L2 writing in the post-process era: Introduction

Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 3–15

L2 writing in the post-process era: Introduction Dwight Atkinson* Graduate College of Education, Temple University Japan, 2-8-12 Minami Azabu, Minato-ku, Tokyo 106-0047, Japan

Abstract In this introduction to the special issue, I attempt to lay out a coherent if still-heuristic notion of ‘‘post-process.’’ I do so by first investigating four components of Trimbur’s (1994) definition of ‘‘post-process’’: the social; the post-cognitivist; literacy as an ideological arena; and composition as a cultural activity. Next, I review studies in first and especially second language writing/literacy research which have attempted to move beyond process pedagogy and theory, and which for me, at least, provide a sound conceptual basis for further developments in that direction. I then conclude by stating my own summative definition of post-process, and briefly introducing the main contributions to this special issue. # 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Process writing; Post-process; Post-modernism; Second language writing; Critical applied linguistics

I first encountered the term ‘‘post-process’’ in John Trimbur’s 1994 review essay, ‘‘Taking the Social Turn: Teaching Writing Post-Process’’ (Trimbur, 1994). There, Trimbur reviewed three books that: enact[ed] what has come to be called the ‘‘social turn’’ . . ., a post-process, postcognitivist theory and pedagogy that represent literacy as an ideological arena and composition as a cultural activity by which writers position and reposition themselves in relation to their own and others’ subjectivities, discourses, practices, and institutions. (p. 109)

As a first approximation to the notion of ‘‘post-process’’ featured and debated in this special issue, I would like to examine some of the main substantive terms in * Tel.: þ81-3-5441-9851; fax: 81-3-5441-9822. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Atkinson).

1060-3743/03/$ – see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00123-6

4

D. Atkinson / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 3–15

Trimbur’s statement as they relate to current theory and practice in second language writing: ‘‘social’’; ‘‘post-cognitivist’’; ‘‘literacy as an ideological arena’’; and ‘‘composition as cultural activity.’’ Simplifying somewhat, the ‘‘social turn’’ mentioned by Trimbur was a response throughout the humanities and social sciences to the austere asociality of structuralism (e.g., Giddens, 1979; Rowe, 1995). Structuralists viewed human behavior as substantially determined by closed, abstract, formalized systems of oppositional elements, for example, phonetics and syntax in linguistics; kinship and myth-based symbol systems in anthropology; and grid-like social-organizational structures in sociology. Reacting to this severely reductive approach to understanding human beings, social scientists and humanists developed a number of counter-frameworks and concepts in the second half of the 20th century: interpretivist (e.g., Geertz, 1973); social constructionist (e.g., Berger & Luckmann, 1966); ethnomethodological (e.g., Garfinkel, 1967); sociolinguistic (e.g., Hymes, 1972); and poststructuralist (e.g., Derrida, 1976; Foucault, 1972). Such approaches currently dominate much research in social science, humanities, and education — L1 composition itself was just taking ‘‘the social turn’’ when Trimbur wrote his piece. The field of L2 writing, as well, has shown movement in this direction over the past decade. Process writing, its strongest guiding force over the last part of the 20th century, was resolutely asocial in any theoretical sense, although not especially structuralist.1 It saw the learner almost wholly individualistically, 1 There is obviously no monolithic entity or set of practices called ‘‘process pedagogy.’’ I therefore, use the term advisedly and as a mid-level generalization (Gee, 1999). I also deal with this point to some degree as regards L2 writing in the section of this introduction entitled ‘‘Post-process and the Contributions to this Special Issue.’’ The claim that process writing has been the dominant approach to L2 writing in the last part of the 20th century will perhaps be contested by some (see, for example, Leki, 1992, pp. 6–7). Given the lack of a well-documented history of L2 writing as an organized discipline, such claims are obviously matters of interpretation, as well as of personal experience. I would point, however, to such influential publications as Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (Kroll, 1990), wherein 9 of the 13 chapters were centrally concerned with some aspect of the writing process, to suggest that evidence for this claim is more than anecdotal. In one of these chapters, Johns (1990, p. 26) states:

