




































 Bhowmik & Chaudhuri 11 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 6 Number 1 (2021): 11–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387 

“I Need My Instructor to Like Sit with Me”: Addressing Culture in L2 Writing Instruction 

 

Subrata Bhowmik 

University of Calgary 

 

Anita Chaudhuri 

University of British Columbia 

 

Abstract 

 

One of the objectives of examining culture vis-à-vis additional language (L2) writing is to 

conceptualize an effective L2 writing pedagogy (Matsuda & Atkinson, 2008). Kaplan’s (1966) 

analysis of English as an additional language (EAL) texts was a pioneering endeavour in this 

regard, although due to ensuing controversy surrounding his claims, the desired goals of his 

effort were never achieved, leaving a gap in culture studies of L2 writing (Abasi, 2012; Belcher, 

2014). This article reports on an investigation of student views on what instructors can do to help 

overcome cultural challenges L2 writers encounter in an English for academic purposes (EAP) 

context. Drawing on data from semi-structured interviews and questionnaire surveys, this 

qualitative case study examined 27 students at a Canadian university. Data analysis yielded six 

categories of instructor support: (a) providing explicit feedback on writing; (b) providing English 

text structures; (c) using exemplars; (d) creating opportunities for in-class writing and reviews; 

(e) explaining cultural differences between first language (L1) and L2 writing; and (f) providing 

more writing practice. The findings underline the importance of instructors’ roles in unpacking 

various cultural underpinnings in L2 writing. Also, they support the (re)conceptualization of L2 

writing pedagogy that integrates empirical evidence into instruction. The implications for L2 

writing instruction are discussed. 

 

Introduction 

 

Additional language (L2) writing scholars unequivocally acknowledge the important role culture 

plays in L2 writing. Much research that relates to L2 writing vis-à-vis culture has been conducted 

within the purview of contrastive rhetoric (CR), or its most recent incarnation, intercultural 

rhetoric (IR) (Connor, 2011). IR’s main precept is that different languages have different 

rhetorical thought patterns; as a result, English as an additional language (EAL) writers find it 

challenging when they write in English, for they apply their first language (L1) specific 

rhetorical thought patterns to English texts (Connor, 2011). This application results in a 

mismatch between EAL texts and the expectations of English readers (Leki, 1991), causing an 

impediment to the efficacy of texts by EAL writers. This phenomenon is palpable in post-

secondary contexts in British Columbia, where the international student population has almost 

tripled between 2010 and 2019 (e.g., see British Columbia Data Catalogue, 2020). Consequently, 

addressing cultural challenges that EAL students encounter in writing is important so that they 

are prepared to take on the academic rigours, specifically with regard to academic writing, that 

lie ahead.  

 

 Kaplan’s (1966) famous article, which marked the genesis of IR, addressed how culture 

impacts EAL student writing. The goal was to come up with a pedagogical framework to address 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387


 Bhowmik & Chaudhuri 12 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 6 Number 1 (2021): 11–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387 

cultural challenges L2 students encounter when writing in the target language (Matsuda & 

Atkinson, 2008). Unfortunately, the ensuing controversy surrounding his claim, which many L2 

scholars described as a speculative intuition rather than scientific proof (e.g., Kubota & Lehner, 

2004; Leki, 1991; Matsuda & Atkinson, 2008), took the focus off IR’s main agenda: a 

pedagogical framework to address cultural challenges in L2 writing. Although this trend is 

beginning to change with new research agendas addressing culture in L2 writing (e.g., Abasi, 

2012; Akbari, 2009; Ene, McIntosh & Connor, 2019; McIntosh, Connor & Gokpinar-Shelton, 

2017), there is a paucity of scholarship related to how instructors can help L2 writers to 

overcome challenges due to writers’ differing cultural backgrounds. Unlike previous research 

that used textual data (e.g., Connor, 2014; Kaplan, 2005), the study described in this paper drew 

on semi-structured interviews and questionnaire surveys, and was guided by the following 

research question: How can instructors help overcome cultural challenges that impact English for 

academic purposes (EAP) students’ writing?  

 

Literature Review 

 

Culture vis-à-vis language has been studied by linguists and anthropologists since the early 

twentieth century. Frank Boas pioneered this research, which was later continued by linguists 

and anthropologists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf (Hinkel, 1999; Kramsch, 2004). Sapir’s 

contention was that language is a system that describes beliefs and understanding about the 

world that a community shares, whereas Whorf’s belief was that the language system determines 

the world views and realities of people in a community (Hinkel, 1999; Kramsch, 2004). These 

two perspectives provide early accounts on language and culture. From the 1960s to the 1970s, 

culture and language research received renewed focus owing to the work by a number of 

American sociolinguists and anthropologists such as Del Hymes, John Gumperz, and Edward 

Hall who underlined the influence of culture on language and language learning (cf. Gumperz, 

1982; Hall, 1976). For example, the concept of communicative competence, first used by Hymes 

(1967) to refer to the competence that users of a language must possess, has been influential in 

L2 pedagogy. In fact, communicative language teaching (CLT) is so popular that it has been one 

of the preferred language teaching methods since its inception in the late 1960s. The core goal of 

CLT is to have learners achieve spoken, behavioural, and interpretive skills that are followed in 

the target language community (cf. Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011). This understanding of 

CLT underlines the importance scholars have ascribed to additional culture acquisition in L2 

learning. 

 

 Kaplan (1966) considered the role of culture in L2 writing and came up with a theory that 

claimed that cultural thought patterns played an important role in the rhetorical organization of 

L2 prose. Although Kaplan’s claim drew much criticism, scholars generally agree on the 

significant impact it has had on L2 writing studies (Belcher, 2014). The main objective of 

Kaplan’s theory was to come up with a sound pedagogy to address the challenges EAL students 

encountered in writing, but subsequent research on the issue somewhat stalled (e.g., Matsuda & 

Atkinson, 2008). Research on text and genre analyses, for example, has provided useful insights 

into the understanding of L2 texts in general, but it has not directly addressed L2 writing 

pedagogy.  

