Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Wiggle room for teaching English as a global language? : Western-educated Taiwanese English teachers’… Lin, Rae Jui-Ping 2017

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2017_may_lin_juiping.pdf [ 5.27MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0343261.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0343261-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0343261-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0343261-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0343261-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0343261-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0343261-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0343261-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0343261.ris

Full Text

  WIGGLE ROOM FOR TEACHING ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE? : WESTERN-EDUCATED TAIWANESE ENGLISH TEACHERS’ IDENTITIES AND TEACHING OF ENGLISH WRITING  by  Rae Jui-Ping Lin   A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES  (Language and Literacy Education)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  (Vancouver) March 2017  © Rae Jui-Ping Lin, 2017    ii ABSTRACT   As the English language spreads around the globe and is used for various purposes in different social and cultural contexts, scholars and local practitioners have called for deconstructing the ideology of native-speakerism (Holliday, 2006, 2015) and reconstructing the local subjectivity of English language education (e.g., Canagarajah, 2005; Kumaravadivelu, 2016). In this transformation process of English language education, language teacher identity has played a central role because how teachers see themselves as English speakers, writers, and teachers is closely linked to what and how they teach in the language classroom (Varghese et al., 2005). Investigating such transformative potential of English writing education in Taiwan, the present ten-month qualitative case study takes social constructionist perspective to examine four Western-educated Taiwanese teachers’ writing and teacher identities and their teaching of English writing in relation to the discourse of native-speakerism in four Taiwanese universities.  Based on data generated from interviews, classroom observation, email correspondence, and class materials, the study illustrates that language teachers’ training and writing experiences, their ideologies about the English language, and students’ and administrators’ expectations of how the English language should be taught all have a great impact on teacher identity formation and teaching practices. Two participants (Ava and Beth) depended on native-like English proficiency and Western pedagogical knowledge acquired while studying in Western graduate programs to define who they were as English writing teachers. The discourse of native-speakerism was reinforced in their English writing classrooms, leaving little room for local English norms and pedagogies to develop. In comparison, the other two participants (Sarah and Nita) viewed themselves as  iii multicompetent writers and offered more space in their writing classrooms for developing non-Anglophone Englishes. However, the possibility for writing alternative forms was denied by Nita’s students and administrators, who expected her to help students achieve high scores on standardized tests. The study adds insights into the scholarship of professional identity construction of Western-educated English writing teachers, an area of research that remains scant in quantity. It also provides pedagogical implications for teacher education programs to cultivate more agents of change (Morgan, 2010) in teaching English writing as a global communicative means.                iv PREFACE  This dissertation is original, unpublished, independent work by the author, Rae Jui-Ping Lin.                  v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. ii!PREFACE ................................................................................................................................ iv!TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... v!LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... x!LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. xi!LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................... xii!ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................... xiii!DEDICATION ....................................................................................................................... xvi!CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1!1.1 Statement of the problem .................................................................................... 1!1.2 Situating the study .............................................................................................. 3!1.3 Purpose of the study and research questions ...................................................... 8!1.4 Significance of the study .................................................................................. 11!1.5 Overview of the thesis ...................................................................................... 13!CHAPTER 2: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................... 17!2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 17!2.2 Teaching English as a global language ............................................................. 17!2.2.1 The World Englishes model ...................................................................... 19!2.2.2 English as a lingua franca .......................................................................... 21!2.2.3 Anti-colonial approaches ........................................................................... 24!Critiques of linguistic imperialism ................................................................. 24!Colonial discourse of Self and Other .............................................................. 28!2.2.4 English and linguistic instrumentalism ...................................................... 30!2.3. Challenge in local English classrooms: Ideology of native-speakerism ......... 34!2.4 Teaching English as a global language and teacher identity ............................ 36!2.5 Teacher identity as social construction ............................................................. 37!                        Teacher identity-in-discourse and identity-in-practice ................................... 38! vi 2.6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 41!CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................ 43!3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 43!3.2 Pre-service NNESTs’ identity construction and professional development in         Western TESOL programs ............................................................................... 43!3.2.1 Identity construction through taking courses ............................................. 44!3.2.2 Identity construction through doing teaching / practicums ....................... 47!3.2.3 Politics in TESOL programs and professional development ..................... 52!3.3 Pre-service NNESTs’ writing experiences and writing identity construction in           Western TESOL programs ............................................................................... 57!3.3.1 Accommodating writing conventions ........................................................ 58!3.3.2 Creating voice in one’s own writing .......................................................... 63!3.4 Western-educated returning teachers’ identity and teaching practices in their         home countries ................................................................................................. 69!3.4.1 Western-educated teachers and Western pedagogies in EFL contexts ...... 69!3.4.2 Third space ................................................................................................ 73!3.4.3 Western-educated writing teachers’ identity in EFL contexts ................... 77!3.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 80!CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 81!4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 81!4.2 Qualitative case study ....................................................................................... 81!4.3 Recruitment, participants, and research context ............................................... 82!4.3.1 Ava ............................................................................................................. 83!Ai University .................................................................................................. 84!4.3.2 Beth ............................................................................................................ 85!Bei University ................................................................................................. 86!4.3.3 Sarah .......................................................................................................... 87!Shan University .............................................................................................. 88!4.3.4 Nita ............................................................................................................ 88!Nang University .............................................................................................. 89!4.4 Ways of knowing .............................................................................................. 91! vii 4.5 Types of data collected ..................................................................................... 92!4.5.1 Interviews .................................................................................................. 92!Interview procedure ........................................................................................ 93!4.5.2 Classroom observation .............................................................................. 94!4.5.3 Documents ................................................................................................. 95!4.5.4 Audio-recording, transcription, and translation ......................................... 96!4.6 Data analysis ..................................................................................................... 97!4.7 Researcher reflexivity ..................................................................................... 100!The researcher ............................................................................................... 102!4.8 Research rigor ................................................................................................. 105!4.9 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 106!CHAPTER 5: WRITING IN THE WEST: NARRATING IDENTITY AS AN ENGLISH    USER AND WRITER .......................................................................................................... 107 5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 107!5.2 Beth: “After being trained out there, I am a competent English writer” ........ 108!5.3 Sarah: “I can be a multilingual writer and teacher” ........................................ 115!5.4 Nita: Rejecting biased feedback to construct English writer identity ............. 121!5.5 Ava: Rejecting “American-style” peer feedback to construct legitimacy as an           English writer ................................................................................................. 128!5.6 Summary and discussion ................................................................................ 136!CHAPTER 6: CONSTRUCTING A THIRD SPACE FOR PROFESSIONAL LEGITIMACY: BETH’S TEACHING PRACTICE ........................................................... 141!6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 141!6.2 “Expatriate teachers don’t teach writing” ....................................................... 142!6.3 “I don’t think I am a teacher with strong grammar knowledge” .................... 150!6.4 “You should understand their context” .......................................................... 156!6.5 Teaching practice: Evaluation criteria ............................................................ 163!6.6 Summary ......................................................................................................... 167!CHAPTER 7: DEBUNKING NATIVE-SPEAKERISM:  CHINESE ENGLISH IN SARAH’S WRITING CLASS ............................................................................................. 169! viii 7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 169!7.2 Questioning native-speakerism ....................................................................... 170!7.3 Alignment with native speakers ..................................................................... 185!7.4 Summary ......................................................................................................... 192!CHAPTER 8: WESTERN-EDUCATED TEACHER AS CULTURAL SELF: AVA AND STUDENT-CENTERED PEDAGOGY ............................................................................... 195!8.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 195!8.2 Student-centered pedagogies .......................................................................... 196!8.3 Legitimizing student-centered pedagogies and teacher identity ..................... 202!8.4 Reproducing colonial Self and Other in the writing conference .................... 211!8.5 Summary ......................................................................................................... 221!CHAPTER 9: NITA AS A PRODUCER OF GOOD TEST TAKERS ............................... 224!9.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 224!9.2 Constructing professional legitimacy from “Śʢx” or “West-ink” ........... 225!9.3 Being positioned as an unprofessional teacher ............................................... 230!9.4 Teacher as a producer of good test takers ....................................................... 236!9.5 Summary ......................................................................................................... 249!CHAPTER 10: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS .................................................... 251!10.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 251!10.2 Summary of principal findings and further discussion ................................. 251!10.2.1 Summary ................................................................................................ 252!10.2.2 Further discussion: The “wiggle room” ................................................. 259!10.3 Implications .................................................................................................. 263!10.3.1 Theoretical implications ........................................................................ 263!10.3.2 Pedagogical implications ....................................................................... 266!10.3.3 Methodological implications ................................................................. 268!10.4 Suggestions for future study ......................................................................... 269!10.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 272!REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 274!APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS ...................................................................... 291! ix APPENDIX B: JEFFERSONIAN TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS .......................... 294!APPENDIX C: BETH’S SCORING RUBRICS .................................................................. 296!APPENDIX C: BETH’S SCORING RUBRICS .................................................................. 297!APPENDIX D: AVA’S STUDENT 2’S FULL ESSAY ...................................................... 298!                     x  LIST OF TABLES  Table 4.1: Overview of participants’ backgrounds ........................................................... 90!Table 6.1: Beth’s scoring rubrics .................................................................................... 164!                    xi  LIST OF FIGURES Figure 8.1 Essay of Ava’s Student 2   ............................................................................ 216!                     xii  LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS   CLT      Communicative language teaching  EFL      English is learned as a foreign language                         (English is used in contexts where English has no official status,                              e.g., Taiwan)   EIL                  English as an international language  ELF                 English as a lingua franca  ELT      English language teaching  ESL      English is learned as a second language                          (English is used in contexts where English is an official language,                           e.g., Canada, India)   L1        First language  L2        Second language  NS        Native speaker  NNS       Non-native speaker NEST     Native English-speaking teacher NNEST    Non-native English-speaking teacher TESOL     Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages       xiii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS People say this is the most difficult chapter to write in the dissertation. Now, it is my turn to find not enough words to express my gratitude for the support, encouragement, and generosity I received from so many people throughout the process of writing my dissertation.   First, I would like to thank the four teachers who participated in this study for their generosity in taking the time and effort to share their life stories with me. Without their insights and help, this dissertation would not have been possible. I would also like to thank the Ministry of Education in Taiwan for providing the funding for the work (2012−2014).  I want to express my deepest gratitude to my PhD supervisor Dr. Ling Shi. I thank you for your continuous faith in my scholarly competence and unfailing support in guiding me through this long and arduous academic journey from the first day I studied at LLED to the completion of this degree. You have been a tremendous mentor and teacher to me; your advice on both research and my career has been priceless.  I am also very thankful to have had Dr. Ryuko Kubota on my committee; her scholarly wisdom and passion have led me to think critically about language education, and at the same time to keep alive my hopes for making changes. My sincere thanks also go to Dr. Steven Talmy, my third dissertation committee member; his vast knowledge, warm heart, and encouragement have all inspired me to become a better scholar and educator. A very special gratitude goes to my examining committee: Dr. Monique Bournot-Trites, Dr. Pierre Walter, and Dr. Icy Lee, for showing their interest in my study and for taking the time out of their busy schedules to read the dissertation and provide very helpful comments to improve my work.  I also would like to extend my gratitude to many other professors in the department,  xiv Drs. Patricia Duff, Bonny Norton, Margaret Early, and Anthony Paré, whose inspiring teaching, and always fresh and sophisticated perspectives on language education have nurtured me to grow as a scholar. I also want to thank Drs. Sandra Zappa-Hollman and Reginald D’Silva for providing me with opportunities to teach at UBC- Ritsumeikan Programs, where I gained invaluable teaching experience and learned to be a more understanding teacher. I need also to thank Christopher Fernandez, for his great help with the documents and forms required for completion of this degree.    I am grateful to have studied at LLED with so many brilliant and supportive peers, past and present; sincere thanks go to Amanda Wager, Ling He, Mi-Young Kim, Elliott Yates, Melanie Wong, Roma Ilnyckyj, John Haggerty, Tim Anderson, Liz Chiang, and Ai Mizuta. I would like to express a special thanks to my TESL writing group: Nasrin Kowkabi, Tomoyo Okuda, Natalia Balyasnikova, Ismaeil Fazel, and Joel Heng Hartse, for your friendship and encouragement during my dissertation writing. In addition, I would very much like to thank my discourse analysis writing group for your company, intellectually and emotionally, and for all the stimulating conversations and generous feedback. I am very fortunate to have had you as my close colleagues throughout the years of my PhD journey in Vancouver. Thank you, Bong-gi Sohn, Meike Wernicke,Won Kim, and Ryan Deschambault!  I would also like to send thanks to many friends outside LLED and UBC, particularly to Owen Lo, Chenhou Chiu, Sally Pan, Shih-Lin Chen, Chia-Yang Chiang, SzuYun Hsu, Eric Wu, and Yu-Chi Kuo, for all the good food, laughter, and words of encouragement and support when I felt exhausted from studying and writing. I express my wholehearted gratitude to John Wu for supporting me all the way to completion of this dissertation; thank you for the timely carrot and stick.   xv Words cannot express how grateful I am to my parents, ħƳȤandȀóȅfor all of their love and faith in me from day one. Your persistent understanding and confidence in me have been my greatest sources of motivation for achieving this goal. I would also like to acknowledge the support of my brother David Lin, my sister-in-law Anna Liu, and my sister Cynthia Lin. Thank you for continuing to send me positive vibes through countless Line chats. Finally, thank you to my nephews, Ryan Lin and Allen Lin, and to my niece Lilian Lin for always reminding their auntie to work harder on her “homework” so she can come home soon. I am so looking forward to spending more time with you and watching each of you grow into a kind and confident person.                  xvi DEDICATION     To my loving parents, for all your love and support    1  CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION  If the teaching of EIL as a profession is serious about helping its professionals generate sustainable knowledge systems that are sensitive to local historical, political, cultural, and educational exigencies, then, it must get away from an epistemic operation that continues to institutionalize the coloniality of English language education. (Kumaravadivelu, 2012a, p. 24)  In a world of English Changing, there is a place—indeed a need—to foster an identity that encourages and supports the transformative potential of teachers. (Morgan, 2010, p. 36)   1.1 Statement of the problem   Along with the British colonial regime in the eighteenth century, and cultural and economic globalization fueled by American neo-colonial forces after World War II, the English language has spread throughout the world; it has become the most popular second or foreign language to learn for local and global communications in many countries. In his well-known book English as a Global Language, David Crystal (2003) states that the English language has reached its global status simply as a result of being “in the right place at the right time” (p. 110). Although acknowledging that the spread of English has its roots in the history of British colonization and American cultural hegemony, Crystal suggests that this legacy be removed so that people around the world can enjoy better education, economic benefits, and intercultural knowledge through learning the language. English learning, from Crystal’s viewpoint, is “the natural choice for progress” (p. 75). The view that the spread of the English language and English education is a neutral product that comes with globalization has been widely questioned for the past two decades by many critical applied linguistics and local practitioners. For example, Canagarajah (1999, 2005), Pennycook  2 (1998), Phillipson (1992), and Kumaravadivelu (2016) all contend that English language teaching (ELT hereafter) is never neutral but is a hegemonic project that reproduces images of the cultural Self and Other in colonial and neo-colonial contexts to sustain the power of the English-speaking West, which includes the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. Through teacher training and textbook writing, the English- speaking West is portrayed as the advanced and superior Self while the non-English-speaking remainder is linked to the backward and inferior Other (Kubota, 2001; Pennycook,1998; cf. Said, 1979; Spivak, 1988). Native English speakers are regarded as representatives of the superior Western culture “from which spring the ideal both of the English language and of English language teaching methodologies” (Holliday, 2005, p. 385). The negative influence of this native-speakerist ideology (Holliday, 2005) has been documented in many contexts where English is learned as a foreign language1 (EFL hereafter). Among the negative influences are the inequality between native and non-native English-speaking teachers (Swan, Aboshiha & Holliday, 2015; Houghton & Rivers, 2013), anxiety among English learners because of their endless investment in acquiring (non-existent) Standard English (Kubota, 2011; Park, 2011, 2013), and the derogation of the local pedagogic culture (Canagarajah, 2005; Chowdhury & Phan, 2008). In view of these issues, ELT should not be viewed as a neutral transmission of language knowledge; the politics that exist between the Western Self and the non-Western Other in local ELT need to be questioned in order to dismiss inherent inequalities and anxieties.                                                   1 I realize that the ideology of native-speakerism also has a negative impact on English-as-a-second-language (ESL) contexts such as post-colonial countries (e.g., Singapore, India, Hong Kong, etc.) or immigrant communities in English-speaking countries. Since this study examines Taiwan in an EFL context, I focus my discussion on EFL ELT in this section.   3  Scholars in the fields of World English (Kachru, 1990, 1992) and English as a lingua franca (Jenkins, 2007; Seidlhofer, 2009) have also critiqued the superiority of English native speakers in ELT because it does not correspond to the reality of English being used as a global language. Jenkins (2007) indicates that the population of non-native English speakers (800 million to 1.5 billion) now significantly outnumbers that of native English speakers (320 to 380 million). The estimated number of English users in Asia alone has surpassed those in the US, the UK, and Canada combined (Kachru, 1997). Seidlhofer (2009) further points out that 80% of English communication in non-English-speaking countries involves no native speakers of English. Thus, the majority of English users are non-native speakers and most communication encountered in English does not involve any native English speakers. Viewing Standard English—the English norms used by native English speakers—as the only learning objective, and the native English speaker as the ideal teacher, is irrelevant to many English learners and speakers in the world. Rather than imitating native speakers, “the ability to accommodate to interlocutors with other first languages than one’s own is a far more important skill” (Jenkins, 2007, p. 238). Given the reality that the English language is used in many places in the world for different purposes, one of the important missions in ELT in non-English-speaking countries is to wrest ownership of English language and education from the hands of native English speakers (Jenkins, 2007; Seidlhofer, 2009).  1.2 Situating the study   Because of Taiwan’s close historical ties with the United States, American English has held a privileged status in Taiwan for a long time. After the Nationalists (Kuomintang,  4 KMT) retreated to Taiwan upon losing China to the Chinese Communist Party, the United States supported Taiwan militarily, economically and politically. During this period of American aid (1949−1967), the Taiwanese government sent many members of the élite to American graduate programs for professional and language training with the aim of catching up with the U.S.-informed agenda of economic and social development (Lin, 2012). After returning from the United States, these individuals were hired to work in various prestigious state-owned institutions and research centers. Since then, an American education and good English competence have become symbols of cultural and economic advancement in Taiwan.   Over the past decade, the English language has also reached paramount status—not only in Taiwan but also in many places in the world—as the lingua franca of the global village, with increased international business, encounters, and communication all enabled by information technology and air transportation. Now, in Taiwan, the English language not only refers to American modernity but is also a synonym for Ƴɹ˧İK (international competitiveness) and ɱyşǂŬ (connection to the world). The impact of rapid globalization on Taiwanese society has resulted in the launch of several educational reforms by the government to enhance the English proficiency of Taiwan’s citizens. Examples of these reform projects include Challenge 2008: National Development Plan (2002−2007) (Ministry of Education, 2002); E-generation Manpower (Ministry of Education, 2002); Plan for Enhancing National English Proficiency (Ministry of Education, 2009); and, Aim for First-Class Universities and Top-Level Research Centers (Ministry of Education, 2011). In these documents, English skills are emphasized as building blocks for national competiveness and economic growth. For example, as stated in Plan for Enhancing National English Proficiency (2009, p. 100, English original):    5  English proficiency is no longer just a tool for communication, but is even more importantly a key capacity for embracing globalization, a service strength to make industries competitive in the international economic arena, and a linking force for cities in the global space of flows. Enhancing national English proficiency is, most of all, a basic building block for creating an intelligent Taiwan and firmly underpinning national competitiveness. Guided by these official documents, movements of English education take place in every venue, from elementary to tertiary education. For example, the start of mandatory English education was changed from Grade 7 to Grade 5, then finally to Grade 3 in 2005. English villages, learning programs funded by the government, have been widely established to provide opportunities for elementary and secondary students to practice English in an authentic context with native English speakers. In higher education, all first-year non-English majors2 are required to take English courses to enhance their basic English skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing at least for one year. Encouraged by the Ministry of Education, many universities have set graduation thresholds3 for English proficiency and require undergraduates and graduates of all disciplines to pass certain levels in one of the standardized tests: TOEFL iBT, TOEIC, IELTS, or the General English Proficiency Test (GEPT).4 An increasing number of English-medium bachelor’s and graduate programs are                                                 2 Most English majors are required to take fundamental skill courses (listening, speaking, reading, writing) for two years.   3 Graduation thresholds for English proficiency vary among universities.   4 The General English Proficiency Test (GEPT), a locally-developed test very similar to TOEIC and IELTS, is the most common standard test taken among Taiwanese people. The test has five levels (elementary, intermediate, high-intermediate, advanced, superior) and covers the English skills of listening, reading, writing,  6 also being introduced for Taiwanese students to simultaneously acquire content knowledge and good English competence. University instructors across disciplines are rewarded for giving lectures in English. The movement toward English education has also spread from schools to the public sector as English has become one of the subjects in the national civil service exam.   While English is promoted as a ¦˜ɔƭ (national campaign), ɉǙƒprivate educational institutes) are sprouting up to help English learners reach the aspired-to English proficiency. Song (2003) observes a “collective hysteria syndrome for English” in Taiwanese ELT. That is, Taiwanese people often feel anxious and under pressure about not acquiring a sufficiently high level of English proficiency. Therefore, endless investment in time and money is being put into pursuing native-level English competence. Below are some anecdotes from various empirical studies and news sources that provide a glimpse of the phenomena that cause Taiwanese people to consider native-like competence to be the dominant discourse about speaking, teaching and learning the language.  [1] Because I have a tendency to imitate native speakers’ tone when speaking in English, it would feel (not me) ... Normally I speak without much intonation, but when I speak in English, I’d try to imitate their tones. Consequently, I feel like pretending. I am not a native speaker, but I speak like one. Then I would feel disgusted about my speaking that way.     (Ke, 2016, p. 294; interview with Taiwanese university student)  [2] It was a big surprise to me that accent is not so vital in judging a person’s ability of                                                                                                                                                  and speaking. Most non-English majors are required to pass the intermediate level, and English majors must pass the high intermediate level. Some prestigious universities have higher requirements. The GEPT was developed by the Language Training and Testing Center (LTTC), which was first government sponsored, but later registered as a non-profit educational foundation co-supervised by the Ministry of Education and several prestigious universities.    7 English. In fact, I have been troubled by my accent, and I always envy some friends’ native-speaker-like accents.     (Chang, 2014, p. 25; interview with Taiwanese university student)  [3] It is a global environment and when students learn English, they expect to have NESTs. Since I am not a NEST, it is even more necessary to have good spoken English. ... As an English teacher, I help them [students] learn the foreign language. Then I could not speak English with a weird accent. They may be like little parrots, too. So I try my best to have authentic English pronunciation.    (Liao, 2015, p. 90; interview with Taiwanese university teacher)  [4] I think it is impossible to teach English as an international language because you need an accent and a culture to follow... In my case, I think if I have to teach my students English, I will teach them an advantageous accent. It is irresponsible to teach any accents that you like     (Lai, 2008, p. 42-43; interview with Taiwanese university teacher)   "#ƳŸĺʔW^ŝƽgʦšɳƠKˍʗ˨LJƃǩˆ”uƥ²ƋȫļȁʡˑɱʦšȝɦŪsSɳɦʓ;(To enhance students’ foreign language ability, National Hua-Lien High school has signed a long-term contract with a foreign teacher, Mike, starting from this month. This provides students with opportunities to practice speaking English.)  Fan, 2011/12/22; news article[6] Parent: ÒŴūʗťƳƒƅVŪƳʭśęƛË˴ijÃƃvɓ´ÇĠńĿ˨ijRˌˆ~‹ŗȓʙmŮFçijʼnXʦijŪɳȷ]ʊȼIt’s better to hire American, Canadian, British, Australian, or New Zealand teachers. South Africans will do too, but their accent is too strong; my kids will acquire non-standardized English.)  Owner of private English institute: ȷƯçŴǟ˟ijÃƃǤȷʣȟɆʗťƒijÃƃ“We surely will do, we often hire American and Canadian teachers.”)    (Tsai, 2002, p. 20; interview with student’s parent)  From these quotations, we see that the ideology of native-speakerism has not only spread to Taiwanese ELT, but it also adds a burden of anxiety for English learners if they do not speak like a native English speaker (1 & 2). Also implied in these quotations is that a non-native English speaker’s role in teaching English can be self-marginalized (3 & 4) or marginalized   8 (5 & 6) when native English speakers and their English norms are taken as the only goal for learning English. Because of this hysteria about native-like English proficiency, Yan and Su (2008) note that English teacher education in Taiwan has long been focused on training pre-service teachers to design “effective” methods and activities to efficiently help students acquire “good” English proficiency. Yan and Su (2008) rightly point out that the purpose of learning a foreign language should be to empower second language (L2) learners for intercultural communication. However, the non-critical pursuit of native-like proficiency has actually disempowered many Taiwanese people from learning the language for this purpose. After all, the concept of a standard of native English is only a hypothetical concept (Motha, 2014). Pursuing native-like proficiency is likely to intensify L2 learners’ anxiety and self-denial as they find that it is never possible to reach the desired goal. Moreover, targeting native-like proficiency as the only goal for learning English could reinforce the superior status of the English-speaking West and reemphasize labelling non-English speakers as “handicapped,” “backward,” “inferior”; inequality between the Western Self and non-Western Other is thus perpetuated. For more empowered ELT in Taiwan, I propose, as several Taiwanese scholars have suggested above, a more socio-cultural and socio-political understanding of ELT in order to deconstruct the ideology of native-speakerism that still has a firm grip on English education in Taiwan.   1.3 Purpose of the study and research questions    Recently, in applied linguistics and TESOL, language teacher identity is being put forth as the central topic of investigation in transformational ELT, which I have proposed above. It is believed that how teachers see themselves as English speakers, writers, and  9 teachers is closely linked to what and how they teach their students in language classrooms (Cheung et al., 2015; Morgan, 2010, 2016; Motha, 2006, 2014; Phan, 2008; Varghese et al., 2005). Therefore, understanding language teacher identity is the hinge to finding the “‘wiggle room’ to re-interpret language policies, curricula, and classroom materials in ways that better reflect the local needs and realities of the students” (Morgan, 2010, p. 36). The purpose of this study is to investigate the “wiggle room” in Taiwanese ELT through understanding the identity development of four Western-educated Taiwanese English teachers.   In Taiwan, English language departments in universities are the hubs for cultivating English language teachers for various venues (e.g., K−12, private English education institutes). The teacher educators—the professors in English language departments—thus have a big role to play in how these teachers-to-be see the English language and their roles in teaching it. As mentioned in the previous section, élite individuals were sent to the United States for higher education during the period in which Taiwan received American aid. Since then, American English and education signify progress and a promising future. Although that aid period ended long ago, the English-speaking West (especially the United States) is still the first choice of many for graduate studies. For example, in the four English departments in this study, 54 out of 77 (70%; 2012, from universities’ websites) faculty members were Taiwanese nationals with PhDs from English-speaking countries. The aim of this study is to investigate the identity construction of Western-educated teachers and the potential impact it has on teaching English writing as a global language. I chose English writing teachers for this study because, while there are increasing numbers of experimental studies showing changes toward more socio-political English teaching in Taiwan (e.g., Chang, 2014; Ke,  10 2016; Lai, 2008; Liao, 2015), these studies have focused on learning and teaching English speaking. From a socio-political perspective, English writing education in Taiwan is under-researched; English writing teachers and their identity development deserve a full investigation in order to understand ELT in the Taiwanese context.    With these theoretical considerations and a literature gap in mind, this research takes social constructionist approach to investigate four Western-educated Taiwanese writing teachers’ writing and teaching experiences, and their writer and teacher identity construction. Understanding identity as socially constructed (Antaki & Widdicombe, 1998; De Fina, Schiffrin & Bamberg, 2006), I pay particular attention to how the participants negotiate their identities with the discourse of native-speakerism through interaction with me as a researcher and with their students in writing classes. I aim to use the identities of these teachers as the lens through which I explore the transformative potential of deconstructing the ideology of native-speakerism and reconstructing the local subjectivity of ELT. The following two research questions guided this study toward understanding this inquiry: (1) How do the participants view themselves as English users and writers in light of the discourse of native-speakerism? In particular, how do the participants’ Western-educated experiences play a role in constructing their identities as English users and writers?  (2) How do the participants construct their writing teacher identities after they return to Taiwan to teach English writing in light of the discourse of native-speakerism? In particular, how do their Western-educated experiences play a role in constructing their teacher identities?    11 1.4 Significance of the study   In the era of globalization, when English has spread throughout the world and has been used for various purposes, applied linguists and many local practitioners have called for changing to more socio-political and socio-cultural ELT in non-English-speaking countries. Recently, English language teacher identity has become an important area in applied linguistics for exploring the potential to make these changes, because how teachers see themselves as English users and teachers is believed to have a great impact on how and what they teach in language classrooms (Johnson, 2006; Kumaravadivelu, 2012b; Morgan, 2010; Phan, 2008). By demonstrating how four Western-educated Taiwanese English teachers construct their identities in relation to the discourse of native-speakerism, this study makes contributions to furthering scholarly and pedagogical insights into how a teacher’s identity works as important terrain in creating or disturbing culturally and politically sensitive ELT in a non-English-speaking context such as Taiwan. In particular, this study strives to deepen the understanding of the interaction between teacher identities and their actual teaching practices, with an aim of providing pedagogical considerations regarding how to deconstruct Western-dependent ELT and reconstruct the subjectivity of local English norms, pedagogies and cultures.   