1 INTRODUCTION

In L2 writing education, the topic of L2 writing teachers, as having pivotal roles in nurturing and shaping students' L2 writing abilities across diverse educational and social contexts, has received proliferating research attention over the past decades (Nguyen, 2019; Seloni, & Lee, 2019; Yu, 2021). Characterized by playing multiple roles as instructor, promoter, reader, editor, and evaluator (Reid, 1993), L2 writing teachers in conjunction with the complex landscape of L2 writing teaching and learning have triggered in-depth investigations of L2 teachers' beliefs, identities, instructional methods, feedback practices, assessment approaches, and professional developments (Hyland & Hyland, 2019; Lee & Yuan, 2021; Mak & Wong, 2018; Racelis & Matsuda, 2014). In fact, the bulk of studies have witnessed the dynamic shifts of L2 writing teachers in the trend of educational development. Traditionally perceived as language instructors focusing on the production of high-quality and error-free L2 written texts (Ferris et al., 2011; Lee, 2003), L2 writing teachers nowadays possess complex and multifaceted identities as the results of their constant interactions with instructional contexts, students, and other stakeholders (Seloni & Lee, 2019). At the core of the L2 writing teachers' identity lie their beliefs and perspectives regarding L2 writing instructions. These convictions shape their pedagogical approaches, dictating how L2 writing teachers navigate potential challenges in teaching L2 writing (Allen & Paesani, 2020; Clark-Gareca & Gui, 2019; Yu et al., 2020).

Apart from existing studies that explore “what” in L2 writing teachers (such as their roles, identities, and beliefs), there has been substantial attention paid to “how” L2 writing teachers instruct, provide feedback, assess, and develop professional expertise. In educational settings, L2 writing teachers implement a diverse array of pedagogical approaches, ranging from prevalent teaching methods with product-, process-, and genre-orientation to innovative ones such as self-regulated strategy instruction (Teng, 2019), production-oriented approach (Wen, 2018), and digital multimodal composing (Hafner, 2015; Jiang et al., 2022). The rich and complex teaching landscape has likewise been instantiated as summative and formative feedback and assessment in L2 writing classes, where teachers face challenges in navigating sociocultural factors, institutional constraints, and individual needs (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994; Lee, 2008, 2017). Meanwhile, despite the insufficiency in the number, some research studies started to focus on L2 writing teachers' education and professional development. As synthesized by Lee and Yuan (2021), L2 writing teachers need to continually develop their expertise through professional learning opportunities, proactive agency, reflective practices, and innovative leadership. Such ongoing pursuits of self-improvement reflect a passion for teaching and a commitment to supporting their students in L2 writing.

Despite the accumulated studies in the investigation of L2 writing teachers, to the best of my knowledge, nearly nonexistent studies have provided a holistic and comprehensive picture of L2 writing teachers in terms of their unique identities and complex experiences of teaching and learning to teach (Hirvela & Belcher, 2007; Lee, 2010). Lee (2024) introduced a comprehensive, three-dimensional reflective framework designed for the training of L2 writing teachers. The proposed framework tackles the fundamental questions surrounding writing instruction: the reasons behind teaching writing (‘why’), the methodologies employed (‘how’), and the content covered (‘what’). Acting as a beneficial heuristic and reflective instrument, it is intended to direct the practical approaches of writing instructors.

To further develop our understanding of L2 writing teachers, this article draws on published literature on L2 writing teachers in the field. It reports the main discourses by addressing ten key questions related to L2 writing teachers' roles, beliefs and perspectives, identities, writing instruction, feedback provision, assessment, educational background, and expertise development. These ten questions respond to the “what” in L2 writing teachers (such as roles, identity, and beliefs), and the “how” and “why” of L2 writing teachers including how they instruct, provide feedback, assess, and develop professional expertise. Given that the focus of this paper is to present a comprehensive view of L2 writing teachers, I utilized the “who,” “what,” and “how” questions as a framework to describe L2 writing teachers in research (i.e., their roles, identities, and beliefs) and the ways in which they carry out educational activities (i.e., instruction, feedback, assessment, and professional development). Regarding the selection criteria for the reviewed literature, I initially searched for keywords corresponding to each question in the Web of Science. For instance, for the question “What are the identities of L2 writing teachers?”, keywords such as “identity” and “L2/EFL writing teachers/tutors/instructors” were used. The search results varied across the ten questions. Specifically, for “how” questions pertaining to teachers' pedagogical practices in L2 writing classes (i.e., instruction, feedback, and assessment), a large number of studies were retrieved. Consequently, I reviewed their titles and abstracts to exclude articles that were not relevant to the specific question. Because this paper is not intended as a systematic review that would encompass every empirical study on a given topic, the subsequent step involved summarizing the selected studies based on their research objectives and key findings. Additionally, categories of pedagogical approaches proposed by other scholars, related to instruction, feedback, or assessment, also offered valuable insights.

