International English L2 Student Literature Review Annotated Bibliography
** denotes an source that might be particularly useful for EN214.
**Beattie, Jennifer. "ESL in the Writing Center: Providing Krashen’s 'Comprehensible Input'."
The Writing Lab Newsletter. 30.2 (2005): 11-12. Web. 6 June 2014.
Beattie discusses Stephen Krashen's theory of language acquisition, which suggests that
language is gained subconsciously and naturally, and how it applies to the writing center. Beattie
suggests having L2 students in an environment in which they can be completely surrounded by
"comprehensible input," or a setting where the student can acquire language “a bit beyond [their]
current level of competence.” This can be aided through effective L2 tutoring sessions. L2
learners benefit enormously from garnering what the student already understands through the
session's introductory phase, controlling what we say in order to best facilitate the L2 student's
subconscious acquisition of English by leaving "linguistic clues," and avoiding purely direct
error correction. This article is useful for tutors engaging with L2 students in the FWC by
presenting a theory I'm sure many are not aware of that could help with one's approach to L2
students in the center.
Bitchener, John. "Raising the Linguistic Accuracy Level of Advanced L2 Writers with Written
Corrective Feedback." Journal of Second Language Writing 19.4 (2010): 207-17. Print.
Bitchener presents a case study in which he addresses three kinds of corrective error feedback for
advanced L2 writers: metalinguistic explanation, error circling, and a combination of written
metalinguistic feedback and oral, focused feedback. His study participants were asked to write
about a scene at three different occasions throughout the course. He finds significant differences
between the control group (no corrective error feedback) and the experimental groups (corrective
error feedback), as well as between the group that circled errors and the two other experimental
groups. He ultimately suggests, “clear, simple metalinguistic explanation, namely, explanation of
rule(s) with example(s), is the best type of written CF for long-term accuracy” (216). This article
is helpful because it identifies a specific kind of feedback that can be particularly beneficial for
some L2 writers, and because it pinpoints varying accuracy levels through the use of graphs and
charts.
Blau, Susan R., John Hall, Jeff Davis, and Lauren Gravitz. "Tutoring ESL Students: A Different
Kind of Session." The Writing Lab Newsletter. 25.10 (2001): 1-4. Web. 6 June 2014.
Blau, Hall, Davis, and Gravitz all go into great detail, both theoretically and anecdotally, in
discussing L2 tutoring sessions. They "identify, analyze, and clarify" (2) differences between
native English speakers and non-native English speakers tutoring sessions. They address the
importance of having the tutee explicitly explain the assignment in full, tutors and tutees both
acting as cultural informants in an interdependent dialogue where each participant informs the
other about cultural norms, and levels of collaboration and what types of collaboration occur in
L2 tutoring sessions. They use transcripts to back up some of their claims about L2 tutoring
regarding assignment explanation, cultural informing, dialogue, and collaboration. This article is
quite useful for tutors tutoring L2 students; while it does not say a lot that might be new, it is
useful nonetheless, especially for notions of cultural information and assignment explanation.
Bokser, Julie A. "Pedagogies of Belonging: Listening to Students and Peers." The Writing Center
Journal 25.1 (2005): 43-60. Print.
Bokser identifies a paradoxical dyad within L2 tutoring between two opposing forces: liberation
and constraint within the idea of "belonging" to a certain place or institution. Bokser's article's
crux centers on identities of L2 students. She highlights ideas about belonging through the
"rhetoric of listening" (44), in which she encourages students to engage with their L2 tutees by
listening to what tutees say, but also, by listening to how we ourselves listen as tutors and
instructors. She complicates what it means to "belong" for L2 students in new environments, and
how tutors should react to those complications for L2 students. Ideas of assimilation versus
incorporating different cultures into U.S. higher education institutions are addressed as a type of
balancing act. This is known as "hybrid discourse culture" (49). Bokser concludes that "we need
to consciously engage a more intentional pedagogy of belonging that considers how and why
others listen, how one's self listens, and how these conditions affect hwat gets said" (59). This
article is useful for both L2 pedagogy and tutors in the FWC regarding attitudes towards L2
students and their backgrounds.