The influence of the process approaches, especially of cognitive views, upon modern ESL classrooms cannot be exaggerated. In most classrooms, ESL teachers prepare students to write through invention and other prewriting activities . . ., encourage several drafts of a paper, require paper revision at the macro levels, generally through group work . . ., and delay the student fixation with and correction of sentence-level errors until the final editing stage. Likewise, more recent accounts of the development and current state of the field of L2 writing foreground the importance and pervasiveness of the process movement in the last quarter of the 20th century. Thus, Grabe and Kaplan (1996, p. 84) state that ‘‘[M]uch current research on writing in a L2 is based directly on theoretical and instructional trends in writing-as-a-process theory.’’ Likewise, Ferris and Hedgcock (1998, pp. 5–6) open the section of their first chapter entitled ‘‘The Emergence of L2 Writing as a Subdiscipline: Issues and Methods’’ with the statement:

D. Atkinson / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 3–15

5

‘‘the’’ writing process as an abstract, internal process, and writing as a discoverytype activity, wherein what was being discovered was often at least partly ‘‘the self’’ (e.g., Kent, 1999; Tobin, 1994). The teaching practices that followed from the theory were also often similarly focused on developing the inner self, although of course in some abstract (and often vaguely conceptualized) relationship with the social environment. Interest in such notions as genre and discourse community (e.g., Swales, 1990), studies of writers operating in particular academic contexts (e.g., Leki, 1995; Leki & Carson, 1997), and theoretical discussions of social constructionism and the like (e.g., Johns, 1990) have all taken us some way toward developing a view of L2 writing as a socially situated activity. At the same time, in comparison to some of the ‘‘social-turn’’ orientations mentioned in the previous paragraph, it seems to me that L2 writing could go substantially further in this regard (for suggestive research, see e.g., Hyland, this volume; Pennycook, 1996; Prior, 1998, 2001; Swales, 1993).2 ‘‘Post-cognitivist’’ in Trimbur’s statement alludes to critiques of the cognitivist school of process-writing research, centered in the work of Linda Flower and John Hayes at Carnegie-Mellon University (e.g., Flower & Hayes, 1981). Patricia Bizzell, one of the writers Trimbur reviewed in his essay, was among the first to note that this approach neglected the whole domain of social conventionality — the highly complex, socially constructed, but taken-for-granted Based on presumed and observed similarities between L1 and L2 composing processes, practitioners of ESL writing instruction in the early 1980s largely imitated L1 classroom practices in their own classrooms . . .. Not only did research in L1 composition and rhetoric provide sound theoretical underpinnings for L2 composing pedagogy, but emergent L2 writing research also began to show that ESL writers . . . demonstrate strategies and skills quite similar to those displayed by native English-speaking (NES) writers. Although Ferris and Hedgcock’s is primarily a historical account at this point, it is clearly meant to suggest that process pedagogy still has enormous influence in the current ‘‘state of the art’’ in L2 writing. This fact can also be seen in both of these scholars’ other work in the field, which concentrates largely on issues of process — e.g., student and teacher feedback (Ferris, 1995a, 1997; Ferris, Pezone, Tade, & Tinti, 1997; Hedgcock & Leftkowitz, 1992, 1994, 1996) and self-editing (Ferris, 1995b). 2 To give two examples of areas in which socially oriented theories of L2 writing could go substantially further in the directions charted by ‘‘social turn’’ theorists: 1. The notion of ‘‘coherence’’ — which still seems to operate in at least some L2 writing research (e.g., Connor, 1996) — is to me at least as unfortunate for what it hides or subsumes about the relations between texts and the world as for what it allows or reveals. In fact, another way of looking at what I am calling the ‘‘post-process’’ era in L2 writing would be to think of it as an unpacking and reconceptualization of the ‘‘coherence’’ concept — in attempting to answer the question: How exactly does a particular text (or set of texts, or set of text-producing writing practices, or text-producing author(s), etc.) connect up with the rest of the world? 2. A second area in which progress might be made in socially oriented L2 writing is in reconceptualizing the social/cognitive binary that seems to have inhibited basically all thought on language and its development since the advent of cognitive psychology in the 1960s (and no doubt behaviorism before that). Although this subject is beyond the scope of the present essay, I treat it more fully elsewhere (Atkinson, 2002; cf., Leki, 2002).

