Meet the Experts: An Interview with Karen Barto
Karen Barto, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
Interview conducted by Stefan M. Vogel, University at Albany, SUNY, New York, USA
Stefan: Could you tell us when and how you got into the field of SLW?
Karen: I began as a second language writer myself, in my study of French as a foreign language, which I began at age 12. I was a “good” student of French in the US throughout high school and college, but when I studied in France in my third undergraduate year, I got a terrible grade on my first writing assignment—I think it was 7/20. Our professor, Madame Wéber, kindly reassured me not to worry too much, as I could only improve from that point—she said I certainly couldn’t get any worse! Although it sounds discouraging, I took the idea at face value and applied myself to improving, both in and out of the classroom: I worked hard on all my course assignments, and also journaled daily for fluency; read newspapers, magazines, textbooks, literature; watched movies; and conversed with and accepted grammar lessons and corrections from everyone. My French language and writing both improved. I finished that class with 17 or 18 out of 20, and received good grades all the way through a master's degree in French and Francophone literatures, where I also began teaching French language and literature, including writing. As an instructor of those courses, I drew heavily on my experiences studying in France, creating assignments for the students to undertake linguistic and genre analysis of French and encouraging the use of models to inform their own L2 writing.
With my favorite aspects of the French master’s being the linguistics and pedagogy courses, I moved into a second master’s degree in ESL pedagogy and then an interdisciplinary PhD in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching from the University of Arizona. I took coursework in L2 writing pedagogy as well as linguistic analysis, sociolinguistics, and psycholinguistics, all of which have informed my practice when teaching writing, designing and developing writing curriculum, or supporting and instructing writers as a writing specialist, which is what I do now at the University of Arizona’s Writing Skills Improvement Program.
Stefan: Could you tell us what kind of research you do?
Karen: As an interdisciplinary applied linguist, I’ve engaged in qualitative, quantitative, and theoretical work on linguistic, sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic, and pedagogical questions. This range of experience has been a boon to working with writers of all disciplines, whether designing graduate writing courses or supporting writers at the Writing Skills Improvement Program. In recent years, my research has largely been applied work to inform needs analysis for course and program development and evaluation, professional development I’ve offered, and my practice in general. This encompasses work in academic writing as well as in English medium instruction (EMI) teacher training, which I have been engaged in for about 10 years, including as an English Language Specialist for the U.S. Department of State. In EMI, I have developed a model of effective teacher training based on my experience designing, developing, and facilitating EMI teacher training programs for hundreds of professors in a variety of countries and institution types. Given the inadequate number of trainers to meet the needs of institutions transitioning to EMI, I have also begun work on the alignment of English language teachers’ skills with the needs of EMI teacher training, envisioning specialized professional development for this population to fill that gap.
Although L2 writing and EMI professional development are separate areas, they share many characteristics, such as the need for a strong understanding of disciplinary conventions and patterns of English use in the world today. More fundamentally, they both involve an interplay between educational systems (often transnational) and individuals participating in them. My greatest concern is the individuals: writers (multilingual and monolingual), professors and administrators reshaping their systems with English language use, and the students impacted by their decisions. Consideration of the needs of individuals in our modern systems has led me to pursue and share knowledge surrounding practices of translanguaging, understanding of neurodivergence, and use of AI in education.
I came of age during a time of monolingual-focused foreign language learning and teaching in English and French language traditions, where we were encouraged to suppress our first language when trying to use our second. This was a challenge, but for many in the US and France, foreign language learning stakes were low—it was an extra that could be forgotten after basic requirements were fulfilled. However, many of our students must learn content and to write and present effectively in L2 English for their career paths today. We know now that suppressing a first language requires more time and effort for effective learning and can cause attrition of the suppressed language. Attrition in turn can lead to alienation from home cultures. Given all this, it feels unfair and illogical to continue insisting on monolingual practices, and so I encourage multilingual-affirming translanguaging practices in both EMI and L2 writing.
