Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (2009) 209213

Short communication

Principles and practices in foreign language writing instruction:

The 2008 Symposium on Second Language Writing
Tony Cimasko a,*, Melinda Reichelt b,1, Jihyun Im a,2, Beril Tezeller Arik a,2
a
b

Department of English, 500 Oval Drive, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, United States
English Department, University of Toledo, 2801 W. Bancroft Street, Toledo, OH 43606, United States

The theme of the 2008 Symposium on Second Language Writing held at Purdue University in West Lafayette,
Indiana, Principles and Practices in Foreign Language Writing Instruction, attracted a diverse array of scholars from
North America, East Asia, North Africa, Eastern and Western Europe, and the Middle East. Together, these presenters
looked at a variety of issues in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and in other foreign languages (FLs), contributing
greatly to an examination of concerns that are often eclipsed by English as a Second Language (ESL) concerns. Topics
covered fell into four broad categories: the state of FL writing studies, national and regional profiles of FL writing
instruction, FL programs, and pedagogical concerns. The Symposium also opened with a conference devoted to
graduate student research, addressing topics such as instruction, feedback, nonnative English speakers, sociocultural
perspectives, assessment and evaluation, and the history of second language studies.

The state of FL writing studies

Four keynote presentations by Melinda Reichelt, Marcela Ruiz-Funes, Rosa Manchon, and Jean Marie Schultz
addressed the state of the research in foreign language writing studies, describing contextual factors that shape FL
writing and writing instruction, as well as giving an overview of major studies that focus on the cognitive dimensions
of FL writing. These presenters also described the instrumental role of writing in FL learning and the implications of
globalization for FL writing and writing pedagogy.
In the first keynote address, entitled Foreign Language Writing: An Overview, Melinda Reichelt reviewed the
literature on FL writing, describing its topics and research methodologies. She noted that the majority of this research
is conducted at the tertiary level in North America. Reichelt argued that the following factors shape FL writing
instruction around the world: the role and status of the language in the broader teaching environment; students
purposes for learning the language; economic, historical, and political factors; and local educational practices,
including practices related to FL teaching and L1 literacy instruction. Reichelt outlined how these factors shape FL
writing instruction in Germany, Poland, the US, China, Ukraine, Turkey, and Italy. Reichelt concluded with a list of
questions for attendees to consider, including questions about appropriate roles and purposes for writing in the FL
* Corresponding author at: Department of English, 214 Heavilon Hall, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, United States.
Tel.: +1 765 494 3785; fax: +1 765 494 3780.
E-mail addresses: acimasko@purdue.edu (T. Cimasko), melinda.reichelt@utoledo.edu (M. Reichelt), ijihyun@purdue.edu (J. Im),
btezelle@purdue.edu (B.T. Arik).
1
Tel.: +1 419 530 4214; fax: +1 419 530 4440.
2
Tel.: +1 765 494 3785; fax: +1 765 494 3780.
1060-3743/$ see front matter # 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2009.01.002

