Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Second Language Writing

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jslw

Understanding L2 writing teacher expertise

Icy Leea,*, Rui (Eric) Yuanb
a
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 317, Ho Tim Building, Shatin, New
Territories, Hong Kong
b
Department of English Language Education, The Education University of Hong Kong, B4-1/F-44, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong (until August
2020); Faculty of Education, University of Macau (from September 2020)

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This study attempts to address the “teacher expertise gap” in L2 writing research, using “adaptive
L2 writing expertise” as a specific tool for understanding the notion of writing teacher expertise. Drawing
Writing teacher upon language teacher education research and L2 writing research, and using teacher interviews
Expertise and classroom observation as data sources, the study explores the expertise of three writing
Adaptive expertise
teachers from different schools in Hong Kong, as well as the factors that may have contributed to
Writing teacher education
their expertise. The findings of the study show six key components of teacher expertise as de­
monstrated in the participating teachers, comprising integrated knowledge base about writing
and teaching writing; student-centred pedagogy focusing on learner motivation and confidence
building; professional visions, self-agency, and reflectivity; leadership in writing innovations;
passion as teachers of writing and as writers; and ongoing teacher learning and progressive
problem solving as pivotal to writing teacher expertise. The study suggests the rich, dynamic, and
contextual nature of writing teacher expertise, which is influenced by teachers’ cognitive en­
gagements, social interactions, and affective experiences in their situated contexts. The paper
concludes with implications for the teaching of writing and writing teacher education.

1. Introduction

In education, the topic of teacher expertise has received much research attention over the past decades (e.g., Berliner, 2001;
Hammerness, 2004). In second language education, Tsui’s (2003, 2005) landmark work on second language (L2) teacher expertise
has significantly expanded our understanding of expert teaching, suggesting that experts are able to “interpret classroom events in a
principled manner, to provide a deeper analysis of problems, and to provide justifications for their practices” (Tsui, 2005, p. 176). In
L2 writing, while research has been conducted on multifarious areas including expertise demonstrated by L2 writers (e.g., Beare &
Bourdages, 2007), there is a surprising void in research on L2 writing teacher expertise. Although the 2016 Symposium on Second
Language Writing (SSLW) explored the theme on “Expertise in L2 writing”, we still know very little about the knowledge and skills
that constitute expertise in teaching L2 writing. In his recent conceptual paper on writing teacher expertise, Hirvela (2019) un­
derscored the need for more research on this important area of L2 writing scholarship.
To address the “teacher expertise gap” in L2 writing and to respond to Hirvela’s (2019) call to “bring expertise to a more
prominent place in studies concerning L2 writing teachers” (p. 14), this study sets out to investigate the expertise demonstrated in
three experienced school teachers in Hong Kong, as well as the factors that have contributed to their expert teaching. It is also an
attempt to address a key issue raised about the notion of expertise at the 2016 SSLW – namely, what constitutes expertise, and

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: icylee@cuhk.edu.hk (I. Lee), eryuan@eduhk.hk (R.E. Yuan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100755
Received 1 January 2020; Received in revised form 6 July 2020; Accepted 8 July 2020
1060-3743/ © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Icy Lee and Rui (Eric) Yuan, Journal of Second Language Writing,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100755
I. Lee and R.E. Yuan Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

specifically the knowledge and skills of expert writing teachers (Eick, Fields, & Matsuda, 2017). Given that L2 writing teacher
education is under-developed (Worden, 2015, 2019), a focus on L2 writing teacher expertise can contribute to a better understanding
of effective preparation of writing teachers.

2. Literature review

2.1. What is teacher expertise?

Expertise can be understood as a form of analytical, practical, and creative wisdom (Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Ferrari, 2002),
which is developed over hours of practice (Berliner, 2001). Early researchers (e.g., Berliner, 2001; Turner-Bisset, 1999) focused on
the performance of experts as contrasted with that of novices, with the former being characterized by automaticity, effortlessness, and
fluidity (Berliner, 2001). This can be partly attributed to a repertoire of pedagogical techniques and skills expert teachers have
developed through years of practice, which may emanate from their extensive and accessible knowledge of the subject matter,
pedagogy, students, curriculum, and learning environment (Berliner, 2001; Turner-Bisset, 1999). These teachers are capable of
applying their knowledge strategically and show perseverance and creativity in solving problems at a deep level (Sternberg &
Horvath, 1995). In particular, they exhibit strong self-regulatory skills with high self-efficacy (Berliner, 2001), and set high standards
and take on challenges that are progressively more difficult (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993).
The expert-novice distinction, however, has been criticized as too rigid as it presents an idealized notion of expertise (Berieter &
Scardamalia, 1993), suggesting that experts are perfect and all-knowing whereas novices are just the antithesis. Such expert-novice
demarcation perpetuates a deficit view of novices or non-experts, with a concomitant over-emphasis on the superior knowledge and
skills associated with expert teachers. While teachers progress through various stages of teacher development to become expert
teachers, they also construct and refine their expertise through identifying and solving problems in their situated contexts, developing
deep knowledge “about what they do, how they do it, and why… they ply their practices with great adeptness” (McNaughton, 2011,
p.133). Such ability to “identify instructional roadblocks, then generate successful responses” (Hayden, Rundell, & Smyntek-Gworek,
2013, p.395) is referred to as “adaptive expertise” (Hayden et al., 2013). Hanato and Inagaki (1984) further distinguish adaptive from
routine expertise by suggesting that routine experts possess automatized knowledge and use “procedural skills … for solving everyday
problems in a stable environment” (Hanato & Inagaki, 1984, p.31), but they lack “flexibility and adaptability to new problems”
(p.31). Adaptive experts, on the other hand, “are willing to engage in active experimentation which creates a greater possibility to
acquire conceptual knowledge” (p.34), i.e., “the how and why of each step” (Hanato & Inagaki, 1984, p.33). At the heart of adaptive
expertise is reflective practice, which “drives the development of expertise through emphasis on regular examination of the impact of
one’s teaching actions on student outcomes, and critical thinking about practice” (Hayden et al., 2013, p.398). Adaptive experts
“apply, adapt, and otherwise stretch knowledge” (Wineburg, 1998, p.321) through which they “push their existing levels of com­
petence” (Atkinson, 2020, p.8). Thus, adaptive expertise provides a useful lens for understanding writing teacher expertise and is
used to frame the present study.

