Despite the growing interest in the dynamics of the writing process in writing research, publicly available large-scale corpora of keystroke logs have been rare. We introduce KLiCKe, a freely available collection of keystroke logs for around 5,000 argumentative texts written by adults in the United States. The KLiCKe corpus also includes human-rated holistic scores for the essays as well as writers' demographic details, their typing skills, and vocabulary knowledge. We describe our methods for constructing the corpus and present descriptives for different components of the corpus. To illustrate the use of the KLiCKe corpus, we report a study using a subset of the corpus to investigate whether keystroke features are associated with holistic writing quality for L1 and L2 writers. The study shows that higher writing scores are related to shorter pauses in general, shorter between-word pauses, lower proportion of deletions, higher proportion of insertions, and less process variance. The KLiCKe corpus provides a robust resource for researchers to study the dynamics of text production and revision that will help spur the development of process-oriented tools and methodologies in writing assessment and instruction.

This case study investigates how two ESL graduate students, Ian and Sam, use ChatGPT in their research writing after receiving a comprehensive tutorial based on Warschauer et al.’s (2023) AI literacy framework. We analyzed their engagement with ChatGPT across prompt categories including genre, content, language use, documentation, coherence, and clarity. Data were collected from research paper drafts, ChatGPT chat histories, and interviews. Data analyses included coding ChatGPT prompts, textual analysis of drafts, and thematic analysis of interview transcripts . Results show that while both participants utilized ChatGPT for understanding genre conventions and content development, they developed distinct approaches reflecting their individual backgrounds. Ian selectively used ChatGPT for specific assistance needs, while Sam engaged more systematically, particularly for APA style and coherence checks. Both approaches maintained academic integrity and scholarly voice, demonstrating that Generative AI tools can be effectively tailored to individual needs without compromising ethical standards. This study highlights how advanced ESL writers can adapt GenAI tools to their unique writing processes, offering insights into the diverse ways AI can enhance academic writing while preserving individual agency. The findings suggest that AI integration in academic writing can be customized to support diverse writing goals and backgrounds.

In the 1930s-1960s, Phibun’s Thai Nationalism campaign promoted the use of the Thai language while segregating and discriminating against non-Thais, especially the Chinese community in Thailand. The government associated the Chinese language with communism, amplified by global Western xenophobic ideologies, leading to the closure of Chinese schools and widespread fear of Chinese literacy. This article explores two key questions: how xenophobic ideologies manifested in education and how the members of this suppressed generation navigated their language and literacy education in and out of school. Drawing on the narratives of five Thai Chinese individuals, aged 73 to 93, it illuminates the factors contributing to the creation of a repressive language ecology, its impact on their learning experiences, and how individuals within such a context made sense of their surroundings. This research enriches literacy studies by broadening its geographical and historical reach, revealing the intricate interplay between language ideology and ecology, and how these concepts help us understand factors in literacy and language learning. Additionally, it underscores narrative inquiry as a teaching and learning tool and offers strategies to prevent the emergence of suppressive ecology in the classroom.

Academic writing has always posed a challenge to university students, regardless of the language they are writing in (first, second or foreign language) or the amount of digital support they have access to – for example, online dictionaries, thesauruses, or new generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) software such as ChatGPT. With the rise of GenAI as a legitimate digital tool in higher education, it is crucial to identify the professional development needs of teaching faculty in order to ensure quality teaching. Based on factors such as digital literacy, or access to digital tools, these needs might differ in various geographical regions. Within the context of the European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu), this paper aims to provide a differentiated, international student perspective on the use of GenAI in the academic writing process, identifying professional development needs for faculty. We developed an online questionnaire that was filled out by 192 university students from 15 different countries. In addition to their academic and linguistic backgrounds, the respondents answered questions about their own experiences and competences with the use of GenAI within academic research. Results highlight clear discrepancies between geographic regions, for example, in their self-ranked digital proficiency or in what GenAI tools they use. This, along with further results from the analysis, provides the basis to identify some professional development needs.

Multilingual writing is a challenging process that requires adjusting to academic and cultural demands. Studies of multilingual writers acknowledge the need for learners to self-regulate their cognition, affect, and actions as they write. Scholarship in educational psychology emphasizes socially regulated learning, suggesting that the regulation of learning is facilitated or hindered not only by the self but also by others. There is, therefore, a need to examine how developments in educational psychology and multilingual writing inform efforts to promote language learners’ writing skills. This article introduces a theoretical model of self- and socially regulated multilingual writing that can guide empirical research. The narrative literature review method was used to inform the design of the model. The review revealed that self- regulated writing by multilingual writers involves activating background knowledge and motivational beliefs, which then lead to decisions about strategies to employ to accomplish a writing task. The review also identified effective processes of socially regulated writing, including cognitive strategy instruction and formative assessment practices, particularly feedback. Finally, the review surfaced gaps in the literature that could be addressed, including how multilingual writers interpret writing tasks, manage their time and environment, deal with distractions, respond to feedback, seek help, and reflect on their successes and failures.

Abstract This article argues that performance pedagogy can invest students in difficult literary texts through slow reading and textual adaptation. Drawing on her experience of teaching Herman Melville's “Benito Cereno” to her multilingual students, the author uses Melville's interest in drama and performance as a jumping-off point for an exercise in adapting the text for in-class performance.