210

T. Cimasko et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (2009) 209213

curriculum, the role of local educational factors and rhetorical practices in shaping FL writing instruction, the role of
teacher education programs in preparing future FL writing instructors, and the directions future FL writing research
should take.
The second keynote address was delivered by Marcela Ruiz-Funes and was entitled Reading to Write in a Foreign
Language: Cognition and Task Representation. As a theoretical framework for the information in her presentation,
Ruiz-Funes drew on the results of reading-writing research conducted by Linda Flower (L1) and by Joan Carson and
Ilona Leki (L2). Ruiz-Funes provided an overview of cognition in reading-to-write in an FL, emphasizing the
importance of task representation in this complex process. In her own study, FL Spanish student writers in the US were
instructed to write a paper based on a literary selection, analyzing the changes experienced by a character in the story.
Ruiz-Funes found that students adopted three possible representations of this task: Three interpreted it as a summary
task, six as a summary-plus-comment task, and five as an interpretation with a rhetorical purpose. Students who wrote
summary-plus-comment texts produced the most grammatically accurate and syntactically complex writing.
The third and final day of the Symposium began with the third keynote address, by Rosa Manchon of the
Universidad de Murcia, who is the new co-editor of the Journal of Second Language Writing. In The Language
Learning Potential of Writing in Foreign Language Contexts: Lessons from Research, Manchon explored the
potential instrumental role of writing in learning an FL. Her review of the cumulative empirical evidence highlighted
these benefits to language learners: (a) a noticing function that allows learners to monitor their own output and to focus
their attention on input, (b) a hypothesis testing function that allows learners to judge their own production, and (c) a
metalinguistic function that draws learners attention to the means of expression needed for successful
communications of learners meaning. Manchon was quick to point out that despite the benefits that these functions
provide to L2 writers in both their writing and their overall language development, these benefits are not automatic.
The only way to realize them is through instructor guidance and monitoring, comments, conferencing, and scaffolding
provided for peer collaboration.
In the fourth keynote address, entitled Second Language Writing in the era of Globalization, Jean Marie Schultz
argued that the effects of globalization should cause an increased emphasis on FL learning, but that the role of English
as lingua franca around the world problematizes the teaching of other FLs. With this paradoxical situation in mind, she
posed questions regarding the role of (non-English) FL writing and FL writing instruction within the context of
globalization. She argued that FL literacy instruction should have both an outward focus and an inward focus. The
outward focus of FL literacy instruction should be situated in the sociolinguistic context of the FL in question, and the
inward focus should deal with questions of personal identity (e.g., a bilingual identity).
National and regional profiles of FL writing instruction
Presentations by Rachida Elqobai, Yukiko Abe Hatasa, Luciana C. de Oliveira, Oleg Tarnopolsky, and Icy Lee
provided national and regional profiles of FL writing instruction. These presentations overviewed the role of FL
writing in various sociocultural contexts and described how FL writing pedagogy in these contexts addressesor fails
to addresssociocultural considerations. The presenters examined FL writing use and education in Morocco, Brazil,
Ukraine, post-handover Hong Kong, the United States, Germany, Poland, China, Turkey, and Italy.
Rachida Elqobais presentation, EFL in the Moroccan Educational System: The Whys and Hows, described the
complex sociolinguistic context of Morocco, noting the roles played by Berber, English, Arabic, Spanish, and French
in education and the broader society. The diversity of languages complicates the teaching of EFL writing in Morocco.
She noted that official guidelines for teaching English are up-to-date but that the following problems prevent these
guidelines from being implemented: a reduced number of classroom hours, inadequate teaching materials, no
technology, large class sizes, and lack of teacher preparation. Elqobai indicated that few or no individual writing
classes exist for non-English majors and that students writing proficiency is very low. She argued that instructors
should take into account Morrocan writers sociolinguistic backgrounds and goals when implementing Englishlanguage writing instruction and that classroom tasks need to be more communicative and to focus on writing to learn.
Where Elqobais work focused on one side of the FL coinEnglish outside Anglophone countriesYukiko Abe
Hatasa brought the focus to the other half of FL, non-English languages taught outside of their first language contexts,
in L2 Writing Instruction in Japanese as a Foreign Langauge. In American colleges and universities, she noted, FL
writing instruction must often compete for attention with oral language instruction, and the Japanese as a FL (JFL)
program is no exception. Like EFL in Morocco, JFL programs in the United States must contend with the particular