6

D. Atkinson / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 3–15

patterning of communication by which all human social groups enact efficient, solidarity-maintaining social action (Bizzell, 1982; cf., Atkinson, 1991). But ‘‘post-cognitivist’’ can also be taken in a wider sense, as rejecting a whole complex of assumptions at the core of the cognitive revolution in psychology, and, beyond that, of modernist worldviews in general — for example, inviolate individuality; ‘‘lonely,’’ autonomous cognition; and largely invariant cognitive processes by which humans operate in the world. To this point, I have seen few serious questionings of these tenets in L2 writing (for a possible opening, however, see Leki, 2002; see also Atkinson, 2002, for second language acquisition in general). ‘‘Literacy as an ideological arena’’ refers to a growing understanding over the past two decades that reading and writing are not the decontextualized, information-centered, impersonal activities they were once thought to be, but rather that they actively construct, and are centrally implicated within, power relations, society, culture, and, indeed, individuality itself. It may even be a mistake, according to some theorists (e.g., Gee, 1996; cf., Foucault, 1972), to regard reading and writing as the main locus of literacy: These social activities may be so bound up in other forms of doing, being, and knowing that they are not in any ecologically valid way separable from them. The ideological nature of literacy emerges in L2 writing research and practice when we realize that, for example: (1) what we are teaching and researching is often ‘‘powerful literacy’’ (Gee, 1996), with a strong basis in quite particular (and quite restricted) social practices (e.g., Belcher, 1997, 2001; Pennycook, 1996); and (2) who we are teaching are often the alreadypowerful and socioeconomically privileged (Vandrick, 1995; cf., Bourdieu, 1977). ‘‘Composition as cultural activity’’ captures elements of what I have written so far, focusing especially on the restricted — and powerful — uses of literacy that have dominated ‘‘western’’ social institutions over the past several centuries (e.g., Atkinson, 1997, 1999; Atkinson & Ramanathan, 1995; Luke, 1996; Ohmann, 1982; Scollon, 1995), and which increasingly and aggressively seem to be recolonizing the world (Crystal, 1997; Swales, 1990). What do notions like ‘‘voice,’’ ‘‘critical thinking,’’ ‘‘originality,’’ ‘‘clarity,’’ and ‘‘plagiarism’’ mean outside the cultural contexts in which they have been developed and are so deeply embedded?3 At the level of teaching, for example, how do the student-centered, process-oriented, and fluency-focused elements of process pedagogy impact students from educational backgrounds that are teacher-centered, knowledge-oriented, and accuracyfocused? Or, to stretch Trimbur’s phrase a bit further, what does it even mean to talk about ‘‘culture,’’ and its purported influence on students writing in a second/ additional language (e.g., Atkinson, 1999; Kubota, 1999; Spack, 1997)? Although none of the questions raised here or the topics introduced can be definitively addressed in a few articles — nor can the term ‘‘post-process’’ be perfectly defined — I have at least tried to briefly sketch the field of endeavor as I 3 Consider, for instance, the important place recently given ‘‘critical thinking’’ in national second language education policy in places like Malaysia and Hong Kong (e.g., Hashim & Abas, 2000).

D. Atkinson / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 3–15

7

see it. Let me now return to Trimbur’s own explication of the ‘‘post-process’’ notion, followed by a brief review of related literature in the field.

