ABSTRACT

As a relatively young yet maturing academic discipline, L2 writing still lacks a truly coherent corpus of conclusive theory and research to synthesize in a tidy survey of learning and teaching (Hedgcock, 2005, 2010, 2012; Polio & Williams, 2011). At the end of the 20th century, Cumming and Riazi (2000) observed that the field still lacked a unified understanding of “how people actually learn to write in a second language” and of how formal instruction might most productively contribute to that learning process (p. 57). Nonetheless, considerable progress has been made toward constructing a rigorous research agenda and toward addressing the multiple concerns addressed in Chapters 1 and 2 (Leki et al., 2008; Matsuda, 2003b). Still, as Zhu (2010) argued, “discussions addressing the connection between theory and practice . . . seem to have focused more on ‘theory to practice,’ with practice at the receiving end” (p. 214). Her observation brings to mind Grabe and Kaplan’s (1996) caveat about the presupposition that “applying” a theory can produce an instructional method. Stressing the “bi-directional, interdependent, dynamic, and mediated nature of this relationship,” Zhu (2010) pointed out that “practice often motivates theory development by raising questions about various aspects of [L2] writing and serves as the site in which theory is tested” (p. 214).