Composing processes

Work on composing has intensified and taken on greater depth and breadth. While general composing processes (Fukao & Fujii, 2001; Lally, 2000a; Sasaki, 2002; Zhu, 2001b) and comparisons of first and second language composing (Chenoweth & Hayes, 2001; Lally, 2000b; Roca de Larios & Murphy, 2001; Thorson, 2000) are still issues of interest, work on subprocesses has increased and become more sophisticated. These subprocesses include revising (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2001; Miller, 2000; Sengupta, 2000; Sze, 2002), formulating (Roca de Larios, Marín, & Murphy, 2001; Zimmerman, 2000), pausing (Miller, 2000; Sasaki, 2000), reviewing and annotation of text (Cresswell, 2000), backtracking (Manchón, Roca de Larios, & Murphy, 2000a), text generation (Armengol-Castells, 2001; Chenoweth & Hayes, 2001), idea generation (Lally, 2000a), task representation (Ruiz-Funes, 2001), noticing (Qi & Lapkin, 2001), and summarizing (Yang & Shi, 2003).

Variables seen to affect composing have also received more attention. These include the use of the L1 in L2 writing (Aidman, 2002; Brooks-Carson & Cohen, 2000; Lally, 2000a; Wang & Wen, 2002; Woodall, 2002); L2 proficiency (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2001; Manchón, Roca de Larios, & Murphy, 2000b; Wang & Wen, 2002; Woodall, 2002); writing fluency (Chenoweth & Hayes, 2001; Hatasa & Soeda, 2000; Miller, 2000; Sasaki, 2000); the use of learning and writing strategies (Ching, 2002; Khaldieh, 2000; Olivares-Cuhat, 2002; Sasaki, 2000); textual quality and complexity (Sasaki, 2000); text pattern knowledge (Schindler, 2000); linguistic experience (Chenoweth & Hayes, 2001); writing experience (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2001); writing tasks (Wang & Wen, 2002); task difficulty (Woodall, 2002); writing skill level (e.g., expert vs. novice); (Sasaki, 2000); medium of composing (Y.-J. Lee, 2002); writing anxiety (Cheng, 2002); writer goals (Cumming, Bush, & Zho, 2002); linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge, and retrieval speed (Schoonen et al., 2002); and age of exposure to an L2 (Arrecco & Ransdell, 2002).

Perhaps the most interesting and important trend in work on composing relates to the contexts in which it is done. Work in FL (as opposed to SL) contexts is now clearly dominant. This includes EFL writing in Spain (Armengol-Castells, 2001; Manchón, Roca de Larios, & Murphy, 2000a, 2000b; Roca de Larios, Marín, & Murphy, 2001), Japan (Fukao & Fujii, 2001; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2001; Sasaki, 2000, 2002), Hong Kong (Sengupta, 2000), Germany (Zimmerman, 2000), China (Wang & Wen, 2002), Italy (Cresswell, 2000), Bulgaria (Rainville, 2000), and Malaysia (Ching, 2002). It also includes FL writing in French (Chenoweth & Hayes, 2001; Lally, 2000, 2000b), Spanish (Ruiz-Funes, 2001), German (Chenoweth & Hayes, 2001; Thorson, 2000), and Arabic (Khaldieh, 2000) in North America; Japanese as foreign language in Australia (Hatasa & Soeda, 2000); and French as a foreign language in Germany (Schindler, 2000). In addition, an extensive bibliography (Silva, Brice, Kapper, Matsuda, & Reichelt, 2001) and literature reviews (Manchón, 2001b; Roca de Larios, Marin, & Murphy, 2001) on L2 composing processes and an analysis of the oscially mediated nature of L2 comparing processes (Roca de Larios & Murphy, 2001) have been produced.

Written texts

While work on text is still dominant in the literature, within textual studies there is a trend toward greater variety with regard to foci, context, genre, and level. Local foci include cohesive devices (Biesenbach-Lucas, Meloni, & Weasenforth, 2000; Hinkel, 2001, 2002a; Liu, 2000; Zhang, 2000), coherencecreating devices (Lee, 2002a, 2002b), error analysis (Coates, Sturgeon, Bohannan, & Pasini, 2002; Feng, Ogata, & Yano, 2000; Khuwaileh & Shoumali, 2000), syntactic features (Gallagher & McCabe, 2001; Grant & Ginther, 2000; Hinkel, 2002a, 2003; Huie & Yahya, 2003; K. Hyland, 2000a, 2000b, 2002a, 2002b, 2002d, 2002f), and lexical features (Jarvis, 2002; Okamura & Shaw, 2000; Reynolds, 2002). Global foci include obliqueness—reflecting a failure to address the writing task (Chandrasegaran, 2000), communication strategies (Chimbganda, 2000), organizational patterns (L. Flowerdew, 2000b; Hirose, 2003), genre awareness (Ramanathan & Kaplan, 2000), topical structure (Simpson, 2000), textual features related to individualism and collectivism (Wu & Rubin, 2000), the pragmatics of letter writing (Al-Khatib, 2001), genre-based instruction (Cargill, Cadman, & McGowan, 2001; K. Hyland, 2002c, 2003; Weber, 2001), rhetorical strategies (Garcia, 2001), and written discourse analysis (Kaplan & Grabe, 2002).

