An Integrated Perspective on a Second Language Writing Teacher’s Professional Growth: A Cross-Contextual,Career-Stage Analysis

8.1.1. Episode 1: Novice Identity, Emotional Vulnerability, and Constrained Agency in Chinese Higher Education

Author 2’s early teaching stage in China represents a period of identity formation, during which emotional survival and limited agency constrained her ability to fully implement her professional knowledge, resulting in a pedagogy focused on safety and certainty rather than exploration and student empowerment. From the start, Author 2’s emotions—anxiety, self-doubt, and fear of being perceived as “incompetent” (Reflection 2)—were rooted in two interconnected gaps: her lack of explicit training in L2 writing pedagogy and the absence of institutional support. As she noted: “[I felt] a deep sense of anxiety and self-doubt. Despite holding a MA in language teaching from the UK, I had never received explicit instruction on how to teach writing [sic]” (Reflection 1).

This emotional vulnerability was amplified by the department’s failure to provide structure: “complete independence but minimal guidance, no existing syllabus, materials, or mentorship” (Reflection 5). Without guidance, her anxiety manifested as a “fear of failure” (Interview 1) that turned lesson planning into an emotional, risk-averse process. These feelings led to her over-preparing, avoiding spontaneous interactions, and focusing on surface-level corrections, all of which were to maintain control and avoid confrontation:

I over-prepared for every class, rehearsed my explanations in advance, and avoided giving spontaneous feedback during lessons because I was worried about saying the wrong thing. [. . .] For the same reason, I initially limited my comments on student writing to grammar and surface-level issues. Grammar felt objective—something I could point to with certainty—whereas responding to students’ ideas, structure, or rhetorical choices felt riskier. (Reflection 2)

These choices reveal how negative emotion constrained her pedagogical agency. Although she understood that effective writing instruction required engaging “students’ voices and thinking” (Reflection 2) and “fostering critical thinking” (Interview 1), her fear of misinterpreting student work or giving poor advice prevented her from acting on this knowledge. Instead, she prioritized certainty over depth, a trade-off that protected her fragile novice identity but circumscribed her students’ growth.

Even though the defensive agency “reflected [her] uncertainty about how to guide students in developing ideas, structuring arguments, or writing for academic audiences” (Reflection 6), those pedagogical choices helped her manage her anxiety as a new teacher. At this career stage as a novice L2 writing teacher, Author 2’s defensive agency further confirmed her lack of knowledge and skills in bridging the mismatch between her vision of good teaching and her ability to implement it: “Although I understood from my own academic writing experience what it meant to be a good writing teacher—supporting students as they developed content, clarity, and critical thinking—I struggled to implement this vision” (Reflection 6). Instead, she prioritized “satisfying students’ immediate needs” (Reflection 6) over her long-term pedagogical goals, a choice driven by her novice identity’s sense of responsibility to avoid appearing incompetent:

Because I lacked authority and confidence, much of my pedagogy centered on satisfying students’ immediate needs: if they needed grammar fixed, I fixed it. [. . .] My novice identity made me feel responsible for meeting these immediate demands, even when they conflicted with my pedagogical goals. (Reflection 6)

Author 2’s identity as a novice teacher constrained her agency to safe, familiar practices, preventing her from experimenting with the student-centered approaches she valued.

8.1.2. Episode 2: From Confidence to Disillusion: Established Routines and Reclaimed Agency

As Author 2 gradually developed her teaching routines, her confidence grew, which she described as “not the absence of fear but the willingness to continue despite it” (Reflection 5). Initially feeling “content with [her] position” (Reflection 1), her emerging comfort clashed with a deepening disillusionment, a new emotion that signaled a shift in her identity and a re-evaluation of her teaching pedagogies. She became frustrated with the program’s overemphasis on “grammar drills and rigid essay formats” (Reflection 1), which was “embedded in the program’s teaching culture” (Reflection 4). Author 2 survived the first several years of teaching L2 writing in the program due to its emphasis on grammar and students’ attention to “passing exams and improving grammar” (Reflection 6), but she gradually realized that formulaic instruction and sentence-level corrections were not “meaningful work” (Reflection 1), against her vision of teaching, which is “supporting students as they developed content, clarity, and critical thinking” (Interview 1). As she described:

