Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Recently writing centers are expanding to Asian higher education contexts. However, there is a scarcity of research from writing centers in Asian settings and from non-native English speaker (NNES) tutor perspectives. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to enrich understandings of the challenges and expectations perceived by NNES tutors during tutoring writing sessions with intermediate level Japanese EFL (English as Foreign Language) students. A qualitative approach was employed utilizing two data collection methods: 16 interviews with writing tutors, and two quasi-focus groups. Thematic analysis of the data revealed five major categories for challenges perceived by NNES tutors: miscommunication, student silence, mismatched expectations, interpretation of teacher feedback and error correction. It is argued that these are the main challenges that EFL writing tutors face and hence indicate the necessity to train tutors how to deal with them. The implications for creating Asian writing centers and tutor training are discussed.

Plain Language Summary

Recently writing centers are expanding to Asian university settings. However, not much research has been conducted on Asian Writing Centers. Therefore, this study aims to improve our understanding of the difficulties and expectations that Non-Native English speaker (NNES) tutors face when helping intermediate-level Japanese EFL (English as a Foreign Language) students with their writing. Through interviewing 8 tutors and conducting focus groups data showed that tutors experience five major challenges: miscommunication, student silence, mismatched expectations, interpretation of teacher feedback and error correction.

Keywords

writing center EFL writers language teaching language studies humanities applied linguistics linguistics non-native English-speaking tutors

Introduction

Internationalization has compelled Asian universities in EFL contexts to borrow the policy of the “writing center” and integrate this service into their institutions (Okuda, 2019a; Reichelt et al., 2013). Currently, in Japan alone, there are now approximately 19 writing centers, and the number is growing annually (The Writing Centers Association of Japan, 2022). Often these universities hire non-native speakers of English (NNES) to serve as peer tutors for other NNES students. Unfortunately, there is little research on foreign language writing tutoring for English as a foreign language (EFL) students especially dealing with intermediate EFL students. Recently, important research from EFL writing center settings examined how tutees perceive NNES tutors (Okuda, 2019b), however, there is yet to be a study from the tutors’ perspective on the challenges NNES tutors experience when conducting writing center tutoring in EFL contexts. Furthermore, it is important to examine the challenges tutors face when dealing with intermediate level tutees, given that these students make up the majority of EAP students in an EFL environment (Machili et al., 2020).These students have a specific set of linguistic needs and writing center research has overwhelmingly focused on Advanced L2 writers in ESL contexts (Bruce & Rafoth, 2009; Myers, 2003; Nakamaru, 2010a, 2010b; Thonus, 2004) neglecting less proficient learners in EFL contexts.

To address this gap in the literature and diversify writing center practices this small-scale exploratory study examines the issues NNES tutors encountered during writing tutoring with intermediate level (B1) Japanese EFL learners over a 16-week period. Through the examination of interviews with tutors and quasi-focus groups, this study asserts that NNES tutors in EFL writing centers face five main challenges: miscommunication, student silence, mismatched expectations, interpretation of teacher feedback, and error correction. Although this study is locally bound, its implications are of interest to the growing field of international writing centers within Asia in EFL contexts.

Literature Review

EFL/ESL Writing Centers

For writing center research, it is crucial to differentiate between ESL and EFL contexts because in ESL settings in higher education, students are immersed in the language, taking courses in English and have more opportunities for English language practice and exposure, while in EFL settings students have limited opportunities for practice and exposure. As mentioned previously, most research on second language learners in the writing center has come from ESL environments in higher education contexts, but recently EFL writing center research has emerged focusing on tutee’s perceptions (Chen, 2010; Okuda, 2019b), L1 language use (Nakatake, 2013; Sadoshima et al., 2009), discursive behavior (Chen & Wang, 2022; Y. J. Kim, 2007), and interactional dynamics (Jones et al., 2006).

Specifically, studies in EFL contexts have focused on tutor dominance and found that NNES tutors in EFL contexts dominate the tutorial. Past research has characterized Asian students as silent or passive to account for tutor dominance (Anderson, 1993; Nimmannit, 1998). Current research, as well as this author, challenges research that stereotypes Asian learners as silent and passive (Cao, 2014; Ellwood & Nakane 2009; Sato, 2020; Zhou et al., 2005). Rather, research supports that one of the reasons students are less active and collaborative is because the tutorial is conducted in the student’s second language, English. Through transcript analysis of writing center sessions at a Hong Kong university, Jones et al.’s (2006) found that face-to-face peer tutoring interactions appear to encourage more hierarchical relationships in which tutors dominate the conversation. The researchers noted that all the sessions were done entirely in English, a language that the students, Cantonese speakers, do not often utilize in face-to-face interactions outside of the classroom, which perhaps led to both the tutor and the tutee adhering to cultural norms of teacher-student interaction that are prevalent in Chinese educational institutions. Additionally, Y. J. Kim’s (2007) discourse analysis of writing center tutorials in a Korean university with NNES tutors, found similar results when the tutorial was conducted in English, the students’ second language. Kim concluded that conducting the tutorial in the student’s second language enhances tutor authority and formality of the writing session.

One key contributor to discursive dominance can be the implied (if not actual) language ability gap between the tutor and the tutee, even when they are both nonnative English speakers (Jones et al., 2006). In contrast to when the session is conducted in the students’ L1 the tutors are more likely to be seen as peers rather than authorities (Sadoshima et al., 2009). Nakatake (2013) found that specifically Japanese students in writing center tutorials, are more active and involved in the discussion when the session is conducted in their L1, Japanese. Besides discursive dominance when the session is conducted in the students’ L2, miscommunication (Chen & Wang, 2022; Lape, 2020; Mack, 2012) and silence (S. Kim et al., 2016; S. Wang & Moskal, 2019) can be a common occurrence.

Another key issue for both ESL and EFL writing centers is how to deal with sentence level errors, however, most of the research on this topic comes from an ESL perspective. Many writing centers in Western contexts have a “no proofreading policy” mainly because the value of error correction in terms of long-term improving accuracy and fluency is still controversial in applied linguistics, with scholars on both sides arguing for and against its effectiveness (I. Lee, 2020). This no proofreading policy creates problems for L2 writers in both ESL and EFL contexts because these students require more explicit assistance on grammatical and lexical issues as well as help with the rhetorical component of writing an essay (J. Kim, 2018; Myers, 2003). Therefore, many ESL writing center scholars advocate (Bruce & Rafoth, 2009; J. Kim, 2018; Myers, 2003; Nakamaru, 2010a, 2010b; Severino, 2009; Thonus, 2004) for a directive approach with L2 writers that includes explicit instruction on matters of language and vocabulary but still collaborating with the student so that the student ultimately maintains authority over their own work. Tutors should think of it as language instruction rather than proofreading (Nakamaru, 2010a). Strategies should be adopted to impart learning through feedback, whether it is direct or indirect. When helping students correct errors, prompting and eliciting can be efficient, however, the tutor should not be afraid to explain the error directly (Harwood et al., 2012). Tutors however should be careful not to appropriate the students work and to ensure that the writer negotiates the meaning with the tutor (Severino, 2009). It is important to note, that within this theoretical discussion about the value of proofreading, how to help the specific population of EFL students, particularly intermediate students, is often omitted. While scholars are in general agreement that a more directive approach should be taken in an EFL context, explicit rules for dealing with sentence level mistakes have yet to be established (E. Y. J. Kim & LaBianca, 2018). In the next section, more challenges NNES tutors experience in EFL contexts will be described.