 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387


 Bhowmik & Chaudhuri 13 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 6 Number 1 (2021): 11–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387 

 One of the challenges researchers encounter when conceptualizing culture-sensitive L2 

writing pedagogy is the difficulty in drawing a concrete set of criteria regarding what culture 

actually is (and is not) (Atkinson, 1999; Atkinson & Matsuda, 2013; Canagarajah, 2013). This 

lack of consensus has seriously constrained research on the pedagogical implications of culture 

and L2 writing. However, new research approaches have emerged, studying culture from the 

bottom up (Atkinson & Sohn, 2013) and examining “culture as represented in the lives of its 

individual users from their perspectives” (Connor, Ene, & Traversa, 2016, p. 272), which posit 

that culture should be examined in the way it is lived (by stakeholders) rather than hypothesized 

(by scholars) (Canagarajah, 2013). The advantage of adopting a lived approach to culture is that 

it circumvents the conundrums with an all-encompassing definition of culture (Atkinson, 1999); 

instead, the focus of investigation remains on how culture is lived and practised by those whom 

it concerns most in an L2 context—the L2 learners. 

 

 Atkinson and Sohn’s (2013) study, although not directly related to writing, illustrated 

how culture is lived and practised by an L2 learner, Jija. The findings illustrated the fluid nature 

of culture as an individual holds multiple cultural footings simultaneously. The authors argued 

that a fixed, monolithic notion of culture is simply not conducive to studying L2 learning and 

that learners evolve both personally and culturally throughout their lifetime. In another study, 

Harklau (1999) illustrated how intricate issues involving culture affected four EAL learners’ 

writing in English. The author found out how a specific approach to culture affected student 

learning negatively and caused resistance in the classroom. As well, students’ own cultural 

identities were at odds with those practised by instructors, and this played out quite markedly in 

writing tasks and class discussions. Abasi (2012), in his study, found that members of a given 

language background found it easier to follow the rhetorical structures of that language and vice 

versa. He also found that students responded differently to two dissimilar texts with distinct 

rhetorical patterns (i.e., American and Iranian). These findings reaffirmed the cultural 

underpinnings of text structures in languages and how L2 instructors can integrate discipline-

specific rhetorical conventions as a learning strategy. 

 

 It may be relevant to underline the interplay of various micro cultures and its influence on 

academic writing as well. Writing scholars have pointed out how disciplinarity and genres play 

an important role in shaping the texts that students produce in academic settings (e.g., Russell, 

1997). Consequently, writers need deep knowledge about respective disciplinary conventions to 

accomplish academic writing tasks. For EAP writers, this need for deep knowledge becomes 

doubly challenging considering their limited proficiency in English and unfamiliarity with 

academic writing in a disciplinary culture (e.g., Casanave, 2008).  

 

 Recent scholarship in L2 writing has pointed out the importance of utilizing the cultural 

and linguistic resources that L2 students bring to the classroom, and translingual practices (Ene, 

McIntosh, & Connor, 2019; Lee & Canagarajah, 2018; McIntosh, Connor, & Gokpinar-Shelton, 

2017). Rinnert and Kobayashi (2016) in this regard have underlined the importance of the 

deployment of “writer knowledge” in effective L2 text construction. It is important to note that 

writer knowledge transcends various levels, including knowledge in the first and additional 

languages, educational contexts, and experience in writing, to mention a few. For example, 

Gentil (2018) maintained that L2 writers make comparisons across languages and cultures in 

order to construct L2 texts. This comparison serves to suggest that L2 writing instructional 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387


 Bhowmik & Chaudhuri 14 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 6 Number 1 (2021): 11–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387 

strategies should not only focus on delivering new ideas to be added to L2 learners’ extant 

knowledge but should also tap into their existing linguistic and cultural repertoires. 

 

 In light of the above, the current study situates itself in the conundrums of the various 

implications of lived cultural phenomena in academic writing by L2 students. Adopting a 

bottom-up approach to culture study and asking student writers about their experiences of 

academic English writing, this study fills an important gap in L2 writing scholarship related to 

how instructors can help L2 students overcome the cultural challenges in academic writing.  

 

Methods 

 

A case study approach and qualitative methodology were adopted for the study. Prior to the 

operationalization of the project, appropriate institutional ethics approval was obtained. Specific 

details are discussed below. 

 

Setting 

 

The study took place at an EAP program in a mid-sized public university in Western Canada in 

Fall 2016 and Winter 2017. This program prepares EAL students for university by providing 

English language support. Although the intake size varies from semester to semester, between 80 

and100 students enrol in the program each semester. The EAP program uses its own in-house 

tests for placing students in one of the three tiers: 1 (intermediate), 2 (upper intermediate), and 3 

(advanced). The writing courses for all three tiers meet for 100 minutes per day for four days 

each week. The content of these courses ranges from discrete-point grammar lessons, to 

recognizing and producing grammatically correct sentences and academic texts, which vary in 

length depending on the tier. For instance, tier 1 students are expected to produce short 

paragraphs whereas tier 3 students are expected to write multi-paragraph essays using secondary 

sources. Writing tasks include in-class timed writing, take home assignments, and multi-draft 

writing assignments such as term papers, analyzing graphs or charts, summarizing, and writing 

by using sources. Class activities are mostly student-centred and task-based with intermittent 

instructor led discussions. For example, typical class activities include group discussions, peer 

review of drafts, and revision activities using both peer and instructor feedback. The writing 

courses use both formative and summative feedback, and common assessment practices used are 

discrete-point grammar tests, timed writing tests, take-home assignments, multi-draft writing 

assignments, homework, midterm exams, and final exams. 

 

Participants 

 

Twenty-seven students from all three tiers of the program participated in the study. They 

represented nine different L1s and 17 nationalities. There were six male and 21 female 

participants and their average age was 27 years (48 being oldest, 17 youngest). All participant 

names used in this paper are pseudonyms. Detailed demographic information of participants is 

provided in Table 1. 