2 WHO ARE L2 WRITING TEACHERS? WHY ARE L2 WRITING TEACHERS UNIQUE?

L2 writing teachers are teachers, tutors, instructors, or lecturers who teach writing to L2 students, and they could be either native or non-native speakers of the target L2. L2 writing teachers do not represent any homogeneous professional group as they teach L2 writing across various educational and social contexts (Zheng et al., 2022). An early study by Reid (1993) summarized that ESL writing teachers had multiple roles, including “coach, judge, facilitator, evaluator, interested reader, and copy editor” (p. 217). Raimes (1985) found that L2 writing teachers mainly had textual concerns about students' L2 writing, which triggered them to concentrate on students' grammatical and lexical accuracy and resources situated in the L2 writing contexts. L2 writing teachers had to pay more attention to the “strategic, rhetorical, and linguistic concerns, including planning, transcribing and reviewing students' writing” (Silva, 1993, p. 671). Thus, earlier studies viewed L2 writing teachers as those who mainly took responsibility for students to produce quality L2 writing texts or products.

However, such a conventional view of L2 writing teachers was regarded as inadequate from the intersectional perspective between teacher education and L2 writing scholarship (Hirvela & Belcher, 2007). In this vein, it is crucial to understand the complex dynamics of L2 writing teaching and learning, especially to explore the sustainability and effectiveness of teachers' L2 writing instructions, pedagogies, materials, and resources available for teachers' unique teaching contexts, which are dominant but not limited to ESL ones (Casanave, 2009; Seloni & Lee, 2019).

One of the unique characteristics underlying L2 writing teachers is their dual identities as both language teachers and writing teachers. Not simply serving as general language teachers to pay great attention to students' linguistic knowledge, L2 writing teachers also underscore and incorporate the fundamental L2 writing concepts of argument, audience, and process in their instructions and tasks (Kanno & Stuart, 2011; Racelis & Matsuda, 2014). Through the complex and dynamic negotiation of language teacher and writing teacher identities, L2 writing teachers transcend their overconcerns on grammar and familiarize their students with the L2 writing process, genre, and underlying cultural traits (Lee, 2013). Meanwhile, their positions as instructors of discipline-specific writing courses likewise highlight L2 writing teachers' unique responsibilities to cater to the diverse needs of students with different educational and cultural backgrounds (Racelis & Matsuda, 2014).

3 WHAT ARE L2 WRITING TEACHERS' IDENTITIES?

L2 writing teachers' identities have been categorized as part of teacher cognition. It refers to individual teachers' understandings of who an L2 writing teacher is, how he/she positions himself/herself as the writing teacher, and how he/she conceptualizes the teacher's role situated in the context (Zheng et al., 2022). It has been argued that L2 writing teachers have distinct identities that distinguish them from other teachers, particularly foreign language teachers (Lee, 2013; Racelis & Matsuda, 2015; You, 2017). Their identities have been studied from a sociocultural perspective to reveal their identity development in relation to the social, cultural, and historical contexts (Lee, 2010; You, 2017) and their identities or stances embedded in feedback practices toward students' writing (Cho, 2019).

L2 writing teachers have dynamic and multifaceted teacher identities established by their discourse, practice, and pedagogical activities. Lee (2010) claimed that empowered L2 writing teachers could view writing as a broader term than merely grammar and vocabulary. Instead, they could focus on the process of writing and involve students in addressing issues such as genre, purpose, audience, and context (p. 154). Through participating in the writing teacher education program, Hong Kong secondary EFL teachers adopted featured discourses about English writing and writing instruction that empowered them to “change from a language teacher to a writing teacher, place a stronger emphasis on the student role in writing, and implement new pedagogical tasks in the writing classroom” (Lee, 2013, p. 342). Thus, L2 writing teachers could (re)shape their writing teacher identities by attending teacher education programs and conducting individual reflections as active agents in their teaching and learning processes (Zheng et al., 2022).