Conceptual background By Trimbur’s account, the ‘‘social turn’’ theorists, led by Patricia Bizzell (1992), had good reason to critique process pedagogy. Here is Trimbur’s summary of their critique: [These scholars’ rejection of process pedagogy] result[ed] from a crisis within the process paradigm and a growing disillusion with its limits and pressures . . .. [T]he distinction between product and process, which initially seemed so clarifying, not only proved conceptually inadequate to what writers do when they are writing, it also made writing instruction seem easier than it is. As Bizzell notes, by polarizing ‘‘individual creative talents’’ and ‘‘the oppressive institution’’ of schooling, the process movement led teachers to believe that they could simply step outside the institutions and discourses of schooling in order to release an authentic language from their students. (pp. 109–110) By defining a teacher’s role as that of a facilitator or co-learner or collaborator, process teachers attempted to relinquish authority unproblematically, in order to empower the expressive capacities of their students. These teachers, however, ran into some very real problems. For one thing, students often reinscribed the authority that process teachers were trying to vacate, for the very simple reason that they knew their composition processes would eventually result in a product for evaluation, and the canniest among them recognized that sincerity and authenticity of voice were the privileged means of symbolic exchange . . .. If process teachers were reading what they took to be direct and unmediated prose of personal experience, the most successful students were hard at work constructing the authorial persona of self-revelatory personal essays written in a decidedly non-academic style. To put it another way, the irony of the process pedagogy is that teachers’ desire to operate outside oppressive institutions and avoid the errors of the past only reinstituted the rhetoric of the belletristic tradition at the center of the writing classroom. For Trimbur and the scholars whose work he reviewed, then, problems with process pedagogy revolved around its ultimate failure to deal with questions of power in the classroom: The bad old ways basically continued.

While Trimbur was (for me at least) the first to put a name to it, by the mid1990s a critique of process pedagogy was in the air, its seeds having been sown by teachers and researchers such as Delpit (1988) and Inghilleri (1989) in the preceding decade.4 These two scholars had pointed out that process pedagogy 4 In his article in this issue, Paul Matsuda traces a somewhat different evolutionary path for the ‘‘post-process’’ movement — one that is centered more fully in the field of L1 composition itself.

8

D. Atkinson / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 3–15

was problematic for African American and immigrant ESL students, respectively, because the indirect, inductive approach taken by process-oriented teachers seemed to assume forms of socialization these students had neither had in their home environments nor were likely to get in the classroom. As with Trimbur, their criticisms therefore revolved ultimately around such questions as ‘‘Whose power?’’ and ‘‘Who benefits?’’ in the process-oriented classroom.5 By the 1990s, a growing number of researchers and teachers were beginning to point out the mismatch between L1-oriented process pedagogy and the life experiences of various kinds of students. Scollon (1991; see also Ho, 1998; Li, 1996; Shen, 1989), for example, described his attempt to implement Elbow’s version of process writing (e.g., Elbow, 1981) in a class of Taiwanese university students, with strikingly poor results. He located the problem in clashing expectations regarding what sociocultural action student writers saw themselves as engaged in, including how to position themselves vis-a`-vis the larger society and its fund of received knowledge. Somewhat similarly, Holliday (1994) argued that, without considerable sensitivity and modification, process-oriented, groupbased, student-centered approaches to second language teaching in general were inappropriately applied in parts of the world they were not originally designed for. Allaei & Connor (1990), Carson and Nelson (1996), Delpit (1995), Gee (1990, 1996), and Ramanathan and Kaplan (1996), among others, also indicated ways in which non-mainstream writers might be disadvantaged by an L1-oriented process writing approach. Unlike Trimbur or Scollon, however, some of these latter scholars focused more on mundane classroom realities — specific classroom practices that did not seem to work as expected — than on abstract (but no less real) issues of culture and power. In an important historical account of school-based literacy education in ‘‘the west,’’ Kalantzis and Cope (1993) described the dominant influence of ‘‘progressivism’’ on modern educational contexts. Progressivism by their account originated in response to traditional pedagogical approaches which emphasized the inculcation of received knowledge — typically manifested in a culture-centric and invariant canon of ‘‘classical’’ works to be fixed in the student’s mind. In attempting to overturn such approaches, the originator of progressivism, John Dewey, advocated a ‘‘pedagogy of experience’’ in which students’ individuality and autonomy were developed by giving them the opportunity to learn according to their own needs and interests. It is out of this tradition that student-centered, process-oriented, and discovery-based curricular innovations such as process writing and whole language emerged, according to Kalantzis and Cope. More specifically, Kalantzis and Cope delineated two types of progressivism: one based directly on the ideas of Dewey, which came to influence curriculum especially in the US from the 1960s onward; and one which has increasingly combined parts of Deweyan progressivism with post-modernist and non-foundational accounts of 5 These two questions were first given their exact forms of expression for me by Lars Molloy, who attributed them to V. I. Lenin.