2.2. Locating writing teacher expertise within relevant L2 writing literature

With almost non-existing research on L2 writing expertise, our understanding of this notion can only be gleaned from research
that has focused on L2 writing teachers, such as their knowledge, beliefs, practice, and professional development.
Research suggests that pivotal to L2 writing teachers’ development are their conceptualizations of writing, curriculum planning,
and classroom practice (Cumming, 2003). Effective writing instruction entails the adoption of a synthesized teaching approach
informed by product, process, and genre perspectives of writing (Badger & White, 2000). Specifically, teachers guide students to
engage in brainstorming, multiple drafting, and final editing with scaffolding on content, language, and rhetorical skills of writing (Lo
& Hyland, 2007). Effective writing teachers activate students’ interest and foster their sense of ownership in the process of learning to
write (Cumming, 2006). They choose appropriate and purposeful writing topics, which are relevant and engaging to students
(Hyland, 2003). In classroom writing assessment, feedback is effective when teachers respond to student writing in a focused,
constructive, systematic yet flexible manner (Ferris, Liu, Sinha, & Senna, 2013), involving students in peer/self-evaluation to promote
collaborative learning (Yang, Badger, & Yu, 2006). Furthermore, effective writing teachers can use different assessment tools to
evaluate the quality and diagnose the problems of students’ writing, and help students improve their writing competence (Hamp-
Lyons, 2003).
Recent research on L2 writing teacher development, which focuses on what writing teachers think, believe, and practice, has
revealed discrepancies between their beliefs and practices (Diab, 2005; Lee, 2009). For instance, while many L2 teachers are skeptical
of the value of comprehensive written corrective feedback, they put much emphasis on it in their actual practice (Diab, 2005).
Through critical reflection and professional development, however, teachers can foster congruity between their beliefs and practice
(Lee, 2018). Relatedly, research has demonstrated the social, dynamic nature of writing teacher development, arising from teachers’
interactive, agentive, and reflective engagement in their teaching of writing. Situated in a teacher education programme in Hong
Kong, Lee’s (2010) study showed that through continuing engagement with the course content and first-hand experience of class­
room-based research, the participating teachers developed personalized theories of writing and fostered a strong sense of identity as a
writing teacher and a change agent (Lee, 2013). The two ESL writing teachers in Yigitoglu and Belcher’s (2014) study also deepened
their understanding about how writing should be taught and marked through critical reflections on their conceptions and experiences
as writers and learners of writing. In Worden’s (2015) study about two ESL teachers’ learning to teach parallelism in writing, writing

2
I. Lee and R.E. Yuan Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

teacher development was found to be influenced by a number of external factors, such as free websites on the Internet that offer
educational resources, and the expert guidance provided by the teacher educator, in addition to teachers’ own personal reflections.
Worden’s (2019) recent study focused on the pedagogical content knowledge L2 writing teachers developed as they adopted a genre
approach to teaching L2 writing, enriching our understanding of how L2 writing teacher education can operate as a powerful factor
that facilitates teachers’ learning and implementation of a genre approach in teaching writing.
While the above research has augmented our understanding of the work, lives, and development of L2 writing teachers, none of
the studies have provided explicit knowledge about the expertise that underlies L2 writing teachers’ practice. This serious omission
provides the impetus for the present study.

2.3. Operational definition of “writing teacher expertise”

Research on teacher expertise and L2 writing points to two main dimensions, contributing to the operational definition of writing
teacher expertise in the study. First, expert writing teachers possess a strong knowledge base that comprises subject matter knowledge
(e.g., L2 writing theories and approaches), pedagogical content knowledge (i.e., knowledge of writing curriculum, content, pedagogy,
and students – Shulman, 1987), procedural knowledge/skills (e.g., how to use a genre approach to teach writing), and conceptual
knowledge (teachers performing skills with clear understanding of why they do what they do – Hantao & Iagaki, 1984) (also see
Hedgcock & Lee, 2017; Shulman, 1987). The knowledge-and-skills dimension of writing teacher expertise is succinctly summarized
by Hirvela (2019) in his definition of L2 writing teacher expertise as “the instructional beliefs, knowledge and skills that may be
considered as essential at a certain level of proficiency in order for teachers to guide students towards the acquisition of beneficial L2
writing ability” (p.17). Second, expert writing teachers are adaptive and reflective in their practice (Hanato & Inagaki, 1984; Hayden
et al., 2013), responding to the exigencies of teaching and learning by being flexible and creative. While we use Hirvela’s (2019)
definition (focusing on teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and skills) to guide our study, we do not address whether the participating
teachers’ teaching leads to students’ effective learning of L2 writing. Also, our purpose is not to gauge the level of proficiency required
for one to become an expert in teaching writing. Instead, we began our study with three expert writing teachers (see Section 3 for
information about the sampling) – investigating their beliefs, knowledge, and/or skills that constitute their expertise. Specifically, we
focus on their adaptive expertise – that is, their ability to identify problems and respond to them with creativity, flexibility, and
reflexivity, rather than compare the teachers as experts with those who are novices.
Particularly noteworthy is that writing teacher expertise may be exhibited differently in different instructional contexts, since
expert teaching does not consist of “a uniform set of knowledge and skills that apply to all situations” (Eick et al., 2017, p.59). Instead
of treating expertise simply as a “state” (Tsui, 2005, p. 168), it is important to take account of its dynamic nature and investigate the
contributing factors within complex social, cultural, and historical contexts (Johnson, 2006). Thus, this study focuses on both the
“what” of writing teacher expertise (the evidence), and the “why” (the factors that have contributed to it). Without real-time
chronological data that tracks writing teachers’ expertise development, the “how” of expertise is beyond the scope of the study.
Nonetheless, the study is a first attempt to unpack the concept of L2 writing teacher expertise, which will galvanize further research
efforts to establish a richer understanding of this significant yet not well understood topic in L2 writing.

3. The study

The study aims to answer the following research question: What evidence of expertise is demonstrated in the three L2 writing
teachers, and what factors may have contributed to such expertise within their situated context?

3.1. Research context and participants

The study was conducted with three English teachers in Hong Kong, where English is one of the two official languages (the other
being Chinese). Insofar as writing is concerned, the status of English is often referred to as a foreign rather than a second language,
especially after 1997 (Hong Kong was then handed back to Mainland China). Outside school, English in writing is rarely attempted by
students (though written communications in English are still used in business and some workplaces like the government and higher
education). In school, English is a compulsory subject from primary to secondary. Primary students begin to write short pieces of
about 30 words (at Grade 3), and as they reach senior secondary at Grade 12 they are required to produce two pieces of writing at the
university entrance examination, of 200 and 400 words respectively (within two hours). The required genres include formal and
informal letters, newspaper/magazine articles, magazine reviews, and opinion essays. Worthy of note is that teachers in Hong Kong
primarily adopt a product-oriented, form-focused approach in the writing classroom.
The participants are three Cantonese-speaking school teachers of English, Iris, Alice, and Cindy (pseudonyms are used), who were
from the same cohort of students who completed a part-time writing teacher education (WTE) course taught by the first author at a
Hong Kong university. The WTE course was part of a master’s programme in English language teaching that provided about 20 hours
of classroom input on L2 writing (including a focus on theory, instructional practice, and assessment) for practicing primary and
secondary English teachers. The three teachers all obtained a distinction for their main assignment - a classroom inquiry project that
required them to select an area for classroom research in their writing classroom and report on the major findings. Their outstanding
performance in the classroom research provides evidence for the three teachers’ reflective approach to classroom research and
practice, as well as their advanced skills in academic writing. Since completion of the WTE, the first author had kept in touch with the
three teachers and tracked their development as L2 writing teachers in two previous studies (Lee, 2010, 2013), testifying to their