“The heavy emphasis on grammar drills and rigid essay formats left me unfulfilled. [. . .] I started to long for more depth, more intellectual challenge, and a chance to challenge myself, and to bring something more meaningful into the classroom” (Reflection 1). This disillusionment marked the end of her novice identity’s focus on survival and the beginning of a desire for professional growth. Her emotions, now frustration rather than anxiety, drove her to reclaim agency in a more proactive way of resigning to pursue a new chapter in the United States. This choice reflected a maturing teacher identity, one that no longer prioritized safety over purpose, and one that recognized her need for professional development to bridge the gap between her vision and practice. As she emphasized: “I began to want more than to be seen as ‘kind’; I wanted to be seen as knowledgeable” (Reflection 3; emphases added), due to which she decided to “pursue a doctoral degree and to move toward the path of language teacher education” (Reflection 7).

8.2.1. Episode 3: Navigating Challenges, Embracing Agency, and Shaping Expertise in a New Cultural Context

After earning her doctoral degree in multilingual language education, specialized in L2 writing, Author 2 began working as a lecturer at a U.S. university, a role that marked a clear departure from her early days as a novice language teacher: “I came equipped with specialized training, research expertise, and a deeper theoretical understanding of L2 writing” (Reflection 3), and she was “ eager to put [her] knowledge into practice in a new academic context” (Reflection 1). The quote underscores how her academic specialization fueled the confidence needed to step into the lecturer position. Aligned with her original motivation for leaving her previous university, seeking more “meaningful work” (Reflection 1), she approached the new role with “a powerful mix of excitement, pride, and quiet determination” (Reflection 1). Yet the shift from teaching in Chinese classrooms to American ones proved less seamless than anticipated: “this transition also brought new emotional and instructional challenges that shaped and refined my identity as an L2 writing educator” (Reflection 2).

Author 2 was assigned to the university’s EAP program, which she described as offering “a sequence of writing courses for [international] undergraduate students, typically labeled as 20A, 20B, and 20C” (Reflection 2). Her first semester presented immediate hurdles, starting with an overwhelming workload: “I was assigned to teach three writing courses in my first quarter—20A, 20B, and 20C—each with a different level and instructional focus” (Interview 1), an experience she characterized as “intense and emotionally draining” (Reflection 1). Compounding this stress was her lack of context-specific teaching materials. Having never taught in the United States before, her existing resources were outdated for the new setting: “I had to start from scratch—designing PowerPoint slides, developing weekly lesson plans, and aligning assignments with program outcomes” (Reflection 1).

Rather than being defeated by this pressure, Author 2 demonstrated emotional resilience, channeling the challenge into motivation: “I became determined to seek out every resource I needed to succeed” (Reflection 1). She proactively built strategies and leveraged available support, starting with the program’s structured resources:

During the new instructor training, I was told that the program used a core textbook, which offered consistent guidance for the writing courses I was about to teach. I was also given access to a collection of Google Docs that included writing exercises and materials developed by experienced colleagues in the program. With some modifications, I was able to adapt and incorporate some of these exercises as handouts in my own classes. (Reflection 1)

The support stood in contrast to her first teaching role in China, where such resources were unavailable. Crucially, Author 2 did not merely use the materials as they are. She tailored them to fit her students’ needs, showcasing her agency as an L2 writing teacher with accumulated knowledge and skills over the years. She also leveraged the key asset from her time as a writing center consultant during her PhD, where she has worked with students across diverse majors and disciplines (Interview 1). The background, she realized, has equipped her with transferable skills:

This [writing center consultant position] exposed me to diverse academic genres and strengthened my ability to explain key writing concepts across contexts. This background became an unexpected asset. I began to realize that, although I didn’t have a large archive of ready-made teaching materials, I had the knowledge, flexibility, and experience necessary to create them from scratch. (Reflection 1)

This emotional resilience and resourcefulness allowed Author 2 to adapt quickly to the new teaching context and bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical pedagogy.

