What Actually Happens When You Teach Multilingual Writers
The book is by Lee Ann Mendelson. It came out a while ago now, around 2007 or so depending on which printing you grab. The full title is heavy, but the content inside it is pretty grounded. It deals with the actual tensions that show up when you're teaching writing to people who learned English later in life, and the research side of understanding why those tensions exist in the first place. I ran into this material when I was dealing with a graduate seminar where half the students were international writers and the other half were domestic students who'd never thought about code-switching or translanguaging until that semester. The book didn't solve the classroom management problem overnight, but it gave me a vocabulary for why my grading rubric kept breaking down. One thing Mendelson does well is she doesn't pretend there's a single correct approach. She lays out the disagreements in the field. There's the error treatment debate. There's the question of whether you teach process or product first. There's the ongoing argument about genre-based pedagogy versus social-response approaches. She doesn't pick a winner and move on. That's actually useful because the field hasn't really picked a winner either.
I remember a specific case where a student kept submitting drafts that were perfectly grammatical but structurally unreadable for an academic audience. The problem wasn't surface-level grammar. It was that the student had been trained in a system where information structure worked completely differently, and the conventions of Western academic writing felt arbitrary to them. The book helped me see that this isn't a deficit on the student's part, it's a mismatch between two different rhetorical traditions. Here's something the field gets wrong sometimes. People assume that if you teach multilingual writers the same way you teach native speakers, you're being equitable. Mendelson pushes back on that quietly throughout the book. What looks like fair treatment is often just treating everyone identically while ignoring the fact that they're starting from different places. The controversial part is whether we should be adapting our teaching methods or whether the students should adapt to existing norms. The field still hasn't settled this. Another practical issue I keep running into: the assessment problem. How do you grade a paper from a writer who is still developing second language proficiency? If you grade for grammar heavily, you penalize the language development. If you ignore grammar entirely, you're not preparing students for the reality of academic and professional contexts where language mechanics matter. There's no clean answer here, and Mendelson doesn't give one.
What I found myself coming back to in the book was the section on research methodology. A lot of the studies cited in second language writing research have serious limitations. Small sample sizes. One-size-fits-all interventions. Authors who study multilingual writers without being multilingual themselves. The research base is thinner than the field acts like it is, and Mendelson acknowledges that directly. If you're looking for the book, it's available through most academic suppliers. Amazon has it. University presses sometimes stock it directly. Used copies show up regularly on AbeBooks and eBay, usually in decent shape since it's not a book people dog-ear that aggressively. The print version runs about 180 pages, maybe a bit more depending on your edition. I don't recommend it as a standalone manual. It's more of a framing device, a way to understand why certain teaching decisions feel impossible rather than a step-by-step guide. Pair it with Grafiel's work on genre-based instruction or Silva's earlier contributions if you want more practical classroom strategies. Together they cover different parts of the same problem space.
Get the Full Details
The main limitation of this book, honestly, is that it's a product of its time. Some of the debates it captures have evolved since publication. Translanguaging theory, for instance, has moved significantly forward. Code-meshing in composition studies is much more accepted now than it was when this came out. But the core dilemmas remain the same, which is why people still reference it. Bottom line: read it if you teach or research second language writing and want a honest look at where the field stands on the hard questions. Don't read it if you want easy answers or a pedagogical system you can copy-paste into your syllabus. The disagreements Mendelson documents are real and they're not going away anytime soon.