The contexts for textual work reflect a move from SL to FL and from North America to outside North America. Even though most of the scholarship addresses texts written in English (EFL), this scholarship is being done in a wide variety of places, e.g., Australia (Cargill et al., 2001), Botswana (Chimbganda, 2000), China (Zhang, 2000), Ecuador (Thatcher, 2000), England (Thompson & Tribble, 2001), Finland (Jarvis, 2002), Hong Kong (Bruce, 2002; Candlin, Bhatia, & Jensen, 2002; L. Flowerdew, 2000b; K. Hyland, 2000a, 2000b, 2002a; Lee, 2002a, 2002b), Iran (Kiany & Khezri Nejad, 2001), Japan (Feng et al. 2000; Gallagher & McCabe, 2001; Hirose, 2003), Jordan (Al-Khatib, 2001; Khuwaileh & Shoumali, 2000), Korea (Kim, 2001), Luxembourg, (Weber, 2001), Mexico (Garcia, 2001), Singapore (Chandrasegaran, 2000), Spain (Gallagher & McCabe, 2001), and Taiwan (Wu & Rubin, 2000).

The genres examined in this work also vary greatly and reflect a move from the “general essay” to more particular genres and from school-sponsored writing to that done in “real-world” contexts. While the general essay continues to be focused on in classroom, laboratory, and testing situations, more frequently other genres are being used. These include e-mail (Biesenbach-Lucas et al., 2000); nursing notes (Parks, 2000) and care plans (Parks, 2001); personal letters (invitations) (Al-Khatib, 2001) and business letters (cover letters for manuscript submissions) (Okamura & Shaw, 2000); research proposals (Cargill et al., 2001); business manuals and auditing reports (Thatcher, 2000); formal legal essays (Weber, 2001) and legal problem answers (Bruce, 2002); theses, both undergraduate (Hyland, 2002a) and doctoral (Thomson & Tribble, 2001); medical research articles (Coates et al., 2002); narratives (Tickoo, 2000); autobiographies/personal narratives (Dyer & Friederich, 2002); project reports (L. Flowerdew, 2000b); published research articles (K. Hyland, 2002b, 2002e); textbooks (K. Hyland, 2002b, 2002e); and summaries (Kim, 2001; Rivard, 2001).

Assessment

Research on assessment in second language writing has expanded in scope over the past several years, going beyond a focus on results to consider a broad array of methodological, political, and ethical questions related to various stakeholders (testers, test takers, test users, and interpreters) and their roles in the assessment process. The relationships among raters' target language status (native versus nonnative), the ratings they assign, and their reasons for those ratings continue to be issues of interest, particularly in foreign language learning contexts— EFL in Japan (Cornwell & McKay, 2000; Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2001), Germany (Reichelt, 2003), and China (Shi, 2001); and foreign languages in the United States (Breiner-Sanders, Sender, & Terry, 2002), including German (Reichelt, 2003), French (Robinson, 2000), and Japanese (Kondo-Brown, 2002). A cross-cultural study (Reichelt, 2003) compared the rating criteria employed by teachers of German in two contexts: Germany and the United States. Similarly, research investigating the relationship between ratings assigned and different assessment modes and task types continues to grow. Modes examined include direct versus indirect assessment (Crusan, 2002), computerized text analysis versus human rating (Li, 2000a), portfolio-based assessment versus direct assessment (Brauer, 2000b; Song & August, 2002), and analytic versus holistic scoring (Bacha, 2001).

However, inquiry on L2 writing assessment has branched out to identify variables other than rater TL status and assessment mode that play salient roles in the assessment process. These variables include raters' prior experiences teaching and rating writing (Cumming, Kantor, & Powers, 2002; Erdosy, 2001; Hamp-Lyons, 2003; Turner & Upshur, 2002), the nature of the writing samples to be rated (Boldt, Valsecchi, & Weigle, 2001; Turner, 2000; Turner & Upshur, 2002; Weigle, Boldt, & Valsecchi, 2003), raters' biases toward particular types of writers and criteria (Kondo-Brown, 2002), topic familiarity (Stapleton, 2001), and even the purposes for L2 writing and L2writing instruction (e.g., general or specific) (Cumming, 2001b). To gain insight into the influence of these variables, researchers have shifted their attention from characteristics of the raters themselves to their rating processes, examining the thinking processes and behaviors they engage in while they actually rate student writing (Cumming, Kantor, & Powers, 2002; Erdosy, 2001) and collaborate with other raters to develop assessment scales for particular contexts (Turner, 2000).

