

•other handouts & readings

Teaching R Essentials of teaching Taught

reading and academic vocabulary- online

writing to Coxhead

ESOL/ A short course in teaching

bilingual reading skills - Mikulecky

students Techniques in teaching

writing- Raimes

One on one with second

language writers: A guide for

writing tutors, teachers, and

 77

consultants - Reynolds

Essentials of teaching

academic reading- Seymour

& Walsh

•other handouts & readings

TESL II: The R There are no required Mon.,

written textbooks. Wed., &

language All of the papers will be Fri.,

available on the disk you 1- 1:50

receive the first day of class or

on

Blackboard

TESOL R 1. Teaching and researching Tues.,

reading and reading -Grabe&Stoller 4:10-

writing skills l.Teaching ESL Composition: 6:55

Purpose, Process, and

Practice - Ferris &Hedgcock

•other handouts & readings

For teaching second language writing courses (n=13), 5 were required, 7 were

electives, and only 1 was considered either a required course or an elective course (R/E).

In comparison, the teaching second language reading and writing courses (n=13) showed

7 courses as being required, 3 as being elective, and only 3 as being either a required
 78

course or an elective course. One element that was consistent in the required textbooks

selection from the teaching second language writing and the teaching second language

reading and writing course syllabi was the use of supplementary handouts and readings.

Furthermore, Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice by Ferris and

Hedgcock was required by 7 out of the 13 teaching SLW syllabi. As for the teaching

second language reading and writing course syllabi, the top two textbooks that were

referred to the most were Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice by

Ferris and Hedgcock and Second Language Writing by Hyland with a frequency of three

for each. The table below displays the required textbooks presented in the 26 syllabi from

both groups.

Table 7

Required readings from both samples

Teaching second language writing course Teaching second language reading &
syllabi (n=13) writing course syllabi (n=13)

Required textbooks Frequency Required textbooks Frequency

• Teaching ESL 7 • Teaching ESL 3

Composition: Purpose, Composition: Purpose,
Process, and Practice Process, and Practice
• Understanding ESL • Second language
Writers: A Guide for 2 writing 3
Teachers • Teaching second
• Second language writing 2 language reading 2
• Second-Language • Reading, writing, and
Writing in the 2 learning in ESL: A
Composition Classroom resource book for 2
• ESL Composition Tales: 1 teaching K-12 English
Reflections on Teaching learners
• Literacy and 1
• Teaching and /->
Bilingualism 1 Researching Reading 2
• Teaching Second 1 • ESL writers: A guide for
1
Language Writing writing center tutors
 79

• When English Language 1 • Exploring the dynamics 1

Learners Write:
Connecting Research to
Practice, K-8
• Multilingual Education
in Practice
• A synthesis of Research
on Second Language
Writing in English
• Exploring the dynamics
of second language
writing
• Teaching college writing
to diverse student
populations
• Controversies in second
language writing
• Reading Writing and
Learning in ESL: A
Resource Book for K-12
Teachers-
• Any text that covers
APA style
• Other handouts &
readings
• No specific textbook
of second language
writing
• Generation 1.5 in 1
college composition:
Teaching academic
writing to U.S.-educated
learners of ESL
• Interactive Approaches
to Second Language 1
Reading
• Ways with Words 1
• Language Literacy and 1
Power in Schooling l
1
• Literacy from Day One 1
• Reading L2 English: 1
Getting to the Bottom
1
• Preparing our
Teachers: Opportunities
for Better Reading
Instruction
• Exploring Second 1
1
Language Reading
11 • Closing the achievement 11
J. X
gap: How to reach
limited-formal
schoolingand long-term
English learners
• When English language 1
learners write:
Connecting research to
practice, K-8
• Supporting the literacy 1
development of English
learners: Increasing
success in all
classrooms
• The learning strategies 1
handbook
• Teaching reading and
writing in Spanish in the 1
bilingual Classroom
 80

• English learners: 1
Reaching the highest
level of English literacy
• How to teach writing 1
• Simple Reading 1
Activities & Simple
Writing Activities
• Making it happen: From
interactive to 1
participatory language
teaching
• Essentials of teaching 1
academic vocabulary i

• A short course in 1
teaching reading skills
1
• Techniques in teaching
writing
• One on one with second
1
language writers: A
guide for writing tutors,
teachers, and
consultants
• Essentials of teaching 1±
academic reading
• Any text that covers 0
APA style
• Other handouts & 11
readings
• No specific textbook 1

Using the constant comparative technique to compare and contrast between the

initial data set of teaching SLW courses (n=13) and the new sample of teaching second

language reading and writing courses (n=13), the researcher kept in mind the question:

what is the overarching theme running throughout these documents? The codes generated

from the initial sample overlapped with the subsequent sample examined, except for one

code. After analyzing all 26 course syllabi, the developing students' writing skillscode.

only appeared twice, which meant that the code was not saturated. This means that after
 81

the theoretical sampling, which is an integral part of developing a grounded narrative of

the study, of teaching ESL reading and writing courses, no new explicit evidence from

those syllabi has appeared in order to gain a deeper understanding of the code (Creswell,

2002). Thus, with no research methodology textbook describing what a researcher must

do when an unsaturated code is detected, the researcher sought the advice of some

scholars and a professor that published an article containing two unsaturated codes. In a

study conducted by Nollen, Befort, Snow, Daley, Ellerbeck, and Ahluwalia (2007), the

researchers documented two unsaturated codes that emerged from their data transcripts.

After contacting Prof. Nollen for her insight on how "Developing students' writing

skills" code should be dealt with, she maintained that it would be considered "ethical

misconduct" if such a finding was not reported (personal communication, August 10,

2010). Additionally, the researcher sought further explanations about the unsaturated

code and made simultaneous inquiries about how to treat an unsaturated code in a

grounded theory study. For the first inquiry, the researcher posted this question on a

research community website titled Methodspace.com. One response that the researcher

received from the post was from Dr. Thomas Groenewald. He explained that in a

discrepant case, "Minority views or voices are as important as majority ones - it is one of

the important aspects of qualitative research: to let the voices be heard"(personal

communication, August 15, 2010). He further declares that it is the researcher's duty "to

give voice to minorities (or 'outliers')." Moreover, an e-mail inquiry made to Dr. Julie

Corbin, a renowned expert in the field of grounded theory, yielded an affirmative

response of keeping such a code in the theory development process of the study and

pointing it out during member checks (personal communication, August 11, 2010). The
 82

"developing students' writing skills" code cannot be easily dismissed even if it does not

reach saturation when theoretical sampling is used. Thus, the unsaturated code was

retained in the coding process.

In the second coding stage, axial codes were developed to consider the

relationships between the open codes. These codes helped to decrease redundancy in the

labeling, so that three axial codes emerged from the original nine open codes. The first

axial code that the researcher developed was the "disciplinary knowledge" code, which

encompasses the content knowledge and the pedagogical knowledge codes. This

amalgamation reinforces the notion that understanding the historical and theoretical

approaches of the second language writing field are not enough to prepare student-

teachers to deal with the diverse population of ESL writers. As Shulman (1987) points

out:

The key to distinguishing the knowledge base of teaching lies at the

intersection of content and pedagogy, in the capacity of a teacher to
transform the content knowledge he or she possesses into forms that are
pedagogically powerful and yet adaptive to the variations in ability and
background presented by the students, (p. 15)

With this, current student-teachers must be provided with opportunities to assess their

knowledge of the material as well as to apply it.

This leads to the second axial code: "engagement." Engaging student-teachers in

the material involves assessing what they already know about the topic and also

evaluating what they have learned. Another way of engaging them is through classroom

observation where they can closely examine an expert ESL writing teacher at work.

Furthermore, teacher-educators should provide their students with field experiences in

order "to apply knowledge and skills gained elsewhere or to develop strategies for
 83

handling the different dimensions of a language lesson" (Richards &Nunan, 1990, p.

101). By engaging prospective SLW teachers, they begin to reflect on their own beliefs

and practices as well as prepare as professionals, which leads to the third axial code:

"identity awareness." Through social interaction, future L2 teachers begin to shape their

roles in the SLT community. Table 8 below shows the relationships between the open

codes and the axial codes.

Table 8

Relationships between open and axial codes

Open codes Axial codes

Content knowledge Disciplinary knowledge

Pedagogical knowledge
Experiencing teaching "-\

1
Learmng tasks V Engagement
n
Observation

t ^
Developing students' writing skills
h
Professional development
e f Identity awareness
Reflection

f
Self-reflection J
o
 84

In the following figure (Figure 3), open codes and axial codes are used to identify

the core category of grounded theory: the selective code. Selective coding is used to help

develop a central theory or understanding about how student-teachers are being prepared

to teach L2 writing. The selective code that was used to describe the central theme of the

codes that emerged from syllabi analysis was Discourse (with a capital 'D'). As

mentioned in chapter two, Gee (2001) talks about Discourse as a form of developing a

new "identity kit," where "instructions on how to act, talk, and often write, so as to take

on a particular role that others will recognize" (p. 526). With the disciplinary knowledge

that current student-teachers are acquiring, socializing them into the SLW field through

engaging tasks and helping them develop their own identities as future SLW teachers,

teacher-educators are apprenticing student-teachers into the new L2 writing community.

Thus, Discourse was chosen as the selective code to describe how immersing student-

teachers into the target community enables them to participate and understand the SLW

community.The figure below is a visual depiction of all three coding stages, which

helped build the theory to better understand how student-teachers are being prepared to

teach second language writing. The selective code is the core category for the

phenomenon under study. With the selective code identified, the researcher was able to

develop a theoretical understanding that emerged from the analysis of course syllabi.
 85

Figure3

Coding paradigm of syllabi for the development of grounded theory

Open codes Axial codes Selective code

Content
knowledge

Pedagogical
knowledge

Experiencing
teaching
Discourse
Learning
tasks

Observation

(this includes having students

produce multi-draft: essays,
getting feedback from teacher
etc)

Professional
development I

Setf-
refektion
 86

Grounded narrative and member checks

Since the selective code helps in developing the grounded theory, the researcher

inductively derived from the data the following theoretical narrativeregarding how

current student-teachers enrolled in teaching second language writing/ reading are being

prepared to teach L2 composition:

Effective preparation of future second language writing (SLW) instructors

involves having student-teachers take on a new Discourse or a new way of
thinking, speaking and applying oneself. This new Discourse is formulated
after acquiring the appropriate disciplinary knowledge, engaging in
apprenticeship training, and helping student-teachers develop an
awareness of their personal emerging identities [Part 1]. However, little
attention is given with regard to having student-teachers experience the
writing process approach (which includes multi-draft writing, peer
response, teacher conferencing, etc.) [Part 2].

After the theory was developed, member checks were used to allow teacher-educators,

who submitted their course syllabi, to examine the substantive theory and to share their

insight on it. From the initial sample (n=13) and the theoretical sample (n=13), 18 (70%)

out of the total of 26 instructors that participated in the study volunteered for member

checks. The participants were e-mailed information concerning the member check part of

the study and an overview of the development of the substantive theory (Appendix D).

After receiving the first seven member check responses, the researcher revised the theory

and replaced the term "essay(s)," in "...which includes multi-draft essay(s), peer

response, teacher...," to the word writing. This was done as the term "essay(s)" specifies

a specific type of genre and the term "writing" encompasses several types of genre

writing.

Since the theory had two parts, the researcher focused the first two member check

questions on obtaining participants' reactions to them. The first member check question
 87

asked teacher-educators about their thoughts regarding the first part of the theory

regarding Discourse. Respondent RW3 discussed the challenge that she faces with regard

to how best to prepare future SLW teachers. She replies, "How can we be sure this

preparation was effective? I still struggle with the degree to which I effectively prepare

my student teachers to do, be and think anything." SLW3 is in agreement with the first

part of the theory concerning Discourse, "I find that very agreeable," but questions "what

are the boundaries of your definition of 'discourse.'" Participant SLW11 seems content

with the first part of the theory and states, "It makes sense when I look at your coding

categories, etc.," but suggests that the codes "in isolation, it seems very general." SLW6

also points out that "This makes sense, but it seems generic" and continues that this

"applies to any learning, not just teaching L2 writing." Also, SLW9 asserts that the

substantive theory "seems like an interesting and appropriate way of describing the

process of becoming a second language teacher in general, whether it refer [sic] to

writing instructors or others." SLW8 responds by revealing: "I think this is an interesting

theory; however, wouldn't this apply to all teachers? What makes this theory different for

SLW instructors?" RW2 contends that "In a very general sense that is largely what

education in any field is all about." As for RW8, she feels that one course cannot fulfill

the task of ushering student-teachers into the new Discourse of SLW and states, "I would

like to think that it is accurate, but I'm not sure that one course in teaching SL [second

language] reading/writing an [sic] actually accomplish that. I would say that it is one of

the goals and desired outcomes."

RW13 directly answers the question by saying, "I agree." RW7 also states, "This

makes sense to me." Teacher-educator RW4 declares that "the claim is most likely an
 88

accurate description of most SLW courses." Yet, this participant goes on to question the

timing of when student-teachers acquire the new Discourse and points out that it is not

necessarily after engaging in certain tasks that student-teachers develop their new

identities: "I would question the use of the word 'after.'" Although RW4 objects to the

term "after," he still expresses his frustration with helping prospective SLW teachers

undertake this new Discourse: "I like to try, though I know I fall short, to have my

students develop such Discourse during their acquisition of appropriate knowledge, and

engagement with learners they teach/tutor during the course, and with each other in class

in online discussion." At first, respondent RWl 1 was not clear about the question put

forth: "In the information in italics, I'm really not clear on what Discourse is being

referred to. Do you mean academic discourse, or any kind of new discourse?" After e-

mailing RWl 1 with a clarification ("the word Discourse is referring to a new identity that

student-teachers take on as they become SLW teachers"), she responds:

I do agree that future SLW instructors need to learn the discourse of their
profession, especially in order to join in a community of their professional
peers. I also agree that they acquire this discourse during their education
in TESOL. The discourse entails a new way of thinking and looking at
writing that helps them to be better teachers.

With this, RWl 1 concedes that in order for SLW teachers to fully participate in the

profession, they ought to first develop an understanding of the field.

Respondent RWl professes that she does not recognize the meaning behind upper

case D in the term Discourse and says "I am not sure that I have the background

knowledge to understand your use of (upper case D) Discourse." However, RWl did

mention interesting in-depth insights about her syllabus and approach to teaching which

will be discussed later. On the other hand, teacher-educator SLW7 asserts that the first
 89

part of the theory concerning Discourse "sounds about right!" The respondent even goes

on to say that "If you look at Ivanic's (2004) Discourses of writing and learning to write,

the issue of pedagogy is exactly framed in this way." SLW7 agrees with the observation

of student-teachers taking on a new Discourse as they learn to become SLW instructors.

Furthermore, SLW4 points out that "While I agree that learning new genre writing

conventions often involves practice," her class "is not a composition 101 class which

would require them to learn writing conventions," and clarifies that graduate students at

her university are required to take a graduate-level composition course. As for RW9, she

states, "I'm not quite sure what that means. For many of the students I teach, the area of

SLA [Second Language Acquisition] my program focuses on is a new type of discourse."

For the second member check question, the instructors were asked to reflect on

the second part of the theory, which stated that "little attention is given with regard to

having student-teachers experience the writing process approach (which includes multi-

draft writing, peer response, teacher conferencing, etc.)." RW3 expresses concern about

dealing with this issue in her class, and declares:

This is true of my own class. My intent was to introduce students to

approaches most likely not covered in other classes in our program, and I
believe most of our local US-educated students were already very familiar
with the process writing approach as that is the dominant approach in K-
12 writing instruction here.

Here, RW3 is making a generalization about US-educated students' knowledge about

process writing and even though this participant feels that it is an important topic for all

students in general, she does go on to confess that her statement "may be a false

assumption, however." Additionally, RW13 also made a similar assumption about her

graduate-level class. She writes, "I have several reactions to the underlined portion. 1) It
might be assumed by faculty that the student-teachers already possess a certain level of

writing ability, and that the new Discourse they are acquiring can be accomplished in

other ways." This point may be true; still, there seems to be a gap in communication

between faculty members and department requirements regarding having student-teachers

experience the writing process. RW13 goes on to make her second point that, "this one

course may be one piece of an entire program, and within that entire program, there may

be opportunities for teacher-students to experience the writing approach to include

(multi-draft writings)." Still, this participant does not specify whether her program offers

such a writing class for its graduate students. As for teacher-educator RW2, she states

that although incorporating some practice writing into her classroom could easily be

done, she points out that this has already been done at the undergraduate level:

That is an accurate statement. I don't believe that it would be a

particularly difficult component to add to our methods courses in teaching
ESL writing, but I suspect that most of my graduate students have done
that as part of their own undergraduate educations.

As for participant RW7,

I think this is true in the sense that professors typically do not create
structured activities that engage student-teachers in the writing process,
simply for the purpose of engaging them in the writing process (i.e., you
would not see weeks on a syllabus devoted to "experiencing the writing
process"). However, it is very likely the case that student-teachers do
experience the writing process when completing major written
assignments for their courses. For example, I offer a lot of mentoring
throughout the entire process of carrying out and writing up an action
research project, as well as for the process of writing up a formal lesson
plan and rationale. Students work through several pre-project/pre-writing
phases both in and outside of class, they write multiple drafts, they receive
feedback on their written work from peers and feedback from me in
individual conferences. In this sense, my student-teachers do experience
the writing process approach.
 91

RWl points out that there is more to a syllabus than surface level information by

saying that "It should be clear that you probably cannot get the whole picture just from

looking at surface words in a syllabus." With this, this particular respondent goes on to

call attention to some unwritten features of her syllabus by explaining that:

a. All major projects and papers have at least two drafts.

b. What you don't see is that many students write additional drafts
besides the two mentioned in the syllabus. Also, you do not see that
many of my classes include workshop sessions in which students
experience peer feedback, mini writing conferences, and so on. They
are also encouraged to ask for more time on assignments. After a peer
review session, they frequently ask for an extension on their
assignments.

Evidently, this teacher-educator understands the importance of having students

experience the writing process by stating that the purpose of all this is "so that they can

see the value in thevarious steps of the writing process." She goes on to further explain

why her syllabus warned student-teachers not to seek help from a writing center:

You may have wondered about a strong statement in my syllabus advising

students NOT to seek help from a tutor on their papers. This statement is
designed precisely because I want to give students the opportunity to
experience the writing process that I am trying to help them understand.
By requiring them to see me first, I can help them experience a pleasant
teacher-student writing conference, work together to examine the paper,
and then revise before they go to the Tutoring Center. If they go directly to
the TC, they get only grammar check help. I explain my rationale to my
students at the beginning of the course and then multiple times later on.