With regard to neurodivergence, I’m learning as much as I can about many forms, such as dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, post-traumatic stress, and other mental health conditions, with my focus currently on ADHD and autism. Like many forms of neurodivergence, both ADHD and autism are considered medical disorders according to the diagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric Association, and the majority of research undertaken on them has been by people who do not identify as ADHD or autistic. Much of this deficit-based medical research conjectures about ADHD and autistic experiences, motives, and perspectives without consulting ADHD and autistic people. Squarely situated in a medical model of disability, ADHD and autistic people are pathologized as disordered and in need of treatment. Many research programs in these areas have a genetic focus that is unfortunately rooted in disturbing eugenics traditions. I didn’t know about any of this when I began investigating neurodivergence and its intersections with academic writing—I just noticed that there were certain writers who felt shame about their writing practices, even when they were “good writers” who had success as students, researchers, and professors. Some couldn’t work on their writing daily; others struggled to organize all the “moving parts” of the academic writing process; others were amazing at making creative, original connections between ideas. Initial research in this area was frustrating--“respected” research is peer-reviewed, but the bulk of peer-reviewed research on neurodivergence comes from the pathologizing medical sphere. I have been scouring the literature for the scant (but growing) research done by neurodivergent researchers, and have been conducting regular social media and popular press analysis for over three years now to learn more about neurodivergent lived experiences.
Like many, I have also been working on AI’s use in higher education. My focus has been on ethical considerations of its adoption from a very wide angle: I think it’s important to remember the negative environmental impacts, exploitative labor practices, and intellectual property theft that have been integral to the development of these tools, and we should continue to ask companies supplying these tools how they intend to remedy past wrongs and improve in the future. That said, I see potential for AI use to help level the playing field in certain areas, supporting folks currently at a disadvantage in our educational systems due to disability or lack of time and resources.
Stefan: Could you share some of the most interesting findings from your recent work?
Karen: I have been learning more about neurodivergence in order to more effectively support neurodivergent writers. The neurodiversity paradigm holds that neurodivergence is not a deficit but a difference. Social and psychosocial models of disability explain that these differences can render a person disabled in our society although they might not be if our societies had different systems. For example, many ADHD and autistic folks have interest-based systems, meaning they are extremely efficient learners of information when it is related to their special interests. When we assign writing projects on specific topics rather than allowing students to choose, we may be putting interest-based learners at a disadvantage. It is not simply that their skills return to an average level if they do not have their own interest in a topic; instead, working on assignments requires a great deal of emotional and physical energy. You may not get an accurate picture of what an interest-based learner is capable of if they do not have the autonomy to write about what interests them.
Related is the idea of the “spiky profile” of neurodivergent folks: having above average abilities in some areas, and below average in others, to such a degree that the difference between those levels represents more than two standard deviations of scores on cognitive skills tests. Some writers may be very strong researchers or creative critical thinkers, but struggle to keep track of references. In some cases, the simple fact of needing to keep track of many logins and authentications (for the course website, for the library, for the e-reader, for email, etc.) may create a barrier to starting or completing their work.
Many neurodivergent folks also experience a phenomenon called rejection sensitivity dysphoria (RSD), an extreme, negative reaction to perceived criticism/rejection. The medical community considers this a byproduct of difficulties with emotional regulation that often co-occur with forms of neurodivergence, whereas many neurodivergent folks themselves report feeling extremely sensitive to criticism because of how constantly they are criticized for approaching the world differently. In teaching L2 writing, we can support our students who experience RSD by offering as much non-evaluative feedback as possible. We can also move toward alternative assessment models such as contract grading so that students have more autonomy in deciding what standards to meet and how to meet them.
I am aware that I have presented more here about neurodivergent struggles than strengths, but I will try to briefly rectify that now. Taking an asset-based approach with our learners, focusing on their strengths and knowledges, can work miracles. Like in any population, there is all range of diversity possible among neurodivergent writers, but there are many strengths prevalent among folks with neurodivergent identities, such as highly creative thinking, highly logical thinking, strong problem-solving ability, sensitivity to nuance, a keen sense of justice, and deep, interconnected knowledge about their special interests. Offering freedom of choice, developing activities that allow students to tap into their strengths, and creating a community where students want to share their interests are advised to get an accurate picture of what a neurodivergent learner knows already and is learning.
In summary, to better support neurodivergent writers, we should offer students more autonomy about what and how they learn, minimize barriers to learning, and work to create a community where students want to share their knowledge. As is often the case, when we make an effort to make our instruction accessible, we end up simply following good practices in teaching: creating an inclusive environment usually benefits everyone.