Research in this area has also acknowledged the need for assessment to take into account the specific characteristics of the language learning and educational contexts. Two studies have described the development of assessment schemes for use with learners in specific contexts—Japanese students in EFL classes (Stewart, Rehorick, & Perry, 2001) and international students in intensive English for Academic Purposes courses in the United States (Wilhelm & Rivers, 2001). Cornwell and McKay (2000) describe the development and validation of a Daly Miller Writing Apprehension Test for EFL students in Japan. Another study (Escamilla & Coady, 2001) has argued for the need to develop context-sensitive writing assessment in bilingual Spanish–English courses.

Assessment for the purposes of placing students into and allowing students out of writing courses has also grown as a focus of inquiry. Researchers have studied the extent to which students' ability to perform in courses is predicted by different types or modes of assessment, including direct versus indirect placement testing (Crusan, 2002), direct exit tests (Braine, 2001b; Song & August, 2002), indirect proficiency tests (Kiany & Khezri Nejad, 2001), and portfolio-based exit assessment (Song & August, 2002). The results of these studies indicate that timed, direct essay tests seriously underpredict ESL students' abilities to write under natural conditions, holding them back, in some cases repeatedly. Such findings highlight the inherently political nature of writing assessment and raise important ethical questions for ESL teachers and testers (for additional perspectives on the political nature of assessment and implications for teachers, see Cumming, 2002; Currie, 2001; and Hamp-Lyons, 2001, 2002).

The students' perspective has also surfaced as an area of interest in assessment scholarship. Bacha (2002) and Basturkmen and Lewis (2002) have compared students' perceptions of their own achievement with their teachers' perceptions. Rating scales derived from student samples have been discussed (Turner & Upshur, 2002). In addition, two historical accounts of L2 writing assessment have been published (Hamp-Lyons, 2001, 2002) as well as an essay on the difficulties facing L2 writing assessment vis-á-vis the notion of standards (Cumming, 2001a).

Content-based writing instruction

The development and implementation of content based writing instruction programs has continued and flourished in recent years. Foci for such programs and courses include health—physical, emotional, and mental (Bailey, 2000); intellectual commentary (Bernard, 2000); psychology (Carson, 2000); applied linguistics literature (Casanave, 2003); critical thinking skills in engineering (L. Flowerdew, 2000a), academic and professional work (Pally, 2001); topics from students' fields (Hansen, 2000); material from a variety of disciplines—e.g., linguistics, environmental science, computer science (Kasper, 2000b); art history and film (Kirshner & Wexler, 2002); authentic science writing (Lang & Albertini, 2001); American history (Nelson & Burns, 2000); film and society (Pally, 2000a); and mystery novels (Heyden, 2001). In addition, Katznelson, Perpignan, and Rubin (2001) and Pally, Katznelson, Perpignan, and Rubin (2002) look at what they call by-products (changes students undergo as they develop writing skills in an academic course) of content based writing approaches. For more details on content-based writing instruction in L2 writing programs cited above, see Pally (2000b).

Voice and identity

Recent years have seen a revival of interest in matters of L2 writer voice and identity. A large part of this revival is a special issue of the Journal of Second Language Writing on voice in L2 writing edited by Belcher and Hirvela (2001c). In this issue, Ivanic and Camps (2001) argue that L2 student writers can use lexical, syntactic, organizational, and material aspects of writing to construct identity or voice. Matsuda (2001b) suggests that the notion of voice is not exclusively tied to individualism and shows different ways in which voice is constructed in Japanese and English. Prior (2001) argues for a view in which voice is simultaneously personal and social—this follows from his view of discourse as fundamentally historical, situated, and indexical. Hirvela and Belcher (2001) address a tendency in L2 writing instruction and research to overlook the voices and identities already possessed by L2 writers, especially at the graduate level. The special issue closes with Atkinson's (2001) response to the foregoing papers.

However, this special issue is not the only source of new work on voice and identity. K. Hyland (2002a, 2002d) examines the presence of authorial identity in academic writing via an analysis of L2 writers' personal pronoun use. Kells (2002) looks at ethnolinguistic identities and language attitudes of Mexican-American bilingual college writers. Russell and Yoo (2001) address subjectivity underlying students' investment in L2 writing. Stapleton (2002) critiques the notions of voice, authorial identity, and authorial presence and argues against their use as tools in L2 writing pedagogy. Vollmer (2002) argues for understanding L2 writing as active participation in the construction of discourse identity. Leki (2001b) talks about hearing voices—i.e., those of students enrolled in L2 writing courses.