Furthermore, the impact of historical context tensions (You, 2017) and an activity system of providing feedback to students (Cho, 2019) is critical for developing L2 writing teacher identities. You (2017) adopted a historical perspective to argue that L2 writing teachers' monolingual assumptions should be challenged as historical knowledge could benefit writing teachers in constructing a multilingual and transnational identity via their pedagogical activities. Cho (2019) uncovered that graduate students felt insecure as writing tutors when they utilized their perspectives as both teachers and students to provide writing feedback at writing centers. The participants took on various identities that they generated from their L2 learning and teaching experiences, including L2 learner, English teacher, graduate student, writing tutor, and even L2 researcher, in order to figure out what a qualified writing tutor should do to provide feedback. As a result, researchers should delve into the learning and teaching experiences and contexts of L2 writing teachers to understand how their writing teacher identities were cognitively and socially constructed and developed through interactions between individuals and contexts (Seloni & Lee, 2019).

4 WHAT ARE L2 WRITING TEACHERS' BELIEFS AND PERSPECTIVES OF TEACHING WRITING?

L2 writing teachers held particular attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions of teaching writing, including implementing certain teaching approaches or practices in and outside writing classrooms and how to effectively respond to students' writing, especially linguistic error corrections (Yu et al., 2020; Zheng et al., 2022). Firstly, L2 writing instructional approaches entrenched themselves in the second language teaching and learning research area, which guided extant studies to investigate how certain instructional approaches could be effective in L2 contexts (Ferris & Hedgcock, 2006; Matsuda, 2013). Thus, empirical studies have predominantly explored how L2 writing teachers perceive various writing instruction approaches across different teaching contexts. For instance, L2 writing teachers indicated difficulties implementing certain instructional tools (e.g., corpus-assisted pedagogy) (Chen et al., 2019). Meanwhile, they encountered conceptual challenges of implementing the genre approach and cultural differences of choosing the instructional approach according to their various understandings of L2 writing as well as their divergent cultural and learning experiences (Allen & Paesani, 2020; Clark-Gareca & Gui, 2019).

Another string of studies has mainly focused on L2 writing teachers' attitudes and beliefs on how to respond to students' written texts (Ferris et al., 2011; Junqueira & Payant, 2015; Lee, 2003). As synthesized by Zheng et al. (2022), these studies mainly investigated how L2 writing teachers perceive students' linguistic errors and how they view error correction or written corrective feedback (WCF). Inconsistency in teachers' beliefs about WCF existed as some teachers viewed their endeavors as unworthy (Lee, 2003), while others firmly believed that WCF has effectiveness on the content and organization of writing (Junqueira & Payant, 2015), and WCF could be more useful for teachers' individual assistance to meet students' needs (Ferris et al., 2011).

Moreover, Yu et al. (2020) uncovered that though novice writing teachers had internal coherence between their individual beliefs and practices, they experienced external constraints within their educational contexts, which led to the dissonances in their beliefs and practices of EFL writing teaching. Therefore, how the complex interactions among beliefs, practices, and contexts could enable L2 writing teachers to develop their beliefs and practices or relationships situated in their contexts remained underexplored (Junqueira & Payant, 2015; Lee, 2009; Zheng et al., 2022).

5 HOW DO L2 WRITING TEACHERS TEACH WRITING?

The approaches to teaching writing, which include product-, process-, and genre-oriented methods, are perceived as prevalent in L2 contexts. They have been adaptively implemented under the influence of several factors, including contextual factors (Bhowmik & Kim, 2022; Kiss & Mizusawa, 2018; Nguyen, 2019), student needs (Myskow & Gordon, 2010; Naghdipour, 2016), and individual differences (Eckstein, 2013; Niu et al., 2018).