Clearly, RWl is keen on having her class fully appreciate the writing process approach.

She is adamant about not having her students visit a writing center, because of its

product-focused approach to writing, and instead has them become familiar with the

many facets of process writing. Therefore, even though RWl did not recognize the

meaning behind upper case D in the term Discourse ("I am not sure that I have the
 92

background knowledge to understand your use of (upper case D) Discourse"), she did

appear to be inadvertently moving her students into a new Discourse identity.

Respondent SLW7 claims that "'reading' of my syllabus is inaccurate." It is

"inaccurate," because she does apply the writing process approach in her class by

including writing workshops, and peer conferencing. She goes on to say that "I also read

all rough drafts of students and copiously comment on them— hence, the lag time in the

syllabus for due dates. Also, each lecture period has some time set aside for students to

get to their writing projects." Even though her syllabus does not clearly emphasize the

importance of the process approach, she does make an effort to include these aspects in

her classroom routine.

SLW7 reveals that although her student-teachers were led through the writing

process in previous semesters, the current syllabus did not reflect this. She writes:

I was thinking that in my syllabus it may seem that I don't find this
important, since it doesn't look as though students are doing any writing in
a process approach. However, it might not be clear that in prior years I did
bring students through a process approach to writing their teaching
philosophies throughout the semester. I explicitly told them that I was
modeling various approaches for them, such as guiding students through
the writing process, raising their awareness of genre considerations, and
critically examining the socio-political aspects of writing a teaching
philosophy, not to mention the modeling of how to provide feedback on
content and language, etc. [sic]

She justifies her reasoning for modifying her syllabus and for focusing more on case

study analyses as follows:

In the year for which you had examined my syllabus, I had changed that
process because I wanted to spend more time in class on case analyses-
that is, examining different teaching cases and reflecting on how they
should be approached. It's not that I don't find the writing process to be
important.
 93

Her reasoning for altering her syllabus to concentrate on case studies is justified by the

fact that her university requires student-teachers to complete a writing course, "Students

in our program are required to take an academic writing course in their first semester in

which they draft a number of papers (in a variety of genres) through a process approach,

so we talk about that experience in my class." When further probed if she was referring to

an undergraduate composition 101 class or a graduate-level writing course for all entering

students or just international students, she responded "It's only international students in

our TESOL master's program." As for teacher-educator RW9, she claims that her class

consists of "graduate students [that] have already written a lot of papers. I want them to

reflect on those experiences."

Unlike respondent SLW7, teacher-educator SLW9 stresses that all graduate

students enrolled in her university's MA program must "take a prerequisite course on

writing in the social sciences, in which they experience the writing process in all its

glory." Also, SLW9 states that the substantive theory "doesn't capture what I'm doing

since the syllabus which I think I sent you didn't (a) list the peer response activities I

incorporated and (b) reflect the informal conferencing which happened during office

hours." Teacher-educator RW8 contends that the process approach is weaved into all the

MATESOL courses in her program and declares:

The students do engage in multi-draft writing in my course, with peer and

teacher response. In fact, this is a regular feature of most of the MA
TESOL courses in our program. I have not used teacher conferencing,
however, unless students request it. We also look at the multiple drafts of
learner essays and other teacher responses and their own responses.
 For participant SLW3, he understands the claim made in the theory about the lack

of practice that student-teachers are getting with the writing process and says, "I think

you are right about that." For teacher-educatorRW4, he states that:

Again, I think the claim is most likely an accurate description of most

SLW courses, but I do try to build experience of the writing process in my
class in the following ways: 1) by requiring them to tutor/teach English
learners in writing and reading; 2) having them communicate with each
other through writing on our online bulletin board, writing which informs
their course papers; 3) in-class discussion of their papers in progress,
leading up to presentations designed to help elicit peer feedback for use in
revision.

Although RW4 agrees with the second part of theory, he goes on to explain that he does

make an effort to have his student-teachers participate in tasks that exposes them to

aspects of the writing process. Respondent RW11 writes that "The underlined part [the

portion of the theory regarding writing] seems quite important to me." She further points

out that although she does agree with the importance of having student-teachers

experience the writing process, she contends that this is an overlooked aspect in teacher-

education programs: "The underlined part seems to be a flaw or missing part in effective

teacher preparation, but this point isn't emphasized enough, in my opinion. I do agree

with [your point] about process writing." SLW8 stated that the underlined portion of the

theory "may be true of the majority of SLW courses." She distinguishes her class from

other instructors' classes by saying:

My course in particular is a bit of a hybrid of a writing class and a

methods class. So, it's easier for me to ask students to write multiple drafts
as they often enroll in the class to improve their writing. However, I think
asking students to produce multiple drafts is important for all pre-service
SLW teachers since students then gain firsthand knowledge about what
their students will experience as writers.
 95

Finally, respondent SLW11 was surprised about the finding and admitted, "This seems

like a very important finding." Even though student-teachers are being taught about the

process approach in their class, he continues and says, "Apparently, we're not practicing

what we're preaching!"

For the third member check question, the teacher-educators were asked about how

they developed their course syllabi. Factors that influenced teacher-educators' syllabus

design ranged from personal teaching and learning experiences to program requirements.

RW3 provided an in-depth response to the question and provided four key elements that

helped her develop her course syllabus, which included:

a.The teaching needs of our students, many of whom are interested in

teaching at the university and college level locally, which entails
working with the large number of generation 1.5 [U.S. educated second
language learners] undergraduates in our community as well as with
international graduate students in a variety of disciplines.

b.The desire not to overlap with other classes in the program that also
address L2 literacy and research writing and which include process
writing assignments. All students are required to take the research
writing class, and some choose to take multiple literacy methods class,
so we attempt to introduce students to a variety of different assignment
types that they might be able to incorporate into their own L2 writing
instruction.

c.My own training in comp/rhetoric approaches to teaching freshman

composition for ESL populations, and my own prior teaching
experiences.

d.My training and research interests in SLA, which includes a particular

focus on corrective feedback. I am very interested in the merging of
SLA and L2 writing CF [Corrective Feedback] research and how this
can or cannot inform instruction. This also manifests itself in a particular
focus on issues of accuracy, structure, and complexity in writing with
eye to avoiding appropriation, recognizing individual voice, and the
norms of different genres and disciplines.
 96

SLW11 wrote that there were "many factors" that informed his syllabus design

and commented that "About half of the students in the course are the TAs [teaching

assistants] in our MA program in teaching ESL, who all teach ESL writing in the English

Department. I focus on trying to prepare them for that work." Although he does contend

that not all of his students are teaching assistants, SLW11 says that for this specific

group, "I have to take their needs and experiences into consideration. I want students to

get a good theoretical background in L2 writing, but I also want them to get practical

experience." RW9 declares that he develops his syllabus through his "own experiences as

a teacher and [his] reading of the literature and the present state of the field as [he]

understands it." Teacher-educator RW8 answers the question by writing:

My interpretation of the relevant literature, my own research, and my own

experiences as a teacher of second language writing inform my syllabus
design. I believe very strongly in demonstrating techniques for engaging
learners in second language reading and writing in my reading and writing
with graduate students who will be teachers of reading and writing.
Although there is inevitably a certain amount of talking, reading, and
learning about the discipline, I have increasingly included the practices of
second language writing instruction into my own course practices.

With this, RW8 seems to take into consideration several aspects when designing a

course syllabus and is mindful of the current research regarding the field of SLW.

SLW6 directly answers the question by revealing five important details about

what influences his syllabus design. They include, his "previous experience,"

"knowledge of theory," "knowledge of course design," "Examples [he has] seen—good

and bad," and "Student feedback—formal and informal." Also, participant SLW3 reports

the three elements that impact his course design, "in ranked order":

[a]. Experience (8yrs)

 97

[b]. Study of culture and cultural differences esp. w/r/t socialization

practices
[c]. Research in typological linguistics (w/r/t addressing error)

RW1 wrote that "university requirements, many years of language teaching;

colleagues, and (mostly) students themselves" were the factors that helped her design her

class syllabus. RW4 informs the researcher that his "own experiences in similar courses

in graduate school," his "experiences as a teacher of SLW to English learners," and his

"own reading/scholarship in the area of SLW," as well as the "reading/scholarship on

teacher education generally" that he does. RW2 says, "I design my syllabi, but I consult

the work of recognized experts in the field." Teacher-educator SLW7 reflects about her

approach to designing her syllabus and is cognizant of various aspects surrounding her

course design:

For me, the current research in teaching writing influences my syllabus

design. I am also influenced by my experiences in previous semesters:
how well were my teaching goals and objectives met by different aspects
of my syllabus? How did the students react to my course in their
evaluations?

She further elaborates that the reason behind including more case studies in her

course was due to the lack of connection that the student-teachers were making

between theory and practice:

I moved to case studies when I realized that students' demonstration mini-

lessons and unit designs did not fit with the knowledge expressed in their
teaching philosophies. That is, their practice had not caught up with their
theories. Through case analysis we try to reflect in more detailed ways on
how theory relates to practice. If I had an ideal world, I would include
more practice teaching, or tutoring of second language writers, or
observation of second language writing courses. However, this is not
logistically feasible in a very large program like mine. Furthermore,
students' future sites of practice will largely be abroad in FL contexts with
less advanced learners, so those experiences that are available to them here
do not match well with their previous/future teaching experiences.
 98

In contrast, SLW9 "inherited" her "course from a colleague, and kept it much the same."

She goes on to say, "I try to introduce students to the theory and how to apply it, which is

why most of the in-class activities involve a combination of discussion of readings with

focused workshops." Likewise, participant SLW8 also inherited the class from another

instructor. She asserts that her "class was originally created by another faculty member as

a writing course for NNS [non-native speakers] in our department." With flexibility to

change the course, SLW8 "altered the course (with the permission of the chair) to be

more of a SLW methods class since many students within our department were interested

in this area and there are no other course offerings. She also developed her "syllabus after

researching key topics in the field and after reviewing syllabi from my prior courses

(which I [the participant] took as a student)."

SLW4 expresses her philosophy behind how she approaches the design of her

syllabus and comments, "my syllabi are designed to give students exposure to utilitarian

learning—emphasis is given to a translation of theory to real world applications. An

example of how she does this, "I would prefer to spend time on actual error-correction

strategies in the ESOL class which empower students (A Freirian/Constructivist model),

than spend an evening lecturing on the psycholinguistics of error correction." Her

reasoning behind this approach is due to her many years of teaching: "I have trained

teachers for 17 years and pragmatic information grounded in theory is what they

constantly ask for as based on end of course evaluations."

For some professors, they acknowledged that there were some external

intervening factors that influenced their course design. Participant RW13 admitted that
 99

although she is the one that has input into her course layout "the Reading Dept. at my

university also provided insight," even though "they have no L2 expertise." Similarly,

RW11 declared that her "syllabus was designed at some point in the past by someone I

don't know." Since "it was approved by a university committee and given to" to this

teacher-educator to teach, she admits that she has "some latitude to change the assigned

readings and adjust the assignments;" however, she "can't change too much." "In fact,"

she continues, "I specifically asked my department about this and was told that I could

only make minor changes." The reasoning behind why RW1 lcould not alter her syllabus

greatly was due to the fact that she is "an adjunct in the department and... not full-time."

Nevertheless, RW11 overcomes this obstacle by creating her "own in-class activities to

enhance the course. These included adding process approach procedures, such as

requiring students to write multiple drafts of their assigned papers and doing peer

review." As for participant SLW12, the factors that inform his syllabus design include his

own "experience as a teacher of LI [first language] and L2 writing, as well as" his "own

interests and work as a researcher in the field."

When the data analysis emerged with only two syllabi that clearly covered the

writing process approach in the class, the researcher asked these two participants

additional member check questions. In SLW8's course description part of her syllabus,

she explains to her student-teachers that "over the semester, students will sharpen their

academic writing by producing multiple drafts of their work and receiving extensive

instructor feedback." When asked about the importance of this feature in her classroom,

she admitted that to her "the process approach is important for students as they have the

opportunity to reflect upon their writing, improve upon their errors (both grammatical
and more broadly, structural) and see firsthand how their writing improves over time."

Moreover, she explains that the reasoning behind why other teacher-educators do not

include the practice of the writing process for their students is that:

I think my students are more open to producing multiple drafts because

many enroll in the class to improve their own writing skills. Originally, I
mostly had NNS [non-native speakers] enroll; however, in the past two
semesters I've also had NS [native speakers] enroll and they have
benefited from the class as well.
For other teacher-educators, perhaps they don't think their students will be
as open to producing multiple drafts. They also may not want to take on
the role of a writing teacher and offer corrections to students as they
produce the multiple drafts. It's a lot of work!

As part of the member check questionnaire, teacher-educators were also asked to

comment on the study or to make any necessary clarifications about their syllabi.

Teacher-educator RW13 wrote:

I want to emphasize that developing the Discourse of this discipline is a

program objective for our MS/TESOL program. We have other
experiences in the program that require students to write and rewrite for
this purpose; they happen not to be in this particular course.

According to this, RW13's department takes it upon itself to accomplish the task of

ushering prospective ESL teachers into the new Discourse and highlights that writing is a

program-wide goal that teacher-educators in the program require of their student-

teachers. On the other hand, RW11 points out the lack of flexibility to designing the

syllabus due to outside influences and writes, "In my department, there are more adjunct

instructors than full-time, and adjuncts don't have much influence on the written syllabus.

I also think that syllabi tend to get outdated pretty quickly because it is difficult to change

them much without going through a committee." Participant SLW7 shares his insights

about his textbook selections and says, "As every year, my syllabus for the upcoming
year will be quite different. I am not happy with Peregoy& Boyle's text, so I am

removing it. This will be replaced by other readings about teaching writing to K-12 ELLs

in US contexts (probably Samway 2006)." Respondent SLW3 expresses his frustrations

about some of his student-teachers and states:

I have to spend way too much time addressing the prescriptivist micro-
bigotries of some students. Sorry to have to say this, but sensitizing proto-
instructors to the needs of their students is made more difficult by the
puerile English-only politics and self-centered religiosity of the South.

From those that added clarifications about the study and/or their syllabus, the teacher-

educators' comments ranged from the external influences that must be taken into

consideration when developing a syllabus to the nuisances that plagued their work as

instructors.

Position Statement Regarding Second Language Writers and their Writing

To further triangulate the findings, the researcher examined CCCC's position

statement. Posted on the Conference on College Composition and Communication's

(CCCC) website in 2001, the second language writing community published a position

statement regarding second language writing and their writers (Appendix A). The

purpose of such a document is to acknowledge "the presence of a growing number of

second language writers in institutions of higher education across North America,

including technical colleges, two-year colleges, four-year institutions, and graduate

programs" and to "provide guidelines for instructors of writing and writing-intensive

courses, for writing program administrators, and for teacher preparation" (Conference on

College Composition and Communication, 2001, p.l).

 102

The position statement contains six parts. The first part is a general statement

about the purpose of the document, which clarifies to readers that L2 writers are not a

homogenous group of students. It also emphasizes the importance of developing and

encouraging L2 writing teachers and administrators to be more proactive regarding

understanding their ESL population and the research behind the teaching of SLW. Part

two of the document establishes the rules for organizing writing-intensive courses by

discussing class size, writing assignment design, assessment, textual borrowing, teacher

preparation, and resources for teachers. In this section, teacher-educators and

administrators are encouraged to limit class size to 20 students if "mainstream classes"

have "a substantial number of second language writers" and "in classes made up

exclusively of second language writers, enrollments should be limited to a maximum of

15 students per class" (Conference on College Composition and Communication, 2001,

p.2). Furthermore, part two states that the development of writing assignments should

take care not to offend students from different cultures by avoiding such writing topics as

religion and politics. When it comes to assessment, the position statement points out that

second language writers must be given the opportunity to choose a writing topic, they

also should be provided with a rubric as to help them understand how their writing will

be evaluated, and, finally, ESL writing teachers should "use multiple measures" to

evaluate L2 writers' work. Also in this section, there is a discussion on textual borrowing/

plagiarism. This topic stresses that "textual ownership and the ownership of ideas are

concepts that are culturally based and therefore not shared across cultures and educational

systems" (p. 2). With this, L2 writing teachers are warned against assuming that L2

writers will fully comprehend this topic after one class lecture. Instead, ESL writing
 103

teachers should "teach and re-enforce U.S. expectations for textual borrowing and

citation conventions" (p. 2). As for teacher preparation, the statement advocates that "any

writing course... should be taught by an instructor who is able to identify and is prepared

to address the linguistic and cultural needs of second language writers" (p. 2). Finally,

part two of this document discusses the importance of providing writing teachers with

resources "such as dictionaries and grammar handbooks for language learners" and

writing programs "should encourage... teachers to attend workshops on teaching second

language writers that are presented at professional conferences" (p. 2).

Part three of the position statement on second language writing and writers puts

forth some procedures for forming writing programs. This section discusses placement

issues and credit hours for first-year composition classes. There is also mention of topics

such as writing across the curriculum/writing in the disciplines programs, writing centers,

and support for graduate students. Part four of the document discusses the guidelines for

teacher preparation and preparedness and consists of five subsections: knowledge

regarding cultural beliefs related to writing, developing assignments, building on

students' competencies, responding to ESL students' writings, and sustaining the

conversation (see Chap.2 for a detailed review).

Part five of the position statement regarding second language writing and writers

deals with building awareness of local multilingual populations, collecting information

on language use and language background of ESL writers, and encouraging

collaborations across institutions. Finally, the last part of the document offers readers a

list of selected bibliography for further information about the field of SLW.
 104

Experts' Views on the Preparation of Future L2 Writing Teachers

After the member checks were completed and CCCC's position statement

analyzed, the researcher began collecting and analyzing data for the next stage of the

study. In this stage, two experts in the field of second language writing were interviewed

with regard to their views on preparing prospective L2 writing instructors. For

confidentiality purposes each expert was given a pseudonym (i.e. Expert#l and

Expert#2). Each expert was contacted via e-mail and sent a copy of the Informed Consent

form (Appendix I), Summary of the study (Appendix H) and a list of tentative questions

(Appendix J). After initial contact with each participant, a mutual date and time was set

up to conduct the phone interview. When the interviews were conducted, the researcher

transcribed each of them verbatim as to avoid any misinterpretations. From the

transcripts, the researcher identified 13 themes: intercultural rhetoric, assessment, history

of composition, purpose of writing, responding/ feedback, error/ grammar correction,

reading and writing connection, genre analysis, getting to know L2 writers, student-

teachers' interest in SLW, process vs. product approach, field experience, and

collaborative work.

