It is popularly believed that instructors teach the way they were taught what Lortie (1975, p.61) “apprenticeship of observation.” If, however, an L2 writing instructor teaches the way he was taught, he will end up teaching either applied linguistic or composition, not L2 writing. This is because as an intellectual formation, L2 emerges fairly recently and has not established its independent principles and procedures of teaching. It, then, has to depend on its feeder disciplines such as composition studies and applied linguistics (Silva, 2006) as it strives to become an independent intellectual formation. Paradoxically, the field of L2 writing as an intellectual formation is essentially never independent, in that it is an extension or outgrowth of both applied linguistic and composition studies. Consequently, the background training of instructors in such a field is complex and time-consuming as well as evolving. While the background training of L2 instructors entails hybridity, the mode of instruction is monolithic, for L2 instruction is not site-specific (Matsuda & Hamill, 2014). Both in ESL and EFL contexts, the mode of teaching is ideally identical. Indeed, because the training base of L2 writing revolves around North American, where it originates from, (Bazerman, 2013; Silva, 2006), and the teaching and learning of English is a global phenomenon, instructors’ background training has become a critical issue for L2 instruction.
This is no accident that the promotion of the teaching of L2 writing is somewhat scuppered by a lack of adequately prepared instructors. Even an adequately prepared instructor may not teach effectively given the influences of the contributing fields – composition studies and applied linguistics- that are implicated in the training of an L2
instructor. As an intellectual formation, while composition studies is overtly radical and political, ESL is conservative (Santos, 1992). Besides, even though ESL is a non-scientific field (Raimes, 1983), it is based on an objective epistemology (Silva, 2005). Essentially, the field of L2 writing is neither political, nor is it based on an objective epistemology. It is based on an interactionist epistemology (Silva, 2005), when it has to devolve into something
different despite being dependent on its feeder disciplines. In a situation such as this, the background training of an L2 instructor breeds some potential pitfalls both for ESL and EFL contexts to optimize learning outcome. In an ESL context, the dominant tendency of teaching L2 writing as Reid (1987) contends is often to use materials that have been developed with the learning needs of native speakers in mind. Since L1 writing is irreducibly different from L2 writing, an instructional approach that conflates ESL and EFL contexts is essentially flawed. Therefore, the background training of an L2 instructor must address context-specific insidious issues.
For an EFL context, the teaching of writing is even more neglected because of instructors’ background in and inclination toward literature in that composition is the step child of literature (Harris, 1990). In Bangladesh, for example, until 1993 when the private university was launched, systemic instruction in composition was never a component of English studies (Shamsuzzaman & Everatt, 2013). English studies used to revolve around literature, which presupposed mastery of grammar. Grammar study is marginally necessary for composing (Zamel, 1976), and the teaching of literature is based on philosophy, which does not align with that of composition. For example, Elbow (2002) contends that a literature classroom is lecture-based, while composition classroom is workshop-based. In composition studies, Elbow (2002) continues, work means teaching, whereas in literature, work means research, which has nothing to do with the genuine needs of students. This patently means that with a literature background, no teacher perhaps qualifies to teach composition.
Certainly, then, no one qualifies to teach L2 writing without undergoing proper background training. As such, Silva (1993) contends that ESL students should be taught by teachers who are cognizant of, sensitive to, and able to deal positively and effectively with socio-cultural, rhetorical, and linguistic differences of their students.
Likewise, Williams (2005) claims that an L2 instructor has to wear many hats in any classroom, in that effective teaching is contingent upon informed decisions about students and the contexts of teaching. Perhaps the most critical component that the training of an L2 instructor should include is knowledge about the diverse backgrounds of L2 writers.
Instruction in L2 writing may have taken place in a specific-site or a classroom, but all L2 writers will not learn to write in a similar fashion. Because of the diversities in their
backgrounds, their styles and strategies of learning will vary, and they will need more time and individual attention than their native counterparts to learn to write (Kietlinska, 2006). For teaching L2 writers, it is not inevitable that an instructor has to be a multilingual, but it is a fundamental prerequisite that an L2 instructor is multicultural. Zamel (1997) contends that an L2 instructor must not be trapped by his own cultural tendency. For any L2 instructor,
intercultural capital predicts effective teaching especially in an ESL context. Nonetheless, Raimes (1983) has been always germane when it comes to teaching L2 writing and instructors’ background:
There is no answer to the question of how to teach in ESL classes. There are as many answers as there are teachers and teaching styles, or learners and learning styles. (p.5)
What this implies is that L2 instructors, regardless of contexts, hardly teach alike. Similarly, L2 writers, regardless of contexts, do not learn to write alike. Because the process of writing follows some predictable steps and stages, so does the process of teaching. It is completely unlikely that the diversity of L2 learners’ backgrounds can ever be eliminated. Therefore, how the diversities among the L2 writing students are addressed in the process of teaching writing should be critically considered in the training of L2 writing instructors.