3
I. Lee and R.E. Yuan Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

continuing professional growth (e.g., as shown in career advancement and/or the leadership role they played in their school, as well
as the recognition they gained from their colleagues as creditable teachers of writing). It is for these reasons that the three teachers,
being identified as expert writing teachers, were selected for the study (conducted five years after they had completed the WTE
course).
The three teachers were all educated locally with an English major degree, an English major teacher training qualification, and an
MA degree in English language teaching. When the study commenced, Iris and Alice had been teaching for 11 and 17 years re­
spectively - each in the same Band 1 secondary school1, whereas Cindy had been teaching for 10 years, including five years in her
current school and five years in her previous school (both primary). At the time of the study, Iris was serving as the English de­
partment head of her school (being promoted to the position soon after the WTE). Cindy was a curriculum development officer (a
very well-respected positon that oversees the English curriculum, with teaching responsibilities too) of the English department of her
current primary school. Alice was a regular English teacher having resigned from the deputy English head positon (which she held
when she was taking the WTE course) after one year of service due to heavy workload.

3.2. Data collection and analysis

In order not to prime the teachers, we told them we were interested in their continuing development as writing teachers without
telling them our research focus on expertise. To prevent the participants from working particularly hard to show their former teacher,
the first author, that they had made much progress in their teaching five years after the WTE course, data collection was performed by
the second author, who was then a PhD student with a strong research interest in L2 teacher education and experience in qualitative
research and scholarly publishing.
This study draws on data from semi-structured interviews with the teachers and observation of their writing classrooms. The
second author conducted two rounds of in-depth interviews with each of the teachers to explore their writing teacher expertise. The
first interview (see Appendix A) aimed to find out how the teachers conceptualized and taught writing. Informed by adaptive
expertise, the teachers were also invited to recall the challenges they had faced in writing classrooms as well as their coping stra­
tegies, and to identify possible directions for future improvement. The second interview (see Appendix B), conducted at the end of the
classroom observations (one unit of writing self-selected by each teacher, comprising three lessons), focused on the participants’
teaching of writing in the actual classroom. Both interviews, each lasting 90−110 minutes, were conducted in English and audio-
recorded for further transcription and analysis. The second author observed the three teachers’ lessons (nine in total), audio-recorded
them, and took field notes. Informed by the existing research on L2 writing as reviewed above, the focus of the observation was
mainly on the instructional approaches (e.g., how they introduced the writing topics, set up writing contexts, and prepared students
in terms of language and content), as well as feedback and assessment practices (e.g., peer/self-evaluation).
The interview data were transcribed by a research assistant (who holds a BA degree in English education) and verified by the
authors. To answer the research question, we adopted a qualitative, inductive approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) to data analysis.
First, we read the interview transcripts iteratively to identify the themes relating to the participants’ expertise as a writing teacher.
Informed by the operational definition of writing teacher expertise (instructional beliefs, knowledge, and skills) and adaptive ex­
pertise as a specific tool for exploring the notion, we identified a range of themes that emerged in each case, such as the teachers’
integrated knowledge about instructional approaches, learner-focused teaching, and reflective abilities to examine and improve
teaching of writing. We also reviewed the classroom recordings alongside the field notes. Through discussion we identified some
salient episodes that reflected the participants’ (adaptive) expertise as writing teachers, and such data were triangulated with the
interview data. For instance, as detailed in the findings section below, Iris’ brave attempt to implement process pedagogy despite
previous failure of the approach, Alice’s role as a trainer of teachers in genre pedagogy, and Cindy’s efforts in pushing forward process
pedagogy at the school level were identified as critical evidence that demonstrates their expertise in teaching writing. A cross-case
comparison (Merriam, 1998) was conducted to compare, contrast, and synthesize the findings, leading to the main attributes of L2
writing teacher expertise and the contributing factors.
To enhance the reliability of the data analysis and the trustworthiness of the findings, we treated our data rigorously and took the
following steps: (1) triangulation between the different data sets and the existing literature on L2 writing and teacher expertise
(Creswell, 1998); (2) member checking by inviting the teachers to read and comment on preliminary analyses (who agreed with our
analyses) (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993); (3) and rigorous discussions and critical challenges between ourselves, which
facilitated data interpretation.

4. Writing teacher expertise demonstrated in Iris, Alice, and Cindy

In this section, we present the findings case by case by drawing on the interview data (cited verbatim) and observational data,
highlighting the (adaptive) expertise demonstrated in the three teachers.

1
Secondary schools in Hong Kong are divided into three bands (1−3) based on student’s academic abilities and students in Band 1 schools are of
strongest academic abilities.