NNES Tutors and Teachers

Not surprisingly, there is also a shortage of studies from the tutor’s perspective on the challenges experienced tutoring EFL students in writing. Although many studies have shown the advantage NNES speakers bring to tutorials with EFL students, such as grammar knowledge (Nakamaru, 2010b) and empathy (Okuda, 2019b; Sevigny et al., 2021) in reality many of the NNES still feel inferior to native speakers. For example, studies have shown that one challenge NNES tutors face is that they do not feel confident in their English ability and often worry about their own language proficiency and as a result avoid helping students proofread their essay (Chen & Wang, 2022; Liu, 2005; Okuda, 2019b). Related to this lack of confidence is the fact that they are NNES in Japan., where white, males, from inner circle English speaking countries have dominated teaching English in universities and language schools (Kobayashi, 2014) leaving teachers who do not fit this standard feeling marginalized (Nagashima & Lawrence, 2021). Moreover, NNES tutors might feel more marginalized than NNES teachers since tutors lack not only the official title and qualifications of a teacher but also the time afforded in a course to gradually build student trust and rapport (Liu, 2005). NNES tutors in Asian contexts sometimes feel inadequate about their English especially when challenged by students who openly doubt their language competence (Chen & Wang, 2022; Mack, 2012). In several studies (Nakatake, 2013; Okuda, 2019b; Shin, 2008) it was found that students question the non-native English-speaking tutors’ or teachers’ ability in English and sometimes do not trust their writing advice.

In addition to the lack of trust in the tutor’s ability and the tutor’s own lack of confidence, other challenges for NNES tutors in Japanese writing centers are the mismatch of the tutor’s tutoring style with tutee’s expectation (Nakatake, 2013; Okuda, 2019a). One reason for the misalignment of expectations is that Asian writing centers borrow policy and guidelines from Western (North American and British) ESL Writing centers, even though the pedagogy might not be the most appropriate for the EFL context (Okuda, 2019a). Tutors in Western writing centers are trained to employ a collaborative approach which entails tutors interacting with tutees by asking questions and trying to help the tutee notice their problems in their writing. This framework creates challenges for L2 writers in general who view their tutors as authority figures (Chen & Wang, 2022; J. Kim, 2018; Thonus, 2004; L. Wang, 2012). As mentioned above, tutor dominance is a common issue in Asian writing centers as tutees often reject the collaborative approach (C. wLee, 2015).

In summary, a review of the literature reveals a lack of literature dealing with writing centers in EFL contexts, especially in Asia and with NNES tutors and intermediate level tutees. Although important research has been conducted in a Japanese writing center from the tutees’ perspectives (Okuda 2019b) the tutor’s perspective has yet to be examined. As English medium universities are expanding throughout Asia, it has become more likely that NNES are hired as tutors in EFL writing centers, therefore there is a need to conduct research from Asian writing centers and to better understand the challenges these tutors face. To address this lack of studies on NNES tutors in EFL contexts this study specifically examines the following question: What do writing tutors perceive to be the challenges experienced during an EFL writing tutorial?

Theoretical-Methodological Approach

The research in this study is aligned with the interpretivist approach which aims to build better comprehension of actions, phenomena, and viewpoints. Through this approach, knowledge arises from situations and is not reducible to simplistic interpretation (Crotty, 1998). The social world can never be objectively observed from the outside; instead researchers need an alternative frame of reference, one that involves understanding the research process from the inside through the eyes of participants rather than the researcher’s (Burns, 2009). Via the participants “emic” stories, numerous perspectives reveal fresh insights (Rich, 2011). Another important feature of the interpretivist perspective is the emphasis on context specific variables. Research from this perspective treats the context as it occurs naturally and does not attempt to control these contextual variables, as they may be the very sources of unexpected or unforeseen interpretations (Burns, 2009). This study recognizes the potential of contextual variables to reveal unexpected insights and interpretations (Burns, 2009). The goal of this study is to gather rich data that provides a thick description (Geertz, 1973) of the context and the EFL tutorials from which themes and new understandings can be inferred.

Given that this research study’s aim is to understand the challenges of conducting a writing tutorial with Japanese EFL students from the perspective of the tutors, interviews and focus groups research methods were chosen. Interviews and focus groups are commonly used in research aligned with an interpretivist perspective because they are viewed as one of the most powerful ways of understanding others’ perspectives thus enabling the researcher to access “people’s perceptions, meanings, definitions of situations and constructions of reality” (Punch, 2005, p. 168). The interview method provided tutors with the opportunity to discuss their interpretations of the world in which they lived and to express how they regarded the writing tutorials from their point of view, individually (Cohen et al., 2018). While the advantage of the focus group format is that the tutors were stimulated by each other triggering memories of shared situations known as “memory synergy” (Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2013) and thus generated new understandings and knowledge from their collective point of view. Hence the data collected via the focus group was in some ways richer than the individual interviews (Nunan & Bailey, 2008).

Research Context

This case study took place at an international dual-language college in Japan, International University (IU) (pseudonym) which hosts over 5,000 students: 3,000 domestic students from Japan and 2,500 international students from 80 different countries. The students taking the content classes in Japanese while simultaneously taking intensive English language classes are called Japanese basis students while English basis students (predominantly international students, i.e., non-Japanese students) take content classes in English and intensive Japanese language classes. By their third year, students are required to take content classes in their second language.

