M14 ENL

Research Proposal

Student ID Number: 5287754

Contents

Project title.3
Aims....3
Objectives..3
Relevance to Academic Field/ Draft literature review of relevant literature4
Methodology and Data Selection/Collection9
Ethics12
References..14
Appendices..17

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

3
Title
The effectiveness and triggering function of reformulation used as a prospective
teaching strategy to stimulate noticing of linguistic shortcomings in Romanians
second language writing and an improvement in the writing skills.

Aims
The main aims of this research are to examine the function and effectiveness of
noticing in creating opportunities for deeper feedback on second language (L2)
writing rather than feedback in the form of mere correction of surface-level errors
and to investigate the usefulness and practicality of reformulation used as a
teaching tool to activate noticing in L2 learners, who are Romanian native
speakers and to provide well-balanced feedback between form and functionfocused needs.

Objectives
This research will take into account three central objectives:
To investigate if a reformulation model can lead to noticing and if such a model
can be employed as a teaching resource to provide deeper feedback on L2
composing.

To examine how the participants draw a comparison between their written output
and a reformulated version done by a native speaker

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

4
To assess the teaching implications of the findings.

Relevance to Academic Field/ Draft literature review of relevant literature

The central topic of this research study is concerned with the enhancement of
English writing skills and it bears relevance to the Romanian learning context
because most English teachers in this country do not spend a lot of time on
practicing this productive skill with the learners. In fact, writing is mostly
approaches as a homework task, thus reducing the chances for learners to be
provided with suitable and personalized feedback.

In general, the majority of Romanian learners have very good language skills, but
when it comes to writing they experience formal, stylistic, discourse and lexical
shortcomings which are similar to the ones experienced by other non-native
speakers. Klapper (2006: 305) asserts that regardless of the learners mother
tongue, the act of writing in a second language represents the most challenging
or demanding language skill with few students capable of producing near-native
prose.

Research conducted in cognitive psychology disclosed that attention represents

an indispensable condition that facilitates learning. Lai, Fei and Roots (2008: 70)
share this view and maintain that noticing constitutes a valuable cognitive model

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

5
and of crucial importance to second language acquisition (SLA). This present
research study will take into consideration Schmidts Noticing Hypothesis (1990),
which will be viewed as a prerequisite condition to second language (L2)
development. According to Schmidt (2010: 721-722), the L2 learner gets
exposed to particular linguistic features associated with the input and such
features depend upon noticing along with mental processing effort in order to
convert input into intake. Furthermore, Schmidt claims that the input to which the
Ls learner is exposed is difficult to turn into intake if it is not deliberately or
consciously noticed.

This research study will also consider and investigate the noticing effect or
function within Swains Output Hypothesis (1985). Adams (2003: 349) maintains
that the cognitive process of noticing takes place or is activated when learners
realize that they experience some linguistic shortcomings in communicating a
specific meaning while generating L2 output. Moreover, Adams suggests that a
reformulation model can be used as a form of feedback which prompts learners
to notice the dissimilarities between nativelike forms and their original output
(2003: 350). In addition, the research study will examine both theoretically and
practically the function of noticing in output-writing tasks as a cognitive resource
that facilitates a more enhanced use of target-like forms by the Romanian
participants.

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

6
Schmidt (2010: 722) asserts that the noticing ability involved in learning a foreign
language (FL) differs from learner to learner, being influenced by ones skill level.
Gladday (2012: 35) describes the notion of skill level as the learners processing
capability to routinize previously met structures and promptness to begin
noticing new structures in the input that is provided. Skehan (1998: 50) also
claims that the noticing ability varies from one learner to another and that some
learners are better input processors. Drnyei and Skehan (2003: 597) believe
that the distinct pace or rhythm of analytical processing and noticing is influenced
by individual learning differences like aptitude and learner strategies.

The research study will also tackle the relationship between noticing and
reformulation as a type of feedback which can help Romanian teachers improve
the writing skills of their learners. Zhang (1995: 210) claims that feedback
provided by teachers is highly necessary because learners erroneous
hypotheses about language trigger the occurrence of errors in their written texts.
In addition to this, providing feedback on writing does not necessarily mean that
this will be effective and that learners will not make the same errors in the next
written assignment.