The study is significant in that it bridges several literature gaps in the area of language teacher education and development. First and foremost, increasing numbers of pre-service English teachers from non-English-speaking countries are going to English-speaking TESOL programs for their professional training. While many empirical studies have been conducted to understand the interactions between the experiences of international teacher-trainees and their professional development when studying in Western TESOL programs  12 (Brutt-Griffler & Samimy, 1999; Golombek & Jordan, 2005; Ilieva, 2010; Ilieva & Waterstone, 2013; Inoue & Stracke, 2013; Park, 2012, 2015; Pavlenko, 2003), how their professional identities and practices continue to develop after returning to their home countries to teach remains under-researched to date. This study contributes to this area of inquiry by focusing on how four Taiwanese English teachers’ Western educational experiences play a part in constructing their professional identities and legitimacy in teaching English writing in Taiwanese universities. Moreover, as many L2 writing scholars (Casanave, 2009; Lee, 2010, 2013; Ortega, 2009) point out, English writing has been considered one of the most important components in curriculum design in the EFL context, including Taiwan. While L2 students’ writing development has been richly documented in the literature on EFL L2 writing, very little is known about the professional development of EFL writing teachers. Examination of the identity construction and professional development of these four Western-educated Taiwanese writing teachers presented in this study contributes to this underrepresented area of inquiry.   By demonstrating how Western-educated teachers negotiate teaching practices in the context of their teaching situations, this study also provides modest pedagogical implications for language teacher education, particularly for Western TESOL programs. The current study contextualizes the local ELT discourse and how it shapes the professional identities and pedagogical choices of Western-educated teachers. The findings can help Western TESOL programs create space for more local-sensitive reflections for teachers from non-English-speaking countries. Last but not least, this study also makes a unique contribution to methodological implications by following a social constructionist approach to understanding language teacher identity-in-discourse and identity-in-practice. (Varghese et. al., 2005, see  13 details in section 2.5). By analyzing both teachers’ narrated identities (what they say about teaching) and enacted identities (what they do in their teaching) as well as the interaction between the two, this study demonstrates a useful methodological approach for investigating the nuanced relation between teacher identities and their teaching practices.   1.5 Overview of the thesis   The dissertation consists of ten chapters. Chapter 2 presents the conceptual framework that guided this study. I first discuss the discourses of teaching English as a global language that are widely discussed in applied linguistics and TESOL. I then articulate the discourse of native-speakerism (Holliday, 2006, 2015), the challenge we face today in ELT. I also theorize on language teacher identity and discuss its potential for deconstructing the discourse of native-speakerism for local ELT.   Chapter 3 is a review of the research literature on the studying and writing experiences of Western-educated, non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs) in Western TESOL or relevant language education programs. I focus the literature review on teacher identity development in the TESOL programs and divide the chapter into three sections: pre-service NNESTs and their professional identity in Western TESOL programs; pre-service NNESTs and their writing experiences and identity in Western TESOL programs; and Western-educated teachers and their identity development and teaching practices after returning to their home countries. By reviewing the literature to date on Western-educated teacher identity development and education, I identify several literature gaps which this study aims to fill.    In Chapter 4, I outline the methodology of this study. I first provide detailed  14 descriptions of the participants, research context, and methods used to generate research data.  I also elaborate my epistemological underpinning—social constructionism—and investigate how it guides me to the understanding of teacher identity. I then theorize on my analytical approach—thematic analysis—and discuss how I utilize it to analyze data in this study.  Chapters 5 through 9 present the findings of this study. To address the first research question, which concerns how the participants’ Western educational experiences play a role in constructing their identities as English users and writers, Chapter 5 presents and discusses the four participants’ narratives about their training and writing experiences and their identity construction within their respective Western graduate programs. I focus my discussion on how each participant negotiates legitimacy as an English writer with the dominant discourse centered on English writing in the TESOL program.   Chapters 6 through 9 present findings that correspond with the second research question concerning the participants’ writing teacher identity construction after returning to Taiwan, and how that identity interacts with their teaching practices in English writing classrooms. In Chapter 6, I first discuss Beth’s construction of her professional identity based on interview data. The analysis suggests that Beth constructs a third space (Bhabha, 1994), better than native English-speaking teachers and locally educated non-native English teachers, to form her professional legitimacy while teaching in her department. I discuss that the ideology of native-speakerism is emphasized by Beth when she creates this third space in which to construct her professional legitimacy. I then link her constructed identities to her use of scoring rubrics throughout the semester in order to understand the connection between her professional identity and instructional choices.   Chapter 7 presents an analysis of Sarah’s narratives about teaching English writing  15 and discusses how her critical awareness of the politics of ELT developed during her Western education impinges on her teacher identity construction and teaching practices. The interview analysis indicates that Sarah resists taking native English speakers as authorities on the English language, or their norms as the only English standard to learn in her writing class. I then demonstrate how Sarah creates a space during classroom interaction for students to develop a sense of ownership of the English language. Despite that Sarah aims to debunk the discourse of native-speakerism in her own class, like Beth, she reproduces the same ideology to position herself as a more qualified teacher compared to locally educated non-native English teachers.    In Chapters 8 and 9, I report on and discuss two other participants, Ava and Nita, who construct their professional legitimacy while talking about students’ resistance to their use of Western-based teaching methods. In Chapter 8, Ava constructs her Western training experiences as a capital in order to position herself as a cultural Self with advanced pedagogical knowledge for teaching English writing. By doing so, she constructs herself as a legitimate English writing teacher even though her students show resistance to the teaching approach she uses. I also demonstrate how the image of the cultural Self and Other (Kubota, 2001; Pennycook, 1998), the key ideology deployed to form Ava’s teacher identity, is reproduced in Ava’s writing conferences with her students.   In Chapter 9, based on interview data, I first demonstrate that Nita positions herself as a professional teacher by applying a proficiency-over-accuracy approach in her writing class. I also discuss how this approach sheds some light on teaching English writing beyond native English-speaking norms. However, an analysis of email correspondence between Nita and her students indicates that Nita’s teaching approach and professional identity are denied by  16 her students and department head, who take grammar/accuracy/native-like English as the only goals in learning the language.  The discrepancy between Nita’s professional identity and the expectations of her students and department caused Nita to decide to take a year off from teaching English writing.   In Chapter 10, I summarize the principal findings and discuss the theoretical, pedagogical and methodological implications. I conclude the dissertation with suggestions for further investigation on language teacher identity and development.                17 CHAPTER 2: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 Introduction  This chapter presents the conceptual framework of the study. I first discuss the discourse that surrounds teaching English as a global language from various perspectives, including the World Englishes model (Kachru, 1990, 1992), English as a lingua franca (Jenkins, 2007; Seidlhofer, 2011), critiques of linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1992, 2009), the colonial construct of Self and Other (Pennycook, 1998, 2001), and English and linguistic instrumentalism (Kubota, 2011; Wee, 2008). Then, I articulate the challenge—the discourse of native-speakerism (Holliday, 2006, 2015), faced by English language teaching in non-native English-speaking countries that emerged along with the global spread of English. Recently, more and more scholars in TESOL and applied linguistics have realized the importance of teacher identity in students’ language learning and identity construction (e.g., Cheung et al., 2015; Clarke, 2008; Morgan, 2004; Varghese et al., 2005). Thus, the role of teacher identity in light of teaching English as a global language will also be discussed in this chapter. I then theorize teacher identity from social constructionist perspective (Antaki & Widdicombe, 1998; De Fina, Schiffrin & Bamberg, 2006) and illustrate two concepts — teacher identity-in-discourse and teacher identity-in-practice (Varghese et al., 2005), that guide me to understanding teacher identity as social construction.   2.2 Teaching English as a global language   Today’s English(es) derive(s) from England. From the seventeenth century onward, the English language traveled to America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand as British people settled in the New World and brought their language with them. During the  18 eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, English spread to South Africa, India, Hong Kong, Singapore, and many other countries along with British colonization. Beginning in the twentieth century, the globalized economy and importance of information technology have caused English to spread to all parts of the world; this has coincided with opportunities for international travel and intercultural communication (Sharifian, 2009). Consequently, English has become the most popular second or foreign language for learners worldwide; knowledge of English can facilitate “free cross-border flows of goods, finances, ideas and people” (Park & Wee, 2012, p. 3).   As the English language continues to spread and thrive, critiques of using and teaching English have also accumulated in TESOL, particularly in academia. Central to these critiques is the premise that a hierarchical power relation between English speakers, English varieties, and different cultures is still at the root of ELT. This belief persists, even though the language has spread to every corner of the world and has become deterritorialized and denationalized for local communicative needs and for identity construction (Kramsch & Uryu, 2012). Over the past few decades, research on teaching English as a global language has aimed to “produce a cogent critique of global English—one that insightfully identifies the problems of English in the world and suggests a perspective of English which can help us take action to counter those problems” (Park & Wee, 2012, p. 3). In this study, I also use the notion of “teaching English as a global language” to refer to its problems, particularly those caused by the discourse of native-speakerism (Holliday, 2015), rather than to the benefits that the spread of English has brought us, although I do not deny all of its contributions to our interconnected world.   19  In the following sections, I demonstrate five approaches that are most widely used in applied linguistics and TESOL to discuss the global spread of English, all of which have helped me conceptualize the notion of teaching English as a global language. They are the World Englishes model (Kachru, 1990, 1997), English as a lingua franca (Jenkins, 2000, 2007; Seidlhofer, 2011), critiques of linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1992, 2009), the colonial construct of Self and Other (Pennycook, 1998, 2001), and English and linguistic instrumentalism (Kubota, 2011, 2013; Wee, 2008).  2.2.1 The World Englishes model    Braj Kachru’s model of World Englishes is no doubt one of the most influential works in the study of global English. Observing the global flow of English and its flourishing development for different local uses, Kachru (1986, 1990, 1997) proposed the model of World Englishes, which decenters the ownership of the English language from English-speaking countries. This model comprises three concentric English-speaking circles: the inner circle, the outer circle, and the expanding circle. The inner circle refers to the places where English is spoken as a native language such as the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The outer circle refers to countries where English is spoken as an additional or second language, introduced particularly through colonialism. Hong Kong, Singapore, India, Kenya, and Sri Lanka are some examples in the outer circle. After the end of colonial rule, many countries in the outer circle chose to keep English as their institutional language (e.g., for official documents and as a medium of education) while using their native languages for everyday communication. As both English and native languages played a key role in people’s everyday lives, English was pluralized into local forms as a means of  20 communication for post-colonial societies. Pluralized English varieties also serve to distinguish the culture of the post-colonial society from that of the colonizer; in this way, they serve as a means of rebuilding national and cultural identity (Jenkins, 2007; Kachru, 1992). Last, the expanding circle includes countries where people use English as a foreign language such as China, Taiwan, Japan, Germany, France, and Russia. While colonialism brought the English language to the outer circle, globalization (e.g., the global economy, popular culture, and information technology) has introduced the English language to the expanding circle (Jenkins, 2006). Rather than using the language at the institutional level and for daily life, people in expanding circle countries learn and use English in a predominantly utilitarian manner, particularly for economic and trading purposes, or merely for leisure (Jenkins, 2006; Kubota, 2011).   The World Englishes model reinforces the idea that the English language is now not only used by the inner circle but has also become an important and popular means of communication for those living in the outer and expanding circles. According to Kachru (1997), the estimated number of English users in Asia alone outnumbers those in the US, the UK, and Canada combined. In addition, given its long and widespread history of penetration into many places around the world, English has been nativized into various and meaningful forms (e.g., Indian English, Singaporean English, African English, and Chinese English); these are used for communication for different social purposes and for identity construction, particularly in the outer and expanding circles. Based on these observations, Kachru (1990, 1992, 1997) and many other advocates (e.g., Bolton, 2005, 2012; Matsuda, 2003) have been arguing that “all world Englishes (native and non-native) belong equally to all who use them” (McArthur, 1998, p. 61). Therefore, every localized variety of English should be treated as a  21 legitimate variety embedded with social meanings, for use in its own right within each circle. The main effect of the World Englishes model on English-language education is the idea of decentering the dominant role of inner-circle English in English classrooms; in other words, knowledge of Anglophone English needs not to be a primary goal. Instead, students’ localized forms should be treated as systematic and creative forms for communication, and therefore as valuable resources for pedagogical consideration.   2.2.2 English as a lingua franca      The concept of English as a lingua franca (ELF), developed mainly by Jenkins (2000, 2007) and Seidlhofer (2001, 2005, 2011), is another influential approach in the study of the global spread of English. According to Seidlhofer (2011), ELF refers to “any use of English among speakers of different first languages for whom English is the communicative medium of choice, and often the only option” (p. 7).  Like the World Englishes model, the ELF approach is based on the “pluricentric assumption that English belongs to all those who use it” (Seidlhofer, 2009, p. 237). Although ELF shares many theoretical footings with the World Englishes paradigm, ELF scholars observe that English does not necessarily stay within one territory as an intra-national means of communication; rather, it flows across all three circles and serves as an international language for people with different native languages. For example, while the local varieties that have developed within India (i.e., Indian English) or China (i.e., Chinese English) are the main focus of World Englishes scholars, English varieties emerging during conversation between Chinese and Japanese presenters at a conference held in Germany are the interest of ELF research. ELF scholars also argue that while English varieties used in the outer circle have been widely recognized and accepted as  22 legitimate forms, those developed among English speakers in the expanding circle are yet to receive fair recognition (Jenkins, 2007; Seidlhofer, 2011) For these reasons, the work of ELF has focused on how English is used as a contact language in an expanding circle where people of different first languages often meet for business conversations, conference discussions, diplomatic negotiations or simply touristic encounters and English is chosen as the communicative medium in these speech events (Seidlhofer, 2011).   Compared with adherents of the World Englishes paradigm, ELF scholars are more determined to wrest control of English from the hands of native speakers and claim that non-native English speakers should have the power and right to determine how English should be used (Park &Wee, 2012). Seidlhofer (2011) even states that the real English has become ELF instead of ENL (English as a native language) since the spread of English around the world means that the former is spoken by a much greater population than the latter. Based on Kachru’s World Englishes model, ELF scholars argue that the number of non-native English speakers (i.e., 300−500 million in the outer circle and 500 million to one billion in the expanding circle) has significantly exceeded the number of native English speakers (i.e., 320−380 million in the inner circle). Seidlhofer (2011) further points out that 80% of communication in English in the outer and expanding circles involves no native speakers of English. Since the majority of English users are non-native speakers and most of the communication encounters in English do not involve any native speakers, it is unrealistic to strictly follow the linguistic norms of native English speakers in communication between non-native speakers or between non-native speakers and native speakers. As Jenkins rightly points out, ELF speakers “can no longer be assumed to be deficient where their English use departs from ENL [English as a native language]” and “the ability to accommodate to  23 interlocutors with other first languages than one’s own (regardless of whether the result is an ‘error’ in ENL) is a far more important skill than the ability to imitate the English of native speakers” (Jenkins, 2007, p, 238).   In English classrooms, it is thus unnecessary to set native English speaker’s norms—on the levels of phonology, lexicogrammar, and pragmatics (e.g., idiomatic use)—and ask students to emulate these norms for efficient cross-cultural communication. Instead, English learners need to be prepared to be able to establish relevant and efficient communication with their future interlocutors who are, very likely, non-native speakers with different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. In order to prepare learners to be efficient ELF speakers, ELF scholars suggest bringing learners’ attention to English norms and communicative strategies widely used among ELF speakers that are observed and systematically documented in ELF research projects (e.g., VOICE, the Vienna–Oxford International Corpus of English). The following are some examples of ELF English (lexicogrammatical) norms:  a) simple present third person –s omitted: He look very sad  b) article omission: Our countries have signed agreement  c) treating who and which as interchangeable  d) using isn’t it? as a universal tag     (Prodromou, 2008, p. 31) As shown in the above sentences, these lexicogrammatical forms are not so-called “Standard English.” However, these “ungrammatical” uses are fully comprehensible to both non-native and native English speakers. Even when non-standard forms do at times create obstacles to understanding, ELF speakers use strategies such as gesturing, rephrasing, repeating, or the just-let-it-pass principle to continue the communication (Seidlhofer, 2005, 2011). The  24 question “What is ELF?” is still under debate (for details, see Jenkins, 2007; Park & Wee, 2012), and it is still too early to implement the features mentioned above into the English class syllabus. However, ELF scholars suggest that it is worthwhile at least to raise English learners’ awareness of the consequences of English spreading around the world. Learners could be made aware of the way in which English is used for “various practical purposes by people with varied norms and scopes of proficiency” (Seidlhofer, 2004, p.212) to facilitate efficient and relevant communication, particularly in the expanding circle.    2.2.3 Anti-colonial approaches   The World Englishes paradigm and the English as a lingua franca approach both focus on the study of localized English varieties and their respective linguistic features. In contrast, the anti-colonial approach demonstrates concern about the hegemonic relationship between Western and non-Western cultures and about the impact of cultural politics on various aspects of English language education. These include, but are not limited to, varieties of English (e.g., Kachru, 1992); linguistic human rights (e.g., Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson, 1994); pedagogical approaches (e.g., Ramanathan & Morgan, 2009); and teacher education (e.g., Motha, 2014). As follows, I will illustrate two anti-colonial orientations of the study of global English pertaining to this study: critiques of linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1992) and the colonial discourse of Self and Other (Pennycook, 1998; Kubota, 2001).     Critiques of linguistic imperialism   Given the British colonial legacy and the American neo-colonial impact on economics, politics and the military, English has spread as a global language for  25 communication and education (Phillipson, 1992). In his well-known book English as a Global Language, David Crystal (2003) states that the English language has reached its global status simply as a result of being “in the right place at the right time” (p. 110). Crystal holds the belief that English is “the natural choice for progress” (p. 75), implying that those who can speak it will enjoy progress and wealth, whereas those who do not will remain undeveloped and poor.   The view that the spread of English and English language education is a neutral product of globalization has been questioned by Robert Phillipson (1992). In Linguistic Imperialism, he argues that the spread of English is an imperial project of the English-speaking countries, particularly Britain and the United States, that employ the English language to maintain power and resources for English-speaking countries in order to consolidate their dominant role around the world. English language education serves as the bridgehead for reaching this end. In this sense, the spread of the English language and English language education represents a political agenda that ensures the continuation of unequal power relations between “the dominant center,” specifically powerful Western nations,5 and “the dominated periphery” (p. 52), which is made up of underdeveloped and developing non-Western nations, for the purpose of maintaining power and interests for the center (Phillipson, 1992).   The five tenets listed below are widely promoted by the center’s ELT profession, the most salient manifestation of linguistic imperialism on peripheral English classrooms. The five tenets are as follows:                                                  5 While acknowledging the West also includes European nations, the terms “West” or “center” used by Phillipson only refer to English-speaking countries including Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.    26 • English is best taught monolingually. • The earlier English is taught, the better the results.  • The more English is taught, the better the results. • If other languages are used much, standards of English will drop.  • The ideal teacher of English is a native speaker. (Phillipson, 1992, p. 185)          To begin with, the tenets stating that English is best taught monolingually and that using another language will cause English language standards to drop resonate with each other. Both reflect the belief that teaching English should be done entirely through the medium of English. Therefore, English should be the only language permitted in the English classroom. The assumption is that the learner’s first language will negatively interfere with learning the target language. Phillipson (1992) contends that there is not enough empirical evidence to support the assumption that the exclusive use of English in the classroom will result in better learning outcomes. He thus argues that these are fallacies created by the center’s ELT profession to devalue the learner’s first language and culture and to ensure the status of English and its culture as the only valuable learning resources in English classrooms. Moreover, the “the-earlier-the-better” tenet assumes that students should learn English as early as possible if they want to reach native-like English competency. Drawing on several experimental studies, Phillipson (1992) argues that an early start does not necessarily guarantee better second language learning. The hypothesis that starting at an early age results in better second language learning is, according to Phillipson, a fallacy that reinforces the ideology that standard varieties of English are superior and that, in order to acquire a standard variety, students need to learn it at as young an age as possible. In a similar vein, the  27 “the-more-the-better” tenet suggests that a standard variety of English is more likely to be acquired if students are exposed to a large amount of English input. This tenet not only reinforces the role of center-based English varieties, but it also produces more job opportunities for native speakers, given the increasing demand for English language education in the periphery where native speakers are the preferred English teachers. The four tenets mentioned above are, mostly if not all, closely related to the last one—the ideal English teacher is the native speaker. The idea that native speakers are better teachers reflects the assumption that native speakers are the best embodiment of a standard variety of English and of the culture of the center; by extension, native speakers are best equipped to provide language learners with input in Standard English and with the authentic culture of the region they are from. Phillipson called this tenet the “native-speaker fallacy,” which works to denigrate those teachers who were not born English speakers. This premise ensures that more job opportunities in ELT are guaranteed for teachers from the center. As Phillipson continues, non-native-speaking teachers are no less qualified as English teachers because the linguistic and cultural background shared with their students often enables them to better assist students’ struggles in language learning.  In short, Phillipson (1992) argues that the spread of English and English language education is never a natural and neutral product of globalization. Instead, it is an imperial project to perpetuate the asymmetrical power relations between the center and the periphery and to maintain interests and advantages for the center. Through the five tenets discussed above, asymmetrical power is constructed in the ELT profession to promote the English variety used in the center as the determinate goal for English learners and to ensure that only speakers from the center have the expertise to teach it.  In contrast, students and teachers  28 from the periphery become dependent on teachers from the center who hold expertise and qualifications in teaching the language. Thus, when it comes to English language education, peripheral students and teachers become a subaltern group that always needs assistance from the center.   Colonial discourse of Self and Other   Like Phillipson (1992), who contends that we should not take the spread of English as a power-free incident, Pennycook (1998) also refuses to view English language education as a neutral product of globalization but considers it a site for “cultural constructs of colonialism” (p. 8). He states:  ELT is a product of colonialism not just because it is colonialism that produced the initial conditions for the global spread of English but because it was colonialism that produced many of the ways of thinking and believing that are still part of Western culture. (p. 19)  Pennycook (1998, 2001) argues that the way English language teaching is constructed and practiced is based on the images of the Self and the Other, the central discourse of colonialism. Fundamental to colonial discourse, according to Pennycook, is the construction of the colonized as the Other, usually characterized as backward, primitive, depraved, childlike, and so on, and the construction of the colonizer as the Self, often seen as advanced, developed, modern, and mature. Although the British colonial age is over, this colonial construct has continued to the present in English language education in colonized lands (Shin & Kubota, 2008). The discrepancy between the Self and Other was then reinforced through the influence of U.S.-centered global economics. When it comes to English language  29 education, anything from the West, including English norms, English teachers, methodologies, and textbooks, are considered advanced and more developed and thus more valuable resources in English classrooms. Meanwhile, those from the periphery are constructed as backward, deficient, and too immature to teach English, thus their efforts are devalued despite the fact that they might be more appropriate for the local context.   Kubota (2001) has nicely demonstrated how images of the Self and Other are constructed in ELT through the practices of dichotomizing, essentializing, and othering. According to her, discourses in applied linguistics often dichotomize cultures into the culture of the West and that of the East, particularly East Asia. Researchers and teachers then essentialize culture based on certain characteristics. For example, Western culture values individualism and encourages students to express their own voices and create innovative ideas. In contrast, collectivism is practiced in certain cultures in the East, in which students learn to respect authority and maintain group harmony rather than to express individual opinions. In terms of the teacher’s role, in the West the teacher is a facilitator who values self-directed learning and guides learners to the truth by means of questioning. Conversely, in Asia the teacher is the authority with knowledge, whose major job is to transmit the correct knowledge to students. While no one would doubt the existence of cultural differences in terms of the particular features of teachers or students, Kubota argues that it is the action of othering non-Western cultures as inferior and deficient when teaching English that remains problematic. That is, based on the differences they observed in English classrooms, some teachers and researchers, or even students, tend to other non-Western cultures, denigrating them as deficient and needing adjustment in order to catch up with Western ways of teaching and learning. To illustrate this, because Western students tend to  30 express themselves more, they are seen as being more creative and critical. In comparison, Asian students are more dependent and passive learners who lack the ability to challenge ideas different from their own, given that they are used to their teachers’ guidance. What’s more, teachers from the East are often blamed for holding too much authority in classrooms and thus neglecting students’ real feelings and needs in learning. When comparisons are made, those who hold the power have the right to decide who represents the norm and who is deviant. In the field of English language teaching, it is the developed and progressive Self who holds the power to make their norms the standard to follow (Kubota, 2001). In brief, through the practices of dichotomizing, essentializing and othering, the cultural constructs of colonialism—the superior Self and inferior Other—are constructed in ELT. It is these colonial constructs that position peripheral students as passive and lacking critical thinking skills and teachers as too authoritative and neglectful of students’ needs. Thus, to be better teachers or students, they need to follow the pedagogical culture of the West.   2.2.4 English and linguistic instrumentalism   There is no doubt that English is spoken all over the world and that it has become a popular lingua franca among people of diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. The role of English is further strengthened by the new globalized economy driven by neoliberal discourse (Kubota, 2011). To accelerate regional economic growth, many economic free zones have been created in Asia. These include Inchoen and Busan in Korea; Shantou, Shenzhen, and Hainan in China; and Taipei, Taichung, and Kaohsiung harbours in Taiwan. International associations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have also been established. These special zones and associations create more encounters for using  31 English as a language of communication to increase international cooperation. In these countries and regions, the English language facilitates international business negotiations and communication and serves to attract more foreign investors and capital flow (Park, 2009). Thus, the English language is closely connected to global competiveness and economic growth for societies that depend on foreign investment. This discourse resonates with the larger “neoliberal discourse of human capital in a knowledge economy” (Kubota, 2011, p. 249). That is, English competence is treated as a crucial skill, as part of the human capital6 necessary for a society to compete in the global market.   Under these circumstances, English competence is viewed as vital for citizens of any society that aspires to join the global market. Therefore, national educational policies in many Asian countries promote competence in English as a required skill in order to boost the nation’s economic growth (Kubota, 2011; Park, 2009; Wee, 2008). For individuals, English is learned not merely as a means of identity construction (e.g., World Englishes) or for casual communication (e.g., English as a lingua franca) but as an instrument (Wee, 2008) that enables the speaker to access job opportunities and social mobility made possible by the knowledge economy. When English is learned for its “usefulness in achieving specific utilitarian goals such as access to economic development or social mobility” (Wee, 2008, p. 32), it can be interpreted as an elaborating language that provides individuals with a wide range of opportunities and initiatives for changing their lives (Park, 2011). In other words, as                                                 6 According to Urciuoli (2008), the skills essential to human capital development in the new global economy are communication, teamwork, and leadership. He states, “as the neoliberal dream has increasingly saturated the new workplace, workers have come to be seen as personally responsible for skills acquisition, to the point of self-commodification. Thus the value placed on the paradigmatic soft skills of communication, teamwork, and leadership” (p. 212). In non-English-speaking countries, the English language is one of the most important skills for global competiveness as it is still the dominant global language (Kubota, 2011; Phillipson, 2008).  32 long as one is eager to make a change for a better life, the English language always provides an opportunity. Boosted by this discourse, the English industry flourishes in non-English-speaking countries. In addition to extra hours allocated to formal English education in schools, a burgeoning private sector of English education has been established that promises to create “opportunities” for people in pursuit of a better life.   This idea of English as a neutral and liberating language has been severely critiqued by many scholars. First, since English is considered to be a crucial skill in developing human capital for the knowledge economy in many non-English-speaking countries, a “lack of English skills is not a mere risk one may choose to take, but a transgression” (Park, 2010, p. 26). The decision to learn English is no longer a personal choice; English has become a basic skill, and individuals have a responsibility to learn it in order to develop their nation’s economic growth. Those who choose not to learn the language are considered irresponsible, both to themselves and to society as a whole (Park, 2011; Piller & Cho, 2013). Such ideology motivates individuals to invest heavily in English language training, making them into neoliberal subjects who “carry the burden of endless self-development, including the continuous improvement of linguistic skills” (Park, 2011). While English learning provides no guarantee of social mobility (Kubota, 2011), endlessly learning the language certainly creates an economic and time burden for learners. It is a delusion that English is liberating; in reality, it is a burden in terms of endless effort and economic investment (Park, 2011; Park & Wee, 2012).   According to Park and Wee (2012), neoliberal discourse and linguistic instrumentalism (Wee, 2008) in ELT are making teaching English as a global language more complex than ever before; this deserves more scholarly attention, especially for countries  33 where English is not spoken as a native language. Nevertheless, this is not to say that old ideologies in English education are of no relevance to the current state of ELT. Park and Wee (2012), Heller (2010), and Pennycook (2007) all draw attention to the fact that naturalizing the idea of English as a liberating language for learning and teaching could help reproduce the ideologies established during the earlier post-colonial era. As Heller (2010) states: […] relations of power established earlier in the political, social, and cultural terms characteristic of colonialism and the immediate post-colonial period are being recast in economic terms to relegitimize and preserve them. The national and imperial markets set up in previous centuries still operate, but they are reframed as collaborative rather than hierarchical and as aimed at economic development and competition rather than at servicing the nation or the imperial center. (p. 105) In this sense, the colonial structure in ELT still remains, not in a hierarchical sense but as a collective imperative (Heller, 2010). This does not mean that the hegemonic relation between the Self and Other is being eased, but rather that it is being neutralized or erased to justify “the neoliberal logic of human capital development” (Park, 2010, p. 22). That is, to be competitive in the globalized world, learning English is not an option but a necessity. If ideologies such as native-speakerism and the Self–Other colonial discourse are widely exercised in the ELT of a given society, it is fair to assume that learning inner-circle varieties of English, adopting Western pedagogical cultures in local classrooms, or favouring native-speaker teachers over the non-native will also be naturalized into a rational process to help individuals gain the linguistic capital they need to vie for material returns, social mobility, and even their society’s socio-economic development. Under this neoliberal logic, any opinions in favour of practices other than those listed above will be condemned, since the  34 beliefs and practices listed above are rationalized as the conduits for acquiring the native-like level of English competence deemed necessary to compete in the English-dominant globalizing market.  