8.2.2. Episode 4: Unexpected Challenges, Quick Adaptation, and Innovative Pedagogical Agency

Just as Author 2 began to settle into her role teaching the 20-series EAP courses, an unexpected challenge disrupted her momentum. She was “assigned a new and unfamiliar course: teaching a specialized writing course for upper-division STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics] students” (Reflection 2). The shift caught her off guard. Beyond the unexpected course assignment, Author 2 faced a second disruption. Her professional training had prepared her to teach EAP courses, “designed specifically for multilingual students” (Interview 1). However, due to “enrollment fluctuations and sometimes administrative decisions [leading] to native English-speaking students being placed in these [EAP] classes,” she was “given a section composed of a significant number of native English speakers, even though the course wasn’t originally designed for them” (Reflection 4). She felt “uncertain about how to make the content relevant” (Reflection 8) and noted that “the sense of stability [she] had briefly felt was quickly replaced by uncertainty, pressure, and the emotional fatigue of being thrown back into improvisation mode” (Reflection 1). Despite the intense emotions, classroom dynamics “pushed [Author 2] to adapt quickly” (Reflection 8). She observed that “the classroom was filled with quiet tension” (Reflection 2) and that “many students were disengaged, seeing the class as a requirement rather than an opportunity” (Reflection 8). Determined to address this tension, Author 2 proposed course adjustments to the program’s associate director. With approval, she redesigned key assignments to center on professional and applied writing. She explained: “I introduced professional genres like résumés, cover letters, and personal statements—assignments that felt more relevant to the students’ immediate futures” (Reflection 1) and “We spent time workshopping actual graduate school applications, revising personal statements, and tailoring résumés for research opportunities” (Reflection 2).

Author 2’s rapid adaptation was fueled by four key factors, each reflecting her growing adaptation. First, rather than succumbing to discomfort, she reframed it as a chance to innovate: “Rather than viewing that discomfort as a barrier, I began to see it as an opportunity to reshape the course around what my students did find meaningful” (Reflection 2). She also leveraged her expertise to manage self-doubt: “My growing expertise gave me tools to regulate emotions like self-doubt and overwhelm, transforming them into motivation for innovation and deeper student engagement” (Reflection 3). Second, Author 2 challenged her own assumption that she was only equipped to teach multilingual students, drawing on her research to reframe her perspective:

Eventually, I reminded myself of something core to my own research: academic writing is a second language for everyone, not just for multilingual students. Whether a student is fluent in English or not, academic writing requires learning a whole new genre and set of expectations. That realization helped shift my perspective. Instead of focusing on what I lacked, I started focusing on what I could offer. (Reflection 4; bold added, original italics)

Further, her doctoral research became a practical tool for course redesign: “I drew on observations from my doctoral dissertation on [American] high school students’ writing challenges to design lessons, scaffold tasks, and provide targeted feedback. This research-informed approach gave me confidence, helping transform self-doubt into pedagogical innovation” (Reflection 6). Last, her time as a graduate writing consultant proved invaluable: “Thankfully, I had a wealth of experience to draw from. During my time as a graduate writing consultant, I had helped many students revise personal statements, research proposals, and other professional documents” (Reflection 2).

With all those resources she drew upon, the redesign was a resounding success: “Students became more engaged, and classroom discussions grew richer and more purposeful. Several students later emailed me to share their success in being admitted to top graduate programs, crediting our course for helping them refine their writing” (Reflection 2). Beyond student outcomes, the experience deepened Author 2’s L2 writing teacher identity. It reinforced her sense of achievement, which “became the foundation for a more student-centered pedagogy” (Interview 1). Ultimately, the challenge marked a pivotal step in Author 2’s evolution as an “inclusive, responsive, and adaptable L2 writing teacher” (Reflection 6), solidifying her adaptive expertise and capacity to turn unexpected obstacles into opportunities for growth.