IU Writing Center Philosophy

Based on research mentioned in the literature review, tutors in this study, are instructed to provide direct instruction and advice when needed but within a framework that promotes student negotiation of meaning so that, ultimately, the student maintains authority over their work. Procedures and guidelines for writing sessions have been developed based on the literature for ESL and EFL writing tutoring, mentioned in the literature review. The procedures that have been developed are mainly in line with an American writing center book designed for working with ESL writers titled, ESL Writers: A Guide for Writing Centers (Bruce & Rafoth, 2009). For example, tutors read Chapter five from this book that details ten steps to avoid appropriating the student’s work (Severino, 2009). Unfortunately, there are no books on tutoring in Japan or even EFL tutoring, therefore the tutors are mainly trained in ESL writing center theory. From the procedures recommended within the literature, additional points that seemed pertinent to this study’s context have been added. For example, because the tutees are second language learners with around a B1 on the CEFR scale, tutors are instructed to speak Japanese when needed and let the students speak Japanese. Overall, the procedures emphasize that non-directive tutoring practiced in the North American context with native English speakers is not likely to work with Japanese intermediate students, but tutors should be careful not to take over the tutee’s work.

Participants

Writing Center tutors are trained to provide tutoring for both services provided at IU’s writing center: one for English basis students taking content classes in English and the second, that this study focuses on, for Japanese basis students taking English language classes. Therefore, the tutors need a high level of English proficiency to provide writing help to both clients. Specifically, eight NNES tutors participated in this study. They come from neighboring Asian countries: Vietnam, China, Taiwan, and Korea. By chance, most of the tutors in this study are Vietnamese because these were the tutors hired at the time the research was conducted. The tutors in this study are also very proficient in Japanese, except for Jay, but there are no native speakers of Japanese. See Table 1 for specific information regarding each tutor. Writing tutors are hired via a campus wide advertisement. Tutors go through a rigorous application process including an essay test, interview, and mock tutorial. Although the IU Writing Center would like to hire Japanese writers, at the time this research was conducted they had not been hired and rarely applied.

Table 1.

Writing Tutor Profiles.

Name	Gender	Nationality	Grade	Experience at the writing center
Li	Male	Chinese	4th year	2 years
Vy	Male	Vietnamese	2nd year	1 year
Tu	Female	Vietnamese	3rd year	1 year
Trang	Female	Vietnamese	4th year	2 years
Anh	Female	Vietnamese	3rd year	2 years
Lien	Female	Vietnamese	4th year	2 years
Han	Male	Korean	3rd year	New
Jay	Male	Vietnamese	2nd year	New

Note. In order to protect anonymity, all the tutors’ names have been replaced with pseudonyms.

All the students in this study are Japanese college students studying English in levels that are approximately equivalent to B1 on the CEFR scale. These students are beginning to write in English and are composing basic five-paragraph essays for the first time. Of the 24 students who participated in this study, the majority of students were first- or second-year university students, ages 19 or 20. Note for this study, despite the context being an international university, the participants are Japanese first year students who are taking language classes in Japan (where the majority language is Japanese) and predominantly speak Japanese outside the classroom, hence, it is an EFL context not ESL. Furthermore, it should also be noted that students with intermediate level proficiencies are preparing to study content classes through the medium of English from their third year of university. This is a daunting challenge which puts pressure on students to reach a high level of academic English in a short amount of time.

Methods

Through a qualitative approach, this study seeks to answer the research question: What do writing tutors perceive to be the challenges experienced during an EFL writing tutorial? To specifically examine NNES tutors’ various perceptions, 16 semi-structured interviews with eight writing tutors and two quasi-focus groups were conducted, transcribed, and analyzed. Great care was taken to ensure honest, transparent, and ethical research was conducted.

Semi-Structured Interviews

The main purpose of the interviews was to learn about the tutors’ experience and their perceptions. All eight writing tutors were interviewed twice during the research project, initially pre-semester and then again 4 months later at the end of the semester, post-semester. Tutors were interviewed twice for data triangulation but also to see if their initial opinions changed throughout the 4 months. Many of the interview questions were informed by Coelho’s (2011) and Stonerock’s (2005) studies conducted with tutor participants in an ESL writing center in the west. Therefore, a pilot study was conducted with two writing tutors, who were not a part of this study, to determine how to adapt Coelho’s and Stonerock’s questions to fit appropriately to an EFL context. In line with semi-structured interview procedures, the interview was guided by a set of questions to ensure the basic line of inquiry, however, the interviews were not limited to those questions. The researcher asked follow-up questions and impromptu questions to encourage tutors to provide more detail in their responses and to explore new topics. The semi-structured interview was chosen for its flexibility and because it can produce extraordinary evidence about a phenomenon that is difficult to obtain in a formulaic structured interview or survey (Dowsett, 1986).

Each interview followed a similar pattern, first the tutors were asked questions theorizing their role and opinions about EFL writing centers in general, then they were asked specific questions about their experience in the EFL writing center, that is, times of tension with the tutee, communication and various strategies they utilized to help students improve their writing and correct grammatical and lexical errors. Tutors were then asked questions about the challenges they face to conduct an effective tutorial and finally about their overall experience. Although the entire interview was reviewed for data analysis (available on Mendeley) most of the data excerpts came from the eight questions on the challenges of conducting an effective writing tutorial.

Four months after the first interviews post-semester interviews were conducted. By asking the writing tutors similar questions from the first interview, after participating in two additional training sessions and undergoing writing tutorials during the semester, the tutors had more time to think further about the challenges they experienced in the writing center which might have modified their original views. The researcher also shared with the tutors some of the conclusions drawn thus far from the quasi-focus groups and the pre-semester interviews so that the tutors could judge the accuracy of the interpretations. In this way, member checking was carried out. Each interview lasted from 30to 45 minutes.

Quasi-Focus Group

The writing tutors had two training workshops throughout the 16-week semester, one at the beginning and one in the middle. Each workshop ranged from 1 to 3 hours. These training sessions are here termed quasi-focus groups, because in many ways they mirrored the discussion element of a focus group. However, it was not a focus group interview in that its first objective was as a training session for the tutors. As the coordinator, the researcher guided and focused the discussion which revolved around the main issues and challenges the writing tutors experienced during tutorials (Nunan & Bailey, 2008). With that said, the topics were not chosen beforehand and came organically from a list the tutors generated themselves. Therefore, the focus group conversations and topics were allowed to develop in more self-organizing and free flowing ways (Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2013).

In the first session, the newly hired writing tutors and experienced writing tutors worked together with English teachers to act out different writing tutorial scenarios and dilemmas, chosen beforehand by the experienced tutors. After the role plays, writing tutors discussed questions they had about working in the writing center and problems they might encounter during the upcoming semester. In the mid-semester workshop tutors were asked to email a list of problems they encountered during writing help tutorials; the problems were then collated and each one was discussed at the training session. Both training sessions were audio recorded and then transcribed.