2.3. Challenge in local English classrooms: Ideology of native-speakerism      As shown in the previous section, over the past three decades, numerous scholars in TESOL and applied linguistics have discussed how the use of English has been dramatically changed as a result of the global spread of English. Although each model has met with criticism for not being comprehensive when talking about the global spread of English (for detailed critiques, see Canagarajah, 2005; Park & Wee, 2012; Pennycook, 2001), these discussions have made a huge contribution to ELT in that they have raised awareness in English classrooms worldwide and have led to a re-examination of which English variety should be used, learned, and taught, and of how it should be taught. Influenced by these academic discussions about changes in English use and education, many non-native speakers have become empowered to see themselves as equally legitimate English users and teachers as those from the inner circle (e.g., Canagarajah, 2005; Houghton & Rivers, 2013; Llurda, 2005; Phan, 2008). Consequently, they are now starting to view plural forms of English not as deficient forms but as resourceful means of local communication (e.g., Bianco et al., 2009; Canagarajah, 1999; Kachru, 2005; Matsuda, 2003). Despite the efforts made in academia and the positive steps taken by the non-native-speaking community, the discourse of native-speakerism (Holliday, 2006, 2015) is still actively exercised in local ELT and rooted in the mindset of many English learners and teachers, which buttresses the superiority of native speakers, their norms of English and teaching methodologies (Kumaravadivelu, 2012a, 2016).   35     Holliday (2006) defines native-speakerism as “the belief that ‘native speaker’ teachers present a ‘Western culture’ from which spring the ideal both of the English language and of English language teaching methodologies” (p. 385). Inherent in the idea of native-speakerism is what Holliday (2015) terms “cultural disbelief,” which sees non-Western cultural realities as deficient and inferior. Therefore, when it comes to English learning, those from the English-speaking West are superior and advanced, and their ideas are the ones to follow. This cultural disbelief in ELT was first explicitly promoted in the 1960s when English education was commercialized and became a saleable product that supported American and British aid trajectories in many post-colonial and neo-colonial countries (Holliday, 2015; Phillipson, 1992). Now, cultural disbelief is reinforced, according to Kumaravadivelu (2016), mainly in the practice of self-marginalization. Thus, non-Western ELT practitioners and students have consented to the superiority of Western culture and native English speakers, and see themselves as less competent English speakers and teachers. Through the process of marginalization on the part of the English-speaking West, and the practice of self-marginalization on the part of the non-Western-dominated group (Kumaravadivelu, 2016), this idea of native-speakerism has become a discourse constructed within the ELT profession, which provides “a language for talking about—i.e. a way of representing—a particular kind of knowledge about a topic” (Hall, 1996, p. 201). Thus, the discourse of native-speakerism becomes tacit knowledge and the default, leaving little room for local English learners to speak and write in their own creative ways and for local practitioners to activate local knowledge (e.g., pedagogies) to teach the language.     Kumaravadivelu (2012a) rightly articulates the concern about ELT now shared by many other scholars and TESOL practitioners: “In order for our profession to meet the  36 challenges of globalism in a deeply meaningful way, what is required is no less than an epistemic break from its dependency on the current West-oriented, Center-based knowledge systems that carry an indelible colonial coloration” (p. 14). There is no doubt that we, as academics and practitioners, need to deconstruct the native-speakerist ideology in local English classrooms in order to reconstruct cultural belief (Holliday, 2013, 2015), a belief in the ELT contribution of all English teachers and speakers, regardless of their linguistic and cultural backgrounds.   2.4 Teaching English as a global language and teacher identity   As the English language spreads around the globe and is used for various purposes in different socio-cultural and socio-economic contexts, the meanings and goals of English education around the world are changing dramatically. Learning English in a meaningful way no longer refers to an accumulation of mechanical knowledge (i.e., vocabulary, grammar, pragmatics) to achieve native-like proficiency. Rather, effective learning requires students to develop the ability to understand their relationship to the English language according to the complex social, political, and ideological conditions at play in the changing world. Only when they achieve this can they appropriate their learning to bring it in line with their own values, visions, and practices (Barnawia and Phan, 2015; Kumaravadivelu, 2003, 2006, 2016; Morgan, 2010). In this light, language teachers are not technicians applying the appropriate methodology in order for L2 learners to acquire the target language (Varghese et al., 2005). Language teachers, who are involved in decision making about instruction, curriculum and policies, are now considered to have a vital role in transforming English classrooms into socio-culturally informed learning environments (Johnson, 2006;  37 Kumaravadivelu, 2012a, 2016; Lin et al., 2002; Morgan, 2010; Ramanathan & Morgan, 2007), and helping to reconstruct the “cultural belief” proposed by Holliday (2013, 2015).  It is believed that language teachers are the potential agents of change who can find “‘wiggle room’ to re-interpret [English] language policies, curricula, and classroom materials in ways that better reflect the local needs and realities of the students” (Morgan, 2010, p. 36).    Recently, in applied linguistics and TESOL, language teacher identity has played a central role in this transformation process of ELT; how teachers see themselves as English speakers, writers, and teachers is closely linked to what and how they teach their students in the language classroom (Cheung et al., 2015; Morgan, 2010; Motha, 2006, 2014; Phan, 2008; Varghese et al., 2005). As mentioned earlier, one of the current primary objectives of teaching English is to establish within English learners an ability to critically reflect on socio-cultural and socio-political conditions in relation to English learning. Therefore, understanding language teachers’ “professional, cultural, political, and individual identities which they claim or which are assigned to them” (Varghese et al., 2005, p.22) becomes a crucial site for exploring the wiggle room that can possibly bring changes to ELT practices.   The aim of this study is to use teacher identity as a lens for investigating the transformative potential of deconstructing the ideology of native-speakerism in order to construct the cultural belief that allows localized plural English norms and local knowledge of English teaching to develop in the local English classroom.   2.5 Teacher identity as social construction  In this study, I situate myself in social constructionism (Antaki & Widdicombe, 1998; Holsten & Gubrium, 2011; De Fina, Schiffrin & Bamberg, 2006) to understand teacher  38 identity as social construction. A social constructionist approach to research guides me in viewing knowledge about the world, and experiences of the world, not pre-given but very much socially mediated and constructed through the use of language. From this perspective, identity is not that “people passively or latently have this or that identity which then causes feelings and actions” (Antaki & Widdicombe, 1998, p. 2), but it is constituted through social action. De Fina and Georgakopoulou (2011) further state that, language has an extraordinary role to play in this construction process, because “ it is at the center of most of the social practices in which human beings are engaged.” (p. 158) and construct social meanings. Therefore, identity construction is a process that emerges in interaction within given social context and is achieved in local interaction as people“ “work up and work to this or that identity, for themselves and others, there and then, either as an end in itself or towards some other end” (Antaki & Widdicombe, 1998, p. 2). In this sense, identity is context-sensitive, locally constructed, interactionally negotiated and “[a] set of verbal practices through which persons assemble and display who they are while in the presence of and in interaction with others” (Johnson, 2006, p. 213). By using available discursive resource in situated social interaction, such as words (e.g., identity category, vocabulary, pronouns, metaphors), embodied expression (e.g., gestures, facial expression), paravocal features (e.g., intonation, stress) or ideologies (e.g., discourse about ELT), people “ascribe (and reject), avow (and disavow), display (and ignore)” certain identity categories (Prior, 2016, p. 36), so to articulate the desired identities they want to be understood by their interlocutors (e.g., the interviewer or students). Teacher identity-in-discourse and identity-in-practice  In this study, I also rely on Varghese, Morgan, Johnston, and Johnson’s  (2005)  39 concepts identity-in-discourse and identity-in-practice to further my understanding of identity as socially constructed. First, identity is constructed in and through language and discourse. In our daily lives, language is used not only as the primary vehicle through which we exchange information or express feelings and emotions; it is also used to “organize and reorganize a sense of who [we] are and how [we] relate to the social world” (Norton, 2013, p. 4). In social interaction, we use sounds, words, and the expressions of language and styles to classify and judge people in order to distance ourselves from others and underline our differences; we also use them to align ourselves with others and foreground our similarities (De Fina, 2011a). As the language we use to describe ourselves and others is subject to change across time and space, so are identities (Morgan, 2007; Norton, 2013). Speakers use different words and styles for different interlocutors in order to display desired identities in the situated contexts. In this sense, identities are multiple, contingent, in process and in flux. According to Morgan (2007), as social meanings are mediated through language, meanings of the Self and Other are constructed within discourse: “systems of power/knowledge that regulate and ascribe social values to all forms of human activity … within particular institutions, academic disciplines, and larger social formations” (Morgan, 2004, p. 173, italics original; see also Block, 2009, 2013). Therefore, how we speak and write—how we define ourselves—impinges upon social and ideological structures that inform us about how to act in socially accepted ways. How language teachers construct a sense of self thus involves negotiation with discourses about teaching and learning developed in various contexts (e.g., teacher education programs, situated teaching institutes), including those available or constructed in situated social interactions (e.g., interviews or classroom interaction).   40  Varghese et al. (2005) also contend that teacher identity is constituted through practice. That is, language teachers “enact their identity through what they do” (Lee, 2013, p. 331). By observing what and how language and ideologies are deployed in their teaching of English language, we understand how language teachers position themselves as particular kinds of teachers. According to Varghese et al. (2005), “language teacher identity is seen to be constituted by the practices in relation to a group and the process of individual identification or nonidentification with the group” (p. 39). From this perspective, identity-in-practice also captures the idea that teachers are not passive individuals who only orient themselves to the dominant discourses to make sense of who they are (identity-in-discourse). When teachers interact with others in their daily lives (e.g., colleagues, students, or research interviewers), they are agents capable of choosing to accept or reject the dominant discourse in order to align, or not, with certain groups or identities (Bamberg, 2004; Canagarajah, 1999; De Fina, 2013a; Duff, 2012). Therefore, to better understand how teacher identity is constructed, it is crucial to observe how available discourses support language teachers in constructing their sense of self, or constrain them, as well as how teachers take an active role in constructing their own experiences and identities in moment-by-moment social interaction.  Understanding teacher identity as mediated both through discourse and practice, I aim to investigate four Western-educated Taiwanese teachers’ construction of their writer and teacher identities through talking about their writing and teaching experiences and through teaching in their own classrooms. I pay particular attention to seeing how they accept, reject, or negotiate with the dominant discourse of native-speakerism in current ELT in the interaction with me as a researcher and with their students in writing classrooms, and how they construct their writer and teacher identities in relation to this discourse. Given that  41 one’s identity formation is dynamic and contingent in nature, and that it emerges in multiple contextualizations (De Fina, 2011b; Morgan, 2007; Norton, 2013), I view each conversation or incident of participants to be one possible version of her life story. Thus, the insights from participants’ identity-in-discourse and identity-in-practice that occurred in different social contexts (e.g., interviews and writing classrooms) afford multiple versions to gain a deeper view of how they position themselves as English writing teachers and to explore the wiggle room for reconstructing the subjectivity of English education in the context of Taiwan.   2.6 Conclusion  In this chapter, I have presented the key conceptual framings of this study: teaching English as a global language, and the role that teacher identity plays in ELT today. I first outlined the discourse of the global spread of English from the perspectives of the World Englishes model (Kachru, 1990, 1992); English as a lingua franca (Jenkins, 2000, 2007; Seidlhofer, 2004, 2005, 2011); critiques of linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1992); colonial construct of the Self and Other (Pennycook, 1998, Kubota, 2001); and English and linguistic instrumentalism (Kubota, 2011; Wee, 2008). I then pointed out the challenge – native-speakerism, which is now faced in local English classrooms as a result of the spread of the English language. I also theorized on language teacher identity in light of teaching English as a global language because it is now considered by many to be a promising site from which to transform ELT from an Anglo-centric to a local-sensitive orientation. Finally, I articulated my orientation to understand teacher identity – identity as social construction, and presented two concepts that help further my understanding teacher identity from social constructionist  42 perspective: teacher identity-in-discourse and identity-in-practice. Keeping in mind this conceptual framework, this study aims to investigate the wiggle room available for deconstructing the discourse of native-speakerism, still persistently rooted in Taiwanese society, by examining four Western-educated Taiwanese teachers’ identities in relation to this dominant discourse. In Chapter 3, I review the literature on Western-educated teacher identity with regard to teaching English as a global language.      43 CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW 3.1 Introduction  As mentioned in Chapter 1, the impetus for this research is to investigate how Taiwanese Western-educated teachers see themselves as English users, writers, and writing teachers in respect to the discourse of native-speakerism, and how their identities interact with their teaching after returning. In this chapter, I review research literature on Western-educated NNESTs’ studying experiences and teacher identity development that are pertinent to this inquiry: (1) pre-service NNESTs’ identity construction and professional development in Western TESOL programs; (2) pre-service NNESTs’ writing experiences and writing identity construction in Western TESOL programs; and (3) Western-educated returning teachers’ identity and teaching practices in their home countries. I also address several literature gaps this research aims to fill.  3.2 Pre-service NNESTs’ identity construction and professional development in Western TESOL programs  Scholars and practitioners in TESOL have critiqued the perceived unequal value of English varieties and speakers. Attempts have also been made in teacher education to restructure the role and identity of the NNEST from that of a “second class citizen” (Pavlenko, 2003, p. 251) to that of a legitimate user and teacher in the English language teaching profession (Amin, 1997; Braine, 1999; Medgyes, 1994; Nayar, 1994; Rampton, 1990). Aware of these politics in ELT, many Western TESOL programs have modified their curricula and invited pre-service NNESTs to critique the NS/NNS dichotomy in class and to reconsider their legitimacy and agency as TESOL professionals (3.2.1). Besides taking  44 courses, pre-service NNESTs have also found teaching practicums while studying in TESOL programs helpful in transforming their professional identities and giving them a sense of legitimacy rather than inferiority (3.2.2). However, while some TESOL programs provide opportunities to empower NNESTs, others have continued to reproduce hegemonic discourses that disempower them (3.2.3). In this section, I review and elaborate each of these research trends and highlight the role that NNESTs’ linguistic identity (i.e., that of “non-native” English speakers) plays in constructing their professional legitimacy during their study in Western TESOL programs.   3.2.1 Identity construction through taking courses  The four studies (Brutt-Griffler & Samimy, 1999; Golombek & Jordan, 2005; Pavlenko, 2003; Samimy et al., 2011) reviewed in this section discussed how MATESOL courses provided a space for pre-service NNESTs to develop imagined identities (Norton, 2000, 2001) in an imagined community (Anderson, 1991; Wenger, 1998), and how that space “offer[ed] identity options that would allow teachers to imagine themselves and others as legitimate members of professional communities” (Pavlenko, 2003, p. 253).   Brutt-Griffler and Samimy (1999) designed the very first graduate seminar and research project in North America that enabled NNSTs to examine the native/non-native speaker (NS/NNS) dichotomy based on classroom discussion, writing response, and autobiography. Their study illustrated how the students, through constantly discussing and reflecting in class on their English learning and teaching experiences in relation to the native-speaker myth, co-constructed English ownership and an insider identity to legitimately use and teach the language. Many of them said that they would continue these alternative  45 discourses upon their return to their home countries in order to create a more empowering environment for both EFL teachers and students to learn and teach English with a sense of legitimacy.   Pavlenko (2003) also modified a second language acquisition (SLA) course to include more readings and discussion on critical issues in TESOL (e.g., Cook, 1999; Norton, 2001). By doing so she hoped to raise students’ awareness of alternative identities with which they could align themselves in teaching the English language. Based on linguistic autobiographies of 40 pre-service teachers (24 American citizens and 20 international students), Pavlenko found that before the course, many non-native English-speaking (NNES, thereafter) students invested themselves into the native speaker community in order to validate their professional legitimacy. These investments included working on their pronunciation in order to sound more like native speakers. Some students aligned themselves with the NNS/L2 learner community, seeing themselves as perpetual L2 learners with no confidence in becoming qualified English teachers. Nevertheless, through readings and discussions of scholarly works (e.g., Cook, 1999; Norton, 2001) throughout the class, many of these pre-service teachers created a multilingual/L2 user community. The new imagined community allowed them to stop pursuing native-like pronunciation and feeling negative about their NNEST identity. It encouraged them to construct new identities, such as those of bilingual speakers and multicomponent English teachers who had a wide language repertoire and sufficient knowledge to teach the English language.   In the same vein, Golombek and Jordan (2005) introduced critical scholarly readings (i.e., Cook, 1992; Lippi-Green, 1997) in a pronunciation pedagogy course for NNESTs, which allowed them to reposition their roles in English classrooms. The authors observed  46 that the idea of intelligibility in English pronunciation was usually native-speaker defined and often based on speakers’ non-linguistic factors, such as race. They also problematized that the burden of English communication usually fell on non-native speakers, forcing L2 speakers to improve their pronunciation until they achieved native-speaker-defined intelligibility. To help students deconstruct these ideologies, the authors conducted this pronunciation course in order to invite the TESOL students to rethink the intertwined relation between race, intelligibility, and English pronunciation in relation to the NS/NNS dichotomy. Based on interview data and the reaction papers of two Taiwanese pre-service teachers in response to readings that challenged the native speaker myth, the authors found that the course created for both teachers “a novel way of imagining new identities for [themselves] and [their] students beyond race and intelligibility” (p. 521). They stopped judging themselves with the native English speaker yardstick of intelligibility that they had used previously, and they invested in a new imagined identity, that of multi-competent English speaker and teacher. With this new identity, they not only valued their L1 knowledge and knowledge of the local teaching tradition; they also saw their potential to change the status quo of English teaching in Taiwan that was deeply rooted in the idea of NS superiority. Unlike the previous three studies, which were based on short-term observation, Samimy, Kim, Lee, and Kasai (2011) conducted a 3.5-year longitudinal study based on class reflection logs, journal entries, autobiography, and notes of group meetings of three NNES graduate students; they investigated these students’ trajectory toward becoming legitimate members of the TESOL profession during and after the TESOL seminar. This study confirmed the findings of previous studies (Brutt-Griffler & Samimy, 1999; Golombek & Jordan, 2005; Pavlenko, 2003) that exposure to intensive reading and discussion of  47 alternative discourses (e.g., multi-competence, World Englishes) during the TESOL seminar encouraged the graduate students to reconstruct their agency in teaching the English language. The study also indicated that TESOL students’ professional legitimacy could continue to grow after the seminar, with the course professor’s mentorship and peer support. After the seminar, the participants in this study were invited by the course professor to co-present in conferences and to co-author papers related to NNEST issues. The participants developed a sense of belonging and legitimacy in the TESOL profession through sharing their experiences as NNES and voicing their opinions about the NS/NNS dichotomy at such legitimate occasions. In addition to this mentorship, peers in the program also supported each other in establishing a positive imagined identity. The participants met on a regular basis during and after the seminar to reflect on their teaching and learning experiences, where they created a “safe house” (Pratt, 1991) to test out alternative identities (e.g., speaker of World Englishes). Such space and support confirmed the sense of empowerment and legitimacy these students developed from the TESOL program, allowing them to see themselves as agents of change in future teaching contexts.   3.2.2 Identity construction through doing teaching / practicums  Besides taking courses, TESOL students also construct a professional identity through teaching. To better prepare themselves to teach in their future classrooms, some TESOL students take part in a teaching practicum, either as a required component of their program or on a voluntary basis. In the practicum, they test out their school knowledge in actual classrooms and make adjustments to their teaching according to specific teaching conditions. The six studies reviewed in this section outline such learning-to-teach  48 experiences of TESOL students. Some of the studies focus on the notion of the NS/NNS dichotomy in constructing the student teachers’ identities and teaching practices (Park, 2012; Reis, 2010, 2011, 2012); still others go beyond this dichotomy and discuss how pedagogical knowledge (e.g., peer review) learned from TESOL programs constructs student teachers’ professional identity in such a way that it has an impact on their teaching practices (Lee, 2010, 2013). These studies highlight that teacher identity is not only developed through teacher training, such as taking courses, but is greatly informed by teachers’ own teaching practices and contexts.   Based on electronic autobiographical narratives, electronic journal entries, and individual interviews, Park (2012) reported the case of Xia, a TESOL graduate student, and her identity development in relation to native-speakerism ideology during her teaching practicum. Xia, a Chinese speaker, felt very insecure about her English proficiency when she first started her study in a US TESOL program. This insecurity was reinforced when Xia’s English competence was questioned by a job recruiter who doubted that her English competence would be adequate for the position of English proficiency test scorer. Because of these disempowering experiences, Xia aimed to master English to an NS level while studying in the program. Only reaching NS-like proficiency would camouflage her NNEST identity and endorse her legitimacy to work in English-related jobs. It was not until her student teaching practicum that Xia started to validate her identity as a NNEST. While observing an elementary ESL class taught by her practicum mentor, a Japanese NNEST, Xia realized that her mentor’s bilingual and bicultural competence enabled her to be more understanding and supportive of ESL students’ struggles in learning and socializing in school. From this experience, Xia learned that a teacher’s attitude toward her students and her pedagogical  49 knowledge had much more to do with students’ learning than her language competence alone. Xia finally learned to live and teach positively with her non-native English, focusing on developing a professional knowledge which enabled her to provide her students with the comfortable learning environment that she had observed in her teaching practicum.   In his dissertation research, Reis (2010) followed six composition NNESTs (MA and PhD students in applied linguistics or TESL) for a semester in an American university to explore how their professional identities developed as they were teaching a freshman composition course modified by Reis by adding reading and class discussion in related to NS/NNS issues. Based on data from journals, classroom observations, interviews, surveys, and teaching philosophy statements, Reis found that the modified course unit served as a mediational space for the participants to articulate and reflect on their teaching and learning experiences; this enabled them to “claim empowering identity options as rightful English speakers and teachers” (p. 35). For example, Lee (a Korean PhD student teacher), despite being a fluent speaker and writer and an outstanding graduate student in his PhD program, often experienced anxiety about his relative inability compared to NS teachers to explain to students the uses of English. Through teaching the modified course, Lee acquired counter-arguments, which eased his negative emotions about being a teacher in view of the NS superiority ideology. By teaching students about these issues, he also developed a positive sense of self (e.g., multi-competence) that gave him the confidence to teach that composition class.   In another NS/NNS-related study, Reis (2011) reported on the case of Kang, a Chinese graduate student, in the same composition program. Kang’s sense of self as an English writing teacher constantly wavered in relation to NS ideology. On the one hand, the  50 modified course raised Kang’s awareness of NS/NNS inequality and empowered him to construct a positive identity, such as that of an “expert user,” to present himself as a good English writing teacher with a profound English knowledge. On the other hand, Kang also displayed insecurity about his language competence and “tested himself against” his language intuition with his NS colleagues when he was not so sure about language use. Although teaching with confidence and empowerment (i.e., as an expert user), Kang still set perfect English and language intuition as ultimate goals to pursue in order to maximize his teaching legitimacy in the ESL composition program. Reis attributed Kang’s wavering identities to some of his students’ expectations of a qualified English teacher, e.g. that the teacher should be white and have no accent when speaking English. Reis suggested that teacher education could help student teachers build a robust and positive professional identity in order to resist possible oppression from their teaching context, such as the students’ bias experienced by Kang.   Moving from the NS/NES dichotomy, Lee conducted two studies (2010, 2013) in a Hong Kong TESOL program and explored how a pedagogical knowledge of teaching L2 writing affected the development of professional identity among student teachers. The four participants were all in-service teachers enrolled in an MA program in a major Hong Kong university. Lee was the instructor of the MA course when the data were collected. In the first study, based on interviews and students’ research project reports, Lee (2010) explored how the MA course (with writing teacher education as the main component) promoted teachers’ professional development. She found that the mini research project assigned as a class requirement was particularly helpful as a form of professional development for these in-service teachers. To meet this requirement, the participants had to carry out a research project  51 by implementing newly learned theories and pedagogies in their actual classrooms. This learning-by-doing project enabled the student teachers to realize the challenges they might face after going back to the real classroom equipped with the ideal theories they had learned from their graduate programs. According to the findings in their projects, these teachers “blend[ed] idealism and realism” (p. 154) to find a balance between theory and practice to better prepare themselves to teach in their own classrooms.   In another study with the same four in-service teachers, Lee (2013) used Varghese et al.’s (2005) notions of identity-in-practice and identity-in-discourse and Leontiev’s (1981) identity-in-activity to further discuss how the four participants identified themselves differently throughout the MA course. Through interviews and the teachers’ classroom research reports, this study confirmed the findings of all the previous studies discussed in this section, indicating that explicit discussion and class readings of new knowledge offered student teachers opportunities to rethink the nature of English (writing) education and to reflect on their current practice. With the new knowledge acquired in the MA course (L2 writing knowledge, such as peer review and genre writing), all the participants shifted their identity from that of language teacher (e.g., focusing only on grammar and vocabulary teaching) to that of writing teacher (e.g., focusing on the writing process and development). This new understanding of themselves as writing teachers explicitly influenced their instructional practices. For example, instead of the teachers taking the major role in giving detailed grammatical instruction and correction, they gave students the responsibility for their own learning (e.g., by carrying out peer review), hoping to guide students to be more independent and active in their own learning process. The MA course experience also helped the teachers to see themselves as agents with the confidence and ambition to bring changes to  52 their schools by introducing new and helpful writing pedagogies to their colleagues. However, Lee also found that teachers’ positive identities and innovative teaching approaches could be subverted by institutional conditions (e.g., large class sizes, school policies). For instance, an attempt to emphasize content rather than grammar in students’ writing was denied by a participant’s school, which required writing teachers to mark all students’ errors. Lee suggested that writing teacher education should provide more opportunities to blend idealism and realism, making student teachers more aware of the socio-cultural, political, and historical conditions deeply rooted in their teaching contexts, which they might face in their teaching.  3.2.3 Politics in TESOL programs and professional development   While the studies reviewed above have provided increasing evidence that TESOL programs play an important role in supporting NNESTs in the reconstruction of their positive professional identity in ELT in respect to their “non-native” English-speaking status, the studies reported in this section show that the persistence of the native-speaker-superiority ideology continues to be influential in the pedagogy and practice of TESOL programs in various forms.   For example, via electronic autobiographical narratives, electronic journals, and interviews, Park (2015) showed how the cultural capital of two TESOL students was illegitimated in a US TESOL program. The two students, from Korea and China, came to the TESOL program with fully equipped cultural capital (e.g., good English competence, high test scores, a high degree of education, parental support) acquired in their own native countries. The accompanying forms of capital and habitus (Bourdieu, 1991) (e.g., a positive  53 sense of themselves as good English speakers and teachers), however, were de-valorized by the self-perceived and other-positioned marginalization of their identities as non-white and non-native English speakers in the program. The de-valorization, as argued by Park, was due to the dominant discourse that existed in the TESOL program, which still viewed any non-white and non-native-speaking student as a “perpetual foreigner” (p. 122) on the basis of native-speaker-defined standards of English proficiency. For instance, one participant, Liu, found that her opinions were often ignored by her white professor and peers because her ways of expressing ideas were not clear enough to be understood. Liu’s sense of illegitimacy as an English speaker, teacher, and scholar started to grow every time she was silenced. Park implied that this sense of illegitimacy might cause TESOL students to resort to new and appropriate forms of cultural capital, such as native-like English competence, in order to restructure the professional legitimacy and privilege in the TESOL program they are studying in. In other words, Western TESOL programs could be a site for the production and reproduction of the hegemonic relations among English speakers, English varieties, and races.   Aware of the danger of reproducing the hierarchical relationship between Western TESOL programs and international students, Ilieva (2010) brought a critical eye to her examination of her role as a teacher educator in Western TESOL programs in constructing NNESTs’ professional legitimacy and agency. Using Bakhtin’s (1981) constructs of “authoritative discourse” and “internally persuasive discourse,” Ilieva (2010) analyzed 20 end-of-program portfolios of NNESTs from China studying in a Canadian MATESOL program and investigated how these students constructed professional legitimacy through negotiating and appropriating the pedagogical and theoretical knowledge they gained from  54 the TESOL program. Part of the findings confirmed previous studies (Brutt-Griffler & Samimy, 1999; Golombek & Jordan, 2005; Pavlenko, 2003; Samimy et al., 2011) that having NNESTs read articles with a critical perspective toward ELT (e.g., Lippi-Green, 1997; Freire, 1970) created a space for them to form “internally persuasive discourse” (Bakhtin, 1981) to believe that they were not any inferior to NESTs as English teachers. Despite the positive impact the curriculum in the TESOL program had on students, Ilieva also observed that the same reading and the discussion around critical approaches to teaching English were sometimes embraced by the students as “authoritative discourses” that were uncritically taken as a panacea to transform English education in China. Nevertheless, this empowering approach toward language teaching (e.g., Freire, 1970) presented in the TESOL program might not be relevant to the Chinese teaching context. Ilieva expresses concern that the unconditional allegation (Bakhtin, 1981) of Western TESOL knowledge could help perpetuate the existing dominant status of native speakers and Western knowledge in peripheral contexts, thereby reinforcing “the march of linguistic imperialism” (p. 355). Therefore, teacher educators and pre-service teachers in Western TESOL programs should all be more aware of and avoid uncritical imposition (by program) and uncritical up-taking (by students) of the centered TESOL knowledge.   To follow Ilieva’s work (2010), Ilieva and Waterstone (2013) conducted a longitudinal study (2007–2011) in the same Canadian MA program, trying to unpack what and how ideologies embedded in the program curriculum were taken up by the MATESOL students in order to construct their academic and professional identities. This study consisted of two sub-studies: (1) students’ training experiences in the TESOL program; and (2) students’ literacy development in an academic literacy program designed to support first-year  55 international students. Data were collected from students’ end-of-program portfolios, written assignment, course outlines, assignment descriptions, email exchanges, and interviews. This study confirmed Ilieva’s findings (2010) that some curriculum discourses were taken as “authoritative discourse” (Bakhtin, 1981) by students without much critical reflection. This study provided a detailed example of how scholarly theories and teaching philosophies were “lived and enacted in this program” (p. 19). For example, Freire’s critical pedagogy was one of the major concepts covered in the program. When students were asked to design a course syllabus based on Freire’s (1970) critical pedagogy, they tended to parrot the benefits of the pedagogy discussed in the course without much reflection of whether this pedagogy was compatible with the Chinese educational context. Ilieva and Waterstone argued that this parroting practice contradicted the central notion of “being critical” in critical pedagogy and limited the students’ potential to create a meaningful pedagogy for their own native country. Although Ilieva and Waterstone noticed that the alternative education discourse (e.g., critical pedagogy) helped develop the student teachers’ sense of professional legitimacy, they were also cautious about their roles as “technicians of empire” (Luke, 2004), promoting academicentrism (Stier, 2004) to convince the students that “[Western] methods of teaching, research and degrees are better than those of other countries” (Stier, 2004, p. 93). Ilieva and Waterstone (2013) called for more exploration of how NNESTs actually teach in their local contexts in order to better understand whether the accounts expressed in research conducted in the West “reflected simple parroting of program discourses or a real sense of agency” (Ilieva, 2010, p. 365).   Politics between English speakers (Park, 2015, in this section) and embedded in Western pedagogies (Ilieva, 2010; Ilieva &Waterstone, 2013, in this section) are not only  56 exercised in a top-down fashion in TESOL programs but are also produced and reproduced among NNESTs. In both Golombek and Jordan (2005) and Inoue and Stracke’s (2013) studies, the students studying in Western TESOL programs showed a tendency to take their Western-gained experiences as cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986) to position themselves as more legitimate teachers than locally trained teachers. Shao-Mei, one participant in Golombek and Jordan’s work (2005), developed a crucial awareness of native speaker superiority after the TESOL seminar and showed a willingness to question this ideology in her future English classes. However, when explicitly asked about her legitimacy as a teacher in Taiwan, she positioned herself as “the next best thing” to a native English speaker because of her two-year exposure in the MATESOL program, where she had access to native American English speakers, American learning styles, and American pedagogies. Inoue and Stracke’s (2013) interview-based study also found that, even being aware of the issues of World Englishes and the NS/NNS dichotomy, the eight pre-service NNESTs in an Australian MATESOL program still valued native-like pronunciation and a knowledge of Anglophone culture as key characteristics of qualified English teachers. Both studies indicated that Western-educated NNESTs could continue to be complicit with English linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1992) by devaluing other NNESTs in their own countries who do not have the same training experience from the inner circle.    