Having opportunities to write about their cultures and identities validates and engages students of English as a second language (ESL) by giving them a voice and a platform to promote ideas and values that the dominant society may marginalize (Christensen, 2000; Cummins, 2001; Cummins & Early, 2011). Identity‐based pedagogies, however, tend to focus on domestic ESLs and on K–12 school contexts, while their potential for international ESL students at the university level has not been well appreciated. This article advocates for the inclusion of identity‐based writing assignments in the university ESL curriculum by describing and theorizing the use of a “where I'm from” poem writing assignment in a first‐year credit‐bearing course for international ESL students. The article shares new ideas for teaching the popular writing assignment in ways that create opportunities for foreign students to feel connected and integrated on campus. The article argues that welcoming international ESL students into writing through a “where I'm from” poem assignment supports not only their sense of belonging, but also their writing skills and their academic success in the United States.

Currently, American Indian studies seem divided between "cross-cultural" and "tribally-centered" critical positions. Scholars like Arnold Krupat and the late Louis Owens represent the established cross-cultural school of criticism in American Indian studies: they emphasize the cultural and political power of American Indian literary "hybridity" to subvert structures of colonial domination and to communicate cultural differences. The more recent and growing tribally-centered school of criticism, represented by scholars like Elizabeth Cook-Lynn and Craig Womack, however, criticize established "cross-cultural" approaches to American Indian writing. The latter critics study the tradition of Native writing in relation to ongoing tribal struggles for political autonomy, and emphasize political and literary principles of tribal nationalism. The article outlines developments in these critical positions and studies major arguments behind them. Its concluding suggestion is that rather than creating (essentialist) divisions in the field, the evolving tribally-centered criticism is introducing valid and much needed new directions for the development of American Indian scholarship.

No abstract