Responding to cultural concerns about the ownership of writing and the nature of plagiarism, this article examines discourses about plagiarism by ESL students and argues for a plurality of approaches to understanding the ownership of language and textual appropriation. First, it uses speech act theory to explain the dynamics of plagiarism; second, it examines transnational political contexts for writing pedagogy; and third, it offers a Daoist understanding of language.

As English spreads as an international language, it evolves through diverse users’ writing and speaking. However, traditional views of ESL users focus on their distance from fairly static notions of English-language competence. This research uses a grounded theory approach to describe a range of competencies that emerge in ESL users’ interactions with native-English-speaking peers and instructors.

The aim of this study was primarily to investigate the effects of morphological strategies training on students with and without spelling difficulties in English as a foreign language (EFL), but also to assess the feasibility of morphological strategies training in a classroom context. The intervention was piloted in the sixth grade of a Greek primary school: 23 Greek-speaking students, aged 11-12, were assigned to the treatment group receiving explicit teaching on inflectional and derivational morphemic patterns of English words. The control group, composed of 25 Greek-speaking students of the same age, attending a different classroom of the same school, was taught English spelling in a conventional (visual-memory based) way. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were employed to gain insights: a pre- and post-test, an observation schedule, a student questionnaire and a teacher interview. The pre- and post-test results indicated that the metamorphological training yielded specific effects on targeted morpheme patterns. The same results were obtained from a sub-group of nine poor spellers in the treatment group, compared to a sub-group of six poor spellers in the control one. The observation data revealed that the metamorphological training promoted students' active participation and the questionnaire data indicated that students got satisfaction from their training. Finally, interview data highlighted that teachers considered the intervention as a feasible way of improving students' morphological processing skills in spelling.

In the tradition of work by Shaughnessy (1977) and Bartholomae (1980) applying concepts from second language acquisition research to developing writing, we explore the commonalities of L1 and L2 writers on the specific level of linguistic choices needed to order information within and across sentence boundaries. We propose that many of the kinds of constructions in L1 and L2 writing most difficult to categorize, labeled as errors, are in structures that are, from the writers’ perspective, principled attempts to meet their obligation of managing information. We examine 90 essays written by college students, 60 by native speakers, and 30 by nonnative speakers, and identify 360 non-target-like structures that are attempts to manage information. There are similarities in number and type of these constructions used by L1 and L2 developing writers.

This study explored how voice developed in the English writing of 57 Chinese teachers of English who participated in a three-week writing workshop during a summer institute in a large, urban school district in southeastern China. Teachers from grades 3 through 12 wrote daily in English in a workshop environment. Primary data sources were pre- and post-workshop writing samples. Supporting data included various teacher writings completed in the course of the workshop, daily written reflections, a final essay exam, anonymous course evaluations, and biographical and professional surveys. The pre- and post-workshop writing samples were assessed using the 6 + 1 Trait® analytical model of scoring writing (Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 2006). Scoring showed that the teachers’ writing improved significantly in the course of the institute, but the greatest gain was made in the trait of “voice””the distinctive, individual way in which a writer speaks to a reader. This finding will be considered in light of the current direction of educational reform in China and of current debates over the value of teaching voice in diverse writing contexts. The study had implications for the teaching of writing to English language learners and for the professional development of teachers of writing, including those who teach English as a Foreign Language.

Based on longitudinal data from a three-year ethnographic study, this article uses discourse analytic methods to explore the literacy and social practices of three adolescent English language learners writing in an online fan fiction community. Findings suggest that through their participation in online fan-related activities, these three youth are using language and other representational resources to enact cosmopolitan identities, make transnational social connections, and experiment with new genres and formats for composing.

President Bush’s National Security Language Initiative focuses narrowly on gearing language education to security and military needs. English educators should work with their counterparts in foreign language departments to promote a broader view, one that encourages study of the multiple language groups that currently exist within the United States.