Thus far, I have reviewed studies that explored pre-service NNESTs training experiences in Western TESOL programs and the process of how TESOL students constructed their professional identity during their study in these programs. Since the target group of the current inquiry is Western-educated writing teachers, the writing experiences of NNESTs in the Western graduate programs are equally important in understanding their  57 identity construction. In the next section, I turn to a discussion of NNESTs’ writing experiences and their writing identity construction while studying in Western TESOL programs.   3.3 Pre-service NNESTs’ writing experiences and writing identity construction in Western TESOL programs  As Blommaert (2010, p. 6) points out, “the movement of people across space is … never a move across empty spaces: They [the spaces] are filled with norms and expectations, conceptions of what counts as proper, normal … and what does not count as such.” According to Canagarajah (2013), English academic writing is often closely associated with the values and interests of Anglophone communities. As a result, while studying in Anglophone universities, L2 graduate students have to negotiate the differences in writing norms between their L1 and English. Writing is a terrain to show one’s values and culture. Writing in a different culture thus requires negotiation of one’s identities and values. In this section, I will give an overview of L2 graduate students’ writing experiences in Anglophone TESOL programs and their negotiation between their L1 and L2 identities when writing in new academic contexts. I will first discuss how some students gave up their L1 writing identities and accommodated the required academic discourses of Western graduate programs. I will then review some students’ struggles as they tried to keep their L2 voices when writing in English.    58 3.3.1 Accommodating writing conventions   As L2 graduate students enter Western universities, they soon find a set of writing norms required for academic success. One example is the need to have a clear topic sentence, a brief introduction, a succinct conclusion, and a presentation of critical thinking with sufficient evidence to support the writer’s conclusions (i.e., citations). L2 graduate students discussed in this section chose to accommodate these norms in order to succeed in their graduate programs, even though these norms differed from those of their own writing traditions.   In Casanave’s (2002) case study, five graduate students7 in a TESOL program stated that writing in an unemotional style and with a detached tone were crucial rules to follow in order to meet their professors’ expectations. For example, an Armenian student was accustomed to sharing personal experiences when writing in her native language. However, some professors criticized this narrative style as being too emotional and thus not formal enough for English academic writing. As a newcomer in the writing community, with the primary goal of passing the course, the Armenian student chose to accommodate the writing norms required by her professors. Not only did her writing style change, but her identity also shifted to that of an unemotional writer as required by the new community.   Similarly, the Mexican students in a TESOL course in Zhu’s (2001) study also struggled between two competing writing identities and conventions. Based on qualitative interviews, the author reported that one major challenge for these students was to adapt to the differences in organizing essays between English and Spanish. Specifically, some students                                                 7 Five students participated in the study, two L1 students and three L2 students. However, since the focus of this paper is on L2 writers, I focus my discussion only on the L2 writers.   59 stated that in Spanish, people tended to write a longer introduction before moving to the topic, whereas the introduction in English tended to be much shorter. To learn how to organize their English writing in the form that was preferred by the course instructor, they referred to the writing samples given by the instructor and imitated those writing styles, or they had native peers help them with revisions. However, even though these students felt more competent in English academic writing after the course, some felt their writing was somehow detached from what they intended to compose and from their sense of themselves. For example, one student stated, “when you have to read it, some parts sound like it’s not from you” (p. 45). Their accommodation to English writing conventions seemed to force the writers to shift from their Spanish selves to their English selves. Some students even explicitly stated that they disliked this change. The newcomers in this study chose to accommodate their writing norms to those required in the new writing community, yet they showed resistance to this accommodation because it caused them to sacrifice their sense of self.  While students like those mentioned above tried to accommodate the imposed writing conventions to construct their academic identity (e.g., good graduate student) in their graduate programs, some students worked on their English writing to meet the program’s expectations for constructing their “teacher” identity. For Jien, a student from People’s Republic China in Leki’s (1995) study, being an English teacher equated to being equipped with near-perfect competency in English. Through interviews with Jien and her professors, written materials from courses, journal entries, and class observation, Leki discussed how Jien developed several strategies to meet her professor’s expectations for writing, including trying to find the writing patterns and styles that she assumed that the professor would  60 accept, applying every single one of the professor’s comments on her writing assignments, and avoiding any of her own opinions that might contradict the professor’s stances. With all these accommodations, Jien finally proved herself a good writer by getting the highest score in the class. Competent in writing in the styles and conventions preferred in the course, she also affirmed her identity as an English teacher.  Two Chinese graduate students studying in an Australian TESOL program in a questionnaire- and interview-based case study by Wang (2011) also reported that English writing constitutes a large component in imaging their future professional success; as one of the participants stated, “a qualified English teacher should write better than her students.” (p. 49). Adela, a PhD student in the program, planned to teach at the university level after graduation; she was, therefore, very aware that writing academic papers for publication and teaching English writing could be the major professional activities in her future career. She saw every writing activity (e.g., term paper, dissertation) as a good learning opportunity to polish her grammar and rhetoric and her ability to clearly articulate her ideas and thoughts to the reader. While writing in the graduate program allowed her to enhance her sense of professional legitimacy, she somehow felt writing in that context was like “dancing with shackles” (p. 48): while she wanted to be more creative and original, she was required to conform to the norms expected in the TESOL program. For example, although she acknowledged that Chinese English might enrich the creativity in her English writing, she tended to hide her Chinese self in her writing because it contradicted the writing norms of the TESOL program. Instead, she worked hard to avoid “Chinglish” in order to “make writing sound more like native” (p. 53) to meet her supervisor’s expectations of a proper academic paper in the field.  61  Kim’s (2015) longitudinal qualitative case study conducted in a Canadian TESOL program also found that academic English writing played a significant role in constructing TESOL students’ professional legitimacy. Based on a questionnaire, interviews, journals, and writing samples throughout an academic year, Kim traced five NNES graduate students’ academic discourse socialization experiences in which they negotiated and constructed their academic and professional identities. Four of the five NNES graduate students in the study stated that they wished to be academics in the future (e.g., pursue PhD degrees or teach at universities). Becoming a legitimate member in an academic writing community like the TESOL program was, therefore, an urgent task for each of them in constructing their professional identity. Although these graduate students brought various degrees of expertise of English language education from previous training experiences, they all became novice members in learning a new academic language expected by the TESOL program in which they were studying. For instance, the TESOL program took a critical approach in addressing English education issues (e.g., social equality in relation to language education). Some participants, who had received previous training in psychological and cognitive-oriented teacher education programs, found it challenging to find an appropriate voice to formulate arguments related to these critical issues. Through intensive reading, taking part in class discussion, writing term papers, and reviewing teacher feedback, these participants were increasingly being socialized into the academic discourse of the TESOL program. Yet, some students also claimed that although their accumulating scholarly knowledge made them feel more comfortable writing and speaking in the program, the more they learned, the more they became aware of the strict conventions expected in expert-level academic writing. This  62 realization about actual academic writing discouraged some of the participants from viewing themselves as legitimate academic writers in a larger scholarly community.  Not all international students are successful in negotiating institutional writing norms. Through participants’ written materials with instructor comments, course-related artifacts (e.g., syllabi), and interviews, Abasi, Akbari, and Graves (2006) discussed the serious consequences experienced by two MATESOL students who failed to reconcile their own L1 writing tradition with that of the L2 writing community. According to Abasi et al., the writing discourse prevalent in North American academia often expects writers to use their own words to contribute original ideas that are relevant to current issues, along with clear citation. However, coming from Iran, where students usually demonstrate their understanding of knowledge by reproducing what they have read in textbooks to, these students had a different understanding of the role of the writer. They perceived their roles as writers as only to transmit knowledge from the text to the readers; this was contradictory to what was expected in their program, where critical expression and ideas were expected. Moreover, given their limited experience in academic writing and citation, these students’ writing contained pieces of text reproduced without reference. The absence of authorial identity (Ivanič, 1998) required in their program and the lack of citation knowledge eventually led to the students being accused of plagiarism. This authorial identity, also known as voice, is a vital component for graduate students to succeed academically in North American universities. A significant amount of research has investigated how L2 graduate students develop a sense of self in their own writing, a review to which I shall now turn.   63 3.3.2 Creating voice in one’s own writing   The concept of voice, also described as authorial identity or self-representation, was developed by L1 compositionists (e.g., Bowden, 1995) to understand how writers establish an authorial presence for expressing their own views (Hirvela & Belcher, 2001; Ivanič & Camps, 2001). It is often used in L2 writing to describe how L2 writers negotiate their authoritative stance when writing English essays in an academic context. Ivanič (1998) defines voice as self as author and argues that authoritative stance is constructed in autobiographical self and discoursal self: not only is it formed from the writer’s past experiences, it is also “constructed through the discourse characteristics of a text, which relate to values, beliefs and power relations in the social context in which they were written” (p. 25). L2 graduate students often face challenges in developing a voice in English essays, given that the ways they use to present self in their home cultures might differ from those expected in English-speaking communities. The studies reviewed here document L2 graduate students’ struggles in negotiating different voices and the strategies they developed to cope with these challenges.   Viete and Phan’s study (2007) conducted through self-reflective narratives, reports on the conflict experienced by the second author, Phan Le Ha, a Vietnamese MATESOL student, between her own voice and the one required in her Australian graduate program. Phan observed that international students who studied in Anglophone universities often had to follow the dominant writing norms, such as methods of organization and referencing. In her English academic writing, Phan often used the writing conventions she was accustomed to in her first language, such as using highly personalized argument based on her own experiences to express her opinions. Consequently, her professors critiqued her strong voice  64 and her sharing of past experiences for lacking a scholarly theoretical basis and for not being formal enough in academic writing. However, Phan did not submit her own voices to the dominant writing discourse. In her thesis, she developed a strategy to sustain her authorial voice while protecting her writing from being criticized. That is, she chose to use an impersonal voice throughout the thesis to make her writing look more “academic” as required. She also concluded her thesis with a letter in a strong personal voice to discuss the rhetoric and beauty of Vietnamese writing. By doing so, she tried to give her readers, including her committee members, an understanding of her concerns about the unfair treatment of Vietnamese and other international students’ English writing without sacrificing her own voice. Positive feedback in her thesis defense evidenced her success in incorporating her own voice into the Anglophone writing context.  Showing evidence of critical thinking in academic writing is also expected in English-speaking academic contexts when presenting one’s own voice in writing. Tran (2011) conducted an interview-based qualitative case study in an Australian university to understand how four international graduate students (two from TESOL and two from economics) negotiated the meaning of “being critical,” as well as the strategies they used to write critically in their respective graduate programs. Xuan, a Vietnamese master’s student of TESOL, mentioned that the Vietnamese tendency to respect authority and value harmony in knowledge building made her feel uneasy about critiquing other people’s writing, a writing activity often required in the graduate program. Trying to meet the assignment requirement, Xuan developed a comparison-and-contrast strategy to show her critical thinking in writing. With this strategy, she only discussed the strengths of different perspectives and chose the most convincing stance among the perspectives to align with in her essays. This way, she did  65 not have to challenge the authoritative voice which might contradict her Vietnamese identity (i.e., respect for authority), but at the same time she was able to show her critical thinking by providing a convincing argument for the issue she discussed. Tran concluded by suggesting that students’ L1 writing traditions should be seen as “alternative ways and diverse aspirations in meaning-making” (p. 72), to enrich academic culture, especially in Western universities with growing international student populations.  In the same light, Phan (2011) interviewed four Vietnamese graduate students (two from a TESOL program and two from an MBA program) studying in an Australian university and discussed how infusing writing components from Vietnamese culture allowed these students to better present their own voices in English writing. Participants in this study noticed that English writing tended to be linear, direct, and straightforward, whereas Vietnamese writing tended to be circular, indirect, and tactical. They argued that being circular and indirect did not mean that the writer was unable to construct a direct and linear argument. Rather, direct and straightforward writing was, in Vietnamese culture, considered impolite, rude, and even lacking in sophistication in developing an argument. Therefore, when these students wrote in English, they tended to use a flowery style with beautiful and poetic words in order to show the sophistication of their writing. These culturally informed styles, according to Phan, should be not only acknowledged but also valued, as they are crucial components in the establishment of a truly multicultural learning environment—the very goal of these Australian universities.   Two Chinese scholars, Shen (1989) and Guo (2006), reflected on their graduate writing experiences when studying in English-speaking countries and shared their successful experiences of blending their L1 and L2 voices to enrich their English writing in their  66 graduate programs. Shen (1989) described his experiences of writing English in an American academic setting as a process of reconciling his identity between two different writing worlds. Coming from a communist society, Shen valued social welfare over the individual. This social value extended to his writing in both Chinese and English: “I is always subordinated to we” (p. 460). Soon he found that avoiding the use of “I” in his writing was contradictory to what was expected in the American society, where individuals’ voices were highly valued. To join the new writing community, Shen created an English self that was more assertive and aggressive. While he welcomed the L2 identity that provided him with a new dimension to see and write about the world, he did not give up his Chinese self. He appreciated this new writing identity that enabled him to move between two cultures for a richer representation of his ideas in English writing.  Like Shen, Guo (2006), in her own narratives, also stated that she learned to write academic English by swinging between two different languages and cultures, Chinese and Canadian. Proud of her identity as a communist, she often wrote from a perspective against the capitalist society. This communist-oriented voice was heavily criticized by some of her Anglophone professors. Similarly, her preference for using Chinese metaphors in her English writing, such as using bamboo to describe humbleness or fire to describe passion, was also marked as strange and illogical usage. After these critiques, self-doubts about her own writing skills grew. These negative feelings were mitigated when she entered another university to pursue her PhD degree. In the new program, where she was empowered by works of writers such as Pennycook (1998), Guo started to view her marked identity as a Chinese English writer with a communist perspective as an asset, not a liability (Kubota, 2002). With this new perspective, she began to view herself as the owner of both languages  67 and cultures, who was able to combine the merits of both sides to create more possibilities for English writing.   While Shen and Guo’s identity and writing had both been othered in their graduate programs, another L2 scholar, Li’s (1999) otherness was valued. Like most graduate students, Li viewed herself and her writing as different and so sought to eliminate elements from her English writing that were characteristic of Chinese rhetoric, including organizational style, syntax, and semantics. Instead of correcting these Chinese characteristics in her English writing, Li’s professor encouraged her to view them as unique and beautiful assets to her writing. With her professor’s support, Li started to appreciate her Chinese self and voice in her English writing. Her Chinese self, therefore, became an enhancement, making her English writing attractive.  Aware that students’ voices can determine their success in graduate schools, some writing scholars have tried to help their advisees to develop appropriate institutional voices without sacrificing their own. Phan Le Ha (2009), the graduate student in Viete and Phan’s study (2007), was determined to help her students to form their voices when she became a professor. Despite her encouragement, Arianto, an Indonesian student in an Australian university, hesitated to display his own voice and stance when writing. He chose to stay with the more impersonal tone that he had been taught to follow in other classes. The situation changed as Phan kept providing him with readings from scholars such as Pennycook (1998) and Phan’s own successful writing as samples. Arianto started to reflect on his own agency as he wrote, and finally, he presented his views and supported his argument in his thesis by drawing on his own life experiences and writing a first-person poem. In a similar fashion, based on what she had learned from her research methods courses in a North American  68 university, Youngjoo, a Korean doctoral student and the second author in Hirvela and Yi’s self-reflective article (2008), also stated that professional academic writing should not involve personal tones and experiences. As a result, she distanced herself and her own voice throughout her dissertation, as if she had not conducted the research. However, her supervisor, Alan Hirvela expected her to be not merely the reporter but the owner of her research and encouraged her to include her own experiences and voice in the dissertation. After revisiting the data, she revised her dissertation from a voice-free research report to a narrative case study in which she shared her reflections and experiences as a researcher. The identity as narrator made her feel that she owned the study and had become a real researcher.    As demonstrated in sections 3.2 and 3.3, significant numbers of studies have been conducted to investigate Western-educated NNESTs’ training, writing experiences, and professional development when studying in Western TESOL programs. What remains scantly explored is how this group of teachers develop their professional identities and teaching practices after returning to teach in their home countries.  An increasing number of pre-service teachers from non-English-speaking countries have come to English-speaking countries for professional training and certification. For example, Llurda (2005) showed in his survey study that nearly 40% of students enrolled in English-dominated TESOL programs (MA and PhD) were international students. Polio’s (1994) survey study conducted in seven MATESOL programs in the US also showed that 72% of the student population was from Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, and that 90% of them planned to return to their home country to teach English. Given the high percentage of Western-educated returning teachers in many places around the world, these teachers’ professional development and identity deserve a full investigation (Holliday, 2005; Liu, 1999; Llurda, 2005). Only recently has an  69 increasing number of studies been documented to discuss this group of teachers’ experience and professional identity development when teaching in their home countries.  I will review these studies in the next section.   3.4 Western-educated returning teachers’ identity and teaching practices in their home countries  In this section, I first review studies that have focused on the challenges Western-educated teachers have faced when applying pedagogical knowledge acquired in the West in their local classrooms (Chowdhury & Phan, 2008; Diallo, 2014; Pu & Pawan, 2014). Then, I outline another group of studies that have used the notion of third space (Bhabha, 1994) to discuss Western-educated teachers’ appropriation of both Western and local pedagogical cultures to maximize students’ learning (Dobinson; 2014; Ilieva, Li, & Li, 2015; Phan, 2008). Since the current study focuses on writing teacher’s experiences, I will lastly discuss Western-returning writing teachers’ teaching of writing in light of their Western training experiences (Casanave, 2002; Liu, 2008; Shi, 2003).   3.4.1 Western-educated teachers and Western pedagogies in EFL contexts   An increasing number of English teachers from EFL countries have been sent to the English-speaking West for further training in communicative language teaching (CLT), a student-centered and interaction-oriented approach that is believed to efficiently develop students’ English communicative competence. For example, based on interview data, classroom observation, participants’ teaching materials, and researchers’ reflection notes, Pu and Pawan (2014) reported on four Chinese Western-trained teachers’ experiences of using  70 CLT in Chinese universities. While these teachers regarded CLT as a creative and empowering pedagogy for both teachers and students, they soon found they could not fully implement CLT in local classrooms, mainly because of students’ unfamiliarity with the Anglophone culture largely embedded in CLT materials. These teachers then appropriated CLT by extracting the essence from Western-Chinese pedagogical cultures to create a “learning-centered instruction” (p. 90): prioritizing students’ learning needs by infusing locally sensitive CLT activities. For instance, instead of using writing prompts from the textbook to write a critique, one teacher encouraged students to write about a local news story which students were familiar with and which they were able to critique. Although their writing was full of grammatical errors, students were able to address the social issues using critical thinking, an important component that CLT tries to develop. Moreover, instead of spoon-feeding students the Anglophone norms of communication, these teachers raised students’ awareness of the value of the Chinese culture of communication, such as sustaining harmony in teamwork and teaching students how to avoid conflict in intercultural communication. The positive feedback from students established these Western-trained teachers’ ownership of this Western-established methodology. Although they borrowed the pedagogy from the West, they appropriated it by infusing Chinese culture into it and made it a pedagogy that maximized the students’ learning.    Chowdhury and Phan (2008) used interviews, emails, and online conversation to explore the views of four Bangladeshi teachers, two Western trained and two locally trained, about the application of CLT in relation to the cultural politics at play in Bangladeshi English education. The authors observed that the Western-trained teachers were aware of the challenges of implementing CLT in Bangladesh, such as conflicts between traditional  71 teacher-centered education and Western-informed student-centered pedagogy. They were also conscious of the “hidden agenda” (p. 313) embedded in CLT to “brainwash” learners (p. 313) and sell Western values to the global market through pedagogy. Despite this awareness, they believed CLT could help their students develop good communicative competence, the “linguistic power” (Kachru, 1986, p. 1) they needed in this globalizing world. Based on their findings, the authors argued that the colonial mission appeared in the form of pedagogy (e.g., CLT) by spreading Western values to Bangladeshi English education without much consideration of local needs, and by perpetuating the superiority of Standard English linguistics and of Western pedagogy in local English classrooms. The authors suggested that local teacher education providers should develop a course for returnee teachers, in which they would be able to interact with local teachers and institutions and learn more about the local teaching context before adapting Western pedagogy.  Similarly, Diallo (2014) observed (research methods not explicitly stated) that the cultural incompatibility of the instructional content as a result of uncritical use of Western-based pedagogy by Western-trained teachers could threaten religious and traditional culture in a Muslim society. The findings showed significant resistance from Muslim students when their cultural identity, including their epistemic, cultural, and religious values, was at odds with those of their Western-trained teachers. When Western-trained teachers consciously or unconsciously brought Western epistemology (e.g., liberal views regarding gender) into classroom discussion, students used silence and indifference as a way to reject this perceived threat to their cultural identity based on Muslim religion and tradition. The author suggested that for effective English learning to happen in this context, Western-educated teachers  72 needed to consider the various epistemic, cultural, and religious traditions that played a role in constructing the identity of Emirati students.  In response to the inappropriate and uncritical transfer of a pedagogy from one social context to the other (e.g., Chowdhury & Phan, 2008; Diallo, 2014), Kumaravadivelu (2001, 2003, 2006) proposes a post-method approach that calls for social, cultural, and political context-based approaches to teaching. With this in mind, Barnawi and Phan (2015) followed two Western-trained Saudi teachers teaching at universities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and explored how they applied the notion of post-method—in other words, how they brought the methods they had learned from their Western TESOL programs to their local English-language classrooms. Based on data obtained from questionnaires, interviews, and classroom observation, the authors demonstrated that both teachers, rather than adapting Western-informed methods in their entirety, developed a pedagogy more suitable for their students’ learning. For example, Ali, a writing teacher, allowed plenty of space for teacher–student negotiation. This approach emphasized both the teacher’s scaffolding and the students’ active role in maximizing students’ writing development. The authors indicated that the agency to develop a bottom-up method with consideration of the students’ prior experiences and preferred learning styles not only induced meaningful English learning in the local context but also gave both teachers a sense of ownership of their English teaching.  The teachers described in Pu and Pawan (2014) and Barnawi and Phan (2015) all displayed a sense of ownership of their own English teaching by developing a working method most appropriate for their students’ learning. However, Liao (2015) showed in her dissertation research that three American-trained Taiwanese teachers’ sense of ownership of teaching was compromised when they compared their English competence with that of  73 NESTs. Although the study does not focus on teaching pedagogy, it is worth discussing because it foregrounds Western-educated teachers and their teaching practices. Based on interviews, classroom observation, and participants’ teaching materials, Liao compared three US-educated and three Taiwan-educated Taiwanese teachers and discussed their professional legitimacy in relation to accessible forms of capital (Bourdieu, 1986, 1991). Compared to their Taiwan-educated counterparts, the US-educated teachers in the study received higher value in terms of linguistic, cultural, and symbolic capital in Taiwanese society, where people still deeply believed that “the representativeness of English is often associated with the English-speaking West and teachers who speak mainstream English own a certain degree of unquestioned legitimacy” (p. 113, cited from Motha, 2014). Despite their confidence in teaching, none of these teachers, although self-evaluated as advanced English users, positioned themselves as legitimate English-speaking teachers compared to English native speakers. Liao indicated that this was likely because native-like or Standard English was still positioned as the goal to achieve, and English native speakers were considered the most legitimate teachers when it came to English education in Taiwan. Thus, these teachers, despite their training in the West, claimed neither ownership nor legitimacy in teaching English compared with the NS.   3.4.2 Third space  The concept of a third space or hybridity, originally theorized by Homi Bhabha (1994), is used to capture the in-between position that provides “an ambivalent space in which third perspectives can grow in the margins of dominant ways of seeing” (p. 237). This concept is increasingly used as a useful lens through which to investigate Western-educated  74 teachers’ complex process of negotiating their roles when teaching in a local context. According to Bhabha (1994, p. 4), the third space “entertains difference without an assumed or imposed hierarchy.” This hybrid space, then, provides people with the freedom to “continually negotiate and translate all available resources in order to construct their own hybrid cultures and, consequently, reconstruct their own individual identities” (Kumaravadivelu, 2008, p. 124). The Western-educated teachers in this section presented the ability to create a third space in order to manage the pedagogical resources they had gained from two cultures; in this space, they constructed a sense of legitimacy of English teaching in their local context.  Following Bhabha’s (1994) concept of third space, Ilieva, Li, and Li (2015) explored the dynamic process of nine Canadian-educated Chinese English teachers’ negotiation of ownership and legitimacy of teaching English in China. Based on interviews with the teachers, the authors reported how these teachers were influenced by constant discussions of socio-political, socio-cultural, and social equality issues in their Canadian TESOL program, as they tried to teach English by guiding students in reflecting critically on the use of the English language. Challenges faced by these teachers included students’ resistance against their too-much-focus-on-non-linguistics approach. Despite these tensions, these teachers were able to find a third space in which they could adjust their teaching approaches. For instance, one teacher (Helen) decided to bring up Chinese political issues to the class to develop students’ critical thinking skills, along with teaching the grammatical knowledge needed for the students to pass the local exams (e.g., college English tests). This adjustment allowed her to find an in-between pedagogy through which she could implement her own teaching philosophy, which she had gained from the West. It was in this in-betweenness that  75 these teachers constructed a sense of legitimacy as evidenced in one teacher’s statement: “because I always think maybe this way is better, either this way is better or that way is better. But for other teachers … there’s only one way to do it” (p. 11).  Phan (2008) found that this third space was also created by Western-trained Vietnamese teachers in the process of constructing their professional identity in the Vietnamese teaching context. Through interviews, participants’ reflective writing, and email correspondence, Phan explored 16 teachers who had studied overseas for master’s degrees in TESOL-related programs in Australia, the UK, the US, or New Zealand. These teachers often struggled with several contradictory roles as English teachers when talking about their teaching in Vietnam after receiving professional training from the West. For example, their role of teacher in Vietnam (teacher as morality guide) was contradictory to that promoted in Western countries (teacher as facilitator). They often found it challenging to position themselves, especially when they found teacher as facilitator was often evaluated as more positively than teacher as morality guide in the local context. Instead of becoming Western-like teachers, these teachers created a third space to foreground Vietnamese cultural values in order to reject an imposed negative identity. For instance, teacher-led methods were often looked down upon as traditional approaches that hindered students from developing creativity. However, the teachers in this study emphasized that teacher-led pedagogy was necessary in Vietnamese English classrooms because teachers played an important role in conveying the notion of morality, even when teaching English. By foregrounding morality in their teaching, the teachers developed agency and power to resist the negative cultural identity imposed by Western culture (i.e., traditional = backward) and strengthened their cultural/national identities to teach English in their own right in the hybrid and diverse  76 globalizing world.   Dobinson (2014) interviewed two groups of TESOL postgraduates studying at the same Australian university: the first group consisted of Asian postgraduates studying onshore in Australia, while the second group was made up of Vietnamese postgraduates studying in offshore branch of the Australian university in Ho Chi Minh City. Like many of the participants shown in the above studies, several teachers felt that Western learning theories and approaches provided them with different ways of teaching, such as strategies for independent learning, a sense of humour, and the ability to give positive feedback to students. These strategies helped them build a good relationship with their students to enhance learning. However, many teachers reported that they often felt inferior and frustrated because of an asymmetrical relationship between Asia and the West, which emerged when conflicts arose because of pedagogical differences between the two cultures. For example, when these teachers modified the Western method (e.g., CLT) to meet the local students’ exam-oriented needs (e.g., grammar knowledge) in their teaching institutions, their methods were considered by their English-speaking colleagues to be “too ready to follow ‘regulations’, too ‘disciplined’ and principled, and not ready enough to show ‘initiative’ or ‘creativity’” (p. 16–17). Unlike the participants in Ilieva, Li, and Li (2015) and Barnawi and Phan’s (2015) studies, who gained agency and ownership of pedagogies in the third space, the “thirdness” of the participants’ in this study was denied by their English-speaking colleagues. This left the Western-trained Vietnamese teachers with no room to create their own working methods; instead, they had to follow the “advanced” and “innovative” Western pedagogies.   77  3.4.3 Western-educated writing teachers’ identity in EFL contexts  Since Western-educated teachers are increasing in number in EFL contexts, scholars are becoming interested in how Western-educated teachers negotiate their professional identity (see section 3.4). However, there is a lack of research into Western-educated writing teachers’ identities and their teaching practices in EFL contexts. The three studies in this section are the only few to date that explored returnee teachers’ teaching experiences with regard to their writing identity as negotiated in local contexts.   Shi (2003) extended her consideration of the identity struggles of bilingual returnees in her exploration of the dilemmas these teachers faced when teaching English in the People’s Republic of China. Shi noted that each institution held different sets of conventions made up of particular interests, values, and practices, all of which would thus shape writers’ “intellectual identities” (p. 370). Professors participating in this interview-based study with degrees from both Chinese and Anglophone universities had developed a strong sense of biliterate/bicultural intellectual identity. However, after juggling two writing discourses, Chinese and English, many bilingual professors chose to align themselves with the Western writing community. This resulted in a tendency to foreground their identity based on their Western training when teaching English writing. For example, although one professor valued the organizational system used in Chinese composition, he chose to teach his students the English conventions (e.g., a clear introduction to let readers know what the paper is about), since he believed it would benefit the students. Shi suggested that that this was probably a result of the intellectual identities these professors developed when studying in Anglophone universities. In other words, having experienced the ideological practice in the West where  78 English writing conventions were valued more highly, the professors took on the L2 identity when they returned to teach in China.   Yasuko, a returnee professor in Japan in Casanave’s study (2002), provided another example of the impact of a teacher’s Western-trained experiences on her teacher identity formation and teaching of English writing. Based on interview data and classroom observation, Casanave reported that Yasuko developed her academic identity as a narrator and observer of what happened in education after six years studying in a qualitative-oriented doctoral program in North America. These experiences and academic identities blended later when she designed a writing course for her undergraduate students in Japan. For example, she asked her students to observe an interesting phenomenon and write it up as a story as a final project for her course. During the class, unlike in her colleagues’ classes where the instruction was full of teaching forms and mechanics such as APA, Yasuko’s class emphasized paragraph structure and the analysis of the characteristics of good stories, which she considered to be important in writing a narrative. She believed that by letting the students write based on a story they had experienced in person, they could truly own their stories and thus develop themselves as authors.  