T. Cimasko et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (2009) 209213

211

learning context, learner needs, and instructional goals in which they are situated. Hatasa explained that academic JFL
writing faces its own challenges: Japanese is a language that differs substantially from English and other Western
languages; additionally, great importance is placed on being able to read, but students respond to assigned reading in
English instead of Japanese. Most learners take JFL courses for personal cultural exploration or for resume
development, not for long-term Japanese-based academic work. In addition to this, many native and nonnative
Japanese instructors lack the written rhetorical knowledge to teach JFL writing. Within this context, however, JFL
instructors have been working to incorporate more process approaches and to expand writing instruction by
associating it with conversational activities.
Foreign language programs
In terms of where FL teaching and learning occur, national and regional pressures are not the only concerns.
Instructors and students alike must also work within the contexts of their institutions, sometimes adopting and
sometimes resisting new rules and entrenched norms. Presentations by Hadara Perpignan, Hui-Tzu Min, and Kees
van Esch dealt with these circumstances, examining the choices that FL instructors make while considering
program- and department-level stresses as well as the particular requirements of students. Many of the
presentations emphasized difficulties arising from these circumstances, while a few described successful
approaches to finding balance. The solutions presented were diverse, reflecting the unique circumstances of each
FL program.
Hadara Perpignans work represented issues that were addressed by a number of presenters. Ideas into Words:
Narrowing the Gap in Doctoral Candidates Academic Writing in EFL described EFL academic writing at the PhD
level at Bar-Ilan University in Israel. Perpignan described a very clear disassociation between L1 and EFL in Israeli
universities: Although L1 Hebrew is overwhelmingly the language of instruction, with English as a concession, not
an integral part of course-based and research writing, pedagogical practices within the program are based on the
norms of composition for English native speakers. The response in Perpignans own program was to create a
curriculum that recognizes the students positions as EFL learners, their status as peripheralrather than central
participants in an academic discourse community, and the need for improvements in English that are more realistic
than asking them to write in perfect, native-like English. Students identify their own project topics and are provided
with ample revision and feedback opportunities, increasing their measurable gains as well as their sense of
accomplishment and motivation.
Unlike Perpignans discussion of a program looking for solutions to long-term problems, Hui-Tzu Mins A
Principled Eclectic Approach to teaching EFL Writing in Taiwan presented an established and highly successful,
critically oriented EFL writing curriculum. The curriculum, informed by the work of Kumaravadivelu (2006),
employs an approach that replaces universalist strategies with multiple, local, and critical practices.
Kumaravadivelus macrostrategic framework features three key components: particularity, practicality, and
possibility. Following these three points, program leaders modified mainstream L2 writing pedagogies by
recognizing specific social and textual circumstances, resulting in academic FL writing that is richer and more critical
than what was possible otherwise.
Pedagogical concerns
Regardless of the quality of pedagogical decisions made at the program or department level, the ways in which
individual instructors approach pedagogy in their own classrooms accounts for much of the success or failure of FL
writing education. Presentations that included work by Natalie Lefkowitz, Wenyu Wang, and Helga Thorson looked at
the beliefs and backgrounds informing pedagogical practices and the ways those beliefs and principles impact
students; they also looked at student opinions of their instructors.
Natalie Lefkowitzs presentation, Writing the Wrongs: Foreign and Heritage Language Instructors Quest for
Accuracy, illustrates the first of these two strands. Her presentation reported on an ethnographic study in a U.S.
university that examined writing instructors working with both native and nonnative-speaking students in Spanish,
Japanese, French, German, Russian, Chinese, Latin, and ASL foreign and heritage language settings. Lefkowitz
identified a high degree of similarity among instructors experiences: little formal education in foreign and second
language writing, time constraints on their ability to engage meaningfully with student writing, and other regulations

212

T. Cimasko et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (2009) 209213

standing in the way of instructor growth. These factors have led to what is described as a superheroic quest for
accuracy in language instruction, feedback on writing that is limited to error treatment and negative comments to
students. Although some positive attitudes continue to be found, many teachers comment primarily on very poor
performance in spite of correction and feelings of intimidation on the part of instructors, particularly when working
with more experienced heritage language learners.
The second strand is exemplified by Helga Thorsons presentation, Student Perceptions of Writing as a Tool for
Increasing Oral Proficiency in German. Thorson found that students in her second-year conversation course
increased their rankings of writing as a tool for increasing oral proficiency from the beginning to the end of the
semester. Furthermore, students tended to rank free writing and journal writing (writing activities that tended to focus
on getting thoughts down on paper) higher than essay writing or group writing projectsand by the end of the
semester, students in the second-year course increased their rankings for journal writing (after 10 weeks of writing in
their dialogue journals) whereas students in the third-year conversation course tended to see all writing assignments as
equally beneficial.