Reading and writing

The connection between reading and writing also continues to be explored. Matsuda (2001a) chronicles the genesis of reading and writing in L2 studies. Grabe overviews the links between theory and practice (2001) and research and practice (2003) of the reading–writing relationship. Carson (2001) analyzes the tasks involved in reading and writing in undergraduate and graduate courses, and Leki (2001c) examines different approaches to linking reading and writing instruction. Abu Rass (2001) describes the design of an integrated reading and writing course; Chen (2001) calls for continued inclusion of models in L2 writing instruction; and Dobson and Feak (2001) offer a cognitive modeling approach to teaching L2 writers to critique nonliterary text. For more detail on some of the aforementioned texts, see Belcher and Hirvela (2001a, 2001b).

Computers and technology

The use of computers and technology is rapidly expanding in second and foreign language writing pedagogy, and correspondingly, research in this area has seen dramatic growth. In the past four years, more than two dozen publications have addressed issues related to the use of technology in L2 composition, and these studies have focused on a wide variety of contexts, including EFL situations—in Sweden (Sullivan & Lindgren, 2002), Hong Kong (Braine, 2001a; Li, 2000b), Korea (Suh, 2002), Taiwan (Liaw & Johnson, 2001), Japan (Fedderholdt, 2001; Feng et al., 2000; Greene, 2000; Stapleton, 2003), and Singapore (Yuan, 2003); ESL situations—in Canada (Li & Cumming, 2001) and in the United States (Biesenbach-Lucas et al., 2000; Bloch, 2002; Kasper, 2002; Lam, 2000)—as well as Spanish (González-Bueno & Pérez, 2000) and German (Abrams, 2001; Thorson, 2000) FL contexts in the United States. In addition, self-initiated writing involving technology has been studied outside the classroom (Lam, 2000).

Computer software has been developed to identify and correct typical collocational errors (Shei & Pain, 2000) and morphological errors (Feng et al., 2000) in L2 writing. In addition, software that is able to tag linguistic features at the discourse, sentence, and word levels has been employed to analyze differences in writing at different proficiency levels (Grant & Ginther, 2000), and software that traces writers' keystrokes has been used to study writers' composing and revision processes (Sullivan & Lindgren, 2002; Thorson, 2000; Warden, 2000). The major focus in the research, however, is the examination of the effects of various technologies on the quality, quantity, and processes of L2 writing. This work has compared the effects of word-processed and e-mail–generated texts on language use (Biesenbach-Lucas et al., 2000); traditional and LAN (local area network) classrooms on writing improvement (Braine, 2001a); different types of e-mail tasks on language complexity and accuracy (Li, 2000b); e-mail journaling on accuracy and fluency (González-Bueno & Pérez, 2000); computer-mediated and traditional penand-paper writing on the social roles adopted by writers during group journaling (Abrams, 2001), and on writing improvement and revision behaviors (Li & Cumming, 2001). Noncomparative research addresses the impact of computers on L2 writing (Pennington, 2003), L2 acquisition (Kramsch, A'Ness, & Lam, 2000), student awareness of limitations of Web-based sources (Stapleton, 2003), and student reactions to computer-mediated writing instruction (Suh, 2002).

Several articles describe technology-related assignments and curricula, such as cross-cultural e-mail correspondence units (Fedderholdt, 2001; Liaw & Johnson, 2001); a design model for computer-mediated writing (Greene, 2000); technologyenhanced research writing units (Kasper, 2000b; Moulton & Holmes, 2000); online correction of e-mail assignments (Melby-Mauer, 2003); integration of online communication into academic writing courses (Warschauer, 2002); the implementation of CommonSpace in the composition classroom (Bloch & Brutt-Griffler, 2001); the use of concordances to learn features of genre (Weber, 2001); the use of chat rooms (Yuan, 2003); and the use of computer recordings of one's own composing and revision activities to promote self-assessment (Sullivan & Lindgren, 2002).

Grammar and vocabulary

Research in this category encompasses work that focuses on linguistic accuracy in L2 student writing—a term that is used rather broadly in the literature to refer to sentence level issues and below (grammar, vocabulary, convention use)—and the relationship between accuracy in these areas and pedagogical techniques (also referred to as “error feedback” or “error treatment”). Such inquiry has a long history in L2 studies that continues to the present. Since 2000, one book and several articles on error treatment have been published. The book (Ferris, 2002) is aimed at L2 writing instructors and provides them with a concise review of research on error in L2 writing and guidelines for providing instruction and feedback on grammatical error in student writing. Frodesen and Holten (2003) present an overview of the role of grammar in L2 writing.