4
I. Lee and R.E. Yuan Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

4.1. Iris

Iris’ expertise as a writing teacher was evident in the ways she tackled a historical problem and formidable challenge in her
school, which could be epitomized as the tension between a product and process approach to writing. More than ten years ago, the
former vice principal (also an English teacher) promoted process writing in English classrooms (Interview 1). However, as recalled by
Iris, the teachers found it very time-consuming (Interview 1), and due to their strong resistance, the initiative finally “met its
Waterloo” (Interview 1). Single drafting was then reinstated and no one dared to bring up the matter of multiple drafting again. For
years, a process approach had been considered a taboo topic in the English department of her school. Despite this, in the past few
years Iris made an effortful attempt to bring process writing back to the writing curriculum as she was convinced of its value in
helping students develop writing competence: “I want my students to know the importance of writing and experience the process of
writing because I believe that writing is not just about satisfying exam requirements. It is a process” (Interview 1). Being aware of
some colleagues’ recalcitrance, Iris worked closely with her department to garner the support of like-minded colleagues and began to
introduce multiple drafting in all grades. She believed that there is more to a process approach than multiple drafting and took the
initiative to design process-oriented teaching materials (e.g., pre-writing activities and peer feedback forms), shared them with
colleagues, and provided guidance and encouragement during collaborative lesson planning:
In terms of the re-introduction of the process writing approach, I took the initiative to do the first unit myself. And then I shared
with my colleagues how I devised my materials. … They picked up things from me and worked on their own. … I also sat down
with a teacher and gave her some guidance and advice on how we can teach writing more effectively. (Interview 1)
Iris’ initiative and efforts gradually alleviated other teachers’ resistance to process writing. Through ongoing experimentation and
negotiation among colleagues for over a year, the English department eventually agreed that in each semester, teachers could choose
one topic (out of three) for multiple drafting. For other single-draft writing tasks, teachers were encouraged to strengthen the pre-
writing stage and implement interactive tasks such as peer evaluation (Interview 1). Reflecting on this experience, Iris underscored
the importance of school-based collaborative professional development: “I think we are a professional team. We do learn from each
other in the process of changing and improving our teaching of writing. We should not be practicing on our own” (Interview 1).
Building on her adaptive expertise in the implementation of a process approach, Iris further combined it with genre pedagogy. In
addition to the development of linguistic and structural-rhetorical aspects of writing, Iris put an emphasis on topic knowledge and
development. In the unit observed, she guided her students to reflect on their experiences and share ideas about the local education
system, followed by a discussion of the genre features of a letter to the editor. Specifically, she asked students to compare two letters
(a letter to a friend and a letter to the editor) and identified their differences in terms of organization and language (Classroom
observation). Then students engaged in drafting and peer evaluation, culminating in their open sharing of letters in class. Iris also
suggested that students send their letters to a local newspaper for consideration of publication (Classroom observation), encouraging
students to write for a real audience and helping them understand that writing is a real-life activity with potential impact on people
around them:
I share with my students why we are writing letter to the editor because it is so widely published in newspaper. I get students to
read the newspaper and find out the reason why some people are writing those letters. Then, they can also do the same to make
arguments and even change people’s life. (Interview 1)
Both from the interviews and classroom observations, Iris exuded her passion for writing, referring to her diary writing habit as a
reflective tool to understand her life experiences and seek personal growth: “I write diary entries. It is a self-help tool for expressing
yourself, expressing your ideas and making a difference in society” (Interview 1). As an enthusiastic writer herself, Iris shared her
own writing experience with students in the classroom. In teaching students how to write a letter to the editor, she used a letter she
had published in a local newspaper as a model text to demonstrate its social functions and authenticity of writing (Classroom
observation):
Last year I visited a book fair and saw many students working as models there. They seem popular but I feel the book fair is no
longer decent. The kinds of books they were selling were simply photo albums, quite sexy. I feel very strongly on this issue from
the moral point of view. From a writing teacher’s point of view, maybe I think I can write one and express my views in the
newspaper. Later I can also share it with my students. (Interview 2)
Through sharing her own writing, Iris demonstrated that as an expert writing teacher she loved and engaged in writing, setting
herself up as a good role model for students. Additionally, Iris showed that ideas in writing did matter as they could be a powerful tool
to express meaning and influence the readers.
Iris’ expert teaching was also evidenced in her perspective on the multi-facetedness of writing, which contrasted with her form-
focused practice in her early years of teaching (Lee, 2010). In the lessons observed, she employed a range of interactive activities to
help students brainstorm, critique, and polish ideas in their writing. She guided students to engage in group discussion about the
education system in Hong Kong and explore ideas that could be incorporated into their letters to the editor (Classroom observation).
In the post-observation interview, Iris explained the underlying rationale for such an approach:
Hong Kong students are under pressure and lack motivation to learn. By providing a chance for students to discuss, write, and
reflect on their own experiences, I want them to find a sense of direction and gain confidence and interest in learning. (Interview
2)

5
I. Lee and R.E. Yuan Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Indeed, Iris did not simply focus on written accuracy; instead her goal was to help students develop into motivated, engaged,
reflective, and confident writers.
Further evidence of Iris’ expertise can be seen in her feedback practices. Iris made students play an active role by engaging them in
peer feedback. This was inspired by a mini-research project she undertook during the WTE course:
In the WTE course, I did a study on the use of peer feedback which proved to be effective and motivating. So now I always guide
students to make comments on each other’s writing in terms of content and language. (Interview 1)
Even though Iris had introduced numerous positive changes to her writing classrooms, she was aware of areas in which change
was still hard to achieve, such as pushing written feedback reform to advocate a more selective approach to error feedback. Projecting
into her future practice, Iris demonstrated her reflectivity and strong determination to tackle ongoing challenges – e.g., through
adopting conferencing as a feedback strategy to help students improve their writing:
By talking to students, you can touch their heart. You can get to know what they think. You can get them to share their innermost
feelings. But again time is a constraint. How to structure the curriculum is another challenge because there is so much to cover in
our English program. But I will definitely explore and find ways to conduct conferencing in the future. You know, this is also a way
to improve my own learning. (Interview 2)
Iris’ focus on her own teacher learning suggests that she is an adaptive expert, being ready to embrace the role of a learner, reflect
critically, and continually bring change to improve her practice.

4.2. Alice

Alice’s expertise as a writing teacher was mainly characterized by her knowledge and skills with regard to genre pedagogy,
originally inspired by her previous principal: “She shared the genre-based approach with some practical suggestions. I was deeply
intrigued by this idea” (Interview 1). Her belief in genre-based teaching was, according to Alice, further consolidated and enriched by
the WTE course. By reading up on relevant research literature about this approach and trying it out through classroom-based research
in the WTE course, Alice acquired a deep understanding of the social purposes and contexts of writing, as reflected in her own writing
practice (e.g., personal email or letters) in daily life: “When I write, I pay more attention to specific discourse features such as
sentence patterns and how I can use them to convey specific meaning” (Interview 1). Such awareness benefited her teaching: “I found
it’s really systematic and by helping students understand the contexts and discourse features of the text with necessary input, they can
really improve their writing” (Interview 1).
In her practice, Alice helped students analyze the genre features of model texts at the pre-writing stage, and then guided them to
reflect on their own writing with a specific focus on the features of target genres (Interview 2):
I want my students to learn about under what situation do they use that kind of writing, who are the target readers and the tone
they need to use, the structure and the organization structure, target reader or else the language or any special sentence structure
they need to use for that kind of writing. (Interview 1)
With her heightened genre awareness, coupled with her strong passion as a writing teacher, Alice always looked for authentic
materials of different text types in her daily life and adapted them to enrich and improve her teaching of writing, instead of simply
following the prescribed textbook:
I think rather than the textbook, actually around us, everywhere maybe it’s easier for you to find out the genre you would like to
target at. … When I was teaching Letter of Advice, I went to a Convenience Store to buy a 17 magazine and I can find more real,
interesting, and more engaging examples. (Interview 1)
Alice also encouraged students to observe and explore the genre features of different texts they encountered outside class. In this way,
she believed “students can develop a deeper understanding of contextualized use of language in real life.” (Interview 1)
Alice’s adaptive expertise saw her play a “facilitator” role, responding to problems in her teaching context:
At the beginning, only a few colleagues know what genre approach is. We did some professional development workshops and I
tried to create and share the teaching materials with them. Now I think all our colleagues have a clear understanding of this
approach and most of them are adopting it in their teaching. (Interview 1)
Through collaborative practice, Alice helped integrate a genre-based approach in the school curriculum: “Through lots of discussion
and debate, we integrated this approach in our school’s English curriculum. We revised the part of teaching writing in the curriculum
by incorporating a definition of the genre-based approach and its practical guideline” (Interview 1). Thus as a writing teacher, Alice
was actively engaged in disseminating her teaching expertise at both individual (e.g., by sharing teaching materials) and collective
(e.g., by reforming the school curriculum) levels: “When we worked on the curriculum, I feel my understanding of teaching writing
has become more comprehensive and systematic. I can see the large picture of teaching writing and how it relates to other language
skills.” (Interview 1)
Alice’s adaptive expertise was also evidenced in her critical reflection on the feedback and assessment practices in facilitating
students’ writing. Realizing the limitations of her beginning practice that focused primarily on grammatical errors and grades, she
gradually developed different assessment strategies that included peer and self-evaluation to foster students’ independent thinking
and self-regulation. In teaching diary writing, for example, she guided students to engage in peer review after completing their first