Expert#l, who was the first one to be interviewed, holds a PhD in Applied

Linguistics and has published numerous articles and conducted many presentations for

the field of second language writing. She has also served on editorial boards of several

journals. Her classroom experience includes teaching undergraduate composition,

college-level ESL writing, Intensive English Program (IEP), composition for

international graduate students, graduate level teaching SLW courses and assessment.

The second expert (Expert#2) interviewed for this study also holds a PhD and has
 105

published numerous articles and conducted many presentations for the field of second

language writing. Moreover, this participant served on editorial boards of several

journals. Expert#2's classroom experience includes twenty years of teaching English

composition at the college level and teaching overseas ESL writing with a focus on

reading to English majors. For the past ten years, Expert#2 has been involved in the

teacher-education aspect of second language writing. Furthermore, Expert#l's interview

lasted approximately 30 minutes, while Expert#2's phone interview was over an hour

long.

Both of the experts were asked to identify which specific knowledge and skills

that SLW teacher-educators should equip their student-teachers or on which of the top

five areas that SLW teacher-educators should focus. They both maintained that

intercultural rhetoric was an important knowledge area that every future ESL writing

instructor should be familiar with. Expert#2 says:

It's essential for [student-teachers] to have some knowledge of

intercultural rhetoric.
I think that they really need to understand where the [ESL] students are
coming from in terms of their own language, their own culture, their own
rhetoric.
They need to understand that systems of writing vary widely across the
world and what the students bring to the college level ESL writing
classroom will be very much informed [by] what they do in their native
language.

A lot of writing teachers don't think about or understand the world that
these students come from.. .1 think that a good course that'spreparing ESL
writing teachers would have intercultural rhetoric material in it.

Inquiry into how second language writers' first language and cultural expectations play a

role in how they structure their writing, will inform prospective SLW teachers'

instructional practices
 Assessment was another area that both experts suggested to be important when

preparing student-teachers to teach SLW. Expert#l points out that assessment should be

tied to syllabus design and says:

I think that everybody needs to know something about... assessments and

syllabus design and for me those are kind of related.
Because you have to know what your goals are and how you're going to
assess those goals and then build your syllabus from there, rather than the
other way around.

Likewise, Expert#2 adds:

I think it's really important to have good background in writing

assessment.
And I think that often is overlooked some of the importance of that,
because, ultimately, [SLW teachers] have to assess what the students are
doing because that's going to inform [their] instruction.
I think a lot of ESL writing teachers don't really understand assessment
very well.
They haven't studied it formally and they're reading the students' papers
and they're commenting and giving grades and so forth.
But I think not necessarily in a systematic way and in a way that's really
tied to again what students bring into the equation from their own
backgrounds.

As Weigle (2007) pointed out, L2 writing teachers must be able to design assessments

that elicit learners' writing ability in the target language.

From both interviews, the two experts emphasized the importance of having their

future ESL writing teachers know their future learners before proceeding with classroom

instruction.

Expert#l explains that "[Student-teachers] need to have an understanding of the role of

... something about where students are coming from and in terms of their language

background." Expert#2 points out that it is important that prospective L2 writing teachers
have a clear understanding of their language learners backgrounds, which could be

accomplished by surveys and says:

I'm more inclined to get ... information from them like a survey.
Or just talk about what [they] already know about writing...
Writing instruction that they've had including in their own language.
[Questions such as]
Do you like writing in your own language?Do you like writing in English?
Stuff like that, I personally learn more from that than from looking at a
piece of writing that they've done. Probing into their background is
extremely useful.

Examining L2 learners' writing experiences is integral in developing classroom

instruction that is flexible and adaptive to students' learning needs.

Expert#l touches on three other important areas that future SLW teachers need to

be familiar with: history of composition, purposes of writing, and guidance in responding

to their future learners' writing. On the other hand, Expert#2 provided more in depth

feedback on how ESL writing instructors should be prepared to teach L2 writing.

Expert#2 stresses that prospectively writing teachers need to know more about genres

and about the types of writing assignments that current L2 writers are undertaking.

Expert#2 contends that "ESL writing teachers - they need to learn more about the kinds

of writings that [their future] students have to do outside of the ESL writing course."

Expert#2 poses some questions that prospective SLW teachers must ask themselves

before embarking on the task of classroom teaching and says:

What do students actually have to do outside of the ESL writing class?

Are they writing a lot of summaries for example, are they writing
literature reviews, are they writing argumentative essays?
If [SLW teachers] don't know what [L2 writers are] doing out there, how
can [writing teachers] really be a truly informed teacher.
So, I think that a good course would look at the world outside of the ESL
writing classroom in terms of both the writing and the reading and trying
to align more of what we do know.
When probed as to whether Expert#2 was referring to genre analysis as proposed by the

works of Hyland (2007) and Swales (1990), he continued:

Of course. That'svery important.

There's lots of discourse communities out there.
A lot of different genres out there.
I think it's important to know more about which genres are more
commonly required ...
I mean this is all assuming by the way that ESL writing course should be
linked to in the college or university.

I think it should be conducted in relationship to what's going on in a

college or university at large, so that the students can really utilize those
skills and that knowledge in a [sic] real life purposes [sic].

To Expert#2, future L2 composition instructors must somehow link their classroom

instruction to real world writing expectations and goes on to say, "students will get pretty

frustrated when taking an ESL writing course when they don't see direct applications for

what they need.. .elsewhere." With this, Expert#2 believes that L2 writing instruction

should not be taken out of context. His whole argument points to the need for future SLW

teachers to develop classroom instruction that is tied to writing tasks that are relevant and

applicable in other classes.

Collaborative work was also a key point that Expert#2 expressed as being crucial

for the development of aspiring SLW instructors and explains:

As you know, it's very common in ESL courses to have the ESL students
doing group work of some kind.
But I think that a lot of writing teachers don't really reflect on or
understand the complex dynamics of group oriented work and helping
students.

Expert#2 provides his reasoning behind emphasizing to student-teachers the relevance of

group work:
 109

First of all, I think that it's important to work in a group in a collaborative

setting and to create an atmosphere which [learners] really can learn
meaningful things through the collaboration.
So, I like more attention paid to collaborative kind of work whether its
peer review or the students actually doing some writing together as a
group.

Expert#2 goes on to explain that the current preparation practices of SLTE programs do

not stress the relevance of collaborative work and how it should be undertaken:

I don't think that we really ... train teachers to do that sort of thing we just
say have [ESL learners] do a peer review or have them do this or that in a
group.
It doesn't really help very much.
So it's grounding-what you're trying to teach people to do in the reality of
the classroom and that goes back to really understanding things from the
students' point of view.

Along with the above areas, Expert#2 mentions the connection between reading

and writing skills as being an important component in the preparation of future SLW

instructors and says:

And of course the reading side.. .you have to start very early on with
teachers in training to understand the importance of the reading part of
writing.
How to treat [ESL] students as readers, not just as writers.
To take time to look at the students' reading practices so that [future ESL
teachers] can better understand their [students'] writing problems.

So many writing teachers... they don't seem to understand how important

the reading part of writing is and if they don't understand that they're
going to have a hard time.

Expert#2 reflects on his past experience as a former ESL writing instructor and provides

an example of how he used to intertwine the reading and writing skills in his own

classroom and states:

For example, in my class I used to say [to the ESL writers]

"Show me your copy of the story or essay"- whatever it is we were
looking at.
 110

"I want to see what you've highlighted, I want to see what notes you've
written in the margin, I want to get a story of your reading first, because
that's going to tell me something about how you wrote your paper"
So, [ESL writers'] copies of their texts are very important stories for
writing teachers to understand.

In Expert#2's point of view, current SLW instructors fail to pay attention to the reading

and writing connection in their L2 writing classes and "get right to the essay that the

student wrote."

Finally, Expert#2 identifies one more knowledge area that SLW teacher-educators

need to focus on when preparing future second language writing instructors and explains:

When working with future ESL writing teachers, one thing I want to find
out is what are their own thoughts about writing? Are they really interested
in being a writing teacher?Or is it just one more skill they have to teach?

Teacher-educators must understand and identifyteacher-learners' interest in

writing and their personal experience with it, which are crucial elements in

understanding L2 writing teachers' preparedness to teach writing. He goes on to

I'vegot to help them understand the importance of writing.

So with [future ESL writing] teachers, learning where they're coming
from with writing is also really important.
I don'tthink [teacher-educators] take enough time to take a look at where
[student-teachers] are coming from either.
Maybe they aren't good writers themselves- for example- [if] they don't
write well how are they going to teach how to write well- they don't value
writing, how are they going to teach writing well?

His statements point to the significance of helping current student-teachers

recognize the importance of writing and of identifying themselves as writers.

For the second question of the interview, both scholars were asked to discuss their

views on the benefits of having current student-teachers experience the writing process
 Ill

approach in their teaching SLW courses. Expert#l states that, "Writing process in terms

of drafting, planning, editing, audience awareness- that sort of thing.. .1 think it's really

definitely helpful."Although Expert#2 believes that the process approach is an important

part of preparing future SLW teachers, he does question the applicability of such an

approach for the ESL learners outside the writing course and says:

Realistically speaking, outside of an ESL writing course, the [ESL]

students don't really use the process approach very much again. They
don't have time for example [in] a history class, they might write a draft
but they're taking 5 to 6 courses.

It's a valuable tool, but I think it might be overemphasized .. .but research

has not told us enough about to what extent do students- ESL students-
use the writing process outside of the ESL program.

So, I want teachers in a teaching education course to understand both the

pluses and minuses.

Consequently, prospective L2 composition teachers need to understand the pros and cons

of the process-oriented approach to writing. Expert#2 continues, "I think [future SLW]

teachers should understand when the product approach is more useful and when the

process approach is more useful" and be mindful "that these are both options available to

them and then decide what works for them."

For the next question, both experts were asked to give their feedback on the

importance of giving student-teachers in second language writing instruction courses

some authentic, hands-on experiences. Expert#l pointed out that it is a critical part of

preparing future SLW teachers, but there are some limitations:

I think that's extremely important, because I think that really [teacher-

educators] can talk about stuff in the classroom all [they] want, but until
[student-teachers] experience it [they] really don't know what it's like or
what the issues are.
 112

Expert#2 also points out the benefits of providing student-teachers with practical

opportunities to apply the knowledge that they are learning in the classroom, and also

gives some examples, but similar to Expert#l, admits that there are some caveats to the

practical aspect of the course and says:

There's no point in telling [student-teachers] do this or do that or try this

or try that.They have to get out there and try those things for themselves
certainly.
They're going to learn a lot more by trying and them talking about what
happened, than just talking about it without any hands on experience and

it's not easy to arrange sometimes.

He explains his argument by providing several examples that teacher-educators can

utilize when preparing prospective L2 writing instructors, which include having student-

teachers respond to ESL learners' writing, conduct simulated conferencing sessions and

group work, assess L2 learners' papers, participate in one-on-one tutoring and observe

current ESL classroom teachers in action. Although he does acknowledge that such tasks

are completed under "a contrived situation," he admits that "it's better than nothing."

Both experts were then queriedas to whether a course on teaching L2 reading and

writing is sufficient preparation for prospective ESL writing teachers. At first, Expert#l

could not offer a definitive answer, and then said, "I think that you can certainly get a lot

out of either kind of a class."While not all L2 writing instructors have taken a class on

how to teach writing, Expert#l confesses that such a course is valuable in the absence of

a specific graduate course that solely focuses on L2 writing instruction. Still, to truly

teach all that there is to know and learninvolving second language writing, Expert#2

contends that "One class won't do it.. .All you can do in that one course is plant some

seeds, provide some useful information." He argues that a course on teaching L2 reading
 113

and writing does not provide enough preparation for prospective SLW instructors and

says:

Reading and writing in one semester course, you can't cover everything in
a truly meaningful way, you can go over a lot of topics [, but] you don't
have much time to develop the topic.
So I don't really know how much students get out of such a course in the
final analysis.
So they will learn some useful things, but again you haven't really given
significant coverage to some of the topics that need to be covered that are
very complex topics.

Furthermore, he goes on to suggest that in order to promote meaningful learning that

stimulates student-teachers' deep understanding of the material, there should be a course

where teacher-learners "go out do some practice and have another course... so the

experience is sandwiched in between two courses. In the second course, the questions

they ask are based upon encounter." With that, "[student-teachers] begin to connect the

theory and the practice much more effectively." Another idea that he recommends is to

"have writing and reading come up in more than one course," where L2 teacher-educators

"can reinforce certain messages across the whole curriculum."

Finally, the two experts were asked whether current SLW teacher-educators are

trying to socialize their student-teachers into the new Discourse community. Expert* 1

replies that it is a true statement, but contends that "it varies from person to person how

much they identify themselves as [inaudible] L2 writing person and that's what I want to

be and that this is going to be my discourse community and I'm going to adopt the

language of things." For Expert#2, the whole concept of Discourse is not well understood

and says, "The whole notion topic of discourse is very complex and that'sprobably not

covered very well."

 114

Aligning Experts' Views with Course Syllabi

The purpose of interviewing the two experts from the field of second language

writing was to understand their views regarding how current student-teachers enrolled in

master's level academic programs in the teaching of English as a Second Language and

its related fields are being prepared to teach SLW. After analyzing the two interviews, 13

themes emerged from the transcripts. These thirteen themes were then compared to the

twenty-six syllabi that were submitted for the study in order to examine whether current

teacher-educators are implementing the elements that experts consider essential for the

preparation of prospective L2 composition instructors. The course descriptions, course

objectives, course goals, reading topics and assignments of each syllabus were re-

examined to determine how often the themes occurred in them. Table 9 below lists the

themes that emerged from the interview transcripts and the rate at which each occurred.

Table 9

Frequency of themes from expert interviews

 115

Teaching second Teaching reading &

language writing course writing course syllabi
syllabi (n=13) (n=13) Total
percent
Theme Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
(%) (%)

Intercultural 11 84.6 8 61.5 73.0

rhetoric
Assessment 13 100 fl 846 923

History of 12 92.3 7 53.8 73.0

composition
Purpose of 7 53^8 1 X69 307
writing
Responding/ 13 100 9 692 84^6
feedback
Error/ U 846 9 69^2 76^9
grammar
correction
Reading & 9 69.2 13 100 84.6
writing
connection
Genre 8 61.5 4 30.7 46.1
analysis
Get to know 9 69^2 5 384 53T
L2 writers
Interest in 7 73^8 4 307 42.3
teaching L2
writing
Process vs. 5 38.4 12 92.3 65.3
product
Field 7 7l8 10 163 653
experience
Collaborative 9 69^2 6 461 5lJ
work
 116

For the teaching second language writing course syllabi, assessment (100%),

responding/ feedback (100%), history of composition (92.3%), and error/ grammar

correction (84.6%) were the themes that appeared frequently in the interview transcripts,

while the process vs. product theme appeared in only 5 of the 13 (38.4%) syllabi. As for

the teaching second language reading and writing course syllabi, the top three themes that

appeared the most were reading and writing (100%), process vs. product (92.3%), and

assessment (84.6%), while purpose of writing (7.69%) occurred the least. From the 26

syllabi, assessment (92.3%) and responding/ feedback (84.6%) occurred the most often

from both sets of syllabi and purpose of writing (30.7%) appeared the least. The

following is a random example from one of the course syllabi, which reflected the

importance of intercultural rhetoric (total incidence 73%) in preparing future L2

composition teachers.

SLWl's syllabus:

Topics: Contrastive Rhetoric/L2 and Using Rhetorical Modals

Understanding ESL Writers: Chapter 8- Contrastive Rhetoric, pp. 88-104
Kaplan: Contrastive Rhetoric: Further Speculations;
Handouts- TBA

Assessment theme (total incidence 92.3%) appeared in all 13 teaching SLW syllabi and

11 of the teaching second language reading and writing syllabi.

SLW4's syllabus:

Develop appropriate and adaptive assessment techniques to assess ESOL

writing at the programmatic level (i.e., diagnostics, placement and
retention purposes), as well as at the classroom level (i.e., self assessment
and peer assessment in process writing, and achievement assessment in
language arts as well as other content area/genre mastery of written
literacy skills).
 117

Example of history of composition theme (total incidence 73%) found throughout the
syllabi:

RW9's syllabus:

Week 103/22-26
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: developments,
issues, anddirections in ESL. In B. Kroll (ed.) Second language writing:
Research insightsfor the classroom, (pp. 11-23) New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Kaplan, R. &Grabe, B. (1997). The writing course. In K. Bardovi-Harlig&
B. Hartford(eds) Beyond methods. New York: MacGraw Hill.
3/26 Various rubrics.
Question: Do the rubrics seem to reflect the ideas of Silva (1990) and
Kaplan and Grabe (1997) papers? About two pages? What seems to be
missing in the rubrics that are in thewriting.
Assign the writing paper.
Due: Evaluate 4 ESL papers in the folder from most successful to least
successful.

The third theme that emerged from the expert interviews was purpose of writing with a

30.7% total incidence. Seven syllabi from teaching SLW mentioned this element in their

syllabi and only one syllabus from the teaching second language reading and writing

syllabi mentioned this point.

SLWl's syllabus:

Topics: ESL Classroom: Academic Vs. Personal Writing/Bartolomae Vs.

Elbow
Final Exam/Teaching Unit/Reflective Journal
Bartolomae: Writing with Teachers: A Conversation with Peter Elbow
Elbow: Writing for Learning—Not Just for Demonstrating Learning

Responding/feedback to writing (total incidence 84.6%) occurred in all of the teaching

SLW syllabi and nine times in the teaching reading and writing syllabi.

SLW12's syllabus:

Date: W 29 Sept. & M 04 Oct.

Topic: Teacher Response to Student Writing
Readings: FH Ch. 05
 118

The sixth theme that appeared in the interview transcripts was error/ grammar correction

with a total incidence of 76.9%.

RWlO's syllabus:

Unit 11 April 23 to 29
Error Gravity & Error Correction
Required Readings
l)Ferris, D. R. (2004). The "Grammar Correction" debate in L2 writing:
Where are we, and where do we go from here? -(And what do we do in
the meantime . . . ?) Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 49-62.
2)Frodesen, J. M. (2001). Grammar in writing. In M. Celce-Murcia,
(ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language, 3rd ed. (pp. 233-
248). Boston: Heinle&Heinle.