In the research, the relationship between different error treatments and students' written accuracy continues to be a central concern. Feedback treatments that have been examined vary in terms of focus of attention (on error versus higher order concerns) (Fazio, 2001) and explicitness (error type labeled versus error location identified versus no feedback) (Ferris & Roberts, 2001). Inquiry has broadened, however, to examine the effects of different error treatments on students' editing processes as well as their products, trying to determine whether specific types of markings influence students' attention to error during editing (Fazio, 2001; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; F. Hyland, 2003; Kubota, 2001) or their awareness of correct forms in TL writing/input (Tsang, 2000). Other work advocates increased attention to grammar in the composition classroom (Muncie, 2002a; Myles, 2002).

Innovative approaches to helping students edit for grammatical error have also been presented. Hinkel (2002b) advocates the contextualized teaching of grammar (employing analysis of authentic texts) to heighten learners' awareness of TL use. Yates and Kenkel (2002) advocate and illustrate error feedback practices that are informed by current SLA theory and cognizant of the inherently interrelated nature of discourse types and sentence level grammar choices. In addition, Jabbour (2001) discusses the use of collocation and corpus linguistics to teach grammar and vocabulary.

Finally, work in the area of vocabulary has examined the role of task type (timed writing versus multiple drafting) on the accuracy, range, and sophistication of students' vocabulary use (Muncie, 2002b) and discussed the use of dictionaries to teach vocabulary (Odlin, 2001).

Peer interaction

A handful of publications in the past four years have addressed issues related to peer interaction. They are about evenly divided in focus between second and foreign language contexts and address a range of academic levels, including secondary EFL in Hong Kong (Tsui & Ng, 2000), university EFL in Israel (Levine, Oded, Connor, & Asons, 2002), precollege ESL in the United States (Di Giovanni & Nagaswami, 2001), and university composition, both ESL (de Guerrero & Villamil, 2000; Porto, 2001) and mixed NES/ESL (Zhu, 2001a). Interest has moved from the comparison of students' uses of and attitudes toward peer versus teacher response (F. Hyland, 2000; Muncie, 2000; Tsui & Ng, 2000) to the examination of a number of other variables seen to influence students' uses of peer feedback and the quality and quantity of interaction among peers in writing groups. These include the language status (ESL vs. NES) of the participants (Zhu, 2001a), the language learning and cultural context (SL vs. FL) (Levine et al., 2002), the mode of interaction (online versus face-to-face) (Di Giovanni & Nagaswami, 2001), the status of peer participants relative to one another (de Guerrero & Villamil, 2000), written versus oral peer response (Bartels, 2003), comparative effects of working alone or with a peer (Franken & Haslett, 2002), and comparative effects of peer review in electronic and traditional modes (Liu & Sadler, 2003). In addition to these articles, a book on peer response (Liu & Hansen, 2002) provides an overview of the research in the area and guidelines for the integration and implementation of a variety of peer response activities. Ferris (2003b) offers a briefer overview of issues in peer feedback.

Plagiarism

Research continues to delve into the complex issues related to plagiarism in L2 writing. Inquiry remains focused on school-sponsored writing, but several school contexts have been examined, including undergraduate (Bloch, 2001; F. Hyland, 2001; Mounsey, 2001; Pecorari, 2001; Prochaska, 2001); graduate (Barks & Watts, 2001); ESL in the United States (Barks & Watts, 2001; Bloch, 2001; Pecorari, 2001; Prochaska, 2001); ESL in New Zealand (F. Hyland, 2001); ESL/EFL in Mexico (Mounsey, 2001); and EFL in Japan (LoCastro & Masuko, 2002; Yamada, 2000) and China (Sapp, 2002). Studies have examined the processes involved in writing from source material (Barks & Watts, 2001); the role of print versus electronic media (Bloch, 2001); teachers' feedback on plagiarism (F. Hyland, 2001); students' understanding of plagiarism (F. Hyland, 2001; Mounsey, 2001); individual and institutional policies on plagiarism (Pecorari, 2001, Sapp, 2002); the practical and political implications of the lack of a clear definition of the construct (Prochaska, 2001); possible causes of plagiarism (LoCastro & Masuko, 2002; Sapp, 2002); the role of attitudes, cultural expectations, and educational context (Sapp, 2002); how students can be helped to avoid plagiarism (Yamada, 2003); and how teachers can modify their conceptions of and responses to plagiarism (Sapp, 2002).