  

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387


 Bhowmik & Chaudhuri 15 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 6 Number 1 (2021): 11–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387 

Table 1 

 

Participants’ Demographic Information 

 
Participant 

Pseudonym 

Age Gender Tier Country L1 

Anam 25 F -* Saudi Arabia Arabic 

Ashley 31 F 2 South Korea Korean 

Bella 18 F 3 Venezuela Spanish 

Beth 23 F 2 Peru Spanish 

Gaia 18 F 2 Belgium French 

Reyan 18 M 1 Kuwait Arabic 

Jessica 17 F 2 China Chinese 

Krista 17 F 2 China Chinese 

Lily 37 F 3 Venezuela Spanish 

Monica 24 F 3 Algeria Arabic 

Samara 47 F 1 Saudi Arabia Arabic 

Francis 43 F 2 Mexico Spanish 

Paula 20 F 3 Colombia Spanish 

Raj 19 F 2 Bangladesh Bengali 

Ali 21 M 3 Yemen Arabic 

Star 20 F 2 China Chinese 

Summer 19 F 2 China Chinese 

Troy 47 F 3 Turkey Turkish 

Vickie 19 F 2 China Chinese 

Bob 19 M 3 China Chinese 

Amy 45 F 2 China Chinese 

Romero 48 M 3 Canada Romanian 

Jack 34 M 3 Iran Farsi 

Nima 28 F 3 Saudi Arabia Arabic 

Sarah 23 F 2 Iran Farsi 

Steven 18 M 3 Oman Arabic 

Suzy 34 F 3 Cameroon French 

*The participant did not provide the information. 

 

Data Collection 

 

The primary data for this study were drawn from semi-structured interviews (see the Appendix 

for sample interview questions), as scholars (Kaplan, 2005) have identified this to be a useful 

data source for research on this topic. A questionnaire survey was also administered to collect 

participants’ background information. This study is part of a larger project that investigated the 

cultural factors that L2 students perceived to affect their writing. 

 

Data Analysis 

 

A grounded theory approach (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Silverman, 2014) to qualitative data 

analysis was adopted, meaning a set of a priori themes were not imposed at the beginning of data 

analysis. Rather themes emerged via participant response, as we, the researchers, read through a 

portion of data for open coding (Corbin & Strauss, 1990) with the research question in mind. As 

part of the open coding process, the researchers read participant responses carefully and assigned 

a short but meaningful descriptor for each observed phenomenon in the interview transcripts 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387


 Bhowmik & Chaudhuri 16 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 6 Number 1 (2021): 11–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387 

being analyzed. Subsequently, the research assistant followed the example codes and open-coded 

the remainder of interview transcripts. After open coding, the NVivo computer program was 

used to assign each coded transcript a label and to group all coded transcripts under appropriate 

nodes. The researchers then read through all coded data to identify broad categories with a 

unique, self-explanatory descriptor that would best represent a particular teacher support that 

participants had mentioned.  

 

 Throughout the data collection and analysis process, reliability and validity of 

information was ensured. Regular correspondence was maintained between the researchers and 

research assistant for the ongoing task, while clarifications were sought at times when confusion 

arose. The researchers and research assistant together coded a portion of data to ensure inter-rater 

reliability, which was found to be around 89% for five interview transcripts or about 20% of 

data. Since the sample size was fairly large, the information gathered through interviews was 

deemed reliable.  

 

Results 

 

Participant accounts on how instructors could help overcome cultural challenges in L2 students’ 

academic writing were divided into six categories. These categories were related to providing 

explicit feedback on writing, providing English text structures, using exemplars, creating 

opportunities for in-class writing and reviews, explaining cultural differences between L1 and L2 

writing, and providing more writing practice. Below, each of these categories is discussed with 

select excerpts from interviews in a table.  

 

Provide Explicit Feedback on Writing 

 

Most participants considered instructor’s “talk” or follow-up on assignment feedback or 

comments to be an important support to overcome academic genre- and culture-related 

challenges in writing. Analysis of interview excerpts provide insights into how instructor 

facilitation to understand common errors in classrooms played out in students’ minds. They were 

interested in listening to the instructor to develop a broader, socially (i.e., academically) accepted 

understanding of textual and grammatical structures. Table 2 collates some of the common 

themes that emerged in which students expected instructors to help them navigate the unfamiliar, 

and often complex and conflicting academic writing expectations by offering one-on-one and in-

class feedback or “talk” sessions. Students like Monica, Bella, Amy, Star, and Vickie 

acknowledge the value of the instructor to “like sit with me [them]” to explain not only the 

assignment requirements but also textual features such as formality of language use, transition 

between ideas or sentences by using conjunctions, and characteristics of L1 writing that impede 

meaning making in the context of academic English writing. The following examples on the next 

page in Table 2 capture these themes. 

 

Provide English Text Structures 

 

Offering English academic text structures is another category of support that study participants 

thought instructors could provide. It is possible that because this study took place in an EAP 

context participants were particularly aware of the importance of following the conventions of 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387


 Bhowmik & Chaudhuri 17 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 6 Number 1 (2021): 11–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387 

academic writing. However, their accounts, as illustrated in Table 3 on the next page, do provide 

insights into the challenges they encountered. The interview excerpts illustrate students’ 

awareness of composing in an academic genre and the content knowledge related to the topic. 

But the English academic conventions coupled with having to translate the L1-specific content 

knowledge into writing in English were perceived to be challenging, as noted by participant Raj 

who reported “we know we have ideas about this topic, but we cannot write it.” EAP writing, as 

illustrated in the excerpts below, requires an understanding of the general principles of academic 

writing and practising the specific forms and structures of writing in the disciplines.  

 

Table 2 

 

Interview Excerpts: Provide Explicit Feedback on Writing 

 
Interview Excerpts Main Ideas 

I need my instructor to like sit with me in ½ hour or an hour and I will express 

my idea…once a week, for example, I will prepare my essay, for example, then 

he asks me to say my idea and then he will correct me. I should understand their 

culture first. When I understand their culture, I will have more ideas. I can add 

in my essay more ideas and more facts and like this. (Monica, L1 Arabic, 

Algeria) 

Create feedback 

opportunities for 

writing 

…more time with students when you’re going to study and when you are writing 

in a language is not your first one, you will always find something that is not 

easy and you need help, more like you and the teacher, more moments they will 

tell you like specific what you need to improve. (Bella, L1 Spanish, Venezuela) 

Provide feedback on 

complex ideas in 

English writing 

… we talked about our writing and my classmates had two sentences, there is no 

conjunction… I don’t know how to use the conjunction and he [the classmate] is 

also from China so we don’t know how to conjunction [combine] two sentences 

and when we ask the teacher, he give us some conjunctions, more, however, to 

connect the two sentences. (Amy, L1 Chinese, China) 