The reading and writing theme (total incidence 84.6%) was mentioned by both experts.

RW5's syllabus:

October 21 Formal schemata; Reading and Writing relationships

Hudson, chapter 7, chapter 10
DUE SAMPLE ANNOTATION
DUE 2 provocative questions re Hudson chapter(s) 7, 10

Genre analysis (total incidence 46.1%) appeared more often in the teaching SLW course

syllabi (8 out of 13 syllabi) than the teaching second language reading and writing syllabi

(4 out of 13).

RW4's syllabus:

Topics:Academic writing and genre

Readings: Ramanathan and Atkinson
Elbow, Matsuda;
Murie, Hyland and Tse

The issue of having future L2 composition instructors know their language learners was

an important point that was mentioned in the interviews. The get to know L2 writers

theme had a total incidence rate of 53.8%.

 119

SLW4's syllabus:

For Reflection: Reflection 1.1 on page 3 ofHyland. Who will you be

teaching ? How will you be teaching ? Which teaching approach has
appealed to you the most and why?

Understanding student-teachers' own interest to teach L2 composition (total incidence

42.3%) was also an element that was mentioned in the data.

SLW13's syllabus:

Assignment 1- Autobiography as L2 Writing Teacher or L2 Writer

You will write a 5-page autobiography either as an L2 writing teacher or
as an L2 writer. The purpose of this assignment is to enable you to gain
insights by (i) reflecting on your own experience as an L2 writing teacher
or writer, (2) examining your own beliefs and assumptions about teaching
writing and learning to write in a second language, and (3) exploring
personal conflicts, problems, and strategies in the development of L2
writing skills.

Recognizing the pros and cons of the process writing approach versus the product writing

approach (total incidence 65.3%) was another element that was drawn from the interview

transcripts.

SLWVs syllabus:

Week 9 (Nov. 10): Composing and the Writing Process

Introduction to the process approach. Discussion of composers' strategies
for planning and organization. How teachers can facilitate the writing
process.
Readings:
Peregoy& Boyle. English Learners and Process Writing, pp. 227-
264.
* Hayes, J. & Flower, L. (1987). On the structure of the writing process.
Topics in Language Disorders, 7 : 19-30.
* Tsui, A. (2003). Chapter 9: Taking on the challenge: Exploring process
writing. In, Understanding expertise in writing, pp. 225-244. Cambridge,
CUP.
 120

Providing student-teachers with field experience (total incidence 65.3%) in the SLW field

was another concept that both experts mentioned as being a critical part in preparing

prospective L2 writing teachers.

RW9's syllabus:

TUTORING OR RESEARCH PAPER

The last theme that emerged from the interview transcripts was collaborative work (total

incidence 57.7%). Expert#2 pointed out that this element is an essential part in helping

future SLW instructors understand how group work or peer response tasks should be

undertaken.

R W l l ' s syllabus:

Readings Due
• Grabe&Stoller Ch. 8: Strategic reading and discourse organization: Action
research projects
• Ferris &Hedgcock Ch. 6: Building a community of writers: Principles of peer
response
• Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong
secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 144-164.

Although both experts that were interviewed were e-mailed the interview

questions ahead of time, they did not mention some of the prominent topics that were

referenced in the 26syllabi and in CCCC's position statement. These topics included

various ways of using technology in the L2 composition class, plagiarism/ textual

borrowing in the ESL writing field, preparing curriculum/ syllabus/ lesson designs for

teaching ESL composition, understanding the meanings of literacy/ biliteracy/

multiliteracy, and knowing the difference between first and second language writing (LI

vs. L2) from the language learners' standpoint and from the research standpoint. The

researcher discovered these knowledge areas by reviewing the course descriptions,

 121

objectives, goals, course readings, assignments, and bibliography page of each syllabus.

Table lObelow displays each of these topics and the frequency at which each one

occurred in the data set.

Table 10

Missing themes from expert interviews

Teaching second language Teaching second language
writing course syllabi reading & writing course
(n=13) syllabi (n=13) Total
percent
Topic Frequency Percent (%) Frequency Percent (%)

Technology 11 84.6 53.8 69.2

Plagiarism 12 92.3 46.1 69.2

Curriculum/ 11 84.6 69.2 76.9

syllabus/
lesson
design

Literacy/ 13 100 12 92.3 96.1

biliteracy/
multiliteracy

LI vs. L2 13 100 69.2 84.6

 122

The topic of technology occurred in 84.6% of the teaching second language

writing syllabi and in 53.8% of the teaching second language reading and writing course

syllabi.

RW4's syllabus:

Topics-
Peer and self-assessment of writing
Technology and literacy development
Readings-
Berg, Beck

The topic of plagiarism occurred in 92.3% of teaching second language writing course

syllabi and 46.1% of teaching second language reading and writing course syllabi.

RW8's syllabus:

Appendix C
Alphabetical List of Course Readings
Pennycook, A.(1998). Borrowing others' words: text, ownership, memory,
and plagiarism. In V. Zamel& R. Spack (Eds.) Negotiating academic
literacies: Teaching and learning across languages and cultures (pp. 265-
292). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

The topic of curriculum/ syllabus/ lesson design appeared in 84.6% of the teaching

second language writing course syllabi and 69.2% of the teaching second language

reading and writing course syllabi.

SLW6's syllabus:

Tuesday, September 15 - Syllabus Design

Read: Ferris and Hedgcock (2005), Chapter 3: "Syllabus Design and
Lesson Planning in ESL Composition Instruction" (pp. 72-123). (Email
your discussion questions by 5 p.m. on Monday.)

Due: Syllabus Analysis(Blackboard + 1 hard copy). Obtain a sample

syllabus for the course you teach or will be teaching, and assess its
appropriateness/effectiveness for the particular context. What do you find
effective? How would you revise it to make it more effective? (Attach the
syllabus you analyzed.)
Literacy/ biliteracy/ multiliteracy was observed in 100% of the teaching L2 composition

course syllabi and 92.3% of the teaching second language reading and writing course

syllabi. An example from SLW5's syllabus:

Topic - ESL Writing and L2 Literacy Development

Reading- F&H Chap. 2

Finally, the topic on the differences between first language and second language writing

was mentioned in all 13 (100%) of the teaching second language writing course syllabi

and 9 (69.2%) out of the 13 teaching second language reading and writing course syllabi.

SLW13's syllabus:

Class topic
LI and L2 writers
Differences among L2 learners & settings
Readings/ Assignments
KH Ch. 2 andM&al., Ch.4,5,6 or 7Assignment 1 due

Conclusion

To understand how current student-teachers enrolled in second language writing

instruction courses are being prepared to teach ESL composition, the data collected and

analyzed for this study included course syllabi, member check questionnaires,

Conference on College Composition and Communication's (CCCC) position statement,

and expert interviews. This was done in order to develop a grounded theoretical

understanding regarding the preparation of prospective L2 composition instructors. In the

following chapter, the researcher discusses the findings of the study, suggests future

recommendations for improving the preparation of future L2 writing instructors and

outlines possible future studies based on this research investigation.

 CHAPTER 5

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

The final chapter of this dissertation discusses the findings, conclusions and

presents future recommendations for the study. It explores the effects of examining the

preparation of future second language writing instructors. The researcher will begin by

restating the research problem, purpose of the study, research questions, and

methodology used to conduct the study. Later, the findings of the study will be organized

according to each research question. The conclusions part of the chapter will present an

overall discussion of the theoretical understanding that developed from the study. Finally,

the reader will be presented with a discussion regarding future recommendations for

conducting a similar study or for improving upon it.

Overview of the Study

Since there is a gap in the literature on how future teachers are prepared to teach

L2 composition, the purpose of this qualitative study was to investigate the preparation of

current student-teachers enrolled in graduate-level teaching second language writing

courses. The researcher used course syllabi, member checks, Conference on College

Composition and Communication's (CCCC) position statement and expert interviews to

answer the following research questions.

1. How are graduate level student-teachers enrolled in teaching second language

writing courses being prepared to teach college-level second language
composition?
 125

2. What do researchers in the field of second language writing claim as the most
important elements when preparing future second language composition
instructors?

3. To what degree are teacher-educators implementing second language writing

researchers' perceptions about these elements in their teaching of second language
writing classes?

To answer the first research question, course syllabi, member check

questionnaires and CCCC's position statement were used to ensure credibility. After

scanning 161 MATESOL and its related field programs in the US, 38 (23.6%) programs

were found to offer a course on teaching SLW. Of these 38 courses, 13 participants

submitted a copy of their course syllabus and 8 of them volunteered for member checks.

Using grounded theory to develop a theoretical understanding of the data, nine open

codes emerged from the course syllabi.

In the next step, theoretical sampling, which is an integral part of grounded

theory studies, was used to locate a subsequent sample to saturate the open codes. With

this, graduate-level teaching second language reading and writing courses were found to

be the next appropriate sample to study. From the 161 second language teacher

education programs, 49 (30.4%) teaching second language reading and writing courses

were discovered. Of these 49, 13 teacher-educators submitted a copy of their course

syllabi and 9 volunteered for member checks. When theoretical saturation of the open

codes from all the 26 syllabi collected was developed, the researcher used axial coding to

explore the relationships between the nine open codes. Finally, selective coding helped to

establish the core category of the data to generate a theoretical understanding of the

syllabi. Using the theoretical narrative that was established, the researcher employed a
member check questionnaire to solicit participants' feedback regarding interpretations of

the findings. Moreover, CCCC's position statement concerning second language writers

and their texts' was analyzed to triangulate the data.

The second research question aimed at understanding the essential aspects of

preparing prospective second language composition instructors from two experts'

standpoint. Two experts from the field of L2 composition were interviewed with one

interview lasting 30 minutes and another lasting over an hour long. Each interview was

transcribed verbatim as to avoid any misinterpretations. After analyzing the two

interviews, 13 themes materialized from the transcripts. Lastly, the third research

question was an attempt at examining whether experts' perceptions on the preparation of

future SLW teachers are being implemented in the teaching L2 composition course. To

answer this question, the researcher aligned the 13 themes that developed from the expert

interviews with the course syllabi and CCCC's position statement. The themes were

compared to the twenty-six syllabi that were submitted for the study as well as the

position statement in order to analyze whether the elements that experts consider

necessary for the preparation of future SLW instructors were being implemented. A

comprehensive review of each syllabus was undertaken to determine how often the

themes occurred in them.

Findings

The findings and discussions of the research questions are based on the data

analyzed from course syllabi, member check questionnaires, CCCC's position and expert

interviews. Recommendations for improving the preparation of future L2 writing

 127

instructors and for conducting future studies based on this research investigation are

discussed at the end of this chapter.

Discussion of Research Question #1- How are graduate level student-teachers enrolled
in teaching second language writing courses being prepared to teach college-level
second language composition ?

Examining the teacher-educators' backgrounds, from the 26 course syllabi that

were analyzed, most of the instructors of these courses held doctoral level degrees and

had extensive experience in teaching ESL writing to second language learners and in

preparing future L2 writing instructors. Of the 26 faculty members, 22 held doctorate

degrees, 3 had master's degrees and 1 was a PhD candidate. The number of times that

each teacher-educator taught their respective course ranged from 1-18 times. As for the

participants' experience in teaching SLW to language learners, it ranged from 8- 35 years

in various settings that included K-12 to graduate level to tutoring to overseas work. To

develop their course syllabus, the teacher-educators discussed how they drew upon their

personal teaching of L2 composition, reading of literature, previous experience with

teaching the course, teacher-learners' feedback, and knowledge of course design. These

findings suggest that these instructors who are preparing prospective L2 writing teachers

are competent and mindful of the theoretical and pedagogical underpinnings of the field

and are cognizant of their student-teachers' needs. Furthermore, the faculty members'

experience with teaching writing to language learners seems to have informed their

instructional practices in these graduate-level courses.

The required textbook selections from the teaching second language writing

syllabi (n=13), and the teaching second language reading and writing syllabi (n=13) both

differed and paralleled each other. In the teaching of SLW syllabi, 7 (54%) of the 13
 128

syllabi required Ferris and Hedgcock'sTeaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process,

and Practice. The book features theoretical, historical and practical issues regarding L2

composition. It delves into the history of the field, syllabus design and text selection,

feedback, assessment, and technology. The choice of having this textbook as a required

reading in over half of the teaching L2 composition courses attests to the fact that the

book is one of its kind when it comes to covering such a wide range of topics in a field

that is still in its infancy (Matsuda, 2003). As for the teaching of second language reading

and writing courses' required textbook selections, there was no agreement among the

faculty members of these courses as to which textbook would more appropriately serve as

the foundation of the course. This fact is due to the difficulty of encompassing the

extensive diversity of issues in both the fields of L2 writing and L2 reading in a single

textbook. On the other hand, the 26 syllabi did parallel in one manner: electing

handouts/articles and other readings for the required reading portion of the syllabi.

Eleven syllabi from each sample required student-teachers to use course packets as

course reading material. Although Grosse (1991) writes that opting for course packets

indicates teacher-educators' lack of confidence in available textbooks, she does point out

that this strategy reveals their desire for keeping student-teachers up-to-date with the

current research in the field. The researcher agrees with Grosse's latter remark, since by

the time a book reaches its audience, new research would have been published and

numerous conference presentations conducted. With this, a book such as Teaching ESL

Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice could serve as a foundation for preparing

future L2 writing teachers and supplementary reading materials could be used to keep
student-teachers well-informed and current regarding the latest issues and debates in the

SLW field.

The nine open codes that were generated from analyzing the course syllabi

included content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, experiencing teaching, learning

tasks, observation, developing writing skills, professional development, reflection and

self-reflection. Later, axial codes were developed to consider the connections between the

open codes. These codes helped to decrease redundancy in the labeling. The first axial

code that was developed was disciplinary knowledge, which encompassed content

knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. Engagement was the second axial code that

developed from the open codes and it includes experiencing teaching, learning tasks, and

observation. The final axial code was identity awareness. This code covers the last four

open codes: developing writing skills, professional development, reflection, and self-

reflection. The selective code was the final coding stage for developing a theoretical

understanding of the data. The theoretical narrative established:

Effective preparation of future second language writing (SLW) instructors

involves having student-teachers take on a new Discourse or a new way of
thinking, speaking and applying oneself. This new Discourse is formulated
after acquiring the appropriate disciplinary knowledge, engaging in
apprenticeship training, and helping student-teachers develop an awareness
of their personal emerging identities. However, little attention is given with
regard to having student-teachers experience the writing process approach
(which includes multi-draft writing, peer response, teacher conferencing,
etc.).

After the theory was developed, the researcher sought teacher-educators' feedback

regarding the narrative, which was obtained using member checks. Of the 26 syllabi that

were submitted for the study, 17 participants volunteered to complete the member check

questionnaire.
 130

When asked whether they were developing student-teachers' new Discourse (Gee,

2001), there was a split in answers among the faculty members. Some teacher educators

agreed that their student-learners were acquiring the Discourse of the second language

writing community, others pointed out that the acquisition of a Discourse occurs in any

new type of educational learning situation, while others struggled with the challenge of

ushering their student-teachers into the new SLW Discourse community.

RW4: The claim [regarding Discourse] is most likely an accurate

description of most SLW courses.

SLW9: This seems like an interesting and appropriate way of describing

the process of becoming a second language teacher in general, whether it
refer [sic] to writing instructors or others.

RW3: How can we be sure this preparation was effective? I still struggle
with the degree to which I effectively prepare my student teachers to do,
be and think anything.

Still, these comments are an indication that in order for prospective language teachers to

be able to function in their target communities, whether that be ESL writing or speaking,

they must be socially apprenticed into the second language teaching education Discourse

to "gain legitimacy among old-timers," and "develop a working model of the target

community's tasks, talk, tools, and value systems" (Hedgcock, 2002, p. 301). Teacher

educators' realization of the fact that their students must be immersed in the target

Discourse to gain membership into its community, attests to the point that these

professors are particularly conscious of the notion that newcomers into a field must take

on a new "identity kit" (Gee, 2001) so they can fully participate in the new group.

In another member check question that solicited teacher educators' feedback on

the grounded narrative, they were asked whether "little attention is given with regard to
 131

having student-teachers experience the writing process approach." Several themes

emerged from their answers:student-teachers might already have a knowledge base of the

writing process approach, there is more to the syllabus than the surface level information,

the program requires students to take a writing course, writing is a program wide

initiative, not much emphasis is being given to the practice of writing in their classes, and

such practice is an important hands-on experience for the teacher-learners.

RW2:1 don't believe that it would be a particularly difficult component to

add to our methods courses in teaching ESL writing, but I suspect that
most of my graduate students have done that as part of their own
undergraduate educations.

RW1: It should be clear that you probably cannot get the whole picture
just from looking at surface words in a syllabus.

SLW9: All our students have to take a prerequisite course on writing in

the social in the social sciences [sic], in which they experience the writing
process in all its glory. Their experiences in this course consistently
inform in-class discussions.

RW8: The students do engage in multi-draft writing in my course, with

peer and teacher response. In fact, this is a regular feature of most of the
MA TESOL courses in our program.

RW13: This one course may be one piece of an entire program, and within
that entire program, there may be opportunities for teacher-students to
experience the writing approach to include (multi-draft writings).

RW1 l:The underlined part seems to be a flaw or missing part in effective

teacher preparation, but this point isn't emphasized enough, in my
opinion. I do agree with [your point] about process writing.

In general, there did not seem to be a consensus among the faculty members with regard

to the second element in theoretical understanding of the data that stated "little attention

is given with regard to having student-teachers experience the writing process

approach."Those SLTE institutions that include the writing task and demonstrate or
 132

discuss process writing in their programs or coursework provide their student-teachers

with a great advantage over those programs that lack in this aspect. AsHedgcock (2002)

pointed out, "A means of dramatizing the research-practice connections is to expose and

model for apprentices the intellectual skills that they may be expected to display for their

own language learners (Horwitz, Bresslau, Dryden, McLendon, & Yu, 1997)" (p. 308).