The Loeb Classical Library was founded in 1911 by James Loeb, a retired banker devoted to the study of ancient Greece and Rome. The preface included in the first editions to be published explains Loeb’s vision for the library. Lamenting that “young people of our generation” lacked the facility to read Latin and Greek texts in the original thanks to the pressure universities were facing to provide a “more practical” education, Loeb sought to provide the “average reader” with “translations that are in themselves works of literature” and “side by side with these translations the best critical texts of the original works” (Lake 1912, ii–iii). Though naysayers occasionally mock the bilingual volumes as glorified trots, the series has been a serious work of scholarship since its inception and has gotten even better over the past twenty-five years thanks to the inclusion of more authors and the revision of outdated editions. Students of rhetoric have been major beneficiaries. Russell’s Quintilian (2002), Mirhady’s Rhetoric to Alexander (2011), and Laks and Most’s Sophists (2016) are just a few of the fundamental texts recently published. The Loeb Classical Library now exceeds five hundred volumes, red for Latin and green for Greek. This entire collection is available to subscribers online, fully searchable in English and the original languages and by both page and section numbers. Now Gisela Striker has revised J. H. Freese’s edition of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, taking account of improvements to the Greek text since it was published in 1926. The updated edition remains primarily the work of Freese; only his name appears on the spine. I refer to it as Freese/Striker and to the original edition as Freese. Line number references in this review are all to Freese/Striker. Professor Striker taught me more than twenty years ago in a course on Cicero’s Republic.In assessing Freese/Striker, it is important first to recognize what a Loeb volume is and what it isn’t. The Loebs are Greek and Latin texts, but they are not, with rare exceptions, critical editions with lists of variant readings or discussions of manuscript families. The Loebs are translations, but they are not accompanied by comprehensive introductions, detailed notes, or overviews of scholarly debates. Their value lies in the way the facing texts complement one another, and their core audience is readers with enough Greek or Latin to benefit from having the original language in front of them. A work such as Aristotle’s Rhetoric, however, is exceptionally hard to appreciate without ancillary material. Although Freese/Striker includes a rich introduction and valuable footnotes, these are limited by the scale of the book; the Greek text and translation alone come to 469 pages. Readers who are looking for editorial guidance on a larger scale and in English can and should supplement Freese/Striker with the annotated translations of Kennedy (2nd ed. 2007), Reeve (2018), Waterfield/Yunis (2018), and Bartlett (2019), according to their interests or expertise. Kennedy’s translation is likely to be most useful to students new to the Rhetoric. Formatted as a textbook, it divides the text into sections, prefacing each section with a title and summary. The translations of Waterfield/Yunis, Reeve, and Bartlett are continuous texts without subheadings or summaries. The editors all discuss philosophical, political, and rhetorical issues. Of the three, Waterfield/Yunis’s introduction and notes are most concerned with the Rhetoric as a work of rhetorical theory and are the most accessible and comprehensive option for rhetoricians or nonspecialist readers. Reeve’s Rhetoric belongs to the New Hackett Aristotle Series and is intended for philosophers like the other volumes in that series. Reeve’s introduction and notes emphasize the Rhetoric’s relation to central issues in Aristotle’s thought. Bartlett offers an “interpretive essay” at the end of the volume rather than an introduction; this is a clear overview and summary of the text with particular focus on the Rhetoric’s concern for the role of rhetoric in politics and communal life.For those working with the original Greek, what Freese/Striker has to offer is invaluable. Indeed, since no commentary on the complete Greek text of the Rhetoric has been published in English since Cope’s in 1877, Freese/Striker replaces Freese as the primary resource for English-speaking readers with questions about how to construe the Greek. Reading Aristotle’s Greek is difficult, mostly because he expresses complex ideas in dry, technical, and above all concise language. For those working backward from the English to the Greek, however, these challenges can be virtues. The grammar is straightforward, and the vocabulary is relatively limited. This means that an individual with two years or so of Greek could, with patience and care, use Freese/Striker to work with Aristotle in the original. The search functions in the online version make this easier; one can quickly find relevant Greek passages by searching the English translation (or vice versa). Freese/Striker, therefore, fulfills Loeb’s ambitious goal of making Aristotle in the original available to people with enough Greek to understand it with a facing translation. This is even more valuable today than it was when Freese was published. The growth of rhetoric as an academic field means that rhetoricians without the time to reach advanced proficiency in Classical Greek are engaging with Aristotle’s text on a regular basis and can benefit from the updated text and translation that Freese/Striker provides.Freese/Striker prints and translates a Greek text that is superior to Freese’s. Establishing the Greek text of the Rhetoric is daunting. Aristotle’s laconic and elliptical style led scribal variants and downright errors to creep into the medieval manuscripts, some out of a well-intentioned attempt to make the Greek clearer. In addition, Aristotle seems to have revised and rethought his ideas over the thirty or so years that he worked on the Rhetoric, meaning that some apparent problems in the Greek may not be scribal errors but evidence of Aristotle’s work in progress. Freese based his text and translation on the best editions available in 1926, those of Bekker (1837) and Roemer (1898). In 1976, Kassel published an edition that placed the Greek text on the soundest footing it has been on in probably two thousand years. Freese/Striker is based on this edition, joining other modern English translations of the Rhetoric. Roberts/Barnes (1984), Kennedy, Waterfield/Yunis, and Bartlett are all based on Kassel’s edition. Reeve is based on Ross’s Oxford text (1959) but takes account of Kassel’s proposals.Most of the textual changes from Freese are subtle but important, and they begin as early as the first page, where Freese/Striker has Aristotle say in 1.1.3 1354a14 that previous writers of rhetorical handbooks “have worked out only a small portion of this art,” and Freese that they “have provided us with only a small portion of this art.” The oldest medieval manuscripts have the verb pepoiēkasin, “they have made,” but “they have made only a small portion of this art” makes little sense and seems to be a mistake. At some point, a corrector seeking to fix the problem changed the verb to peporikasin (“have provided”), which Freese adopts. Kassel (1971, 118), following a suggestion of Spengel, realized that Aristotle probably wrote peponēkasin (“have worked out”), which differs from the transmitted pepoiēkasin in just one letter, and which is used similarly with the word for “portion” in Aristotle’s Sophistical Refutations. Improvements to the text of the Rhetoric on this scale occur throughout Freese/Striker. A more considerable shift in sense from Freese to Freese/Striker is illustrated by the following sentence from the section in book 2 on mildness (2.3.14 1380b15-17):The difference depends on Kassel’s preference for the reading helōsin (“they have convicted”) over eleōsin (“they pity”). The oldest manuscript has eleousin (“they pity”) in the indicative mood where the subjunctive is required. One option is simply to correct this to the subjunctive. This is the solution Freese adopts with eleōsin, although he adds a footnote acknowledging that helōsin is a possibility. Helōsin is attested in some manuscripts, including in a correction to the manuscript that has eleousin. Since “they have convicted” (helōsin) and “they pity” (eleōsin) are both possible, the choice between them depends on the degree of logical connection one sees between the two clauses. In following Kassel, Freese/Striker makes conviction the organizing principle: People (i.e., judges) have mild sentiments toward the people they convict, especially if they feel that an offender has already suffered more than enough for a punishment. Freese’s interpretation, on the other hand, removes the passage from the context of passing a sentence: People have mild sentiments when they feel pity toward an offender, especially if they feel that the offender has already suffered more than enough for a punishment (cf. Grimaldi 1988, 60-61).Textual editing is as much art as science, and the two proposals of Kassel that I have just discussed have not been universally embraced. Like Freese/Striker, Waterfield/Yunis translates Kassel’s text. Kennedy translates Kassel’s text for the first example but retains “they pity” for the second one, acknowledging in a footnote that “they have convicted” is an option. Reeve translates a different text from both Freese and Kassel for the first example and the same text as Freese in the second, also including the alternate possibilities in his endnotes. Bartlett