Responding to L2 Students in College Writing Classes: Teacher Perspectives

Responding to L2 Students in College Writing Classes: Teacher PerspectivesDANA FERRISUniversity of California, Davis California, United States JEFFREY BROWN, HSIANG SEAN LIU, AND MARIA E

Responding to L2 Students in College Writing Classes: Teacher PerspectivesDANA FERRIS

University of California, Davis

California, United States

JEFFREY BROWN, HSIANG (SEAN) LIU, AND MARIA EUGENIAARNAUDO STINE

California State University, Sacramento

California, United States

Response to student writing has been a research concern for tion specialists for the past several decades However, most research todate has utilized student opinions or researcher judgments aboutteacher feedback, with researchers rarely consulting teachers themselves

composi-as informants Also, first language (L1) and second language (L2)response research has been completed and disseminated in separatearenas, with little consideration given to the current blurring ofboundaries in many educational contexts between L1 and L2 studentwriters In the study described in this article, college writing instructors inboth mainstream and specialized L2 writing contexts were surveyed (N 5129) and interviewed (N 5 23) about their backgrounds (training andexperience) and their philosophies and practices with regard toresponse In addition, samples of their commentary on student papers(3–5 papers per interview subject) were collected, discussed with theinstructors, and analyzed Although most instructors were aware ofadapting their approach to feedback for L2 writers, the nature of theseadjustments varied dramatically across subjects, as did their overallattitude toward the endeavor of responding to L2 writers The articleconcludes with a discussion of practical implications of the findings forteacher response practices and for professional preparation of L1 writinginstructors who work with L2 students

doi: 10.5054/tq.2011.247706

W riting instructors often have strong feelings about response tostudent writing and wonder about the efficacy and value of theirown response mechanisms Largely because of the time and energy that

Portions of this article were presented at the Conference on College Composition and Communication (San Francisco, California) and the International TESOL Convention (Denver, Colorado), both in March 2009.

feedback can consume and the frustration felt by many teachers (Ferris,Liu, & Rabie, 2011; Hairston, 1986; Segade, 2004), researchers incomposition settings have for several decades investigated variousquestions surrounding response to student writing (see, e.g., Anson,1989; Brannon & Knoblauch, 1982; Ferris, 2003; Ferris & Hedgcock,2005; Goldstein, 2005; Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Knoblauch & Brannon,2006; Leki, 1990a; Liu & Hansen, 2002; Sommers, 1982, 2006; Straub,

1999, 2006; Straub & Lunsford, 1995; White, 2006; Zamel, 1985).Recommendations based on these scholarly efforts have been widelydisseminated and used in preservice teacher preparation and in-serviceworkshops, but there is little evidence as to what effect those suggestions

or prescriptions have had on actual teacher practice

Complicating this issue further are two related facts First, there aresome discrepancies or disagreements between first language (L1) andsecond language (L2) composition researchers’ suggestions aboutresponse For example, although it is axiomatic in L1 composition thatfeedback on grammar/language/form should be saved for the end ofthe writing process (e.g., Sommers, 1982), L2 researchers have debatedwhether such divisions among feedback concerns are necessary oroptimal (see Ashwell, 2000; Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Ferris, 1997,2002; Montgomery & Baker, 2007; Zamel, 1985) Similarly, althoughcomposition specialists have been urging teachers since the 1980s toprivilege peer response and teacher–student conferences over teacherwritten feedback (e.g., Hairston, 1986; Moxley, 1989), some L2 expertshave expressed concern about the appropriateness of peer feedbackactivities in L2 writing contexts and about the potential limitations orchallenges of in-person writing conferences with L2 students (Goldstein

& Conrad, 1990; Leki, 1990b; Patthey-Chavez & Ferris, 1997; Zhang,1995) In short, among writing researchers, there is not always consensusabout the best approaches to response, particularly when the targetstudent audience consists of or includes L2 writers