It is important to emphasize that those programs that do not offer their student-

teachers the opportunity to practice writing are at disadvantage, since the National

Writing Project group states that when writing teachers experience the task of writing,

they begin to use their familiarity with writing process strategies as a basis for their

teaching of composition (National Writing Project, 2011). Graves (1994) asserts that

teacher educators need to realize that "Writing is a craft. It needs to be demonstrated to

your students in your classroom, which is a studio, from choosing a topic to finishing a

final draft. They need to see you struggle to match your intentions with the words that

they read on the page" (p. 109-110). Additionally, student-teachers need to be aware that

their future L2 writers not only need to be taught about how to write, but also need to go

through it by having the ESL writing teacher model the approach to writing (Freeman,

1994, p. 10). This is especially true for SLTE programs or teaching L2 writing courses

that do not incorporate various writing conventions, since there are a great deal of

international students that enroll in MATESOL and its related field programs in the

United States. These international student-teachers might not be familiar with the writing

process approach and, hence, might not be able to impart knowledge about the

composition process to their future English language learners back in their home

countries.
 133

Moreover, for the first research question, the researcher also analyzed CCCC's

position statement concerning second language writers and their texts' to triangulate the

data. Part four of this document offers "guidelines for instructors of writing and writing-

intensive courses, for writing program administrators, and for teacher preparation"

(CCCC Statement on Second Language Writing and Writers, 2001, p.l). Some of the

patterns that emerged from the document included having future L2 writing teachers:

1. Be mindful of ESL writers' cultural beliefs related to writing (e.g.,

textual ownership, audience),
2. Recognize how writing assignments are designed,
3. Develop an understanding of LI vs. L2,
4. Acknowledge language learners' backgrounds ,
5. Develop an understanding regarding responding to writing and
feedback techniques,
6. Gain practical experience.

These patterns coincided with some of the themes that developed during the three coding

stages of the syllabi.As mentioned above, this suggests that teacher educators are

cognizant of the scholarly writings regarding the L2 composition fieldwhen it comes to

designing their course syllabi. Still, the position statement does not mention the

importance of providing student-teachers with writing practice.

Discussion of Research Question #2- What do researchers in the field of second language
writing claim to be the most important elements when preparing future second language
composition instructors?
To answer this research question, two experts in the field of L2 composition were

interviewed with regard to their views on preparing prospective L2 writing instructors.

These interviews were important in obtaining the scholars' interpretations concerning the

research question at hand and the theoretical narrative. The semi-structured interviews

proceeded from the researcher's established list of questions and allowed for flexibility in

developing additional queries as the interview progressed. After transcribing these

 134

conversations, the researcher discovered 13 themes that the experts considered to be

central to the preparation of future L2 composition instructors. The themes covered the

topics as intercultural rhetoric, assessment, history of composition, purpose of writing,

responding/feedback, error correction, reading and writing connection, genre analysis,

knowledge of learners' background, teachers' own interest, process vs. product approach

to writing, field experience, and collaborative work.

Furthermore, the researcher asked for the experts' input regarding the theoretical

narrative that was established in the first research question. It was pointed out that the

development of a new "identity kit" occurs in any new discipline-specific field into

which students are being apprenticed.

Expert#l:That's true to some extent for anything that you do or any kind
of job that you experience

As for having student-teachers experience the writing task in their respective SLTE

programs, both experts agreed that it is an important component for preparing future L2

writing teachers. For example, one expert expressed his view on this point by saying,

I think that's extremely important because I think that really you can talk
about stuff in the classroom all you want but until you experience it you
really don't know what it's like or what the issues are.

Still, this expert admitted that there is only so much that a teacher educator can

incorporate into a one semester course. Although second language writing/ reading and

writing instruction courses cover an array of topics and require their student-teachers to

engage in the field, teacher educators must also try to balance departmental requirements

and students' needs and backgrounds. With this, writing should be incorporated across a
SLTE program where the issue of ESL writing would be covered in such classes as ESL

assessment or technology.

Discussion of Research Question #3- To what degree are teacher-educators

implementing second language writing researchers' perceptions about these elements in
their teaching of second language writing classes?

For thisresearch question, the researcher aligned the themes that developed from

the expert interviews with the course syllabi and CCCC's position statement. The

overlapping themes that materialized from the three data sets pointed to the importance of

providing student-teachers with field experience.

Expert#2: They're going to learn a lot more by trying and them talking
about what happened than just talking about it without any hands on
experience...

SLW12's syllabus:

Field Experience Report

You will select one of the following options for this task, which is intended to
provide you with experience observing developing writers in an educational
setting. Options (b) and (c) may be undertaken collaboratively, with my
permission.
(a) Tutoring Assignment: ...
(b) Classroom Observations: ...
(c) Pilot Needs Analysis or Case Study: ...

CCCC's position statement:

Second language writing should be integrated throughout the professional

preparation and development programs of all writing teachers, whether
that be through a practicum experience, through WAC workshops, or
through writing center training.

Whether it is microteaching, tutoring, or observation, field experiences "offer

opportunities for teacher-learners to become aware of their teaching beliefs.. .and

practices...as well as gain skills needed to continually develop their teaching throughout

their careers" (Gebhard, 2009, p. 250).

 Another overlapping theme that emerged was discipline-specific knowledge,

which included such areas as assessment, plagiarism, and responding to learners' writing

and giving feedback.

Expert#2:1 think it's really important to have good background in writing

assessment and I think that often is overlooked some of the importance of
that...

SLW4's syllabus:

Develop appropriate and adaptive assessment techniques to assess ESOL

writing at the programmatic level (i.e., diagnostics, placement and
retention purposes), as well as at the classroom level (i.e., self assessment
and peer assessment in process writing, and achievement assessment in
language arts as well as other content area/genre mastery of written
literacy skills).

CCCC's position statement:

Assessment- The evaluation of second language texts should take into

consideration various aspects of writing (e.g., topic development,
organization, grammar, word choice).

As Hedgcock (2002) asserts, "to achieve status as legitimate LT [language teaching]

practitioners, novice teachers will be expected to familiarize themselves with theories,

research findings, and instructional methods" (p. 303). Although student-teachers are

being equipped with the subject-matter knowledge of the field, provided with practical

opportunities and encouraged to identify with the field, it still remains to be seen whether

these will be converted into real classroom practice or if the teacher learners revert to a

reactionary model of teaching that they observed during their own schooling.

Though both experts were e-mailed the interview questions before the actual

interviews were conducted, they did not discuss some elements that were mentioned in

the 26 syllabi and in CCCC's position statement. The researcher believes that due to time
 137

limitations and lack of face-to-face interview setting, the experts might have felt

restricted in their answers. The topics that both scholars did not allude to in their

interviews included technology, plagiarism/ textual borrowing, curriculum/ syllabus/

lesson designs,literacy/ biliteracy/ multiliteracy, and first versus second language writing

(LI vs. L2).

SLW8's syllabus:

January 26
Week Two - Helping Writers to Avoid Plagiarism / Reading and Writing
Connections
Homework: For Friday's class (January 29), read Pecorari (2003) on
patch writing.
For February 2, read the Currie article posted on BB under
"Assignments."
Respond to question on Blackboard about academic honesty by 9:00 a.m.
on Tuesday, Feb. 2.
Friday: Review of APA and summary writing; patch writing

CCCC's position statement:

Textual ownership and the ownership of ideas are concepts that are
culturally based and therefore not shared across cultures and educational
systems.

Still, the 13 themes that emerged from interviewing both experts aligned with the 26

course syllabi and CCCC's position statement. Although the experts did not comment on

the importance of plagiarism and technology in the preparation of future L2 writing

teachers, it is possible that these scholars would have commented on these topics if more

time were allotted for the interviews. The above results indicate that the professors of

these L2 writing/ reading and writing instruction courses take into consideration research

on second language composition, their practical experiences, and their student-teachers'

feedback when developing their course syllabi.

 138

Recommendations for Improving the Preparation of Prospective L2 Writing instructors

The objective of this study was to examine how current student-teachers enrolled

in graduate-level teaching second language writing/ reading and writing courses are being

prepared to teach L2 composition. After the examination of 26 course syllabi, member

check questionnaires, CCCC's position statement and two expert interviews, the

researcher proposes four recommendations.

1- L2 composition teacher-educators should have experience in teaching ESL writers

and a solid knowledge-baseregarding L2 writing literature.

When teacher-educators were asked about their experiencesregardingteaching

writing to English language learners, 16 (61.5%) participants from the 26 that completed

the member check questionnaire replied to this question. Their teaching experiences

ranged from 8- 35 years in various settings that included K-12 to graduate level to

tutoring to overseas work. From these findings, the researcher deduces that these

participants' ESL classroom-based teaching background provides them with sufficient

insight to prepare the next generation of L2 composition instructors. In a study conducted

to examine the characteristics of teacher-educators' expertise, Smith (2005) asked 40

novice teachers to discuss teacher-educators' expertise and professional knowledge. The

author found that 82.5% of those surveyed pointed out the importance of having teacher-

educators practice the instructional strategies that were being advocated in class; 72.5%

preferred teacher-educators that had recent teaching experience in the classroom; and

90.0% preferred teacher-educators with a solid foundation in the subject being taught.

Looking back at the member check questionnaires, it was evident that the teacher-
 139

educators of the L2 writing/ reading and writing instruction courses weaved the different

aspects of the writing process into their courses.

RWl's class: many of my classes include workshop sessions in which

students experience peer feedback, mini writing conferences, and so on

With regard to having teacher-educators with a solid foundation in the subject being

taught, teacher-educator SLW7 points out that "the current research in teaching writing

influences my syllabus design." Knowing this, SLTE programs that seek to introduce a

graduate-level course on L2 writing instruction should take into account the teacher-

educator's background as this has an effect on their instructional strategies and how they

develop their course syllabi.

2- The topic ofL2 writing should be incorporated across a SLTE program.

After examining the 26 course syllabi, it was evident that the teacher-educators

took into account their knowledge of the SLW literature, experts' views and CCCC's

position statement when developing a course syllabus. To verify this, the topics covered

in the course syllabi ranged from the history of SLW, genre theory, feedback approaches,

assessment, technology and much more.

RW2's syllabus:

11th week (Mar. 29-Apr. 2)

M: Read Ferris &Hedgcock (FH) chapt 1 "Theory (and history)"

SLW6's syllabus:

Read: Ferris and Hedgcock (2005), Chapter 8: "Classroom Approaches to

ESL Writing Assessment" (pp. 299-343). (Email your discussion
questions by 5 p.m. on Monday.)

RW7's syllabus:

Topic- Technology and L2 writing instruction

 140

Materials to prepare for class- Ferris &HedgcockCh 9

Journal article of choice

Similarly, the two experts that were interviewed for this study pointed out 13 areas that

teacher-educators should focus on when preparing future L2 composition instructors all

of which were covered, to a degree, in the syllabi. Wiggins and McTighe (2005) assert

that one of the '"twin sins'" of typical instructional design... [is] coverage-focused

teaching" (p. 3). This is not to say that what teacher-educators are doing in their

classrooms is unsatisfactory; rather, the topic of L2 writing should be dealt with across an

MATESOL or its related field program in a concerted effort to provide prospective ESL

writing instructors with a deeper understanding of the subject-matter. According to the

position statement regarding L2 writers and their texts, it emphasizes that

future,"instructors will be better prepared to work with second language students if issues

concerning second language writing and writers are a consistent feature that are re-

enforced throughout their training in writing instruction (Conference on College

Composition and Communication, 2001, p. 5).Seeing that the breadth of subject-matter

knowledge in these courses is tremendously extensive, SLTE programs should take it

upon themselves to incorporate the topic of writing across the curriculum. In this matter,

courses in assessment and technology should also discuss the topic of ESL writing.

Knowing this, a single course on teaching second language reading and writing might not

fully develop teacher-learners' awareness of the various issues in L2 composition. As

Expert#2 clearly pointed out, these classes are "not sufficient onto themselves. Reading

and writing in one semester course, you can't cover everything in a truly meaningful way,

you can go over a lot of topics [, but] you don't have much time to develop the topic."
 141

Still, such a course is beneficial when no other course in a program offers a separate class

on teaching ESL writing.

The philosophy behind integrating writing across an SLTE program is that a one

semester course on teaching L2 writing does not provide teacher-learners with a thorough

analysis of all the subtopics (e.g., technology, bilingual writers, and more). During the

member check questionnaires, teacher-educator RW8 declared that one course cannot

achieve the task of leading student-teachers into the new Discourse of SLW and states:

I'm not sure that one course in teaching SL [second language]

reading/writing an [sic] actually accomplish that. I would say that it is one
of the goals and desired outcomes.

To this end, second language teacher education programs need to incorporate the

teaching of L2 writing across all their courses.

3- More SLTE programs need to offer a course on L2 writing instruction.

In 1995, Palmer surveyed 159 programs and found that none of them offered a

teaching second language writing course; yet, approximately 40% of these programs

offered a teaching L2 reading and writing course or a separate L2 reading instruction

class (p.3). Today, from the 161 MATESOL and its related fields programs that were

examined for this study, a total of 87 (54.0%) institutions offered some sort of course on

teaching SLW: with 38 (23.6%) programs offering a course on L2 writing instruction and

49 (30.4%) offering a course on teaching second language reading and writing. Although

this shows an improvement in the course offerings since 1995, there still needs to be

more attention given to the field of L2 composition.

Matsuda (1998) contends that the, "lack of graduate training in ESL writing does

not necessarily imply a lack of practice; in fact, many ESL teachers have learned to teach
 142

writing through practice as well as by reading the available literature in the field (see

Johns, 1993)" (p. 103). Still, with the arrival of ESL students onto college campuses and

their need to matriculate into their respective departments, student-teachers need to have

a solid foundation in the theoretical and pedagogical underpinnings of the second

language writing field.The CCCC Statement on Second Language Writing and Writers...

Urge[s] writing teachers and writing program administrators to... offer

graduate courses in second language writing theory, research, and
instruction and, when possible, require such coursework or other similar
preparation for instructors working with writers in a higher-education
context. (Conference on College Composition and Communication, 2001,
p. 1)

Furthermore, international student-teachers completing their graduate work at United

States-based SLTE also need to have an awareness of the practical issues of teaching

writing in their home countries, as Lee (2011) asserts, "Teachers in HK [Hong Kong] do

not teach writing not because they are busy but they may not have the idea of how to

teach writing."

4- SLTE programs should require a writing entrance exam and/or a remedial writing
course for both native and non-native English language student-teachers.

As Reid (1993) states, ESL instructors may, "have never had a course in writing

beyond their undergraduate freshman composition course" (p. vii). To gain a clearer

understanding of student-teachers' writing skills, the researcher proposes that SLTE

programs should require a writing entrance exam for both native speaking and non-native

speaking English language teacher-learners.The purpose of such a plan would beto

accurately assess incoming student-teachers' writing needs or proficiencies, since

graduate school will require them to compose lengthier writing pieces.Also, the entrance

exam will assist L2 writing teacher-educators in gaining concrete evidence as to whether

 143

their students have the requisite writing background. With the results of the entrance

exam, institutions could require their student-teachers to enroll in a remedial writing

course. Winer (1992) points out that the incoming students into her university's MA-EFL

program "are given a composition competence test upon entering theprogram. Students

who do not pass must take a composition class inthe departments of Linguistics (for

NNSs) [non-native speakers] or English (for NSs) [native speakers]" (p. 59). The

following quotes are examples of teacher-educators' assumptions about their students and

program.

This one course may be one piece of an entire program, and within that
entire program, there may be opportunities for teacher-students to
experience the writing approach to include (multi-draft writings).

All the students I teach are graduate students and have already written a
lot of papers., [sic] I want them to reflect on those experiences.

Unlike the above quotes, one teacher-educator mentioned that all graduate students

enrolled in her university's MA program must, "take a prerequisite course on writing in

the social sciences, in which they experience the writing process in all its glory."

Recommendations for Future Recommendations

This study analyzed how graduate-levelL2 writing / reading and writing courses

are preparing student-teachers to teach L2 composition. In a future study, SLTE programs

could be surveyed about the existence of a writing entrance exam and/or a remedial

writing course in order to gauge the value that programs place on accurately identifying

incoming student-teachers' writing ability. Another question in that same survey might

also be whether the topic of L2 writing instruction is being covered in other graduate-
 144

level courses in the program. Since so few institutions offer a course on teaching second

language writing/ reading and writing, a subsequent study would involve surveying

program administrators regarding the lack of an L2 writing instruction course and their

reasoning behind such a decision. Also, more research needs to be done regarding

student-teachers' new "identity kit." SLTE program administrators and L2 writing

instruction professors would be asked about whether there is a specific Discourse

regarding second language writing or a general one related to the TESOL field or the

field of education.

Further studies need to be conducted to better understand whether student-

teachers are transferring their newly acquired discipline-specific knowledge and skills

into the classroom. As Wiggins and McTighe (2005) contend, "Evidence of

understanding that is transferable involves assessing for students' capacity to use their

knowledge thoughtfully and to apply it effectively in diverse settings" (p. 48). To

accomplish this, a cross-sectional study could be conducted where five cohorts could be

examined to decipher how and when student-teachers' knowledge of L2 writing has

evolved. The first cohort would be those students that have not taken a course on teaching

SLW. The second cohort would be those student-teachers that have just completed the

course. Finally, the last three cohorts would analyze those teacher-learners who have

been teaching for one or two years, five years, and ten years. This type of investigation

would measure student-teachers' learning outcomes, because as Hedgcock (2002) states:

Formal study may involve a delayed return on the initial

investment.. .candidates may not fully appreciate the benefits of
understanding premises of linguistic description, social pragmatics, or
what have you, until they have worked as practitioners in the field,
struggling with the day-to-day challenges of classroom teaching, (p. 306)
 145

In another research study, a case study analysis could be undertaken to gain a

deeper understanding into each one of these SLTE institutions. With that, a researcher

could collect lesson plans, conduct observations of an L2 writing instruction course, and

interview the teacher-educator as well as program administrators. Such a study could also

provide information on the "institutional or programmatic constraints" (SLW7) that

might not be visible from the outset.

Conclusions

In this qualitative study, the researcher used grounded theory approach to gain an

understanding into how graduate studentsenrolled in MATESOL and its related fields'

programs at United States colleges and universities are being prepared to teach second

language writing. Analysis of 26course syllabi, 17 member check questionnaires,

CCCC's position statement, and 2 expert interviews were undertaken.Strauss and Corbin

(1990) assert that the grounded narrative of a research investigation, "is inductively

derived from the study of the phenomenon it represents" (p. 23). Thus, instead of having

pre-existing ideas regarding the data, grounded theory approach generates a theoretical

narrative that emerges from the research findings.