translates the same text as Freese for the second example; for the first, he seems to accept the manuscript reading “made,” rendering it as “written of.” In both cases he notes the alternate possibilities in his notes. Finally, Roberts/Barnes translates Kassel’s text for the second example, but, like Bartlett, seems to accept “made” for the first, rendering it as “constructed”; Roberts/Barnes has no note in either case (although the translation consistently follows Kassel and notes Kassel’s readings at many points). I have surveyed these translations to show that Freese’s text and translation are not to be condemned out of hand and in some cases may be defensible. The age of the volume, however, means that readers will not systematically encounter an alternate version in a note, as they do in these instances in Kennedy, Reeve, and Bartlett. Readers who continue to use Freese from convenience (it is in the public domain and freely available through Google Books) risk being led astray. In following Kassel, Freese/Striker reflects the modern consensus and brings us closer to what Aristotle is likely to have written, fulfilling Loeb’s promise to give readers the best critical text currently available.Freese/Striker does reject some of Kassel’s bolder proposals. The discussion about the three types of speeches offers an example. In 1.3.2 1358b6-7, Kassel brackets the enigmatic clause that spectators are judges of “the ability of the speaker,” as a signal to readers that it should not be considered part of the original text even though it appears in all the medieval manuscripts. Kassel’s objection (1971, 124–25), that the clause seems to interrupt the sense of Aristotle’s argument by contradicting the distinction he has just drawn between spectators and judges, is reasonable. By using brackets, Kassel alerts the reader that he rejects the clause but does not go so far as to remove it entirely from the text. Brackets for dubious passages are a convention familiar to readers of Latin and Greek, but they clutter up translations and risk confusing readers unfamiliar with the convention. Freese/Striker uses them sparingly. Roberts/Barnes includes this clause about the speaker’s ability in brackets, with a note explaining that Kassel excised it, while Waterfield/Yunis omits it entirely. Freese/Striker (as had Freese) retains the clause without brackets (as do Kennedy, Reeve, and Bartlett), mentions Kassel’s opinion in a footnote, and points the reader to a passage in book 2 where Aristotle once again states that a spectator of an epideictic speech is a kind of judge (although the cross-reference should read 1391b16-17 rather than 1391a16-17). Since the Loebs do not allow for the kind of caution that brackets and textual apparatus provide in critical editions of Greek texts, Freese/Striker’s decision to prefer the reading of the manuscripts in cases such as this serves readers best. In all the places where Freese/Striker does print a different Greek text from Kassel, the change is acknowledged in a footnote.Besides the alterations based on Kassel’s text, Freese/Striker keeps closely to the translation in Freese, updating it to accord with modern English style: “that” instead of “which” more consistently in restrictive clauses, “on this account” instead of “wherefore,” and similar minor changes in wording. More consequential changes include more transparent renderings of the Greek. Among the most significant is this sentence from book 1 about the two different types of pisteis (1.2.2 1355b36):By broadening the scope of pisteis and eliminating the unavoidable connotation of real and fake in “inartificial” and “artificial,” Freese/Striker offers a much clearer sense of what Aristotle means. There is a trade-off. Rendering pisteis as “means of persuasion” obscures the fact that Aristotle seems deliberately to be appropriating the terminology of professional speechmakers for his own novel purposes. Pistis (the singular of pisteis) is a word used in judicial oratory for “proof” in contexts where “means of persuasion” would make little sense. Seeking to make the best of a tricky situation, Freese/Striker uses “means of persuasion” throughout the translation, except where pisteis unambiguously means “proofs.” Freese/Striker is not alone in favoring “means of persuasion.” Reeve uses it, and Roberts/Barnes and Bartlett offer “modes of persuasion.” Waterfield/Yunis stands out by keeping the time-tested “proofs.” Kennedy avoids the issue by printing pisteis without a translation. Another significant improvement over Freese is Freese/Striker’s rendering of ēthos and its cognates in most cases with the vocabulary of character rather than morality or ethics. Freese/Striker’s “considerations of character” (1.8.6 1366a13) and “adapt our speeches to character” (2.18.2 1391b28) are more accurate than Freese’s “ethical argument” and “make our speeches ethical,” as well as free of the moral judgment that Freese’s English imposes on the Greek. Finally, Freese/Striker’s use of “unfamiliar,” while perhaps not quite catching the nuance of the Greek xenos and xenikos in Aristotle’s discussion of style, avoids the negative connotations that Freese’s “foreign” often has in contemporary English.Freese features a twenty-one-page introduction that includes mini-biographies of rhetoricians before Aristotle, a comparison of the Rhetoric to the Gorgias and Phaedrus, an aside on the Rhetoric to Alexander, and accounts of the most important manuscript and of William of Moerbeke’s thirteenth-century translation into Latin. This remains useful, and some may miss it, but the information is all readily available elsewhere. The new introduction in Freese/Striker is more selective and more directly about the Rhetoric. In ten pages, it introduces the reader to Aristotle’s project, the contents of the Rhetoric, and ancient rhetoricians’ lack of interest in it after Aristotle’s death. A highlight, reflecting Striker’s expertise in Aristotle’s logic, is the concise explanation of how the theory of argument in the Rhetoric is an adaptation of the one in the Topics. There is also a new chapter index in the form of an outline that is easier to use than the paragraph-length summaries in the seventeen-page “Analysis” of the text in Freese. Freese/Striker retains from Freese the “Select Glossary of Technical and Other Terms.” This is not, nor is it meant to be, a comprehensive handlist of rhetorical concepts. As the name implies, it is a convenient place for readers of the Greek to look up technical terms or familiar words that Aristotle uses in unique ways. Most of the definitions are taken directly from Freese or lightly revised. Freese/Striker’s entries for dialektikē and sēmeion, however, are clear and concise introductions to these difficult topics, a marked improvement on Freese’s. Where Freese discusses dialektikē without specific references to how Aristotle uses it in other works, Freese/Striker summarizes the explanation in the Topics of how dialektikē is a technique of developing or refuting a thesis through questions and answers and then shows how rhetoric does more than dialectic by also seeking to persuade an audience. And where Freese’s explanation of sēmeion is abstract, Freese/Striker gives us a concrete definition (“a proposition stating a fact that points to a related other fact, so that the existence of the second fact may be inferred from the first”) followed by an example of how this works in practice (fever points to illness). The same general principle of retaining but updating governs Freese/Striker’s policy toward Freese’s rich explanatory footnotes. Many of these have been kept with no changes, some have been revised (often silently correcting oversights), and some new ones have been added. In the interests of brevity, some notes have also been excluded, and, as with the introduction, readers may miss these. Taken as a whole, however, the slightly more concise notes remain useful, especially for readers who will use Freese/Striker as a primary resource, rather than one of the more extensively annotated translations I mentioned earlier in the review.Freese/Striker ends with an index of proper names and a general index. These items too are taken from Freese, with deletions (for example, “hair (worn long in Sparta)” and “pancratiast”) and additions or corrections (for example, “licentiousness” for akolasia and “weakness of will” for akrasia rather than “incontinence” for both). With search engines, indexes are less important than they once were. This one demonstrates how helpful they can still be. The entry for “article, the, use of” refers us to 3.6.5, a section on how to use the definite article in Greek where the translation in Freese/Striker does not use the word “article.” A lexical search for “article” would turn up nothing in 3.6.5, and one for “the” would be next to useless.De Gruyter is selling Kassel’s edition of the Rhetoric for $430. It is not available as an electronic text online. Since many research do not include it in their the way that even most can it is through For the of of Freese/Striker Kassel’s text with Striker’s editorial At the same readers should that no edition, including Freese/Striker, is a version of Aristotle’s Rhetoric. serious scholarly work would be well by it, Kassel’s edition, and an of other translations and English and other their This is the case for all Loeb volumes, Freese/Striker it does Readers a and text accompanied by an lightly translation. As a first of for work on Aristotle in Greek, it should be on the real or of English-speaking of Greek rhetoric and, in the of James Loeb, of academic or in working through Aristotle’s ideas with an toward his own language.