Finally, Liu’s (2008) action research did not look specifically at writing teacher identity, but it highlighted her own experiences of studying in the West and the significant impact of such experiences on her teaching practice after returning to Taiwan. Based on her own teaching journals, students’ writing materials, and notes of teacher−student writing conferences, Liu conducted an action research project in her own writing classroom to see how her students negotiated an imported pedagogy, a sequential writing approach, which she had learned in her American graduate program. Originally proposed by Leki (1992), this  79 writing pedagogy includes five interconnected writing assignments: project proposal (literature review constituted a big part), summaries, a survey, an interview with an expert, and a final report (Leki, 1992). To reduce the course load for her EFL undergraduate students, Liu adjusted this approach by combining the survey and interview activities into one assignment. The results showed that many students encountered difficulties in writing using that approach. For example, some students hesitated to transform knowledge, which required blending their own voices with the acquired knowledge, but instead merely paraphrased and displayed their knowledge of what they had read when writing their final report. After holding writing conferences with her students, Liu learned that this imported pedagogy might not be appropriate for her students in the local EFL context, where students often needed to display knowledge in their writing rather than critiquing the work of another. Liu suggested that when applying an Anglo-American pedagogy in a local context, teachers should be aware of their students’ struggles as well as their learning goals. She concluded that only by doing so can the pedagogy benefit the students as they are learning to write.   As demonstrated in this section, research into Western-educated teachers focused on teaching English speaking or teaching English in general; little is known about Western-returning writing teachers’ teaching experiences and identity development. Many L2 writing scholars (Casanave, 2009; Lee, 2010, 2013; Ortega, 2009) have pointed out that English writing is one of the most important components in curriculum design in EFL contexts. Given that a large number of Western-educated teachers return and teach in their home countries, the development of professional identity among Western-educated writing teachers in EFL contexts deserves legitimate investigation. The present study seeks to address these literature gaps by looking at how Western-educated Taiwanese writing teachers continue to  80 develop their identities as English users, writers, and teachers after receiving their PhD degrees and returning to Taiwan to teach English writing in their respective universities. The scholarly knowledge this study intends to provide will not only benefit English language teaching in respect to the discourse of native speakerism in Taiwan, where Western-educated teachers constitute a significant teacher population (at least in universities), it will also provide insights for other similar teaching contexts for English teaching and for Western TESOL programs for curriculum consideration.   3.5 Conclusion  In this chapter, I first reviewed pre-service NNESTs’ training and writing experiences in TESOL programs in English-speaking countries in relation to the development of their professional and writing identities (sections 3.2 and 3.3). I then overviewed Western-educated teachers, including writing teachers’ professional identity construction and teaching development after they returned and taught in their home countries (section 3.4). I also addressed a few literature gaps the current study aims to fill. I now move to Chapter 4, where I discuss the methodology of this study.     81 CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY 4.1 Introduction  In this chapter, I outline the methodology of the study. I start with a description of the qualitative case study and my rationale for using it. I then provide the context of the study, a description of the participants, the ways of knowing in this study, the types of data collected, and the approach to analyzing the data. I conclude the chapter with a discussion of researcher reflexivity and the rigor of the study.   4.2 Qualitative case study   This research is a qualitative case study conducted over ten months, from February to November 2012, involving four Western-educated writing teachers teaching at the university level in Taiwan. A qualitative case study follows a descriptive and interpretive research approach and is designed to explore a bounded social phenomenon comprising a few particular entities in the natural settings where they take place (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003; Duff, 2008; Hatch, 2002; Stake, 1995, 2003). The idea of concentrating on a few particular cases enables researchers to understand the complex and dynamic nature of the particular entity or individual. According to Miles and Huberman (1994), a case study is “a circle with a heart in the center” (p. 36), in which the focus is on the heart, while the circle defines the study’s boundary. To explore the heart in the center, it is necessary to understand the contextual factors within the boundary that shapes the case under investigation. Taking contextual factors into consideration, a case study often incorporates multiple data sources for an in-depth understanding of the heart within the circle. The construction of identity among Western-educated teachers is a complex process involving their past and current  82 experiences within different social, cultural, and political contexts. I therefore designed my research as a qualitative case study to explore participants’ dynamic identity formation within the boundary of teaching English writing in Taiwanese universities. I draw upon contextual factors such as government, institutional policies, and interpersonal relationships between teachers and students to understand the four focal teachers’ identity construction. Multiple data source, including interviews and email correspondences with the participants, classroom observation, participants’ teaching materials (e.g., syllabi and handouts), students’ writing materials, and other relevant documents (e.g., policies), were collected to help me gain in-depth understanding of the cases.  I will discuss the details of data collection in section 4.5.   4.3 Recruitment, participants, and research context   I recruited four Taiwanese English writing teachers (Ava, Beth, Sarah, and Nita, all pseudonyms) to participate in this study. The participants were all born in Taiwan and received their general education from elementary school to university in Taiwan. They earned their PhD degrees in English education in English-speaking countries including the United States (Ava and Sarah), New Zealand (Nita), and the United Kingdom (Beth). All participants were teaching English writing in English language-related departments of different universities located in three cities in Taiwan. Before the study began, I sent out an invitation letter via email asking them to participate in this study. I then visited each participant’s office and introduced myself and my research. Among the participants, only Sarah and I had met prior to this study at an academic conference. Beth and Nita were recommended by my friends who were teaching at the same universities. Ava replied  83 directly to the invitation letter I sent via the email addresses I accessed from departmental websites. All participants knew that I was also born in Taiwan, and that I had received my undergraduate education in Taiwan before going to the US for my master’s degree and then to Canada for my PhD studies. They also knew that I was interested in teacher identity and development in relation to World Englishes and in teaching English writing in EFL contexts.   In this section, I outline the four participants’ backgrounds, with a focus on their educational backgrounds and teaching experiences. After presenting each participant’s background, I introduce the respective department and university where the participants were teaching at the time. This information helps to contextualize the institutions where the teachers were situated. To ensure the participants’ anonymity, pseudonyms are used to refer to all institutions and participants in this study. I created pseudonyms based on the location where each participant had received her highest degree. Specifically, Beth earned a PhD in Britain, Nita received hers in New Zealand, and Ava and Sarah completed theirs in the USA.   4.3.1 Ava   Ava, in her late thirties, was an assistant professor teaching English writing in the foreign language department at Ai University. After receiving her bachelor’s degree in English in Taiwan, Ava went to the United States for her master’s degree in TESOL. After completing her master’s degree, Ava came back to Taiwan. There, she taught English for three years in college as a part-time lecturer before she went back to the US for her PhD in language and literacy education with a focus on composition studies. She then returned to Taiwan and had been teaching for four years, since her graduation from the American PhD program. At the time of data collection, Ava was teaching academic English writing to two  84 groups of second-year students.  Each class had about 20 students. I observed one of the writing classes. Ava was enthusiastic and well prepared for each class. Her textbooks were filled with notes and post-its. Ava often divided her three-hour writing class into two sections: the first half for a lecture, and the second for class activities. In the second half of the class, various writing activities were conducted to facilitate students’ writing abilities, including peer reviews, paraphrasing activities, and analysis of writing samples. However, Ava’s enthusiasm gradually decreased over the period I observed her class as she encountered the students’ indifference to her teaching and their reluctance to study. From classroom observation, I could, at times, feel the tension between Ava and her students; for example, some students refused to do in-class writing activities. When asked by Ava to comment on the activity they had done, students kept silent in class but complained to each other about the activity after the class. Despite being discouraged about teaching, Ava was very interested in my research topic; she often asked me to send her the interview questions beforehand so that she could think about the questions more carefully before the interview. She was generous in sharing her experiences in every interview and also very responsive to my emails regarding her teaching. Ai University   Given the high admission rate of university entrance examination in Taiwan (88% in 2012, Ministry of Education, http://depart.moe.edu.tw/ed4500/cp.aspx?n=002F646AFF7F5492&s=1EA96E4785E6838F#), many high school graduates go to university. They choose their university and major right after the university entrance examination; English language-related departments have always been popular choices. Ava was teaching at Ai University, a private university known  85 for its foreign language department with several unique pedagogical policies that were not observed in other departments in this study. For example, unlike other departments, which require students to take key English courses (i.e., listening, speaking, reading, and writing) for two years, Ai’s department requires students to take these courses for three years. All key skill courses are kept small (N < 20) to ensure the quality of student learning; this is very different from other departments where the average number of students in one class was 35. The website of this department (2012) showed that 22 full-time faculty members were employed in 2012; of these, 17 were of Taiwanese nationality and each held a master’s and/or PhD from the UK, US, or Australia in English literature, linguistics, or applied linguistics. Ava once mentioned that she greatly enjoyed her working environment because almost everyone had experienced studying abroad; their similar backgrounds and shared English learning experiences allowed for easier communication.   4.3.2 Beth   In her mid-thirties, Beth was teaching English writing as an assistant professor in the Applied Linguistics Department of Bei University. Right after graduating from a Taiwanese university with a BA in German language, she spent six years to complete her master’s degree and PhD in the same TESOL program in the United Kingdom. She had been teaching at Bei University for four years since finishing her graduate study in the UK. During her undergraduate studies, Beth was an exchange student in Germany. Probably because of her long and intimate experience with the German language, Beth at times related her experiences of studying German to her teaching philosophy of English writing education. For example, she appeared to value the teacher’s role in developing her  86 fundamental German skills (i.e., listening, speaking, reading, writing), and she believed that the grammar-translation method was an efficient way to develop learners’ language competence. Her belief about the teacher’s role in student learning was also observed when she talked about studying in the British TESOL program. The feedback from her professors was clearly a very important factor in helping her to improve her academic English, as she mentioned this several times in the interviews. Influenced by her own learning experiences, she spent much time in class doing teacher-centered lectures based on one textbook.  Bei University   Bei University, where Beth was teaching, is a relatively new and small private university located in the suburbs of a small city in Taiwan, with an enrolment of approximately 6,000 students. Bei’s Applied English Department was also very small, with only nine faculty members and 160 undergraduate students enrolled (one class per cohort). The department was noted for its practice-oriented ESP curriculum design. In addition to four fundamental skill courses, the department provided a wide range of ESP courses including business English conversation, business English writing, international etiquette (e.g., communication manners, table manners, and dress codes), and introduction to English teaching and methodology. The department stated on its website that they believed this practical knowledge of English would prepare students with excellent English skills, a basic knowledge of Western literature and linguistics, a good knowledge of English and the skills to teach it, competent communication ability for business purposes, and cooperative teamwork skills. Students could choose courses according to their career orientation. Based on the department’s website (2012), two faculty members were Americans who had completed their highest degrees in the US. Among seven Taiwanese teachers, three had  87 received their master’s/PhD degrees in the UK or US, three in Taiwan, and one in the Philippines.   4.3.3 Sarah  Like other participants, after completing her BA degree in English literature at a Taiwanese university, Sarah pursued her master’s and PhD degrees at an American university in the area of composition studies and TESOL. When the study was conducted, Sarah had been teaching in Shan University for two years since completing her PhD degree in the United States. During her studies in the US, she also taught English writing to adult ESL students for three years at the language institute affiliated with her program. I had met Sarah at a few academic conferences on language education in Taiwan and the United States when she was still a PhD student. With similar research interests in World Englishes, L2 writing, and critical applied linguistics, Sarah and I enjoyed talking to each other. Of the four participants, Sarah was the only one whose PhD research was related to critical applied linguistics. She shared with me how much she had been inspired by the critical scholars in applied linguistics such as Suresh Canagarajah and Ryuko Kubota. The concept of World Englishes or the legitimacy of L2 speakers to teach and speak English was often raised in classroom discussions. As a young faculty member who was humorous and approachable, Sarah had a good relationship with her students. Her writing classes were full of interesting and engaging discussions on controversial issues such as gun control, abortion, gender equality, or the death penalty.   88 Shan University   Shan University, where Sarah was teaching, is a private university located in the suburbs of another small city in Taiwan. There were two pedagogical foci in the Shan department: (1) English teaching, and (2) English for business. Students could choose to specialize in one of them by completing certain required courses. Located in a city where an international airport was situated, the Shan department identified itself as a hub where students could be cultivated into “English talent with international vision” (from the Shan departmental website). To build this “international vision” for students, the department had hired a large number of faculty members with PhDs obtained in the West. According to the website of the department (2012), there were 24 full-time faculty members: three Americans (all American-educated) and 21 Taiwanese. Of the 21 Taiwanese teachers, 19 had received their master’s or/and PhD degrees from the US, the UK, and Australia. As advertised on the department’s website, the large faculty population with Western-educated backgrounds would benefit students studying in this authentic English environment in advancing their English proficiency.   4.3.4 Nita   In her early forties, Nita was an associate professor in the English Department at Nang University. She had a BA in English education from a Taiwanese university. She then pursued her master’s degree in linguistics in the US. She came back to Taiwan and taught English in several universities for four years before starting her PhD studies in New Zealand with a focus on second language writing. Her choice of New Zealand for her PhD, she explained, was mainly because of lower living expenses than those in countries such as  89 the United States and the United Kingdom. Nita was a very experienced teacher of English writing. At the time when the study was conducted, she had been teaching English writing for nine years in different Taiwanese universities since returning from New Zealand. Nita was the most vocal participant in this study and was passionate about sharing her life, teaching, and research experiences with me. Given her research interest in computer-assisted teaching, she tried to use different software and online resources in her teaching. Unlike the other participants’ classes, Nita’s writing class always met in a lab, where students worked on computers.   Nang University  Nang University, where Nita was teaching, is a private university located in a suburb of a large Taiwanese city; it had 12,000 undergraduate students. Nang’s English department was one of the oldest departments in the University, with a fine reputation for English education. After completing the fundamental four skill courses by their third year students could choose to specialize in one of the following: English literature, English linguistics, or English language teaching. When I was on site, the department was undergoing a reform of the curriculum for its English writing courses. The department was under pressure from the dean and president who had received complaints from employers of Nang’s former students, which stated that they still made serious grammatical mistakes and looked very unprofessional. The website of the department (2012) showed that 22 full-time faculty members were hired in the department: one was from the US, one was from France, and the rest were Taiwanese. Among the 19 Taiwanese faculty, four had completed their master’s or/and PhD degrees in linguistics or English literature in Taiwan, and 15 had received theirs in the UK, the US, Australia, New Zealand, or France; their studies had been in English  90 literature, applied linguistics, and adult education. Table 4.1 outlines the participants’ backgrounds in this study.   Table 4.1: Overview of participants’ backgrounds   Ava Beth  Sarah  Nita  Age  Late 30s  Mid-30s  Early 30s  Early 40s  Undergraduate study location & field   Taiwan; English  Taiwan;  German Studies  Taiwan;  English  Taiwan;  English education  Master’s degree location & field USA; TESOL  UK; TESOL  USA; TESOL  USA; Linguistics  PhD degree location & field  USA; Language and literacy education with focus on composition studies   UK; TESOL USA; Composition studies and TESOL New Zealand; Curriculum studies with specialty in L2 writing    Years since returning to Taiwan 4  4 2 9 Current teaching school  Ai University  Bei University  Shan University  Nang University  Current teaching department  English   Applied English  Applied English   English  Observed class  Third-year academic English writing  Second-year academic English writing  Second-year academic English writing  Second-year academic English writing  English teaching experience  7 years in Taiwan  4 years in Taiwan  3 years in the US; 2 years in Taiwan 13 years in Taiwan   91  4.4 Ways of knowing  Before moving to a discussion of data generation and analysis, it is important to articulate my epistemological approach to data and analysis. Aligning myself with a social constructionist orientation (Gubrium & Holstein, 2008; Holstein & Gubrium, 2011) in this study, I understand my participants’ experiences of their professional training and identity as constantly being constructed and reconstructed in dynamic social interactions with me in interviews and with students during classroom interaction—and language is the essential medium that they use to construct their sense of self and the sense of the world around them. I view “knowledge about the world and experience of the world [to be] very much socially mediated and that individual experiences [to be] always the product of internalized social constructions” (Willig, 2012, p. 12). Therefore, when participants tell their stories and experiences to the researcher, they are not presenting the inner reality or revealing the truth and facts of their experiences and beliefs. Instead, they are deploying “socially available ways [i.e., language] of talking about the phenomenon of interest [i.e. discourses]” (Willig, 2012, p. 12) to interpret and construct their versions of reality (Holstein & Gubrium, 2011; Talmy, 2010). Thus, it is not my intention to search for a singular, objective, and universal truth (e.g., “Who am I?”), existing out there in the world to be observed. What I am interested is how the participants construct their sense of who they are through discursive resources (e.g., language and discourses) at a particular moment in time (Willig, 2012). It is with this epistemological underpinning in mind that I discuss the types of data collected and the methods used to analyze the generated data.   92 4.5 Types of data collected   In this case study, multiple sources are incorporated to understand multiple alternative versions of participants’ experiences, identity construction, and teaching practices. These sources include interviews, participant observation, and documents. All data were collected in Taiwan from February to November 2012, with the exception of three follow-up interviews conducted through Skype after September 2012, when I returned to Canada.   4.5.1 Interviews   Interviews are the major method of data generation in this study. I align myself with Talmy’s (2010, 2011) concept of interview as social practice, which suggests that narratives generated in research interviews are also a kind of social practice. It is a “situated sociointeractional activity” (Kasper & Prior, 2015, p. 233), where meanings and knowledge are locally generated and co-constructed by both the interviewer and interviewee. This orientation views the research interview as a central analytic site where participants not only talk about their beliefs, attitudes, and identities but also perform and produce them with one another and the researchers in the interview interactions (Talmy, 2010). According to Wooffitt and Widdicombe (2006), how the interviewer and interviewee react to each other are “shaped by and oriented to the interactional context” (p. 56). From this perspective, an interviewee is not someone who “only holds facts and details of experience, but, in the very process of offering them up for response, constructively adds to, takes away from, and transforms the facts and details” (Holstein & Gubrium, 2003, p. 70). Interviewers are significant in this process because their presence plays a role in shaping and occasioning  93 how the interviewees respond. Given my awareness of the interactional dynamics between interviewers and interviewees, I pay particular attention to the complex power relations (e.g., age and social status) between my participants and myself in the interviews because these determine “who chooses what—and what not—to discuss, who asks what questions, when, and how, who is ratified to answer and who is not, who determines when to terminate a line of questioning” (Talmy, 2011, p. 31), all of which work as pivot points and moments framing the interview data for analysis.   Particularly, narratives in interviews are seen as privileged contexts for articulating identities because “they afford tellers an occasion to present themselves as actors in social worlds while at the same time negotiating their present self with other interactants” (De Fina, 2011a, p. 275; see also Kasper & Prior, 2015). Telling narratives to audiences allows a venue for someone to make relevant the past experiences significant to their life, which they take as a resource from which to negotiate and articulate their identities in the local interaction. Research interviews, as one kind of social action in which different conversational rules are followed and social relationships are involved, afford an occasion for the participants to do such identity work (De Fina, 2009; Kasper & Prior, 2015; Wortham et al., 2011). This narrative-in-interview approach is particularly helpful for me to understand how my participants construct their identities as English writers and writing teachers in situ when they are telling about their writing and experiences during their studies overseas.  Interview procedure   Semi-structured interviews were conducted with protocols for the questions (Appendix A). The questions addressed the participants’ (1) experiences of writing and  94 professional training in Western TESOL programs; (2) role as Western-educated teachers teaching English writing in Taiwan; (3) English writing teaching practices in Taiwanese universities; and (4) perspectives on teaching English as a global language. I also reflected on field notes and added questions accordingly to the protocols for interviews throughout the course of data collection. In total, I conducted five interviews each with Ava, Beth, and Nita, and four with Sarah. Each interview lasted 1−1.5 hours. They were conducted face-to-face, with the exception of three post-interviews with Ava, Sarah, and Nita, which were conducted using Skype. The face-to-face interviews were usually scheduled right after my visit for class observation. Before each interview started, I let the teachers choose to use either Mandarin or English, depending on which they were most comfortable with. All the participants told me that either was fine and threw the option back to me. Mandarin was always the language I chose whenever I encountered this situation, as it appeared to be the most comfortable language for me to use with these teachers. It was not only the language we used to greet each time we met for the interviews, but we also used it to chat when I visited their classes for observation. Therefore, Mandarin, the first language we all shared, became the primary language used in the interviews. Interestingly, those who had post-interviews via Skype chose to use English.   4.5.2 Classroom observation   I also relied on classroom observation to help me understand teacher identity formation and how that interacted with their instructional practices. Every participant’s writing class met once a week from February to July 2012 (spring semester), and each class lasted two hours. I observed each participant’s writing class every other week during the  95 semester. In total, I observed seven classes from Sarah, eight classes from Beth, and nine from Ava and Nita (missing classes due to statutory holidays or/and personal reasons). The names of the observed classes can be found in table 4.1 presented above. Every class observation was audio-recorded, with both the teachers and students’ agreement. In every class visit, I made notes and paid close attention to interaction between teachers and students, teachers’ lectures, and in-class activities, particularly those in relation to native-speakerist discourse (e.g., native/non-native speakers, English standards, Western/Eastern culture, etc.). I also compared similarities and conflicts between what the participants said and did in the classroom and what they said in their interviews. I depended on note taking to access what I had observed in the classes. As with research interviews, “our view of ourselves as observers will color the ways we go about observing and note taking” (Richards, 2003, p. 115). In this sense, field notes only represent the observer’s interpretation rather than offering the truth about what has been observed.   4.5.3 Documents   Various types of documents were collected from each participant throughout the course of data collection to contextualize participants’ accounts in interviews and classrooms. Materials used during class observation were collected; these included textbooks, syllabi if available, in-class handouts, and scoring rubrics. Online resources used during the class observations were also collected; these included video clips on YouTube used to initiate class discussion and cyber space for class communication and correspondence (e.g., Wikispaces). Students’ writing assignments and term papers were also collected, which involved several drafts and teachers’ feedback and comments. The feedback on students’  96 papers given by the participants at times became a topic for further investigation in interviews. Finally, email correspondence between the participants and me was another important source of data collected for analysis.   4.5.4 Audio-recording, transcription, and translation   All interactional data, including interviews and classroom interactions, were audio-recorded. Right after the fieldwork, I first transcribed all the interview data verbatim in the original language used (English or Mandarin). After an initial analysis of interview data, I also transcribed classroom interactions verbatim, but only those relevant to the themes that I had developed in interview data (see 4.6 for details). Following my close reading, I adopted Jefferson’s (2004) transcribing conventions (Appendix B) to capture the fine-grain interactional details in order to see how the participants construct their identities through linguistic and other semiotic resources. According to Prior (2016), while transcripts provide helpful referential tools for analysis, “they do not replace the recordings” (p. 22). Therefore, I constantly compared the transcripts with recordings during the course of analysis. I would also like to note that audio-recording and transcription are always a representation and interpretation as they are “partial, selective, motivated, methodologically driven and an integral part of the analytic process” (Prior, 2016, p. 22; see also Bucholtz, 2000; Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008). Because the analyst decides what and what not to record and transcribe, the excerpts are understood and interpreted from certain perspectives (Wernicke-Heinrichs, 2013). As such, recording and transcribing in this study are treated as the first step in interpretation of the inquiry, framed by my background and research agenda.  To present the data and findings, I translated every Mandarin interaction into  97 English. For each extract to be analyzed, I first present the original data in Mandarin and then the translated data in English. At times, English was used by all speakers in interactions; in these cases, the original English is presented in the extract. Like recording and transcription, translation is another layer of interpretation, as the analyst “must constantly make decisions about the cultural meanings which language carries, and evaluate the degree to which the two different worlds they inhabit are the same.” (Simon, 1997, p. 463). As Simon notes, “the process of meaning transfer has less to do with finding the cultural inscription of a term than in reconstructing its value” (p. 138). As a member of Chinese culture myself, I activate my ethnographic knowledge in choosing the English word I interpret as being the closest in value to the word my participants used. My engagement in the translation process thus constitutes an integral component of interpreting work in this study.   4.6 Data analysis  I adopt Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis method to analyze the text and talk about this study. According to them, thematic analysis is “a method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data” (p. 79). This analytic approach allows the researcher to capture the repeated patterns of meanings across a data set in order to generate compelling arguments and claims based on well-organized key features of a large body of data. The key character of a “theme” is not necessarily dependant on “quantifiable measures”  (p. 82), but rather on whether it captures the important and relevant text and talk from collected data that helps the researcher appropriately and adequately address the research questions.   98  I started the analysis by listening to and transcribing verbatim all interview data I collected (see 4.5.4 for process of transcription). I then closely read the transcripts (original language) and coded the linguistic or other semiotic forms the participants used (words, phrases, intonation, etc.) in relation to the discourse of native-speakerism. The analytic software Nvivo was used to facilitate the coding procedure. At this stage, I paid attention to both the semantic and latent meanings of what the participants had said, in order to capture the surface meanings of the utterance but also the underlying social meanings and ideologies the chosen linguistic forms indexed (Braun & Clarke, 2006; see also indexicality, Silverstein, 2003). For example, one of the participants, Ava, made “the West” and “the East” relevant to the conversation when talking about English language teaching. I read these word choices “West” and “East” as their literary meanings referring to the “Western culture” and “Eastern culture.” I also read the ideologies embedded in these two word choices, for example, the hierarchy between the West and the East or between native and non-native English speakers and cultures, based on my theoretical orientation (e.g., discourse of native-speakerism). By reading both ways, I capture the elements for analyzing both identity-in-language and identity-in-discourse. I then interpreted what identities were being constructed in the given interaction or text through the particular use of discursive resources.  After I had gone through the transcripts and coded the relevant texts and conversations across the interview data, I compared and contrasted the codes, sorting and developing codes into potential themes and subthemes for each participant’s writing and teaching experiences. Having done the initial analysis of interview data involving the steps described above, I then moved on to analyze data collected from the participants’ actual  99 teaching, identity-in-practice, by listening to the classroom interaction and writing conference conversation, as well as by reading teaching materials (e.g., students’ assignments, scoring rubrics). During this phase, I searched and selected texts and talks from the participants’ actual teaching practices that were relevant to the themes developed from interview data analysis. Given that the themes developed from the interviews varied across participants (e.g., each responded differently to the discourse of native-speakerism), the data selected for analyzing participants’ teaching practices varied among participants in order to elaborate the arguments that I wanted to make from the themes coded and developed from the interviews.  Moreover, given that Western-educated English writing teachers’ teaching experiences after returning home is still very little explored, I purposefully chose different types of data to represent each participant’s teaching practice, namely scoring rubrics for Beth, classroom interaction for Sarah, writing conferences for Ava, and email correspondence with students for Nita. By doing so I hoped to provide a wider and deeper understanding of this group of teachers’ teaching experiences, with various types of data relating to pedagogical practices presented and analyzed. Having coded the data sets collected and developed themes for each participant’s writing and teaching experiences, I then selected the texts, talks or conversations with the essence of the claims I wanted to make and translated them into English with corresponding transcription conventions (Jefferson, 2004) and started to write up the analysis.    Grounded my research in social constructionism, I analyzed the data excerpts of this study not as a direct report or as the truth that represented the participants’ inner world. Instead, I analyzed and presented them as accounts (Talmy, 2010) of how the participants deployed available linguistic and semiotic resources to construct their identities as English  100 writers and teachers in interactions either with me in the interviews or with their students in classes.  Viewing identity as constructed mainly through social interaction, I also applied sequential analysis  (Schegloff, 2007; Schegloff, Koshik, Jacoby, & Olsher, 2002) to help understand how talk is sequentially structured in interaction by co-participants’ responses to each other (e.g., the interviewee and interviewer; the teacher and students), and how identities are negotiated through the sequential organization.    The analysis is not linear in fashion, simply moving from one step to the next. Rather, it is a recursive process that required moving back and forth throughout the phases as necessary, including re-listening, re-transcribing, re-translating, re-coding and re-interpreting until an argument could be solidly made.   4.7 Researcher reflexivity             In social constructionist spirit, the researcher’s role is intrinsic to the process of knowledge production (Holstein & Gubrium, 2011; Potter & Hepburn, 2008; Willig, 2012). I view my role as a researcher as an intrinsic issue in producing the knowledge presented in this study in two senses. First, I position myself as a “researcher-subject” (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 27) who collaboratively constructs the social meanings of the stories told to me by the participants. My presence in the in-situ interviews and classroom interactions as a researcher, or having other related identities such as a Western-educated doctoral student, an L2 English speaker, a Taiwanese, and a young woman, constitutes not only part of the data but also a significant analytic resource for analyzing the data (Talmy, 2011; Wernicke-Heinrichs, 2013). Second, my “[social] background and historical context contribute both to the particular topics of inquiry as well as the ways in which the studies  101 get framed” (Roberts, 2001, cited in Prior, 2016, p. 8). The way in which I have been raised, how I have been educated in Taiwan and Western countries to understand the world, how I have learned English, and how I have been developing and positioning myself as a teacher and researcher in the field of language education give weight to both my interest in this particular research topic and my ways of interpreting what is said by the participating teachers (Phan, 2008). I particularly acknowledge that I am privileged to have been educated in Western countries for my MA and PhD studies, during which I constructed most of my professional development and identity in the field of English education. Therefore, how I interpret the stories of four Western-educated writing teachers is largely formed by my experiences as an English user and researcher “through the mode of Western-thinking” (Phan, 2008, p. 23). From these two viewpoints, the researcher’s role is both reflective and constitutive in the social process of generating and analyzing data. The researcher’s interpretation of what is said and observed from the research site is not seen as contamination of the data and analysis; it is an essential resource in co-constructing how the participants construct themselves as social types, in this study, as English teachers.   Roberts (2001) uses the term “researcher’s personal anthropology” (p. 326) to describe the critical reflection on one’s social background and identities in the process of knowledge production. Given my pivotal role in generating and interpreting the participating teachers’ stories and identity formation, I now write my personal anthropology about my relation with the English language and learning, and with the Western educational experiences in relation to my professional development. This short personal autobiography is for readers as well as myself; through this account, we can access my role in the process of producing the knowledge presented in this study (Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2009). It is  102 worth noting that this autobiography is also contingent and recipient-designed, and thus only presents one version of many stories about me as an English user, a teacher, and a researcher.   