Since 2006, Open Borders Project/ Proyecto Sin Fronteras has used digital storytelling in our work with teens and adult learners in summer workshops, computer courses and ESL classes. Participants write stories or interview others about their immigrant experience, record, edit and mix their stories on an open-source program, and create short audio stories. Their stories are published on our website, used to stimulate discussions, shared in public forums, and played on the radio. The process of creating stories and sharing them has been profound. Listening to each other's stories and reflecting on our common experience is an act of honoring our lives and affirming our sacrifices and dreams. Through our stories, we build a collective identity as immigrants. Telling our stories allows us to take risks, to talk about missing our families, our isolation, our frustrations as we try to feel at home in our new world. Our stories create openings for conversations with our friends and family, to say things unsaid. Our biggest challenge: how to use our stories as instruments for change, to give us a voice, to be heard, to organize, to become actors responding to issues that affect our lives. This article is accompanied by a CD of several of the stories produced at Open Borders Project and referred to in the text.

This paper, presented at the CCCC 2008 Senior Citizens Writing session, draws upon my experiences as a senior workshop member and past teacher. Addressing workshop leaders, it emphasizes the need for the many-faceted seniors’ voices to be “translated” and tested within a workshop’s microcosm before entering the outside world’s macrocosm.

Critical thinking skills are valued across the university. Derek Bok writes that 90 percent of faculty identify critical thinking as the most important goal of a university education. In English and foreign language departments, critical thinking has often served as a default goal when faculty cannot agree on which texts or approaches to teach. Without disputing the importance of these skills, I argue that an exclusive focus on critical thinking compromises more modest but also very worthy aims, including appreciation. This article makes the case for renewed attention to appreciation as a goal of literary study. I argue that teaching appreciation helps to cultivate virtues of open-mindedness, responsiveness, and attunement, and that such teaching may be useful in addressing widespread declines in reading and reading skills. At the end of the essay I describe changes I have made in my own teaching practices to emphasize literary appreciation.

Although accelerated summer and winter intersession courses may appeal to developmental ESL students who are required to take several ESL/English courses before placing into first-year composition, the abbreviated time period may actually be detrimental for weaker ESL students. Two case studies are presented here that chronicle two students’ struggles in such a course.

Alfonso Arbib-Costa's 1909 Arbib-Costa , Alfonoso . Manuale di Corrispondenza Commercial, Familiare, e Amorose Italiana-Inglese . New York : Italian Book Company , 1909 . [Google Scholar] Manuale di Corrispondenza Commerciale, Familiare, e Amorose Italiana-Inglese offered letter-writing instruction to Italian immigrants hoping to succeed in American business and social circles. The book contained some theory, but was primarily a collection of model letters, or formulary. This article identifies the text as one of a distinct type of bilingual, bicultural letter-writing handbooks for immigrants that arose in the United States in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, situates it in the American parlor rhetoric tradition, and analyzes its theoretical content and models. Although formularies are often overlooked by scholars, they are rich texts that reveal important connections between rhetoric and culture. Formularies for immigrants are particularly interesting because they clearly demonstrate how attempts at social engineering may be embedded in rhetorical pedagogy. The study concludes with a call for additional research into this area of rhetorical history, which remains largely unknown.

The authors' goal was to model the role played by the relationship between a writing teacher and her students in the feedback and revision cycle they experienced in an English-as-a-foreign-language context. Participants included a nonnative teacher of English and 14 students enrolled in her English writing class in a Korean university. Data came from formal, informal, and text-based interviews; semester-long classroom observations; and students' drafts with teacher comments. Findings showed that caring was enacted in complex and reciprocal ways, influenced by interwoven factors from the greater society, the course, the teacher, and the student. Students' level of trust in the teacher's English ability, teaching practices, and written feedback, as much as the teacher's trust in particular students based on how they revised their drafts, played a great role in the development of a caring relationship between them.