Graduate Student Conference

The Graduate Student Conference (GSC), beyond bringing the next generation of second language writing scholars
together, aimed to provide opportunities and an encouraging atmosphere for graduate students to present their
research, to receive feedback from peers and established scholars, and to have a glimpse of the future of the field.
This year, around 50 graduate students presented their work on a broad range of topics. The presenters from the US,
China, Japan, Taiwan, England, and Australia described FL writing contexts in South Korea, China, India, Japan,
Taiwan, Turkey, Israel, the UK, and Australia.
Research on Asian countries got more attention than in previous years when the focus had been mainly on the US,
Europe, and the Middle East. In addition to their traditional concerns, such as feedback, peer review, academic writing,
and writing centers, presenters concentrated on sociocultural and sociolinguistic aspects of foreign language writing
and the role new technologies play in second/foreign language writing, using a wide array of research methods with a
trend toward more ethnographic research methods.
Issues related to instruction, such as first-year ESL writing, plagiarism, and writing centers were examined in
several presentations. The presentation by Helena Hall, Feedback: A Tricky Matter, examined students difficulty
figuring out what they needed to do, leaving them in the position of not being able to successfully revise their papers.
Two presentations, Challenging the Native Speaker Myth in the ESL Writing Classroom: How Identity Shapes
Practice by Davis S. Reis and The Social Impact of EFL Writing Instruction in Turkey by John Hitz, focused on
nonnative-English-speaking instructors. Presentations by Ricky Lam, Houxiang Li, Mei-Hsing Tsai, and others
focused on evaluation and assessment. Karen Power investigated the recent history of the field. In her presentation
First Generation L2 Composition Scholars: The Process Era, Power reviewed the work of scholars who paved the
way to more communicative composition instruction. After discussing the challenges and difficulties of doing
historical research, Power encouraged graduate students and scholars to do more historical research. (For a complete
list of presenters and presentation titles, visit http://sslw.asu.edu/2008/program.html.)

Final reflections
The Symposium on Second Language Writing and the Graduate Student Conference demonstrated that the
robust diversity of foreign language interests in assessments of the field, sociolinguistic issues, and teaching and
learning mirrors a number of current interests in English as a Second Language, while at the same time
approaching these issues from multiple perspectives. Despite this, foreign language studies have been sidelined by
a strong focus on ESL concerns. A number of attendees commented on their hope for the Symposium to
contribute to improving the imbalance between SL and FL in terms of representation, participation, and especially
theory construction. This, and the popularity of both ESL and FL topics in the GSC, holds the promise for
enriching exchanges between the two. This is a task awaiting scholars on both sides of the divide in future
conferences and other professional endeavors.

T. Cimasko et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (2009) 209213

213

The next Symposium on Second Language Writing is scheduled for November 57, 2009, at Arizona State
University, with the theme of The Future of Second Language Writing. For more information, visit the Symposium
website at http://sslw.asu.edu.
References
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. New York: Routledge.
Beril Tezeller Arik was a co-chair of the 7th Symposium on Second Language Writings Graduate Student Conference, and she is currently an MA
student in the ESL program at Purdue University. She was also an assistant chair of the 2008 TESOL Graduate Student Forum. She has previously
tutored EFL to children in Turkey, and is now a first-year composition instructor at Purdue University. Her major interests are social and cognitive
aspects of SLA, discourse analysis, and sociolinguistics.
Tony Cimasko was an associate chair of the 7th Symposium on Second Language Writing. He recently received his Ph.D. from Purdue University,
after researching genre hybridity in the writing of L2 graduate students. His scholarship has been published in the Journal of Second Language
Writing.
Jihyun Im was a co-chair of the 7th Symposium on Second Language Writings Graduate Student Conference. She is currently an MA student at
Purdue University, and is interested in the introduction of writing centers to the colleges and universities of Expanding Circle countries.
Melinda Reichelt was an associate chair of the 7th Symposium on Second Language Writing. She is Professor of English at the University of Toledo,
where she coordinates the ESL writing program and teaches courses in TESOL and linguistics. She has published her work in various journals,
including the Journal of Second Language Writing, World Englishes, Composition Studies, Issues in Writing, the ELT Journal, Modern Language
Journal, the International Journal of English Studies, Foreign Language Annals, and the WAC Journal. She is co-author with Tony Silva and Colleen
Brice of Annotated Bibliography of Scholarship in Second Language Writing: 19931997 (1999), published by Ablex.