The researcher   Rae and English. My relationship with the English language has a lot to do with my father’s social background. My father was born in 1946 and was raised in the 1950s during the American aid period in Taiwan when the English language became the most important and popular foreign language to learn for a better education and better job opportunities. My father chose the English language as his major in university. Unfortunately, he did not finish his degree because he was financially not able to support his own studies. His belief in the English language did not just fade. He passed his passion for learning English on to his children. I was always told how important English was and how necessary it was that I master it in order to gain a decent job and prestigious social status. My parents were generous enough to provide the materials and resources I needed to master the language. I started to learn English in grade 5 at a private institute. Because of this early access to the English language, my English ability was superior to that of most of my peers in secondary school, where English was taught as a subject. My faith in the English language grew with my confidence in my English ability. I deeply believed that if I kept studying English, I would someday gain the kind of privileged job and social status my father had mentioned.  My faith in the English language was also confirmed in those days when peers and teachers all talked about how English could expand our worldview and offer opportunities to become global citizens. This deep belief developed in my daily life prompted me to choose English literature and language as my major in university.  There, I started to gain  103 intensive training in speaking, listening, reading, and writing skills in English. I learned how to write an argumentation essay with five paragraphs and topic sentences, and also to understand American accents and to roll up my tongue to imitate how a Hollywood movie star talked. With all this training and skill, I was full of hope that someday the effort to learn English would bring me a promising future. However, somehow there was a voice from the bottom of my heart telling me I did not really like the language. I felt the competition among peers. I felt pressured when I heard the teacher praising my peers for their beautiful American pronunciation and native-like writing. I felt I could never reach the native-like level of my peers because I had never been immersed in an English-speaking country like they had. At the end of my university years, I was introduced to several ELT courses offered in my department. I was especially convinced by the pedagogical approaches I encountered (e.g., communicative language teaching), which helped me see the possibilities of how I, and students like me, might be able to speak or write native-like English. With such hope, I decided to pursue a master’s degree in TESOL in one of the English-speaking countries, the origin of these cutting-edge theories and pedagogies of English education.   Rae and Western education. As soon as I decided to advance my studies in English education, I consulted my professors about which university I should choose. Not surprisingly, the United States was the first choice of my professors, all of whom had earned their degrees in the United States. I started my master’s degree at the University of Pennsylvania with confidence and enthusiasm. My interest in ELT theories and classroom methodology was enhanced during my master’s studies. However, my confidence in my English ability was knocked down when I found myself unable to express what I wanted to say. I hesitated to speak up and express my opinions when I found that my native English- 104 speaking peers in the program could say the same thing much better than I could. My way of talking made my opinions sound less smart than they were intended to be. I hid my fear and anxiety about my inadequate English ability through silence. I could not help but ask myself, “How can I teach English if I myself cannot speak or write it fluently and appropriately?” From this point, I knew the English language had become part of my identity.   This doubt about myself extended to the early years of my PhD studies in my current program. The arduous readings in PhD-level courses slowed my understanding of the topic being discussed in class; at the same time, I did not articulate my own opinions in front of my eloquent English-speaking PhD peers. For a year, I was totally silent in class, self-doubting all the time, worrying that I was not a legitimate English speaker, teacher, and PhD student. However, although speaking in front of the class was almost a nightmare for me, I found writing a way out of my anxiety. Writing term papers became a place where I let out all the ideas and thoughts I did not feel comfortable sharing in class. With more time planning and pondering, writing allowed me to better organize my ideas. I felt that I “sounded” much smarter and more confident in writing than in speaking. I experienced the power of writing and thus I developed my research interest in second language writing. Moreover, my confidence as an English user and teacher also developed because I was exposed to a large amount of literature on critical applied linguistics including Pennycook, Kubota, Canagarajah, and Phan, to name just a few. Their writing helped me gain agency as an English user, teacher, and researcher by questioning the imbalance in power relations in ELT that allows certain groups of speakers and communities the privilege of defining and evaluating whose English and teaching of the language are considered valuable and  105 acceptable. With my own experiences speaking and writing in countries of “cultural Self” and my professional training in critical applied linguistics, I realized I could identify myself as a legitimate speaker and writer in my own right. Since then, native-like English has not been the gold standard by which I judge my own English ability, and it will not be for my future students. While I am empowered by these great scholars’ thoughts to become a more confident English speaker, writer and teacher, my feeling of inadequacy at times still exists, especially when witnessing the hegemonic discourses in ELT that are still widely spread through job advertisements, taken for granted in ETL professional meetings, and even reproduced in friends’ conversations. The politics of ELT seems to be a long-term issue to deal with as long as the hegemonic discourses in ELT mentioned above are yet to be adequately deconstructed. With these concerns in mind, I acknowledge my privilege in accessing professional development, mainly through my PhD studies in Canada, which affords a space and a chance to see my potential to change the status quo by challenging it as the initial step.   4.8 Research rigor   In this study, I take the social constructionist approach to understanding participants’ identity construction through language and discourse. In social constructionism, one does not look for the objective truth of the story (e.g., whether the teacher really sees herself as a legitimate teacher), but how participants construct versions of their stories through linguistic forms and other semiotic resources. As mentioned earlier, in Chapter 2 (section 2.5), given that available linguistic and other semiotic resources vary across time and space (i.e. identity-in-discourse), participants’ identity work is dynamic and contingent in nature.  106 Therefore, data generated in each interactive incident by participants are seen to represent one possible version of the story. Multiple research methods (e.g., interviews and observation) thus afford alternative data production and therefore multiple versions of the story being told (De Fina, 2013a, 2013b; Wood & Kroger, 2000). From this perspective, research rigor of social constructionist research is not ensured by looking at how true and complete participants’ opinions are, but by seeking “collective representations” (De Fina, 2013a, p. 45) of the story being told across participants, time and space, to add breath, depth, complexity, and richness to the study (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005).   4.9 Conclusion  In this chapter, I have outlined my research design as a qualitative case study over 10 months of data collection. I have also described the study contexts and participants, the epistemology that guided my approach to data generation and analysis. I have also discussed the types of data being collected and approached to analyze the research data. In addition, I have articulated researcher reflexivity and the establishment of research rigor. In Chapter 5, I will present the analysis and findings that answer my first research question: How do the participants view themselves as English users and writers? In particular, how do the participants’ Western-educated experiences play a role in constructing their identities as English users and writers?     107 CHAPTER 5: WRITING IN THE WEST: NARRATING IDENTITY AS AN ENGLISH USER AND WRITER  5.1 Introduction  This chapter aims to answer my first research question: How do the participants view themselves as English users and writers in light of the discourse of native-speakerism? In particular, how do the participants’ Western-educated experiences play a role in constructing their identity as English users and writers? In this chapter, I focus on how the participants constructed their identities as English users and writers in the interviews as they narrate their studying and writing experiences in Western graduate programs. Narratives in interaction, rooted in social constructionist tradition, not only allow the story tellers to tell what happened in the past, but also “afford tellers an occasion to present themselves as actors in social worlds while at the same time negotiating their present self with other interactants” (De Fina, 2011a, p. 275). That is, by telling narratives to their interactants, in this study to me as the interviewer in interviews, the participants made relevant the past experiences significant to their identity construction, from which they negotiated and articulated the identities they wanted to be heard in here-and-now interaction (De Fina, 2011a; see also De Fina & Georgakopoulou, 2008, 2011). From this narrative-in-interaction perspective, I understand not only how each participant wants to be understood as an English writer at the moment when the interviews were conducted, but also how their Western graduate programs shaped each of their identities as English writers.   The data discussed below show that all participants are characterized as illegitimate or incompetent L2 writers in their respective graduate programs, or by me as an interviewer, for not being able to write as expected by their graduate programs. Negotiating these  108 incompetent L2 writer identities when telling their stories, each participant constructs a writer identity by aligning or disaligning with Anglophone writing norms expected in her English-speaking graduate program. I start with Beth’s story.   5.2 Beth: “After being trained out there, I am a competent English writer”   After her formal education in Taiwan, Beth went directly to the UK to pursue her MA and PhD in TESL from a UK university, with a TESOL specialization. Although she started to learn general English writing in secondary school and academic writing in university, she said that she did not really get proper training in English academic writing until her studies at the British university. In excerpt 1, I ask Beth whether she received any unforgettable evaluations or feedback on assignments from professors when she started learning academic writing in her graduate program. Beth then shares a writing experience that happened in the first year of her master’s program, when her very first assignment was being referred (line 4). According to Beth, the term “being referred” was used in her British graduate program to refer to assignments being returned by the professors to the student writers for further revision. After revision, students could resubmit the papers for grading. I will use being returned instead of being referred in the following analysis to avoid possible confusion.   [Excerpt Beth 1] Interview  March 20 (00:58:16–00:58:51)  [Mandarin]  1 Rý½aɼÑȸˌŗLJDžȑÒȗfijýŵȗɳ2 ŗÒvɓˡäijȩ3 ½ưçǕDŵ practice assignmentǛ referred [returned]Ƙˇ>€]ɭƖij4 assignmentǴŗ€ĈɟǴŗ½DˑˑɜŗʘƶPÃƃÛșҀ¤ɝū5 ÛșÒɶDŵÑȸɍļaɼʉX  109 [English translation]  1 R: Was there any assignment or professor’s evaluation or comments – that were  2      unforgettable for you? 3 B: Yeah, my first practice assignment was referred [returned] (laughs) … it was not  4      really an assignment, but like the professor intended to tell you what an  5      assignment should look like.   In the course Beth was taking, before students wrote their first formal assignment, the class instructor gave a practice assignment to guide students in understanding “what an assignment should look like.” (lines 4−5). Based on the instructor’s feedback on this assignment, students could familiarize themselves with the writing conventions required in the academic context. As Beth tells me that the purpose of the assignment was to “tell someone what the assignment should look like.” (lines 4−5), she indicates that there was a set of writing conventions to follow in order to pass the course or to become a legitimate writer in the graduate course or program. Apparently, Beth was not one of the legitimate writers in the course, at least at the beginning, because her assignment was returned and needed further work to improve it before resubmission.   In excerpt 2, I ask Beth to elaborate on why her assignment had been returned. In this conversation, Beth seems to distance herself from the writer identity indexed by her returned assignment.  [Excerpt Beth 2] Interview   March 20 (00:59:13–00:59:57)  [Mandarin]  1 RŝaɼǛ referred [returned]2 <ĈɟŗýƉŶˌȶ]njȹIJĮƯǴŗýƉŶƍ”Ǵ]ĵɕDŵÑȸļ3 aɼɍļaɼʉX4 <Ǵ academic writingļaɼʉX5 ɡà¦ò½ȺėȃŎÒȷ››Ō³ij]ʾɍŗ˳Ġ academic writing  110 6 ijĥËğ²ɋʸęŗ]ƹˤ˙ijĥË7 ƄƄƄƄ8 ɡưÒˌì]ȼýŵūñŗaɼ9 v¶ɶaɼ10 v¶ɶȷ›ȷ›ɘɘ³ijǹŭˆŗęŗŗò½ƞ|ÆZij11 argumentç˪ƾǟŗDŵŌˤŮij12 DZ13 ɡ€Ŵąɶ½Ɖç]ĵɕçšijŗaɼ    [English translation] 1 R: Why was it referred [returned]. 2 B: Actually at the time I wasn’t clear on, like at the time I knew 3      nothing about what an assignment should look like.    4 R: Like how academic writing looks.  5 B: Right, totally no idea …Then you would use – use <lots of> non-academic  6      elements in it, or non-rigorous elements.   7 R: Um huh, um huh. 8 B: Right, you were still <unable to grasp> what they really want.  9 R: Like what.   10 B: Like I would write too much description, or lack my own argument,  11      I think it’s a very serious –   12 R: O:h 13 B: To them (instructors) sometimes they don’t know what they read.  Beth explains that her assignment was returned because “you used lots of non-academic” (line 5) or not-rigorous elements (line 6) or “you were unable to grasp what they really want.” (line 8). Interestingly, Beth used the second-person pronoun “Ò” or “you” instead of the first-person pronoun “I” to refer to her own experiences of having assignments returned. According to O’Connor (1994; see also Kuo, 2002), when people use the self-indexing “you,” there are three possible intentions: self-distancing, other-involving, and self-addressing in his/her own past. Beth first uses “you” to refer to her past self, who used a lot of improper academic elements. By so doing, she distances her current self from the writer  111 she used to be. That is, although she used to use inappropriate and non-rigorous elements in her academic writing, she seems to show that now she no longer writes like this. Moreover, the use of “you” is also used to assign me (other-involving), the only interlocutor in the conversation, as a ratified actor as well as to suggest a sense of camaraderie (Kuo, 2002) with Beth as a novice academic writer who once studied in a Western academic context and who had difficulty knowing how to produce a proper assignment paper. By involving me in the same experience and projecting me as having a “once novice writer identity in a Western writing context.” Beth seems to invite me to agree with her that although she was not a competent writer back then in her graduate program, she is now a different kind of writer.   However, my response in line 9 (“Like what”) immediately shows my non-affiliation with the identity Beth has just projected to herself and me. That is, as an L2 writer studying in a Western graduate program, I do not have the same writing experience as Beth and thus do not know what she meant by “you were unable to grasp what they really want.” (line 8). Not aligning with the categories Beth invoked, I at the same time deny Beth’s distancing of herself from the writing issues she mentioned. Probably because of my non-affiliation with her, Beth switches the second person pronoun to the first-person pronoun “I” in line 10, “like I would write too much description, or lack my own argument,” explaining that her lack of argument in writing made it confusing for her instructor to understand her writing, the key reason why her assignment was being returned.   As she continues to share the story in excerpt 3, Beth then attributes the lack of arguments in her writing to be the result of the differences between English and her first language, Mandarin. By doing this, she again tries to distance herself from the negative identity indexed by the returned assignment.    112 [Excerpt Beth 3] Interview  March 20 (00:59:59–01:00:47)   [Mandarin]  19 Bɡưç˪ƾǟŗŪsɒ^sǬVijƂÖ¯ŝɜçǑ²Pýŵ20 ŢôĚijŪsʚsʁÑȃŎVǣ£Œ˿ƣʓ‚ąijʦš21 ǤvɓˡǸǻǟDȭǴŗç²ɋŰū½çij argument22 ęĹŗɶ€Ŵ½ˆŗ€Ŵéĉȳijˏ˗²DāƘs·23 ^ȡ24 <Ƙ€Ŵ]ǼĻɖÆZijȵĬ25 <ɡˆŗˆŗŎąçv¶ɶɜçŴ²ý˟Čɘǟāƣʓ_ŎÒǴȷĵ26 ɕɶHſūšijǴŗÒǟŵĥË27 <ƄƄƄƄ [English translation]  19 B: Right, I think this is the biggest difference between English and Mandarin.  20      Now I am teaching English academic writing to graduate students. Most of  21      them - like students trained in Taiwan - have difficulty grasping this part.  22      Like to have my own argument in the writing. Or they actually did, but they  23      intentionally hide them between (laughs) lines and words.  24 R: (laughs) They dare not show their own ideas.  25 B: Right, but – but later – for example, like us, after being trained out there, you  26      know what people really want from your writing. 27 R: Um huh, um huh.   To elaborate on her writing issue—lack of arguments in writing when studying in the UK, Beth compares her writing and her Taiwanese graduate students’ writing and states that the biggest challenge for Chinese writers, including herself and her current students, is that Chinese writers do not have points to argue in their writing (lines 21−22) or even if they do, they tend to “hide arguments between lines and words.” (line 23). By introducing these two characteristics of Chinese writers, Beth implies that English academic writing requires critical and argumentation competence as well as the ability to clearly present the writers’ arguments. In contrast, many Mandarin writers lack these writing skills, which makes their  113 English writing unclear and confusing. Beth’s comparison of English and Chinese writing styles reflects the contrastive rhetoric orientation to teaching English writing initiated by Kaplan (1966). The assumption underlying this approach is that each language has its unique cultural patterns and rhetoric, and that learners’ L1 rhetorical conventions might interfere with their L2 writing. Particularly, this approach tends to categorize the writing system of English as linear and clear, and those of other languages as circular and indirect (Kubota & Lehner, 2004). Here, Beth categorizes herself and her students as Chinese speakers whose English writing is heavily influenced by the unclear and indirect style of Chinese writing; this influence was the main reason why she had difficulty making arguments in her writing, and resulted in her assignment being returned by her instructor.   In my next turn speaking, in line 24, I first respond with laughter, followed by a statement, “they dare not show their own ideas.” My laughter first shows my understanding of Beth’s description of how Chinese writers produce argumentation. Further, I interpret the tendency of hiding arguments between lines to be because Chinese speakers “dare not show their own ideas.” By giving laughter and interpretation as my response to Beth, I orient myself as an insider to this kind of Chinese writing, either as an English writer myself or as an English teacher who has experienced or witnessed English writing by the Chinese writers described by Beth. My alignment with Beth’s comparison of English and Chinese writers works to construct a “co-membership” (Stoke, 2012, p. 294) between Beth and me; both of us understand why Chinese writers lack arguments in English writing.   It is after this co-membership is constructed that Beth immediately makes relevant her Western-educated experiences (lines 25−26, “like us, after being trained out there, you know what people really want from your writing.”) to distinguish herself from this indirect  114 and circular writing style Chinese writers use in English writing. In this account, by using “çŴ” or “us” (line 25),  Beth categorizes both herself and me as writers who have been educated in the West and who know what people want from English writing, that is, making arguments explicitly and clearly when writing. By associating writing competence to Western-educated experience, Beth’s account resonates with Motha’s argument (2014) that people often associate mainstream English with the English-speaking West. Our Western-educated experiences have allowed us to acquire the necessary writing skills from the mainstream English-speaking West, making both of us competent writers who know how to write English academic essays with clear and direct arguments. My acknowledgment in line 27 (“um huh, um huh”) displays my alignment with Beth’s construction of herself and me to this positive English writer identity. My alignment with her positioning has jointly constructed Beth an identity as a competent writer who knows how to produce proper academic English writing after being trained in the West. That is, she was an incompetent English writer at the beginning of her British graduate program due to the influence of her Chinese ways of writing, her lack of arguments. Yet, after several years of studying in the West, she managed to rectify these Chinese writing characteristics and change them into mainstream English writing norms, and she was able to convey her ideas clearly and explicitly to Anglophone readers.   As Beth was telling the story about her returned assignment, she indicated that there was a set of writing conventions in her graduate program that required her to have points to argue, and to argue them explicitly. In the process of telling the story, Beth made relevant her Western-educated experiences and showed her ability to write as her graduate program required. By doing so, she constructed a competent English writer identity by aligning  115 herself with Anglophone English writing conventions. While Beth constructed her writer identity by showing her native-like writing competence acquired during study overseas, Sarah, whose story follows, is someone who established her own legitimacy as an English writer by refusing to align with the dominant writing conventions.  5.3 Sarah: “I can be a multilingual writer and teacher”    Sarah had been teaching at Shang University for two years, since she graduated from an American university with a PhD in TESOL and specialization in L2 writing and composition. The curriculum of Sarah’s TESOL program heavily emphasized critical applied linguistics, and student teachers constantly reflected on critical issues in ELT, such as the politics between English speakers and English varieties. Her training in the graduate program had a great impact on Sarah in various ways, including how she viewed herself as an English writer and teacher. To understand how Sarah’s writing experiences in the graduate program shaped her view of herself as an English writer, I initiated the conversation in excerpt 1 and asked Sarah whether she had any writing difficulties or challenges when studying in the program.  [Excerpt Sarah 1] Interview March 23 (00:30:48–00:31:30)  [Mandarin]  1 RÒˌ½aɼǴŗvɓ½©ȚijǴŗ2 Ò˪ƾưŐɼąĊǟ˟ƲƊʁƾĥË´ˡDZvɓ½ŔʨĘij3 <ƄĈɟçDȠđçÿ]ȷ˪ƾŌˡʁDȠđ¯ŝÒ]ĵɕ4 aɼŗūʁƾŐɼʉĚ~ÒǴÆZ›ÒÆZĵɕijʁ5 ˪ƾʁƾŌ´>çˌ˪ƾçʁƾ̀´ij¯ŝçǴ˪ƾ6 çˌƠ̄ij  116 [English translation]  1 R: Is there anything else that you still keep in mind, coming here  2      (the US) to study and finding writing very difficult or challenging.  3 S: Uh − actually I didn’t find it challenging writing there at the beginning,  4      because you didn’t really know how well you need to write,  5      so you just used your own ways to write and felt good about  6      your own writing … I think I wrote pretty well, because I had a lot to say.  By asking my question (lines 1−2) “coming here (the US) to study and finding writing very difficult or challenging,” I, as an interviewer, assume there was a set of writing conventions in Sarah’s graduate program and that Sarah, as an L2 speaker from another culture, might have had difficulty and challenges in writing in the way her graduate program expected. To respond, Sarah explicitly states that she did not find writing challenging in the new academic context, and that she actually felt confident about having many ideas to share and had no problem expressing herself in writing in the program.   Hoping to gain more input from Sarah about her writing experiences in the program, I clarified the question and asked Sarah again after the conversation shown in excerpt 1 whether she had any unforgettable writing experience such as negative feedback from her professors or peers when she started studying in the program. Instead of responding to my question about her unforgettable writing experiences, Sarah changes the conversation topic and shares stories with me about two unforgettable professors she had taken courses with during her graduate studies. The change of topic, as I will discuss later, can be understood as used by Sarah to reject the negative L2 writer identity that I projected to her in my interview question.   The first professor Sarah mentioned taught her composition class and showed his caring and thoughts about minority groups. Because the professor was a believer in Brazilian  117 educator Paulo Freire’s teaching philosophy, he introduced to the class topics such as the Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970) or issues about minority groups (e.g., African Americans and working-class communities) and their literacy education. As Sarah states in excerpt 2, that course was a very special experience for her because the knowledge she gained from the professor provided an alternative perspective for her in considering what education can offer.   [Excerpt Sarah 2] Interview  March 23 (00:40:23—00:41:48) [Mandarin] 1 S:  ǟɡçąɶŗŌƑÖij¯ŝŒ˿ijýɫLJö2 ȑçȴ˪LJƊǴŗLJʘ”PŰijĵ˝ˆŗɡçąɶ3 €ŗDŵ]‹ŗLJĵ˝ijH€ˌ˾çºļ4 ȃŎ½ˑŗšĊ]DʉijĥËǴŗLJö€5 ˆ~îʃ6 ƄƄ7 €ːȃǴŗ²ÑsPŰò½ƑÖȑçaɼLjȇˆŗ€Ǵŗ8 ˾ç˪ƾɶçŴ²LJƊijƉŶ]ŗʾɍ‹ŗ‡īŮLJʘ”9 ”üijDāèƠʾɍūŗ€ʪŵ10 HijDŵȇƁǟʉ11 <ȪȪȪȪ [English translation]  1 S: That was a very special experience for me, because like before in Taiwan,  2     I thought education was about teaching the knowledge in textbooks.  3     But to me, he was not merely a person teaching me knowledge, but also  4     making me grow, so it’s like I saw things differently, and realized that  5     education can offer much more. 6 R: Um huh.  7 S: Right, although he didn’t inspire me particularly − especially in terms of  8     English writing, he made me think that when we are teaching, we  9     shouldn’t just pay attention to skills in textbooks, but we should think about  10     developing the whole person.  11 R: Um huh um huh.     118    Influenced by her education in Taiwan, Sarah said that she thought teaching was all about transmitting textbook knowledge from teachers to students. Not until she took the course with that particular professor, she learned that education was not merely about teaching skills or textbook knowledge but that it should enable students to grow as people (lines 3−5). As she continues to say, although her professor did not inspire or help her improve her English writing skills, by sharing awareness of and thinking about educational issues concerning minority groups, he inspired Sarah to become a better teacher with awareness of and empathy for minority students. By telling this story, Sarah not only indicates that the education she received from the American graduate program developed her teacher identity, it also guided her to teach students more than language skills and knowledge from textbooks.   Also, by telling the story about her learning from this professor, Sarah seems to refuse the L2 writer identity I projected to her in earlier questions by asking her whether she encountered any difficulties and challenges in writing using mainstream academic conventions. That is, by projecting her professor as someone who cared about things beyond language skills, Sarah indicates that learning to become a teacher was more important than learning language skills in her program. Therefore, it would not be an issue for her or her professor that she did not acquire language skills—Anglophone writing conventions that I, as an interviewer, assumed she had difficulties catching up with. Through telling the course-taking story, Sarah rejected mainstream Anglophone writing conventions that I, the interviewer, made relevant as the vital component for constructing her writing identity.   Sarah then goes on to talk about the other professor she mentioned who inspired her     119 during her graduate studies, the professor from her TESOL methods course.  [Excerpt Sarah 3] Interview  March 23 (00:45:27–00:46:20)  [Mandarin]  1 S:   ŠDŵÃƃ€ŗvɓɟɹPijýŵʽ×€ǴȷɒçŴšĊijýŵɜ2 Paul MatsudaƯ CanagarajahvɓˢÏýɫǴŗ€ȷ~  ‡‚ȇȃ3 Ŏ€˾çüŝDŵ non-native speakerǴŗȷv4 ɓ½Æŀ5 ȪȪȪȪ6 ¯ŝç~ł‡ijƉŶçȷÆZ˪ƾɶ5* ÆZȵū˺º /$4+6(31($,(2 ľ7 ęĹŗ native likeȃŎȷȵūéŪsʦ´ưˆŗçŴƍ”]ĵɕū8 ȯŞɼˆŗ€Ǵȷ‡½ˑ deconstructǟʉXijDŵ.94* ęĹŗ9 ideologyȃŎ€ǴȷÛșÒ҈~ŗ multilingual҈~v monolingual10 î´ư11 ƄƄƄ12 ȃŎǴŗ½ˑŗ empowerÆZçȿDŵʦšijÃƃǴŗ13 ˾ç˪ƾ empowe2 ǟʉX14 ȪȪȪȪ [English translation]  1 S: The professor [TESOL methodology course] was helpful in a more practical  2      way, like what we saw from Paul Matsuda, more like Canagarajah. Like he   3      would stand in an L2’s shoes [speakers]. He made me feel more confident as a 4      non-native speaker.  5 R: Um huh um huh.  6 S: Because when I first studied there, I felt − uh I want to become a native speaker  7     Or native-like. Then I wanted to learn English well, but I didn’t really know  8     what I was doing. But he would like try to deconstruct this kind of uh myth or  9     ideology. Then he would tell you, uh, you can be multilingual, you can be  10     better than monolingual.  11 R: Um huh huh. 12 S: Then, it kind of empowered me as a teacher, this made me feel  13      empowered.  14 R: Um huh huh huh.   In this conversation, Sarah states that when she first studied in the US, she often wanted to     120 become like a native speaker (line 6) or acquire native-like English ability (line 7). However, despite her hard work to achieve this goal, she somehow got lost in what she was pursuing. It was not until the professor of the TESOL methods course introduced the works of critical scholars such as Paul Matsuda and Suresh Canagarajah to the class that she learned to question the myth and ideology surrounding the privileged status of native speakers in ELT. Sarah states that these scholarly works provided her with an alternative view, that of a multilingual speaker/writer (line 9), empowering her to see herself as a confident and legitimate non-native writer and teacher of English. According to Canagarajah (2013; see also Cook, 1992), multilingual speakers are those who can speak or write in two or more languages. Their multilingual competence is not merely the sum of discrete monolingual competences; rather, it is the integrated knowledge of two or several languages. When this idea of multilingual speakers applies to L2 writers, it suggests that L2 writers have multi-competence that bears richer linguistic repertoires, consisting of both English and their mother language(s), to express their ideas in English essays. Given that the linguistic competence and repertoire of a multilingual writer is richer than that of a monolingual writer (e.g., an English native speaker), when it comes to writing in English, there is no need to follow the idealized competence of native English speakers.   Through telling her learning experiences from this professor, Sarah constructs herself a multilingual writer identity (line 9), with which she positions herself as a competent writer who processes both English and Mandarin as her linguistic repertoire to express herself in writing. Therefore, although she might not write native-like English and writes with some degree of non-nativeness because of the influence of her L1, she sees this not as a challenge to overcome but rather as an advantage for her writing. With this multilingual identity, she     121 even takes a further step, viewing herself by no means as inferior to native English-speaking monolingual speakers because she has a richer linguistic repertoire for expressing herself in writing.   Like Sarah, who constructed her writer identity by rejecting alignment with the negative L2 writer identity that I, as an interviewer, projected to her, Nita constructs her English writer identity by rejecting the incompetent L2 writer identity imposed by her dissertation examiner.   5.4 Nita: Rejecting biased feedback to construct English writer identity   After receiving a bachelor’s degree in Taiwan, Nita went to the US for her MA in linguistics and to New Zealand for her PhD in curriculum studies, specializing in L2 writing. Like Beth, Nita said that although she received some basic training in English writing in Taiwan, it was not until she started to write academic English in her English-medium graduate programs that she learned how to write a proper English essay. The following excerpts are stories about her writing experiences during her PhD studies in New Zealand. I began a conversation with Nita by asking her to share the most unforgettable writing experiences she had during her studies in the West.  [Excerpt Nita 1] Interview  March 26 (01:00:46–01:01:35)  [Mandarin]  1 RýÒǬ½ò½ǬˡäijʁÑɂ˼ư²Ƴñʦƾȁȡ2 Ǵv¶ɶÃƃȑDā )(('%$&, ȃŎŌ *$23* ľˌŗaɼij3 ½Ōvɓˡäij– 4 	5 <ˌ´̃6 <ˌ´ˌŗŸĊťƳijƉŶ    122 7 <]ɘŦǴŗçǤ˪ƾç[ɂĻɖƾŌ8 ŌœFˆŗ¯ŝçýĆŵŒʧLJDžďǬŎRŗ½	½ǴŗˌŗĆŵŌ9 ɴƖijǬŎDȍ€Ŵˌˌ´ɜ²Ǵŗˌ²ʽç 1200)2($'ȃŎʪŵʪŵʽ10 çíǟʉX11 <ȪȪƄȪȪ12 <ȃŎçǤ˪ƾ**çŴ§Őɼʉ´ɜǴŗòʳĬɜ /$4+6(31($,(2 [English translation]   1 R: So do you have the mo:st, – any unforgettable writing experiences, during your  2      studies  abroad, like a professor gave you harsh feedback, or something like  3      that. Do you have any unforgettable –    4 (5.0) 5 N: Not really.  6 R: Not really (1.5) or when you first arrived in the States.                                   7 N: BU:T eh: (2.5) like I thought I put my ideas quite – quite  clear there … But,  8      because my two supervisors at the end they had (0.8) the two  9      were taking time (1.5) the last draft they still – still helping me proofread the  10      whole draft.  11 R: Um huh huh huh.  12 N: Then I felt (.) hh even when we try hard we will never be like native speakers.    Nita shares a story that took place when she was writing her PhD dissertation in New Zealand. She elaborates that, although she had made her points very clearly in her dissertation, her writing still did not satisfy her two native-speaking supervisors and thus received a lot of editing from them (lines 8−10). This seems to have discouraged her because, no matter how hard she tried, she could never write as clearly as a native speaker (line 12), the writing quality expected by her supervisors. Up to this point, Nita seems to see herself as an L2 and non-native English writer, who has come to the English-speaking academic community with challenges in English writing, and who therefore needs editing help from her supervisors.   Yet, as she continues to talk about her dissertation writing experience in excerpt 2,     123 she appears to reject this non-native English writer identity as she talks about the external examiner for her dissertation and the biased judgment this examiner gave about her dissertation writing.    [Excerpt Nita 2] Interview  March 26 (01: 01:37–01:02:02)  [Mandarin]  15 N: ȃŎçijʀ›ȍ›KɤƎX16 ç½DŵýŵʀŗȍɎij17 <̅̅̅̅18 <Ǵŗµȷʁ comments€ˌŗˊɶç]ƹçijŪsˌŗū19 §īȳýçǤ˪ƾǤ[ɂ½ǟĆŵÃƃ supervisors20 çĆŵ21 <ƘǤ[ɂíºǟʉ22 <ɡưȃŎÒˌŗɶçǴŗ]ƹ]ƹ native speǴ23 ŗɶŪsˌŗū§īȳ24 <̅ [English translation]   15 N: THEN MY EXTERNAL EXAMINER ((tapping desk quickly and heavily with    16      a pen))  I had a: examiner for the writing exam 17 R: Um huh huh  18 N: When she commented on my writing, she STILL said that I was not ready she –  19      my writing still needed to be improved. Then I think my two supervisors had  20      already, I had two –  21 R: (laughs) already spent time editing your paper 22 N: Right. Then you still said that I was not enough – not like a native spe- that   23      my English still needs improvement.  24 R: Mm   With a loud voice (line 15 capitalized THEN MY EXTERNAL), and heavily tapping the desk with her pen (lines 15–16), Nita showed that she was upset when talking about it; even after having her dissertation proofread and edited by her two native-speaking     124 supervisors, her external examiner still disapproved of her writing because it was not sufficiently native-like and needed further improvement and editing (lines 22−23). Here again, the identity category “a non-native speaker” (line 22) is made relevant to the conversation. The first time Nita introduced this category was in excerpt 1 (line 12) when she said, “we will never be like native speakers.” What is interesting to me is that, when uttering the term “non-native speaker,” in excerpts 1 and 2, Nita uses different footings (Goffman, 1981) to present different positionings of herself to this non-native speaker category. According to Goffman (1981), when people interact, we take up different roles, namely animator, author, principal, to show the authority our words are supposed to have. We change footing to display the “alignment we take up to ourselves and the others as expressed in the way we manage the production and reception of an utterance” (Goffman, 1981, p. 128). First, the animator refers to the person who merely produces the utterance. The source of the uttered words is the author who originates the beliefs in what has been said. Then, the principal is someone whose position or viewpoints are established by the words that are spoken, or someone who “is socially responsible for having performed the action done by the original utterance of that talk.” (Goodwin, 2007, p. 5). In excerpt 1, when saying “we will never be like native speakers” (line 12), Nita positioned herself as both the author who uttered “non-native speakers” and the principal whom the term represents. In this excerpt, when saying “you still said that I was not like a native speaker” (lines 22), Nita attributes the authority of the term “non-native speaker” to the external examiner and positions herself merely as the principal who was being presented as a “non-native speaker” by her external examiner. By shifting the footing from author to merely principal, Nita positions herself not as a subject of the category, but subject to the category that was assigned by the external     125 examiner. That is, while her external examiner criticized her writing as being problematic and non-native-like, Nita took these negative comments as bias-driven judgments from the external examiner. In other words, the trouble source of her examiner not being able to understand her writing was not her lack of English proficiency as a non-native English writer. Rather, it was her examiner’s bias toward her, assuming that she could not write well just because she was a non-native speaker. Refusing to orient herself to the trouble source for her examiner’s understanding of her writing, Nita refuses to orient to the incompetent non-native writer identity projected by her external examiner. By doing so, Nita positions herself as a competent English writer with no difficulties writing using mainstream Anglophone English norms and able to write a proper dissertation in English. Although she is an L2 writer, she does not necessarily find it difficult or challenging to write in English-speaking writing communities.   In the next excerpt, Nita continues with another story about an experience she had while shopping in a grocery store that informs her writing experiences in her PhD program. In this story, she treats the miscommunication between herself and a cashier in a supermarket as a form of discrimination. In doing so, she reinforces the native English speaker’s bias toward non-native English speakers’ English ability and further establishes her legitimacy as an English speaker and writer.  [Excerpt Nita 3] Interview  March 26 (01:03:11–01:03:51)  [Mandarin]  1 NǴɜç‡ț‘çĢĢɒÒˊư2 two hundred dollar cash-out.  3 <ƄƄƄƄ4 <łŰijHɒÒˊijŌȠr↑ȃŎÒšĊçǴȷ    126 5 DȕȕÒɶÒɶaɼç˸]ʿ**6 °çǴ˪ƾ°ǟŻɋijʴɵŗÒijʴɵˌŗ7 çijʴɵ8 Ƅ9 Ě~² writing½ƉŶɶˌŗŌƆëǴŗ˪ƾ¯ŝçŴĿ	Ŀ10 —ɳɡɡɡ11 ƄƄ [English translation]  1 N: LIKE WHEN I WENT TO THE SUPERMARKET, I clearly told you,  2      two hundred dollar cash-out 3 R: Mm uh uh  4 N: You were having a good conversation with the customer right before me, ↑  5      and then your face turned like – (Nita frowns)  ah ah  >What did you say, what  6      did you say?<, I don’t understand hh °  then I thought°  Whose fault is this – is  7      this your fault or my fault. 8 R: Mm. 9 N: So when writing (ENG), sometimes [I] still felt discouraged like because  10      we are no:n (1.0) non-native English speakers >yah yah yah<   11 R: Mmmm.   The story took place when Nita asked for a cash-out after grocery shopping in a supermarket when she was studying in New Zealand. Before she asked for this service, the cashier was talking pleasantly with the customer standing right in front of her in the check-out line. As soon as the cashier saw Nita, the cashier suddenly looked puzzled and claimed that she could not understand what Nita was asking for (line 5: “what you said, what did you say?”). It is worth noting that in line 2, Nita code-switches to English when she says “two hundred dollar cash-out.” By repeating to me in this conversation what she said to the cashier at the time, Nita is showing me that she has no problem pronouncing this simple request in English properly and clearly. By showing her ability to say the request, she attributes the responsibility of this communication breakdown to the cashier. That is, the trouble source of     127 the breakdown is not her lack of English proficiency but the cashier’s bias against her English proficiency because of her non-native speakerness.   