6
I. Lee and R.E. Yuan Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

drafts. Through peer review training, she demonstrated how to evaluate writing and give constructive comments. As shown in the
observational data, the students in Alice’s class exchanged drafts and gave comments on their peers’ writing in terms of ideas,
organization, and grammar. They all appeared to be engaged in the task and tried to provide suggestions on the peer evaluation form
(Classroom observation). Reflecting on her teaching, Alice said, “By using the assessment rubrics and organizing self/peer evaluation,
I can draw students’ attention to the important features and criteria in the writing task. In the long run, it can develop their genre
awareness and reflective abilities as writers.” (Interview 2)
Notwithstanding, Alice’s professional development was thwarted by the practical constraints in her teaching context. Although it
was her wish to combine a genre with a process approach, in reality, she was not able to do so due to the rigid school curriculum:
In my school, it is difficult to implement the process approach because it is very time-consuming. Normally we need to finish 6–8
writing tasks in a year…We cannot afford to go through multiple drafts for each writing task. (Interview 1)
While the time constraint as a major obstacle to the implementation of a process approach was a condition that Alice appeared to
accept, she still provided opportunities for students to undertake self- and peer evaluation, showing her adaptability and flexibility.
After peer evaluation, however, she only required students to make changes to their first draft with white-out (Classroom ob­
servation). Though time-saving, Alice was aware that this practice encouraged students to focus mainly on grammar use and spelling
in their revision, thus deviating from a genre-based approach that requires attention to genre features beyond the grammatical level.
Being cognizant of the limitations of her teaching, Alice expressed a strong sense of agency to cope with the challenges and improve
her practice:
It is difficult to change our culture. It takes time. But just like how we promoted the genre-based approach, we can gradually
implement it (a process-approach) through trial and sharing. This is how we learn to teach writing…Also, when our principal and
colleagues can see its benefits, they will be open to the new approach. (Interview 2)
Finally, at the heart of Alice’s expert teaching was her learner-focused approach; to her what mattered most was student learning
outcome:
Over the years, I can see the quality of students’ work has improved with better paragraphing and fewer grammatical mistakes.
More importantly, they have developed a better genre awareness. I feel very happy and encouraged about their progress, which
pushes me to explore how I can further improve my teaching so that all of them can become good writers. (Interview 2)
Alice’s focus on “further improvement” suggests that she was willing to embrace new challenges and undertake new initiatives to
improve her practice and to promote student learning, which is key to her adaptive expertise.

4.3. Cindy

Upon completion of the WTE course, Cindy moved to her current (second) school. Although she was able to adopt process
pedagogy in her first school, colleagues in her second school were resistant to a process approach as they were accustomed to the
traditional product-oriented approach. In her attempts to push forward process writing at the school level (and share her expertise),
Cindy first capitalized on her connections with the local education ministry by inviting some curriculum officers to share the success
stories of other schools, working closely with the school principal and the English department head to win their support.
Furthermore, she collaborated with other colleagues in joint lesson planning, who gradually altered their mindsets and decided to
integrate process pedagogy in their own practice:
I think the priority of my duties is to create a collaborative culture of professional development in the English department. If we
want changes in the curriculum, it usually starts with teachers who can collectively make changes to their thinking and teaching.
(Interview 1)
Cindy’s proactive and strategic maneuver in the new but somewhat constraining environment testified to her adaptive expertise,
which was corroborated by the observational data that showed her actively engaging students in a systematic process of collecting
and organizing ideas, drafting, revising, and publishing. Cindy summarized her approach in teaching story writing as follows:
First, I give them a story to read. I believe it is important to integrate reading and writing so that their interest can be aroused. We
worked together to organize the ideas in a story map and used it as a framework to guide their writing. We also did brainstorming
about ideas and discussed the important language features of a story, like the tenses and the use of dialogues… After they finished
their writing, I asked them to do peer evaluation and revision. I also gave them comments for further revision. In the end, we had a
story sharing activity to publish their stories. (Interview 1)
In story writing, Cindy further emphasized her teaching goal in helping students “have fun with writing and develop their interest as
young writers” (Interview 2). As shown in the lesson observation, Cindy served as a “facilitator” by creating an open and interactive
learning environment. She brought in interesting pictures and used questioning to stimulate students’ thinking and motivation
(Classroom observation). Using a writing frame to teach story structure, she engaged students in collaborative writing so that they
“mutually constructed their ideas and developed their communicative and problem-solving skills” (Interview 2). Cindy’s student-
centred pedagogy was thrown into sharp relief when she recalled her previous approach, where she simply assigned writing topics to
students with minimal input on language and content: “Previously I just gave students a topic with some vocabulary and structures
and then asked them to write right away” (Interview 1). Through promoting reading-writing integration and collaborative writing,

7
I. Lee and R.E. Yuan Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Cindy emphasized not only language but also topic knowledge and development in writing. Her adaptive expertise was characterized
by her responsiveness to student needs, which was derived from her rich teaching experience in two different schools and her critical
reflections on her situated practice.
As she looked ahead, Cindy identified an area in her writing practice that was in need of further development. Although she
believed that selective, coded error feedback was more effective than comprehensive error feedback in facilitating students’ self-
reflection and autonomous learning, she found herself reverting back to the comprehensive approach (correcting every error) from
time to time:
Sometimes I found it difficult to identify the target language error types in a writing task. Also, sometimes I could not help myself
when I saw students’ mistakes in their drafts. I talked with some colleagues, and they shared the similar feelings. I guess we are
used to the comprehensive approach as part of our teaching culture. (Interview 1)
Admitting her lack of practical knowledge (e.g., how to identify target error types) and the contextual constraints, Cindy ex­
pressed her willingness to seek external help to improve her practice of written corrective feedback: “We are talking about inviting
some researchers to give us a workshop on teacher feedback. It may give us some fresh ideas and guidance on how to respond to
students’ writing more effectively” (Interview 2). While Cindy was aware of her inadequate error feedback practice, her reflective
abilities and self-agency to close the gap between her self-belief and desired teaching practice evinced her adaptive expertise.
Additionally, Cindy shared her vision of fostering a “reflective culture” in the English department so that all teachers could engage
in collaborative teaching and reflections to promote students’ learning: “What we need is not just an “expert” but a “reflective
culture” so that everyone can participate and develop their expertise through reflections and discussion in a community. We are
trying to establish this culture” (Interview 2). Cindy’s self-projection as a “reflective teacher leader” in facilitating teacher learning at
the collective level gave further evidence of her being an adaptive expert. By using “we” in talking about the continuing reflections
and discussion in the teacher community, she also considered herself a co-learner, suggesting that willingness to engage in ongoing
teacher learning is crucial to her expertise, which is adaptive rather than routinized.