Chandler, Jean. "The Efficacy of Various Kinds of Error Feedback for Improvement in the
Accuracy and Fluency of L2 Student Writing." Journal of Second Language Writing 12.3
(2003): 267-96. Print.
Jean Chandler creates a case study of L2 students at a music conservatory and gauges how
certain types of correction affect overall English fluency over the course of a semester. How well
does student accuracy improve with certain types of feedback, and how is that feedback
incorporated in each subsequent draft? She finds that student error correction, rather than mere
practice, results in higher accuracy in the long term. She examines four kinds of teacher error
feedback: straight correction, underline combined with description, description, and underline.
Chandler finds that correction and underlining both helped students the most in their revision
processes. This article is useful for figuring out what kinds of feedback teachers might want to
use for L2 students, and what kinds of things teachers should be asking of their L2 students
regarding draft correction.
**Chang, Jui-Chuan. "Talking About My Omelet: Why and How?" The Writing Lab Newsletter.
28.1 (2003): 11-13, 16. Web. 6 June 2014.
Chang articulates a number of fascinating points on L2 tutoring in the writing center. He
emphasizes how important it is to not be ignorant of other cultures while tutoring, and how
necessary it is to practice situational awareness during L2 tutoring sessions. He describes three
"stances" taken by L2 instructors -- assimilationist, accommodationist, and separatist -- and goes
into detail about how each differs from the other and what they entail for L2 learners, as well as
which stances he suggests tutors use, rather than L2 instructors. He also suggests that L2 learners
should be given agency to decide what "stance" they prefer in any given tutoring session without
it being explicitly stated, which I thought was very useful to think about in ensuring tact in
delicate situations like L2 tutoring sessions. Overall, this article is extremely helpful for tutoring
in the FWC because it provides fresh, new perspectives on striking a balance between cultural
awareness and giving the student enough agency to decide how they want to be identified.
Ellis, Rod, Younghee Sheen, Mihoko Murikami, and Hide Takashima. "The Effects of Focused
and Unfocused Written Corrective Feedback in an English as a Foreign Language
Context." System 36.3 (2008): 353-71. Print.
Ellis, Sheen, Murakami, and Takashima address corrective feedback regarding focused versus
unfocused feedback in particular for L2 writers. This case study focuses on articles, because they
are a good indicator of general language accuracy, they appear frequently in intermediate level
L2 writing, and because they often pose a major issue for L2 learners (357). Students in this
study read short stories and were asked to rewrite them after some discussion. One control group
did not receive corrective feedback, and the two experimental groups received either focused or
unfocused corrective feedback. In the focused feedback group, only articles were addressed,
whereas in the unfocused feedback group, numerous aspects of writing were marked. The case
study shows that the experimental groups improved more in the long term than the control, and
that the focused feedback group improved more in the long run than the unfocused feedback
group, but not enough to be statistically significant. This article is useful because it discusses L2
pedagogy regarding types of corrective feedback and how those types of feedback can be
beneficial, and provides useful charts for further analysis.
Ferris, Dana R., Hsiang Liu, Aparna Sinha, Manuel Senna. "Written Corrective Feedback for
Individual L2 Writers." Journal of Second Language Writing 22.2 (2013): 307-29. Print.
In this article, Ferris, Liu, Sinha, and Senna discuss the general efficacy of written corrective
feedback (WCF). Participants in the case study wrote four texts in class, revised them after
having received WCF, and then were interviewed in order to garner their perspectives. This
study focuses on Generation 1.5 students. The authors outline participants’ attitudes and
perspectives throughout the study, and how those attitudes and perspectives affected their WCF
revision processes in order to highlight “the importance of student confidence, attitude, and
effort as learners interact with various types of instructional interventions, including . . . WCF”
(322). The authors conclude that focused feedback combined with discussion of “contextualized
to the exact problems students are having at that moment” are beneficial to L2 students because
together, it is relevant, clear, and motivating for L2 students (323). This case study is relevant
because it effectively discusses WCF as a whole, and how it can be useful to G1.5 writers at
Colby, thus broadening perspectives on L2 pedagogy.