In her next speaking turn, in lines 9 and 10, Nita goes back to the topic we discussed earlier, her writing experiences, and says that this non-native English speaker identity makes her feel discouraged when writing. By relating her experience with the cashier to her writing experiences, Nita is implying that her external examiner exercised similar discrimination against her. Like the cashier’s reaction, the examiner’s evaluation of her writing was morally problematic because the examiner might have judged Nita’s writing not on the basis of her linguistic ability but on her racial or linguistic background. Even though her dissertation had been edited by two of her English-speaking supervisors, which should have guaranteed the quality of her writing, the external examiner still asked her to improve and edit her writing in her dissertation. This could be because her examiner judged her writing not on the basis of writing quality but on her being a non-native English speaker, whose English was never native-like and thus needed to be improved and edited.   Treating the external examiner and the cashier’s comments and reactions to her non-nativeness as examples of misconduct and that are morally unacceptable, Nita rejects the non-native-speaker-as-deficient ideology they used to position her as a less-capable English speaker and writer just because she is a non-native speaker. The trouble source of her writing ability was the biased judgment of the examiner, not her linguistic ability per se. By telling these stories, Nita has constructed an identity as a competent and legitimate English writer who has no difficulties writing using the English conventions expected in her graduate program.    Like Nita, Ava forms her legitimacy as an L2 English writer by attributing the     128 responsibility for negative feedback on her writing to her American peers and professor, who ignored the positive aspects of her writing.   5.5 Ava: Rejecting “American-style” peer feedback to construct legitimacy as an English writer  Ava earned both her master’s and PhD degrees in language and literacy education at an American university. To understand her writing experience in the graduate program, in the first extract I asked Ava the same question I asked the others about any unforgettable writing experiences she had when studying in the US. In response Ava introduces a pedagogical approach, that of peer review as used by a professor in one of her graduate courses, and describes it as a very special writing experience for her (line 3).  [Excerpt Ava 1] Interview  March 15 (00:18:26–00:23:33)  [Mandarin] 1 R´ýODŵ˛ŗǴŗÒ²ťƳƲƊijƉŶmasterę PhDÒ½ɗ2 ɘaɼʉvɓƑÖijʁÑɂ˼ŗÒvɓˡäijȩ3 <UhʾɍŗǕD¾ peer reviewijexperienceĿƻijƑÖ4 <Ƅ5 <¯ŝýƉŶ²ʘƶPÃƃǴŗ˾çŴĖ¿Ƭ peer review6 Ě~çŴðŵHǤ“ȥ 1Ǵŗū reviewĚ½Ĉ€ªʦŴij paper:7 ˆŗýƉŶǴŗ5*¯ŝťƳ¹ij peer reviewǴŗ€ȷȑŌ³ negative 8 commentsǴŗéÒêȗijǴŗǤŌ	Ǵŗ˾Òȷ˪ƾɶ9 Ds]ŲǟʉX10 <Ƅ11 <Ě~ýƉŶ12 	13 <ŗťťƳHȩťƳªʦ14 <ƄɡɡɡɡýçŴLJDžǴŗ½ƱçŴVſǴŗɡǟŵ 1((22(6+(7 Ǵŗ15 ªʦŴȑÒ peer reviewǴŗ˪ƾ½ò½ŌŋǞĘȃŎýƉŶçơƾçǴ16 ˊɶçò½ȵĊVſȑçij commentsǤǟɼijƂǤò½´ijçɶçȵ    129 17 çVȺ]ʝ®ƬŢôǟʉX18 Ƅ [English translation]   1 R: Alright, so the next question is – when you were studying in America, master’s  2      or PhD, did you ever encounter any unforgettable writing experiences.  3 A: The first peer review experience was very special.  4 R: Uh. 5 A: Because at the time in class, the teacher would let us peer review, so each of us  6      needed to p- like need to review other classmates’ papers, but at the time it was  7      u:h because American-style peer review like they would give lots of negative  8      comments, like they would critique li:ke ve:ry (0.5) like could make you feel  9      you were worth nothing.  10 R: Um. 11 A: So at the time –  12 (0.3)  13 R: Was that Am- Americans, American classmates? 14 A: Uh, right right right yah.then our professor asked us to comment on this peer  15       review like – do you find your classmates’ comments constructive. I  16       remember at the time I said I didn’t expect others’ comments to be all  17       negative. I said uh I think I am probably not qualified to do research.   18 R: Um.  Ava states that this peer review was a special experience for her because she received a lot of negative feedback from her American classmates throughout her paper (line 7, line 13). Some of the feedback was so harsh and critical that she saw herself as a person who was “worth nothing” because of her English writing (lines 8–9). Although Ava does not mention specifically what aspects of her writing were harshly critiqued, from her phrase “make you feel you were worth nothing,” I assume that the negative feedbacks could be throughout her essay, including grammar, organization, and content. She calls this peer review activity an American-style peer review (line 7) and depicts it as too negative, harsh, and even condescending to the extent that it makes the recipient feel that she is “worth nothing.”      130  After the peer review activity, her professor asked the students to share their thoughts about it. Ava then told the class that she was upset by the overwhelmingly negative comments, which made her think that she was not qualified to be a researcher because of her limited ability to write (lines 16−17). Up to this point, Ava has depicted herself as an incompetent and incapable writer and researcher in her graduate program; otherwise, she would not have received so much negative feedback from her peers. In other words, to become a legitimate writer and researcher in the program, Ava needed her writing to be free of those harsh comments from her American classmates. One way to achieve this, as one would assume, is to write in a way that Ava’s American peers would appreciate or accept—the Anglophone English standard. However, in the next excerpt, where she describes how she reacts to her professor’s comments, Ava shows no intention of accommodating this American-style peer review that put her down as a less-legitimate writer. Instead, Ava introduces a contrastive pedagogy, “Asian-style peer review,” to strategically counter the incompetent writer identity formulated in the American-style peer review practice. [Excerpt Ava 2] Interview  March 15 (00:18:26–00:23:33)  [Mandarin]  22 AȃŎýƉŶȿçˊ‚ǟɏijƉŶ:çijLJDž23 ĈɟŗŌšƐij¯ŝ€˪ƾɶƗ²€ŴťƳHijsgǴŗƗ²24 American cultureij́ˑ:€Ŵ˪ƾɶŖȃǴŗūƬ peer reviewǴŗD25 ĒūéǴŗɩĈĚƠˊ‚Ǵŗ¢Î½ŋǞĘij26 Ƅ27 ǴŗɶɩȟˊDāǴŗ uhÒŻɋɺūíȝíȝ:ˆŗ¯ŝƗ²çŴǟ28 ɫvɓˆƠvɓƄĂś¹ijŏȵ29 <Ƅ30 <çŴȷ˪ƾɶɩȟɶ´ɏ:Ě~ýƉŶç²ȑ€Ŵ review€Ŵij paper31 ƉŶçǤŗɩȟˊ:ç˪ƾÒŻɋʁƾ´:ɒ€Ŵ€Ŵ˪ƾçŻɋɺ32 ūíȝŗ]Dʉij    131 33 <ƄƄƄ [English translation] 22 A: At the time I expressed my feelings to the class, my professor was  23      actually very angry, because he thought, from their American culture – like  24      from the perspective of American culture, they thought when people do a peer  25      review, the feedback should be as constructive as possible −  26 R: Um.  27 A: Like try to say something like uh what you need to improve, but  28      because we have this kind of more, like – more uh Asian-style thought. 29 R: Um. 30 A: We would think it’s better to try to say something positive, so at the time  31      when I reviewed their papers, I tried to say things I thought were well written,  32      not like the things that they thought I should improve. 33 R: Um huh huh.     After Ava told the professor and the class that the negative feedback was discouraging to her, her professor became very angry at Ava’s response because he thought “from their American culture” (line 23) that critical feedback needed to be as constructive as possible to help improve one’s writing (line 25, line 27). Describing her professor as “very angry,” Ava at the same time orients the professor to the harsh reviewer category, like her American classmates who considered critical feedback to be acceptable and helpful. Now, eliminating the negative aspects of her writing is not merely a suggestion from her American peers but also a requirement of the professor. Ava had to work hard to revise her paper based on her American peers’ “constructive” feedback, that is, to follow Anglophone English writing conventions, otherwise she might have failed the course. Yet, in line 28, Ava introduces the term “Asian-style thought” as contrastive to “American-style peer review” and uses it to reject the negative English writer identity indexed by the critical feedback from her American peers.      132  As Ava elaborates on the term “Asian-style thought,” she states that, unlike Americans, people from Asian cultures love to encourage others (line 30). Thus, when it comes to giving feedback, as in the context of peer review, Asian people, including herself, tell people the positive aspects of their writing instead of merely telling them what to improve (lines 31−32). By comparing the differences between American and Asian cultures in terms of giving feedback, Ava depicts Asians as tending to say positive things in peer reviews to encourage writers while Americans only give negative comments and might ignore the possible value in someone’s writing. With this comparison, she implies that her writing could appear valuable in the eyes of supportive and positive non-American or Asian reviewers. She is, in a sense, questioning her American peers and professor for their lack of awareness of the different cultural ways of giving feedback, and their subsequent failure to appreciate her writing. That is, the harsh comments Ava received resulted not from her lack of linguistic competence but from the American peer reviewers who may have been too negative, and who overlooked any positive features of her writing. By attributing the trouble source of the negative feedback on her writing to her American peers’ attitude and lack of cultural awareness (i.e., too negative and harsh) instead of her own writing, Ava rejects the negative L2 writer identity indexed by the harsh feedback she received.   Moreover, as discussed earlier, the negative feedback from her American peers indicated that, in order to become a legitimate writer in her PhD program, Ava needed to revise her English writing to the norms, including structure, organization, or content, her American/native-speaking peers and professor expected, that is, Anglophone English writing norms. By orienting her American peers and professor as too critical and thus unable to appreciate her writing, Ava indicates that if they were more positive and encouraging, they     133 would appreciate her English writing, even though it did not conform to Anglophone English norms. From this viewpoint, Ava also refuses to take up a writer identity in line with Anglophone English. Only if her American peers and professor learn to appreciate and support her writing is she a legitimate English writer, albeit one who writes in a way that is different from Anglophone English norms.   Shortly after the conversation shown in excerpt 2, Ava tells me a follow-up story about the peer review activity. Not long after the course, the professor told her that he finally understood why Asian students were so upset when receiving negative feedback. The conversation continues in excerpt 3.  [Excerpt Ava 3] Interview March 15 (00:25:36–00:26:29)   [Mandarin]  36 A: ĀŎ€Ōɜ€Ûșçɶ€ǘĠFɌFŎą€Ǵ˪ƾɶǟ37 Ŀƻ½ʜijDȭ38 ƄƄ39 €ˌĵɕɶŹą^ËǴŗƂǓǟɼVǟʉXɡȃŎ€Ǵ€Ǵ]ȷ§ɴ40 ŝɶŝaɼǴŗǴɜ_łǟʉ41 <ƄƄýɫkʾǟʉX42 <ɿɿɡ€Ǵ]ȷɜ_łýɫkʾF43 <ƄƄƄƄ44 <ɡɿȃŎ€RǴʦǙɶǴŗɡĠĂśʦšˆƠūí˺ºǴŗɩȟƘ45 ˇǤ›ɛʻƘąċêȗǟʉX46 ?Ƙ@47 ɡ¯ŝČůĠsg]ªĚ~€Rŗ_Ŏ€ƿýs˦ȿ^€\ʦĊǟD48 ˑǟʉXȃŎMƿs˦Ǵŗ¥ƿçǟŵ &$3(ȃŎ_ŎšĊǴŗŠˠ49 s˦½Ĉ€ŠˠijŢô€\ĵɕ½ǟʉXDŵ50 ƄƄ [English translation]  36 A: After he – like he told me finally he understands, and later he found this  37      was very interesting.      134 38 R: Uh  39 A: He also realized that the difference between East and West was so big, so he  40      wouldn’t think like – like he did before.    41 R: Um huh didn’t react like that.  42 A: Right yah yah, he didn’t react like he did before.  43 R: Um huh uh huh.  44 A: Right yah, then he also learned that with Asian students he should probably try  45      to (laughs) encourage them (laughs) rather than critiquing.   46 R: (laughs) 47 A: Right, because of limited knowledge of different cultures, it was not until later   48      that he learned from some research literature, from my experience as a case to  49      start, and learned from literature, and then he finally understood − 50 R: Uh    In this follow-up story, Ava first states that the professor later showed understanding of her negative reaction to her peers’ comments (line 36), though initially he considered it problematic conduct (i.e., being very angry). Ava goes on to say that her professor even found it “very interesting” (line 37) how Western and Eastern students differ greatly in their reactions to peer feedback (line 39). With this understanding and interest, Ava states that the professor was no longer upset about her resistance to the negative feedback she received (line 40). Significant to note here is how Ava changes the affective stance of her American professor from being angry (excerpt 2: line 23) to understanding (excerpt 3: line 36) and finally to being very interested (excerpt 3: line 37). By depicting her professor’s attitude changes, Ava indicates that her professor has accepted her resistance to the negative feedback her American peers gave her.    After my two agreeing acknowledgments “um huh (he) didn’t react like that” (line 41) and “Um huh uh huh” (line 43), Ava elaborates on the professor’s attitude and invokes the verb “learn” when saying “he also learned that with Asian students.” (line 44) and “he learned that from some research literature,” and “learned … from my experience” (line 48).     135 The verb “learn” can be defined both positively (e.g., I learn so much from you) and negatively (e.g., I learn a lesson from you). Indexed by the positive features of Asian/Eastern culture in the context of peer review (e.g., being positive and encouraging) that Ava invoked in excerpts 1 and 2, I interpret that “learn,” as used here by Ava, is a positive term meaning that the professor not only acknowledged but also appreciated the Asian/Eastern teaching and learning culture. According to Ochs (1996), affective stance is used by social actors to convey their point of view, attitude, or disposition to other members of a community. From this perspective, the change of the professor’s affective stance from anger to interest and finally to appreciation can be interpreted as being designed by Ava as an authoritative warrant that she constructed in excerpt 2 to confirm her legitimacy in writing in the graduate program. That is, by taking her professor’s positive affective changes as evidence, Ava tries to prove that her paper being full of negative feedback was not because she could not write well. Instead, it was because her professor and peers did not understand or appreciate the advantages of giving positive feedback and gave only negative feedback to Ava, thereby ignoring the positive aspects of her writing.    In narrating these writing experiences, by constructing American culture giving feedback as discouraging pedagogy, being critical and harsh, Ava refuses to take up the identity as an incompetent writer constructed by the negative feedback she was given, a result of her peers’ neglect of valuable aspects of her writing.  Moreover, by depicting her American peers and professor as being too critical and even condemning, Ava also indicates that if they were more positive and encouraging, they would see the positive aspects of her writing and thus would give less negative feedback, even though it did not conform to their expectation of English academic writing, that is Anglophone English writing norms. From     136 this perspective, Ava seems to imply that her non-nativeness was one of the targets of the negative feedback she received, and she questions the appropriateness of her peers giving feedback based on the linguistic backgrounds of non-Anglophone students. Finally, by showing the positive changes of her professor’s affective stance—from being angry, to understanding, interested and appreciative—and taking these changes as a warrant to back up her resistance to the negative feedback, Ava constructs herself as a legitimate English writer in the PhD program. Approved by her professor, the negative feedback was a result of cultural differences in giving feedback, not of her lack of English writing competence.   5.6 Summary and discussion  In this chapter, I have discussed four participants’ studying and writing experiences while in their respective English-speaking graduate programs. I have paid particular attention to how they constructed their here-and-now English writer identity in relation to English native speakers or Anglophone English writing norms as they were telling their writing experiences and stories to me. As demonstrated in this chapter, each participant was, to some extent, positioned or assumed to be an “illegitimate L2 English writer” by her graduate program or by me as an interviewer, owing to their inadequate skills in writing native-like English essays. In order to show that they were/are legitimate English writers, each participant tried either to accommodate the English writing norms expected by her program (e.g., Beth) or to develop a counter-discourse to resist the illegitimate L2 identity her program had imposed on her (Sarah, Nita, Ava).   As Beth was telling the stories about her first assignment being returned by her instructor when studying in the UK, she indicated that there existed a set of writing     137 conventions to follow in order to become a legitimate writer in the program. Through telling these stories, Beth first positioned herself as an incompetent writer in the program as her assignment had been returned for revision because of her indirect and confusing writing style, influenced by her L1. Beth then made relevant her Western-educated experiences as a resource to position herself as a competent writer who managed to diminish her Chinese-influenced English writing after several years of studying overseas. By so doing, she positioned herself as a competent writer who had mastered the mainstream Anglophone English writing norms.  Sarah was positioned by me, the interviewer, as an incompetent English writer who might have had difficulty writing to meet the expectation of her graduate program. Telling her stories about how her two professors had inspired her to see that education went beyond teaching language skills and to view herself as a multilingual speaker/writer, Sarah showed resistance to the ideology embedded in my interview question, that of taking Anglophone English writing conventions as the only goal for her to pursue as an L2 graduate student in an English-speaking academic context. By rejecting the ideology, she refused to orient herself to the negative L2 English writer identity I projected; instead, she constructed for herself a positive L2 English writer identity whose non-nativeness was not a liability but an advantage that would enrich her linguistic repertoire for expressing herself better in English writing (Canagarajah, 2007; Kubota, 2002).   Nita was positioned by her thesis examiner as an incompetent English writer when she was asked to revise and improve her English writing, even after it had been proofread by her two native-speaking supervisors. Instead of taking up this negative L2 writer identity projected by this examiner, Nita seemed to treat her examiner’s negative comments on her     138 English writing as discrimination against her racial or linguistic background, but not based on her language competence per se. By attributing the trouble source of her external examiner’s inability to understand her English writing to the examiner’s bias against her L2 writer identity, Nita showed resistance to the non-native-speaker-as-deficient-English-user ideology her examiner used to place her as less competent in managing the language. Nita viewed herself as an L2 writer with no difficulty in following the English writing conventions expected by her graduate program.    Finally, Ava rejected the incompetent writer identity constructed by negative feedback from her American peers. By attributing the overwhelmingly negative feedback on her paper to her American peers’ limited cultural knowledge about giving feedback in Asian cultures, she constructed her American peers as neglectful of the positive aspects of her writing. The analysis also suggested that, by constructing her American peers as only giving negative feedback to recipients, Ava indicated that the American peers were not only unwilling to support writers from non-American cultures but were also unwilling to appreciate English writing from non-Anglophone English traditions. By so doing, Ava positioned herself as a legitimate English writer even though she did not follow Anglophone English writing norms.   It is important to note that the ideologies about L2 writing in relation to native-speakerism discussed above were not produced unilaterally by the participants but were worked up in interaction with me. In other words, I, as an interviewer, participated in the process of identity construction of the participants. For example, certain ideologies about L2 writers writing in Anglophone graduate programs were embedded in the interview questions I asked each of them (e.g., my assumption that they must have encountered some challenges).     139 Through negotiating—either rejecting or accepting—these ideologies, each participant constructed an image of how she wanted to be understood as an English writer at the moment when the interviews were conducted.   As shown in this chapter, while doing their identity work, Sarah, Ava, and Nita all developed a counter-discourse to the native-speakerism ideology for their English writing experiences. For instance, both Sarah and Ava refused to see Anglophone English writing conventions as the only norms to follow to become a legitimate English writer. Instead, Sarah constructed a multilingual English writer identity and took her rich linguistic repertoire of both English and Mandarin as an asset that enhanced her English writing. Ava, too, positioned herself as a legitimate English writer even though she did not follow the English writing norms expected by her professor and her American peers. She even took a further step and argued that if her American professor and peers had gained some cross-cultural knowledge, they could have learned to appreciate writing by English writers from non-Anglophone cultures. As for Nita, although she was positioned by her examiner as an incompetent English writer, she exercised agency by refusing to take up the imposed negative identity based on a discriminatory judgment. According to Varghese et al. (2005), how teachers see themselves as English speakers and writers is closely linked to what and how they teach their students in their own language classrooms. Sarah, Ava, and Nita’s agency indexed in these counter-discourses, which they used to construct their legitimacy as English writers, could shed light on teaching English writing to counter the native-speakerist ideology.   In the next four chapters (Chapters 6 through 9), I move to discussing how the participants construct a writing teacher identity as they teach writing and talk about teaching     140 after moving back to Taiwan. I also consider how their identities as English writers, as discussed in this chapter, reflect on their teacher identity construction and teaching practices.         141 CHAPTER 6: CONSTRUCTING A THIRD SPACE FOR PROFESSIONAL LEGITIMACY: BETH’S TEACHING PRACTICE 6.1 Introduction   By investigating Western-educated teachers’ identities, this study explores the potential for teaching English writing in opposition to the dominant discourse of native-speakerism now prevalent in ELT, including in a local context like Taiwan. In Chapter 5, I demonstrated the participants’ construction of their writer identities as they told stories about their study and writing experiences in Western graduate programs. The counter-discourse, resistance to the ideology of Anglophone English writing norms as the only standard to follow, which Sarah, Nita, and Ava each established to construct their writer identities, sheds some positive light on developing more empowering and meaningful English language teaching in the context of EFL in Taiwan. In this chapter (Chapter 6) and the next three chapters (Chapters 7 to 9), I continue to look for the “wiggle room” for socio-cultural oriented ELT in Taiwan by looking at how each participant constructs her teacher identity after coming back to Taiwan to teach English writing. My analysis and discussion aim to respond to my second research question: How do the participants construct their writing teacher identity after they return to Taiwan to teach English writing in light of the discourse of native-speakerism? In particular, how do their Western-educated experiences play a role in constructing their teacher identity?   As previously mentioned, both teacher identity-in-discourse and identity-in-practice are crucial to gaining a richer understanding of the construction of teacher identity. Thus, from Chapters 6 through 9, I report on and discuss each participant’s narrated identity, as constructed in interviews, as well as their enacted identity in actual teaching practices. By     142 investigating both teacher identity-in-discourse and in-practice, I aim to understand the complexity and richness of how each participant’s Western-educated experiences, teacher identities, and teaching practices interact and inform her pedagogical practices and choices in relation to the discourse of native-speakerism in local English writing classrooms.   In this chapter, I start with Beth’s construction of her identity as an English writing teacher after returning from the UK to teach English at a Taiwanese university. As presented in Chapter 5, Beth constructed her writing identity by displaying that, after several years of studying in an English-speaking country, she now does not write Chinese-influenced English (e.g., indirect and circular) but can write in a way that Anglophone readers understand. In other words, native-like proficiency is the key component for Beth to construct her sense of legitimacy as an English writer. The analysis presented in this chapter suggests that Beth creates an in-between identity, a third space (Bhabha, 1994), to position herself as a more legitimate English writing teacher compared with her NEST and locally educated NNEST colleagues. In this in-between identity, the native-like proficiency she gained from her Western-educated experiences is again taken up by Beth to construct her superiority to locally educated NNESTs. The ideology of Anglophone English norms as the standard to learn that Beth used to construct her writer and teacher identities is reified in the scoring rubrics she used to evaluate her students’ writing throughout the semester.   6.2 “Expatriate teachers don’t teach writing”   Prior to excerpt 1, Beth and I talked about the geographic backgrounds of teachers in her department. While the majority of the teachers were Taiwanese nationals, there were two NESTs in her department, one from Canada and the other from the United States. Given that     143 English was the common language among the colleagues, teachers in the department used English on many occasions, such as in faculty meetings or email correspondence. This conversation about teachers’ linguistic backgrounds in the department roused my curiosity about whether linguistic background (i.e., Mandarin speakers and English speakers) determined the courses each teacher should teach. So, in excerpt 1 below, I asked whether the expatriate teachers also taught English writing.    [Excerpt Beth 1] Interview  April 24 (00:49:00–00:49:43)   [Mandarin] 1 <ÒŸɶÒŴõPR½˨ÃƃȩýÒŴ˨Ãƃ2 ½LJªDƶʘȩ½LJʁ3 Ñȩ4 <´ɜò½˨ÃƃǠƻǤŗLJýŵ speaking.5 <DZƖijǤLJ speakingDZò½²LJʁÑDZ6 <ʁѽƉŶūɌ˰sĬ€Ŵò½ʳĬ7 <DZýˌ̀ßij̃Ě~‹½ʁÑǤŗŒ˿Ãƃ8 <ɡ [English translation] 1 R: You just mentioned that there’re also expatriate teachers in your  2      department. Do the expatriate teachers teach the same courses.  3      Do they teach writing.   4 B: No, expatriate teachers usually teach speaking.  5 R: Oh really, they all teach speaking, no one teaches writing.  6 B: (Teaching) writing sometimes requires explaining grammar, they couldn’t do it.  7 R: Oh, that’s interesting, so only Taiwanese teachers teach writing?  8 B: Right.   It is interesting to me that the rationale for this course allocation is not because expatriate teachers are better at teaching speaking skills, but because expatriate teachers could not explain grammar knowledge to students, a skill that appears to be important for Beth in     144 teaching English writing (line 6). In the same line, Beth then makes quite a strong evaluation “they couldn’t do it” and indicates that expatriate teachers are less competent in teaching English writing. By saying “they” couldn’t do it, Beth at the same time positions “we,” the Taiwanese teachers, including her, to be more qualified writing teachers given their better ability to explain English grammar to students.   However, Beth’s evaluation of expatriate teachers is not taken up by me. As Pomerantz (1984) observes, when an interlocutor’s assessment is sequentially projected and agreement is invited, any delaying devices such as not talking, requesting clarification, or repeating the question are often shaped as subsequent turns to show disagreement by another conversant. In my responding turns in lines 5 and 7, instead of providing immediate consent to Beth’s evaluation and positioning, I form questions based on Beth’s accounts and ask her to provide further clarification (e.g., line 7: “Oh, that’s interesting, so only Taiwanese teachers teach writing?”). Asking further questions to confirm Beth’s opinions rather than agreeing with her thus indicates my disaffiliation with Beth’s evaluation of expatiate teachers as lacking competence to teach English grammar and writing. My disaffiliative response also shows my lack of uptake to Beth’s positioning of herself and other non-native English-speaking colleagues as more qualified in teaching English writing.   My disaffiliation requires Beth to provide justification for her evaluation. Thus, in the subsequent conversation shown in excerpt 2, Beth provides further accounts to support her evaluation.         145 [Excerpt Beth 2] Interview April 24 (00:49:44–00:50:13)   [Mandarin] 9 RǤŗŒ˿˨Ãƃ10 <ç˪ƾǟRŗŒ˿HijDŵƦŏÙ11 <̅ŝaɼ12 <ǴŗƳHò½ʳĬLJsĬƘ13 <sĬ14 <ɡưÐRijʐŗ¯ŝ€Ŵ²ʦŪsijƉŶ€Ŵ]ɺū15 ʦsĬ16 <̅17 <ɡưǟŗ€Ŵij—ɳ18 <ɡ19 <ǴɜçŴ¶Ħū‡LJ^sçŴRŗūŠ§ʦɨɳɳùʦ20 <ɡɡɡɡɡ21 <ɡưŗDʉij22 <Dʉij [English translation]  9 R: All Taiwanese teachers.  10 B: I think it’s a myth Taiwanese people hold.  11 R: Um, why.  12 B: Like expatriate teachers, they are not able to teach grammar (laugh)  13 R: Grammar.  14 B: Right, but it is also true because they don’t need to learn grammar when they are 15      learning English.  16 R: Um:  17 B: Right, this is their mother language.  18 R: Right.  19 B: Like if we want to teach Mandarin we need to learn Mandarin linguistics, too.  20 R: Right, right right right.  21 B: Yah, it’s the same.  22 R: The same.   To answer my confirmation request about whether only Taiwanese teachers teach English writing in her department, Beth responds that the fact that expatriate teachers are less     146 competent to teach English grammar is the “myth Taiwanese people hold” (line 10). In other words, most Taiwanese people, not only Beth, believe that expatriate teachers do not teach English writing owing to their lack of grammar knowledge. Interesting to note here is that, unlike in excerpt 1, where Beth made a strong personal statement with the evaluation that expatriate teachers couldn’t teach English grammar and are thus less competent in teaching English writing (line 6 “they [expatriate teachers] couldn’t do it.”), in excerpt 2, she ascribes the source of this belief and the responsibility of this statement not her personally but to nearly all Taiwanese people. Here, Beth has changed the footing from being the author and principal—who holds the belief in and responsibility for what has been uttered, to an animator—who merely uses voice to utter the words that Taiwanese people say (Goffman, 1981). The footing switch has worked to ascribe the source of this belief to all Taiwanese, a national category to which I, the interviewer, am part of. This simultaneously adds credence to the utterance (it is now attributed to most Taiwanese rather than only to Beth) and invites me as a member of the “Taiwanese-national” category to be co-author and co-principal of the evaluation she has made about her native-speaking colleagues. Involving Taiwanese people and me to add credence to her evaluation, Beth is possibly enhancing her epistemic stance (Ochs, 1996), or the degrees of certainty of the knowledge in the statement “they couldn’t do it” in excerpt 1, in order to avoid my further disaffiliation with her negative evaluation on expatriate teachers, like what I did in lines 5 and 7 (excerpt 1). Thus, the switch of footings can be interpreted as designed by Beth as a means of reconstructing the advantageous position of non-native-speaking teachers, denied by me as an interviewer in excerpt 1, that they are more competent in teaching English grammar and writing compared to native-speaking English teachers. My response in line 13 where I repeat “grammar” after Beth re-    147 states “Like expatriate teachers, they are not able to teach grammar” (line 12) shows my alignment with this evaluation. This also shows my agreement with Beth for re-positioning herself and her non-native-speaking colleagues as more qualified English writing teachers compared to their native-speaking colleagues.   In lines 14–19, Beth adds that all native language speakers are less competent in grammar knowledge because L1 speakers do not need to learn the grammar of their mother languages (lines 14–15, 17). Following this logic, Beth goes on, “Like if we want to teach Mandarin we need to learn Mandarin linguistics, too” (line 19). Beth implies that, like English native speakers, native Mandarin speakers are not competent to teach Chinese writing either, because we haven’t had the training to explain Chinese grammar to Chinese learners. In line 19, by using the plural pronoun “çŴ” or “we,” Beth orients me to the membership of Mandarin speakers, or Taiwanese nationals, the identity categories she has used to identify herself and me in previous and current turns, and casts me again as a co-author and co-principal of her evaluation of native speakers’ competence in teaching writing. Here by inviting me again to evaluate the statement, Beth tries to add more credence to this evaluation, by which she uses to highlight her better competence in teaching English writing compared to NESTs. Beth’s positioning as better English writing teacher is confirmed by me as I finally give my affiliation in line 20 (“Right, right right right”) and 22 (“the same”) to her further accounts that “native speakers, of either English or Mandarin, do not learn grammar and thus do not know how to teach grammar of their mother language,” which she states in lines 19 and 21.   In this excerpt, Beth constructs an identity that “she is better qualified in teaching English writing than native-speaking teachers.” This identity does not emerge in a vacuum     148 but is negotiated and co-constructed in the interview conversation with me as an interviewer. Beth’s change of footing (from author/principal to animator) frees her from my further disaffiliation, from which she creates a context where she draws Taiwanese people and Mandarin speakers, including me, to co-evaluate the native-speaking teachers’ teaching competence. This co-authorship and co-principalship increases the credence of her evaluation; they are taken by Beth as discursive resources to convince me about her evaluation. With my alignment to her evaluation, she then re-constructs her desired identity—a better English writing teacher than expatriate teachers.    In excerpts 1 and 2, Beth treated grammar knowledge as a basic qualification for teaching English writing. In excerpt 3, I then wonder and ask Beth why grammar plays such an important role in English writing.   [Excerpt Beth 3] Interview    April 24 (00:33:12–00:34:23)  [Mandarin]  1 RĚ~Ò˪ƾŒ˿ɡʁÑǟȭVſˌŗȷ˪ƾsĬ–ʐˌŗ2 ǬŮūij3 <ç˪ƾ²Œ˿ʦšȷâNJĊĔɡ]ɡ€ŴǟŵRŗǛƣʓ‚ąijǴŗ4 €ŴâNJ½Dŵ–ʐȎƌĚ~¶ĦÒÛș€ɶǟʉRˆ~ýʉRˆ~5 €Ǵȷ˪ƾconfused6 <Œ˿ʦš]ǰ˷confusedijȴ˪€ǰ˷ÃƃÛș€7 ɡˌ]ɡ8 <ɡ¯ŝÒŗÃƃÒsupposedʾɍūÛșçɡˌŗɡ]ɡ…9 Ě~ŝaɼç˪ƾsĬūŌƽijŹ¯ǴŗғȥūÛș€ɶ10 v¶ɶI could, I can¶Ħŗ²ˊpossibilityijƉŶǟ^ȡǖȱijƂÖ11 ŗaɼv¶ɶ•ą¹½ĆŵI will, I am going toÐŗ€^ȡŗ½Ŀƻǖȱ12 ijƂÖý€ŴȷȵĵɕçaɼƉŶ›Żŵ13 <̅14 <ɡ€ˆ~ǂČɶĆŵǤˆ~Ðŗ¶Ħ҈~Ûș€ǟ^ȡ15 ǖȱijƂրǴȷ˪ƾÒŗŵŌɾžijÃƃ16 <Ȫ    149  [English translation] 1 R: So you think in Taiwan, when it comes to writing, people still think grammar is  2      the most important component. 3 B: I think this is what Taiwanese students want. Like if this is <correct or not>. They  4      have been trained to seek a <correct answer>So if you tell them this is okay  5      and that is okay too, they will feel – confused.  6 R: Taiwanese students don’t like confusing answers, they like teachers to tell them  7      what is correct.   8 B: Right, because you are the teacher who is supposed to tell me this is correct or  9      not … so this is why I think [the teacher having] strong grammar knowledge is  10      necessary, because you have to tell students the subtle difference between English  11      usages, like I could or I can when talking about possibility, or I will and I am  12      going to for future tense, they want to know the very subtle difference.  13 R: Mm  14 B: Right, students might be fine if you say either can work, but if you can tell them  15      the subtle difference, they will really admire you.  16 R: Mm   In response, Beth states that having been educated in a traditional exam-oriented education system, her students are trained to seek correct answers when studying (lines 4). Therefore, when learning English writing, they also expect the teacher to teach them the “correct English usage” so they do not get confused when they need to use certain structures in either communications or exams (line 5). For example, Taiwanese students would expect a writing teacher to teach them the difference between “I can” and “I could” to talk about possibility, or between “I will” and “I am going to” for future actions (line 11). In particular, when a teacher is able to explain the subtle difference between these very similar usages and to tell the students when to use each one, she will be highly respected by the students (lines 14−15). This conversation again shows that Beth has taken grammar knowledge as a key component of being qualified to teach English writing in Taiwanese universities.  Beth has constructed     150 the NNESTs in her department, including herself, as more qualified English writing teachers than NESTs, given that they have better grammar knowledge and can explain the nuanced differences in English usage to help students avoid confusion when learning the language.   However, in the following two excerpts (4 and 5), although grammar knowledge is considered a key factor in differentiating NNESTs from NESTs in her department, Beth somehow distances herself from having equally good grammar knowledge as her locally educated Taiwanese colleagues.   6.3 “I don’t think I am a teacher with strong grammar knowledge”  In excerpt 4, I ask Beth to list the essential characteristics of being an English writing teacher in the Taiwanese teaching context. Beth once again points out that having good grammar knowledge is one of the necessary characteristics an English writing teacher needs (lines 4–5).  However, in this conversation, Beth withdraws a bit from her positioning as a writing teacher with good English grammar knowledge, as she did in excerpts 1–3. Instead, she states in line 6, “I don’t think I am a teacher with strong grammar knowledge.” [Excerpt Beth 4] Interview April 24 (00:30:28–00:31:31)   [Mandarin] 1 <ý²Œ˿ǟŵLJƊij˂ɞɋŰÒɴŝaɼŗȿDŵŪsʁÑÃƃij2 ūƙ3 <ç˪ƾ¶Ħū´ijɏç˪ƾƄsĬū4 ŌƽÙ5 <ūŌƽ6 <ɡưˆŗɜç˪ƾçǴ]ŗDŵsĬŌƽijÃƃ7 <Ƅ8 çŴõP½DŵƺĽLJ9 sĬijÃƃ€ijsĬǴŌƽ¯ŝ€½ƉŶýŵ 107(210+/4 ȷƓ²ƎŰȃ    151 10 ŎˑȠçʪŵVȨǔǴŗýŵʉXǴŗýŵʉXɡǴšĊŌ³Ō³ijɈ11 ȃŎaɼXưŎŰŗŐʉǟŵXŎŰŗŐʉ12 ȃŎçɶǟmɾžF13 <ččččč[English translation]  1 R: So – in the teaching context in Taiwan, what do you think – what is essential in    2      being an English writing teacher. 3 B: I think if, um, to be a good one I think one should have very strong grammar  4      knowledge.  5 R: To be very strong.  6 B: Right, but like – I don’t think I am a teacher with strong grammar knowledge. 7 R: Um  8 B: Right, like there is a teacher in our department whose specialty is teaching 9      grammar, his grammar knowledge is pretty strong. Yeah, like sometimes I saw his  10      PowerPoint in the same classroom and I am usually in big shock. There are many  11      symbols, and all kinds of relative clauses, and after this clause it should be – and I  12      thought, this is just awesome. 13 R: Ha ha ha ha         She shares an anecdote about one of her Taiwanese colleagues whose speciality is teaching grammar (lines 8−12). In another conversation that happened later in the same interview (April 24, 2012, 00:51:03), I learned that the colleague mentioned by Beth was still studying for his PhD in a Taiwanese university. Although in previous excerpts she positioned herself as a better English writing teacher compared to expatriate teachers, in this conversation, she places herself in a position only secondary to her locally trained Taiwanese colleague, who she thinks has a more solid English grammar knowledge for teaching English writing. Depicting her locally educated Taiwanese colleague as being better than her in terms of teaching grammar, at the same time Beth distances herself from the teacher identity with good grammar knowledge that she constructed for herself in an earlier conversation.     In the interview conversations shown in excerpts 5 and 6, Beth creates even further distance from locally trained teachers in terms of teaching English writing. Rather than     152 showing her admiration for their expertise in teaching English grammar, Beth switches to construct the “teacher with only good grammar knowledge” as being insufficiently qualified to teach English writing. By so doing, she positions herself as a more qualified teacher among non-native English-speaking teachers, with more to offer her students.   