Unpack feedback on 

grammar and sentence 

construction 

How can I write academic writing that is formal? I think he [instructor] will tell 

us which sentence is informal and what kind of sentence is informal, because 

most of the sentences that he think[s] is informal, but when I write it in China, 

there is no problem, so it is difficult for me to discuss which one is formal and 

which one is informal. (Star, L1 Chinese, China) 

Unpack cultural 

aspects of writing 

 

Use Exemplars 

 

Study participants suggested (see Table 4 on the next page) that exemplars be used in writing 

instruction, providing students with models of good English academic writing. While essay 

structures as discussed above would give students ideas about the various components of an 

essay, exemplars would provide a big picture of what good essays look like. Furthermore, 

exemplars can be useful for novice writers to “self-learn” (Krista) the features of an essay such 

as the style and voice to be used in academic writing. Using model essays can also be extended 

to writing practice and analysis. Participants like Summer, Krista, and Anam talk about benefits 

of this practice beyond “getting marks” and suggest that establishing a “standard” of writing 

expectation and analyzing “every sentence together” leads to greater clarity and an improved 

final essay submission. 

  

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387


 Bhowmik & Chaudhuri 18 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 6 Number 1 (2021): 11–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387 

Table 3 

 

Interview Excerpts: Provide English Text Structures 

 
Interview Excerpts Main Ideas 

… I have good general knowledge because I have been in Canada and I read little 

bit, but still it’s hard to find ideas in other language. But what happens is I try to 

find ideas in my language, Romanian and I try to translate and to think in 

Romanian, but you have to think in English and write down your thoughts in 

English and the way it should be like introduction, paragraph, thesis sentence, 

topics. So, in Romanian language it is almost the same, but there is not so much 

structure so that I find other challenge in my writing besides the grammar. 

(Romero, L1 Romanian, Canada) 

Provide structures of 

academic English 

texts 

In writing class, I want to learn how to write academic writing properly and I give 

you an example. I have an idea, but I cannot write it so umm I want the teacher to 

help me how to write it. I hope he will teach us about that and I told him it was my 

problem…I think this is very difficult for us and we know we have ideas about this 

topic, but we cannot write it. (Raj, L1 Bengali, Bangladesh) 

Unpack academic 

writing 

… it’s important to know the general at first, the general information about how 

we can make an essay and how many sentences we need to write in an 

introduction or in the paragraph, how we can think about...it’s very simple here 

and it’s very clear and I like that. (Francis, L1 Spanish, Mexico) 

Discuss general to 

specific structures of 

academic essays 

They gave us the structure, then they gave us homeworks which we should write, 

then they…after that they will send us feedback and where we should improve, 

where are our mistakes and then we work on them. (Monica, L1 Arabic, Algeria) 

Provide feedback on 

text structures first 

before providing 

opportunities for 

writing practice 

 

Table 4 

 

Interview Excerpts: Use Exemplars 

 

 

Create Opportunities for In-Class Writing and Reviews  

 

The idea of in-class writing and review was viewed as a useful activity by study participants. As 

illustrated by interview excerpts in Table 5 below, spending in-class time with peers and 

Interview Excerpts  Main Ideas 

I think the teacher can give us a short essay with good structure and let us to 

remember it every day… to explain where is the benefit, where can you get 

points to get marks, where we can learn from this and use in our articles. I 

think this is the best way to improve our writing. (Summer, L1 Chinese, China) 

Provide model English 

essays 

… give me some examples of informal and formal [texts] and the ways I can 

learn…to tell the difference between formal and informal writing. (Star, L1 

Chinese, China) 

Provide English essays 

with good writing 

styles 

I don’t know how to write the [thesis] statement, I don’t know how to write the 

essay, so sometimes I need an sample or a standard [model] before I do some 

things and I can self-learn things which is good. (Krista, L1 Chinese, China) 

Provide English essays 

with good structural 

components  

…we should analyze every sentence together [of an example essay] and discuss 

about this, why he didn’t write this, this writer, it will be more clear to us. 

(Anam, L1 Arabic, Saudi Arabia) 

Deconstruct the 

exemplars with whole 

class for student 

learning 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387


 Bhowmik & Chaudhuri 19 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 6 Number 1 (2021): 11–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387 

instructors helped students address various cultural challenges in English writing such as the 

“order” or organization of an essay, vocabulary choices, or making discipline-specific word 

choices. Participants noted that in-class time gave them the opportunity to clarify the confusion 

they could not resolve by themselves. As well, it gave them more confidence when they worked 

in the presence of instructors and peers and discussed a range of errors. Observing how others 

write can also contribute to one’s own understanding of best practices in writing. Ultimately, as 

Summer pointed out, this opportunity to observe would address the challenge L2 writers face 

when instructors are inadvertently “too confident about us [L2 writers],” and level the playing 

field by accepting that sometimes for learners “there is no way to get how to fix this [writing]” 

by themselves. Finally, it also alleviates the issue of time constraints as it was reported that there 

was not enough time for feedback or for students to revise drafts. 

 

Table 5 

 

Interview Excerpts: Create Opportunities for In-Class Writing and Reviews  

 
Interview Excerpts  Main Ideas 

I like the idea that we can spend more time… with the instructor and do 

something in the class … it’s better than to do time at home, yourself... if 

you do it with the other, it is more helpful. (Nima, L1 Arabic, Saudi Arabia) 

Create more in-class 

writing opportunities 

…because we do not have enough time in school and sometimes I spend 

hours to try to find the correct word, the correct things. And sometimes I 

search and that’s why I feel that it is better to have writing in class in order 

to measure the capacity or improve it, to have better exercise, because when 

you are working, you do not have much time to spend. You need to respond 

right away…when I see my colleagues, my friends writing, I see that hmm, I 

did the same thing. But when you write [alone] you do not notice… we need 

to have more time to learn in class and more time to review our book with 

the teacher. (Troy, L1 Turkish, Turkey) 

Create an enabling peer-

learning environment in 

the classroom 

Maybe it helps to start from the most bottom level to take all the students to 

go together, because [there] are difference between one student to another 

one and the teacher have to cover all the points …I think you will never 

improve to writing if the teachers don’t tell you oh no this order, this is 

conclusion, this is right with your teachers advice so you can catch your 

errors. (Reyan, L1 Arabic, Kuwait)  

Address a range of errors 

in-class for parity among 

diverse learners 

… sometimes the teacher is too confident about us… We are students and 

we need to learn, and sometimes the teacher [would] want to teach us some 

grammar mistakes [in texts] because he thinks we can find it by ourselves 

but actually some students can’t... there is no way to get how to fix this… 

(Summer, L1 Chinese, China) 

Recognize students’ 

cultural challenges in 

English writing  

 

Explain Cultural Differences Between L1 and L2 Writing 

 

Some participants reported (see Table 6 below) that while they were aware that there were 

differences between writing in English and writing in their L1, they were not fully certain of 

these differences. Nonetheless, student writers seemed to value these cultural differences and 

considered them as learning opportunities. Interview excerpts suggest that student writers found 

it useful to gain insights into how their L1 might influence English writing. This follows that 

instructor support in helping recognize the cultural differences of writing between students’ L1 

and English would be useful for students.   