D. Atkinson / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 3–15

9

schooling and power (e.g., Aronowitz & Giroux, 1991). Regarding both postmodernist progressivism (as its most recent manifestation) and progressivism in general, Kalantzis and Cope raised a number of critical questions: 1. Does post-modernist progressivism, with its apparent radical openness to individuality and difference, really value all cultural points of view equally (e.g., those which ‘‘revere textual authority or which elevate teachers as the sources of educational knowledge’’ (pp. 56–57))? 2. Is a ‘‘student-centered’’ approach not in reality a cultural artifact, and one which obscures rather than clarifies the continued control of education/ knowledge by the teacher and the school? 3. Does the ‘‘cultural bias’’ of progressivist pedagogy favor certain sociocultural groups at the expense of others, that is, those whose school-like literacy socialization began at birth versus those who come from very different traditions of literacy and language use (e.g., Heath, 1983)? 4. Related to Point 3, does the ‘‘assumption that all students will intuitively discover things for themselves’’ (p. 57) unfairly reproduce a system in which those who receive the tools to do so in early socialization are advantaged over those who don’t? In sum, Kalantzis and Cope were concerned in their historical account with the cultural assumptions underlying progressivism, and the disabling effects such assumptions could have on non-mainstream students. The solution they offer to these problems — and the main focus of the book in which their essay appears — is the originally Australian ‘‘genre approach’’ to teaching writing, represented in this special issue by Hyland’s article (see below). I have now covered a range of different historical objections to process approaches to writing. For the sake of convenience, these can be classified as follows: 1. Concerns about the production and reproduction of unequal power relationships in and beyond the classroom, based largely on the nontransparent nature of pedagogies which seek to provide alternatives to topdown, teacher-centered approaches. 2. Concerns about cultural mismatches — and their ultimate effects (as in Point 1 just above) — having to do with the highly specific cultural basis of process pedagogies. 3. More microscopic concerns having to do with techniques and procedures connected with process writing (e.g., peer review), and their possible lack of utility in the process-writing classroom. ‘‘Post-process’’ and the contributions to this special issue Historical concerns about process pedagogy, however, need not bind us to any particular interpretation of the term ‘‘post-process.’’ In the long run, its value may