Analyzing the Data

Qualitative data gathered was analyzed through an interpretivist framework in which the data was coded and analyzed for reoccurring patterns and thematic constructs and interpreted by drawing on past research and personal reflections (Creswell, 2008). All 16 interviews (8 pre-and 8 post-semester) and two, three-hour quasi-focus groups were transcribed. First the data was coded twice with basic codes. Each excerpt, or unit of significance, was marked in the margin with a simple description of what was occurring, capturing only the relevant details. Avoiding abstraction and preconceived concepts in coding prevented the researcher from “finding” what they were looking for (Bryman, 2004). Fifteen codes were created (see Mendeley for the 15 initial codes and coded interview). Next sorting was conducted to create categories, by identifying and cutting excerpts of various challenges the tutors reported and then arranging these challenges into piles that go together (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Physically moving the coded data into categories facilitated the identification of various challenges tutors perceived (Saldana, 2014). A final check to ensure that all the excerpts in each pile were relevant to the given category was conducted. Finally, salient themes were generated based on these main challenges categories.

In line with Creswell and Miller (2000) the author employed four accepted validation strategies to document the accuracy of this study. These included the following: prolonged engagement and persistent observation in the field, rich thick description (provided in the context section), triangulation and member checking. Two types of triangulation were conducted: data triangulation from interviewing the tutors at various times throughout the semester and method triangulation by using interview and focus group methods. Additionally, member checking required participants in the study under investigation to review the data and the interpretation thereof to provide the researcher with feedback (Nunan & Bailey, 2008). It increases the trustworthiness of a study’s results (Dornyei, 2007).

Results

The following section presents the findings for tutors’ perceptions of the challenges experienced during an EFL writing tutorial. Data analysis of a total of 16 (pre- and post-) tutor interviews, and two quasi-focus groups revealed that NNES tutors in this study perceive five main challenges in EFL writing center settings: miscommunication, student silence, mismatched expectations, interpretation of teacher feedback and error correction. Table 2 shows the main categories. Additionally, quotations were selected from the interview to illustrate each category. In the next section each category and data will be explained.

Table 2.

Challenges Perceived by Tutors: Coding Themes, Descriptions, and Quotations Illustrating Category.

Main coding category	Description	Quotation from interview or quasi-focus group illustrating category
Miscommunication Student Silence Mismatched Expectations Interpreting teacher’s feedback Error correction	The inability to communicate adequately and clearly with the tutee/tutor. Tutors tried to avoid dominating the tutorial, but students were often silent. Tutors thought students expected them to be English teachers and perform error correction, but the tutors were reluctant to take that role. Students asked tutors about their assignment or to interpret their teacher’s feedback. The tutors were unsure how best to conduct error correction.	He’s a really good writer but he’s not really good at speaking and expressing his idea so we cannot reach any conclusion after the writing help because he couldn’t understand what I say.—Lien The student does not respond to my question.—Jay We are writing tutors, we are assistants; of course, we cannot take the role of a teacher.—Tu Students just come to the writing center with the hope of having a better essay. They just showed us their essays and (asked) “please help us to have a better one, an A+ one.”—Trang Sometimes I don’t understand what the teacher means, why they circled the part they did or underline the part they did. -Anh I don’t know their level and when to tell them directly and when to ask them questions so they can figure it out themselves.—Han

Miscommunication

Miscommunication was perceived as a major challenge by the tutors. As Vy pointed out, “It’s hard to explain to students and be understood in their second language.” Furthermore, Lien explained that “Students cannot understand English even when they are studying in the highest-level English class, so I have to speak very slowly and repeat many times.” This problem of miscommunication was magnified when working with the students with lower levels of communicative English. Although students were registered in “intermediate English” which was marked at the B1 level on the CEFR scale, meaning they can understand the main points of clear standard input, in reality some of the students were closer to an A2 level, meaning they can understand more basic simple sentences Anh stated that she had many problems working with these students. She said:

They don’t even understand what I say because of the vocabulary, and I feel a little bit awkward because they didn’t understand whatever I say and they couldn’t even speak any, you know, quite a little bit of English. So, it’s quite difficult to start any conversation.

When the students did not understand tutors reported to using the students’ L1, Japanese. Han stated, “when they (the tutees) don’t understand, usually I switch to Japanese and that helps.” However, sometimes even speaking the students’ L1 did not aid communication. Han continued, “But sometimes we still don’t communicate. I think because they still don’t know what they want to write.” Trang reiterated a similar point, “I tried to speak Japanese but still the student didn’t really respond.” These problems with communication and student silence will be explored in the next section.

Student Silence

According to the tutors, students were often silent or passive in tutorials. The tutors, who were taught not to appropriate the students work and to involve students in any changes made on the student’s essay, found it challenging to engage the student in the writing process and negotiate meaning together. When I asked the tutors to summarize their worst tutorial experience, five of the eight tutors (Li, Lien, Trang, Han, Tu) reported times when the tutee was inactive hence the tutor dominated the tutorial. Han said:

She was very very very shy, and it showed that she was uncomfortable sitting in the Writing Center. It was as if she didn’t want me to help her with her essay, but then why did she come to the Writing Center?

Three of the eight tutors confirmed in the quasi-focus group that they believed the students were silent because they had passive attitudes toward learning English. Lien mentioned, “Sometimes they are silent because they don’t understand us, but other times they are silent because they are passive learners. They want us (the tutors) to do everything.” Jay commented on the general issue of silent students. He said when conducting error correction:

I directly give them what I think, and I read some model sentences and let them write it down, and after that I ask them, “do you agree?” And most of them are silent. I don’t know how they feel because, I mean, do they understand or not?

However, the other five tutors said they did not know why some of the students didn’t respond. Trang investigated the tutees’ silence by asking one student directly why he remained silent, especially when she asked him a question. According to her, the student “Said he wanted to speak more during the tutorial, but he didn’t have the confidence (in English) and as a result remained silent.” His lack of confidence to speak English hindered the communication in the tutorial. This suggests that actual and perceived English ability was one of the reasons students remained silent. Unfortunately, tutors did not report on why the students sometimes did not respond even when the tutor was speaking Japanese.

Mismatched Expectations

Tutors felt that the students expected them to be English teachers and also fix all the mistakes in their paper. First, Tutor’s felt pressure to fulfill a teacherly role, however many writing tutors were uncomfortable in this position. Teacher role is defined as someone who explains concepts and has extensive knowledge of English. The writing tutors willingly explained concepts about the English language and writing to the students, however, they questioned their knowledge of the English language and as mentioned above, they tried to avoid tutor dominance. When asked during the pre- and post-semester interviews as to what role a writing tutor should not take, six of the eight writing tutors responded “teacher.” Han explained, “I am not a teacher because I’m never confident that I’m as good as a teacher.”