Lzaro Ibarrola (2009: 195) asserts that research on traditional feedback and on
the overall manner in which teachers provide corrections showed that such
traditional feedback is inaccurate because it places emphasis only on what is
negative, it does not actively involve the learner and it also provides an

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

7
imbalanced consideration between form, meaning and style. Unsuitable and
insensitive feedback that lacks a varied and balanced evaluation in terms of
content, style and form is very common in the Romanian educational system and
teachers rarely take into account the individual differences when facilitating
feedback. The main concern is that the type of feedback used in this setting does
not help learners observe their errors or their gap between IL and TL. As a result,
this study promotes the use of a reformulation model to investigate if such a
model can raise learners awareness of this gap and if it can contribute to a
development of writing skills.

Hanaoka (2007: 460) defines reformulation as a feedback technique which relies

on rewriting an L2 learners text. The content and the ideas written by the
participants are kept, but aspects like cohesion, morphological errors, register,
illogical sequencing and vocabulary ambiguity are corrected and reformulated by
the native speaker. Rahim and Riasati (2011: 1325) suggest that implementing a
reformulation model in the classroom has more advantages than other types of
feedback. One major advantage is that a reformulated text provides learners with
relevant and appropriate target structures for that particular context. In addition to
this, Geist (2013: 146) maintains that another beneficial effect of a reformulated
model is that it ensures a well-balanced consideration between form and
function. In her view, this type of feedback provides the learners with
opportunities to notice and to self-correct.

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

8
Studies on noticing and reformulation like the ones done by Qi and Lapkin
(2001), Swain and Lapkin (2002), Tocalli-Beller and Swain (2005) and Hanaoka
and Izumi (2012) showed that implementing reformulated writing in the L2
classroom can significantly contribute to raising learners awareness of
differences between their interlanguage (IL) and TL and that conscious noticing
can lead IL development.

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

9
Methodology

Participants
The research study will involve four adult Romanian-speaking English-as-a
second language (L2) and one native speaker. The native speaker will be a
trained university-level EFL teacher from Coventry University or a student who is
a native speaker. The 4 Romanian participants will be selected by taking into
consideration one crucial factor which is relevant to the results of this research
i.e., little exposure to the British academic context. Thus, the participants will be
undergraduate students who finished their first year of study. These participants
study and live for the first time in the UK and are totally immersed in the targetlanguage context.

Data collection and procedure

The four Romanian participants will get a picture prompt and they will have to
write a narrative based on what they observe. The nature of the picture prompt
can be described as open-ended with no verbal data. According to Qi and Lapkin
(2001: 285), such factors bear relevance to the results because the Romanian
participants will have control over the content of the story and will use the TL to
generate only written output.

The Romanian participants will be involved in a second language writing task

which will be separated into two central stages. Stage 1 is entitled the

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

10
Composition stage in which the participants will need to write a story based on
the visuals in the picture prompt. The word-limit for this story is 300 words.

Stage 2 is called the Comparison stage and involves having the Romanian
participants draw a comparison between their original written drafts and 4
reformulated versions produced by the native participant. The selection of 4
reformulated versions is suitable because the content may vary from one
participant to another. In the last part of stage 2, the Romanians will be given the
original drafts and the reformulated versions and they will be asked to draw a
comparison between them by thinking aloud. The Romanians will be trained to
generate think-aloud protocols before the interview in which they will have to
compare both versions. Each participant will be showed how to think out loud in
the target language because they will have to do it at the end of stage 2. In the
comparison stage, the participants will have to think aloud and also to underline
items that they have noticed in the reformulated texts

Data recording and analysis

The researcher will use think-aloud protocols to investigate how the participants
involved in this study notice language related problems in their writing in stage 2
in the form of language related episodes (LREs). As a result, these think-aloud
protocols will be separated into segments of LREs and will be translated and
transcribed by the researcher. Swain and Lapkin (2002: 292) claim that LREs are
described as measurement tools to look into how the Romanian participants

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

11
reflect on language and how they make particular lexical, grammar and discourse
choices. Moreover, Amirkhiz et al. (2013) asserts that such segments of dialogue
or LREs are employed to get the participants to talk about the language they
produced, to correct and reflect on the use of L2.