It is within the L2 writing instruction courses that student-teachers should be

given the necessary tools to succeed at teaching future college L2 writers.The findings of

this investigation reveal that there are concrete knowledge and skills that teacher-

educators are trying to develop in their students in an effort to apprentice them into the

field of L2 writing instruction. The researcher discovered that those teacher-educators

 146

with practical experience in the ESL classroom as well as vested interest in the SLW

literature and their student-teachers are well-equipped to prepare future ESL composition

instructors. Their course syllabi clearly incorporate the various subtopics related to the

field: intercultural rhetoric, genre theory, feedback, technology, reading and writing

connection and much more. Several opportunities for field experience were also required

of the graduate students, which included tutoring L2 writers, micro-teaching, observing

L2 composition instructors, and/or conducting conferencing sessions with language

learners. Also, journaling, blogging, and online discussion forums were used as a tool to

help teacher-learners gain an insight into their own beliefs and practices concerning the

field. With this, there seems to be a certain level of consensus among faculty members,

experts and CCCC's position statement as to what constitutes adequate preparation for

prospective ESL writing instructors.

With all the theoretical and pedagogical skills that the student-teachers are being

exposed to in these L2 writing instruction courses, it remains to be seen whether student-

teachers are able to transmit these knowledge areas into their future teaching positions.

This situation could be resolved if, for example, an MATESOL program dealt with the

topic of L2 writing throughout the curriculum in such courses as second language

acquisition, grammar, linguistics, assessment, and others. Still, explicit preparation in

how to teach L2 writing is essential since writing is seen as a necessary skill for language

learners to succeed in college. The CCCC Statement on Second Language Writing and

Writers states:

Writing instructor preparation needs to expand instructors' knowledge of

writing issues in general, as well as how to specifically work with second
language writers. Writing programs should encourage instructors to
 147

perceive their institutional roles as guides that will help all students
develop their academic literacy by identifying the strengths and the issues
that need the student's attention. (Conference on College Composition and
Communication, 2001, p. 4)

Hirvela and Belcher (2007) asserted that scholars have, "paid relatively little attention to

what actually takes place in teacher education programs with respect to how writing, and

the preparation of writing teachers, is treated" (p. 125). To date, no study has analyzed

whether and how the 161 MATESOL and its related fields' programs in the United States

are preparing the next generation of second language writing instructors. The current

qualitative study found that L2 writing teacher-educators, who participated in this study,

were well-informed with the research regarding SLW and had extensive experience in the

ESL classroom. The theoretical narrative provides evidence that teacher-educators are

well-aware that in order for student-teachers to obtain membership in the new Discourse,

their graduate students must fully participate in the target community. Still, with the

influx of international students onto college campuses, the researcher recommends that

the subject of L2 writing instruction be included across a second language teacher

education program where the topicwould be covered, and experienced, in more

detail. Also, moreMATESOL and its related fields programs should dedicate a portion of

their curriculum towards discussing this topic.lt is hoped that the findings of this

qualitative study hasrevealed what is happening in these L2 writing/ reading and writing

instruction courses as well as fill a gap in the SLW literature.

 REFERENCES

Afros, E., &Schryer, C. F. (2009). The genre of syllabus in higher education. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, 8(3), 224-237.

Bereiter, C , &Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, F. J., Hill, W. H., &Krathwohl, D. R. (1956).
Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals.
Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.

Borg, M. (2004). The apprenticeship of observation. ELT Journal. 58(3), 274-276.

Breckenridge, J., & Jones, D. (2009). Demystifying theoretical sampling in grounded

theory research. The Grounded Theory Review, 8 (2), 113-126.

Bright, B. (1996). Reflecting on "reflective practice." Studies in The Education of Adults,

28(2), 162-184.

Burns, A., & Richards, J.C. (Eds). (2009). The Cambridge guide to second language
teacher education. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Canagarajah, S. (2002). A geopolitics of academic writing. Pittsburgh: University of

Pittsburgh Press.

Conference on College Composition and Communication. (2001). CCCC Statement on

Second Language Writing and Writers. Retrieved from
http://www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/secondlangwriting

Coxhead, A., & Byrd, P. (2007). Preparing writing teachers to teach the vocabulary and
grammar of academic prose. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16 (3), 129-
147.

Crandall, J. A. (2000). Language teacher education. Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics, 20, 34-55.

Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Crusan, D. (2005) Missing elements in MA TESOL curriculum? HEIS News: Newsletter

of TESOL's ESL in Higher Education Interest Section, 24(l).Retrieved March
2010, from www.tesol.org

Davis, B. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 149

Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological

methods. Chicago: Aldine.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research, (2nd
Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of
qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin& Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of
qualitativeresearch (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eberly, M. B., Newton, S. E., Wiggins, R. A. (2001). The syllabus as a tool for student-
centered learning. Journal of General Education, 50(1), 56-74.

Edge, J., & Richards, K. (1998). Why best practice isn't good enough. TESOL Quarterly,
32 (4), 569-576.

Fanselow, J. F. (1988). "Let's see": Contrasting conversations about teaching. TESOL

Quarterly, 22(1), 113-130.

Ferris, D. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 16(3), 165-193.

Ferris, D., &Hedgcock, J.S. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, &
practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Flower, L. (1994). The construction of negotiated meaning: A social cognitive theory of

writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College
Composition and Communication. 32, 4, pp. 365-387.

Freeman, D. (1990). Intervening in practice teaching. In J. C. Richards & D. Nunan

(Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 103-117). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Freeman, D. (1994). Knowing into doing: Teacher education and the problem of transfer.
In D. Li, D. Mahoney, & J. Richards (Eds.), Exploring second language teacher
development (pp. 1-20). Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.

Freeman, D. (2009). The scope of second language teacher education. In A. Burns and J.
C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education
(pp. 11-19). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
 150

Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of

language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 397'-417.

Freeman, D., & Richards, J. C. (eds.) (1996). Teacher learning in language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gay, L. R., &Airasian, P. (2000). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and
application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Gebhard, J. (2009). The practicum. In A. Burns, & J. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge
guide to second language teacher education (pp. 250-258). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Gebhard, J. G. (1990). Interaction in a teaching practicum. In J.C. Richards and D. Nunan

(Eds.), Second language teacher education(pp. 118-131). New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Gebhard, J. G., &Oprandy, R. (1999). Language teaching awareness: A guide to

exploring beliefs and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Gebhard, J. G., Gaitan, S., &Oprandy, R. (1990). Beyond prescription: The student
teacher as investigator. In J. C. Richards and D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language
teacher education (pp. 16-25). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gee, J. P. (2001). Literacy, discourse and linguistics: Introduction and what is literacy? In
E. Cushman, E. R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll, & M. Rose (Eds.), Literacy: A critical
sourcebook (pp. 525-544). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.

Glaser B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded

theory, Sociology Press: Mill Valley, CA

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. New York: Aldine Publishing Company.

Goldstein, L. (2006). Feedback and revision in second language writing: Contextual,

teacher, and student variables. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in
second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 185-205). New York:
Cambridge.

Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic
perspective. New York: Longman.

Graves, D. (1994). Afresh look at writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Grosse, C. (1991). The TESOL methods course. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 29-49.
 151

Grossman, P. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In

Cochran-Smith, M., &Zeichner, K. (Eds.). (2005). Studying teacher education:
The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 425-476).
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries,

Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29 (2), 75-91.

Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany: State

University of New York.

Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and
implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11 (1), 33-39.

Hedgcock, J. (2002). Toward a socioliterate approach to language teacher education.

Modern Language Journal, 86, 299-317.
Hedgcock, J. (2009). Acquiring knowledge of discourse conventions in teacher
education. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second
language teacher education (pp. 144-152). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.

Hinds, J. (1980). Japanese expository prose. Papers in Linguistics, 13, 117-158.

Hinds, J. (1987). Reader vs. writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. B.
Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages (pp. 141-152). Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.

Hirvela, A., and Belcher, D. (2007). Writing Scholars as Teacher Educators: Exploring
Writing Teacher Education. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 125-
128.

Horowitz, D. M. (1986). What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL
classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 445-462.

Horwitz, E. K., Bresslau, B., Dryden, M., McLendon, M. E., & Yu, J-F. (1997). A
graduate course focusing on the second language learner. Modern Language
Journal, 81, 518-526.

Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction.

Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148-164.
 152

Johnson, K. E. (2009a). Trends in second language teacher education. In A. Burns and J.

C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education
(pp. 20-29). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, K.E. (2009b). Second language teacher education: A sociocultrual perspective.

New York: Routledge.

Jones, S. R., Torres, V., &Arminio, J. (2006). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative
research in higher education. New York: Routledge.

Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language

Learning, 16, 1-20.

Korthagen, F., &Vasalos, A. (2005). Levels in reflection: core reflection as a means to

enhance professional growth. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 11 (1),
47-71.

Kovac, J., Sherwood, D.W. (1999). Writing in chemistry: An effective learning tool.
Journal of Chemical Education, 7(5(10), 1399-1403.

Kroll, B. (2003). Introduction: Teaching the next generation of second language writers.
In Kroll, B. (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (1-10).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Larrivee, B. (2000). Transforming Teaching Practice: becoming the critically reflective

teacher. Reflective Practice,1(3), 293-307.

Lasley, T.J. (1992). Promoting teacher reflection. Journal of Staff Development, 13(1),
24-29.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, I. (2003). L2 writing teachers' perspectives, practices and problems regarding error
feedback. Assessing Writing: An International Journal, 8(3), 216-237'.

Lee, I. (2011, March). Preparing NNESTs to teach EFL writing: Opportunities and
challenges. Paper presented at the 2011 TESOL Conference, New Orleans, LA.

Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: The state of the art. TESOL
Quarterly, 25 (I), 123-143.

Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers. Portsmouth, NH.
Boynton/Cook.
 153

Leki, I. (2001). Reciprocal themes in ESL reading and writing. In T. Silva & P. K.
Matsuda (Eds.), Landmark essays on ESL writing (pp. 173- 190).Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Leki, I., Cumming, A., Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language
writing in English. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lincoln, Y. S., &Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Matsuda, P. K. (1997). The first five years of the JSLW: A retrospective. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 6(2), 4-5.

Matsuda, P. K. (1998). Situating ESL writing in a cross-disciplinary context. Written

Communication, 15, 99-121.

Matsuda, P. K. (1999). Composition studies and ESL writing: A disciplinary division of

labor. College Composition and Communication, 50, 699-721.

Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Opening statement: Practising WAC is practicing ESL. Retrieved

December, 2010, from Colorado State University, The WAC Clearinghouse Web
site
http://wac.colostate.edu/aw/forums/fall2001/matsuda_opening.htm

Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Second language writing in the twentieth century: A situated

historical perspective. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second
language writing (pp. 15-34). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Matsuda, P. K. (2005). Historical inquiry in second language writing. In P. K. Matsuda &

T. Silva (Eds.), Second language writing research: Perspectives on the process of
knowledge construction (pp. 33-46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Matsuda, P. K., & Silva, T. (Eds.), (2005). Second language writing research:
Perspectives on the process of knowledge construction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Matthews, P.H. (1997). Oxford concise dictionary of linguistics. Oxford. University

Press, USA

McKeachie, W. J., &Svinicki, M. (2006). McKeachie's teaching tips: Strategies,

research, and theory for college and university teachers (12th ed.). Boston:
Houghton-Mifflin.
 154

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. B., &Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Mohan, B. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Montgomery, J., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions,

teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 16, 82 99.

Morita, N. (2000). Discourse socialization through oral classroom activities in a TESL

graduate program. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 279-310.

Murphy, J. (1997). Phonology courses offered by MA TESOL programs in the US.

TESOL Quarterly, 31, 741-764.

Nation, P., &Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. In N.
Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and
pedagogy (pp. 6-19). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

National Writing Project. (2011). NWP Core Principles. In About NWP. Retrieved
March, 2011, from http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/doc/about.csp

Nelson, G. (1998). Intercultural communication or related courses taught in graduate

TESOL programs. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 17-33.

Nollen, N. L., Befort, C. A., Snow, P. M., Daley, C. M., Ellerbeck, E. F., &Ahluwalia, J.
S. (2007). The school food environment and adolescent obesity: Qualitative
insights from high school administrators and food service personnel.
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, (4)\%, 1-12.

Palmer, I. C. (1995, March). Required courses for master's degrees: A nationwide

survey. Paper presented at the 29th Annual TESOL Convention, Long Beach, CA.

Parkes, J., & Harris, M. B. (2002). The purposes of a syllabus. College Teaching, 50 (2),
55-61.

Pincas, A. (1962). Structural linguistics and systematic composition teaching to students

of English as a second language. Language Learning, 12(3), 185-194.

Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of
composing. TESOL Quarterly 19(2), 229-258.
 155

Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing.
TESOL Quarterly, 25 (3), 407-430.

Reid, J. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Regents/Prentice Hall.

Rice, P. L., &Ezzy, D. (2000). Qualitative research methods: A health focus. South
Melbourne,VIC, Oxford University Press.

Richards, J. C. (1990). The dilemma of teacher education in second language teaching. In

J. C. Richards and D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 3-
15). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. (1998). Beyond training. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C , & Farrell, T. S. C. (2005). Professional development for language

teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C.,&Nunan, D. (eds.). (1990). Second language teacher education.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J.C. (2008). Second language teacher education today. RELC Journal, 39 (2),
158-177.

Richards, J.C, & Crookes, G. (1988). The practicum in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 22
(1), 9-27.

Rivard L. P., & Straw, S. P. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An
exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566-593.

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. NY:
Basic Books.

Second Language Writing Interest Section, (n. d.). Retrieved November 2010, from
http://secondlanguagewriting.com/slwis/

Shin, S. J. (2006). Learning to teach writing through tutoring and journal writing.
Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12(3), 325-345.

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57 (1), 1-22.

Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and

directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights
for the classroom (pp. ll-23).New York: Cambridge University Press.
 156

Silva, T. (1992). LI vs. L2 writing: ESL graduate students' perceptions. TESL Canada
Journal, 10 (1), 27'-47.

Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL
research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly 27 (4), 657-677.

Silva, T., & Matsuda, P. K. (Eds.). (2001). Landmark essays on ESL writing. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.

Silva, T., Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). Broadening the perspective of mainstream
composition studies: Some thoughts from the disciplinary margins. Written
Composition^, 398-428.

Singh, G., & Richards, J. C. (2006). Teaching and Learning in the Language Teacher
Education Course Room: Beyond a Community of Practice view. Regional
English Language Centre Journal, 37 (2), 149-175.

Smith, K. (2005). Teacher educators' expertise: What do novice teachers and teacher
educators say? Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 177-192.

Stenhouse, L. (2002). The teacher as researcher. In A. Pollard (Ed.), Readings for

reflective teaching (pp. 32-33). London & New York: Continuum.

Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative research for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (199%).Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and

procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

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

Symposium on Second Language Writing.(2011). In About the Symposium. Retrieved

March, 2011, from http://sslw.asu.edu/

TESOL. (1996-2007). Common qualifications for English language teachers. Retrieved

April, 2011, from
http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/sec_document.asp?CID=232&DID=399

TESOL. (1996-2007). Master's Degree. Retrieved January, 2010, from

http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/seccss.asp?CJD=1562&DID=8616
 157

Torre, A., &Rolon-Dow, R. (2000). Teacher research as professional development. In

D. J. Mclntyre & D. M. Byrd (Eds.), Research on effective models for teacher
education (pp. 78-96). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Tsui, A. B. M. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Tynjala, P. (1998). Traditional studying for examination versus constructivist learning

tasks: Do learning outcome differ? Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 173-189.

Van Maanen, J. (1979). The fact and fiction in organizational ethnography.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 539-550.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Walsh, K., Glaser, D., & Wilcox, D. D. (2006). What education schools aren't teaching
about reading and what elementary teachers aren 't learning. Washington, DC:
National Council on Teacher Quality.Retrieved May 2010, from
http://www.nctq.org/nctq/images/nctq_reading_study_app.pdf

Wang, W. (2003). How is pedagogical grammar defined in current TESOL training

practice? TESOL Canada Journal, 21, 64-78.

Weigle, S. C. (2007). Teaching writing teachers about assessment. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 16(3), 194-209.

Wiggins, G., &McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Williams, J. (1995). ESL composition program administration in the United States.

Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(2), 157-179.

Winer, L. (1992). "Spinach to chocolate": Changing awareness and attitudes in ESL

writing teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 57-80.

Zamel, V. (1980). Re-evaluating sentence-combining practice. TESOL Quarterly,14, 81-

90.

Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly,

16(2), 195- 209.

Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies.
TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 165-178.
 158

APPENDIX A

CCCC STATEMENT ON SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING AND WRITERS

M « M « l l Position Statement
ft statement on an education issue approved by the CCCC Executive Committet

CCCC Statement on Second Language Writing and

Writers
last edited 1 year, 5 months ago

Conference on College Composition and Communication

January 2001
Revised November 2009

Part One: General Statement

The Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) recognizes the presence of a growing
number of second language writers in institutions of higher education across North America, including
technical colleges, two-year colleges, four-year institutions, and graduate programs. As colleges and
universities have actively sought to increase the diversity of their student populations through recruitment of
international students, and as domestic second language populations have grown, second language writers
have become an integral part of writing courses and programs.

Second language writers include international visa students, refugees, and permanent residents as well as
naturalized and native-born citizens of the United States and Canada. Many of these students have grown
up speaking languages other than English at home, in their communities, and in schools; others began to
acquire English at a very young age and have used it alongside their native languages. To many, English
may be a third, fourth or fifth language. Many second language writers are highly literate in their first
languages, while others have never learned to write in their mother tongues. Some are even native speakers
of languages without a written form. Some students may have difficulty adapting to or adopting North
American discursive strategies because the nature and functions of discourse, audience, and rhetorical
appeals often differ across cultural, national, linguistic, and educational contexts. At the same time, however,
other students-especially graduate students-are already knowledgeable about the discourse and content of
their respective disciplines, even if their status as "international" or "second language" may mask their
abilities. Furthermore, most second language writers are still in the process of acquiring syntactic and lexical
competence—a process that will take a lifetime.