Drawing on rhetorical genre studies, we explore research article abstracts created by generative artificial intelligence (AI). These synthetic genres—genre-ing activities shaped by the recursive nature of language learning models in AI-driven text generation—are of interest as they could influence informational quality, leading to various forms of disordered information such as misinformation. We conduct a two-part study generating abstracts about (a) genre scholarship and (b) polarized topics subject to misinformation. We conclude with considerations about this speculative domain of AI text generation and dis/misinformation spread and how genre approaches may be instructive in its identification.

This article reports on a qualitative assessment of intercultural competence (IC) in U.S. first-year writing (FYW) courses designed to increase intercultural exposure and interaction among domestic and international students. To measure students’ intercultural development via a series of reflective writings, we designed two innovative qualitative analysis tools: a grounded-theory coding scheme and a mapping procedure aligned to the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. Our results show that qualitative assessment of reflective writing reveals dynamic, complex IC development trajectories, displaying nonlinearity, nondiscrete phases, and development within phases. Specifically, we noted that reflective writing helped students engage with and become attuned to aspects of cultural difference. Affordances of the FYW context indicated that students strongly engaged the cognitive domain of IC, and that this domain appears to be activated by reflective writing.

Addressing issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion in academic writing is vital in higher education, especially when considering the lived experiences and education of undergraduates from diverse backgrounds. This paper acknowledges the challenges faced by students unfamiliar with Western academic integrity standards, emphasising the disparities experienced by socioeconomically disadvantaged, racialised, and international students. The paper describes an innovative learner-agentic empowerment approach at a Canadian university designed to enable students from diverse backgrounds to gain the academic, cultural, disciplinary and linguistic capital required to practise academic integrity. Through a mixed-method analysis of 182 undergraduates in a writing support program, we found that students who responded to a reflective prompt on academic integrity at the start of the program wrote substantially more (mean 7050 words) than those who did not respond to the prompt (mean 1692 words) during the month-long program. Qualitative analyses revealed students' unfamiliarity with cultural differences, academic integrity practices, linguistic challenges, and penalty severity. This model suggests the importance of a proactive, learner-agentic approach to facilitate education about academic integrity and to address equity and inclusivity. The study underscores the importance of systemic pedagogical changes, furthering the dialogue on equity, diversity, and inclusion in higher education.

This article reports on a scoping review of the literature exploring the alignment between behavioral and linguistic units in L1 and L2 writing. Behavioral units in writing were assessed using keystroke logging measures of pauses, bursts, and revisions. Linguistic units were operationalized based on lexical and syntactic definitions from the literature. Nine empirical studies met the inclusion criteria. Most of these studies focused on L1 English writing by adult participants, although some explored other first languages, such as German, Dutch, and French. The identified L2 studies focused exclusively on English. Due to the limited number and high heterogeneity of the studies, no definitive conclusions can be drawn. However, meaningful links between behavioral and linguistic units were detected. In addition to confirming some previously known phenomena, the studies provided new evidence on online processing during pauses, revealed certain idiosyncrasies in L1 versus L2 writing cognition, and offered new insights into the nature of revision. We provide a critical interpretation of the results, propose new research directions, and recommend solutions.

This study investigates how pausing behaviour within a writing session is associated with the writer's language proficiency, focusing on Finnish and Swedish as both first language (L1) and learner language (L2). The data were collected through keyboard logging software and evaluated using CEFR-based assessments of the resulting texts. The relationship was analysed using ordinal mixed-effects logistic regression modelling, where proficiency is modelled as a function of various variables related to pausing behaviour. The results show that the L2 writing process reflects the writer's proficiency. However, there is a significant difference between L2 writers of Swedish and L2 writers of Finnish compared to L1 writers. The advanced L2 writers of Swedish behave similarly to the L1 Swedish writers. In contrast, even the most advanced L2 writers of Finnish have pause lengths and linguistic contexts that are more similar to the less advanced L2 writers than the L1 writers. In addition, the pauses between words do not indicate any clear proficiency-related patterning, leaving only within-word pauses as a robust indicator of proficiency, especially in Swedish. Unlike most writing process research, this study's parallel design allows for contrasting two typologically diverging languages while controlling for other contextual variables. Future studies could explore the grammatical nature of pause locations across the analysed languages.

A good command of academic vocabulary is important for academic success in higher education. However, research has primarily focused on the receptive academic vocabulary knowledge of L2 learners while devoting relatively limited attention to their productive use of such vocabulary and its impact on writing quality. To address this gap, we analysed the problem-solution essays written by 168 first-year undergraduates in Hong Kong, focusing on the relationship between their use of academic words in the Academic Vocabulary List (AVL) and the overall quality of their writing. We also explored the relationship between the size of students’ receptive academic vocabulary and the frequency of its use in writing. Findings revealed that essays with high scores contained a greater density and diversity of academic vocabulary than low-scored essays, with greater frequency of words in the 1–500 and 501–1000 tiers of the AVL significantly predicting better writing quality. The essays also showed a significant relationship between the participants’ receptive academic vocabulary size and the diversity of academic words used in writing. However, no significant relationship was observed between receptive academic vocabulary size and the density of academic words used. We highlight the implications of these findings for EAP teaching and research. • Problem-solution essays written by undergraduates in Hong Kong were analysed. • Density and diversity of academic vocabulary (AV) predict L2 writing quality. • Learners’ receptive AV size significantly relates to AV diversity in their writing. • Only words from two tiers of the AVL significantly predicted writing scores. • A holistic and tiered approach to assessing AV use is important.