In this research project, LREs represent particular protocol segments which show
how participants notice specific language-related problems while drawing a
comparison between the original drafts and the reformulated version (s). These
LREs will also disclose the participants agreement or disagreement with the
written reformulation. The researcher will use sound recording for the think-aloud
protocols and the comparison stage and the LREs will be translated and
transcribed and divided into three categories i.e., lexical, form and discourse.

Research Methods
This research is a partial replica of an experiment done by Qi and Lapkin (2001)
to examine the impact of noticing in a three-stage L2 writing task and involved
two Mandarin adult speakers. Both quantitative and qualitative research methods
will be used to investigate the data. The study will implement quantitative data
because it will make use of numbers and a priori categorization. Drnyei (2007:
32) maintains that numbers are an important feature associated with quantitative
research. The researcher will include tables and will show the number of LREs
generated in the second stage and the linguistic shortcomings pinpointed by the
Romanian participants. According to Drnyei (2007: 32-33), numbers presented

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

12
without contextual backing can be described as meaningless unless we specify
exactly the category that we use the specific number for. Numbers will be
included in the tables and will refer to the three categories into which the
language-related episodes will be separated i.e., lexical, form and discourse.

The qualitative methods used in this research project will be associated with
insider meaning and interpretive analysis (Drnyei 2007: 38). The research will
examine the noticing experience undergone by the Romanian participants during
the comparison interview and their identification of problems concerning the
correction of particular linguistic forms. The data which will be obtained may also
be explored from the researchers subjective interpretation. This interpretation
refers to the manner in which the Romanians verbalize their ideas or search for
an appropriate match between ideational content generated in thought and a
linguistically appropriate form available in memory (Qi and Lapkin 2001: 290).

Ethics considerations
This research will involve human participants, will use primary data and will be
categorized as being of medium to high risk. The study will have to be ethically
approved and will include a Participant Information Sheet, a Consent Statement,
an Interview Script and a Health and Safety form which will be uploaded to
Coventry Universitys ethics webpage (Coventry University Ethics 2014).

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

13
Addressing the feedback
The topic selected for this research study relies on the hunch that non-native
learners who come in contact with a reformulated model produced by a native
speaker will be capable of noticing some vocabulary and discourse shortcomings
in their interlanguage. It aims to validate the belief that these Romanians will
notice the mismatch or gap between what they can produce and what they need
to produce, as well as between what they produce and what target language
speakers produce (Schmidt 2001 cited in Van Beuningen 2010: 5).

The original drafts written by the Romanian participants will be photocopied and
reformulated by the native speaker, a trained EFL teacher from Coventry
University, the Department of English and Languages. For the time being, the
reformulated versions will be typed on the same page with the original drafts.

This research will involve two meetings with the participants and the most
suitable Romanian participants are the ones who will stay in Coventry over the
summer in order to have enough time to process the ethical instruments. The
variables which will be taken into account are disclosed in the section called
Participants.

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

14
Reference List
Adams, R. (2003) L2 output, reformulation and noticing: implications for IL
development. Language Teaching Research 7 (3), 347-376

Amirkhiz, S.Y.Y., Bakar, K.A., Samad, A.A., Baki, R., and Mahmoudi, L. (2013)
EFL/ESL Learners Language Related Episodes (LREs) during Performing
Collaborative Writing Tasks. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 4 (3),
473-479

Coventry University Ethics available from https://ethics.coventry.ac.uk/ [8 April

2014]

Drnyei, Z. (2007) Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford

University Press

Drnyei, Z., and Skehan, P. (2003) Individual differences in second language

learning. in The handbook of second language acquisition. ed. by Doughty, C.J.,
and Long, M.H. Oxford: Blackwell, 589-630

Geist, M. (2013) Noticing in L2 writing: Problem-solving strategies and individual

differences. Unpublished dissertation. Mnchen: Ludwig-Maximilians University
Gladday, A.E. (2012) Students uptake of corrective feedback. Journal of
Educational and Social Research 2 (7), 31-39

