discussing the subtleties of texts that might be interpreted in different ways—for example, what she called the “formal informality” of American academic discourse. She hoped to discuss examples of writing in terms of the social interactions conveyed through text. In doing so, her goal was to help students develop strategies for dealing with the situations they may encounter as graduate students:
I hope students leave the class with an approach to tackle similar situations. So, if they’re in a situation where they don’t know how they’re supposed to write something, they can have some sort of a way they can try to figure it out. So, we look at- one of the things we do is- I hope they look at lots of examples of things. So, they’re like, “OK, how do I write a research grant? I’ll look at seven other research grants in this field, and- both for large structural things and specific wording kinds of things.” And most of them do that already, but, I don’t know, “heightened rhetorical awareness” is what I’m looking for. (August 28, 2002)
One of her initial goals was to make the class flexible in addressing individual student interests. Throughout the semester, she encouraged students to bring in papers they were working on outside of the class, to practice delivering upcoming presentations, and to share their professional experiences and questions with others in class.
Michele also explained that she did not tend to view herself as a professorial figure in the classroom, but more a “native speaker friend who happens to have rhetorical training” (August 28, 2002). She explained that many of the students felt somewhat isolated at Midwest University and that this isolation was impeding their ability to succeed in many of their tasks.
Sometimes I’m not sure if they really need me. I mean, I think they need the course. I’m not so sure if they- I think maybe the greatest value of the course is to give students a chance to sit and, you know, have a couple hours a week where they talk about their writing and what they’re trying to do with their writing, and how they see their field and the written work they do in their field. It matters less, like, what specific activities you do or who’s teaching the course, in a way. It’s giving students a structured space to reflect every week about writing, and I think that’s maybe the most useful part. Because these are smart students. They can figure out some of the specific things taught in the class by themselves. But it’s more it gives students an opportunity set aside that they have to do that every week that I think is the most useful part. (August 28, 2002)
Michele saw herself, then, as a kind of native-speaker, graduate student informant, facilitating the discussion and practice of scheduled writing tasks.
The Class Members
I began attending WCGS on the first day of the semester, sitting with the students at the tables that circled the room. At the end of the first week, after the class enrollment had stabilized, I presented the details of the project to the 11 class members, explaining why I would be sitting in class with them throughout the semester. I asked for their permission to use their words in my research, and they all decided to sign the Informed Consent Form. The class demographics were representative of the overall demographic of international graduate students enrolled at Midwest University; the majority were males from the Far East studying in fields like computer science, mechanical or electrical engineering, or biological-mechanical-electrical-micro-systems (known as “bioMEMS”).
During the semester, the class members appeared to gradually become more and more accustomed to my presence, my notebook, and my small tape recorder. For the most part, I sat in the back corner of the classroom between two students, quietly taking notes. At times, however, I interacted more closely with class members. During their poster sessions, for example, I engaged them in short conversations about their work. Later in the semester, Michele on occasion asked for my ideas on a given topic that was being discussed in the class. Although these “intrusions” were minimal, I mention them because they illustrate that I was a constant presence in WCGS.
The Writers
The four writers whom I focus on in this book—Paul, John, Chatri, and Yoshi—were selected because of their willingness to participate in the research and to discuss and share their writing, and also because they together provided me with a range of backgrounds, interests, and experiences, without differing radically from one another. Paul and John were each beginning the second year of their master’s programs, while Yoshi was in his first year of a master’s program, and Chatri was beginning his fourth semester of a doctoral program. The four also differed in their professional experiences prior to my research; John and Paul had both begun their graduate work almost immediately after completing their undergraduate degrees, while Yoshi and Chatri both spent several years working before beginning their graduate studies in the United States. All four writers had completed all of their prior education in their home countries outside of the U.S. John, however, had lived in the U.S. from birth through elementary school. Their directions after completing their degrees were uncertain at the start of my study.
The length of time that the writers participated in my research varied because of their different dates of graduation (see Figure 2). As John and Paul both left Midwest University after completing their master’s degrees, their participation ended earlier than Yoshi and Chatri. Below, I describe each writer in greater detail, providing further insight into their individual writing histories.
| Aug. ’02 | WCGS | John | Paul | Yoshi | Chatri |
| Sept. ’02 | |||||
| Oct. ’02 | |||||
| Nov. ’02 | |||||
| Dec. ’02 | |||||
| Jan. ’03 | |||||
| Feb. ’03 | |||||
| Mar. ’03 | |||||
| Apr. ’03 | |||||
| May ’03 | |||||
| June ’03 | |||||
| July ’03 | |||||
| Aug. ’03 | |||||
| Sept. ’03 | |||||
| Oct. ’03 | |||||
| Nov. ’03 | |||||
| Dec. ’03 | |||||
| Jan. ’04 | |||||
| Feb. ’04 | |||||
| Mar. ’04 | |||||
| Apr. ’04 | |||||
| May ’04 | |||||
| June ’04 | |||||
| July ’04 |
Figure 2. Timeline of research participation for the four writers.
Paul
At the start of the study, Paul was beginning his second year in a master’s program in computer sciences. Paul’s interest in computer science dated back to his childhood when he loved playing computer games:
As I mentioned, I like playing games very much. I think since the first computer appeared in China, I was playing, almost. My dad is also in this area, and actually he’s an expert on computer science. When I was a child, he brought a computer home and I played games on it. So I was getting interested in computer science. (September 3, 2002)
A native of China, Paul finished his bachelor’s degree in engineering at a top Chinese university and then worked for one year at a computer company in China. He described this work as “very tiring” and decided that he wanted to continue his education instead of staying on at the company. He applied to Midwest University because of its reputation in computer science and because he had a friend at the school who had recommended it to him.
In our first meeting, Paul explained that his research interest was “to investigate operating system and compare techniques to find the solution for hand-held device. The goal is to reduce energy consumption” (September 3, 2002). In his first year in the master’s program, he began working as a Research Assistant (RA) on a research team with five other graduate students and a professor—all Chinese. Though the group all shared a native language and home country, they always spoke in English when the advisor was in the lab. The collegial atmosphere of his research group seemed to play a major role in Paul’s interest in staying on for doctoral work in the CS program:
.