Second language writers take part in writing programs at all levels — from basic writing and first-year
composition to professional writing and writing across the curriculum — as well as in writing centers and
graduate programs. Many institutions provide intensive language programs and "sheltered" sections of
second language composition. But students may be crowded out of such courses or may elect to take
"mainstream" writing courses. Additionally, students who grew up using languages other than English may
retain features of those languages in their English writing long after they leave their first-year writing
courses. So, while students emerge as members of their fields through upper-division and graduate courses,
they also continue to emerge as writers-often in ways unique to their cultural and linguistic backgrounds
and educational and other social experiences.
 For these reasons, we urge writing teachers and writing program administrators to

• Recognize and take responsibility for the regular presence of second language writers in writing classes, to
understand their characteristics, and to develop instructional and administrative practices that are sensitive
to their linguistic and cultural needs
• Offer teacher preparation in second language writing theory, research, and instruction in the forms of
graduate courses, faculty workshops, relevant conference travel, and, when possible, require such
coursework or other similar preparation for instructors working with writers in a higher-education context
• Offer graduate courses in second language writing theory, research, and instruction and, when possible,
require such coursework or other similar preparation for instructors working with writers in a higher-
education context
• Investigate issues surrounding second language writing and writers in the context of writing programs,
including first-year writing programs, undergraduate and graduate technical, creative, and theoretical writing
courses, writing centers, and Writing Across the Curriculum programs
• Include second language perspectives in developing theories, designing studies, analyzing data, and
discussing implications of studies of writing

In the following sections, we provide guidelines for instructors of writing and writing-intensive courses, for
writing program administrators, and for teacher preparation

Part Two: Guidelines for Writing and Writing-Intensive

Courses
Class Size
Since working with second language writers often requires additional feedback and conference time with the
instructor, enrollments in mainstream classes with a substantial number of second language writers should
be reduced to a maximum of 20 students per class In classes made up exclusively of second language
writers, enrollments should be limited to a maximum of 15 students per class

Writing Assignment Design

When designing assignments, instructors should avoid topics that require substantial background knowledge
that is related to a specific culture or history that is not being covered by the course Instructors should also
be aware that sensitive topics, such as sexuality, criticism of authority, political beliefs, personal
experiences, and religious beliefs, are subject to differing levels of comfort among students of different
cultural and educational backgrounds We encourage instructors to provide students with multiple options for
successfully completing an assignment, such as by providing multiple prompts or allowing students to write
in a variety of genres for completing the assignment Instructors should provide clearly written assignments
so that expectations are not left tacit

Assessment
The evaluation of second language texts should take into consideration various aspects of writing (e g , topic
development, organization, grammar, word choice) Writing instructors should look for evidence of a text's
rhetorically effective features, rather than focus only on one or two of these features that stand out as
problematic To reduce the risk of evaluating students on the basis of their cultural knowledge rather than
their writing proficiency, students should be given several writing prompts to choose from when appropriate
Writing prompts for placement and exit exams should avoid cultural references that are not readily
understood by people who come from various cultural backgrounds When possible, instructors should
provide students with a rubric which articulates assessment criteria (See also the section on Writing
Assignment Design and Teacher Preparation in this section )
 160

The Committee on Second Language Writing also supports the recommendations in the CCCC Position
Statement on Writing Assessment In particular, we endorse the idea that best assessment practices use
multiple measures As the Position Statement on Writing Assessment states, "writing ability must be
assessed by more than one piece of writing, in more than one genre, written on different occasions, for
different audiences, and responded to and evaluated by multiple readers as part of a substantial and
sustained writing process " In addition, we echo the call that "best assessment practice [that] respect
language variety and diversity and [assess] writing on the basis of effectiveness for readers, acknowledging
that as purposes vary, criteria will as well" (See also
http //www ncte org/cccc/resources/positions/writingassessment)

Textual Borrowing
Textual ownership and the ownership of ideas are concepts that are culturally based and therefore not
shared across cultures and educational systems Further, "patchwritmg," defined by Rebecca Moore
Howard, as the copying of sections of texts, such as phrasings and sentence patterns, is a natural part of
the process of learning to write in a second language As with native English speaking students, second
language students may plagiarize when they panic about getting an assignment completed in time or doubt
their ability to complete the assignment competently Plagiarism, at many universities across the nation, is
attributed to practices that range from the wholesale taking of an entire text to the improper use of citation
convention To help second language writers avoid practices that violate these institutional policies, both
first-year writing and writing-intensive instructors should teach and re-enforce U S expectations for textual
borrowing and citation conventions so that these students are continuously learning this throughout their
college careers Instructors and administrators should not expect second language writers to philosophically
grasp and perfectly execute these practices after a single lesson We advocate that instructors take extra
care when suspecting a second language writer of plagiarism, and take into consideration the student's
cultural background, level of experience with North American educational systems, and confidence level for
writing in English

Teacher Preparation
Any writing course, including basic writing, first-year composition, advanced writing, and professional writing,
as well as any writing-intensive course that enrolls any second language writers should be taught by an
instructor who is able to identify and is prepared to address the linguistic and cultural needs of second
language writers This preparation may be offered through preparing future faculty programs, first-year
composition programming for instructors, or faculty development programming offered through Writing
Across the Curriculum programs, writing centers, ESL support services, or other campus initiatives (More
guidelines related to teacher preparation are provided in Part Four. Guidelines for Teacher Preparation and
Preparedness)

Resources for Teachers

Writing programs should provide resources for teachers working with second language writers, including
textbooks and readers on the teaching of second language writing as well as reference materials such as
dictionaries and grammar handbooks for language learners Moreover, writing programs should encourage
— and offer incentives for — teachers to attend workshops on teaching second language writers that are
presented at professional conferences such as CCCC, NCTE, and Teachers of English to Speakers of Other
Languages (TESOL) Writing programs without experts in second language writing are encouraged to seek
consultation from disciplinary experts

Part Three: Guidelines for Writing Programs

First-Year Composition

Placement
 161

Decisions regarding the placement of second language writers into first-year writing courses should be
based on students' writing proficiency rather than their race, native-language background, nationality, or
immigration status Nor should the decisions be based solely on the scores from standardized tests of
general language proficiency or of spoken language proficiency Instead, scores from the direct assessment
of students' writing proficiency should be used, and multiple writing samples should be consulted whenever
possible Writing programs should work toward making a wide variety of placement options available—
including mainstreaming, basic writing, and second language writing as well as courses that systematically
integrate native and nonnative speakers of English, such as cross-cultural composition courses

Placing residential second language students in appropriate college writing courses can be especially
challenging because not all students self-identify as "ESL," "multilingual" or "second language" students
Some students may welcome the opportunity to enroll in a writing course designated for second language
writers for the additional language support while others may prefer to enroll in a mainstream first-year
composition course Due to these considerations, we advocate Directed Self-Placement as a means of
determining the most appropriate placement for second language writers (for more information on Directed
Self-Placement, see Royer and Gilles) Writing programs should inform students of the advantages and
disadvantages of each placement option so that students can make informed decisions, and should make
this opportunity available to both international and residential second language students

Credit

Second language sections of first-year composition courses should be offered for credit that satisfies the
college's or university's writing requirement Second language writing courses prerequisite to required
composition courses should be offered for credit that can be used toward satisfying the foreign-language
requirement and should receive the same credit accorded other prerequisite composition courses

Writing Across the Curriculum/Writing in the Disciplines Programs

Beyond the composition requirements, writing instruction, at some institutions, is encouraged or required to
further promote academic literacy and prepare students for disciplinary discourse within and beyond the
academy (this includes professional writing courses, often taught in English departments) Therefore, the
literacy support of second language writers needs to extend beyond the composition requirement as well

Institutions requiring undergraduates to complete writing-intensive courses across the curriculum should
offer faculty development in second language writing that should include information about second language
writing development, information about second language populations at the institution, approaches for
designing writing assignments that are culturally inclusive, and approaches for assessing writing that are
ethical in relation to second language writing When possible, institutions are encouraged to design
resources that accommodate their writing students who have moved beyond the first-year writing program
(e g , a campus with a large number of second language writers taking technical writing courses may
develop a separate section for second language writers taught by an individual with expertise in both fields)
Institutions requiring a writing assessment as a graduation requirement should design this writing
assessment so that it is fair and equitable for second language writers

Writing Centers
Writing centers offer crucial resources to second language students These students often visit the writing
center seeking support in understanding writing assignments, developing a piece of writing, and to gauge
reader response to their writing They may also seek input on interpreting teacher feedback or assessment
and learning more about nuances of the English language Therefore, it is imperative that writing centers
model and discuss effective approaches for working with second language writers in tutor training, make
available reference materials specific to language learners such as dictionaries on idiomatic English, and
hire tutors with specialized knowledge in second language writing Writing centers that hire multilingual
tutors will have someone who can provide second language writing students with first-hand writing strategies
as well as empathy
Support for Graduate Students
At institutions with graduate programs, various writing administrators (especially WAC directors), second
language acquisition specialists, and/or other informed advocates of second language writers should work
closely with graduate programs enrolling second language writers to create discipline-specific writing
support, such as a graduate writing fellows program, English for Academic Purposes courses, or English for
Specific Purposes courses In these courses second language writing graduate students can learn to
examine discipline-specific discourse, and they can compose texts that will help them fulfill program
requirements and participate in professionahzation opportunities, in addition to learning academic English
literacy conventions Also second language graduate writers can benefit from a writing center with a staff
well-versed in graduate-level literacy expectations and second language writing

Part Four: Guidelines for Teacher Preparation and

Preparedness
The teaching of writing occurs in multiple contexts, from the type of course (basic writing, first-year
composition, professional writing, WACA/VID, graduate writing, writing centers and intensive English
courses) to the media through which the course is taught (online classes, hybrid classes) As instructors
prepare for these teaching contexts and student populations, they will need to consider some of the
pedagogical assumptions that inform their practices Writing instructor preparation needs to expand
instructors' knowledge of writing issues in general, as well as how to specifically work with second language
writers Writing programs should encourage instructors to perceive their institutional roles as guides that will
help all students develop their academic literacy by identifying the strengths and the issues that need the
student's attention To this end, second language writing should be integrated throughout the professional
preparation and development programs of all writing teachers, whether that be through a practicum
experience, through WAC workshops, or through writing center training If case studies are used as a
methodology, for example, students might also conduct case studies with second language writers. If
observation is used, students should consider observing both NES and NNES students. If student texts are
shared for analysis, both NES and NNES texts should be used

Cultural Beliefs Related to Writing

Teacher preparation should include information about cultural beliefs related to writing Second language
writers often come from contexts in which writing is shaped by linguistic and cultural features different from
their NES peers Beliefs related to individuality versus collectivity, ownership of text and ideas, student
versus teacher roles, revision, structure, the meaning of different rhetorical moves, writer and reader
responsibility, and the roles of research and inquiry all impact how student writers shape their texts.

Assignments
Writing instructors should gam experience in reflecting on how writing assignments may tacitly include
cultural assumptions or tacitly rely on knowledge of culturally-specific information Writing instructors should
also gain experience designing writing assignments with second language students in mind, considering
topics that are culturally sensitive to second language writers and including directions easily understandable
to multiple audiences. Discussions on assignment design might include scaffolding, creating benchmarks
within larger projects, and incorporating additional resources such as the writing center Discussions might
also include methods for teaching students the multiple rhetorical elements that influence a text's rhetorical
effectiveness, as well as reflections on students' negotiations between composing in a home country
language (including variations of English) and composing in academic English

Building on Students 1 Competencies

Teacher preparation programs should encourage instructors to identify strengths second language writers
bring to the classroom Instructors should look for opportunities to use students' current literacy practices as
 163

a foundation for teaching the expectations of academic literacy For example, teaching writing with
technology can give second language writing students an opportunity to build upon the literacy practices
with which they are already familiar and comfortable Those students who have access to technology can be
relatively proficient with multiple applications, especially second language students who use the technology
to keep in touch with home and reach out to people around the world These students often demonstrate
savvy rhetorical strategies, including the ability to communicate with others who write in other varieties of
English With the help of an instructor, second language writers can learn to bridge the strategies they use to
communicate socially through digital media to the expectations of the academy Therefore, instructors need
to learn how to proficiently work with the writing tools and within the writing contexts that will help second
language writers create these bridges As in this case, instructors need to be trained to work with various
writing media (e g , computer programs) so that they can take advantage of these pedagogical opportunities

Response
It may take more time for an instructor to 'hear' what a second language writer is attempting to
communicate through a piece of writing Second language students may require more conferencing time
with their teachers, so that teachers can discuss global issues first, and then attend to local issues Teacher
preparation should include discussion on how the prose second language writers produce can violate their
aesthetic expectations for academic English, instructors, instead, should look for the textual features that are
rhetorically effective, and prioritize two or three mechanical or stylistic issues that individual second
language writers should focus on throughout the duration of the course Teacher preparation should include
discussion on how response tools, such as rubrics, conferencing, might consider these differences

Sustaining the Conversation

Teacher preparation experiences are often held as meetings during an orientation, guest lectures by
experts, faculty workshops, and graduate-level seminars While there is value in single experience situations
(e g , a guest lecture, a single workshop, or a single class dedicated to second language issues), instructors
will be better prepared to work with second language students if issues of second language writing and
writers are a consistent feature that is re-enforced throughout their training in writing instruction, especially
in-service training encouraged of all writing instructors

Part Five: Considering L2 Writing Concerns in Local Contexts

The role English has assumed as the "lingua franca" of academic, business, political, and technical
communication internationally has increased the demand for English instruction in global contexts US
colleges and their surrounding communities have grown considerably more diverse in recent years Recent
statistics collected by the US Census Bureau indicate that almost 20 % of the US population speaks a
language other than English at home (American FactFmder) Writing programs should consider that
students enrolled in US college composition courses—"ESL" or "mainstream"—as well as in writing and
writing-intensive courses across the curriculum may vary in their linguistic backgrounds and their
experiences with academic English We recommend writing programs develop a better awareness of the
language experiences of their students, including understanding the evolution of English—its fluidity and its
global variation (i e , World Englishes)

Building Awareness of Local Multilingual Populations

We recommend that writing programs familiarize themselves with the multilingual populations surrounding
their institutions Doing so not only provides valuable insight into the language experiences of some students
in your writing programs, but it also could identify large multilingual populations wishing to matriculate into
the college/university Information on local populations can be collected from the US Census Bureau's
American FactFmder website Also, websites such as the National Center for Education Statistics provides
data on the number of English Language Learners (ELL) receiving special services in area high schools,
some of whom might aspire to enter the university one day Such information can be collected and
disseminated on a centrally managed university website for the benefit of both instructors within the
composition program and other university faculty
Collecting Information on Language Use and Language Background
Further, writing programs should actively seek to determine the language use and language backgrounds of
their students, particularly since many universities often do not collect such information from multilingual
students who enter the university from US high schools Yearly surveys conducted across the sections of
first-year writing could provide writing programs with insight into the language needs of students in their
courses Further, posting the results of these surveys on a centrally managed website could help educate
faculty across the university on the language needs and backgrounds of their students

Encouraging Cross-Institutional Collaborations

For many resident second language students, the journey from secondary school to postsecondary is often
met with awkward or inconsistent transitions (Harklau) Writing teachers and writing program administrators
would benefit greatly from developing a better understanding of these students ' experiences prior to
entering the college or university setting One way to begin to learn about those experiences and to
facilitate a more fluid journey across these educational contexts is to create more opportunities for cross-
institutional collaborations with secondary schools and local secondary school teachers Some possibilities
for encouraging such collaborations might include bridge programs for local second language students,
writing center outreach to local schools, and collaborations with English teacher education programs

For more information, see the NCTE Position Paper on the Role of English Teachers in Educating English
Language Learners (ELLs) http //www ncte orq/positions/statements/teacherseducatinqell

Part Six: Selected Bibliography

American FactFinder n d U S Census Bureau Web 10 October 2009 <http //factfinder census qov>

Braine, George "Starting ESL Classes in Freshman Writing Programs " TESOL Journal 3 4 (1994) 22-25

Bruce, Shanti, and Ben Rafoth, ed ESL Writers A Guide for Writing Center Tutors, 2nd ed Portsmouth,
NH Boynton/Cook Hememann, 2009 Print

Canagarjah, Suresh The Place of World Englishes in Composition Plurahzation Continued College
Composition and Communication 57 4 (2006) 586-619 JSTOR PDF file

Casanave, Christine Pearson Controversies in Second Language Writing Dilemmas and Decisions in
Research and Instruction Ann Arbor U of Michigan P, 2004 Print

Cox, Michelle, Jay Jordan, Christina Ortmeier-Hooper, and Gwen Gray Schwartz, eds Reinventing Identities
in Second Language Writing Urbana, IL NCTE, forthcoming 2010

Curne, Pat "Staying Out of Trouble Apparent Plagiarism and Academic Survival" Journal of Second
Language Writing 7 1 (1998) 1-18

Ferris, Dana R , Teaching College Writing to Diverse Student Populations Ann Arbor U of Michigan P,
2009 Print

Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing Ann Arbor U of Michigan P, 2002 Print

— , and John S Hedgcock Teaching ESL Composition Purpose, Process, and Practice, 2nd ed Mahwah,
NJ Erlbaum, 2005 Print

Harklau, Linda, Kay Losey, and Meryl Siegal, ed Generation 1 5 Meets College Composition Issues in the
Teaching of Writing to U S-Educated Learners of ESL Mahwah, NJ Erlbaum, 1999 Print
 165

Horner, Bruce, Min-Zhan Lu, and Paul Kei Matsuda, eds Cross-Language Relations in Composition
Carbondale Southern Illinois UP, forthcoming 2010

Howard, Rebecca Moore "Plagiarisms, Authorships, and the Academic Death Penalty" College English
57 7 (November 1995) 708-36 JSTOR PDF file

Kroll, Barbara, ed Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing New York Cambridge UP, 2003
Print

Lam, W S E L2 Literacy and the Design of the Self A Case Study of a Teenager Writing on the Internet
TESOL Quarterly 34 3 (2000) 457-482 JSTOR PDF file

Leki, llona Undergraduates in a Second Language Challenges and Complexities of Academic Literacy
Development Mahwah, NJ Erlbaum, 2007 Print

, and Rosa Manchon, ed Journal of Second Language Writing New York Elsevier

, Alister Cummmg, and Tony Silva A Synthesis of Research on Second Language Writing in English
New York Routledge, 2008 Print

Matsuda, Paul Kei "Basic Writing and Second Language Writers Toward an Inclusive Definition " Journal of
Basic Writing 22 2 (2003) 67-89 EBSCOhost Communications and Mass Media Complete, PDF file

"Composition Studies and ESL Writing A Disciplinary Division of Labor" College Composition and
Communication 50 4 (1999) 699-721 JSTOR PDF file

"The Myth of Linguistic Homogeneity in U S College Composition " College English 68 6 (2006) 637-
51 JSTOR PDF file

