On the Future of L2 Writing

It is interesting to read what the “experts” have to say about the future of the field of L2 writing. Of course, the “Colloquium” article was published in 2000, so the writers have probably revised their thoughts by now. I would love to read an updated version of this group of writers’ work. Maybe they could call it “On the Future of Second Language Writing – 11 Years Later.”

My summation of the messages presented in this article goes as follows:

1)      The study of L2 writing is “dying before our eyes,” as Atkinson says (p. 2), because the field’s researchers are not, in terms of Ph.D. students who desire to continue the work, “replacing themselves” (p. 3).

2)      Silva says that Atkinson’s assessment is inaccurate, and that “second language writing (particularly ESL writing) has a very promising future” (p. 6). Silva does not anticipate the field merging with composition studies, as some researchers may indicate. Instead, Silva sees the field of second language writing growing as more and more students are “lured” (p. 6) into the program and become L2 writing specialists, then doctoral candidates, then Ph.D.s with great jobs where they can continue their research and teaching on L2 writing, and thereby continuing the cycle.

3)      Santos believes that the future bodes well for EFL writing, but not so well for ESL writing. (Santos combines NNES international students studying either at American institutions or at colleges and universities in their home countries in the EFL group, and only permanent-resident L2 students at U.S. colleges and universities in the ESL group.) Her optimism regarding EFL writing teaching and research stems from “a growing international representation in the field” (p. 8), the quantity of research studies and articles being produced by international writing specialists in various universities overseas, and the continual growth and expansion of intensive English programs for international students who come to the U.S. for training and support in the language. Santos’ pessimism seems to reflect an ideology of university English departments that holds that permanent-resident L2 students should be mainstreamed with L1 composition students, and that somehow they will catch on to writing by being exposed to ‘good teaching’ (p. 9). The fact that very few research studies have been published regarding the teaching of ESL in a U.S. context is proof to Santos that L2 writing specialists “are not working with ESL students” which is because the “ESL students have become the province of L1 composition programs taught by L1 composition teachers” (p. 9). Santos also seems to believe that L1 composition specialists in the U.S. don’t care enough to recognize that the ‘one-size-fits-all’ (p. 10) approach to education may not be the best “fit” for every student.  

4)      Erickson reports on her experience as an L2 writing specialist in an L1 College Writing program. In developing alternative writing courses, Erickson and her colleagues created special sections of the freshman writing course to be taught by L2 writing specialists. Since those filled up quickly, L2 students were often forced to enroll in mainstream course sections, whose instructors often felt “unprepared to meet the needs of these writers” (p. 11). Additional courses dealing with L2 writing pedagogy were created to meet this gap in pedagogy, in hopes that future instructors would be better prepared for their teaching responsibilities.

5)      Finally, Matsuda’s contribution to this article is a conditional optimism, reflecting the belief that it is up to the L2 writing specialists themselves to recognize the existing challenges and take the “appropriate” steps “to overcome those challenges” (p. 14). Part of overcoming the challenges includes L2 writing specialists becoming better versed in L1 composition studies, so that faculty members can work together in an interdisciplinary approach. Also, L2 writing specialists should be ready and willing to help develop programs and materials that are “L2-friendly” (p. 17).  Basically, Matsuda is arguing that L2 writing instructors need to become a willing resource for other faculty members within the academic department, as well as across disciplines. If the L2 writing specialists are willing and able to adopt this revised role, then the future of L2 writing will be bright.

I was encouraged by much of the message of the “Colloquium” article. Even allowing for the age of the writing, I can tell that some progress in the field of second language writing has been made, and the outlook for continued growth in the field appears to be good. Perhaps Silva’s “ivory tower” prediction was on target, and enough students were lured into existing programs. The pessimism that Terry Santos shared was not unfounded, however. While searching for specific articles or research studies on second language writing topics, I found many more articles discussing findings by international researchers than by researchers in the U.S. I hope that trend changes. The comments by Erickson reflected a desire by a college writing program to discover new strategies that could improve the writing program for all students. Her story inspires hope for a future in which writing instructors are prepared for any and all students they face, whether they are L1 or L2 writers. It is encouraging to learn that some departments want to provide better programs and training opportunities for their potential students. Matsuda seems to place L2 writing specialists on a somewhat higher plane than those instructors who haven’t been specially trained to teach L2 writers. (Maybe I’m reading too much between the lines.) I suppose his position is a fair one, and accurate. My reaction, however, is that perhaps there is too much assuming going on. In order for the L2 writing specialists to be effective in ensuring the future of L2 writing, they will have to become “activists” of sorts, promoting the field by becoming a resource for other teachers in addition to carrying out their regular schedule of teaching duties.