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387


 Bhowmik & Chaudhuri 20 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 6 Number 1 (2021): 11–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387 

Table 6 

 

Interview Excerpts: Explain Cultural Differences Between L1 and L2 Writing 

 
Interview Excerpts Main Ideas 

I would like my teacher to tell me about my culture, because yes I have…many 

books in Spanish, but I would like to know the differences, because maybe it 

would give me more light in what I am doing [when writing in English]. 

(Francis, L1 Spanish, Mexico)  

Help recognize L1-

specific cultural 

factors affecting 

writing in English 

…when I write an essay, I don’t think the sentence is not correct, but my 

teacher always says the sentence is influenced by my first language, but I don’t 

know how it is influenced it and how it is not correct and my first language 

how it influences it. I can’t get the point. I don’t know the reason. (Vickie, L1 

Chinese, China) 

Discuss L1 influences 

on English writing 

I have to learn and I am working on it…when I have some questions, I go 

directly to the person or make some phone calls or email them…that’s the way 

I find easy for me to figure out what is the way and what are those difference 

between their two manners and two cultures. (Reyan, L1 Arabic, Kuwait) 

Help learn cultural 

differences of writing 

between the student’s 

L1 and English 

…to know that, for example, in Asian culture, sometimes they try to talk about 

and at the end say the main idea at the end, everything. It’s different, but it’s 

interesting to know how, maybe for my classmates that are in that culture, to 

understand how they are writing in their own culture in comparing with the 

way they are learning now. (Sarah, L1 Farsi, Iran)  

Help compare, learn 

and apply the 

knowledge of cultural 

differences to English 

writing 

 

Table 7 

 

Interview Excerpts: Provide More Writing Practice 

 
Interview Excerpts Main Ideas 

I think we should have more writing practice tasks…let’s practise writing a 

thesis statement or let’s practise paraphrasing. We have to practise task and 

then that test. So, in theory there’s only one chance to practise, but throughout 

the week, we should…it would be a great idea to practise paraphrasing or how 

to quote properly, like do the writing and then have the practice test and then 

that test. (Paula, L1 Spanish, Colombia) 

Provide shorter 

writing tasks for 

focused practice 

…when I write something…I don’t have lots of problem with grammar…we 

actually want to learn about how to write…and academic essay, this type of 

things. (Raj, L1 Bengali, Bangladesh) 

Provide writing tasks 

to help learn how to 

write 

Basically, I need to learn how to express myself, express my ideas, good 

summary…good examples in essays, writing essays, writing paragraphs, 

papers, it is difficult and how to describe something in academic way. Umm its 

okay with grammar, they teach grammar, but we need to improve the more the 

real academic writing, essays, paragraphs, quotations, describe chart. (Beth, 

L1 Spanish, Peru) 

Provide writing tasks 

to help improve 

expression 

Like he [instructor] said you need to practise writing more by putting yourself 

in a situation with a specific time and this will help you come up with more 

ideas and more sentences and that’s what I did and that’s why I think I am 

improving with this. (Samara, L1 Arabic, Saudi Arabia) 

Provide timed writing 

tasks to simulate tests 

 

Provide More Writing Practice 

 

Several participants indicated that instructors can create more opportunities for low-stakes 

writing tasks. For some, practising writing in English would help them develop clearer ideas 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387


 Bhowmik & Chaudhuri 21 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 6 Number 1 (2021): 11–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387 

about different sub-tasks such as writing thesis statements and integrating research into writing 

through paraphrasing and quoting. Other participants were willing to write more to learn about 

academic genres and engage with various rhetorical choices and work on appropriate expressions 

for different contexts of writing. The excerpts in Table 7 on the previous page illustrate this. 

 

Discussion and Implications 

 

Culture in L2 literature is a contested topic and there are good reasons for this. After all, each 

individual represents a unique culture (cf. Atkinson, 1999; Atkinson & Sohn, 2013). Despite this 

individual variation, L2 scholars generally agree that culture plays an important role in various 

L2 learning phenomena. From that perspective, the findings of this study provide an emic view 

of L2 writers’ perceptions of how instructors can help them to overcome the cultural challenges 

in an EAP writing context. This is a departure from research that has typically relied on etic 

perspectives and textual data for culture research in L2 writing (e.g., Connor, 2014). Although 

case studies warrant caution in the interpretation of the results, in this study the research question 

directly relates to a pedagogical issue—i.e., what instructors can do to help students overcome 

challenges due to their cultural background. Thus, the six categories of support that have 

emerged from this study can be part of an overarching pedagogical framework in an EAP writing 

classroom. For this reason, in a context like British Columbia, where the EAP student population 

is on the rise and post-secondary institutions are looking for ways to support them (e.g., Landry, 

2019), the findings of this study are particularly relevant. 

 

 Generally speaking, the findings indicate that instructors have an important role to play in 

helping students overcome cultural challenges in EAP writing. L2 students need support in 

unpacking various cultural underpinnings in English academic writing, many of which may 

cause major constraints in their performance. For instance, EAP students may appear to be 

unsure about culturally loaded concepts such as thesis statements and essays (e.g., as noted by 

the participant Krista) as well as academic English text structures used for instructional purposes 

that are taken for granted by instructors. A useful strategy to address this issue would be 

“socializing intellectual talk” that recognizes an instructor’s in-class explanations on a writing 

assignment, follow-up responses, and discussions as important constituents of building an 

effective learning culture (Parsons, 2017, p. 75). 