5. Writing teacher expertise as dynamic and multi-faceted

Drawing upon the evidence of writing teacher expertise demonstrated in the three teachers in the above, we attempt to explicate
the notion by unraveling its key characteristics.
Echoing previous research about the attributes of an effective writing teacher, the three participants demonstrated their un­
derstanding of writing as a multidimensional concept. As reflected in the teachers’ instructional focuses, writing was conceived as
both content and language (hence the focus on topic knowledge and development in writing, apart from written accuracy), a cog­
nitive process, and a socially situated activity (hence the importance of process and genre approaches) (Badger & White, 2000; Lo &
Hyland, 2007). Rather unsurprisingly, one important component of writing teacher expertise is an integrated knowledge base about
writing and the teaching of writing (Yigitoglu & Belcher, 2014).
Central to the participants’ expert teaching is also their genuine concern about student learning – i.e., their commitment to
helping students develop interest, motivation, and confidence in writing, and to empowering them to be assessment capable through
peer and self-review, which align with the key features of effective writing teachers as reviewed earlier. In the study, the teachers
adopted student-centred pedagogy – e.g., guiding students through the process of writing during which they learned how to develop
and share ideas and engaged in collaboration (Iris), enhancing students’ interest and confidence in writing through scaffolded in­
struction supported by stimulating learning activities (Cindy), and raising students’ awareness of good writing through genre
pedagogy so as to improve writing quality and build confidence (Alice).
A third dimension of the participants’ expertise is their strong reflective abilities (Hayden et al., 2013), self-agency, and a clear
vision about teaching writing which is indicative of the adaptive (rather than routine) aspect of expert teaching. As shown in the
study, the participants explored new possibilities and improved their practice as writing teachers with adaptability and flexibility. In
doing so, they not only exercised their self-agency but also brought their beliefs into alignment with their practice, which facilitated
their own professional development. For instance, Iris worked hard to implement a process approach to writing in her school as she
was convinced that it was beneficial to student learning. The participants’ continuous experimentation and reflections developed
their visions about the teaching of writing, which provided purposes and directions for their professional practice. Reflecting on her
current teaching situation, Alice formed a vision about integrating both genre-based and process approaches to foster students’
writing abilities. Cindy’s vision resided in a “reflective culture” where all writing teachers in her school could engage in collective
learning and reflections to facilitate students’ writing development. Thus, the participants’ expertise demonstrates a futuristic per­
spective, representing “a journey towards an uncertain future” and “an aspiration that is continually being striven for” (Sorensen,
2017, p.9). While previous research on writing teacher development has underlined the pivotal role of critical reflection (Lee, 2010;
2013; Yigitoglu & Belcher, 2014), the findings of the study further emphasize writing teachers’ strong self-agency and visions as a key
feature of writing teacher expertise, which is not routinized but adaptive.
With the writing teachers’ strong self-agency and visions, as well as their reflective abilities, Iris, Alice, and Cindy took on
challenges to promote change as teacher leaders in their current and future work, contributing to our understanding of the fourth
component of writing teacher expertise – namely, leadership in writing innovations. In other words, they not only focused on their
own classroom but also shared their expertise and facilitated mutual learning in the teacher community. The study shows that the
three participants encountered different obstacles (e.g., time constraints, rigid school curriculum, and resistant colleagues), which
impeded the translation of their beliefs into classroom practice. However, they adopted different strategies to maneuver within the

8
I. Lee and R.E. Yuan Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

contextual constraints and promote innovations in their school (Sternberg & Horvath, 1995), playing the role of a teacher leader in
pioneering innovation and promoting change. For instance, despite the historical failure of process pedagogy in Iris’ school, she
worked hard to mobilize a few like-minded colleagues and gradually promoted a process approach at the school level. In face of her
colleagues’ resistance, Cindy capitalized on her connections with the local education ministry and school leaders’ support and worked
collaboratively with her colleagues to implement a process approach. To help her colleagues come to grips with genre pedagogy,
Alice shared her ideas, experience, and pedagogical materials with her colleagues at school-based professional development sessions,
playing the role of a facilitator of teacher learning. The three teachers evinced a great willingness to learn, improve, and innovate, as
well as a vision and leadership for continuing improvement at both the individual and school levels. Indeed, their leadership in
writing innovations and their efforts in distributing their expertise constitute a distinct attribute of their expertise, which is not
automatized in a stable work environment but adaptive to change.
The findings also highlight an affective dimension of expert writing teachers - namely passion and commitment as teachers of
writing, which drove the three teachers to put tremendous efforts in their own professional development, in helping their colleagues
improve their practice, and in enhancing students’ writing competence. For Iris, her zest as a writer (in English) is also evident as she
not only engaged in diary writing to express feelings and thoughts, but also used her own writing to enrich her classroom teaching
and inspire her students. Hence, expert writing teachers are enthusiastic and committed practitioners; they are possibly passionate
writers too (see Casanave, 2017), as in the case of Iris, though similar evidence from Alice and Iris is lacking (admittedly such
information was not probed in the study).
Underlying all the above five facets of writing teacher expertise is the teachers’ willingness to engage in ongoing learning. From
the perspective of adaptive expertise, the findings challenge the idealized notion of expertise that polarizes teachers as either experts
or non-experts. Even though the three participants demonstrated expertise in different aspects of their work as writing teachers, there
were shortcomings in their practice due to insufficient professional knowledge (e.g., how to implement selective error feedback) and
contextual obstacles in their situated contexts. Their expertise in certain areas could still be contested amidst changing contexts (e.g.,
from one school to another), or in face of problems arising from different students and colleagues. Such expertise is not routinized
(i.e., automatized and stable) but adaptive. For instance, Cindy’s instructional beliefs and skills in process pedagogy brought from her
previous school were challenged in her new school, pushing her to take on the role of a teacher learner in quest of ways to implement
process pedagogy in the new school. In the words of Casanave (2018), expertise develops “over a lifetime of deliberate effortful
practice of progressive problem recognition and problem solving. Perhaps true experts never get there” (p.60). There is thus a
paradoxical side to expert teaching development – it is a lifelong process, and true experts never get there especially amidst the new,
ongoing problems and challenges that emerge throughout their teaching practice. As such, adaptive expertise proves itself to be a
useful tool for understanding expert teaching. Central to the expertise of writing teachers is “ongoing learning and progressive
problem solving”, which can interact with and positively impact the other five components.