One of the reasons they lacked confidence in taking a teacherly role is because they also lacked confidence in their English ability. The writing tutors are painfully aware of the fact that they are non-native English speakers. During the interviews, every writing tutor stated they lacked confidence since they are non-native English speakers. Jay even questioned if he was even qualified to tutor these students. He said:

We are not native speakers and we also do not specialize in education; we are just students who have more time to study English than them (the tutees) and honestly, I think that writing tutors don’t have enough qualifications to evaluate the English skills of students; we can just give some comments.

Tutors reported receiving complaints from students who expected them to have the same knowledge as teachers. For example, Han reported a situation where the tutee expected him to know every word he found in the dictionary and when the tutor did not, he asked if there were any other tutors.

Another mismatched expectation was error correction. All eight writing tutors reported that most students expected them to make their paper mistake free. Simply put by Lien, “They (the tutees) want the writing tutor to fix the grammar and spelling mistakes, in general all mistakes.” Vy stated that many students insisted that the tutor help them with their entire essay even when the tutor says they cannot. The tutors reported that usually the students would accept this, sometimes reluctantly. However, some students would become upset. During the post-semester interview, Jay told a story about a boy who came to him insisting that he correct every mistake in the essay. When he told him it was impossible to do that, especially in the amount of time allotted, the boy acted upset and confused. According to Jay, he did not understand why the writing tutor was refusing to help him, “He just kept asking me to check everything and then got mad when I didn’t. He didn’t understand or maybe even listen to my answer.”

Interpreting Teacher’s Feedback

In addition to mismatched expectations, tutors also faced the challenge of being asked to help the students understand their teacher’s feedback and or the essay requirements. According to the tutors, tutees expected them to interpret and explain their classroom teacher’s feedback on their essay draft. Anh, Trang, Li, and Han reported being confused by how to interpret the teacher’s feedback.

Trang stated an example:

I remember one time the professor wrote that the title was boring. But when I looked at the sample essay the student had, it was a very similar title.

The writing tutors did not like to express to the student that they did not understand their teacher’s message. When I asked Trang what she did when she did not understand why the title was boring, she explained that she helped the student make a more exciting title. Tutors also expressed that they had difficult interpreting teacher’s feedback. Tutors were not only expected to interpret the teacher’s feedback but also understand the essay requirements. The IU policy urges instructors to provide clear guidelines for each writing assignment and use precise criteria-referenced scales in accordance with English for Academic Purposes (EAP) (Hyland & Hyland 2006). However, the tutors weren’t always knowledgeable about those particular standards. Lien said, “the students expected me to know the exact format and requirements of their essay, but I didn’t. Every teacher has their own requirement, we can’t be expected to know them all.” Certainly, it was a challenge for the tutors to act as a mediator for each specific teacher, each with their own essay requirements.

Error Correction

Another issue that all eight tutors reported was the question of which strategy is most appropriate during tutorial sessions with EFL learners, implicit or explicit error correction. Implicit error correction refers to when the writing tutor underlines and circles the mistake and, through indirect questioning and examples, helps the student realize his/her own error, while explicit error correction is when the writing tutor directly points out the error, telling the student the problem and how to fix it. Tutors questioned when and why they should provide implicit or explicit error correction. Confounding the issue even more, was that many of the sentence level errors tutee made were not amenable to one type of error correction but instead had many errors: lexical, syntactical, and grammatical. As Anh reported in the quasi-focus group, “sometimes the whole sentence is wrong, and I don’t know where to start.”

As reported in literature, tutors were instructed to provide direct instruction and advice when needed but within a framework that promotes student negotiation of meaning so that, ultimately, the student maintains authority over their work. All tutors said they would first try implicit error correction usually by asking some version of the question, “Do you know why I underlined this?.” However, after that initial question, tutoring strategies and styles varied. In the first quasi-focus group, tutors disagreed on the level of direct error correction/proofreading tutors should provide.

Lien:

We have to help the students and often that means telling them the error and correcting it for them. They don’t know enough English to figure out the error themselves, even if we point it out. Like one time I was trying to get the student to understand he had a plural error and I just kept repeating the word again and again to see if he noticed, but nothing.

Trang:

Ya I agree, but if you always tell them the problem and how to fix it, isn’t that the definition of appropriation, ya know. Like aren’t we supposed to avoid that. It isn’t my essay. I already took intermediate English. It is their essay. They have to figure it out themselves.

Han:

I see your point Trang, but I agree with Lien. They came to us for help. We should help them and sometimes that means telling them the answer.

According to the interviews, Vy, Trang, Tu, and Jay would ask more questions to encourage the student to detect his/her own mistakes while Li, Lien, Han, and Anh tended to provide more direct feedback. Li mentioned in the interview, that he realized early on,

“It is easier when I tell them directly what is wrong with the sentence and offer suggestions on how to fix it, otherwise you end up going back and forth and creating confusion.” Overall, tutors reported to feeling confused as to how to “help the student maintain authority over their work” and when to provide “explicit instruction” and when to provide “implicit instruction.”

Discussion and Implications

The purpose of this study was not to look at tutor’s best practices but rather understand the perceptions of the challenges the tutors face in an EFL writing center. The findings of this study highlight the main challenges NNES Tutors experience in EFL writing center settings. These challenges not only represent the difficulty peers have in tutoring intermediate students in English writing, but also represent the tutors’ perceptions of the students’ expectations of the writing tutorial. In the remainder of this section, the main challenges NNES tutors reported will be synthesized and implications for writing center practice will be explained.

Miscommunication and Student Silence

In line with other studies on EFL tutoring (Chen & Wang, 2022; Mack, 2012) and foreign language tutoring (Lape, 2020) all eight of the tutors agreed that miscommunication was a major challenge. The tutors believed miscommunication happened for the following reasons: the students’ lack of English proficiency and the tutors’ lack of Japanese proficiency. This resulted in student silence and tutor dominance. Why were the students silent, even when the tutors sometimes spoke Japanese? This study did not investigate this specific research question, but research from other studies confirms that language proficiency and the authoritative power of the tutor as probable reasons (Cao, 2014; Sato, 2020; Zhou et al., 2005). It should be noted that although the tutors in the study were Asian themselves, however, similar to Jones et al.’s (2006) and Sadoshima et al.’s (2009) findings the tutors maintained hierarchical relationships in which the tutors dominated the conversation adhering to cultural and institutional norms of teacher-student interaction in Japanese educational institutions. In other words, the students were more likely to see the tutor as an authority figure, which hindered the tutors attempt at a collaborative tutorial.

An important implication of this research is that tutors need to be taught how to actively engage students in writing center tutorials in Asia. Three of the tutors viewed the students’ silence as “passiveness.” Tutors need to better understand why students are silent and look at this issue of passiveness more critically. Recent research suggests that silence should be legitimized, not stigmatized because it can also be a form of engaged participation (S. Kim et al., 2016). Instead of viewing students as silent, thus passive, administrators should train tutors to view silence as acceptable and normal (S. Wang & Moskal, 2019) and teach tutors how to involve students more and listen more sensitive.