 

 Additionally, some L2 students may understand the theoretical aspects of a particular 

concept in EAP writing; however, they need exemplars and activities that deconstruct texts for 

clarity. Instructors, thus, need to offer culturally responsive support in student writing, much like 

what Lillis and Curry (2010) recommend for literacy development. Since instructors are at the 

frontline of L2 students’ writing development, they need to be proactive in playing the role of 

cultural brokers for learners, so students gain an understanding of L2 text structures and 

assignment expectations. Interestingly, such an L2 writing teaching approach aligns with most 

recent scholarship in L2 writing pedagogy that calls for implementation of Systemic Functional 

Linguistics (SFL) or SFL- and genre-based pedagogy through a Teaching/Learning Cycle’s 

(TLC) (Rose & Martin, 2012; Rothery, 1996) Deconstruction, Joint Construction and 

Independent Construction stages (cf. Caplan, 2019; Caplan & Farling, 2016). In SFL-based 

writing pedagogy, the functional aspect of language use is of utmost importance as writing is 

considered to be a means to achieve certain communicative functions. Consequently, students are 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387


 Bhowmik & Chaudhuri 22 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 6 Number 1 (2021): 11–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387 

introduced to specific genres. They then participate in deconstructing the texts to understand a 

given genre’s functions and how those functions are achieved. Subsequently, students go through 

the joint and independent construction stages as they write collaboratively and independently to 

consolidate their knowledge. Specific examples of this writing pedagogy can be found in Caplan 

and Farling (2016) as well as de Oliveira and Lan (2014). 

 

 As several participants indicated that they desired teacher feedback on writing, the 

current study provides insights into how feedback can be directed for student benefits in the EAP 

classroom. Findings indicate that in spite of the efficacy of the use of implicit feedback in error 

correction, in order to help L2 writers overcome cultural challenges in writing, teachers need to 

provide explicit feedback. As well, teacher feedback should not be limited to mechanics and 

discourse-level issues in writing. Rather, feedback on the cultural appropriateness of texts, 

culture-specific writing styles and text patterns is also important. In fact, some L2 writers may 

need such feedback to get them started with producing target language texts. Manchón’s (2017) 

distinction between feedback for acquisition and feedback for accuracy is relevant here, as L2 

students need to focus on acquisition first to overcome challenges due to cultural incongruences 

in L2 writing. 

 

 Availability of time is an important consideration vis-a-vis instructor feedback. Limited 

time means instructors can reach fewer students and discussion topics. There are ways to address 

this issue: utilizing flipped classrooms and encouraging peer feedback. The concept of flipping 

instruction implies that students would spend more time in the classroom “for practice, 

discussions, and learning activities that are designed to promote higher-order thinking” (Mori, 

Omori, & Sato, 2016, p. 731). By utilizing flipped classrooms, instructors can create more in-

class writing opportunities, encouraging students to ask questions about various global issues, 

including those that have cultural connotations such as text structures, L1 and L2 cultural 

differences, and strengths and weaknesses of example texts. This use of flipped classroom 

approaches will enable students to spend more time writing. Flipped classrooms also allow 

feedback to be prompt as desired by students, evidenced in Troy’s comment that “you need to 

respond right away.” On the other hand, peer feedback, in spite of its limitations, provides 

instructors the flexibility to discuss other views and ways to develop academic writing skills. 

Additionally, peer feedback affords intercultural mingling in the classroom, promoting 

cosmopolitan and translingual practices (Canagarajah, 2013) in writing. 

 

 Somewhat related to the above, this study provides empirical evidence of what Leki 

(1991) speculated as the pedagogical implications of IR about three decades ago—it is important 

for instructors to address culture-specific writing differences in English and other languages. 

This call for attention to culture-specific writing differences raises the question—to what extent 

can an instructor provide students with effective writing lessons with diverse EAP classes in 

mind? A practical goal for teachers would be to help raise student awareness about the various 

linguistic and cultural resources they have at their disposal as multilingual writers (Ene, 

McIntosh, & Connor, 2019, p. 109) and emphasize that students’ writing performance is not 

dependent upon target language proficiency alone, it depends on language-specific text patterns 

also (Abasi, 2012; Leki, 1991). Thus, consciousness-raising activities along with focused 

feedback on text structures can help students overcome many of the cultural challenges. 

 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387


 Bhowmik & Chaudhuri 23 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 6 Number 1 (2021): 11–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387 

 The findings further suggest that instructors need to be mindful about maintaining a 

balance between students’ actual abilities and assigned writing tasks. If instructors have 

unreasonably high expectations, especially regarding their knowledge about culturally loaded 

concepts such as thesis statements or essays, this possibility of unreasonably high expectations 

may give rise to confusion, as reflected in Summer’s comment, “maybe sometimes the teacher is 

too confident about us.” Findings indicate that L2 writers expect writing instructors to clarify 

concepts for all students, if necessary, by “start[ing] from the most bottom level” (Reyan) and 

providing feedback on writing before assigning graded tasks. It also appears that cultural 

incongruences in writing may occur in the unlikeliest of circumstances as the nature of cultural 

implications for writing are unpredictable, ongoing, local, conflictual, and disperse (e.g., 

Canagarajah, 2013). This potential for cultural incongruences implies that writing instructors 

cannot afford to generalize students’ writing challenges owing to their differing cultural 

backgrounds. 

 

 An inductive or bottom-up approach to writing instruction might offer a solution 

especially because participants want “examples all of the time” (Romero). In an inductive 

approach to teaching writing, model texts will be at the forefront of instructional practices. 

Instructors do not teach explicit rules; instead, teachers and students analyze exemplars as a 

whole class (i.e., see the Deconstruction stage discussed above) to identify target text structures 

and writing patterns applicable to a task. Students actively engage with texts and contexts to 

critically examine various L2 writing concepts such as “voice,” “originality,” and “clarity” that 

are presumed to be culturally loaded (e.g., Atkinson, 2003, p. 6). Once these concepts are 

sufficiently clear to the class, the instructor can engage students in a whole class writing activity 

as part of a Joint Construction task (Caplan, 2019; Caplan & Farling, 2016). Joint Construction 

will help eliminate cultural incongruences in L2 writing, and most importantly, help students 

experience how meaningful texts are produced utilizing the language and context. 