As regards contextual factors, the practices of teaching L2 writing vary in terms of the educational stage and cultural traits. At the university level, process- and genre-based writing instructions are globally popular for their effectiveness in enhancing L2 writing (Nordin, 2017), with the former targeting multiple stages in the complex writing process (Graham & Sandmel, 2011) and the latter highlighting linguistic features and grammatical structures specific to certain genres (Hyland, 2007). Some modifications for the two influential approaches as well as innovative methods operate to better suit L2 tertiary teaching environments, such as a systemic functional linguistics (SFL)-informed genre approach (Shi & Baker, 2022), a production-oriented approach (Wen, 2018), critical language awareness pedagogies (Britton & Leonard, 2020), and so forth. In K-12 contexts, apart from extensively used “SFL-oriented and genre-based activities” (Bhowmik & Kim, 2022, p. 183), considering the cognitive constraints and low language proficiency of younger English learners with tendency to be demotivated to write (Bui & Luo, 2021; Kim & Seo, 2012), L2 writing teachers are suggested to adopt more engaging writing methods, such as process-genre pedagogy (Lee & Wong, 2014), a principled approach to L1 (De la Fuente & Goldenberg, 2022), and self-regulated strategy instruction (Teng, 2019). It is noteworthy that teaching practices for L2 writing sometimes compromise with realistic concerns in Asian K-12 contexts. Hindrances including an exam-oriented education system, rigid school policy and teaching syllabus, limited time, and heavy workload lead to L2 teachers' adoption of product-based pedagogy in China (Yu et al., 2020, 2022), resonating with the excessive use of test-centered EFL writing practices in Singapore (Kiss & Mizusawa, 2018).

Cultural trait acts as the other contextual factor impacting teachers' implementation of L2 writing instructions (Nguyen, 2019). For example, situated in local cultural contexts, teachers in Hong Kong adopted process-oriented writing instruction with innovative attempts to mediate constraints of Chinese cultural traditions regarding group harmony, teacher authority, and face-saving (Tsui & Ng, 2010). Because prevalent writing pedagogical approaches derived from Western culture might not fit local tradition, there is a necessity to align pedagogic activities with “indigenous and non-Western traditions” (Rabbi, 2023, p. 338). Similarly, one recent study by Canagarajah (2023) reported that under the predominant influence of L1 academic writing instructions in the Global North, which values clarity and logic, pedagogical models for L2 writing in the Global South might lose their distinct features. In this sense, creations of L2 writing pedagogical strategies, including translanguaging approaches (Kubota, 2022) and ecological writing pedagogy (Canagarajah, 2023), highlight the possibilities of implementing methods rooted in local culture for successful teaching practices.

L2 teachers utilize different approaches and methods in L2 writing classes to cater to student needs. Specifically, teachers prefer to adopt a product-oriented writing approach with focuses on error-free drafts (McGarrell & Verbeem, 2007), especially when students need to complete time-limited writing in high-stakes exams (Naghdipour, 2016; Yu et al., 2022). Facing student demands to enhance their academic writing ability, L2 teachers might adopt genre-based writing instructions (Allen & Paesani, 2022), writing approaches for specific disciplines (Arnbjörnsdóttir & Prinz, 2017), and other innovative methods. Instructional methods that emphasize the dynamic development of student writing are also influential in promoting L2 writing competence, such as formative assessment and portfolio approach (Lam, 2015). As for practical purposes, genre-oriented pedagogical approaches have been commonly used in L2 writing practices for university applications (Myskow & Gordon, 2010), job hunting (Naghdipour, 2021), and specific demands like writing patient reports (Farooqui et al., 2022) and technical reports (Rahman, 2011).

Successful L2 writing instructions also focus on individual differences. For students with lower language proficiency, the integration of L1 is found to be effective in L2 writing pedagogical practices (De la Fuente & Goldenberg, 2022), as L1 can cognitively and linguistically release the burden of exposure to L2 (Cummins, 2007). Despite the varying mediation, process-oriented methods (Cumming & Riazi, 2000; Kim & Paek, 2020), writing strategy instructions (De Silva & Graham, 2015), and classroom-based writing conferences (Eckstein, 2013) all contribute to L2 writing improvement among learners with different language proficiency. Another effective practice is proficiency pairings in collaborative writing, where high–low pairs might benefit from meaning negotiation, expert–novice interaction, and scaffolding in the L2 writing process (Niu et al., 2018). In addition, learners are motivated and engaged in different degrees for L2 writing (Kormos, 2012), and thus, it has been found feasible to add game-based elements for enjoyment and more positive motivation (Allen et al., 2014).

