The study aims to explore the use of L1 Bahasa Indonesia in the L2 English writing process specifically within the demographic of Indonesian students currently studying in U.S universities. In the second language writing field research related to L1 in L2, even though there have been studies with many Asian demographics like Chinese, Korean, and Japan. However, there seems to be little studies have been conducted with Indonesian demographics. Moreover, research within this particular topic is mostly conducted quantitatively by looking at how much L1 is used during the L2 composing process by incorporating Think-Aloud protocols. In addition to that, it can be seen that Think Aloud Protocols have also predominantly been used to investigate the issue of L1 in L2. Even though Think-Aloud as a method has been proven to be useful, it can also be argued that such a method is too intrusive for the participants. Therefore, this current study is conducted with qualitative descriptive without Think-Aloud Protocols looking at ten participants from ten different universities in the U.S. studying non-English majors. The data were gathered from questionnaires, writing tasks that occur simultaneously with writing observation, as well as stimulated recall interviews to enable triangulation. The findings from the data analysis suggest there are similar patterns that can be found on participants with some unique difference. For example, the instruction to think aloud is not given by the researcher yet some participants practiced thinking aloud naturally during their writing process. Furthermore, L1 use are found to be a complex as accessing linguistics repertoire, recalling memory or start the first sentence/paragraph. While some L1 use effects include sense making, looking for ideas and time efficiency. Therefore, each participant's interaction with their L1 and the effects of L1 use in L2 are discussed.

Becoming a researcher not only involves the acts of contributing to the body of knowledge in a field, but it also involves constructing the image or identity of a researcher. Doctoral students who aim for positions within academia upon graduation see doctoral education as a phase where they develop their research skills and prepare for publication. An existing body of literature in the field of writing has explored the publishing practices of graduate students, with extensive attention given to the role of external factors such as the adviser/advisee relationships, resource access, issues of authority, and so on. However, less attention has been given to exploring the role of internal motivators or intrinsic factors in graduate writing and how it relates to research work and research productivity. Conducting semi-structured interviews with four doctoral students who have published research articles in peer-reviewed journals, this study explores the process through which doctoral students develop a researcher identity, the challenges they face, and the role of the doctorate program in developing a researcher identity. Using a narrative approach and by first-person accounts of experiences told in the story form, the process of identity formation is elicited through individual stories focusing on the narrated experiences, thoughts, and actions. The findings of this study showed that validation and recognition are crucial factors in helping doctoral students see themselves as researchers and persevere through the challenges faced in publishing. All participants in this study recognized collaboration opportunities as experiences that helped them become a researcher. In working with others, they felt like they had a valuable voice and insight, creating a positive attitude toward their work by realizing that their work is meaningful. The most significant challenge discussed by all participants was receiving negative comments or criticisms that inhibited their motivation. Having a better understanding of the experiences, perspectives, and challenges of doctoral students in identity development brings attention to points of conflict and how these conflicts can be resolved or mediated for doctoral students. It offers insights into doctoral students' training and advising by illustrating how research productivity can be enhanced at the doctoral level.

Until recently, second language writers were typically separated from their peers in mainstream composition courses. However, as the field considers the possibility of integrating second language writers into mainstream composition classrooms, important questions arise. For instance, how are teachers of First Year Composition (FYC) prepared for valuing and responding to the linguistic resources of students representing a range of linguistic backgrounds? Also, what would happen if teachers of FYC had a broader view of multilingualism in the mainstream composition classroom (one that includes fluent bilinguals, English-dominant bilinguals, and second language writers)? This study addresses interests and questions such as these by examining whether and how new Teaching Assistants/Associates (TAs) take up or respond to critical perspectives on language and race introduced during their first semester teaching. Specifically, I analyzed how a group of new TAs are thinking about language and race in relation to learning and writing. Through surveys, observations, and interviews, I documented and analyzed how they engaged in conversations about language, writing and race; made sense of readings and activities on the theoretical concepts of raciolinguistics and translanguaging; and responded to information presented during two workshops on these topics. I also explored what these TAs said about the relationship between their own critical perspectives on language and their teaching practices (current and future). Findings show that participants’ critical language awareness and their ability to envision a critical language pedagogy grew over the course of the semester. Findings also show that, even though they expressed uncertainty about the precise meaning of theoretical terms such as raciolinguistics and translanguaging, their stated beliefs align with the central claims of scholarship advocating such perspectives. The findings of this study shed light on ways to help new teachers of FYC support multilingual students from a range of backgrounds–especially those TAs who work in contexts where ideologies of race and language devalue multilingualism and nonstandard varieties of English and influence what counts as academic writing.