 

 An inductive approach to instruction will promote autonomous learning. For instance, 

learners can self-discover cultural influences on texts. Sometimes students may have ideas but be 

hesitant when organizing texts due to their disparate literacy and cultural backgrounds. Adopting 

inductive instruction and analyzing model texts in the classroom will help L2 writers feel more 

confident about producing texts in the target language as students will experience first-hand how 

language is used in writing for meaningful communication. Difficulties with L2 text structures 

have been part of empirical research (e.g., Abasi, 2012). Hence, adopting inductive teaching and 

creating opportunities for more writing practices are sound pedagogical choices. More practice, 

with prompts to address various academic genres, has deeper implications as learners adapt to L2 

text features and are better prepared to address a writing scenario, audience, and improve test-

taking skills.  

 

 Finally, the findings of this study make the case that all facets of human actions are 

steeped in culture—individual, shared and borrowed. It is an indispensable part of everything 

people do, experience, or enact. As a result, teaching L2 writing entails the knowledge of 

cultural differences and how that impacts the culture of teaching and learning. In light of this, the 

implications of this study, in terms of what instructors can do to address cultural challenges of 

student writers in the EAP classroom, can be summarized as follows:  

 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387


 Bhowmik & Chaudhuri 24 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 6 Number 1 (2021): 11–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387 

 Facilitate cultural exchanges: “When I understand their [peers’] culture, I will have more 

ideas” (Monica)  

 Teach, support, and encourage: “we know we have ideas about this topic, but we cannot 

write it” (Raj) 

 Deconstruct good writing in the target culture and discuss the features of good writing: 

“we should analyze every sentence together [of an exemplar] and discuss…why he didn’t 

write this, this writer” (Anam) 

 Avoid assuming all L2 student writers’ knowledge about academic English writing and 

culture is comprehensive: “… sometimes the teacher is too confident about us” (Summer)  

 Translate the influence of the L1 into the L2: “tell me about my culture” (Francis)  

 Reconceptualize assessment procedures to incorporate room for practice: “let’s 

practise… and then that test” (Paula)  

 

 One needs to be mindful that these lived experiences are emergent, ongoing, and 

contested, as argued by leading L2 scholars (cf. Belcher, 2014; Canagarajah, 2013). Therefore, 

the findings may not be generalizable, and as with any empirical study, further research needs to 

incorporate other EAP writing contexts. 

 

Conclusion 

 

The current study investigated student views on what instructors can do to help them overcome 

culture related L2 writing challenges. In spite of useful insights that the findings of this study 

have provided, there are a few limitations of this research. First, the study occurred in an EAP 

context at a Canadian institution. Future studies can implement a broader scale (local and 

international) and multiple contexts of L2 writing (e.g., graduate-level, discipline-specific) to 

enhance the generalizability of results. As well, given the limited English proficiency of 

participants, there may have been a mismatch between participants’ intended message and what 

they could actually communicate. Consequently, future studies may explore students’ 

perceptions of culture-related challenges and instructional needs and track if these perceptions 

evolve over time. Finally, other sources of data, such as focus group interviews, surveys, 

reflective writing, and writing journals can be included to complement interview data and 

triangulate findings.  

 

 Despite the limitations, this study is an addition to culture research in L2 writing and a 

springboard for future inquiry on this important issue. The findings yielded six categories that 

provide a culturally nuanced pedagogical framework for L2 writing classrooms. This study takes 

into account the keen observations of study participants to provide insights into what tasks and 

learning practices can enhance L2 writers’ academic experience.  

 

Acknowledgements 

 

The authors would like to thank the participants for agreeing to take part in this study, and the 

Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning at the University of Calgary for the SoTL grant that 

made this work possible. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor of 

the BC TEAL Journal for their feedback. 

 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387


 Bhowmik & Chaudhuri 25 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 6 Number 1 (2021): 11–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387 

References 

 

Abasi, A. R. (2012). The pedagogical value of intercultural rhetoric: A report for a Persian-as-a-

foreign-language classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 195–220. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.05.010  

Akbari, N. (2009). Intercultural rhetoric in higher education: The case of Iranian students’ 

textual practices in North American graduate schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. 

Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa. 

Atkinson, D. (1999). TESOL and culture. TESOL Quarterly, 33(4), 625-654. 

https://doi.org/10.2307/3587880  

Atkinson, D. (2003). L2 writing in the post-process era: Introduction. Journal of Second 

Language Writing, 12(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00123-6  

Atkinson, D., & Matsuda, P. K. (2013). Intercultural rhetoric: A conversation—the sequel. In D. 

Belcher & G. Nelson (Eds.), Critical and corpus-based approaches to intercultural 

rhetoric (pp. 227–242). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. 

Atkinson, D., & Sohn, J. (2013). Culture from the bottom up. TESOL Quarterly, 47(4), 669–693. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.104  

Belcher, D. (2014). What we need and don’t need intercultural rhetoric for: A retrospective and 

prospective look at an evolving research area. Journal of Second Language writing, 25, 

59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.06.003  

British Columbia Data Catalogue. (2020). Domestic and international student headcount by 

economic development region and institution. 

https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/domestic-and-international-student-headcount-

by-economic-development-region-and-institution  

Canagarajah, S. (2013). From intercultural rhetoric to cosmopolitan practice: Addressing new 

challenges in lingua franca English. In D. Belcher & G. Nelson (Eds.), Critical and 

corpus-based approaches to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 203–226). Ann Arbor, MI: 

University of Michigan Press. 

Caplan, N. A. (2019). Learning through language: A response to Polio, “Keeping the language in 

second language classes,” Journal of Second Language Writing, 46, 1–2. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100677  

Caplan, N., & Farling, M. (2016). A dozen heads are better than one: Collaborative writing in 

genre-based pedagogy. TESOL Journal, 8, 564–581. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.287  

Casanave, C. P. (2008). “The stigmatizing effect of Goffman’s stigma label: A response to John 

Flowerdew.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(4), 264–267. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.10.013  

Connor, U. (2011). Intercultural rhetoric in the writing classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: University of 

Michigan Press. 

Connor, U. (2014). Comments on Xiaoming Li’s “Are ‘cultural differences a mere fiction’?” 