Second, and most significant to the concerns of the present study, inmany educational contexts (particularly in the United States butelsewhere in other English-medium institutions), substantial percen-tages of students with L2 backgrounds are being taught in mainstreamcomposition programs by instructors with a wide range of academicpreparation or training experiences (Braine, 1996; Ferris, 2009; Harklau,Losey, & Siegal, 1999; Reynolds, Bae, & Wilson, 2009; Roberge, Siegal, &Harklau, 2009) As a result, when we as researchers refer to composition

or writing courses for L2 students (and the feedback approaches utilized

in those courses), we cannot always assume that those student writers arebeing taught by L2 specialists in classes designed specifically for L2writers (see also Conference on College Composition andCommunication [CCCC], 2001) Therefore, in examining the question

of what writing teachers actually do in responding to L2 student writing,one must also consider, at least in some contexts, the views and practices

of instructors who would not identify themselves primarily as L2 orEnglish as a second language (ESL) writing teachers

In the present study, conducted in an area in which there are largepercentages of L2 writers1 in college composition courses (anywherefrom 40 to 60%), we investigated the response practices of collegeinstructors, with special attention given to how the instructors describedtheir approaches to feedback for the L2 students in their courses Unlikemost of the studies previously cited, this study focused specifically onteacher philosophies and practices in response, rather than studentopinions or researcher judgments about written teacher commentary Ittherefore adds to the previous response research by utilizing teachers asprimary informants and by considering the experiences of L2 writers inboth mainstream and L2-designated writing courses Its findings are thusapplicable to L2 writing professionals working alongside other composi-tion instructors in mainstream English or writing programs, as well asthose working in specialized language or L2 writing programs

PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON TEACHER VIEWS OF

RESPONSE TO L2 STUDENT WRITING

Overview of L2 Response Research

Until fairly recently, most studies of feedback in L2 writing classesfocused primarily on two types of inquiry The first is text analyses ofwritten teacher commentary or transcripts of conferences or peerresponse groups, sometimes accompanied by analyses of studentrevisions or subsequent texts (e.g., Caulk, 1994; Conrad & Goldstein,1999; Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Ferris, 1997; Ferris, Pezone, Tade, &Tinti, 1997; Goldstein & Conrad, 1990; Hyland, 1998; Hyland & Hyland,2001; Lockhart & Ng, 1995; Mendonc¸a & Johnson, 1994; Nelson &Murphy, 1992, 1993) The second is survey research assessing studentreactions to or preferences toward feedback (Arndt, 1993; Cohen, 1987;Ferris, 1995; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994, 1996;Jacobs, Curtis, Braine, & Huang, 1998; Leki, 1991; Mangelsdorf, 1992;Radecki & Swales, 1988; Zhang, 1995, 1999) This body of research hasyielded many helpful insights about what teachers do, what studentwriters think about response, and what effects various feedback strategies

1 We define ‘‘L2 writer’’ broadly here, meaning any writer whose primary home language was not English (or whatever L2 they are pursuing), and including international or visa students, late-arriving residents, and early-arriving or Generation 1.5 students (see Ferris, 2009; Harklau et al., 1999; Roberge et al., 2009).

appear to have on student writing However, until very recently, a gap inthe research base has been consultations with teachers themselves aboutwhat they do with regard to feedback and why they do it (Ferris, 2006;Goldstein, 2001, 2005).

Studies of L2 Teachers’ Views on Response

Researchers in one early study (Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990),conducted with three teachers and nine Brazilian English as a foreignlanguage (EFL) students, triangulated data collection and analysis byinterviewing teachers and students, as well as examining student textswith teacher commentary They found that teacher and student opinionsabout teacher feedback were generally consistent with teachers’observed responding behaviors

In several recent studies, researchers have also attempted in variousways to fill the teacher-as-informant gap in the response literature In a

2007 study, Montgomery and Baker surveyed teachers and students in anintensive English program at a U.S university about the focus of teacherwritten commentary and compared the survey responses to teachers’actual written commentary They also followed up the initial dataanalyses by discussing their findings with the teachers themselves to gettheir reactions They found that teachers gave far more feedback ongrammar and mechanics on student papers than they claimed to do intheir surveys; in fact, some of their teacher participants were quite takenaback to see the disparity between their actual responses and theirreported practices

Investigating the relevance of feedback advice from North Americancomposition settings for a very different context, Lee (2008; 2009a;2009b) conducted several studies among secondary English instructors

in Hong Kong, in which she asked teachers about their feedbackpractices, compared with best practices (Lee, 2008); assessed theteachers’ openness and willingness to change their practices (Lee,2009a); and, similar to Montgomery and Baker (2007), examined