Despite the growing body of research on feedback provided to L2 learners on their writing, few studies have investigated the use of a scaffolded approach to feedback. Sociocultural scholars argue that for feedback to be effective it needs to be scaffolded – dynamic and aligned to the learner’s ability to correct their errors (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994). Although research on scaffolded feedback have found it to improve L2 writing accuracy, most of this research has been small-scale, using one-on-one conferences. This larger classroom-based study aimed to examine the effectiveness of scaffolded written feedback and students’ perceptions of this feedback approach. The study was quasi-experimental and implemented over one academic semester. The participants were 71 male students of intermediate English proficiency, majoring in English at a large Saudi university. They were divided into two groups: one group received scaffolded feedback; the other group received unscaffolded (indirect) feedback. The feedback targeted eight grammatical structures. Findings from the immediate and delayed post-tests showed that both groups improved in their overall writing accuracy over time, with no difference evident between the two groups. Moreover, both groups showed similar improvements in six of the eight targeted grammatical structures. The scaffolded feedback group showed greater improvement than their counterparts only on two structures: subject-verb agreement and singular-plural agreement. Interview findings showed that the scaffolded feedback group liked this approach mainly because of its novelty but preferred scaffolding only when it increased in explicitness. We conclude by considering whether and how scaffolded feedback can be provided in classroom settings. • Scaffolded and unscaffolded written corrective feedback (WCF) both enhance EFL writing accuracy. • Scaffolded WCF shows limited superiority in improving writing accuracy compared to unscaffolded WCF. • Saudi EFL students preferred scaffolded WCF, with explicit feedback being more appreciated over time. • Implicit WCF posed challenges for Saudi EFL students, leading to reduced response rates as feedback became more implicit.

The use of subordination enables language users to achieve syntactic efficiency by allowing them to connect ideas in temporal/logical relation. Although the importance of subordination has been recognized in previous research on second language (L2) writing, it has been typically assessed with global indices that measure overall ratio of subordination. In order to capture more nuanced patterns in the development of L2 writing, this study measures the sophistication of subordination, considering subordination type (adverbialization, complementization, relativization) and finiteness (finite, nonfinite). Our natural language processing analysis of 6,566 timed impromptu essays using the Subordination Sophistication Analyzer 1.0 showed that higher-proficiency L2 learners used more subordination, and, importantly, their patterns of use differed by subordination type and finiteness. Whereas the amount of adverbialization and relativization increased along with proficiency regardless of finiteness, the use of complementization increased only for nonfinite clauses. The broader impacts of this study for education and assessment are discussed.

My intent in this qualitative study was to illustrate if and how inequalities in power and authority exist in interactions between tutors and multilingual (ML) tutees set in a university writing center in a predominantly White institution (PWI). Using Fairclough’s model of critical discourse analysis (CDA) as a guide, I analyzed selected transcripts to uncover how “language shapes and positions” tutors and tutees (Fernsten 45). I propose that using CDA to examine writing center transcripts can be an effective training tool for tutors working with multilingual writers. By analyzing how their discourse choices may unintentionally bolster linguistic dominance and diminish ML students’ voices, tutors can adapt their approaches while also identifying discourse choices that lead to constructive, collaborative interactions.

Source-based writing skills, which include evaluating, synthesizing, and citing sources, are skills that students are expected to acquire as part of college-level writing. Unfortunately, many multilingual writers (MLWs), especially those in advanced degree programs, lack programmatic support and instruction. Thus, writing centers represent a critical site to offer MLWs tutorial-based support. Our study examined whether or not writing centers can help MLWs develop—and transfer—source-based writing skills in a sequence of three tutorials. We recruited five advanced student MLW participants from different cultural backgrounds who were uncomfortable with source use. Through pre-and postwriting samples, interviews, writing process recording videos, and a long-term follow-up, our findings indicate that our three-sequence tutorial significantly improved advanced MLWs’ source-based writing skills and transferred to the next semester. Improvements occurred in the areas of selecting, organizing, and connecting sources as well as in engaging in appropriate source use and avoiding plagiarism, although some areas showed stronger gains than others. This study contributes to the field’s development of replicable, aggregable, and data-supported best practices to explore the efficacy of tutoring for specific populations. We offer suggestions for writing centers to develop, test, and create tutoring-based MLW support programs.

Guest editors' introduction for The Writing Center Journal 43:3 (2025).

While one-to- one writing tutoring is often viewed as a supportive space for student writers, it can also reproduce racialized linguistic hierarchies that exacerbate anxiety for multilingual students. This article examines second language (L2) anxiety as a structurally induced emotional response to native-speakerism— the ideology that privileges white, Anglophone, native English speakers as the standard for language competence. Drawing from L2 anxiety research in applied linguistics and writing center studies, the article explores how native-speakerism influences multilingual students’ self-perception, interaction, and performance in L2 during one-to- one tutoring. It discusses the sources and dimensions of L2 anxiety across all four language domains—speaking, listening, reading, and writing—and argues that this anxiety persists even at advanced proficiency levels due to internalized linguistic deficit ideologies. By reframing L2 anxiety as a structural equity issue, the article calls for a more justice-oriented tutoring ecology and offers concrete pedagogical strategies and recommendations to help writing tutors recognize and respond to the often-invisible emotional labor multilingual students carry.

This study examines what multilingual writers notice while they read their writing aloud, and whether reading aloud helps improve the accuracy of their writing during revision. It also investigates whether multilingual writers’ second language (L2) proficiency influences the extent to which reading aloud impacts revision. To address these questions, a counterbalanced, mixed design study was carried out with two experimental conditions: revising while reading aloud and revising while reading silently. Multilingual writers of higher and lower English proficiency at a large research university participated in a two-day sequence of composition and revision, two times, over the course of two weeks. Each student’s composition and revision process was screen-recorded and used in a stimulated recall interview at the end of the study procedure. Quantitative results from this study suggest that reading aloud may be more beneficial for multilingual writers at higher rather than lower English proficiencies, mostly because of lower proficiency multilingual writers’ difficulties in having to effectively allocate their attentional resources. Findings of the study help writing centers implement practices with a more nuanced, learner-specific approach to further enhance their ability to support diverse learners.

For English as an Additional Language (EAL) students, generative AI (GenAI) offers meaningful support for writing in English, while also introducing a new set of challenges. Supporting EAL students in developing AI literacy is crucial to their growth as confident, adaptable writers, and writing center tutors are uniquely positioned to facilitate this development. This case study explores the experiences of undergraduate Brazilian international students at a small liberal arts college who received writing feedback from both peer writing center tutors and ChatGPT. Findings indicate that students valued the human connection, contextual understanding, and rhetorical support offered by peer tutors, while turning to ChatGPT for immediate, nonjudgmental assistance, particularly in navigating multilingual challenges. The study offers insight into how peer writing tutors can thoughtfully leverage GenAI to support multilingual writers.