Teacher response

Perceived as one of the most important and time-consuming aspects of teaching writing, response has been the subject of only a handful of studies over the past several years. This research, however, has made some significant methodological and conceptual advances in understanding this complex, multidimensional activity. Several studies have investigated both what students do with teacher feedback and how this feedback appears to affect the quality of their writing (Ashwell, 2000; DiPuma & Maslekoff, 2001; F. Hyland, 2000; Kasanga, 2001; Storch & Tapper, 2002; Warden, 2000). Ashwell (2000) examined whether the feedback sequence currently recommended in multiple draft writing (providing feedback on content in earlier drafts and form in later drafts) is more effective than other patterns in effecting improvement in students' writing and inspiring revision and editing.

Attention has also been given to authentic (as opposed to manipulated) teacher feedback and its effectiveness in communicating with students. F. Hyland (2000) examined the ways in which students' concerns and revision ideas are overridden by their teachers' feedback. Hyland and Hyland (2001) analyzed teacher feedback according to its functions (praise, criticism, suggestions) and forms. Sanson-Moorey (2001) discusses student–teacher conferences. In addition, reviews of the research on teacher response have appeared (Ferris, 2003a, 2003b; Goldstein, 2001).

Literature and film

The role of literature in L2 composition pedagogy has been a long-standing topic of debate in the field; however, it has been the focus of only a handful of articles published in the past several years (Belcher & Hirvela, 2000; Hirvela, 2001; Newell, Garriga, & Peterson, 2001; Vandrick, 2003). Belcher and Hirvela (2000) present a comprehensive review of the interrelated but separate histories of the literature–composition debate in L1 and L2 writing. This article also lays out the pros and cons of using literature in the L2 writing classroom. Hirvela (2001) talks about the place of literature in the L2 writing curriculum; and Newell, Garriga, and Peterson (2001) discuss reading to write on literature, in the form of critical responses to literary texts. Recent work has also advocated the use of film in L2 writing instruction as a means of promoting language acquisition (verbal, written, and visual) and motivating students (Fluitt-Dupuy, 2001; Kasper, 2000a; Kasper & Singer, 2001).

Foreign language writing

Research focusing on foreign (as opposed to second) language contexts has proliferated, evidence both of the growth of L2 writing as a discipline and the changing role of writing in the 21st century. The focus of this research has expanded, both geographically and conceptually. Studies have reported on EFL writing instruction in Bulgaria (Rainville, 2000), Japan (Hirose, 2001; Hirose & Sasaki, 2000), Tunisia (Ghrib-Maamouri, 2001), and the Ukraine (Tarnopolsky, 2000); and on writing instruction in various FLs taught in U.S. university settings, including Spanish (Roebuck, 2001; Ruiz-Funes, 2001), German (Reichelt & Waltner, 2001), and French (Calvez, 2000; Kelley, 2001). In addition, two collections focusing on FL contexts appeared: a special volume of MEXTESOL Journal on L2 writing (Hayward, 2001) and an edited collection discussing FL instruction in Switzerland, Italy, Denmark, Germany, and the United States (Brauer, 2000d). The latter collection presents an historical account of foreign language pedagogy research over the past 50 years (Homstad & Thorson, 2000b).

Descriptive work in this area has presented the curriculum of specific writing courses and the theoretical motivation for them (Hirose, 2001; Kelley, 2001; Reichelt & Waltner, 2001; Roebuck, 2001); detailed the changing role of writing in a given context and the authors' experiences as teachers of writing in these contexts (Rainville, 2000; Tarnopolsky, 2000); described the use of particular techniques in the FL classroom, including intensive and extensive writing (Homstad & Thorson, 2000a), portfolios (Brauer, 2000b), brainstorming (Hornung, 2000; M. Schrader, 2000), creative writing (R. Schrader, 2000), workshopping (Svendsen, 2000), the computer (Nelson, 2000), and the Internet (Blatt, 2000); and outlined curricular modifications teachers have made to better respond to students' interests and proficiency levels (Reichelt & Waltner, 2001; Tarnopolsky, 2000). An approximately equal number of FL studies have investigated various aspects of the FL writing process, including the effects of different instructional treatments on writing quality (Hirose & Sasaki, 2000); the effects on linguistic accuracy of different task types (Calvez, 2000) and different task representations (Ruiz-Funes, 2001); and the major writing difficulties experienced by FL students (Ghrib-Maamouri, 2001).

In addition, fundamental questions that have previously been neglected or considered irrelevant have come to the fore of FL writing research. One such question has been raised by Reichelt (1999, 2001) and Leki (2001e)—namely, what is(are) the purpose(s) of FL writing? In a review of research on the effects of instruction and task type on U.S. students' FL writing, Reichelt (2001) found no unified sense of purpose for writing in the FL curriculum, which, she argues, is the precursor to a coherent research agenda and informed pedagogical decision making. Similarly, Leki (2001e) argues that the greatest ideological challenge facing English teachers working in non-English dominant (FL) contexts is the question of the purpose of FL writing instruction, yet she notes that this question is rarely addressed. Finally Brauer (2000a) argues for the expansion of the function of writing in FL classrooms.