10

D. Atkinson / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 3–15

lie more in its prospective and heuristic power — its ability to take us beyond a focus on writing simply as a process, or more specifically as a highly cognitive, individualist, largely asocial process. Seen through a different lens, writing is a human activity which reaches into all other areas of human endeavor — expansive in a way that casts doubt on conventional boundaries between individual and society, language and action, the cognitive and the social. I therefore view the notion of ‘‘post-process’’ as an appropriate basis on which to investigate the complex activity of L2 writing in its full range of sociocognitive situatedness, dynamism, diversity, and implications. For the purposes of this special issue, then, I would like to define ‘‘postprocess’’ as including everything that follows, historically speaking, the period of L2 writing instruction and research that focused primarily on writing as a cognitive or internal, multi-staged process, and in which by far the major dynamic of learning was through doing, with the teacher taking (in some — sometimes imagined — senses) a background role. However, let me immediately consider two kinds of potential problems with this definition. First, it might justifiably be objected that the version of process pedagogy assumed here bears little resemblance to those commonly employed in L2 writing classrooms. Certainly, in my own experience as an L2 writing teacher, I have played a substantial, interventionist role in students’ writing processes, offering comments and encouragement designed to mold students’ writings in definite ways (for more on this approach, see Atkinson & Ramanathan, 1995). Likewise, in most of the process-oriented writing classes I have taught, students addressed particular assignments, there being little in the way of free choice of essay topics (as a result, I should add, largely of the specific curriculum being followed). Similarly, I have rarely encouraged self-discovery as the primary purpose of writing assignments; quite to the contrary, these assignments typically asked students to write ‘‘about something’’ — some social issue or concern beyond their purely personal, individual lives. In these regards, I believe my experience reflects those of many teachers of L2 writing. And yet it seems equally apparent that process-oriented L2 writing instruction does continue traditions that are part and parcel of the process pedagogy critiqued by Trimbur, Scollon, Kalantzis, Cope, and the other scholars mentioned so far. In fact, the greater number of these scholars have focused specifically on pedagogical concepts and practices current in L2 writing, including peer review, voice, audience, and expression of self. To cite just one further example, the recent JSLW special issue on voice (Belcher & Hirvela, 2001) included three articles featuring what are to me, at any rate, notions of voice in L2 writing that are to some degree at least individualistic and ‘‘originary’’ — notions which have been deconstructed both in the same issue (Atkinson, 2001) and elsewhere (e.g., Bowden, 1999; Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999). Second, by advocating a ‘‘post-process’’ approach to L2 writing, I do not intend to suggest that process pedagogy should necessarily be replaced in any wholesale way in the L2 writing classroom. The usefulness and power of process writing has

D. Atkinson / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 3–15

11

been revealed time and again; and if I were suddenly transported into and put in charge of an L2 writing classroom, pre-writing, drafting, feedback, and revising would almost certainly be important classroom activities. As an approach to teaching different kinds of writing at the university level, I personally hold process writing in high regard — it is, in fact, difficult for me to conceptualize the effective teaching of writing without it. My own interest in the concept of ‘‘postprocess’’ is, therefore, not in terms of a basic ‘‘paradigm shift,’’ but rather in expanding and broadening the domain of L2 writing — in research as much as in teaching. Let me turn now to the articles in this special issue. Of the authors whose work is featured here, Ryuko Kubota, Christine Casanave, Ilona Leki, and myself were participants in a colloquium entitled ‘‘Second Language Writing in the PostProcess Era,’’ held at the 35th annual TESOL convention in St. Louis, Missouri in March 2001. Ken Hyland and Paul Kei Matsuda were attendees at that colloquium, and raised issues related to those they write about here. Each of the six authors clearly has their own thoughts on the place of process pedagogy in L2 writing research and teaching — perspectives that differ more or less widely from the one I adopt in this introduction. In his article, Ken Hyland describes the conceptual basis of the main institutionalized alternative to process pedagogy currently on offer: the ‘‘genre approach’’ advocated principally by a group of scholars in Australia (e.g., Cope & Kalantzis, 1993), but which is now spreading in influence beyond that context. Hyland shows how this approach both opposes process pedagogy as he conceptualizes it, and goes beyond it. Ryuko Kubota delineates many of the connections that need to be made between L2 writing and issues of race, class, and gender. Generally speaking, Kubota advocates a non-essentialist approach to understanding these social categories which highlights issues of power and discourse. This is a very different perspective on L2 writing than the (superficially) non-political one that has dominated the field historically, and it has already led to new and profound understandings. Here, once again, L2 writing is being examined in its myriad connections to the rest of the world, as opposed to being isolated in a narrow and pragmatically conceived context. Chris Casanave provides a review of case studies of second language writers, arguing that they are especially useful in revealing the social and political processes at work in such writing in the academic world. Although by no means rejecting process pedagogy, Casanave sees writing processes as expansive and closely interconnected to the rest of human activity. In my own contribution to this special issue, I attempt to sketch out ways of thinking about culture in L2 writing that deviate substantially from those traditionally available in the field. In particular, I focus on recent attempts in anthropology and cultural studies to examine culture reflexively — to investigate how the analyst’s own unexamined perceptions color the viewing lens, including what it means to think of writing instruction as a highly cultural activity.