The tutors who were more confident and fluent in the students’ L1 used Japanese to facilitate the tutorial and when there was a breakdown in communication. Furthermore, they reported alternating between languages if need be and helping reformulate sentences. Another implication of this study, in line with other EFL writing center studies (Nakatake, 2013; Sadoshima et al., 2009) this research suggests hiring some writing tutors that are fluent in the EFL students’ L1. This will facilitate tutorials and give the tutors and students a chance to alternate between languages if necessary and help reformulate sentences. Utilizing the student’s L1 can provide tutors a precise, helpful way of guiding text revision.

Mismatched Expectations

The didactic role performed by tutors confirms the more recent research mentioned in the literature review that advocates tutors take a more directive approach when tutoring students (Bruce & Rafoth, 2009; Chen & Wang, 2022; J. Kim, 2018; E. Y. J. wKim & LaBianca, 2018; Nakatake, 2013; Thonus, 2004). One reason NNES tutors were uncomfortable in this role as teacher is because they lacked confidence in their own English ability and expertise. Despite high English proficiency scores, they believed they were deficient because they were NNES. With the advent of World Englishes, non-native English teachers are gaining agency, and the world of English language teaching is moving toward a perspective that is more inclusive (Holliday, 2005; Tupas, 2021), one that legitimizes the outer and expanding circles (Canagarajah, 2012). Nevertheless, tutors in this program, like other Asian contexts (Dovchin et al., 2016) adhered to the inner circle perspective where language norms and professional expertise come from the center, “native” English speakers. In line with other EFL writing center studies (Chen & Wang, 2022) this was exacerbated by receiving complaints from students who wanted them to be native English speakers. More will be discussed about the tutor’s reluctance to take an authoritative role and the challenge of the expectation for proofreading in the error correction section.

However, one unique point that emerged from the data was the potential benefits that L2 tutors can bring to such sessions through having empathy for the tutee and explicit grammar knowledge. L2 tutors have a greater understanding of the struggles EFL tutees face when writing in a foreign language. This contrasts with students’ English teachers who, in IU’s context, are almost all native English speakers. This empathy leads not only to a better understanding of the EFL students’ difficulties of writing in English but also leads to a greater understanding of how their L2 affects their English writing and the nature of the strengths andweaknesses of the writer (Okuda, 2019b; Sevigny et al., 2021) and how to provide appropriate feedback (Nakamaru, 2010b). It is recommended that administrators highlight this point to tutors to diminish the L2 English tutors’ lack of confidence.

Interpreting Teacher’s Feedback

The expectation that the tutor understands the assignment and mediate for the teacher is in line with Blau and Hall’s (2002) and Harwood et al.’s (2012) research. The tutors in these studies (one conducted with writing center tutors and the latter with proofreaders) found themselves mediating between the teacher and probably because the student viewed the tutor as a less threatening but informed person who they expected to teach them about their professor’s expectations. Unfortunately, due to lack of knowledge about the assignment and the English Department’s criteria, the tutor was not always equipped to meditate effectively. This challenge highlights an interesting point as to whether the tutor needs to be aware of the specific requirements of an essay to help the EFL tutee. One reason to argue that they should is because these essays are assigned by English language teachers and are therefore more prescriptive with specific requirements and evaluation rubrics. English for Academic Purposes (EAP) for EFL students encourages English teachers to create specific requirements for every writing assignment and employ detailed criteria-referenced scales (Hyland & Hyland, 2006).

Yasuda (2006) suggests that the writing centers take a key role in making campus-wide writing curriculum work and should act as a liaison not only between writing instructors and subject teachers but also between teachers and students. From this study it was shown that the writing tutors are in an excellent position to act as this liaison, however, they need to be properly trained to be able to take this role. Training sessions should address English essay requirements so that the writing tutor is comfortable giving the students advice on their paper that is consistent with the teacher’s requirement. In line with this idea, administrators should also give tutors access to criterion reference scales utilized by the writing program at the university to ensure tutors understand how the essay is being graded.

Error Correction

This study highlights many issues regarding tutor appropriation. L2 writers need feedback on their sentences but it is not necessarily the tutor’s job to fix all their errors. In this study, inline with second language Writing Center theory (Kim, 2018; Myers, 2003; Thonus, 2004) tutors were trained to give directive feedback but in a way that allowed the student to maintain authority over their work. However, tutors still questioned what exactly that meant in real terms of tutoring strategies because when helping a novice writer, the tutor has much more power to influence the final sentence simply because the student does not have the productive English skills to effectively choose what they want to say. The tutors in this study were hyper aware of guarding against appropriation both with error correction and offering lexical choices. In fact, which is one reason they tried to avoid the “teacher role.” Additionally, they questioned when to provide more direct feedback and when to provide more indirect feedback.

There are several implications to these findings. For error correction, although research is still inconclusive about the value (I. Lee, 2020), research has proven that students appreciate and desire written error correction (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Ferris, 2015). As mentioned in the literature review, tutors should think of it as language instruction rather than proofreading (Nakamaru, 2010a) and impart learning through prompting, eliciting, and explaining why the error is wrong, directly (Harwood et al., 2012). This study suggests administrators should encourage writing tutors not to be afraid to take a didactic role and explicitly explain English grammatical and lexical concepts. The fact that these tutors were trained in this way but still tried to make the tutorial more collaborative suggests the challenge tutors faced accepting the role of authority figure.

Unfortunately, how to help the specific population of EFL intermediate students at the Writing Center is often omitted and explicit rules for dealing with sentence level mistakes has yet to be expounded (E. Y. J. Kim & LaBianca, 2018). In general, more research needs to be conducted on when it is appropriate to offer implicit error correction and more directive error correction especially when tutoring EFL intermediate learners in writing center sessions. It is recommended for administrators to create many role-play scenarios, such as teaching essay structure or error correction, where tutors have many opportunities to practice how to be more directive while still promoting student learning.

Conclusion

This paper ends with the limitations of the study and future directions for research. This study is limited by its capacity to expose the total intricacy of the social world. Data collection was conducted at only one place, the writing center at IU, an international university within Japan. Interviewing tutors at other writing centers at other universities would have strengthened the research. This study, similar to other interpretivist studies, aims not to be generalizable but rather examine the experiences of writing center tutors in an EFL environment. The findings from this study are grounded in the verbal responses of the writing tutors, concerning their perspective and understandings of the challenges they experience in EFL writing tutorials. Therefore, these findings are subjective and emic. But by documenting the methodological framework and meticulously describing the critical processes that have helped construct, connect and shape meanings (Morgan & Drury, 2003) as transparently as possible, that author is hopeful that there is validation in the knowledge that has emerged.