6. Factors contributing to writing teacher expertise

While previous literature (e.g., Tsui, 2009) has demonstrated the social and developmental process of language teachers’ expertise
building, the findings of the study suggest that expertise is influenced by factors such as cognitive engagements, social interactions,
and affective experiences.
First, expert teachers are influenced by their cognitive engagements in various professional development activities. All the three
teachers made reference to the classroom inquiry project they conducted in the WTE course, which enlarged their understanding of
peer review (for Iris and Cindy) and genre pedagogy (for Alice). Back to their own classroom, they further applied their new
knowledge with critical reflection, promoting their expertise. One example is Alice’s active adoption of peer and self-review fa­
cilitated by her reflection on her previous feedback practice that focused primarily on grammatical errors and grades. Indeed, the
process of “practicalizing theoretical knowledge” (Tsui, 2009, p. 429) can reinforce and transform writing teachers’ pedagogic un­
derstanding and contribute to their expertise and professional development (Richards, 2008).
Writing teacher expertise not only entails a cognitive process of knowledge accumulation and skill honing, but it also derives from
teachers’ social interactions, through which they make sense of how to teach writing in school contexts (Sorensen, 2017; Worden,
2015). For instance, Alice developed her knowledge and skills regarding genre pedagogy through interactions with and learning from
her former principal, and Iris promoted process writing through interacting and collaborating with her colleagues in a community of
practice. In her new school, Cindy implemented a process approach with support from education ministry officers, school leaders and
other colleagues, which in turn contributed to her expertise as a writing teacher in the new school.
Affect is found to play an important role in contributing to expert teaching of writing. All the three teaches displayed great passion
as teachers of writing, and in the case of Iris, passion as a writer too. Iris’ zest as a writer and writing teacher prompted her to
experiment with a process-genre approach, and she used her own letter to the editor as a sample text to familiarize students with the
genre. For Alice, through her consistent application of genre pedagogy she witnessed significant improvement in her students’
writing, which generated a sense of joy and satisfaction, pushing her to further innovate and improve her practice. Cindy’s en­
thusiastic support of process pedagogy, similarly, drove her to undertake innovation and to involve her colleagues in change at the
school level. Indeed, it is the teachers’ passion, enthusiasm, and commitment that prompted them to reflect, adapt, and change,
contributing to their (adaptive) expertise.

9
I. Lee and R.E. Yuan Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

7. Towards understanding L2 writing teacher expertise

The study contributes to our theoretical understanding of the notion of L2 writing teacher expertise, which is expounded in Sections 5 and
6 and encapsulated in Fig. 1. Our findings underscore the adaptive aspect of expert teaching amidst shifting educational and sociocultural
contexts (Sorensen, 2017). When teachers change to a new school, or when they are faced with changing student populations (and hence
different student needs), new colleagues, new challenges arising from education reform, etc., they may have to refine or further develop their
expertise. Therefore, occupying the centre of Fig. 1 is “ongoing teacher learning and progressive problem solving”, which are characterized by
adaptability, flexibility, and reflexivity (i.e., adaptive expertise) and key to expert writing teachers. This pivotal element interacts with other
components of writing teacher expertise (see Fig. 1), namely integrated knowledge base about writing and writing instruction, student-
centred pedagogy, reflectivity and vision about writing, leadership in writing innovations, as well as passion as writing teachers and writers.
As a multi-faceted concept, expertise of L2 writing teachers is also a cognitive, social, and affective phenomenon influenced by internal (e.g.,
teachers’ reflective abilities and self-agency) and external factors (e.g., the WTE course, school curriculum, and collegial support) as borne out
in the study. Though grounded in the findings gathered from only three teachers in a single context, Fig. 1 can provide a frame of reference
for future studies on expert writing teachers, with potential implications for L2 writing teacher expertise scholarship and teacher education
practice.

Fig. 1. Components of L2 writing teacher expertise and influencing factors.

8. Implications, limitations, and future research

Given the difficulties writing as a language skill poses to language learners and the challenges involved in teaching writing in L2
contexts, an understanding of the components of writing teacher expertise can provide useful information to guide the design of

10
I. Lee and R.E. Yuan Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

writing teacher education programmes. Apart from the cognitive and social dimensions of writing teacher expertise, the affective
aspect has to be emphasized – e.g., a focus on nurturing teacher learners’ passion for writing so that writing teachers themselves
become role models for their students. In particular, the obstacles the participants in the study encountered provide useful ideas for
writing teacher educators, who should take cognizance of the socio-dynamic nature of expertise and heighten teacher learners’
awareness of the challenges they are likely to face and ways to navigate the challenges in their own context. One viable solution is for
writing teachers to establish professional learning communities in their work contexts, where they develop common visions, ex­
change constructive ideas, and collaboratively develop appropriate teaching materials, writing and assessment tasks, as well as
feedback strategies to promote students’ writing competence. They may even write together (e.g., engaging in collaborative re­
flections) as part of their ongoing learning since writing teachers need to engage in writing themselves (Casanave, 2017).
Before closing, the limitations of the study have to be acknowledged. First, the study is limited by its scale, with data gathered
from six self-reported interviews and observations of nine lessons from three participating teachers, as well as the absence of
chronological data showing the evolving process of writing teacher expertise development over time. Also, no student data are
available to show the impact of the participants’ teaching on students’ writing and learning of writing, which can be a critical
component of writing teacher expertise. Nonetheless, as a first attempt to understand the notion of writing teacher expertise, the
findings of the study based on the Hong Kong context may have relevance and useful implications for writing teachers and writing
teacher educators in other contexts. In particular, adaptive expertise can provide a useful tool for examining the expertise of writing
teachers in similar contexts. Future research can adopt a longitudinal approach and collect real-time data, with a dual focus on
writing teachers’ expertise and student learning of writing, to examine the notion of writing teacher expertise in greater depth and to
show how writing teacher expertise can help facilitate students’ acquisition of L2 writing ability (see Hirvela, 2019). It would also be
interesting to investigate teachers’ own writing experience, with a focus on the affective dimension, to find out how it contributes to
their expertise as teachers of writing. Granted that our study addresses the L2 context, the question arises as to whether and how
expertise of L2 writing teachers may differ from that of their L1 counterparts. This is beyond the purview of the study but a possible
area for future research.