The study uses Foucault's framework of governmentality to understand the impact of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) on teachers' writing instruction and attitudes toward writing in high- and low-income schools. Using interviews and observations of 18 teachers, the study identified four themes: emphasis on testing, curricular effects, awareness of lower-achieving students, and concerns for English language learners. While teachers shared concerns in those areas, there were differences in how teachers from high- and low-income schools experienced the impact of NCLB on their writing instruction. The study suggests that NCLB has affected teacher morale as well as the nature and amount of writing instruction, but that school contexts figure into teachers' instruction. The example of one teacher from a low-income school demonstrates the potential for teachers to resist the coercive aspects of NCLB through their writing instruction.

“When Readers Disagree”, Kip Strasma, Review Editor; “Teaching Writing with Latino/a Students: Lessons Learned at Hispanic-Serving Institutions” by Cristina Kirklighter, Diana Cardenas, and Susan Wolff Murphy, Reviewed by Kip Strasma; “Engaging Grammar: Practical Advice for Real Classrooms” by Amy Benjamin with Tom Oliva, Reviewed by Kimme Nuckles; “Educating English Language Learners: A Synthesis of Research Evidence” by Fred Genesee, Kathryn Lindholm-Leary, William M. Saunders, and Donna Christian, Reviewed by Mercè Pujol.