Another limitation is that this research represents the challenges perceived by the tutors, through their eyes, not their actual practices. Therefore, more research should investigate the extent to which their espoused perceptions of tutoring lines up with their actual tutoring strategies. Secondly, as mentioned previously, the tutors’ reluctance to proofread and translate highlights the need for more research on the appropriate ways to provide help with grammatical and lexical errors and when it is appropriate to be directive and indirective. Finally, more research should be conducted on the use of L1 and L2 during the EFL writing center tutorial. Miscommunication was reported as a common issue by the tutors. Data needs to be gathered to inform how conducting the tutorial in the students’ L1, L2, or alternating between both, affects the revision process during the tutorial and the students’ long-term performance in writing and revising texts independently. As more writing centers grow in Asia this research will be important to determine what type of services these writing centers should provide.

In summary, this research is one of the first in depth analyses of writing tutoring by NNES tutors for intermediate EFL learners in Asia. This study adopted a qualitative approach to examine the challenges NNES tutors face during writing tutorials with EFL students in an Asian context. Miscommunication, student silence, differing expectations, interpreting teacher’s feedback and error correction were found to be the main challenges NNES tutors face. This should hardly surprise writing center theorists. It is not surprising that mismatched expectations is one of the biggest challenges. Nor is it a new discovery that tutors are not always comfortable in the roles tutees expect them to play. However, it is argued that these challenges are magnified in EFL settings. The understandings gained from this research can serve as a basis for open discussion of the expectations and realities in the Asian setting of an EFL writing center. Ultimately, the results of the present study can help support administrators in countries outside of Japan, especially other Asian countries, such as China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Korea as they set up writing centers and create writing center policies.

Footnotes

Appendix

Acknowledgements

I am extremely grateful to Paul Sevigny and David Evans for reading many drafts and providing feedback and the participants of this study, especially the tutors for always answering thoughtfully and honestly. I would also like to thank my thesis advisors, Dr. Philip Durrant and Dr. Hazel Lawson for their amazing feedback and support.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author. This paper was written while the author was on Academic Development Leave from Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University. This article is based on the previous work of the author, a submitted dissertation to the University of Exeter.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author received a grant from Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University for the open access fee for publication of this article.

Ethics Approval

Great care was taken to ensure honest, transparent and ethical research was conducted. This research began as a dissertation for the University of Exeter and was later approved by the University of Exeter’s Ethics Committee and awarded a certificate of ethical research. The University of Exeter’s ethics code is in line with the ethical guidelines set forth by the British Educational Research Association (BERA, 2011) in terms of responsibility to the participants.

ORCID iD

Lindsay Mack

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available in Mendeley data upon request to the author.

References

Anderson

(1993). The enigma of the college classroom: nails that don’t stick up. In Wadden

(Ed.). A handbook for teaching English at Japanese colleges and universities (101–110). Oxford.

BERA. (2011). British Educational Research Association ethical guidelines. https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018

Bitchener

Ferris

D. R.

(2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832400

Blau

Hall

(2002). Guilt-free tutoring: Rethinking how we tutor non-native English speaking students. Writing Center Journal, 23, 23–44. https://www.potsdam.edu/sites/default/files/documents/support/tutoring/cwc/blauguiltfreetutoring.pdf

Bruce

Rafoth

(2009). ESL Writers: A guide for writing centre (2nd ed.). Heinemann.

Bryman

(2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Burns

(2009). Action research in second language teacher education. In Burns

Richards

J. C.

(Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education, (pp. 289–297). Cambridge University Press

Canagarajah

(2012). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. Routledge.

Cao

(2014). A sociocognitive perspective on second language classroom willingness to communicate. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 789–814.

10.

Chen

C. W.

(2010). Graduate students’ self-reported perspectives regarding peer feedback and feedback from writing consultants. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(2), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-010-9081-5

11.

Chen

Wang

(2022). “Oops! I can’t express this in English!”: Managing epistemic challenges by Chinese EFL peer tutors in writing tutorials. Text & Talk, 43(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2020-0139

12.

Coelho

F. O.

(2011). Academic writing development through dialogues between tutors and second-language learners [Master’s thesis]. San Jose State University. https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.jndz-j3wp

13.

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539

14.

Creswell

J. W.

(2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.

15.

Creswell

J. W.

Miller

D. L.

(2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130.

16.

Crotty

(1998). The foundation of social research: Meaning and perspectives in the research process. Sage.

17.

Dornyei

(2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.

18.

Dowsett

(1986). Interaction in the semi-structured interview. In Emery

(Ed.), Qualitative research (pp. 50–56). Australian Association of Adult Education.

19.

Dovchin

Sultana

Pennycook

(2016). Unequal translingual Englishes in the Asian peripheries. Asian Englishes, 18(2), 92–108.

20.

Ellwood

Nakane

(2009). Privileging of speech in EAP and mainstream university classrooms: A critical evaluation of participation. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 203–230.

21.

Ferris

D. R.

(2015). Written corrective feedback in L2 writing: Connors & Lunsford (1988); Lunsford & Lunsford (2008); Lalande (1982). Language Teaching, 48(4), 531–544.

22.

Geertz

(1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In Geertz

(Eds.), The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3–30). Basic Books.

23.

Harwood

Austin

Macaulay

(2012). Cleaner, helper, teacher? The role of proofreaders of student writing. Studies in Higher Education, 37(5), 569–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.531462

24.

Holliday

(2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford University Press.

25.

Hyland

(2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139524742

26.

Jones

R. H.

Garralda

D. C. S.

Lock

(2006). Interactional dynamics in on-line and face-to-face peer-tutoring sessions for second language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.12.001.

27.

Kamberelis

Dimitriadis

(2013). Focus groups: From structured interviews to collective conversations. Routledge.

28.

Kim

(2018). Could you check my grammar? The forbidden request in the university writing center. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 7(4), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2017.2000

29.

Kim

E. Y. J.

LaBianca

A. S.

(2018). Ethics in academic writing help for international students in higher education: Perceptions of faculty and students. Journal of Academic Ethics, 16, 39–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-017-9299-5

30.

Kim

Ates

Grigsby

Kraker

Micek

T. A.

(2016). Ways to promote the classroom participation of international students by understanding the silence of Japanese university students. Journal of International Students, 6(2), 431–450. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v6i2.365

31.

Kim

Y. J.

(2007). A discourse analysis of writing tutorials: With reference to the dominance in nonnative tutors and nonnative tutees (SNU Working Papers in English Linguistics and Language, 6.)