Technology has been widely implemented in L2 writing classes. Digital multimodal composing (DMC), a textual practice that involves the use of digital tools to interweave words with multiple semiotic modes such as image and soundtrack (Hafner, 2015; Jiang, 2018), has received much attention for its potential to interact with different writing instructions, such as genre-based (Jiang et al., 2022) and process-oriented models (Hafner & Ho, 2020). Other digital genres including blogging and tweeting also emerge along with the use of digital tools (Elola & Oskoz, 2017), broadening pedagogical options for L2 writing practices. Besides, technologies integrated into the process approach to L2 writing are found beneficial, including process-tracing technologies like keystroke logging and eye-tracking (Ranalli & Chukharev-Hudilainen, 2019), Google Drive (Slavkov, 2015), Twitter (Bonnah & Donnellan, 2017), and Wiki (Kessler, 2009). Technologies also function to improve L2 written products in terms of linguistic forms, stylistic features, and content, like Grammarly (Barrot, 2023), corpora (Schmidt, 2023), and Google Translate (Alrajhi, 2023).

In the most recent years, there has been a significant expansion in Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) technologies, exemplified by Open AI's ChatGPT, which have found extensive applications across various domains, notably in writing education. The advent of ChatGPT poses both hurdles and prospects for L2 writing teachers, compelling them to reassess and adjust their teaching methodologies (Barrot, 2023). L2 writing teachers have the opportunity to investigate diverse strategies for incorporating ChatGPT into the various stages of the writing process—before, during, and after writing—as well as into their overall pedagogical approaches. Moreover, it is imperative for writing teachers to direct students in the effective utilization of ChatGPT and other AI tools to support their writing endeavors and to augment students' AI literacy, thereby enhancing their writing capabilities (Xu & Tan, 2024).

6 HOW DO L2 WRITING TEACHERS GIVE FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING?

There has been a bulk of studies on L2 writing teachers' beliefs and practices in giving feedback on student writing. Teacher feedback on writing can be defined as “a constructive judgement of a text: an evaluation that points toward the student's future writing and the development of his or her writing processes” (Hyland & Hyland, 2019, p. 1).

In the traditional product-oriented approach to writing, teachers provide feedback on discourse level form (e.g., cohesion, essay structure, and topic development), and their feedback mainly includes holistic scores, grades, or various types of WCF, such as direct/indirect WCF and focused/unfocused WCF (Ellis, 2010; Lee, 2008). This is because writing was primarily treated as a product, and teachers tended to see themselves as language teachers rather than writing instructors (Zamel, 1985). In the process approaches and genre-oriented approach to writing, teacher feedback could take into account the audience, writing purposes, and the writer's processes and focus on the development of meaningful content with appropriate genre structures, and they do not prioritize language accuracy over context and texts at the discourse level (Goldstein, 2004; Lee, 2017). Furthermore, teachers can also adopt innovative feedback strategies, such as focused WCF and peer and self-feedback, which encourage students to monitor, regulate, and review their own writing (Diab, 2016). There are also multiple modes of feedback delivery (e.g., audio, video, written, electronic, and oral) that are available to both teachers and students as feedback providers in L2 writing contexts. Writing teachers can also use AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) to help provide feedback on student writing and improve their own feedback practices.

Feedback studies focusing on teachers have explored teachers' beliefs and practices (Ellis, 2010; Junqueira & Payant, 2015; Lee, 2008). In general, giving feedback is considered as a burdensome and unrewarding task that constitutes great challenges (Goldstein, 2004). Particularly, studies have examined the ways teachers struggle with the feedback-giving experience and cope with the difficulties and challenges derived both from sociocultural factors such as heavy workloads, student needs, and school policies (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994), and from individual factors like lack of knowledge and training and teachers' philosophy of writing (Lee, 2008). For instance, Lee (2008) proclaimed in an early study that teachers lack training in feedback, and teachers learned to give feedback primarily by apprenticeship of observation and institutionally derived beliefs. Lee (2011) further mentioned that while teachers may be cognitively aware of the need for a feedback revolution, there are obstacles that get in the way of innovation. For instance, in the Chinese EFL context, the examination-oriented educational system, and the deeply entrenched teacher-driven culture, teachers tend to give feedback on single-draft writing, focusing on exams as the final goal and relying on WCF (Yang & Gao, 2013).