Abstract St. Patrick of Ireland's legend suggests that he was a great rhetor: After all, he drove the snakes out of Ireland. As is often the case, however, the actual story is far more interesting and compelling than the myth. Born to an aristocratic family in fourth-century Britain, Patrick should have studied rhetoric in the Roman system. But when he was fifteen, he was captured by Irish raiders and sold into slavery in Ireland. As a result, he received a different sort of rhetorical education than his peers in Britain, an education that made him uniquely suited to evangelize Ireland. Notes 1I thank RR reviewers William Covino and George Kennedy for their suggestions for this manuscript. I also extend thanks to Richard Johnson-Sheehan and the members of the Rhetoric Reading Group for their close reading and valuable insight. 2Augustine and Patrick were not exact contemporaries. Augustine was born about thirty years before Patrick in 354. According to Hanson, Patrick was born somewhere between 388 and 408 (Origins and Career 179). St. Augustine died in 430; the earliest date of death that has been suggested for Patrick is about 460, and the latest is about 490. 3His name—cognate with patrician—hints at his station: His father, Calpornius, was both decurion, a city councilor and tax collector, and a church deacon; his grandfather, Potitus, was priest (before the rule of priestly celibacy was firmly established). It appears that though their lineage produced a saint, their service to the church may have been less than saintly. When Constantine became emperor, he exempted church officials from the taxation duties associated with the curiales. (If the curiales failed to raise the required taxes, he was required to pay them out his own pocket.) Thus, Patrick's father's position as deacon, or decurion, may have indicated an unwillingness to pay taxes more than a willingness to serve the Church. This loophole soon proved too costly to maintain, but it also proved difficult to close, especially as far away as Britain. The same was true for the rule of priestly celibacy, upon which the popes of the time were beginning to insist. Given the dates of the changing ordination and celibacy rules, Hanson suggests that we can date Patrick's birth no sooner than 388 and no later than 408 (Origins and Career 179). 4Patrick arrived in Ireland as the island's second bishop. Preceding him was Palladius, who was perhaps a Gaul. The fact that Ireland already had a bishop means that the Christian community in Ireland was large enough to require one. At this time, bishops were assigned at the request of the particular community. Traditionally, Palladius's bishopric was supposed to have ended in about 430, and Patrick's was supposed to have begun in 431. However, O'Rahilly argues that Palladius's tenure was shortened by hagiographers who could not deny Palladius's existence but wanted to make Patrick the “first” bishop nonetheless (15–16). O'Rahilly puts the end of Palladius's bishopric at about 461 and the years of Patrick's at about 461 until his death in 492 (8). It may also be possible that hagiographers blended Palladius—who, O'Rahilly argues, also went by the name Patricius—with the second Patricius, the Briton who became Ireland's patron saint (15). Nevertheless, no scholar doubts that the second Patricius was the author of the Confession and the Letter to Coroticus. 5Freeman's surmise may be supported by a detail offered in the Letter to Coroticus, in which Patrick describes Christians he had just baptized as “still in their white dress” (sec 3). 6In some ways it is hard to understand precisely why Patrick had such trouble writing Latin. The obvious answer is his slavery, but he would have had to make up his lost education in order to become a priest. Why, then, did that education not make him a better writer? His prose problems may have the result of disuse after so many years of speaking Irish. Latin also might have been Patrick's second language to begin with. While some historians suggest that Patrick would have spoken Latin as a first language (Thompson 40), others, like Freeman (10) and Charles Thomas (308), suggest that Patrick, as a Roman Britan, would most likely have spoken British as his first language and studied Latin in school. O'Rahilly offers a slightly different thesis, arguing that “his admittedly imperfect command of Latin suggests that he came, not from a fully Latinized district, but rather from one in which, while the official language was Latin, British was the common language of the mass of the population” (33). Mohrmann, on the other hand, suggests that Patrick would have grown up bilingual, but that “his six years of captivity . . . weakened his command of Latin very seriously” (45–46). Finally, it may be that Patrick dictated the Confession to a secretary. It's even possible that he dictated it in Irish and that the transcription and translation hampered the style. The high number of biblical quotations, however, suggest that the Letter was first composed, whether orally or chirographically, in Latin. As to his Irish, Patrick may have known a little before he ever set foot in Ireland. Patrick's family owned slaves, as did most wealthy families. Ironically enough, it is quite possible that some of their slaves were from Ireland; therefore, Patrick might have known a few words of Irish when he was kidnapped. Whatever his levels of fluency in either British or Latin, Patrick would have learned much more Irish during his slavery than he could have picked up from his family's slaves, thus gaining a skill that would later set him apart from his clerical peers. Unfortunately, like so many aspects of Patrick's life, the question of his language is clouded in mystery. 7Kennedy writes, “There is no ‘zero degree’ rhetoric in any utterance because there would be no utterance without a rhetorical impulse” (Comparative 5). 8Throughout the essay I rely on Hanson's translation in The Life and Writings of Saint Patrick (New York: The Seabury Press, 1983). I do not follow his practice of italicizing quotations that Patrick takes from scripture. Though Hanson also capitalizes the first word of these quotations, I have followed normal rules of English capitalization. 9For more on Irish mythology and its relation to rhetoric, see Richard Johnson-Sheehan and Paul Lynch, “Rhetoric of Myth, Magic, and Conversion: Ancient Irish Rhetoric.” Rhetoric Review 26.3 (2007): 233–52. 10I have taken this quotation from the Catholic Study Bible (New York: Oxford UP, 1990). In his note to his translation of the Confession, Hanson writes, “I have refrained from consistently reproducing in my translation of Patrick's quotations from the Bible any contemporary English translation of it, because Patrick's biblical text corresponds to no text which has appeared in an English translation. He was in fact reproducing (sometimes from memory) for the most part a Latin translation of the Greek New Testament and a Latin translation of a Greek translation of the Hebrew (and the Aramaic) of the Old Testament. His Bible therefore differed considerably in some details from ours” (Life and Writings 57). 11All Latin quotations come from A. B. E. Hood's St. Patrick: His Writings and His Life (London: Phillimore, 1978). 12There has been some dispute about whether the original text is corrupted in this place. The passage may read either as dominicati rhetorici or domini cati rhetorici, and scholars are unsure to whom Patrick was referring (Hanson, Origins 109–12). A. B. E. Hood translates the phrase as “clerical intellectuals” (43); Hanson, on the other hand, argues that it means “masters, cunning ones, rhetoricians” (Origins 109). 13Patrick manages to disguise admonitions to his audience in admonitions to himself in other sections, too. In Section 7 he writes, “I am not ignorant of the witness of my Lord who testifies in the psalm, thou shalt cause those who speak falsehood to perish. And in another place it says the mouth which tells lies kills the soul. And the same Lord says in the gospel the idle word which men shall have spoken they shall give an account for it in the day of judgment” (sec. 7). At first glance this passage seems straightforward enough: Patrick reminds his opponents that if they bear false witness against him, it is they who will be punished. However, the context dictates otherwise. In the previous two sections, Patrick has said, “For [God] said through the prophet, call upon me in the day of your trouble and I will deliver you and you will glorify me, and elsewhere it says now it is honorable to display and confess the works of God. However though I am unsatisfactory in many points, I want my brothers and relations to know what I am like, so they can perceive the desire of my soul” (sec. 5 and 6). If Patrick is reminding his audience of the stricture against false witness, he is doing it through the guise of reminding himself.