‘‘mismatches’’ between teachers’ stated beliefs and their actual practices(Lee, 2009b, p 13) In her studies, Lee discovered that teachers’practices do not match up well in a variety of ways with either so-calledbest practices (as she defined them in her 2008 article) or even their ownbeliefs Lee also noted that the teachers in her study claimed to berelatively open to changing their response behaviors but felt constrainedfrom doing so by a range of external factors In particular, she foundthat teachers give a disproportionate amount of attention to languageerror in their feedback; that they primarily utilize comprehensive, direct

error feedback rather than selective indirect feedback; and that theyrespond only to final, graded student papers rather than preliminarydrafts (Lee, 2009b) These recent studies of real-world teacher feedbackapproaches suggest that some L2 writing instructors not only do notpractice what others (administrators, researchers, former professors)preached but even may contradict their own stated beliefs as theyexecute their response strategies on a day-to-day basis.

L2 STUDENTS IN COLLEGE COMPOSITION COURSES

Besides reflecting upon what previous research has suggested aboutresponse to L2 writers, one must also consider the changing nature ofthe student audience in many settings Composition experts have beenaware for some years of the growing and diverse population of L2 writers

in college composition courses (see, e.g., Costino & Hyon, 2007; Ferris,2009; Harklau, Losey, & Siegal, 1999; Matsuda, Cox, Jordan, & Ortmeier-Hooper, 2006; Ortmeier-Hooper, 2008; Roberge et al., 2009) Asexamples of this, nearly all composition handbooks now include ESL

or multilingual sections and/or text boxes within various sections withspecial advice for the L2 writer (see, e.g., Lunsford, 2009) Similarly,several recent edited collections for composition teachers include achapter or two written by an L2 specialist (see, e.g., Corbett, Myers, &Tate, 2000; Glenn & Goldthwaite, 2008; Smagorinsky, 2006) Finally, andmost significantly, the primary U.S composition organization, theConference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC), has

in recent years added an L2 writing special-interest group, and in 2001,CCCC adopted a comprehensive position statement on ‘‘SecondLanguage Writing and Writers,’’ which has recently been revised(CCCC, 2009)

Though these are encouraging signs of increasing awareness of andsensitivity to the needs of L2 writers in composition programs, most L2specialists would caution that there is still some way to go in bridgingdisciplinary and philosophical gaps across composition professionals.For instance, attendees at recent CCCC meetings would verify thatsessions on L2 writing are sometimes attended primarily by other L2writing specialists As a different example, in the most recent edition ofthe St Martin’s Guide to Teaching College Writing (Glenn & Goldthwaite,2008), a widely used teacher preparation text, new instructors areadvised in chapter 2 to administer and evaluate a diagnostic essay, so thatthey can quickly counsel any ESL students out of their classes and into

an appropriate ESL course alternative if one exists (see pp 47–50) Inregions such as ours, in which the proportions of L2 writers are not only

substantial but diverse, advising teachers to outsource what may amount

to more than half of their class is hardly a practical solution In short,despite the increased awareness in composition circles of L2 writingissues, in practice some composition instructors have been slow to takeadvantage of the information and resources available to better preparethem to work with L2 writers.2

TESOL scholars and practitioners, as well as composition experts,should be concerned with the experiences of L2 writers in collegecomposition courses As demonstrated by the rapid growth of theTESOL L2 writing interest section, created in 2006 and now with over1,700 members, many TESOL members see the teaching of L2 writers as

a primary focus of their work Although some L2 writing teachers workexclusively in ESL programs, many others work in secondary andpostsecondary contexts in which they—and other instructors who arenot L2 specialists—teach L2 students and monolingual English speakersside by side in the same classes Not only should L2 writing professionals

be aware of their own practices in responding to a diverse group ofstudent writers, but they may have opportunities to share ideas andresources with teaching colleagues at faculty meetings, workshops, andassessment sessions Beyond the classroom, L2 writing specialistsincreasingly are found in teacher education and in writing programadministration positions, often in positions to prepare, hire, or evaluateteachers who will work with L2 students in their mainstream writing orEnglish classes Studies that examine the practices and attitudes of abroad range of writing instructors on an issue—response—which is socentral to writing instruction can thus provide insight to researchers,teachers, teacher educators, and administrators in English or writingprograms in a wide variety of contexts

The present study builds on recent efforts to incorporate theteachers’ voices into conversations on response to student writing.What is unique about this study compared with other recent L2 studies isthat it includes teacher informants who work with L2 writers but who arenot trained L2 specialists, and they do not primarily teach specialized ordesignated L2 writing courses The research questions guiding thedesign of this study were:

(1) Do college writing instructors report varying their feedbackpractices for L2 writers in their classes, compared with theirresponses to monolingual or native English speakers?