However, giving feedback on student writing could also provide useful learning opportunities for teachers. In a recent study conducted by Yu (2021), it was confirmed that the majority of teachers believed that giving feedback could enable them to improve as professional writing teachers, academic writers, and teacher researchers in the Chinese EFL context, leading to changes in the ways that L2 writing teachers use their knowledge, orientations, and skills related to writing instruction (Delante, 2017; Garner & Kaplan, 2019). In terms of the nature and manners of giving feedback, it is recommended that teachers give clear, concrete, and text-specific comments, including both praise and constructive criticism (Goldstein, 2004; Yu et al., 2021), but more importantly do so through engaging with students and building relationships with them, giving helpful intervention to avoid appropriation.

7 HOW DO L2 WRITING TEACHERS ASSESS STUDENT WRITING?

Writing assessment operates as a powerful tool for L2 teachers to make inferences on what students have learned in L2 writing (Lee, 2016; Wang et al., 2020). Traditionally, classroom writing assessment in L2 contexts is dominated by assessment of learning (AoL), with commonly adopted topic-given writing tasks to make summative judgments regarding students' L2 writing performances (Crusan, 2010; Parr, 2013). In the assessment process, raters, usually teachers themselves, refer to subcriteria in rubrics or rating scales for the linguistic dimension (e.g., complexity, accuracy, and fluency, see Barkaoui, 2010) and the functional dimension (e.g., cohesion and coherence, task response, and content, see Kuiken & Vedder, 2017) of L2 writing abilities. Findings indicated that summative assessment practices, which are closely associated with language policy (Cook et al., 2021), curriculum (Shan et al., 2023), teaching beliefs (Crusan et al., 2016; Edwards, 2020), and teachers' disciplinary background (Eckstein et al., 2018), impact students' responding behaviors to L2 writing and consequently their learning gains (Zheng & Xu, 2023). For example, the primary focus on grammatical accuracy in AoL drives L2 learners to avoid producing complex structures with fewer errors (Neumann, 2014), limiting their opportunities to learn from mistakes. Other negative influences, including students' overconcerns on assessment results (Lipnevich & Smith, 2009) as well as demotivation and frustration (Busse, 2013), also emerge in educational settings oriented by AoL.

Assessment for learning (AfL) shifts the focus from making summative judgments through scores to providing formative writing assessment in the form of descriptive comments to promote student learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Emphasizing the process of learning, teaching practices integrated with AfL in L2 writing classrooms were found effective in enhancing student engagement and writing performances (Lee, 2011a), including instructional scaffolding on assessment criteria (Lee & Coniam, 2013), implementing process-oriented writing pedagogy with multiple drafts (Lam, 2015; Mak & Lee, 2014), engaging students in self- or peer assessment activities (Hsia et al., 2016), and providing technology-supported formative assessing comments (Zhang & Hyland, 2018). Among different learning-oriented assessments, dynamic assessment in L2 writing as “dialectical integrations of assessment and instruction” (Lantolf & Poehner, 2004, p. 53) empowers teachers to provide mediated assistance for students' emerging abilities in the developmental context of assessment (Hadidi, 2023), resonating with the key concerns of AfL on students' L2 writing process and learning (Mak & Wong, 2018). Particularly noteworthy is that despite the potential benefits of AfL strategies, teachers' belief-practice discrepancies on learner-centered assessment oftentimes occur in L2 writing classrooms, partly attributed to teachers' lack of professional assessment training, heavy workload, and conflict with AoL-related requirements in curricula (Deneen et al., 2019; Lam, 2019).

Recently, assessment as learning (AaL) has started to be implemented as an alternative tool for teachers to promote their students' L2 writing development. Different from AfL, which highlights interactivity, pedagogy, and “the essence of community of practice” (Lam, 2020, p. 2), AaL is more private and individualistic, advocating learners' proactivity in regulating their learning with self-assessment and self-reflection (Lee & Mak, 2014). Based on the identification of AaL features like goal setting, progress mentoring, and gap addressing (Lee, 2016), writing portfolios are considered a typical AaL method. In this method, students set rubric-based objectives, self-assess their L2 writing performance, record their progress and representative achievements, and reflect on their learning process (Hamp-Lyons & Con, 2000; Lam, 2018). In a similar vein, self-assessment also promotes students' self-regulated learning in L2 writing (Fathi & Shirazizadeh, 2019; Vasu et al., 2022). In addition, findings indicated that AaL-oriented instruction contributes to students' writing quality and skills (Lee et al., 2019; Xiang et al., 2022), feedback literacy on evaluative judgment (Cowan, 2010; Tai et al., 2018), and sense of ownership as assessors and writers (Xiang et al., 2022).