Ganguly, Sayanti. "Learning through Trial and Error: Working with ESL Students at the Writing
Center." The Writing Lab Newsletter 29.2 (2004): 10-12. Print.
Ganguly presents an interesting, useful, anecdotal article about working with L2 students in the
writing center. She, like many other authors, notes rising international student populations and
their usage of writing centers in U.S. higher education institutions. She cites the need to
understand cultural differences, and effectively summarizes the importance of my project in
addressing the difficulties that L2 students have when adapting to U.S. educational standards for
writing. She cites authors like Tony Silva who writes of Japanese student education and writing
differences when compared to American students, and encourages the use of visual tools, "mindmapping," and dialogue (10). She also addresses general L2 views of tutors, as “writing
professionals” (11). This article is useful for tutors tutoring L2 students; it gives some extra ideas
for L2 tutoring, and reaffirms what others have repeatedly outlined.
Hall, John. "The Impact of Rising International Student Usage of Writing Centers." The Writing
Lab Newsletter. 38.1-2 (2013): 5-9. Web. 6 June 2014.
Hall discusses rising international student populations in U.S. higher education, and what the
impacts of that increase have on writing centers. He cites statistics about the writing center for
Communication majors at BU, and the direct relationship between the center’s increased usage
and increasing international students at BU. He goes over tutoring differences for native English
speakers versus non-native English speakers, statistics on writing center usage by specific
demographics, and writing center identities in light of rising L2 populations. He discusses his
own writing center and how he addressed the concern that international students were effectively
drowning out L1 students. He differentiates between immediate and long-term impacts, such as
writing center schedule limitations and writing centers becoming primarily non-native English
speaker resource centers, respectively. He suggests a need to meet shifting demands for writing
center usage as international student populations rise in the U.S. each year, and to possibly create
centers dedicated to L2 students. This article is informative for changes happening across the
U.S. in writing centers and L2 student numbers.
Horner, Bruce and John Trimbur. "English Only and U.S. College Composition." College
Composition and Communication. 53.4 (2002): 594-630. Web. 6 June 2014.
Horner and Trimbur examine the history and cultural logic of "unidirectional monolingualism"
of the English language in U.S. higher education, and the resulting effects on composition
courses. They go into great detail concerning the development of the modernizing movement of
teaching the English vernacular over classical languages like Latin and Greek in higher
education. They address historic changes in curriculum, changes in oral recitation versus written
study, and what role modern foreign languages play in a monolinguistic curriculum that pervades
higher education in the U.S. Language's essential flux and its ability to delineate people are also
heavily discussed, as are arguments for and against "English Only" policies and ideologies in
higher education. This article is useful for addressing faculty concerns about composition classes
and L2 students, as well as opening avenues for thought-provoking discussion on rethinking
academic writing in an increasingly global/international world.
Houp, Wesley. "Bakhtin, Berthoff, and Bridge-Building: Tutoring ESL." The Writing Lab
Newsletter. 28.5-6 (2004): 11-12. Web. 6 June 2014.
Houp presents an interesting anecdotal article in which he discusses sessions with a Chinese L2
student, Zhengyu, who audits a course and writes essays for it. Houp evokes Bakhtin's critical
theory -- "a word is a bridge thrown between myself and another" -- and Berthoff's interpretive
paraphrasing, in which "dialogue is the mode of making meaning." He addresses how keeping
these two ideas in mind positively affects his tutoring sessions with Zhengyu. This article is
somewhat useful for L2 tutoring in general, but not anything entirely new.
**Ortmeier-Hooper, Christina. "English May Be My Second Language, but I'm Not 'ESL'."
College Composition and Communication. 59.3 (2008): 389-419. Web. 3 June 2014.
Ortmeier-Hooper discusses issues of labeling and identity of L2 learners in this article. She
suggests that the term “ESL” is stigmatized and institutionalized, and its connotations are
derogatory. The term extends beyond language and implies the remedial, segregation, and
special needs. Ortmeier-Hooper argues that L2 learners are caught in a state of identity limbo
that they express through their writing, an existence between home and school. This identity
crises pervades L2 students who are institutionally regarded as merely “ESL.” She suggests that
instructors should practice a sort of balancing act; she writes, “we need to be cautious that we do
not force or perhaps reinforce a label that the students are trying to leave behind; at the same
time, though, we need to continue to reaffirm the value of diversity and respect a student’s right
to create an identity that is not based solely on cultural difference” (414). Ultimately, this article
is useful for appreciating the cultural, rhetorical, and linguistic diversity in U.S. higher education
classrooms like those at Colby.