(2) If not, what reasons do they give for not doing so?

(3) If so, in what ways do they adjust their approach for L2 students?

2 As a further example, two recent edited collections on response to student writing (Straub, 1999; 2006) do not include any articles from the extensive L2 writing response literature.

THE STUDY

Context and Participants

This study took place at eight postsecondary sites—two 4-yearuniversities and six 2-year community colleges—in NorthernCalifornia The participant pool was limited to writing instructors whousually teach or have frequently taught either first-year writing courses orthe developmental or basic writing course that directly precedes first-year composition

We recruited our teacher participants by making primary contact with

an individual in each department (more than one department, at somesites) and asking this person to send a link to a 26-item online survey tohis or her colleagues within our target audience The teachers thenchose whether or not to follow the link and complete the survey Thefinal item invited survey respondents to volunteer for an in-personinterview to explore the issues raised in the survey in more depth Wereceived 129 survey responses from local writing teachers through anonline collector between September and November, 2008 Fifty-three ofthe responses were from instructors at the two 4-year universities, andthe remaining 76 were from the six 2-year community colleges It washard to tell at some sites exactly how many teachers received the link, butour estimate is that between 40–45% of the possible teacher respondentsactually completed the survey

Backgrounds of Survey Respondents

The first section of the survey (Questions 1–9) asked the instructorsabout their own backgrounds (academic qualifications, teachingexperience, and prior training) Of our 129 survey respondents, nearly82% said they teach only mainstream courses, 9% said they teach onlyESL or multilingual courses, and the remaining 9% said they teach acombination of mainstream and ESL writing courses Finally, the vastmajority (over 80%) reported having taken graduate-level coursework (aseminar or a practicum) in teaching composition However, only 22% ofall respondents said they had taken specific coursework to prepare them

to work with L2 writers Further, fewer than 10% of those who said theyteach all or primarily mainstream courses (as opposed to ESL courses)reported having taken a graduate seminar or practicum course focused

on L2 writers In other words, most instructors teaching collegecomposition courses in our region have received no substantive training

in understanding and working with L2 writers

Data Collected

As already noted, our first stage in data collection involved thedevelopment, distribution, and collection of an online teacher survey.This survey was designed to examine a range of response issues,including how teacher practices might vary with regard to L2 writers intheir writing courses The survey included one specific question aboutresponding to L2 students (Question 23; see Table 1 in Results andDiscussion) All questions consisted of multiple-choice response items,and most also allowed space for additional written comments if therespondents chose to elaborate on their answers

The second phase of data collection consisted of interviews withvolunteer participants who self-identified on the final question of thesurvey Fifty-three of the survey respondents volunteered for interviews,and we interviewed 23 of those between October and December, 2008

We chose the interview participants from among the volunteers torepresent a range of the sites and to include instructors from bothmainstream and ESL courses The interviews, mostly held at thevolunteers’ teaching sites, typically lasted from 30 to 45 min Thesesemistructured interviews (Beason, 2001; Kvale, 1996; Merriam, 1991)were conducted according to a standard protocol (see Appendix),3andone of the interview questions specifically focused on the participants’approach to responding to L2 writers Six members of the research teamconducted three to four interviews each, and all interviews werecaptured on digital audio recorders to supplement the interviewers’handwritten notes.4

The third piece of data collected was sample student texts withteacher commentary from each interview participant The teachers wereasked to bring with them to their interviews a selection of three to five

3 The interview protocol and procedures were piloted with two volunteers before the project began The research team listened to the interview recordings and discussed procedures with the two interviewers, making suggested adjustments to the procedures Though all six interviewers, for consistency, followed a standard protocol and set of procedures, they were also encouraged to ask follow-up questions for clarification and elaboration as appropriate

in a format Mackey and Gass (2005) refer to as a semistructured interview (see also Beason, 2001; Kvale, 1996; Merriam, 1991) This ensured that the same information was covered in each interview while also allowing the researchers to ‘‘digress and probe for more information’’ (Mackey & Gass, 2005, p 173) An ethnographic approach allowed us to take full advantage of the teachers as informants, because the teachers provided descriptions of their practices and philosophies in terms of their own institutional contexts As Ramanathan and Atkinson (1999) noted, this sort of data collection provides emic perspective into the cultural practices of the participants In short, there was no expectation that all interviews would be identical but rather that similar ground would be covered in a comparable time frame (30–45 min), which was agreed upon primarily out of respect for respondents’ time constraints.