Stefan: What person or experience has had the greatest impact on your research/career?
Karen: Perhaps due to the multilingual and interdisciplinary nature of my career, I couldn’t say there is just one person or experience who was most impactful. However, this year I am thinking especially often of the mentor who I consider my first Doktormutter, Muriel Saville-Troike. Muriel passed away in March of this year after a long, incredible career in second language acquisition research and education and a pretty remarkable life. Muriel invited me to be her research assistant after I took a class with her during my English master’s degree. I worked with her on the first two editions of an interdisciplinary textbook about second language acquisition and later co-authored the third edition. It's crazy that the experience can be summed up in just a few sentences, because it represents 20+ years of classes, emails, meetings and conversations on campus and at her home about issues in the field, work-life balance, relationships, how it feels and what it means to be a writer, how that relates to being a teacher and a human… With her years of experience, she had anecdotes to match every theory, met new questions with curiosity and humility, and met people with respect and kindness. I’m grateful to have spent so much time learning from and with her.
Stefan: What is the biggest issue or challenge in the field, as you see it?
Karen: I think the most pressing challenge of our era is decolonizing English writing, which needs to happen on many levels. Acknowledging English as a global language means it belongs to everyone who uses it, not only “native speakers” of dominant varieties from Inner Circle nations. We will need to recognize and accept greater variety in terms of grammar, vocabulary, and rhetoric in English writing worldwide, and insist less on strictly monolingual English for international communication. However, that isn’t to say we should simply accept other dominant varieties of writing from non-Anglophone communities. We must also consider the many ways of expression possible within communities and recognize varieties that don’t fit the “standard” or norm of their larger communities, such as some writing by neurodivergent and multilingual folks. Overall, I envision a shift whereby we see L2 English writing more in the ways we advocate for building intercultural competence—approaching texts with curiosity, flexibility, and a willingness both to recognize our own assumptions and acknowledge other ways of expression. We no longer need to consider our “default” audience to be monolingual English users of one or two dominant varieties given the preponderance of multilingual users of English in our world today.
Stefan: As an expert in the field of SLW who has done extensive research and service for the field and community, what would you recommend for someone who wants to develop expertise in SLW?
Karen: I have a heavy preference for multidisciplinarity as I believe it facilitates a holistic understanding of many moving parts in complex systems, such as L2 writing. To develop expertise in L2 writing, I think one should work to understand vocabulary, grammar, rhetoric, and genre of the target writing community as well as among other writing communities as a point of comparison. This can be accomplished through extensive reading, listening, writing, and dialoguing with other readers and writers in various communities. Writers I support have also commented that learning about educational systems and expectations as well as psycholinguistic processes and sociolinguistic phenomena is helpful in informing their author decisions. I also share an idea Rudy Troike often reminded us of: There are no “native” writers; writing is a learned, conventional process that everyone is challenged in. So, I share my own struggles and lessons learned as well as my victories, and I thank my students and the writers I support for all they teach me. Studying language and writing is certainly important, but also keep an open mind, stay flexible, get to know the writers you work with, and validate their learning and their processes—getting to know and learn with each individual writer is the best part of developing SLW expertise.
Karen Barto, PhD, is a writing specialist at the Writing Skills Improvement Program at the University of Arizona and an English Language Specialist with the U.S. Department of State. At WSIP, Karen supports student and faculty writers through consultation, coaching, and professional editing, as well as working on outreach, materials design, and service to the larger UA community, currently focusing on AI initiatives. In her role as English Language Specialist to the U.S. State Department, Karen designs and offers professional development in English medium instruction to professors at institutions around the world (most recently, Taiwan). Karen's work is informed by her background in language and content teaching and curriculum design (in French, English, literature, and applied linguistics) as well her interdisciplinary PhD in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching, and research in linguistics, psycholinguistics, and sociolinguistics. Karen presents and publishes in disciplines relevant to applied linguistics and is increasingly developing in the areas of neurodivergence, AI, multilingualism, and collaborative, non-hierarchical leadership.
Stefan M. Vogel is a Lecturer at the University at Albany, SUNY, where he teaches in the Writing and Critical Inquiry program. He holds a PhD in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching from the University of Arizona. His primary areas of specialization are in second language writing, L2 teacher education, and program administration and leadership.