"Situating ESL Writing in a Cross-Disciplinary Context" Written Communication 15 1 (1998) 99-121

Sage Premier PDF file

, Michelle Cox, Jay Jordan, and Christina Ortmeier-Hooper, ed Second Language Writing in the
Composition Classroom A Critical Sourcebook Boston Bedford/St Martin's, Urbana NCTE, 2006 Print

, Maria Fruit and Tamara Lee Burton Lamm, ed Bridging the Disciplinary Divide Integrating a Second-
Language Perspective into Writing Programs Spec issue of WPA Writing Program Administration 30 1-2
(2006) Print

, Christina Ortmeier-Hooper and Xiaoye You, ed The Politics of Second Language Writing In Search of
the Promised Land West Lafayette, IN Parlor, 2006 Print

, and Tony Silva, ed Second Language Writing Research Perspectives on the Process of Knowledge
Construction Mahwah, NJ Erlbaum, 2005 Print

Ortmeier-Hooper, Christina "English May Be My Second Language, but I m Not 'ESL " College Composition
and Communication 59 3 (2008) 389-419 JSTOR PDF file

Raimes, Ann Grammar Troublespots A Guide for Student Writers New York Cambridge UP, 2004 Print

Roberge, Mark, Meryl Siegal, and Linda Harklau, ed Generation 1 5 in College Composition Teaching
Academic Writing to U S -Educated Learners of ESL New York Routledge, 2009 Print

Robertson, Wayne, director Writing Across Borders Oregon State University, 2005 Film
(For more information, go to http //wic oreqonstate edu/wntinqacrossborders)

Royer, Daniel and Roger Gilles, ed Directed Self-Placement Principles and Practices Cresskill, NJ
Hampton, 2003 Print
 166

Silva, Tony "An Examination of Writing Program Administrators Options for the Placement of ESL Students
in the First Year Writing Classes " WPA Writing Program Administration 18 1-2 (1994) 37-43 Print

Swales, John M , and Christine B Feak English in Today's Research World A Writing Guide Ann Arbor U
of Mighican P, 2000 Print

Tardy, Christine Building Genre Knowledge West Lafayette, IN Parlor, 2009 Print

Trimbur, John "The Dartmouth Conference and the Geohistory of the Native Speaker" College English 71 2
(2008) 142-69 JSTOR PDF file

U S Institute of Education Sciences National Center for Education Statistics U S Department of Education
Web 10 October 2009 <http //nces ed gov >

Zamel, Vivian and Ruth Spack, ed Crossing the Curriculum Multilingual Learners in College Classrooms
Mahwah, NJ Erlbaum, 2003 Print

This position statement may be printed, copied, and disseminated without permission from NCTE.
 167

APPENDIX B

POSITION STATEMENT ON TEACHER QUALITY IN THE FIELD OF

TEACHING ENGLISH TO SPEAKERS OF OTHERS LANGUAGES

I'ffuiB Teachers of Eftglisi* te speaker* &f Q H W Lanigyagies, irte.

TESGL Position Statement on Teacher Quality

in the Field of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Laugnnges
English Language learners, whether in an English as a second language
(ESL) or English as a foreign, language (EFL) setting, have the light to be
taught by qualified and trained teachers. Native spealer proficiency in the
target language alone is noc a sufficient qoalifkatioa for such teaching
positions; the field, of teaching English to speakers of other languages
(TESOL) is a professional discipline that requires specialised rrauioig.

Qualified! ESL and EFL educaiors not only should demonstrate a high.
level of written and oral proficiency in die Eaglisb language (regardless, of
native language), hut also should demonstrate teaching competency.
Moreover, qualified! ESL and EEL educators should be aware of current
trends and research and their instructional implications in the fields of
linguistics, applied linguistics, second language acquisition,
sodalinguisries, language pedagogy and methodology, literacy
development, curriculum and materials development, assessment, and
cross-colroral comnHmication. Where applicable. ESL and EEL educators
sho*ild receive the necessary degree, licensing, validation- or certification
as deienuined by their institution, counay. or region from qualified
ESL EFL teacher educators Most importantly. ESLand EFL educators,
lite all teachers. require ongoing professional development, and should
receive both the resources and support for continued professional growth
and achievement.
 168

APPENDIX C

EMAIL TO PARTICIPANTS REGARDING STUDY

Prof. XXX,
My name is AminaNihlawi and I am currently a doctoral student at the University of
Arkansas. I am conducting a study on the preparation of future second language writing
instructors and would like your participation in this study.

Since you will teach XXX,you are being asked to submit (via e-mail) a recent copy of
your course syllabus.

Submitting your syllabus is completely voluntary and there are absolutely no risks if you
choose not to participate. There is no compensation for participating and your identity as
well as the identity of your college/university will be kept confidential to the extent
allowed by law and University policy. Participants' names and names of their institutions
will not be used in any publication or report resulting from this research.

Furthermore, please let me know if you are interested in participating in a short Q&A
interview about this topic.

I have attached a copy of the consent form as well as a letter explaining the study.
Should you have any questions regarding this research study, please feel free to contact
me.

Again, thank you for your time

Sincerely,

AminaNihlawi

PhD Candidate
Curriculum & Instruction
University of Arkansas- Fayetteville
 APPENDIX D

OVERVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT OF THEORETICAL NARRATIVE AND

MEMBER CHECK QUESTIONNAIRE

Member Check Questions

Title of study: Analyzing the Preparation of Second Language Writing Teachers: A

Grounded Theory Approach

Researcher: AminaNihlawi
PhD candidate
University of Arkansas
College of Education and Health Professions
Department of Curriculum & Instruction
Fayetteville, Arkansas72701
xxx-xxx-xxxx

Dear Professor,
Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to volunteer for the second part
of this study. To establish credibility of the research findings, this part of the study
involves participant member checks. Thus, you are invited to review the following data
collection, data analysis, and theory generation information from the course syllabi that I
collected and answer a few questions.

A grounded theory approach was used for this study to explore the preparation of
future second language composition instructors. It involves the development of
theoretical interpretations from data that are simultaneously gathered and compared. As
Strauss and Corbin (1990) point out, the theory that is developed "is inductively derived
from the study of the phenomenon it represents" (p. 23). Rather than having pre-existing
ideas about the data, grounded theory approach generates theoretical explanations that are
grounded in the research findings.
Using TESOL Website's list of master's level academic programs in the teaching
of English as a Second Language and its related fields, I contacted those professors that
recently taught or will teach a course on how to teach second language writing. After
course instructors submitted their syllabi, the documents were immediately examined and
compared with each other. I used Strauss and Corbin's (1998) three stage coding process
to analyze the data, which included open coding, axial coding and selective coding. This
coding technique helps generate a theoretical understanding of how current student-
teachers are being prepared to teach second language writing.
In the second part of the study, theoretical sampling was used as it is one of the
pillars of a grounded theory study. This entailed collecting data from a new sample in
 170

order to saturate the findings of the initial analysis and served to confirm the emerging
theory. Thus, professors of teaching second language reading and writing were contacted
and asked to submit their course syllabi. After collecting and analyzing all the syllabi, I
began coding the documents. The table below displays the coding paradigm, as well as
examples, that I generated from all the samples.
Coding paradigm of syllabi for the development of grounded theory

Examples from Open code Axial code Selective code/

syllabi Grounded Theory
Theoretical issues, 1. Content knowledge Disciplinary Learning to become a
theories of literacy knowledge second language writing
& composition, etc. instructor involves
Responding to 2. Pedagogical taking on a new
writers, assess knowledge Discourse or a new
instructional needs, "identity kit" (Gee,
etc. 1989). However, not
much attention is given
Micro-teaching, 3. Experiencing Engagement to having student-
tutoring, error teaching teachers practice using
conferencing, etc. the process approach to
Exams, essays, 4. Learning tasks writing.
class participation,
developing lesson
plans, material
analysis, etc.
Observe a writing 5. Observation
or literacy class
includes having 6. Developing writing Identity
students produce skills awareness
multi-draft essays, (unsaturated code)
peer response,
getting feedback
from teacher about
writing, revising,
etc.
Conduct in-class 7. Professional
workshop, book development
review, profile
scholar, write a
conference/research
proposal,
ethnography, etc.
Journal entries, 8. Reflection
blogs, online
discussion of
readings, etc.
Self-evaluation, 9. Self-reflection
position statement,
autobiography, etc.
 171

As Breckenridge and Jones (2009) point out, the theoretical interpretation that is
developed "should be grounded in the data, not in the procedure" (p. 116). After close
examination of the initial and subsequent samples, all but one of the open codes
generated reached theoretical saturation. The unsaturated code in this study was
"developing writing skills." This code entails having student-teachers practice the writing
process approach not just by learning about it, but by actively practicing it in the
classroom. With this, I developed the following theory about how student-teachers are
being prepared to teach second language writing (SLW).

The Grounded Theory

Effective preparation of future second language writing (SLW) instructors
involves having student-teachers take on a new Discourse or a new way of
thinking, speaking and applying oneself. This new Discourse is formulated
after acquiring the appropriate disciplinary knowledge, engaging in
apprenticeship training, and helping student-teachers develop an awareness of
their personal emerging identities. However, little attention is given with
regard to having student-teachers experience the writing process approach
(which includes multi-draft writing, peer response, teacher conferencing, etc.).

Please answer the following questions.

Questions about theory

2. What do you think of the first part of the theory that is in italicsl
3. What do you think of the second part of the theory that is underlined?
More questions
4. What/who informs your syllabus design?
5. What is your experience with teaching writing to English language learners? At what
level?
6. How many times have you taught xxx?
7. Is there anything that you want to clarify about your syllabus or your approach to
teaching xxx?
8. May I contact you in case I have any further questions?
9. Comments, suggestions, feedback?

Thank you for participating in this study,

AminaNihlawi
PhD candidate
University of Arkansas
 APPENDIX E

LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS REGARDING STUDY

AminaNihlawi
X. X. Xxx xxxx
XxxxXxxx, Xx xxxxx
April 12, 2010

To Whom It May Concern:

You have been contacted because you have recently taught, or will teach, a graduate level
course on the topic of Teaching L2 Writing and or Teaching L2 Reading & Writing. In
order to better understand how current student-teachers are being prepared to teach
second language writing, this present study will investigate the content of syllabi from
teaching second language writing courses and teaching second language reading &
writing courses in graduate level second language teacher education programs.

The researcher seeks to collect and analyze course syllabi for descriptive textual
information from second language writing/ reading & writing courses in graduate level
teacher education programs.

Submitting your course syllabi is completely voluntary and there are absolutely no risks
if you choose not to participate. There is no compensation for participating and your
identity as well as the identity of your college/university will be kept confidential to the
extent allowed by law and University policy. Participants' names and names of their
institutions will not be used in any publication or report resulting from this research.

Should you have any questions regarding this study, please feel free to contact me.
Again thank you for your time.
Sincerely,

AminaNihlawi

PhD Candidate
Curriculum & Instruction
University of Arkansas- Fayetteville
 173

APPENDIX F

CONSENT FORM TO PARTICIPANTS THAT VOLUNTEERED FOR STUDY

Implied Informed Consent FORM

Title- Analyzing the Preparation of Second Language Writing Teachers: A

Grounded Theory Approach

Researcher/ Investigator Faculty Advisor

AminaNihlawi M.A. Felicia Lincoln, Ph.D.

Graduate Student Associate Professor
University of Arkansas University of Arkansas
College of Education and Health College of Education and Health
Professions Professions
Department of Curriculum & Instruction Department of Curriculum & Instruction
Fayetteville, Arkansas72701 Fayetteville, Arkansas72701
xxx-xxx-xxxx xxx-xxx-xxxx

You are being asked to participate in a research study. Before you give
your consent to volunteer, it is important that you read the following
information.
Description- In this study, the researcher seeks to collect and analyze course syllabi from
second language writing/ reading & writing courses in graduate level teacher education
programs to better understand how current student-teachers are being prepared to teach
second language writing. Following this, e-mail and/or phone interviews will be
conducted to triangulate the data. Only those participants that volunteer for the interview
process will be selected.

Risks and Benefits- The benefits include contributing to the knowledge base of second
language teacher preparation programs. There are no anticipated risks for participating in
the study.

Voluntary Participation-Your participation in the research is completely voluntary.

Participants' names and names of their respective schools will be kept confidential to the
fullest extent of the law.

Confidentiality: All participants' names will be kept confidential to the extent allowed by
law and University policy. Programs' names in the study will be assigned a pseudonym.
Participants' names and names of their institutions will not be used in any publication or
report resulting from this research.
 174

Right to Withdraw: You are free to refuse to participate in the data collection part of the
study. Your decision to withdraw will bring no negative consequences — no penalty to
you.

Questions about the Research.lf you have questions or concerns about this study, you
may contact AminaNihlawi at xxx-xxx-xxxx or by e-mail at XXX. For questions or
concerns about your rights as a research participant, please contact Ro Windwalker, the
University's Compliance Coordinator, at xxx-xxx-xxxx or by e-mail at XXX.

E-mailing a copy of your syllabus implies that you have read the
information in this form and consent to participate in the research.

Thank you,
AminaNihlawi
 175

APPENDIX G

EMAIL TO EXPERTS REGARDING STUDY

Prof. XXX,

I am a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Arkansas in the Curriculum and Instruction

department and am working on my dissertation entitled "Analyzing the Preparation of
Second Language Writing Teachers: A Grounded Theory Approach."

The purpose of the study is to better understand how student-teachers in master's level
academic programs in the teaching of English as a Second Language and its related fields
are being prepared to teach second language writing (SLW). With that, I am soliciting
your participation in the study. Your role in the study will be as the expert in the field of
SLW.

With your permission, I would like to conduct a 45- minute to one hour phone interview
with you. The interview will be audio-taped and transcribed for research purposes.

I have attached an implied consent form, a list of tentative questions and a summary of
the study.

Your identity as well as the identity of your university will remain confidential. Please let
me know of a suitable time to conduct this interview and how best to reach you.

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me or e-mail me:

xxx-xxx-xxxx

Sincerely,

AminaNihlawi

PhD Candidate
University of Arkansas
Curriculum & Instruction Department
 APPENDIX H
LETTER TO EXPERTS REGARDING STUDY

AminaNihlawi
X. X. Xxx xxxx
XxxxXxxx, Xx xxxxx
April 12, 2010

To Whom It May Concern:

My name is AminaNihlawi and I am currently a doctoral student at the University of

Arkansas. I am conducting a study on the preparation of future second language writing
instructors, titled "Analyzing the Preparation of Second Language Writing Teachers: A
Grounded Theory Approach," and would like your participation in this study.

The purpose of this study was to analyze how student-teachers in in graduate-level

teacher-education programs were being trained to teach second language writing (SLW).
During the first phase of the study, the researcher collected and analyzed course syllabi
from teaching second language writing and teaching second language reading & writing
courses in graduate level teacher education programs to better understand how current
student-teachers are being trained to teach ESL writing. Participants were contacted via e-
mail and asked to submit their course syllabi. Following this, e-mail and/or phone
interviews were conducted to ensure validity of the findings.

You have been contacted because your work was prominently mentioned by current
(SLW) teacher-educators in the initial phase of the study. In order to triangulate the
findings of how student-teachers are being prepared to teach SLW, the second portion of
the study will investigate scholars' views on the training of second language composition
instructors.

Since you are a SLW specialist, you are being asked to participate in an interview for the
study. There are absolutely no risks if you choose not to participate. There is no
compensation for participating and your identity as well as the identity of your
college/university will be kept confidential to the extent allowed by law and University
policy. Your name as well as the name of your institution will not be used in any
publication or report resulting from this research.

Should you have any questions regarding this study, please feel free to contact me.
Again thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
AminaNihlawi

PhD Candidate
Curriculum & Instruction
University of Arkansas- Fayetteville
 178

APPENDIX I

CONSENT FORM SENT TO EXPERTS

Implied Informed Consent FORM

Title- Analyzing the Preparation of Second Language Writing Teachers: A

Grounded Theory Approach

Researcher/ Investigator Faculty Advisor

AminaNihlawi M.A. Felicia Lincoln, Ph.D.

Graduate Student Associate Professor
University of Arkansas University of Arkansas
College of Education and Health College of Education and Health
Professions Professions
Department of Curriculum & Instruction Department of Curriculum & Instruction
Fayetteville, Arkansas72701 Fayetteville, Arkansas72701
xxx-xxx-xxxx xxx-xxx-xxxx
You are being asked to participate in a research study. Before you give
your consent to volunteer for the interview, it is important that you read
the following information.
Description- In this study, the researcher seeks to interview (via phone or e-mail) experts
in the field of second language writing. Only those participants that volunteer for the
interview process will be selected.

Risks and Benefits- The benefits include contributing to the knowledge base of second
language teacher preparation programs. There are no anticipated risks for participating in
the study.

Voluntary Participation-Y'our participation in the research is completely voluntary.

Participants' names and names of their respective schools will be kept confidential to the
fullest extent of the law.

Confidentiality: All participants' names will be kept confidential to the extent allowed by
law and University policy. Programs' names in the study will be assigned a pseudonym.
Participants' names and names of their institutions will not be used in any publication or
report resulting from this research.

Right to Withdraw: You are free to refuse to participate in the interviews. Your decision
to withdraw will bring no negative consequences — no penalty to you.
 179

Questions about the Research:li you have questions or concerns about this study, you
may contact AminaNihlawi at xxx-xxx-xxxx or by e-mail at XXX. For questions or
concerns about your rights as a research participant, please contact Ro Windwalker, the
University's Compliance Coordinator, at xxx-xxx-xxxx or by e-mail at XXX.

Volunteering to be interviewed for this study implies that you have read
the information in this form and consent to participate in the research.

Thank you,
AminaNihlawi
 180

APPENDIX J

TENTATIVE QUESTIONS FOR EXPERT INTERVIEWS

Title- Analyzing the Preparation of Second Language Writing Teachers: A

Grounded Theory Approach

Researcher/ Investigator

AminaNihlawi M.A.
Graduate Student
University of Arkansas
College of Education and Health
Professions
Department of Curriculum &
Instruction
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
xxx-xxx-xxxx

1. How are current student-teachers being prepared to teach second language writing?

2. What specific knowledge and skills should teacher-educators equip future ESL writing

teachers?

3. How important is giving students authentic, hands-on experiences?

4. How do you think this can be done?

5. Do you think that a class such as Teaching ESL Reading & Writing is sufficient

preparation for ESL writing teachers?

6. Discourse?