Prior to excerpt 5, Beth and I talked about her students’ expectations of her writing class. She complained that her students often asked her to teach them short cuts to improve their English writing. For example, some students asked her to provide templates for writing an English business letter. By simply copying the sentences and vocabulary from the templates, students can quickly write a business letter. Some students also asked Beth to provide a list of one hundred sentences that are most commonly used in English. By imitating these sentences in their own writing, students can quickly compose their own essays. In excerpt 5, Beth states that she was not happy about her students’ requests because she thought that teaching students only grammar or sentences might guarantee a “quick achievement” (line 1) but it would not help students develop solid writing skills.  [Excerpt Beth 5]  Interview June 12 [00:55:48–00:56:52]   [Mandarin]  1 <ç˪ƾÒɺūĺƉȡ‡ǐɌ¯ŝÒǡºŌ˔Dzư2 çǴŗ DŵsĬǜŃȑÒDŵňȑÒÒǴǢ3 ĥËȬȝ‡ǴǡºFçŌåˆ~4 šĊºĦ5 <Õɧ·_ˢij6 <Õɧ·ęĹŗɶçéɍ½ijDz· ȑÒ҇ǗɊXǗɊǟŵƭÑ7 ŗŵǡºijƭÑÐŗǟŵɘȊȿ^Òʦ]Ċ¢ÎĥËÒ]ˆƠÆZʁ8 ‚ýʉijXąÒǬ³ǴŗƫƓ²ǗɊɒʕɲɡȃŎˆŗ€ŗDŵ9 ǡºŌåˆ~ʁ‚DŵX€˪ƾ€´Ț½ʁ‚aɼĥËˌ½ʦĊ10 aɼĀɟP€aɼǤò½ʦĊ11 ɡư    153  [English translation]  1 B: I think you need to spend time to understand – because quick achievement is  2      simple, I can just throw you a grammar rule, or a sentence structure, and you have  3      to make sentences accordingly, putting things together in [the sentence] and you  4      have a quick achievement, I can quickly see the improvement.  5 R: Like a cloze [test]. 6 B: Cloze or like, I throw you all the vocabulary and you [use it to] assemble  7      sentences. Assembling is an action of quick achievement, but you can’t learn  8      anything in this process. It’s impossible for them to write a sentence themselves, 9      you can only stay at the stage of assembling and duplicating. He thinks he is     10      writing something, learning something, but actually he didn’t learn anything,  11      right?    It is interesting to note that while grammar expertise is taken as an advantage or even a must-have for constructing her teacher identity, in the conversations in excerpts 1–3, Beth associates it with a negative practice here and distances herself from this practice. By saying “quick achievement is simple” (lines 1−2), Beth displays her capability in teaching English grammar in order to help students achieve the quick results they ask for. However, she refuses to do so because teaching only grammar and sentence structure will lead students nowhere, except to simply assemble and duplicate the sentences they are taught. That is to say, while being able to teach accuracy to students is an important qualification for a teacher of English writing in Taiwanese universities, merely teaching grammar is inadequate because students will not develop independent writing competence beyond the grammar rules taught and, therefore, will be unable to reach an advanced level of English writing. By relating teaching grammar to a negative teaching practice, Beth distances herself from the teacher who only teaches students grammar and sentence-level English, like the locally educated teacher she mentioned in excerpt 4.      154  In excerpts 1–3, Beth positioned Taiwanese teachers, including her, as better qualified writing teachers in the local context compared to expatriate or native-speaking teachers in her department in helping Taiwanese students acquire the language abilities they need. However, in this excerpt, Beth’s positioning has changed dramatically. While she still positions herself as competent in teaching English grammar, she does not align with her Taiwanese colleagues who only teach grammar, like the locally educated teacher she mentioned in excerpt 4.   In excerpt 6, Beth emphasizes that teaching to her does not refer to spoon-feeding students only grammar and writing templates. Rather, she states that the process of how students learn to write is her teaching priority. She elaborates on the “process of learning” in excerpt 6, where she further distinguishes herself from local teachers by foregrounding her English competence in teaching the English forms used in English-speaking countries. [Excerpt Beth 6]  Interview    June 12 (00:57:25–00:58:55)  [Mandarin] 1 <Ě~ÒǟŵɘȊ2 <ƄɘȊʾɍŗɶɡDŵǣf]ŗ‹½ĵɕğaɼÅŗūĵɕ3 ŝaɼūğǟŵ…ǴŗÒƠƹvɓǐɌŝaɼ€Ŵūãƀǟ¡Ā4 Ǵ½Dˑ‡ǐɌ€ij &0/4(84 ǟŵ]ŗ‹½5 ʾɍɶ]ŗ‹½ĻŰijĵ˝ǴŗçŴˊĚʱijsĬ6 ·ȰǴŗĵ˝ȩÒćǫǟʉijĵ˝ˆŗÒɺū½7 ýʉij &0/4(84 ‡›8 ƄƄƄ9 ɡĚ~€Ŵ“ȥūǐɌǟ¡ĀǀǴŗŝaɼƳHȷ10 ǟʉˊ11 <ƄƄƄƄ       155 [English translation]  1 R: You mentioned the process [of learning] – 2 B: Um (1.5) the process, it should be, right, one part is that, like not only to know 3      what things to put here, but also to understand why this is put here ... like you can  4      understand more easily why they want to describe certain things, like to  5      understand their context. This requires not only surface knowledge, like what  6      we said about grammar and vocabulary. You have this knowledge, but you need to  7      understand in what context you can use this knowledge.   8 R: Um huh huh.  9 B: Right, so they should understand this, like why English speakers say things this  10      way.  11 R: Um huh uh huh.    Beth defines the process of learning to mean that the students should “not only … know what things to put here, but also … understand why this is put here.” (line 3). She then relates this ability to know why as having the knowledge to understand “why they want to describe certain things” (line 4), “their context” (line 5), and “why English speakers say things this way” (line 9). The category “English speakers,” introduced in line 9, indicates that the third-person plural pronouns “they” (line 4) and “their” (line 5) refer to native English speakers. Accordingly, teaching English writing not only involves teaching “surface knowledge” like grammar and vocabulary (lines 5−6) but also teaching the pragmatic knowledge of how English speakers use this language in their own context. To give me a clearer idea of the “context” she mentions, Beth draws two examples of how English is used in England, the knowledge she learned during her study in the UK. It is when she talks about how English is used in the UK that Beth aligns herself to English native speakers and contexts, the identity category (i.e., expatriate teachers) she tried to distinguish herself from in excerpts 1–3.   The first example is demonstrated in excerpt 7 in which Beth explains the different ways of counting “floors” in Taiwan and in England.      156  6.4 “You should understand their context”  [Excerpt Beth 7] Interview June 12 (00:59:29–01:01:45)  [Mandarin] 1 çˊŵĄX´FǴŗɜýŵʌʂýçŴijʌʂŗDʌGʌNʌɶçŴ2 ²NʌǑ²²NʌˆŗÒ¶Ħ²ŪƳçŴǑ²²GʌçŴ²3 second floor4 <¯ŝ ground floor, first floor²ŪƳŗ5 <ɡǴŗ€Ŵò½€Ŵŗ ground floor, first floor, second, thirdĚ~6 çŴ² third-7 <DZ8 <ˆŗ^sɋŰçŴǑ²²Žʌ9 <ɡ10 <ýÒ¶Ħ]ĵɕŝaɼÒȷ´ˡŧÒȷDĴǚ²ÝǷ11 ijIJɢȃŎDĴȶ]njȹĊĔūƒD12 ˌŗȂD13 <ƄƄƄ14 <ɡˆŗÒ¶Ħĵɕ€ŴŐɼɭǟŵʌʂÒǴȷĵɕżŹąŗǟʉ15 ¯ŝçŴŗ›±Ĩɭ€Ŵŗ›ʌĨɭ16 <↑żŗǟʉX [English translation] 1 B: Let me give you an example, like floors, we have first floor, second floor and third  2      floor, say we are on the fourth floor, but if you were in England, we are now on  3      the third floor − subtract one number.  4 R: Because the ground floor, the first floor in England is called –  5 B: Right, they don’t have – they have ground floor, first floor, second, third, so we  6      are on the third −  7 R: Oh? 8 B: But in Mandarin we’ll say we are on the fourth floor now.  9 R: Right. 10 B: So if you don’t know why, you would feel it’s so hard to memorize and   11      understand, and you’ll be really confused, always not clear if you add or subtract  12      one floor from where you are.  13 R: Um, uh huh.      157 14 B: Right, but if you knew how they count floors, you would know, oh that’s how they  15      do it. Because we count floors by grounds, but they count floors by ceilings.  16 R: ↑Oh, I see.    In this conversation, Beth explains to me that in Taiwan, or among other Mandarin speakers, the first floor of a building is commonly called the “first floor,” while in England the same floor is called the “ground floor.” Beth and I were on the fourth floor when the interview took place. She says, “But if you were in England, we are now on the third floor − subtract one number” (lines 2–3). A second conditional, “if you were,” is often used to give advice. Through her use here of the second conditional, she presents her epistemic stance (Ochs, 1996) and positions herself as someone who has the knowledge of how British English should be used and thus is capable of giving advice about or explanation of that particular English usage. In my turn, I show some understanding of this particular language use in British English (line 4), but Beth continues to explain how floors are counted in England as if I have no knowledge about it (lines 5–6). Treating me as an unknower and explaining this particular English use to me, Beth again positions herself as an expert in British English in the conversation.   Although this cultural knowledge, how floors are counted in British English, can be accessed in many English textbooks and claimed by any English speakers including those who have never studied in the UK, Beth seems to position herself as an expert in this usage because of her life experiences in the UK. Associating her understanding of this particular usage in British English to her study experiences in England and positioning herself as a knowledge holder of British English, Beth is doing what Bucholtz and Hall (2004; see also, Bucholtz, 2003; Bucholtz & Hall, 2005) call authentication, an interactional process where speakers draw on discursive resources, among which include ideologies, to claim realness     158 and authenticity of identities. In this authenticating process, Beth draws on native-speakerism as a discursive resource in constructing herself as a legitimate English speaker/writer who understands how to use the language in an authentic context. Beth’s association of how the English language should be used to the country “England” indicates that she takes up the ideology that the representativeness of English is often associated with the English-speaking West; English speakers or teachers who speak mainstream English own a certain degree of unquestioned legitimacy (Motha, 2014). Therefore, by displaying her language use and knowledge gained from the mainstream context “England,” she constructs herself as a legitimate English speaker and teacher who knows and uses mainstream English. Through this authentication process, Beth constructs herself as a more qualified writing teacher than other Taiwanese teachers, who are only good at teaching grammar due to their lack of exposure to an authentic context in which to learn how British language should be used.   Excerpt 8 is another example in which Beth draws on her knowledge of British English to authenticate her identity as an English speaker and teacher. Prior to the conversation presented in excerpt 8, Beth talked about how intensive reading of academic papers during her graduate studies in the UK helped her improve her English writing. She told me that, because of the benefits she gained from this intensive reading, she tried to have her students read as much as possible in class, hoping to increase their level of writing skill as she did when studying in England. Excerpt 8 is an example of Beth demonstrating the “logic” in English writing that she learned from reading during her study in the UK.   [Excerpt Beth 8] Interview June 12 (00:17:40–00:19:43)   [Mandarin] 1 ɜ_łçŴǴŗšɘDŵŌ½ʜijfĩ€ǟŵfĩɶ    159 2 v¶ɶçŴijdzƝ²dzʧPʾɍŗDŵĀ¡€Ě›ijýā·Ȱ3 ĈɟŘDɫȊŊĻɖFǟDɅHˠraɼ…ýŵĄXŗ˱˓4 ǴŗĘ˱˓²ǃɔƗȃŎv¶ɶɜçŴˆƠǴȷĺŌ³ijʑǵ5 ‡ãƀ‡ãƀ€»I³o€ʦʬ³ƩǴŗýŵȮ™ǛìĊF_Ŏ6 ź˭ʀƱ^sijdzƝǴȷɶĈɟ€ŗǯUȃŎ€u»IŌƩ7 ˆŗ€Őɼˌȷ²ǃɔƗ‡˱˓Wšýǟŗ^sij˻ʲ^ƳHij˻ʲ8 ɰ˿Hij˻ʲçŴšijŗǟāĥˈŗªʉD¡Āǀ9 ŪƳHʁǟ¡Āǀ€ȷʁŌ³€ȷĺŌ³ʑǵ²ãƀ€ijÊģ10 ˌȷɶ€ŗDŵţȔËɊĞȔeĀ…ÊŁȹȹijDŵPƒljý€Őɼ11 ˌȷ‡˱˓Wš12 ƄŌ½ʜ13 ɡɡưǴŗðDɅHǴŗÒă›ǟŵɳùijH€ij́ˑŗaɼ€ȵ14 ūšijĥËŗaɼ€ȷ²€ijǟāĥËɋ]ɬŗaɼʉijã¹ijsǧɋ15 ۂǑɡýýŵǴŗ€Ŵij philosophy€ŴȵūšijĥË16 ý¶ĦɶÒblʁ‚ąijĥËŗūȑ€ŴšýÒǴūʿǟ¡Āǀư17 Ƅ [English translation] 1 B: Like we read a very interesting analysis before. The analysis is about – like when  2      reporting in a newspaper, the word choice actually to some extent represents  3      what this group of people cares about … The example (in the analysis) is about  4      sexual harassment in a subway station. So for example, we will put a lot of  5      effort into describing like what his income is, how good his education is, like,    6      after the suspect has been arrested, the Chinese newspaper would say, actually, he  7      is a PhD and his income is pretty high, but why did he still harass woman in the  8      station. This is Chinese logic, Taiwanese logic, we focus on things like this. But  9      when it comes to describing the same thing, English people would write a lot  10      about his clothing, like he’s in a suit, carrying an attaché case, a well-dressed  11      white-collar man, what made him to harass the woman.      12 R: Um, very interesting.  13 B: Right, so how language speakers think about things,  14      what they expect [of English writing] are presented in things like this, in any form  15      of writing, right, this is their philosophy, the things they want to see, so if now you  16      are writing something for them to read, you need to understand things like this.     17 R: Um:    In this account, Beth indicates that, by reading material like the articles or the English newspapers she read in her graduate program, one can learn “how language speakers think     160 about things” (lines 13) and “the things they want to see” (line15), because how British people write is presented in the materials mentioned here (line 14: “what they expect [of English writing] are presented in things like this,”). Although intensive reading like this can happen everywhere, the local category “England” where Beth was exposed to these written materials indicated in this conversation foregrounds the “authenticity” of the materials she read in her British graduate program that helped her improve her English writing. Again, taking her experiences in the “authentic” context, England, to authenticate her English competence, Beth constructs herself as one of the readers and writers who has been largely exposed to authentic materials and is thus equipped with content appropriateness and audience awareness of British English, the native-like pragmatic competence crucial to becoming an English writing teacher.   In excerpts 7 and 8, by highlighting her linguistic competence in British English, Beth constructs her competence in teaching English writing over that of local Taiwanese teachers. While she is equally competent in terms of grammar expertise as other local Taiwanese teachers, she is also competent in “how English is used in the UK,” the pragmatic knowledge she constructed as a basic qualification in addition to grammar to teach English writing in Taiwan.   In excerpts 1 through 8, I have shown how Beth positions herself as a better and more qualified English writing teacher compared to her NEST and locally educated NNEST colleagues. First, she aligns with her local Taiwanese colleagues and positions herself and her Taiwanese colleagues to be more qualified teachers than expatriate teachers in terms of ability to explain grammar when teaching English writing (excerpts 1–3). Then, she highlights her native-like English proficiency gained during her studies in the UK to distance     161 herself from her Taiwanese colleagues, who can only teach grammar and sentence structure. Beth’s positioning in teaching English writing is contradictory, but it is in this conflict that she creates a third space (Bhabha, 1994) where she constructs her professional legitimacy teaching English writing in her department. According to Bhabha (1994), a third space provides the freedom to “continually negotiate and translate all available resource[s] in order to construct their own hybrid cultures and, consequently, reconstruct their own individual identities” (Kumaravadivelu, 2008, p. 124). Switching her association between native speakers and local Taiwanese teachers, Beth constructs her hybrid professional identities: She is neither-nor, but as an English writing teacher, she is competent in helping students develop both the descriptive (e.g., grammar rules) and pragmatic (e.g., how to write properly in a British context) knowledge of writing.   Beth’s formation of this in-between identity that foregrounds both her “non-nativeness” and “nativeness” resonates with the experiences of those Western-educated teachers in Phan (2008) and Ilieva, Li, and Li’s (2015) studies. To manage their struggles between the different professional identities they developed in their home countries (Vietnam and China) and in the West, where they gained their professional training (Australia and Canada), these Western-trained teachers created an in-between identity from which they developed a blended instructional method derived from the two cultures in order to maximize students’ English learning. Similarly, Beth has created a hybrid identity with the professional strengths of both native and local teachers and has positioned herself as a legitimate writing teacher among others, someone competent to teach two important writing skills to students: grammar and pragmatics. Nevertheless, an analysis of Beth’s identity construction process also indicates that the third space is not a power-free place, as suggested by Bhabha (1994, p.     162 4) as “[it] entertains difference without an assumed or imposed hierarchy,” allowing the marginal to develop controlling agency to disrupt power asymmetries rooted in colonial hierarchy and to construct their own individual identities (Kumaravadivelu, 2008). This third space indeed affords Beth a way to develop a counter-discourse (e.g., NNESTs are more qualified to teach English writing than NESTs) to resist the native-speaker-as-superior-English-teacher ideology that is often used to place NNESTs in an unfavourable position when it comes to teaching the language.  In the process of identity construction, Beth also activates the ideology of native-speakerism as a resource in distancing herself from local teachers, particularly those educated locally who are constructed as only being capable of teaching English grammar due to their lack of immersion in authentic English contexts. Although this hybrid identity allows Beth to disrupt the power asymmetry between NESTs and NNESTs and to construct her own professional legitimacy over NESTs (e.g., grammar knowledge), at the same time she creates another asymmetry between herself and her locally educated colleagues. The view that a third space affords the marginalized to reverse “the effects of the colonialist disavowal” (Bhabha, 1994, p. 114) to construct empowering agency assumes that the power relations in ELT only exist between the dualities of the colonizer/colonized, the dominant/marginalized, or NESTs/NNESTs. However, the finding suggests that power is also at play among NNESTs, the colonized, or the marginalized, as we see that Beth could activate her near-native English competence earned from overseas studying experiences to belittle other NNESTs who were constrained to access to the same linguistic capital (Bourdieu, 1986). Thus, it can be problematic to view in-between identity of the marginalized English teachers like NNESTs as purely a liberating and power-free terrain for constructing empowering identities in opposition to the native-speakerism     163 discourse. As Foucault has persuasively argued (1980), “power is exercised by people depending on how they are positioned in relation to each other” (cited in Kumaravadivelu, 2008, p. 129). More attention from research and teacher education should be paid to what resources are activated by NNESTs to construct their in-between identity in relation to all teachers from various social and cultural backgrounds in their teaching context. Neglect of the multiple power relations at play in constructing a teacher’s identity in a local context could put some local teachers (e.g., non-Western-educated) into a disadvantaged position in relation to their non-nativeness; this in turn helps reinforce the ideology of native-speakerism and perpetuates the superior status of NESTs in the teaching context.   In the next section, I move to discussing how these in-between identities reflect on the scoring rubrics Beth used to evaluate her students’ writing assignments and writing exams.  6.5 Teaching practice: Evaluation criteria   Throughout the semester, Beth used the same writing rubric to assess students’ writing assignments and exams. According to Beth, this writing rubric was developed based on one of her assignments from her graduate studies in the UK. It is a 4-point writing rubric with seven evaluation components. The complete rubric can be found in Appendix C. Table 6.1 shows the criterion for the highest score (4-Excellent). For the first two assignments, Beth guided the students through a reading of the rubrics and carefully explained every description. Each time, after giving the assignment to her students, Beth would remind them to read the rubrics before writing. Thus, the writing rubrics worked as the major discourse; Beth’s students were socialized into how English academic writing should be conducted. In     164 this section, I analyze how the discourses Beth used to construct her teacher writing identity during interviews are reified in the rubrics.   Table 6.1: Beth’s scoring rubrics    Points   Category 4- Excellent   (3-proficient, 2- needs improvement, 1-inadequate)  Introduction  Introductory paragraph begins with a statement that draws the reader’s attention. It also outlines what is going to be discussed in the essay.  Thesis Statement  Introductory paragraph contains a clear thesis of main idea with clear suggestions as to how the body of the essay will support this thesis. Body Body paragraphs provide clear evidence and ample examples to support thesis statement. Conclusion Closing paragraph contains a clear restatement of the main idea or thesis of the essay. It also provides a clear conclusion confirming author's position.  Organization  Writing shows high degree of attention to logic and reasoning of points. Unity clearly leads the reader to the conclusion and stirs thought regarding the topic. Sentence Structure All sentences are well constructed with very few minor mistakes. Complex sentence structures are used effectively. Grammar & Spelling Writing includes no or only very few minor errors in grammar and spelling.  First, the evaluation components of “introduction,” “body,” and “conclusion” indicate that Beth used the five-paragraph essay model to evaluate her students’ writing. According to Leki et al. (2008), the five-paragraph essay model advocates “[a] linear product which should be contracted through a logical step-by-step process of planning, outlining” (cited in Yamchi, 2015, p. 180) that present a form of logical thinking to the audience. Yamchi (2015) argues that the ideas of linearity and logical thinking embedded in the five-paragraph essay model     165 resonate with the deficiency theory used in contrastive rhetoric (Connor, 1996) to privilege English rhetoric over those of other languages. When it comes to English writing, there must be an introduction to “draw the reader’s attention” and a conclusion must restate the ideas mentioned in the body paragraphs. This model devalues the writing rhetoric of some writers from other cultures who might prefer to include body paragraphs before introducing the major points in order to make a more polite and sophisticated argument (e.g., Phan, 2011; Zhu, 2001). The scoring category “thesis statement” in the rubric is another example that promotes linearity and logical thinking, and that reinforces the superiority of English rhetoric.   Shi and Kubota (2007) further question the appropriateness of explicit instruction of the rhetorical conventions in the five-paragraph essay model. Their analysis of North American secondary school textbooks reveals a gap between the guiding rhetorical structure and the rhetorical patterns identified in actual reading materials in textbooks. They argue that this five-paragraph model and its implied value (e.g., being direct and logical) recommended in English academic writing instruction are ideologically constructed rather than reflecting objective reality. Therefore, they suggest that when someone says, “[English speakers] write and think directly,” (Shi & Kubota, 2007, p. 197), we, as writing teachers, need to guide students to ask “What [English speakers]? Writing what, and writing for what purposes?” (Casanave, 2004, p. 54), rather than asking them to follow the way “English speakers” write. Asking these questions would provide students, like those in Beth’s class, opportunities to examine and explore diverse styles other than the “preferred structure” (Shi & Kubota, 2007, p. 196), that are more purpose- and context-appropriate in cross-culture writing.      166  Beth took the word “logic” as the key resource in constructing her teacher identity in excerpts 6−8 (e.g., excerpt 8: line 8 “this is Chinese logic, Taiwanese logic”), and it appears in the description of the “organization” component in the rubric: writing shows a high degree of attention to logic and reasoning of points. It was unfortunate that I did not have the chance to ask Beth what she meant by “logic” in terms of organization. As Beth described in excerpts 7−8, “logic” refers to an ability to use the ways native English speakers speak and write. A reasonable interpretation is that she would use “English speakers say[ing] things this way” (excerpt 6, line 9) to evaluate the students’ organization of their essays.   The last two scoring criteria, sentence structure and grammar and spelling, are two rubrics frequently used to assess the writing of L2 writers. Here, they can also reflect Beth’s positioning as a better teacher than her native English-speaking colleagues because of her ample grammar knowledge and capacity to explain it to students (excerpts 1−3).  Since having good grammar knowledge affords Beth the confidence to position herself as superior to native English speakers in terms of teaching, it becomes an essential competence for her students to acquire. When students can write with “very few minor mistakes” and “complete sentence structures,” they can be good English writers and teachers, even better than native English speakers. It is worth noting that, although grammar knowledge can provide the strength and confidence for non-native English writers to construct a positive English writer/teacher identity, the description “very few minor mistakes” foregrounds the importance of native-like accuracy and proficiency. In other words, for one to become a better writer or writing teacher than native English speakers, one should write error-free and native-like English. By emphasizing the importance of native-like grammar knowledge in learning English writing, Beth is promoting the ideology of native-speakerism in the scoring     167 rubric. Since this rubric was used throughout the semester as the essential means of demonstrating what constitutes a good English-writing essay, it is fair to assume that students may have been socialized into this native-speakerism discourse in this writing class.   6.6 Summary   In this chapter, I first demonstrated how Beth positioned NNESTs in her department, including herself, as more qualified than NESTs to teach English writing, given that they had better knowledge and skills to explain English grammar to students. I then discussed how Beth later highlighted her native-like English proficiency gained during her studies in the UK to position herself in a more privileged status in teaching English writing and to distance herself from her Taiwanese colleagues, who could only teach grammar and sentence structure. I demonstrated that by switching between NNESTs and NESTs, Beth created a third space (Bhabha, 1994) in which she constructed her professional legitimacy with advantages from both groups. I argued that viewing Beth’s third space as purely celebratory space to construct empowering identity in opposition to native-speakerism discourse could neglect the power relations among NNESTs in regard to other social identities (e.g., educational backgrounds). This neglect could put other local NNESTs (e.g., locally educated Taiwanese English teachers) into a disadvantageous position in teaching English because of their more non-nativeness, and could thus perpetuate the ideology of native-speakerism in a given teaching context. Finally, I discussed how the discourse of native-speakerism used by Beth to construct her teacher identity was enacted in the scoring rubrics she used throughout the semester to evaluate her students’ essays. I argued that her rubrics promoted English     168 rhetoric and Standard English, which might have become the dominant discourse students acquired in learning English writing and seeing themselves as English writers.   In the next chapter, I move to discussing Sarah’s teaching of English writing in Taiwan and her writing teacher identity formation in relation to the discourse of native-speakerism.          169 CHAPTER 7: DEBUNKING NATIVE-SPEAKERISM:  CHINESE ENGLISH IN SARAH’S WRITING CLASS  7.1 Introduction   Sarah earned her master’s and PhD degrees from an American TESOL program in which both the teaching and research orientations emphasized critical issues related to language education. During her six years of study in the program, Sarah developed an awareness of issues such as the ideology of native-speakerism and the legitimacy of non-Anglophone varieties of English. As discussed in Chapter 5, Sarah’s graduate program training was the basis of her identity development as a multilingual writer, in which she refused to see native-like English norms as the only legitimate forms of speaking and writing English. These training experiences, Sarah told me, motivated her to write a dissertation on multilingual ESL students’ resistance to the ideology of native-speakerism in their English essays. As I discuss in this chapter, the influence of her training appeared to continue after she returned to Taiwan to teach English writing. I first discuss Sarah’s attitude, expressed during our interviews, toward teaching written English in Taiwan. I then demonstrate how Sarah refused to take English native speakers and their English norms as the only criteria by which to evaluate her students’ academic writing. Instead, she foregrounds her bilingual competence in Chinese and English as a valuable pedagogical skill that helps her understand and appreciate her students’ Chinese-infused English writing. I then discuss how the counter-discourse Sarah develops in constructing her teacher identity is reflected in her classroom interaction with her students.   Yet, like Beth, the same ideologies (e.g., native speaker superiority) are activated by Sarah to foreground her native-like proficiency, which she uses to position herself as a better     170 qualified teacher than locally trained English teachers. By so doing, she constructs her professional legitimacy and value in her university, where Western-trained PhDs are more valued for their native-like English competence resulting from several years of exposure to English-speaking countries.   7.2 Questioning native-speakerism   Sarah’s PhD training experiences and how they shaped her as an English writer and teacher are also reflected in her current teaching of English writing, as observed in several incidents throughout the course of this study. For example, as shown in excerpt 1, Sarah shows a higher degree of acceptance of students’ grammatical errors. She often emphasizes in class that content is the priority for evaluation and grammar is secondary, as long as students can make the meaning of sentences clear and understandable. The talk shown in excerpt 1 took place right after the mid-term exam. At the beginning of the class, Sarah told the students that she had finished grading the mid-term analytical essays they wrote on “A person you admire.” She encourages students to read some model essays written by their peers that she has put on the class website. While talking about these model essays, Sarah explains to students the component she deems the most important in English writing.  [Excerpt Sarah 1] Class observation  April 20 (00:03:45–00:04:33)   [Mandarin]  1 S:Ò]DĒūʁĊÁf_ÁǤ–ʐijsǧʥęŗXÐғȥ2 ū˾HſƠƹ˃Ɍ–ʐij˾HſĵɕÒ²ʁaɼ3 ]ȃǟʉǴò½ɖĊȻǠijȳɄFĚ~ďǟŵǣf4 ȷğPą́ʇijǤŗªʦˆƠȷ˪ƾŐɼsĬǤʴFˌ5 ýɼƩfʥ]ŗ¯ŝǟʉXŗ¯ŝ€ijXVŨP6 ˌŗƠ˃Ɍ€ijȳŏ    171  [English translation] 1 S: You don’t have to write 100% correct essays or sentences, but you have to  2      make people understand, precisely have people understand, what you are trying  3      to write, otherwise the communication is not meaningful. So in those model  4      essays, you will probably think, oh, how can that person get that high a score even  5      though there’re grammatical mistakes here and there. It is because his/her  6      sentences are mostly understandable.      In this talk, Sarah emphasizes that the key component that makes each of these exemplary essays a good piece of writing is not perfect grammar; it is that the essays have meanings and sentences mostly understandable to the reader (lines 5–6). In this class observation, although I did not observe whether Sarah’s ideas about good English writing were taken up by her students, I observed that Sarah had brought her beliefs about English language that she had gained from her graduate programs (i.e., meaningful communication does not require 100% correct English or Standard English) into her teaching practices in Taiwan.    The idea that good English writing is not synonymous with perfect English grammar is also observed in the following interview conversations (excerpts 2–3) where we talk about the problem of students’ translating from Mandarin into English when writing. In excerpt 2, I ask Sarah a question based on insights that I have gained from conversation with Beth, who stated that the major problem in her students’ writing was their lack of “logic.” At first, Sarah does not understand what I mean by “logic” (line 1). I then draw her student Zoë’s direct translation from Mandarin to English in her writing as one example (line 2–4). In my question, I define this Chinese–English translation to “Chinese-style” English (line 4) and categorize it as problematic English (lines 2, 7). Yet, Sarah appears to refuse to see this     172 Chinese-influenced English as problematic and states that she will try to use Mandarin, the shared language between her and her students, to understand what the student is trying to say.  [Excerpt Sarah 2] Interview  July 12  (00:08:46–00:11:42)  [Mandarin] 1 S<˻ʲŗŒaɼ2 R<˻ʲç˪ƾvɓɜÒŸŸˊ ZoeijýŵƱ˛3 ˆƠ˕º^sǴ˃Ɍ€²ˊ4 aɼɡǴŗvɓ^¹ij5 S<DZÒŗɶɳùtŰƻƻȷ½^˕ŪijƱ˛6 ŗ]ŗ7 R<ǟŵƱ˛VǣfʦšǤȷšĊȩ8 S<ç]mʐĒÒɶij˻ʲˆŗ¶ĦÒɶ½ò½ʦš½9 ^˕ŪijƱ˛ǟŵȿȃȷ½ijˆŗç]mȷ‡ɶ€Ŵ10 ǟʉXŗDŵƱ˛ˌŗaɼijçȷ‡š€ŴsĬtŰ11 ȷ]ȷɺūƒƽęĹŗřɥɺūƒƽˆŗç]ȷɒ12 €ŴɶÒǟʉ^˕Ūŗ]ɡijçȷɒµɶū›Ū¹ij13 ˻ʲt¹ąŏĈŗç]ȷɶš]ʿǴȷȑ€14 ŌÔijfʈçˌŗȷ‡š€ȵūĻɖij15 ŗaɼ16 R<ƄƄ17 S<¯ŝǒǨçRʿ^sǴɜ Zoeýŵçȷ›çʿƾɳù18 ‡˃Ɍ€ȵūˊaɼ19 R<Ƅ [English translation]  1 S: What do they mean by logic?   2 R: Logic is, I think, more like the problem when you talked about Zoë’s writing.  3      Like if it’s translated into Mandarin you would understand what she’s talking  4      about, right, more like Chinese style.  5 S: Oh, you mean the problem is they often translate Mandarin into English when  6      using the language, right. 7 R: Do you see this problem often happening with your students.  8 S:  I am not quite sure what you meant by logic, but if you ask whether students  9      have a problem translating Mandarin into English, the answer is yes they do.  10      But I won’t call it a problem − or anything like that. I will see if they can      173 11      improve their grammar or structure, but I won’t tell them that translating  12      from Mandarin into English is wrong. I would tell them that they should  13      think in English when writing, but I won’t give them a low mark if I don’t  14      understand what they are writing. I would try to understand what they are  15      trying to say [in writing]. 16 R: Um huh.  17 S: Because I also understand Mandarin, like in Zoë’s case, I would use the language  18      I know to understand what they are trying to say. 19 R: Um::    In her response to my question (lines 8–15), Sarah explicitly refuses to take up the negative evaluation I have just made about Chinese-style English. She first states that the students indeed often translate from Chinese to English when writing their papers (lines 8–9). When it happens, “I won’t call it a problem −” (line 10) and “I won’t tell them that translating from Mandarin into English is wrong,” (lines 11–12). She further states that when she does not understand students’ writing owing to unclear meanings caused by translation, she might try to help students to clarify their writing by polishing grammar or essay structure (lines 11) or by encouraging them to “think in English” (lines 11–13). However, she won’t give a low mark for students’ unclear writing (lines 13–14) simply because they have engaged in direct translation. Up to this point, Sarah once again emphasizes that having meanings clearly conveyed is more important than using correct grammar in writing. Moreover, by refusing to see students’ English with Chinese features as something problematic, Sarah shows her positive attitude toward what I call ‘Chinese-style English’ such as that which Zoë writes (line 4). In lines 17 and 18, Sarah even makes relevant her Mandarin speaker identity “because I also understand Mandarin,” (line 17); here she invokes a bilingual identity, which enables her to understand her students’ hybrid English. That is, given this bilingual competence, Sarah can follow the content in which students use Chinese     174 English to convey their thoughts. In this conversation, Sarah not only shows her acceptance of students’ Chinese English in writing, but also constructs her bilingual competence as a professional advantage to understand this form of English.   In excerpt 3, Sarah provides a more specific example of the Chinese-influenced English in students’ writing we have just talked about as she tells me a story about a student’s direct translation from Chinese to English: “ǟǣəʄŌʏ”02“this movie is blind” (meaning ridiculous in English). In this conversation, Sarah again highlights the ability to read students’ Chinese English as an instructional advantage.   [Excerpt Sarah 3] Interview  July 12 (00:11:08–00:11:41)  [Mandarin]  1 S<ɡç_ł˸çijDŵªĀɶ€RŗȑʦššFDǣijəʄ2 ˾€Ŵ‡ʁ€ŴijȴȵȃŎĈ^Dŵʦšʁijŗ3 this movie is blindȃŎýŵÃƃȵFŌQ4 ɶǟŵʦšĊĔ²ɶaɼaɼ‰Ƭ blindŎą€5 ÆZǴǏżŹąŗɶǟǣəʄŌʏ6 R<(Ƙ)7 S<ȃŎçɶlľǟŵÒRƠǏij‚ąƖijŌɾžƘ8 R<Ƙ9 S<ȿȃǟŵm over€ǴŗȵFŌQǴŗ]ĵɕǟŵʦš10 ĊĔ²ˊaɼŎąĵɕ€ɶijŗŹąŗǟǣəʄ11 Ōʏ12 R<ƘǟŵȵɜKŌ]ʴĵɕ›Ūs‡ˊŌʏ13 S<çɶlľǟŵmɾž [English translation] 1 S: Right, one of my colleagues once told me that he had students watch a movie  2      and asked them to write a reflection paper on that. One of the students wrote  3     “This movie is blind,” then the teacher spent a long time thinking about what the     4      student was trying to say, what was meant by “blind.” Then she guessed it,  5      oh, it means hen xia.     175 6 R: (Laughs) 7 S: Then I said, my god, you can guess it right, you are good. (laughs) 8 R: (Laughs) 9 S: Of course this is tai over [too over]. She spent lots of time thinking about  10      what the student was trying to say, but finally realized it meant this movie was 11      hen xia. 12 R: (Laughs) Very creative to find an English word for xia. 13 S: My god, this is really awesome (laughs)     This story is from a conversation between Sarah and her colleague. Once this colleague had her students watch a movie and later asked them to write a reflection paper in English about the movie. “This movie is blind,” (lines 3) was the phrase the student used in writing to describe the movie. Sarah’s colleague at first could not understand what the student meant by a “blind” movie. After pondering for a long time, she figured out that “blind” meant hen xia or, a popular idiom used among young people in Taiwan to describe something as being clueless or being out of blue (line 5). Sarah goes on to give a compliment to her colleague: “I said, my god, you can guess it right, you are good” (line 7). This compliment indicates that Sarah sees this teacher’s ability and endeavour to understand her student’s phrase in a positive light.  Interestingly, in her next turn in line 9, Sarah herself uses the Chinese–English phrase tai over to describe her stance toward this “this movie is blind” phrase. Tai over or   over, literally means “too over,” another popular Chinese English phrase used among young Taiwanese people to describe things as being “over the top” or “outrageous.” By using tai over, Sarah suggests that the student’s use of this “movie being blind” phrase is too blurry, taking her colleague a long time to finally figure out the meaning (lines 9–10). Responding to Sarah’s somewhat negative evaluation of the student’s Chinese English, I first laugh (line 12) and then give a compliment, “very creative to find an English word for xia” (line 12), to the     176 student’s use of Chinese English. With my positive stance toward the student’s English phrase, Sarah then upgrades her colleague’s capacity to understand students’ Chinese English from “you are good” (line 7) to “this is really awesome” (line 13). This compliment upgrade confirms Sarah’s view of her colleague’s ability to figure out the meanings of “This movie is blind” as an advantage for teaching. To this point, Sarah has constructed not only herself but also her Taiwanese colleagues as bearing pedagogical strength given their bilingual competence to appreciate and understand students’ Chinese–English writing.   Similar to the above excerpt that illustrates how the Chinese–English bilingual competence is taken by Sarah to construct professional strength among Taiwanese teachers, excerpt 4 demonstrates how Sarah foregrounds this strength to appreciate students’ Chinese English to construct her