8.3.1. Episode 5: Adaptive and Culturally Responsive Expertise with Collaborative Agency

Author 2’s return to China marked a stark contrast to her early teaching career; where she once focused on surviving her first years, she now aimed to thrive. The shift was rooted in the expertise and confidence she had built abroad, as she reflected:

Completing my Ph.D. in the U.S. had equipped me with a solid theoretical foundation in writing theory and research [. . .], my teaching experience at [the university name] had helped me develop a student-centered pedagogical style and the skills to manage diverse classrooms effectively. Emotionally, intellectually, and professionally, I believed I was ready to embrace this new chapter and thrive in the Chinese academic context. (Reflection 1)

This confidence, however, was quickly tested by the unique demands of her new context; specifically, an English as the medium of instruction (EMI) setting. As she noted: “even with all the confidence I carried into the classroom, reality quickly reminded me that every new context brings its own surprises and adjustments” (Reflection 1), which “requires ongoing reflection and adaptation” (Reflection 2). This quotation underscores a key revolution in Author 2’s expertise. Unlike her early career, she now approached challenges without panic and self-doubt. Instead, she developed a reflection-first mindset, framing adaptation as a deliberate practice rather than a reactive one.

Author 2 identified three interrelated challenges that demanded her adaptive skill: “curriculum constraints, students’ unfamiliarity with interactive pedagogy” (Reflection 6), and students’ lack of knowledge on EMI academic writing norms (Reflection 2). Each challenge tested her ability to balance her student-centered values with contextual realities, and her responses reveal the depth of her culturally responsive expertise. First, the EAP writing program’s standardized design limited her pedagogical agency, a tension that created internal conflict. She explained: “While the program provided a detailed syllabus and a well-organized repository of shared materials via Google Drive, I quickly realized that there was limited room for pedagogical flexibility” (Reflection 1). This constraint clashed with her experience in the United States, where she had tailored courses to student needs. The result was an ongoing friction: “I struggled to balance the program’s expectations with what I felt my students could realistically manage in such an intense, accelerated schedule” (Reflection 1). The quotation highlights a critical adaptation. Author 2 no longer viewed flexibility as an all-or-nothing value but as a skill to negotiate within institutional boundaries, a sign of her matured expertise.

The second tension emerged between the program’s emphasis on interactive, student-centered pedagogy and her students’ prior educational experiences. Having just completed China’s highly exam-focused college entrance exam, many students lacked familiarity with collaborative or discussion-based learning: “Group projects often became silent parallel work, with students dividing tasks rather than interacting” (Reflection 8). This gap was not merely pedagogical but cultural: “their silence came from navigating unfamiliar cultural and emotional territory. Their education had trained them to follow structure and authority, not to collaborate freely” (Interview 2). This insight was pivotal. Instead of viewing student silence as resistance or her own failure, she framed it as a cultural adaptation gap, laying the groundwork for targeted and culturally responsive changes.

The last challenge centered on the fact that students were not familiar with EMI academic writing norms. Although many had strong English proficiency, they lacked exposure to western rhetorical conventions: “Students often struggled with rhetorical conventions that were unfamiliar to them, such as clearly stating claims, front-loading arguments, and supporting ideas with explicit reasoning” (Reflection 2). This quotation reveals Author 2’s refined understanding of L2 writing. She no longer reduced student struggles to language gaps but recognized them as gaps in rhetorical and critical thinking training. Emotionally, she shifted from frustration to empathy: “I felt frustrated by these gaps, but that feeling evolved into something more productive” and “I began to see these challenges as opportunities to support deeper learning” (Reflection 2). This realization is a hallmark of her experienced expertise. She now framed obstacles as catalysts for professional growth, not barriers to it.

Author 2’s responses to these challenges were strategic, drawing on her cross-cultural experience, research background, and emotional resilience. For example, to bridge the gap between student-centered pedagogy and her students’ cultural readiness, Author 2 adapted her approach rather than abandoning her values. She explained:

Gradually, I adapted by adding clearer roles in group activities, allowing reflection time before speaking, and structuring participation more explicitly. Over time, small changes appeared—more eye contact, more student voices, and even moments of laughter. This confirmed my belief that teaching must be culturally responsive and attuned to students’ prior learning experiences. (Reflection 8)

These adjustments addressed the cultural root of student silence while still fostering interaction, which reflects her ability to integrate cultural awareness with pedagogical practice.