8 HOW ARE L2 WRITING TEACHERS EDUCATED TO TEACH WRITING?

L2 writing teacher education equips pre- or in-service teachers with professional knowledge for their L2 writing instructions in real classrooms (Bai, 2014; Hirvela, 2019). Such programs are developed in accordance with different L2 teaching contexts (see Seloni & Lee, 2019). For example, in Singapore where English is L2 or EFL for most citizens, the writing component of English teacher training programs (i.e., Postgraduate Diploma in Education, PGDE) involves practices and theoretical underpinnings of product, process, genre-based, and sociocognitive approaches, placing particular emphases on writing literacy skills and communicative language writing (McCarthey, 2019; Zhang, 2016). Other regions like Hong Kong also develop similar education programs to prepare English teachers for major teaching methodologies (Lee, 2010), in which the instructions on writing strategies and skills are sometimes integrated with other language literacies (e.g., grammar, vocabulary, and reading) as they share inseparable and interrelated nature of language use (Zhou, 2009). Furthermore, teaching practicum for pre-service teachers usually follows the completion of on-campus training, wherein they could observe senior teachers and teach L2 writing under the supervision of school mentors (Xie & Cui, 2021), integrating theoretical knowledge and teaching practice (Allen & Wright, 2014).

Writing teacher education together with workshops and seminars could enhance L2 writing teachers' pedagogical practices as well as reshape their beliefs and perceptions (Lee, 2011b, 2013; Tsui, 2011). For example, Teng's (2016) study found that professional training impacted L2 teachers' practices and understanding of teaching writing, prepared them to implement different writing pedagogies, and improved their self-awareness to create student-centered and not teacher-dominant classrooms. Similarly, other relevant research also reveals multiple benefits of educating L2 writing instructors, such as critical thinking on traditional teaching approaches and strategies (Gebhard et al., 2013; Lee, 2010), theoretical and conceptual knowledge accumulation (Worden, 2019), adoption of pedagogical innovations (Fogal, 2017), development of teacher agency (Christiansen et al., 2018), digital literacy on teaching writing and giving feedback (Canals & Al-Rawashdeh, 2019), and so forth. Moreover, the instructional effects of teacher education are long-lasting. Even years after L2 writing pedagogical training, teachers’ shifted understandings and beliefs about teaching L2 writing continue to influence their practices in localized teaching contexts to varying degrees (Yu et al., 2022).

L2 writing teacher education, though beneficial to writing instructors' professional growth, encounters challenges to maximize its instructional effects. In fact, teacher education programs specific to writing instructions are relatively underdeveloped in some L2 contexts (Lee, 2008, 2011; Zhang, 2016). Subsumed into general courses on L2 teaching, sessions on teaching writing are oftentimes insufficient in terms of teaching hours and pedagogical content (Lee, 2010), mostly focusing on vocabulary and grammar in L2 writing instruction and assessment (Hinkel, 2003; Lee, 2013). Without access to professional development training, L2 writing teachers possibly refer to their L1 or L2 writing experiences, past learning experiences, and available materials and approaches when instructing students in class (Karaca & Uysal, 2023). Additionally, teachers' actual practices of teaching L2 writing in classrooms might be misaligned with what they have learned in professional training owing to their incapability of contextualizing learned pedagogy into local classrooms (Junqueira & Payant, 2015; Yu et al., 2020).

9 HOW DO L2 WRITING TEACHERS DEVELOP THEIR EXPERTISE?

In the review of language teacher education research and L2 writing research, L2 writing teacher expertise could be conceived as a cognitive process and a socially situated activity (Badger & White, 2000; Lo & Hyland, 2007). Lee and Yuan (2021) demonstrated that teacher expertise is operationalized into professional knowledge, student-centered teaching, self-agency and reflective ability, innovation leadership, passion, and ongoing learning. This shifts the conceptualization of teacher expertise from a static condition contrary to inexperience or novice to a dynamic state susceptible to cognitive engagements, social interactions, and affective experiences (Lee & Yuan, 2021; Richards, 2008; Tsui, 2009).