Writing center scholars have adopted Pratt’s (1991) “contact zone” metaphor to describe the diversity of consultants and students in writing centers, but this literature has largely overlooked the perspectives of multilingual students. Through surveys, interviews, and session data, we found that while multilingual students described rich linguistic identities, they also experienced tension and instability as language users. Students often framed their considerable language assets as deficiencies in academic writing contexts. They faced additional tension between instructor expectations and their own understanding of assignment goals. Students frequently sought native-like language competency from consultants and expected them to serve as informants about academic writing conventions—goals that often conflicted with writing center values and practices. This research suggests writing centers need to move from “clashing” to “collaboration” to understand and support multilingual students’ writing processes and goals within the context of U.S. higher education.

This article argues for a shift in writing center pedagogy toward prioritizing transnational writing assets as the basis of our work with international multilingual writers specifically and every writer we encounter generally. While writing center scholarship has paid attention to the influences of language, cultural and rhetorical differences among native and non-native English speakers/ tutors in the writing center, much of this discussion has taken the “comparative” route rather than a “trans-d” (transnational) route with potentials to transform our engagements with scholars, students, and writers from other parts of the world. This IRB-approved research reveals that international multilingual writers possess unique knowledge of how writing works, influenced by their linguistic, cultural, and rhetorical competencies. These competencies function as transnational writing assets that participants willingly share with their writing consultants, providing an environment that encourages open dialogue about such transnational writing assets and that positions students as valuable contributors of knowledge about writing. The study concludes with recommendations that advance transnational writing dispositions as a transformative pedagogical approach in writing center work to enrich our interactions with writers from different parts of the world.

This piece explores the discussions surrounding multilingualism, internationalization, and queerness within writing center studies (WCS). As a branch of writing program administration (WPA), this piece situates above-disciplinary conversations in relation to second language studies (SLS) and broader language and literacy education scholarship to identify areas where disciplinary collaboration and attention are still needed, particularly around questions of professional development, administrative strategies, and pedagogies supporting multilingual writers in writing center spaces. This piece begins by reviewing the major trends, contributions, and key terms in existing literature centering on multilingual writers and SLS to identify ways and areas of collaboration and disciplinary efforts that still need attention within WPA, specifically WCS. Finally, the piece concludes with the author’s perspective, a gay multilingual writing center professional who grew up in a global Anglophone context, on positioning himself as an intersectional scholar ready to make an impact while showcasing his contributions to the ongoing conversation within current WPA and WCS research.

While there are a number of books that address how to research first language (L1) and second language (L2) writing, there are not many accessible research manuals that guide novice researchers on how to research cognitive processes associated with L1/L2 writing. Researching L1/L2 writing processes and development requires a consideration of a number of variables because writing typically occurs in many different contexts (e.g., in-class, at home), settings (e.g., ESL vs. EFL), modalities (e.g., paper and pen, digital), and conditions (e.g., individual, collaborative). We find the edited volume Research Methods in the Study of L2 Writing Processes by Rosa Manchón and Julio Rocaa (2023) to be insightful for two reasons. First, all the chapters in the volume provide step-by-step directions in researching L1/L2 writing processes, highlight methodological concerns, and offer ideas on addressing those concerns. Second, the volume provides an excellent overview of key considerations in employing diverse research instruments to study writing processes.

This teaching practice paper deals with some practical ideas of teaching the concept of ‘warrant’ in Toulmin’s mode of argumentation within EFL/ESL settings. While most students are familiar with making claims and providing evidence to support them, they may not understand the role of the warrant in connecting claims and reasons. Therefore, there is a strong need for teaching students how warrant plays a key role in argumentative writing. This teaching practice paper aims at bridging the gulf between some writing theories and useful examples to dissect the complexities of teaching warrant in writing classes.

Through narrative inquiry, this study uses the concept of “imagining community” and finding purpose and agency related to selected and ascribed affiliations in order to understand the transnational literacies of two Somali American Muslim girls of refugee background attending high school in a US meatpacking community. With the girls as coauthors paired with two academics, we center the Somali American girls’ experiences in their school and community, illustrating strategic deployments of literacies and various identities to construct a sense of belonging/acceptance in different spaces. We also chronicle their resistance to different forms of discrimination arising from linguistic, cultural, and religious differences through their advocacy for themselves, their peers, and their communities. Ultimately, this study has implications for educators working with immigrant students, and reminds us of the wisdom of listening to students’ own voices.

Abstract This study addresses the paucity of literature on the impact of ungrading — contract grading, specifically — on international students at American colleges. Over the course of four semesters, 307 international and domestic students were surveyed (anonymously) about their perceptions of grading contracts in their writing (and writing-heavy) classes. Specifically, the survey was designed to find out if grading contracts serve as “just another thing” to navigate as international students transition into the Western educational setting and, furthermore, to find out if grading contracts inadvertently do more harm than good. Ultimately, international students perceive more overall benefits than drawbacks of ungrading. However, the data show that international students do find contract grading confusing — especially at first. This article analyzes the sources of confusion along with mitigating topics named by the survey participants, such as fairness, student agency, and stress reduction. The data also show that ungrading practices can serve as a transitional tool to ease international students into American education; a portion of students identify the grading contract as a means of facilitating the transition into American education, rather than as a barrier to it.

Abstract This article offers a theory of action model for grading in first-year writing classes, as enacted at two public, suburban, Midwestern two-year colleges. First, it analyzes labor-based contract grading and specifications grading through this model, examining how these popular grading methods have manifested in unintended negative consequences for historically and multiply marginalized students. Then, it proposes a sociocognitive grading model designed to maximize course-level success rates for New Majority college students. The sociocognitive model was iteratively built on feminist standpoint theory, intersectional learning sciences, multilingual writing pedagogy, and disability studies. Thus far, student course-level success has improved, along with their learning in four domains of a robust writing construct: intrapersonal, interpersonal, cognitive, and health. While it does not prescribe specific patterns of response, this model nevertheless establishes an overall referential frame that holds the potential to incorporate empirically based best response practices.