4 To protect the volunteers’ identities, all interview participants were given identification numbers, which were used in data analyses and group discussions of the findings All participants also signed consent forms before beginning the interviews.

student papers representing a range of writing abilities, written to thesame topic or assignment, with the teachers’ written feedback inwhatever form it took (e.g., if they had completed feedback rubrics orchecklists, they were asked to provide those along with the studenttexts).5 One of the interview questions involved discussing the markedstudent papers with the instructor to gain further insight into thechoices the teacher had made and the purposes or intent behind variouscomments.

Data Analysis: Surveys

For the survey data, we examined frequencies and percentages ofresponses to all questions For the questions that included additionalcomments from respondents, we collated, categorized, and tabulated thecomments (see Table 2 for an example) To do this, we divided thesurvey questions among six research team members For each set ofcomments attached to a question, the researcher created a chart similar

to the one shown in Table 2 below (with a descriptive heading, thenumber of comments in that category, and an illustrative quotation ortwo from one of the surveys) To double-check the accuracy of thecategories, each survey question also had a second reader who lookedthrough the comments and the first reader’s chart, suggesting anymodifications (additions, deletions, merging of categories) as needed.6

6 In each instance, the two readers discussed the charts and were told to bring any questions

or disagreements to the lead researcher (the first author) for resolution However, the categorization process was quite straightforward, and there were few changes necessary; the lead researcher was never needed to resolve a dispute.

5 The teachers obtained consent forms from the student writers prior to the interviews.

TABLE 1

Multiple-Choice Survey Responses for Question 23: If You Have ESL or L2 Students in Your Classes, Are You Aware of Providing Feedback Any Differently to Them Than to Other Students (Native English Speakers)?

Multiple-choice option Number of responses

Sometimes, depending on the student 54 (44.3%)

No, my approach is the same with all students 26 (21.3%)

I teach only ESL classes 11 (9.0%) Not applicable because I rarely/never provide written feedback 1 (0.8%)

Note ESL 5 English as a second language; L2 5 second language.

Data Analysis: Interviews

As already noted, each interviewer took handwritten notes at the interviews,and they were also audiorecorded, converted to mp3 format, and uploaded to

a project web site Each interviewer summarized participants’ responses to themajor interview questions along with representative quotations from eachresponse These summaries were typed into a table, and all interviewers’ tableswere uploaded to the web site so that team members could examineresponses to questions across the sample of 23 interviews

Data Analysis: Student Texts

To examine samples of participants’ actual written feedback in light

of the teachers’ self-reported philosophies and practices, we utilized anadapted version of a scheme by Ferris et al (1997; see Appendix for

TABLE 2

Summary of Comments Added to Question 23 Responses

Category

Number of responses Sample quotation Provide more language-

focused feedback than for

native English speakers

18 Identify patterns of ESL language

pro-blems (verb tense propro-blems, word usage, etc.)

Direct ESL students to

cam-pus support services (or

text-book or online sources)

10 Typically when an ESL student’s essay has

major errors I will recommend that he/she see a writing specialist at the Learning Skills Center.

Provide or offer more

one-on-one assistance

5 I do more conferencing and I work more

on language errors one-on-one I have a mixed approach of identifying some errors and offering some modeling on how to fix them

Expression of frustration or

uncertainty

4 I have a hard time teaching ESL students.

There are some ESL students I can’t reach.

Hold them to the same

stan-dards as everyone else

3 I usually am more tolerant of grammar

problems with ESL students, but content standards remain the same for both native speakers and ESL.

Provide extra help if student

requests it

2 On the first paper, they’re asked to write a

memo to me second language students tend to identify themselves as such and ask for more specific feedback on lan- guage use.