Approach, technique, and curriculum design

Much research published in the past several years describes and/or investigates particular approaches, curricula, and teaching techniques for L2 composition. The curricula that are presented vary widely in terms of foci, reflecting a local, needs-based approach to curriculum development. These foci include the investigation of writing in one's own academic discipline (Lax & Reichelt, 2001; Vann & Myers, 2001); the analysis of language use in media (Hunter & Morgan, 2001); writing for university exams (Weigle & Nelson, 2001); basic writing tasks required in undergraduate (Carson, 2001) and postgraduate study (Cargill, Cadman, & McGowan, 2001; Carson, 2001); writing based on learners' interests (Hall, 2001); a problem posing critical literacy approach (Quintero, 2002); a self-access approach (Nakayama, 2002); a cognitive modeling approach to critique writing (Dobson & Feak, 2001); evaluation in academic writing (Bloch, 2003); and genre approaches to L2 writing instruction (Johns, 2003). In addition, discussions of the issues teachers may need to consider when designing literacy courses (Leki, 2001c; Lunsford, 2001) and advanced EAP curricula were published (Reid, 2001), and an article on the development of models of adult L2 writing instruction appeared (Cumming & Riazi, 2000).

Instructional techniques described in the literature address a wide variety of issues as well, including coherence (Lee, 2002a, 2002b); heuristic devices (Beck, 2002); narrative crisis conventions (Tickoo, 2001); strategy and self-regulation (Ching, 2002); Grice's Maxims (White, 2001); one-on-one tutoring (Shin, 2002); argumentation (Livie, 2000); genre (Badger & White, 2000); dialogue journaling (Hansen-Thomas, 2003; Myers, 2001; Sanders, 2000); scaffolding (Cotterall & Cohen, 2003); working memory strategies (Ransdell, Lavelle, & Levy 2002); explicit linguistic preparation (Ruan, 2001); using the resources of the writing center (Thonus, 2002, 2003; Williams, 2002); oral versus literate strategies of communication (Atari & Triki, 2000) and text patterns (Yamada, 2000). The effects of instruction in particular aspects of writing on student improvement in those aspects of writing has also been examined (Archibald, 2001; Olivares-Cuhat, 2002).

L2 writing programs

Recent years have also seen acceleration in the development of innovative programs and courses for L2 academic writing worldwide. These developments include a writing center at Hong Kong Polytechnic (Xiao, 2001); a Spanish writing center at the University of Minnesota (Strong & Fruth, 2001); an ESP writing program at Sultan Kaboos University in Oman (J. Flowerdew, 2001); an introduction to academic writing course at Aichi Prefectural University in Japan (Hirose, 2001); an ESL academic-social learning community program at Kingsborough Community College in New York (Babbit, 2001); an interdisciplinary, interinstitutional learning communities program at San Diego State University (Johns, 2001); cooperative learning, learner-centered, learning and crosscultural exchange program at Iowa State University (Vann & Myers, 2001); a language-based academic induction program focused on genre used in the university at Adelaide University in Australia (Cargill, Cadman, & MacGowan, 2001); an advanced university course on language and public life at Ryerson Polytechnic University in Canada (Hunter & Morgan, 2001); a task-based composition course for resident ESL writers at the University of Illinois at Chicago (Williams, 2001); a course in advanced writing for university examinations at Georgia State University (Weigle & Nelson, 2001); a course linking ESL writing and the study of Greek and Latin roots in English at Hunter College in New York (Smoke, Green, & Isenstead, 2001); and an EAP professional development course at Macquarie University in Australia. For more details on these programs see Leki (2001a), from which all the foregoing chapters come, and the editor's introduction to the collection (2001d). In addition, Matsuda and Jablonski (2000) discuss the relationship between ESL writing and Writing Across the Curriculum programs.

Ideology

Current explicit commentary on ideological matters has its roots in a cluster of papers in the early- to mid-1990s. Santos (1992) claimed that L1 writing tended toward the ideological; and L2 writing, the pragmatic. Johns (1992), largely in agreement with Santos, warned against the uncritical acceptance of L1 writing ideology. Benesch (1993) responded to Santos, suggesting that all forms of ESL instruction are ideological, that neutrality is a myth, and that Santos's pragmatic position supports the status quo. Severino (1993) also responded to Santos, arguing that L2 writing pedagogy is just as ideologically charged as L1 writing pedagogy, though not as openly articulated and discussed. Allison (1994), in response to Benesch (1993), denied any necessary connection between pragmatism and an accommodationist ideology and challenges what he sees as Benesch's “ideologist” discourse. Benesch (1994) challenged Allison's claim that English for academic purposes has sufficiently addressed ideological issues. In 2001, Benesch and Santos reviewed and refined their earlier discussion. Benesch focused on critical theory and pedagogy and its opponents and argued for a “critical pragmatism.” Santos laid out her views on critical theory and pedagogy and offered critiques of critical approaches to EAP and L2 writing.