32.

Kobayashi

(2014) Gender gap in the EFL classroom in East Asia. Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 219–223. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu008

33.

Lape

N. G.

(2020). Internationalizing the writing center. Parlor Press LLC.

34.

Lee

(2015) More than just language advising: rapport in university English writing consultations and implications for tutor training. Language and Education, 29(5), 430–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2015.1038275

35.

Lee

(2020). Utility of focused/comprehensive written corrective feedback research for authentic L2 writing classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49, 100734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100734

36.

Lincoln

Guba

E.G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

37.

Liu

(2005). Chinese graduate teaching assistants teaching freshman composition to native English speaking students. In Llurda

(Ed.). Educational Linguistics: Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession (pp. 155–177). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24565-0_9

38.

Mack

(2012). Reflective journals in EFL tutoring. Journal of Asia TEFL, 9(4), 165–189.

39.

Machili

Papadopoulou

Kantaridou

(2020). Effect of strategy instruction on EFL students’ video-mediated integrated writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 48, 100708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100708.

40.

Morgan

A. K.

Drury

V. B.

(2003). Legitimising the subjectivity of human reality through qualitative research method. The Qualitative Report, 8(1), 70–80.

41.

Myers

(2003). Reassessing the ‘proofreading trap’: ESL tutoring and writing Instruction. The Writing Center Journal, 24(1), 51–70. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43442189

42.

Nagashima

Lawrence

(2021). Intersectional identities: Voices from the margins of ELT in Japan. In Kroo

Satoh

(Eds.), Linguistic tactics and strategies of marginalization in Japanese (pp. 87–111). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67825-8_5

43.

Nakamaru

(2010a). A tale of two multilingual writers: A case study approach to tutor education. Writing center Journal, 30(2), 100–123.https://www.jstor.org/stable/43442346

44.

Nakamaru

(2010b). Lexical issues in writing center tutorials with international and US-educated multilingual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.01.001

45.

Nakatake

(2013). Challenges and possibilities in tutorials in a writing center in Japan. The Language Teacher, 37(17), 6–3. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTTLT37.6-3

46.

Nimmannit

(1998). Maximizing students’ oral skills: The Asian context. The Language Teacher, 22(11), 37–39.https://jalt-publications.org/tlt/articles/2431-maximizing-students-oral-skills-asian-context

47.

Nunan

Bailey

K. M.

(2008). Exploring second language classroom research: A comprehensive guide (1st ed.). Heinle ELT.

48.

Okuda

(2019a). Policy borrowing for a world-class university: A case of a writing center in Japan, Current Issues in Language Planning, 20(5), 503–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2018.1543161

49.

Okuda

(2019b). Student perceptions of non-native English speaking tutors at a writing center in Japan, Journal of Second Language Writing, 44, 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.01.002

50.

Punch

K. F.

(2005). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches (2nd ed.). Sage.

51.

Reichelt

Salski

Andres

Lowczowski

Majchrzak

Molenda

Wiśniewska-Steciuk

(2013). ‘A table and two chairs’: Starting a writing center in Łódź, Poland. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 277–285.

52.

Rich

S. A. L.

(2011). Learning to live interculturally: an exploration of experience and learning among a group of international students at a university in the UK [Doctoral dissertation], University of Exeter. Open Research Exeter.

53.

Sadoshima

Shimura

Ota

(2009). Nihongo bogowasha ga nihongo de eigobunshō o kentōsuru sesshon no yūkōsei: Kakite o sodateru raitingu sentā de no taiwa [Effectiveness of tutoring English writing in Japanese: NNS tutors helping NNS writers at Waseda SILS Writing Center]. Bulletin of Waseda SILS, Global Forum, 5, 57–71.

54.

Saldana

(2014). Coding and analysis strategies. In Leavy

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp. 518–605). Oxford University Press.

55.

Sato

(2020). Examining fluctuations in the WTC of Japanese EFL speakers: Language proficiency, affective and conditional factors. Language Teaching Research, 27(4), 974–994. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820977825

56.

Severino

(2009). Avoiding appropriation. In Bruce

Rafoth

(Eds.), ESL writers: A guide for writing center tutors (2nd ed., pp. 51–65). Boynton/Cook Publishers.

57.

Sevigny

Manabe S

Shankar

C. H.

Sy Yi

J. L.

(2021). Community Literacy Activism: Amateur authors writing multilingual graded readers. Argentinian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 12–22. https://ajal.faapi.org.ar/ojs-3.3.0-5/index.php/AJAL/article/view/71

58.

Shin

(2008). Preparing non-native English-speaking ESL teachers. Teacher Development, 12, 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530701827749

59.

Stonerock

K. H.

(2005). From training to practice: The writing center as a setting for learning to tutor [Doctoral dissertation]. The Ohio State University.

60.

Tupas

(2021). Fostering translingual dispositions against Unequal Englishes. English in Education, 55(3), 222–238.

61.

Thonus

(2004) What are the differences? Tutor interactions with first- and second- language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.009

62.

Wang

(2012). Behind the curtain: A critical view of theory and practice of tutoring international English language learners at university writing centers [PhD dissertation]. Indiana University of Pennsylvania. ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection (Order No.AAI3505110).

63.

Wang

Moskal

(2019). What is wrong with silence in intercultural classrooms? An insight into international students’ integration at a UK university. Journal of Comparative & International Higher Education, 11, 52–58. https://doi.org/10.32674/jcihe.v11iWinter.1087

64.

The Writing Centers Association of Japan. (2021). Writing centers in Japan. https://sites.google.com/site/wcajapan/writing-center-resources?authuser=0

65.

Yasuda

(2006). Japanese students’ literacy background and the role of the writing center. The Language Teacher, 30(5), 3-7

66.

Zhou

Y. R.

Knoke

Sakamoto

(2005). Rethinking silence in the classroom: Chinese students’ experiences of sharing indigenous knowledge. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 9, 287–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110500075180

Miscommunication and Mismatched Expectations: Challenges in an EFL Writing Center

Abstract

Plain Language Summary

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

EFL/ESL Writing Centers

NNES Tutors and Teachers

Theoretical-Methodological Approach

Research Context

IU Writing Center Philosophy

Participants

Methods

Semi-Structured Interviews

Quasi-Focus Group

Analyzing the Data

Results

Miscommunication

Student Silence

Mismatched Expectations

Interpreting Teacher’s Feedback

Error Correction

Discussion and Implications

Miscommunication and Student Silence

Mismatched Expectations

Interpreting Teacher’s Feedback

Error Correction

Conclusion

Footnotes

Appendix

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethics Approval

ORCID iD

Data Availability Statement

References