Provide extra encouragement

about improvement

2 I find my comments to non-native

stu-dents to be more conscious of edging even the smallest improvements Note Some respondents’ comments fell into more than one category; thus total comments in this table are greater than 40.

acknowl-procedures and analysis scheme) The goal of this analysis was not toassess the quality or effects of teacher feedback but rather to provide anobjective and consistent quantitative description across a range ofteachers of their general approaches to written feedback.

Data Analysis: Narrative Case Studies

Once the interviews were completed and the sample texts analyzed,the six interviewers composed 1,200- to 1,500-word narratives about eachinterview participant (Merriam, 1991), following a standard format thatwas modeled by the lead researcher and discussed and practiced atresearch team meetings These case study narratives included informa-tion from all data sources obtained from that instructor—survey andinterview responses and sample student texts with teacher commen-tary—in an attempt to synthesize all of the various pieces of informationabout that teacher After the narratives had been drafted, eachparticipant’s data set (survey responses, interview, marked student texts)was reexamined by a second reader, another member of the researchteam If the second reader found anything missing or inaccurate in thecase study narrative, that reader would make revision suggestions to thefirst reader Any disagreements between readers were to be brought tothe lead researcher (the first author) for resolution.7

The results and discussion that follow are based on the above datasources and analyses However, for this article, we highlight only thefindings that directly pertain to how our respondents described theirresponse strategies for L2 writers We do so by focusing our analysis here

on survey and interview responses that addressed the specific issue ofinstructors’ strategies for responding to L2 writers More generalfindings about teachers’ backgrounds, philosophies, and responsepractices for all students, regardless of language background, arereported in a separate article (Ferris et al., 2011)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

respondents indicated that the question was not applicable because theytaught only ESL classes Of the remaining respondents, nearly 65% saidthat, compared with their approach to L1 student writers, they variedtheir feedback strategies with L2 students at least sometimes In contrast,22% indicated that they did not vary their feedback for L2 students andthat their approach was the same for all students.

In addition to the multiple-choice responses to this question, 40respondents elaborated on their selections with verbal comments (seeTable 2) The most frequent comments described providing morespecific or more directive language-focused feedback to ESL writers (seealso Lee, 2008; Montgomery & Baker, 2007) Some teachers in oursurvey described their method of corrective feedback For one teacher,this method was direct and explicit: ‘‘[I] write direct corrections togrammar errors in the margins of papers from ESL students more oftenthan I do for non-ESL students.’’ Another teacher tried to help studentsidentify their most prevalent errors: ‘‘Although I try to keep my feedbackfocused primarily on ideas, with ESL learners in particular I try topoint out the most consistent major language errors.’’ In other words,the teachers’ most common adaptation in responding to L2 writers’texts was to provide detailed feedback about language errors

The second most frequent type of comment in response to question

23 described teachers’ referring their ESL students to externalresources One teacher explained how she helped her students makethe outside aid as useful as possible: ‘‘If I am providing feedback to anESL student, I try to explain specific problems and suggest that theymeet with someone about those problems at the Learning Skills Center

I try to let them know exactly what problems seem to be recurring ones

so that they know how to ask for help.’’ Although this teacher’s approachappears to be tailored to individual student needs, other teachersindicated that they utilized a less personalized approach to sendingstudents elsewhere for extra assistance One teacher wrote, ‘‘Usually,ESL errors are similar (missing word endings, missing prepositions andarticles, verb troubles), and one of the texts I use has a chapter oneliminating common ESL issues If the troubles are really severe, I try toconvince them to seek out a tutor, visit the Writing Center or take anESL class.’’ A similar comment reflecting a default approach to outsidereferrals noted, ‘‘I always encourage my ESL students to read the chapterdirected at ESL students in our textbook and get all the ESL help theycan on campus.’’ In the latter two comments, there is little indication ofwhat ‘‘ESL issues’’ might consist of and no description of individualizedattention or advice provided from the instructor to the student

In the other comment categories in Table 2, teachers also describedgiving L2 students in their classes additional one-on-one help and/orextra encouragement about what they have done well Others made

strong statements about how they ‘‘hold all students to the samestandards,’’ especially as to content issues, though they might be moretolerant of grammar errors from L2 students Finally, several teachersmade statements expressing their own senses of inadequacy or lack ofpreparation for working with L2 writers in their classes One teacher, forexample, wrote: ‘‘I would love to go to a class where somebody tells meUkrainian students are going to have this particular difficulty andJapanese students will have that particular difficulty, and this is what youshould tell them.’’ In short, the comments in response to this surveyquestion suggest a range of attitudes expressed and strategies used bywriting teachers in providing feedback to their L2 students.