12

D. Atkinson / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 3–15

Paul Kei Matsuda’s paper examines the advantages and disadvantages of having potential buzzwords like ‘‘post-process’’ in L1 and L2 writing studies, arguing against the promotion of competing paradigms on the basis of such notions. Matsuda’s paper was written substantially in response to my own introduction to this special issue, and provides a welcome counterweight to some of the statements and claims I put forward there. Finally, as in the TESOL conference colloquium in which this special issue got its start, Ilona Leki plays the twin role of summarizer and commentator. Despite her reluctance as co-editor of JSLW to contribute to this special issue, I have included her comments as a summative coda. Leki’s consideration of the possibilities these contributions offer for a broader and more fully contextualized L2 writing studies seems to me to be an important one, given her unique perspective in our field as teacher, researcher, program administrator, and journal editor. In closing, I would like to restate the aim of this special issue. By calling the current era of L2 writing ‘‘post-process,’’ we seek to highlight the rich, multifocal nature of the field — our need and ability, in our current and future work, to go beyond now-traditional views of L2 writing research and teaching which focus on issues such as drafting, teacher feedback, peer review, editing, grammar correction, and the like. We want in this special issue to emphasize the broad scope and nature of the field — the manifold links that can be made between L2 writing and current and emerging areas of local, global, political, intellectual, technological, and sociocognitive concern that are part of the landscape of theory and practice in education, applied linguistics, and social science at the start of the 21st century. To that end, the words of Gee (1990, p. 68) provide a fitting challenge to the field at large: The English teacher can cooperate in her own marginalization by seeing herself as a ‘‘language teacher’’ [and, I would add, more specifically ‘‘as a writing teacher’’ — editor’s note] with no connection to . . . social and political issues. Or she can . . . accept her role as one who socializes students into a world view that, given its power [in the U.S.] and abroad, must be viewed critically, comparatively, and with a constant sense of the possibilities for change. Like it or not, the English teacher stands at the very heart of the most crucial educational, cultural, and political issues of our time.

Acknowledgments I would like to thank Paul Kei Matsuda for helpful comments and criticisms on an earlier draft of this paper.

References Allaei, S. K., & Connor, U. (1990). Exploring the dynamics of cross-cultural collaboration in writing classrooms. The Writing Instructor, 10, 19–28.

D. Atkinson / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 3–15

13

Aronowitz, S., & Giroux, H. (1991). Postmodern education: Politics, culture, and social criticism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Atkinson, D. (1991). Discourse analysis and written discourse conventions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 11, 57–76. Atkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 71–94. Atkinson, D. (1999). TESOL and culture. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 625–654. Atkinson, D. (2001). Reflections and refractions on the JSLW special issue on voice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 107–124. Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 86, 525–545. Atkinson, D., & Ramanathan, V. (1995). Cultures of writing: An ethnographic comparison of L1 and L2 university writing/language programs. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 539–568. Belcher, D. (1997). An argument for nonadversarial argumentation: On the relevance of the feminist critique of academic discourse to L2 writing pedagogy. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 1–21. Belcher, D. (2001). Does L2 writing have gender? In T. Silva & P. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 59–72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (Eds.). (2001). Special issue on voice in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 1–2. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York: Anchor. Bizzell, P. (1982). Cognition, convention and certainty: What we need to know about writing. Pre/ text, 3, 211–245. Bizzell, P. (1992). Academic discourse and critical consciousness. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information, 16, 645–668. Bowden, D. (1999). The mythology of voice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Carson, J. C., & Nelson, G. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 1–19. Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (1993). The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280–298. Delpit, L. (1995). Other peoples’ children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: The New Press. Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process. New York: Oxford University Press. Ferris, D. R. (1995a). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33–53. Ferris, D. R. (1995b). Teaching ESL composition students to become independent self-editors. TESOL Journal, 4, 18–22. Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315–339. Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. S. (1998). Teaching ESL composition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R., & Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 155–182. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387.