The aforementioned six key components of teacher expertise (Lee & Yuan, 2021) provide a feasible path to develop expertise for L2 writing teachers. Firstly, L2 teachers acquire professional knowledge of L2 writing and how to teach L2 writing through professional development activities (Seloni & Lee, 2019; Tsui, 2011). Specifically, Worden (2019) found the effectiveness of a designed project in enhancing L2 writing teachers' content knowledge on genre-oriented pedagogy, echoing the suggestion by Hyland (2007) that L2 writing instructional training informed by genre contributes to teaching reflection and supportive classroom creation. Apart from pedagogical content knowledge, the acquisition of procedural skills and conceptual knowledge (Hedgcock & Lee, 2017) is also promotive to teachers' professional growth. Secondly, the development of expertise requires L2 writing teachers to learn and adopt student-centered pedagogy to enhance student engagement and motivation (Lee & Yuan, 2021). In comparison to teacher-dominant approaches, student-centered education is more demanding as teachers need to consider students' uniqueness and progress and empower them in the teaching process (Starkey, 2019). Many studies have demonstrated L2 writing teachers' cognitive improvement and practical knowledge reinforcement after their efforts to practicalize knowledge on centralizing students in L2 classrooms (Chen, 2023; Teng, 2016).

Thirdly, teacher expertise also involves teacher agency and reflective ability. Defined as “the socioculturally mediated capacity to act” (Ahearn, 2001, p. 112), teacher agency regulates teaching practices in specific environments and is found closely associated with reflective teaching practices and their awareness of professional development (Christiansen et al., 2018). Because critical reflection also plays a pivotal role in L2 writing teacher development, the enhancement of teacher agency and reflective ability is necessary in ways of mutual teaching communities (Christiansen et al., 2018) and synchronous written interactions (Mumford & Dikilitaş, 2020). Fourthly, expert L2 writing teachers know how to implement innovative writing strategies learned from training projects in classrooms and more importantly share their expertise in writing innovations with others. In Lee and Yuan's (2021) exploration, this innovation leadership is developed through L2 writing teachers' proactive engagement in continuous teaching practices in conjunction with their social interactions with school leaders and other colleagues. Finally, the last two components of teacher expertise, passion as L2 writing teachers and writers, and ongoing learning (Casanave, 2018), could be maintained and enhanced through the success of teaching L2 writing practices and scholarly pursuits (Ferris, 2005; Lee & Yuan, 2021).

10 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, L2 writing teachers as a diverse and dynamic group play a vital role in helping students develop their L2 writing skills and literacy. This conceptual paper sheds light on multiple dimensions of L2 writing teachers to reveal a holistic and comprehensive picture of L2 writing teachers in terms of their unique identities and complex experiences of teaching and learning to teach. A few implications might emerge for L2 writing research and pedagogical practices. The identification of profiles of L2 writing teachers might inform researchers to better understand L2 writing education from the perspective of instructors and not learners. Meanwhile, scholars could be inspired to identify and investigate research gaps in L2 writing teachers, especially how teachers learn to teach L2 writing, so that the dynamic nature of professional development and the ongoing negotiation of their roles within educational systems might be revealed in depth. Pedagogically, with the knowledge of L2 writing teachers' multifaceted beliefs, identities, teaching and assessing practices, and expertise development, L2 writing teachers' educators would provide more targeted training for the teachers' professional growth. Other relevant stakeholders such as policymakers and school managers might likewise reconsider the official guidance and management on the basis of characteristics of L2 writing teachers. For L2 writing teachers, this profile could serve as an additional reference for self-recognition, whereby their pedagogical expertise, cognitive thinking, and reflective practice might be enhanced.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Shulin Yu: Literature review; Writing and Revising.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

Shulin Yu is a member of editorial board of FER and the author of this article. To minimize bias, he was excluded from all editorial decision-making related to the acceptance of this article for publication.

[Correction added on 12 June 2025, after first online publication: The conflict of interest statement has been updated.]

ETHICS STATEMENT

This study is a review/an opinion article and does not involve the collection or use of empirical data, including personal information or data from human or animal subjects. As such, it does not require formal ethical approval from an institutional review board (IRB) or an ethics committee. However, the research was conducted in accordance with the principles of academic integrity and ethical conduct, including the responsible use of existing literature and the proper citation of sources.