For students’ writing challenges, Author 2 leveraged her PhD research and L2 writing scholarship to reframe instruction around reading-to-write skills, addressing the underlying gap in academic literacy training. She noted:

This discomfort confirmed something I have long known from L2 writing scholarship and my own Ph.D. research: many students struggle not only with writing but also with reading and comprehending complex academic texts. This moved me emotionally from frustration to empathy. I saw that their challenges were not about unwillingness, but about a lack of training in academic reading and research. In response, I redesigned my lessons to focus more on reading-to-write skills. (Reflection 2)

Author 2’s research directly informed her practice. She did not rely on intuition but on evidence of what students actually needed to succeed in writing. This research-informed adaptation is a sign of her matured pedagogical agency. She now made decisions rooted in data, not just experience.

Author 2 also explicitly used her shared cultural background with students to enhance engagement, a contrast to her more cautious approach in the United States. She reflected:

Sharing students’ cultural background in China enabled me to enthusiastically support ambitious topics, such as defending Traditional Chinese Medicine or challenging foreign stereotypes, emphasizing self-expression and critical thinking. In contrast, teaching in the U.S., my cross-cultural and experienced teacher identity encourages a more cautious approach to controversial topics, balancing students’ intellectual exploration with sensitivity to academic norms and potential risks. (Reflection 6)

This quotation is critical to understanding her adaptive expertise. Author 2 no longer had a one-size-fits-all teaching style. Instead, she deliberately aligned her approach with her cultural identity in each context, using shared cultural ground in China to foster critical thinking, and prioritizing cultural sensitivity in the United States. This ability to contextualize her identity and practice is what makes her an adaptive teacher.

A key shift in Author 2’s experienced stage was her move from relying on individual capability to building collaborative agency. Unlike her early career where she may have navigated challenges alone, she now sought support and contributed to a professional community:

I benefit greatly from weekly mentoring sessions, supportive colleagues, and an institutional culture that encourages collaboration. These networks provide a safe space to share frustrations, brainstorm solutions, and celebrate successes. In particular, these connections help me navigate the emotional challenges of balancing institutional expectations with my pedagogical goals, reinforcing that teaching is a collective endeavor. (Reflection 5)

This quotation highlights a key evolution. She now saw “teaching as a collective endeavor” rather than a solo one (Interview 2). Her collaborative agency not only eased her own stress but also enriched her practice. She could draw on others’ insights to refine her approach. A related note is that Author 2 has become more proactively searching for professional development. Facing unfamiliar technologies and rigid curricula, “instead of feeling defeated, [Author 2] proactively sought solutions, such as attending professional workshops on dialogic feedback, consulting tech support, watching educational tutorials, and engaging in ongoing professional development related to challenges like AI in writing” (Reflection 5). This proactive stance reflects her understanding that expertise is not static, and she viewed professional development as an ongoing practice, not a one-time requirement.

The generosity of her colleagues also shaped her own professional identity: “I now view teaching not only as delivering content but also as supporting colleagues and fostering a professional community” (Reflection 7). This shift from “teacher of students” to “contributor to the profession” is a hallmark of experienced expertise. She recognized that her growth was tied to the growth of those around her. At the end, Author 2’s experiences in this stage solidified her core beliefs about L2 writing instruction, beliefs that integrate adaptability, cultural responsiveness, and collaboration:

Writing is a developmental process; effective teaching is responsive, flexible, and student-centered; emotional connection and empathy are essential; and reflection on both student and teacher experiences is critical. Whether helping disengaged STEM students in the U.S., supporting multilingual students during COVID-19, or guiding students in China through unfamiliar participatory learning, I have learned that my role as an L2 writing teacher is to adapt, connect, and cultivate meaningful growth—both in my students and in myself. (Reflection 8)

This synthesis of beliefs is the product of her journey. She no longer views “good teaching” as a fixed set of practices but as a dynamic process of adaptation and connection.