These two recipients of this year’s Alan C. Purves Award reflect on their work (reported in RTE Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 269–303) on “A Cognitive Strategies Approach to Reading and Writing Instruction for English Language Learners in Secondary School” and the lessons they learned from their original research study as they tried to replicate the project in two additional districts outside their service area, to determine if the implications of their study would hold beyond the local context. The Alan C. Purves Award is given to the RTE article in the previous volume year judged most likely to impact educational practice

In this essay, I present three case studies of immigrant, first-year students, as they negotiate their identities as second language writers in mainstream composition classrooms. I argue that such terms as “ESL” and “Generation 1.5” are often problematic for students and mask a wide range of student experiences and expectations.

This study investigates the influence of students' perceptions of task similarity/ difference on the transfer of writing skills. A total of 42 students from a freshman ESL writing course completed an out-of-class writing task. For half of the students, the subject matter of the writing task was designed to be similar to the writing course; for the other half, it was designed to be different. All students were also interviewed about the writing task. Reports of learning transfer were identified in the interview transcripts, and students' performances on the task and on a recent assignment from the course were assessed. Results indicate that the intended task similarity/difference (i.e., in subject matter) did not have the expected impact on learning transfer; however, students' perceptions of task similarity/difference did influence learning transfer. Implications of these findings for theory, practice, and future research are discussed.

Who doesn't love a good story?A tale of triumph or woe, of frustration or longawaited success.Such classic narratives are familiar to us all, and versions of them occur in the writing center with relative frequency.These stories we tell -whether of current successes or challenges, passed from veteran tutors to newbies, from directors to faculty and back again -teach us about our work, helping us to reflect on it and improve it.These stories are filled with compelling characters and recurring plots: the frustrated first-year student; the instructor's cryptic comments; the first scientific paper written for a major professor; the challenging task of figuring out the genre of the dissertation.These stock scenarios are familiar to us because they have all taken place in the relatively patterned institutions that host our writing centers, and these persistent patterns represent a script of sorts, one we can easily follow, whether we're the actors themselves or the audience listening to someone else's writing center stories.Patterns, of course, do get disrupted.In many ways, writing centers are in the business of disrupting patterns, working with writers to develop new approaches to writing tasks and changed relationships to their academic work.Those of us who work in writing centers must also be prepared to have our patterns disrupted, to hear how writers are really engaging with their texts: the English Language Learner who is not asking for proofreading assistance but who instead wants to know whether the evidence she presents in her argument is convincing; the chemistry student who comes in with a laboratory report, a genre often associated with arcane language and fill-in-the-blank templates, and turns the conversation quickly to her excitement over the research she is doing and the ways she might convey the essence of that research to a general reader; the returning student enrolled in an

In this article, we offer practical suggestions for teaching writing to diverse groups of students who represent the fields of composition studies, basic writing, and ESL.

The authors report on three case studies of ESL students who are taking courses to enter professional programs. Their experiences suggest learning strategies that may help students in professional programs and may offer ways for teachers of composition to support and prepare these students.

C. D. Albin is professor of English at Missouri State University–West Plains and has contributed poems to several journals, including Big Muddy, Limestone, and Teaching English in the Two-Year College.