Journal of Second Language Writing, 25, 121–122. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.06.009  

Connor, U., Ene, E., & Traversa, A. (2016). Intercultural rhetoric. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw 

(Eds.), The routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 270–282). New 

York, NY: Routledge. 

Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and 

evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593  

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.05.010
https://doi.org/10.2307/3587880
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00123-6
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.104
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.06.003
https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/domestic-and-international-student-headcount-by-economic-development-region-and-institution
https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/domestic-and-international-student-headcount-by-economic-development-region-and-institution
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100677
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.287
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.10.013
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.06.009
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593


 Bhowmik & Chaudhuri 26 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 6 Number 1 (2021): 11–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387 

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for 

developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  

De Oliveira, L. C., & Lan, S. W. (2014). Writing science in an upper elementary classroom: A 

genre-based approach to teaching English language learners. Journal of Second 

Language Writing, 25, 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.05.001  

Ene, E., McIntosh, K., & Connor, U. (2019). Using intercultural rhetoric to examine translingual 

practices of postgraduate L2 writers of English. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 

105–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100664  

Gentil, G. (2018). Modern languages, bilingual education, and translation studies: The next 

frontiers in WAC/WID research and instruction? Across the Disciplines, 15, 114–129. 

https://doi.org/10.37514/ATD-J.2018.15.3.16  

Gumperz, J. J. (Ed.). (1982). Language and social identity. Cambridge, UK: CUP. 

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York, NY: Anchor Books. 

Harklau, L. (1999). Representing culture in the ESL writing classroom. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), 

Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 109–130). Cambridge, UK: CUP.  

Hinkel, E. (1999). Introduction: Culture in research and second language pedagogy. In E. Hinkel 

(Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 1–7). Cambridge, UK: CUP 

Hymes, D. (1967). Models of the interaction of language and social setting. Journal of Social 

Issues, 23(2), 8–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1967.tb00572.x  

Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 

16(1–2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x  

Kaplan, R. B. (2005). Contrastive rhetoric. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second 

language teaching and learning (pp. 375–392). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Kramsch, C. (2004). Language, thought, and culture. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The 

handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 235–261). Malden, MA: Blackwell. 

Kubota, R., & Lehner, A. (2004). Toward critical contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second 

Language Writing, 13, 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.003  

Landry, M. H. (2019). The Efficacy of Teaching Independent Study Skills Within English for 

Academic Purposes Programs. BC TEAL Journal, 4(1), 1–12. 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v4i1.316  

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching. 

Oxford, UK: OUP. 

Lee, E., & Canagarajah, S. (2018). The connection between transcultural dispositions and 

translingual practices in academic writing. Journal of Multicultural Discourses,14(1), 

14–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2018.1501375  

Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. 

TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587031  

Lillis, T., & Curry, M. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices 

of publishing in English. London, UK: Routledge. 

Manchón, R. M. (2017). The multifaceted and situated nature of the interaction between 

language and writing in academic settings. In J. Bitchener, N. Storch, & R. Wette (Eds.), 

Teaching writing for academic purposes to multilingual students: Instructional 

approaches (pp. 183–199). New York, NY: Routledge. 

  

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.05.001
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100664
https://doi.org/10.37514/ATD-J.2018.15.3.16
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1967.tb00572.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.003
https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v4i1.316
https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2018.1501375
https://doi.org/10.2307/3587031


 Bhowmik & Chaudhuri 27 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 6 Number 1 (2021): 11–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387 

Matsuda, P. K., & Atkinson, D. (2008). A conversation on contrastive rhetoric: Dwight Atkinson 

and Paul Kei Matsuda talk about issues, conceptualizations, and the future of contrastive 

rhetoric. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, & Rozycki, W. V. (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: 

Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 277–298). Philadelphia, NJ: John Benjamins. 

McIntosh, K. Connor, U., & Gokpinar-Shelton, E. (2017). What intercultural rhetoric can bring 

to EAP/ESP studies in an English as a lingua franca world. Journal of English for 

Academic Purposes, 29, 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.09.001  

Mori, Y, Omori, M., & Sato, K. (2016). The impact of flipped online Kanji instruction on written 

vocabulary learning for introductory and intermediate Japanese language students. 

Foreign Language Annals, 49(4), 729–749. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12222  

Parsons, C. S. (2017). Socializing intellectual talk: A case study of instructor follow-up 

statements in classroom discourse. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 

17(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.14434/v17i1.20514  

Rinnert, C., & Kobayashi, H. (2016). Multicompetence and multilingual writing. In R. M. 

Manchón, & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.). Handbook of second and foreign language writing 

(pp. 365–385). Boston, MA: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511335-020  

Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and 

pedagogy in the Sydney School. London, UK: Equinox. 

Rothery, J. (1996). Making changes: Developing an educational linguistics. In R. Hasan, & G. 

Williams (Eds.). Literacy in society (pp. 86–123). Harlow, UK: Longman. 

Russell, D. R. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. 

Written Communication, 14(4), 504–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088397014004004  

Silverman, D. (2014). Interpreting qualitative data (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 

 

Appendix  

 

Semi-Structured Interview Questions 

 

1. What does “culture” mean to you? Can you give an example?  

2. Now that you’re living in a different country, what are the differences you’ve seen between 

your culture and the new culture?  

3. Can you talk about your writing in your native language as well as in English? Are they the 

same or different? How? Give examples. 

4. How do these differences or similarities affect your writing? Can you explain with 

examples? 

5. Based on your understanding of culture, do you think culture is related to writing? Is it 

related to your English writing? In what ways? 

6. What challenges do you usually face in your academic English writing because of the 

cultural factors you have mentioned? How do you deal with these challenges? Can you 

explain with examples? 

7. Do you think your writing instructors can help you overcome the challenges in writing 

because of cultural factors you have just described? If so, how? 

8. Can you provide specific examples how instructors can help you overcome the challenges 

due to various cultural factors you have described? 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.09.001
https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12222
https://doi.org/10.14434/v17i1.20514
https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511335-020
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088397014004004


 Bhowmik & Chaudhuri 28 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 6 Number 1 (2021): 11–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387 

 
The BC TEAL Journal is licensed under a 

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. 

Copyright rests with the author(s). 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.387
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