14

D. Atkinson / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 3–15

Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. New York: Pantheon. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Falmer. Gee, J. P. (1996). Vygotsky and current debates in education: Some dilemmas as afterthoughts to discourse, learning, and schooling. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 269–282). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London: Routledge. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. London: Longman. Hashim, F., & Abas, N. (2000). English teaching in Malaysia. TESOL Matters, 10(1), pp. 1, 4. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hedgcock, J., & Leftkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 255–276. Hedgcock, J., & Leftkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141–163. Hedgcock, J., & Leftkowitz, N. (1996). Some input on input: Two analyses of student response to expert feedback in L2 writing. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 287–308. Ho, I.-P. (1998). Relationships between motivation/attitude, effort, English proficiency, and sociocultural educational factors and Taiwan technological university/institute students’ English learning strategy use. Unpublished dissertation, Auburn University. Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books. Inghilleri, M. (1989). Learning to mean as a symbolic and social process: The story of ESL writers. Discourse Processes, 12, 391–411. Johns, A. M. (1990). L1 composition theories: Implications for developing theories of L2 composition. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 24–36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (1993). Histories of pedagogy, cultures of schooling. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing (pp. 38–62). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Kent, T. (Ed.). (1999). Post-process theory: Beyond the writing-process paradigm. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Kroll, B. (Ed.). (1990). Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied linguistics research and ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 9–35. Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Leki, I. (1995). Coping strategies of ESL students in writing tasks across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 235–260. Leki, I. (2002). Second language writing. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 60–72). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). ‘‘Completely different worlds’’: EAP and the writing experiences of ESL students in university courses. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 39–69. Li, X.-M. (1996). ‘‘Good writing’’ in cross-cultural context. Albany: SUNY Press. Luke, A. (1996). Genres of power? Literacy education and the production of capital. In R. Hasan & A. G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 308–338). London: Longman.

D. Atkinson / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 3–15

15

Ohmann, R. (1982). Reflections on class and language. College Composition and Communication, 44, 1–17. Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others’ words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 201–230. Prior, P. A. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Prior, P. A. (2001). Voices in text, mind, and society: Sociohistoric accounts of discourse acquisition and use. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 55–81. Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 45–75. Ramanathan, V., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Audience and voice in current composition textbooks: Implications for L2 student writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 21–34. Rowe, J. C. (1995). Structure. In F. Lentricchia & T. McLaughlin (Eds.), Critical terms for literary study (2nd ed., pp. 23–38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Scollon, R. (1991). Eight legs and an Elbow: Stance and structure in Chinese English compositions. In Launching the literacy decade: Awareness into action. Proceedings of the Second North American Conference on Adult and Adolescent Literacy: Multiculturalism and Citizenship (pp. 1– 14). Toronto: International Reading Association. Scollon, R. (1995). Plagiarism and ideology: Identity in intercultural discourse. Language in Society, 24, 1–28. Shen, F. (1989). The classroom and the wider culture: Identity as a key to learning English composition. College Composition and Communication, 40, 459–466. Spack, R. (1997). The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language: A longitudinal case study. Written Communication, 14, 3–62. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. M. (1993). Genre and engagement. Revue Belge de Philosophie et d’Histoire, 71, 687–698. Tobin, L. (Ed.). (1994). Taking stock: The writing process movement in the ’90s. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Trimbur, J. (1994). Taking the social turn: Teaching writing post-process. College Composition and Communication, 45, 108–118. Vandrick, S. (1995). Privileged ESL university students. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 375–380.