TETYC publishes articles for two-year college teachers and those teaching the first two years of English in four-year institutions. We seek articles in all areas of composition (basic, first-year, and advanced); business, technical, and creative writing; and the teaching of literature in the first two college years. We also publish articles on topics such as staffing, assessment, technology, writing program administration, speech, journalism, reading, ESL, and other areas of interest.

This study was conducted by members of a site of the California Writing Project in partnership with a large, urban, low-SES school district where 93% of the students speak English as a second language and 69% are designated Limited English Proficient.

The Problem: The Divide Between Theory and Practice Like most writing center directors, we have always included in our tutor preparation an emphasis on differences students may bring to a session. Up until a few years ago, this approach mainly took the form of a unit on working with ESL writers and another on working with students who have learning disabilities. This approach to diversity was reinforced by the textbooks we chose for our tutor training seminar. The guides for tutors that we have assigned over the years (including Meyer and Smith's The Practical Tutor , Capossela's The Harcourt Brace Guide to Peer Tutoring, , McAndrew

By drawing on the in-class work of an ongoing literacy outreach project, this paper explains how well-chosen technical writing activities can earn a place in high school science courses by enabling underperforming students (including English as a second language [ESL] students) to learn science more effectively. We adapted basic research-based text-design and usability techniques into age-appropriate exercises and cases using the cognitive apprenticeship approach. This enabled high school students, aided by explicit guidelines, to build their cognitive maturity, learn how to craft good instructions and descriptions, and apply those skills to better note taking and technical talks in their science classes

The technology of movable type in early modern Europe created new communication challenges (e.g., typographical errors) for book producers. These challenges were greater with books written in learned or foreign languages or about scientific or technical subjects. Printers experimented with different strategies to ensure correctness, but the best solution came from delegating jobs to specialists. Freelance scholars were employed by authors, printers, and booksellers to correct books before publication, and some of these learned correctors were early versions of technical editors. Their history may offer insight into current communication concerns, such as the role of learned correctors in our present technological age.

This article examines writing conference discourse in one English as a Second Language (ESL) basic composition course. The study is based on a 25,000-word corpus of 10 writing conference interactions between the instructor and seven students. Through a microlevel analysis, the authors demonstrate how and to what degree the writing conference can serve as a locus of “emergent agency,” with a particular focus on the second-language writer. The data exhibit patterns in the students’ discourse such that earlier segments in the interactions tend to reflect uncertainty, confusion, negative self-evaluation, and negative other-evaluation. As the sessions progress, the authors note shifts in stance whereby students begin to propose candidate solutions to actual or perceived problems and evince more authorial direction. The authors demonstrate that the practice can serve as an effective pedagogical activity in which novice writers learn to navigate through challenges and obstacles associated with university-level reading and writing tasks.

In an ESL first-year composition classroom, cooperative learning assists English language learners in developing their ideas, voice, organization, and sense of writing conventions, while simultaneously enhancing their production and comprehension of English.

The author suggests that English-only classrooms are not only the implicit goal of much language policy in the United States, but also assumed to be already the case, an ironic situation in light of composition’s historical role as “containing” language differences in U.S. higher education. He suggests that the myth of linguistic homogeneity has serious implications not only for international second-language writers in U.S. classrooms but also for resident second-language writers and for native speakers of unprivileged varieties of English, and that rather than simply abandon the placement practices that have worked to contain—but also to support—multilingual writers, composition teachers need to reimagine the composition classroom as the multilingual space that it is, where the presence of language differences is the default.

The author suggests that models positioning the multilingual writer as passively conditioned by “interference” from his or her first language, as well as more correlative models of the interrelationships of multiple languages in writing, need to be revised. Analyzing works written to different audiences, in different contexts, and in different languages by a prominent Sri Lankan intellectual, the author instead suggests a way of understanding multilingual writing as a process engaged in multiple contexts of communication, and multilingual writers as agentive rather than passive, shuttling creatively among languages, discourses, and identities to achieve their communicative and rhetorical objectives.

