In a recent issue of the Journal of Second Language Writing, several prominent scholars from the field of second language writing expressed a sentiment that has become, it seems, an emergent consensus in the field: We need to expand the boundaries of research in second language studies. For example, Diane Belcher (2013) suggests that L2 writing inquiry and pedagogy should embrace school-age writers and adult learners outside of traditional academic contexts, who may need to develop their literacy skills in vocational and community contexts. She also highlights the need to explore so-called EFL contexts. Nearly echoing her, Ryuko Kubota (2013) states: “A focus on multilingualism in writing in various contexts can be a major area of future inquiry” (p. 430). Kubota provides several examples of such contexts: out-of-school environments, cyberspaces, workplaces, and other everyday communicative environments. Furthermore, when addressing scholarly achievements in the field of second language writing, Tony Silva (2013) indicates that the research “has neglected work done in primary and secondary schools” as well as “work done in adult education and workplace programs” (p. 433). Finally, Paul Matsuda (2013) expresses the need to expand the scope of inquiry due to the transformations of our conceptions of second language writers.

Clearly, because of the “fluidity” of the field, more and more scholars offer suggestions for better serving various populations of L2 writers. At the same time, while agreeing on the necessity of exploring the contexts with diverse types of writers, the needs of those who have long been the center of the research agenda of SLW scholars—international student writers in higher education—are not yet fully accommodated. The appearance of scholarly articles in various academic journals that deal with the issues of international students in academic contexts is proof of that. In addition, conference presentations continue to address challenges that ESL writers face in college composition classrooms, and some presenters attempt to provide suggestions to classroom instructors and writing program administrators on how to alleviate these challenges.

When I briefly looked through the program of the upcoming TESOL Convention in Portland, I found the following presentation titles:

• Professional Development of NNEST Writing Professionals in TESOL
• Writing and Multilingual Student Success in Higher Education
• Supporting L2 Development in First-Year Composition
• Reading and Writing Expectations of Matriculated University Students
• Promoting Academic Literacy and Intercultural Competence Through Service Learning
• How Can We Support ELLs in Mainstream University Classes?
• More Than Linguistic Accuracy: Feedback on Graduate Academic Writing
• Balancing Writing and Research Instruction in Undergraduate Composition Courses
• Graduate L2 Writers in the Disciplines: A Language-Supported Curriculum

As seen, the interest to the population of L2 writers in U.S. academic discourse remains fresh. As Dana Ferris (2013) puts it, “The problem is systemic” (p. 429). Unfortunately, some scholars often see educational contexts falling short of addressing L2 writers’ academic and social needs. However, as much as they may feel that universities are not prepared to adequately meet the needs of the population of international students, most institutions and writing programs are not oblivious to the ever-growing numbers of students from abroad, and many of these universities provide a variety of resources to help these students succeed in their academic endeavors.

The way I see it, the problem is not the lack of resources or auxiliary programs on campuses, but the lack of awareness, mostly on teachers’ part, of these resources and the lack of understanding of how to effectively incorporate these resources in writing curricula. Take Purdue University—the school where I currently teach composition courses—as a case in point. With more than 8,700 international students, the university makes a substantial effort in providing necessary support to these students. The academic, professional, and social resources on the Purdue campus are plentiful. But the extent to which composition teachers utilize these resources to make them part of classroom activities and writing projects is a different question. Of course, it would be easy to shift the blame onto students by making them responsible for using these resources, programs, and services on campus; however, I would not advise anyone to do so.

First of all, those of us coming from a different part of the world know that college life in a new cultural environment may be absolutely overwhelming and intimidating. The first year of the college experience may be particularly challenging for international students. As students quickly discover the differences between the education systems in their home countries and the United States, they oftentimes feel unprepared. Additional trials may also include language barriers, culture shock, intercultural conflicts, and immigration regulations, to name a few. While trying to cope with the adjustment to the U.S. academic discourse community, students—quite understandably—may not be aware of the various resources available for them on campus. That’s where teachers come into the picture. Indeed, who else if not teachers would show students how to make use of numerous academic and professional resources on campus to facilitate their socialization? It seems like a composition class provides an excellent venue for integrating these resources in writing projects and activities. And writing teachers are well positioned to help students become socialized into the academic community.

My experience in discussing these issues with teachers suggests that many university instructors are quite sympathetic to the presence and needs of L2 writers. However, sympathetic nods of admittance are not enough. The problem is that this awareness does not necessarily carry over to their pedagogy, and, as I mentioned above, teachers oftentimes resort to shifting the responsibility onto students. Dana Ferris says that teachers can’t blame themselves for students’ failure to achieve a certain level of writing development due to a limited timeframe of the course. However, I believe that it’s within teachers’ abilities to help students develop their self-regulated learning strategies, so that after those 10 or 12 or 16 weeks are over, students will be able to successfully function as autonomous leaners.

References

Belcher, D. (2013). The scope of L2 writing: Why we need a wider lens. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 438–439.

Ferris, D. (2013). What L2 writing means to me: Texts, writers, contexts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 428–429.

Kubota, R. (2013). Dislimiting second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 430–431.

Matsuda, P. K. (2013). Response: What is second language writing—and why does it matter? Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 448–450.

Silva, T. (2013). Second language writing: Talking points. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 432–434.