Truscott, John. "The Case against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes." Language
Learning 46.2 (1996): 327-69. Print.
John Truscott suggests that grammar correction is ultimately ineffective for language acquisition
for English L2 students. He goes as far as to say that "grammar correction in L2 writing classes
should be abandoned" (327) because, according to him, a plethora of research suggests that
grammar correction is ineffective for English L2 learners. Furthermore, he raises the idea that it
is harmful because it takes away from focusing on other more important pedagogical topics such
as writing content, structure, and organization. He also suggests that theoretically and
pragmatically, grammar correction in L2 classes is not beneficial to English L2 students because
language acquisition is a long and complex process, and that teaching grammar generally does
not take the dynamics of that process into account when practicing error correction, and
consequentially the process is damaged and maximum learning is not achieved. This article is
useful for better understanding the ideological, historical springboard that many WCF scholars
dive from when addressing certain subjects, areas, and topics of study in their articles.
**Williams, Jessica. "Tutoring and Revision: Second Language Writers in the Writing Center."
Journal of Second Language Writing 13.3 (2004): 173-201. Print.
Williams presents a case study of five L2 students and four tutors. This study gauges what
aspects of tutoring sessions lead to what kinds of revision (or lack thereof) by L2 students.
Williams found that more direct approaches generally lead to more revision, and that L2 students
perform surface-level revision the most. Williams touches upon facets of L2 tutoring like explicit
guidance, active writer participation, writing down revision plans, and sensitivity to writer
response(s) in order to facilitate effective revision thereafter. This article is helpful for
understanding what specific parts of any given L2 tutoring session are likely to be the most
beneficial in helping L2 students in their revision portions of their writing processes.
Yang, Ling, and David Cahill. "The Rhetorical Organization of Chinese and American Students’
Expository Essays: A Contrastive Rhetoric Stud." International Journal of English
Studies 8.2 (2008): 113-32. Print.
A widespread assumption in the contrastive rhetoric field is the linearity/circularity dichotomy
which suggests that Chinese writing is characterized by indirection. This study examines to what
extent Chinese university students’ writing differs from that of American students. A total of 200
expository essays (50 by American university students in English, 50 by Chinese students in
Chinese, and 100 by beginning and advanced English learners in English) were analyzed. Results
indicate that Chinese students, like their U.S. counterparts, also prefer directness in text and
paragraph organization, but generally U.S. students tend to be significantly more direct than
Chinese students. An examination of modern Chinese writing manuals found that Chinese
rhetoricians also encourage directness in structuring expository essays. These findings point to a
need for greater awareness of the similarities between writing in “contrasting” languages. This
article is useful because it focuses on a different perspective of language acquisition -- that of
similarities, rather than differences, between languages regarding L2 learners. It is also helpful
for L2 pedagogy and tutoring.
Zawacki, Dr. Terry Myers, Eiman Hajabbasi, Anna Habib, et al. Valuing Written Accents: NonNative Students Talk About Identity, Academic Writing, and Meeting Teachers’
Expectations: George Mason University, 2007. Print.
This study of several L2 students at Mason University discusses the experiences of many
international students in American higher education. The article touches upon a number of facets
of the L2 experience across different cultures, including but not limited to pedagogy, language
methodologies, characterizations of voice, writing structure, and reader vs. writer responsibility.
The authors paint a picture of how L2 students make cultural transitions with the aforementioned
and more in mind. This article is extremely informative due to how well it depicts the L2
learning experience. It touches on a multitude of subjects well enough to give a good idea of
what aspects of English writing and education are harder or easier for students from various
countries. This article is helpful for addressing multiple aspects of L2 learners, all of which are
necessary to take into account when discussing how to best accommodate L2 students in the
classroom, and in U.S. higher education in general.