Aaron Bruenger (he/they) is a senior lecturer at the University of Minnesota Rochester where he teaches writing and communication courses. He is interested in rhetorical criticism and theory, multimodal literacy and composition, and relational pedagogy.Ellen C. Carillo (she/her) is professor of English at the University of Connecticut and the writing coordinator at its Waterbury campus. She is the author of Securing a Place for Reading in Composition: The Importance of Teaching for Transfer (2014), Teaching Readers in Post-Truth America (2018), and The Hidden Inequities in Labor-Based Contract Grading (2021). Ellen is also the editor or coeditor of several textbooks, handbooks, and collections.Esther M. Gabay (she/her) is a PhD student at The Ohio State University, focusing on writing, literacy, disability studies, and writing assessment. She has over a decade of experience teaching first-year writing in the two-year college, and was a collaborative member of the Faculty Initiative of Teaching Reading at Kingsborough Community College. Esther has published articles in TETYC and has chapters in the forthcoming edited collections What Is College-Level Writing (vol. 3) and College Teachers Teaching Reading: Practical Strategies for Supporting Postsecondary Readers.Catherine Gabor (she/her) is professor of rhetoric and acting associate dean for the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of San Francisco. Her professional interests are digital authorship, the scholarship of administration, and ungrading. Her work appears in the Journal of Writing Program Administration, Reflections: Writing, Service-Learning, and Community Literacy, the Journal of Basic Writing, and several edited collections.Kara K. Larson (she/her) is an assistant professor of English at Hillsborough Community College–SouthShore, Florida. She was a Conference on College Composition and Communication Scholars for the Dream Award recipient in 2021. A former middle school English language arts and reading teacher for ESL students, Kara has enjoyed taking learner-centered engagement and collaborative learning strategies into the college classroom.Bronson Lemer (he/him) is a senior lecturer at the University of Minnesota Rochester. He is the author of The Last Deployment: How a Gay, Hammer-Swinging Twentysomething Survived a Year in Iraq (2011). He is a 2019 McKnight Writing Fellow and lives in St. Paul.Jessica Nastal (she/they) is assistant professor of English at College of DuPage. With Mya Poe and Christie Toth, her edited collection Writing Placement in Two-Year Colleges: The Pursuit of Equity in Postsecondary Education won the CWPA Best Book Award for 2022. Jessica serves on the editorial boards of Assessing Writing, Teaching English in the Two-Year College, and Composition Studies.Katherine Daily O'Meara (she/her) is assistant professor of English and director of Writing across the Curriculum at St. Norbert College. Her work has been published in the Journal of Response to Writing, The WAC Journal, and multiple edited collections. Kat's current research focuses on accessible assessment and contract grading, student self-placement, equitable/antiracist pedagogies, WAC/WID, and writing program administration.Cheryl Hogue Smith (she/her) is a professor of English, WRAC coordinator, and liberal arts coordinator at Kingsborough Community College, CUNY. She is a past chair of the Two-Year College English Association (TYCA) and a Fellow of the National Writing Project. Her work appears in TETYC, JBW, JAAL, English Journal, JTW, and in several edited collections.Jesse Stommel (he/him) is a faculty member in the Writing Program at University of Denver. He is also cofounder of Hybrid Pedagogy: the journal of critical digital pedagogy and Digital Pedagogy Lab. He has a PhD from University of Colorado Boulder. He is author of Undoing the Grade: Why We Grade, and How to Stop (2023) and coauthor of An Urgency of Teachers: The Work of Critical Digital Pedagogy (2018).Molly E. Ubbesen (she/they) is assistant professor and director of Writing at University of Minnesota Rochester. She applies critical disability studies to writing studies to support accessible and effective teaching and learning. Her work has been published in Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy and Composition Forum. Additionally, she is an editor for the forthcoming collection Disability, Access, and the Teaching of Writing.Megan K. Von Bergen (she/her) is an assistant professor of English at Murray State University, where she teaches first-year and upper-division composition courses. She is interested in inclusive, student-centered assessment practices and the programmatic structures needed to support them. Her work has appeared in Composition Studies and enculturation. In her spare time, she likes running (really) long distances.Griffin Xander Zimmerman (they/he) recently graduated with a PhD in rhetoric, composition, and the teaching of English from University of Arizona. Griffin's work appears in the Journal of Writing Assessment and the Journal of Multimodal Rhetorics. An interdisciplinary disability scholar, Griffin focuses his work on pedagogical approaches to neurodiversity, teacher training, disability rhetorics, and relationality through communities of care.

ABSTRACTWe asked 15 editors about their perceptions of five sentences using singular they in different contexts and about the style guides that inform their work. Editors appreciated the inclusivity of indefinite and definite singular they and recognized APA for its leading-edge stance. Our findings indicate the need for editors to develop a heuristic for determining when to deviate from style guide advice and to develop their own system for mitigating ambiguity in relation to they.KEYWORDS: Editingsocial justice / ethics Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Notes1. We explained to editors that, in each sentence, the capitalized pronoun referred to the capitalized noun phrase.2. When we refer to a "comprehensive style guide," we mean a manual that provides standards for writing, editing, and publishing texts. A comprehensive style guide may be written by a publisher or discourse community but adopted widely. For example, University of Chicago Press's Chicago Manual of Style is used by other publishers and the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association is used in disciplines outside of psychology.Companies may create their own style guides for internal use. Such guides may or may not be as detailed or complete as comprehensive style guides and may, in fact, be based on or direct users to a comprehensive style guide for any gaps in content. For example, ACES: The Society for Editing "Style Guide and Proofreading Checklist" (Filippini, Citation2021) is for ACES communications and based on the AP Stylebook.Some editors in this study referred to style sheets. A copyeditor creates and uses a style sheet to note a running list of grammar and usage that are specific to a manuscript and which may be different from house style or a comprehensive style guide (CMOS, Section 2.55).Despite attempting to define these terms, we recognize there are overlaps among the categories and across fields. For example, the Microsoft Writing Style Guide began as an in-house style guide and is now used by other software companies. Further, there exist other contexts of the terms "style guide" and "style sheet," such as brand style guides, programming style guides, and web design style sheets.3. Of the remaining two editors, one said that they would revise the sentence to avoid using singular they, and the other said that they would use the name Pat again instead of a pronoun.4. Only three editors (4%) said they would edit the sentence.5. The two remaining editors differed in their responses. One said that they would avoid using singular they by revising the sentence; the other said that they would change the pronoun to her.6. Ten editors said that they would edit this sentence.7. As of August 16, 2022, AP Stylebook Online advice under "accent marks" reads: "Use accent marks or other diacritical marks with names of people who request them or are widely known to use them, or if quoting directly in a language that uses them: An officer spotted him and asked a question: "Cómo estás?" How are you? Otherwise, do not use these marks in English-language stories. Note: Many AP customers' computer systems ingest via the ANPA standard and will not receive diacritical marks published by the AP."Additional informationNotes on contributorsJo MackiewiczJo Mackiewicz is a professor of rhetoric and professional communication at Iowa State University. She studies the communication of pedagogical and workplace interactions. Her book, Welding Technical Communication: Teaching and Learning Embodied Knowledge was published by SUNY Press in 2022.Shaya KrautShaya Kraut is a PhD student in the Rhetoric and Professional Communication program at Iowa State University, where she teaches first-year writing. She has also worked as an ESL teacher, a writing center tutor, and a teacher/tutor for adult basic education. Her research interests include composition pedagogy and critical literacy.Allison DurazziAllison Durazzi is a communication professional with experience in industry settings including law, the arts, and freelance editing. She is a Ph.D. student in Rhetoric and Professional Communication at Iowa State University where she researches and teaches technical editing and teaches business, technical, and speech communication courses.