A smaller cluster of work at the end of the century looked at ideology from a cultural perspective. Ramanathan and Atkinson (1999) claimed that L1 composition's principles and practices reflect an individualist ideology and that applying them to students whose culture may not share this ideology is problematic. Elbow (1999) agrees with what he calls Ramanathan and Atkinson's root claim about cross cultural differences, but argues that the notions of voice, peer review, critical thinking, and textual ownership (the four areas addressed by Ramanathan and Atkinson) are not inherently individualistic. Atkinson (2000a) claims that Elbow's outsider status (outside of L2 writing) causes some misunderstandings with regard to the L2 writing context but also generates insights and synergies vis-á-vis L2 writing. Other examples of papers addressing ideological concerns include Valdés (2000), who addresses language bigotry in mainstream composition classes against speakers of nonprestige varieties of English; Currie (2001), who explores the role of power in the evaluation of L2 students' writing; Belcher (2001), who looks at L2 writing theory in terms of research methodology, discourse style, and gender sensitivity; Ramanathan (2003), who investigates the politics of textual production and consumption; Canagarajah (2002), who explains how pedagogical approaches can help L2 writers position themselves in vernacular and academic communities; Smoke (2001), who discusses strategies to advocate for ESL student support services; and Leki (2003a), who wonders if writing has been overrated.

History and development

The L2 writing area of interest that has seen, perhaps, the most dramatic growth is the history and development of the field. The new millennium brought a discussion of the future of L2 writing that specifically looked at the question of whether increased interest in and importance of L2 writing was matched by increased production of L2 writing specialists (Santos, Atkinson, Erickson, Matsuda, & Silva, 2000). The views expressed in this piece range from pessimistic (Atkinson) to optimistic (Silva) with mixed views from Santos, Erickson, and Matsuda. In a response to this discussion, Kaplan (2000) suggested that the focus of the discussion was limited to the current situation in North America but that L2 writing was neither restricted to North America, nor was it solely a contemporary issue and offered illustrations. There were two published responses to Kaplan's critique. Santos (2000) accepted Kaplan's critique, whereas Atkinson (2000b) took issue with it, suggesting that L2 writing is not, as Kaplan purports, a relatively wellestablished international research field with a critical mass of committed scholars.

A number of historical overviews were produced. Leki (2000) and Silva and Matsuda (2002) examined developments in L2 writing in the context of applied linguistics. Matsuda (2003) provided an historical review of L2 writing in the 20th century from an interdisciplinary perspective—looking at the influence of composition studies and second language studies. Kroll (2001) addressed developments in L2 writing via a personal reflection of her work in the field, as did several L2 scholars in Blanton and Kroll (2002a). Reichelt (2001) presented an overview of pedagogical issues and approaches in FL writing. Connor (2003) overviewed work in contrastive rhetoric over the past 30 years. Kapper 92002) reviewed the first 10 years of research published in the Journal of Second Language Writing. Silva and Matsuda (2001b) traced the evolution of L2 writing over the previous 40 years. Kaplan and Grabe (2002) presented a 50-year history of written discourse analysis; Cumming (2001c) surveyed two decades of research on L2 writing acquisition; and Brauer (2000c) traced the history of L2 writing over the past 30 years.

Atkinson (2003a) edited a special issue of the Journal of Second Language Writing reviewing contemporary work in L2 writing—post process. In this issue, foci include basic issues (Atkinson, 2003a), genre (K. Hyland, 2003), gender/class/race (R. Kubota, 2003), culture (Atkinson, 2003b), a sociopolitical orientation to research (Casanave, 2003a), and a push for giving more attention to interdisciplinarity, postmodernism, and globalization (Leki, 2003b). In another group effort, Matsuda, Canagarajah, Harklau, K. Hyland, and Warschauer (2003) focused on important currents that have shaped inquiry in L2 writing during the previous decade: generation 1.5 students (Harklau), multiliteracies (Canagarajah), technology (Warschauer), discourse analysis (K. Hyland), and multidisciplinary inquiry (Matsuda, 2003a). Finally, CCC (College Composition and Communication) acknowledged the growing importance of L2 writing by publishing a (long overdue) position paper on second language writing and writers (2001), describing the L2 writer population and addressing such issues as placement, assessment, class size, credit, and teacher preparation and support.