Case Study Findings

Our examination of the 23 teacher case study narratives (whichincluded information from each participant’s survey and interviewresponses as well as text analyses of their comments on student papers)allowed us to identify a range of approaches as to how the teachers inour study responded to L2 writers in their classes These descriptions fellinto four distinct patterns

Teachers Unaware of L2 Students’ Needs

First, a few of the instructors either were almost entirely unaware ofhaving L2 writers in their classes or, if they were aware, felt strongly thatstudents’ language backgrounds were irrelevant Asked about the L2writers in her class, one respondent said, ‘‘Well, maybe I have one to twoESL writers,’’ when in fact, based on the demographics of the region and

at her institution, it is more likely this teacher had at least 10–12 studentwriters in her class with some kind of L2 background Other teacherswere less concerned with identifying ESL students: ‘‘I haven’t seen clearmarkers of ESL-type issues in any of my students’ papers It doesn’t reallymatter whether these students are multilingual because they aren’thaving ESL difficulties I don’t need to know.’’ Another teacherexplained that even if he were able to easily identify ESL students inhis class, he still would not adapt his response practices: ‘‘If multilingualstudents feel like they’re ‘othered’ in a classroom, then it will make adifference in their confidence in their writing.’’ These comments suggestthat some teachers may overlook or underestimate the struggles L2writers can have

Analysis of the written feedback of this first group of teachers revealedthat they focused very little of their feedback on language concerns,while instead emphasizing global issues such as content and organiza-tion Although content feedback is certainly crucial, some writing

experts have recommended an approach that balances feedback onglobal and local issues, depending on the needs of each student, text,and task (Ashwell, 2000; Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Ferris, 2002, 2003;Glenn & Goldthwaite, 2008; Lee, 2008) Further, L2 writers’ challenges

in the composition class may extend well beyond typical ESL-typemarkers such as verb tense or plural endings or prepositions Instead, L2writers may have difficulties not easily identified by the untrained eye,such as problems with reading comprehension or vocabulary gaps(Ferris, 2009; Folse, 2008; Holten, 2009; Roberge et al., 2009;Schuemann, 2008) The instructors in this group appeared to beunaware of such potential needs, defined so-called ESL markersnarrowly, and did not report providing the specialized guidance orresources some students might need to be successful (see Leki, 1990a;Reid, 1994)

Teachers Focused Primarily on L2 Writers’ Errors

Although the teachers described above perhaps were not adequatelyapprised of the potential needs of L2 writers, a second group of teachers,

in contrast, reported keen awareness of multilingual writers in theirclasses However, they were reluctant to acknowledge that these studentsdeserved any extra assistance, at least from the teacher her- or himself

In fact, in some cases they firmly believed that these students ‘‘do notbelong’’ in their classes and expressed resentment of the perceived extraburdens L2 writers might bring In an interview, one teacher said that,

on the first day of class, she encourages L2 writers to drop her course bywriting ‘‘in bold letters: ‘This is not an ESL class’ at the top’’ of hersyllabus She added that if such students ‘‘insist on staying’’ in the class,then they receive the same instruction as the monolingual Englishspeakers and are held to the same standards Others also described thedirectness with which they handle their ESL students: ‘‘I tell studentsthat in order to improve beyond where they currently are, they need tobegin thinking in English.’’ In short, this second group of teachers feltthat multilingual students had been warned that they might havedifficulties succeeding in the writing course, and that these warningsended the instructors’ responsibilities to those students

In their written commentary, teachers in this second group providedL2 students with feedback that was almost exclusively language-focused.This tendency swung in the opposite direction from what was observedwith the first group of teachers and also failed to strike therecommended balance between content- and language-focused feed-back (Ferris, 2003; Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Zamel, 1985) For someteachers in the second group, over 70% of their written feedback wasgrammar-based Yet, beyond copiously marking grammar, these teachersdid not accept primary responsibility for helping L2 students: ‘‘I