The study examines a corpus of 306 request emails written by 32 English-speaking (ES) teachers and 121 L2 learners from distinctive L1 backgrounds (i.e., Chinese, French, Spanish) and with different levels of L2 proficiency. Pragmatic competence is analyzed through the coding of direct and indirect request strategies used in formal and informal email writing. Findings reveal the influences of communicative situation, L1 background, and L2 proficiency on pragmatic competence in email writing. First, L2 learners show a significantly lower degree of situational variability compared with ES teachers. Second, L1 backgrounds have a significant impact on L2 writing performance. Third, L2 learners with higher English proficiency tend to use more indirect request strategies, but they have not developed pragmatic competence to adjust their usage across written contexts. Findings are discussed in relation to pedagogical implications for developing writing competence of L2 learners, which should be attuned to diverse rhetorical expectations and individual needs.

By 2050, almost 95% of the 300 living Indigenous languages are projected to be extinct. Before an Indigenous language goes extinct, the unique medicinal knowledge and practices within each tribe are often already eroded. Native medicine has health-promoting properties unique to aspects of Indigenous health and well-being, yet these benefits have slowly dwindled through the assimilation of Western medical systems. Simultaneously, the connection among Native language, medicine, healing, and cultural continuity is lost. Although the process of ancestral language learning is decreasing across Native tribes, emerging generations within Native tribes are still empowering themselves through the use of language. This commentary explores both a) the complex relationship among Indigenous languages and practices of Native healing, both historically and currently, and b) the processes of rhetorical survivance that are continuing across Native American communities.

The emergence of generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools such as ChatGPT has attracted wide attention in the field of L2 writing and academic writing, but few papers to date have analysed GenAI’s potential application (positive and negative) in source use practices in academic writing. This article discusses three key aspects of source use – academic attribution, searching and reading sources, and source integration. AI tools are trialled for each aspect, followed by an overall SWOT analysis. While writers can use AI tools to assist on several source use practices, they are not recommended to use AI without a deep understanding of academic writing and source use principles. This article concludes with suggestions for student writers, academic support providers, and institutions.

Background: The bulk of international trade has led to increasing demand for specialized professional communication texts in multilingual contexts. Persuasive language is required in promotional discourse to sell products. When transactions are carried out with foreign countries, translation becomes essential for successful commercial exchange. Literature review: Persuasion requires the use of positive evaluation to describe products. This article addresses the need to contrast the expression of positive evaluation in English and Spanish online promotional cheese descriptions. Research questions: 1. What are the linguistic resources used to express positive evaluation in English and Spanish in online promotional texts of the cheese industry? 2. What is the distribution across parts of speech and semantic categories and subcategories between these two languages? 3. How can semantic tags in bilingual comparable corpora provide useful information for translation practice? Methodology: Empirical data have been extracted from Online Cheese Descriptions (OCD), a semantically tagged English-Spanish corpus, and classified using the Appraisal Framework into the subcategories of appreciation, judgment, affect, and graduation. Results and discussion: Tests of statistical significance have revealed cross-linguistic differences, mainly in appreciation, thus leading to a qualitative analysis. The findings also include a large inventory of all evaluative items that express appreciation for cheeses in both languages and general guidelines for translators. Conclusions: This multilayer corpus-based analysis has yielded relevant data that can be used to enhance the second-language writing and translation processes required for marketing cheese in English and Spanish, thus supporting international professionals in their communication in multilingual contexts.

Although research illustrates the benefits of biliteracy, most bilingual students will not have access to a bilingual education program in which they receive official instruction in all their languages. However, the English language arts can become a space where any teacher can support students’ biliteracy through purposeful curricular, instructional, and family engagement choices. This case study of two early childhood educators illustrates specific actions teachers took in their language arts instruction to support home language literacy development, along with English, even with languages they did not speak. Specifically, results illustrate that three key general ideas allowed them to support students’ biliteracy: gathering information about the students and their languages, incorporating the home languages into their classroom, and most notably, developing strong family partnerships for caregivers to play an active role in home language literacy instruction. In this article, we share their specific actions that other ELA educators can take and the response from two students from low-incidence languages: an Arabic-heritage speaker and a newcomer Russian speaker from Ukraine. This study illustrates humanizing, rather than standardizing, language arts instruction that disrupts monolingual norms in order to provide bilingual students (from emergent bilinguals to heritage speakers) a more equitable education.

Directed self-placement (DSP) allows for student agency in writing placement. DSP has been implemented in many composition programs, although it has not been used as widely for L2 writers in higher education. This study investigates the relationship between student placement decisions and students’ prior educational backgrounds, particularly in relationship to whether they had attended an English-medium high school or an intensive English program (IEP). Actual placement results via an exam were compared to 804 students’ self-placement decisions and correlated with their prior educational backgrounds. Findings indicated that most students’ DSP decisions matched actual exam placement results. However, there was a large number of DSP decisions that were higher or lower than exam placement results. Additionally, the longer students studied at an English-medium instruction high school, the more likely they were to place themselves higher than their exam placement. We conclude that DSP can be used in L2 writing programs, but with careful attention to learners’ educational backgrounds, proficiency, and sense of identity.

Despite the burgeoning research on exploring learner engagement with feedback, how second language (L2) learners’ engagement with feedback in different processing conditions influences their subsequent writing development is under-explored. This study examines the effects of individual and collaborative processing (languaging) of teacher feedback on Chinese lower-secondary school EFL learners’ writing development. Eighty-one students aged 13–14 with A1-A2 levels of English proficiency (according to the Common European Framework of Reference) from two classes and two experienced English teachers participated in the study. Students were provided with comprehensive teacher feedback and were asked to process feedback provided on three writing tasks through either individual written or collaborative oral languaging over six weeks. Pre-, post-, and delayed post-tests were administered. Students’ writing development was analysed using complexity, accuracy, and fluency measures, as well as content and organisation writing scores. Findings showed that the two conditions did not influence students’ writing complexity and fluency differently, while only the collaborative oral languaging condition contributed to students’ sustainable accuracy gains. Results based on the analytic writing scores suggested that students in the two conditions significantly improved content and organisation scores over time. Pedagogical and research implications regarding implementing the two feedback processing conditions are discussed.

The study explored EFL students' development of syntactic complexity by employing the Latent Class Growth Analysis (LCGA) approach. A total of 214 tertiary EFL students from Southwest China were invited to write four argumentative essays over an academic semester. The unconditional models of LCGA were utilized to explore the optimal latent classes of students' development trajectories of syntactic complexity. The conditional models of LCGA were employed to investigate the predictive effect of English proficiency on the optimal latent classes. Results of the unconditional models revealed different latent classes of development trajectories for six indices of syntactic complexity rather than the remaining ones, which offers tentative evidence for the heterogeneity of L2 development trajectories. Results of the conditional models showed that English proficiency did not predict the membership in these latent classes. These results are discussed and implications for L2 instruction are attempted.