The essays gathered in this special issue of College English participate in an emerging movement within composition studies representing, and responding to, changes in, and changing perceptions of, language(s), English(es), students, and the relations of all these to one another. This movement critiques the tacit policy of “English Only” dominating composition scholarship and pursues teaching and research that resist that policy. It draws attention to the fact that within much composition teaching and scholarship, both the context of writing and writing itself are imaged to be monolingual: the “norm” assumed, in other words, is a monolingual, native-English-speaking writer writing only in English to an audience of English-only readers (Horner and Trimbur). This tacit policy of monolingualism manifests itself in other ways as well: the institutional divides separating most composition programs and courses from ESL programs and courses, including courses in “ESL composition,” and separating composition courses from courses that involve students in writing in any language other than English; the nearly complete absence in composition textbook “readers” of writings by anyone other than North American and British writers whose first language is English (even translations of texts written in languages other than English are rare); the insistence in composition textbooks on standardizing students’ English, and their neglect of competing standards and definitions of English; and the neglect in histories of composition of writing in languages other than English. Such practices define composition as composing in, and only in, an English that has a fixed standard that students

This article presents findings from case studies of two Latina bilingual high school writers engaged in a year-long research and writing project. Both young women demonstrated unique patterns related to their approaches to inquiry and performance of literacy practices. By using an ecological framework to integrate a multiple literacies perspective into the study, the author argues that both young women engaged in “hidden literacies” that indicated potential toward the development of academic English. The article closes with suggestions for a reframing of common approaches to the study of academic English.

Discusses the importance of listening as a rhetorical activity to help tutors better understand and be sensitive to student needs, specifically those of ESL students.

Speaking Students," an article appearing nine years after Power's endorsement of a "more direct, more didactic" approach (41), Blau and Hall offer guidelines that affirm flexible priorities and the role of direct tutoring strategies. In the sessions analyzed in their study, directness proved helpful to meeting the ESL students' need for cultural information and for avoiding the related tendency for Socratic questioning to deteriorate into "trolling for the right answer" (33). Another notable finding was that line-by-line sentence-level tutoring tended to lead beyond surfacelevel errors to discussions of meaning and thus to the resolution of the frequently noted conflict between the agendas of ESL learners, eager for error correction (35; see also Harris and Silva 530-531) and the agendas of tutors, who are typically trained to focus first on whole-essay concerns. From these findings, Blau and Hall conclude that tutors should "be comfortable with the directive approach, especially with local concerns such as grammar, punctuation, idioms, and word usage," and with "working line-by-line" (42). They emphasize that their guidelines are not rules (43) and that tutors who find themselves "editing" have gone too far with the directive approach (41). However, they also suggest the unlikelihood that teachers and tutors would fall into the role of editor: "No good writing teacher would correct students' errors for them or appropriate their texts. Perhaps the true distinction here is between editing and teaching, rather than between directive and non-directive" (24-25).

This article examines the appropriation of academic biliteracy by three French-speaking students at an English-medium university in the Canadian province of Québec. Drawing on Hornberger’s continua model of biliteracy, Bourdieu’s critical social theory, and philosophical hermeneutics, the author conceptualizes individual biliterate development as a subjective and intersubjective evaluative response to social contexts of possibilities for biliteracy. Case study data were collected during 2 ½ years and included autobiographical and text-based interviews, inventories and analyses of academic writing in English and French, classroom-based observations, field notes, and documentation of the legal, historical, institutional, and demographic contexts. Analyses of the participants’ negotiations and trajectories of bilingual academic writing development reveal the challenges and resources of bilingual writers to uphold their commitment to academic biliteracy within English-dominant institutional and disciplinary contexts. Implications for the advancement of multilingual academic literacies are drawn.

ESL students in their first year of college discuss their feelings about the use of literature in composition courses and offer qualified support for its inclusion.