Acknowledgement

The project reported in the study was not supported by any research grant.

Appendix A. First interview questions

1 How did you learn English writing as a language learner before? Have your own learning experiences influenced your teaching
practice?
2 What theoretical / guiding principles inform your teaching of writing at present? Where do these principles emanate from?
3 Can you generally describe how you teach writing? What do you expect your students to learn?
4 What change, if any, has happened to you as a teacher of writing over the years since you completed the WTE? How would you
account for such change?
5 What innovations, if any, have you attempted? What challenges did you encounter and how did you cope with them?
6 What is the relationship between you and your students in writing classes? What kind of teacher do you think you are in front your
students? Give examples.
7 How is your relationship with other teachers in school? How may your colleagues see you and your work? Is there any colla­
boration between you and other teachers in the teaching of writing?
8 Is there a department policy on the teaching of writing? How do you perceive and respond to the policy?
9 How do you feel about yourself as a writing teacher? What kind of emotions do you usually experience in your work?
10 Looking ahead, how do you want to further improve your teaching practice? What kind of writing teacher would you want to be?
What are the possible challenges ahead?

Appendix B. Post-lesson interview questions

1 Can you generally describe the design of the lesson and your intentions?
2 What were the lesson objectives? Why were these objectives important?
3 What roles did you and the students play in the lesson?
4 What L2 teaching approach, if any, informed your teaching design and implementation?
5 Why were these activities/tasks necessary / important?
6 How do you mark student writing?
7 Is your current approach different from what you previously adopted?
8 How do you feel about this lesson in general? What aspects do you think need further improvement?

References

Atkinson, D. (2020). The adaptive expertise of ELT textbook writers. RELC Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688219893119.
Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54(2), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/54.2.153.

11
I. Lee and R.E. Yuan Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Beare, S., & Bourdages, J. S. (2007). Skilled writers’ generating strategies in L1 and L2: An exploratory study. In G. Rijlaarsdam, M. Torrance, L. Van Waes, & D.
Galbraith (Eds.). Studies in writing vol. 20, writing and cognition: Research and applications (pp. 151–161). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago, IL: Open Court.
Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 463–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0883-0355(02)00004-6.
Casanave, C. P. (2017). Controversies in second language writing: Dilemmas and decisions in research and instruction (2nd ed.). University of Michigan Press.
Casanave, C. P. (2018). Performing expertise in doctoral dissertations: Thoughts on a fundamental dilemma facing doctoral students and their supervisors. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 43, 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.02.005.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Cumming, A. (2003). Experienced ESL/EFL writing instructors’ conceptualizations of their teaching: Curriculum options and implications. In B. Kroll (Ed.). Exploring
the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 71–92). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cumming, A. (2006). Goals for academic writing: ESL students and their instructors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Diab, R. L. (2005). Teachers’ and students’ beliefs about responding to ESL writing: A case study. TESL Canada Journal, 23, 28–43. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v23i1.76.
Eick, T., Fields, G., & Matsuda, P. K. (2017). Expertise in second language writing: The 15th symposium on second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,
37, 59–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.09.003.
Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307–329. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009.
Hammerness, K. (2004). Teaching with vision: How one teacher negotiates the tension between high ideals and standardized testing. Teacher Education Quarterly,
31(4), 33–43. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23478649.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (2003). Writing teachers as assessors of writing. In B. Kroll (Ed.). Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 162–189). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Hanato, G., & Inagaki, K. (1984). Two courses of expertise. Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers, 6, 27–36.
Hayden, H. E., Rundell, T. D., & Smyntek-Gworek, S. (2013). Adaptive expertise: A view from the top and the ascent. Teaching Education, 24(4), 395–414. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10476210.2012.724054.
Hedgcock, J. S., & Lee, H. (2017). An exploratory study of academic literacy socialization: Building genre awareness in a teacher education program. Journal of English
for Academic Purposes, 26, 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.01.004.
Hirvela, A. (2019). Exploring second language writing teacher education: The role of adaptive expertise. In L. Seloni, & S. H. Lee (Eds.). Second language writing
instruction in global contexts: English language teacher preparation and development (pp. 13–30). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, K. E. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 235–257. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264518.
Lee, I. (2009). Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT Journal, 63(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn010.
Lee, I. (2010). Writing teacher education and teacher learning: Testimonies of four EFL teachers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(3), 143–157. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jslw.2010.05.001.
Lee, I. (2013). Becoming a writing teacher: Using ‘identity’ as an analytic lens to understand EFL writing teachers’ development. Journal of Second Language Writing,
22(3), 330–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.07.001.
Lee, I. (2018). Future directions for writing teacher cognition. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.). The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teachingHoboken, NJ: Wiley. https://doi.
org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0563.
Lo, J., & Hyland, F. (2007). Enhancing students’ engagement and motivation in writing: The case of primary students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing,
16(4), 219–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.002.
McNaughton, S. (2011). Designing better schools for culturally and linguistically diverse children: A science of performance model for research. New York: Routledge.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Richards, J. C. (2008). Second language teacher education today. RELC Journal, 39(2), 158–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688208092182.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.
j463w79r56455411.
Sorensen, N. (2017). Improvisation and teacher expertise: Implications for the professional development of outstanding teachers. Professional Development in Education,
43(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2015.1127854.
Sternberg, R. J., & Horvath, J. A. (1995). A prototype view of expert teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(6), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X024006009.
Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Ferrari, M. (2002). Fostering intellectual excellence through developing expertise. In M. Ferrari (Ed.). The pursuit of excellence in
education (pp. 57–83). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Tsui, A. B. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies of second language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tsui, A. B. (2005). Expertise in teaching: Perspectives and issues. In K. Johnson (Ed.). Expertise in second language learning and teaching (pp. 167–189). Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Tsui, A. B. (2009). Distinctive qualities of expert teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(4), 421–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600903057179.
Turner-Bisset, R. (1999). The knowledge bases of the expert teacher. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192990250104.
Wineburg, S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert/expert study in the interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22(3), 319–346. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0364-0213(99)80043-3.
Worden, D. (2015). Developing writing concepts for teaching purposes: Preservice L2 writing teachers’ developing conceptual understanding of parallelism. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 30, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.001.
Worden, D. (2019). Developing L2 writing teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of genre through the unfamiliar genre project. Journal of Second Language Writing.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100667.
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3),
179–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004.
Yigitoglu, N., & Belcher, D. (2014). Exploring L2 writing teacher cognition from an experiential perspective: The role learning to write may play in professional beliefs
and practices. System, 47, 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.021.

Icy Lee is a Professor at the Department of Curriculum and Instruction of the Faculty of Education of The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Rui (Eric) Yuan is an Assistant Professor at the Department of English Language Education of The Education University of Hong Kong. From September 2020, he will
be an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Education of the University of Macau.

12