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

15
Hanaoka, O., and Izumi, S. (2012) Noticing and uptake: Addressing prearticulated covert problems in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing
21, 332-347

Hanaoka, O. (2007) Output, noticing and learning: An investigation into the role
of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching
Research 11 (4), 459-479

Klapper, J. (2006) Understanding and developing good practice: Language

teaching in higher education. London: CILT

Lai, C., Fei, F., and Roots, R. (2008) The Contingency of recasts and noticing.
CALICO Journal 26 (1), 70-90

Lzaro-Ibarrola, A. (2009) Reformulation and self-correction: Testing the validity

of correction strategies in the classroom. RESLA 22, 189-215

Qi, D.S., and Lapkin, S. (2001) Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage
second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing 10, 277-303

Rahim, F., and Riasati, M.J. (2011) The Effect of Reformulation on Noticing and
Subsequent Writing Development. World Applied Sciences Journal 13 (6), 13241328

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

16

Schmidt, R. (2010) Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language

learning. in Proceedings of CLASIC. ed by Chan, W.M., Chi, S., Cin, K.N.,
Istanto, J., Nagami, M.J., Sew, W., Suthiwan, T., and Walker, I. Singapore:
National University of Singapore, Centre for Language Studies, 721-737

Skehan, P. (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford

University Press

Swain, M., and Lapkin, S. (2002) Talking it through: two French immersion
learners response to reformulation. International Journal of Education Research
3-4, 285-304

Tocalli-Beller, A., and Swain, M. (2005) Reformulation: the cognitive conflict and
L2 learning it generates. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15 (1), 5-28

Van Beuningen, C. (2010) Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: Theoretical

Perspectives, Empirical Insights and Future Directions. International Journal of
English Studies 10 (2), 1-27
Zhang, S. (1995) Reexamining the Affective Advantage of Peer Feedback in the
ESL Writing Class. Journal of Second Language Writing 4 (3), 209-222

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

17
Appendix 1

Timeline

STEPS

TASKS

To be completed by:

STEP 1

Provisional Project Plan

Presentation

20th March 2014

STEP 2

Provisional Presentation
Script submission

14th April 2014

STEP 3

Meeting
to
feedback and
improvements

STEP 4

First
meeting
supervisor

STEP 5

Submission
coursework 2

STEP 6

Carry
on
literature
research on the topic

May 2014

STEP 7

Second meeting with

supervisor to discuss
ethics

May 2014

receive
discuss

with

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

of

Beginning of May 2014

May 2014

7th May 2014

18
STEP 8

Meeting
with
the
participants and provide
training for the thinkaloud protocols

May 2014

STEP 9

Conduct the three-stage

research

June 2014

STEP 10

Analysing data

June 2014

STEP 11

Write literature draft and

receive feedback

June 2014

STEP 12

Third
meeting
supervisor

with

June 2014

STEP 13

Write
methodology
chapter
and
receive
feedback

July 2014

STEP 14

Write chapter interpreting

the analysis and receive
feedback

July 2014

STEP 15

Fourth
meeting
supervisor

with

July 2014

STEP 16

Write introduction
conclusion

and

August 2014

STEP 17

Proofread
references

check

August 2014

and

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

19
STEP 18

Submit for binding

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

18th August 2014

20
Appendix 2
Provisional proposed structure:
Cover Sheet
Preface
Acknowledgements
Abstract
Table of Contents
Glossary and List of abbreviations
Introduction chapter
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Chapter 3: Data analysis and methodology
Chapter 4: Results
Chapter 5: Discussion of Results and teaching implications associated with the
Romanian context
Conclusion
References
Appendices
Ethics forms

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

21
Appendix 3
Participant Information Sheet

COVENTRY UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF BUSINESS, ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY

Department of English and Languages

Principal Investigator: Andreea-Raluca Moise, Coventry University
Project title
The effectiveness and triggering function of reformulation used as a prospective
teaching strategy to stimulate noticing of linguistic shortcomings in Romanians
second language writing and an improvement in the writing skills.

What is the objective of the project?

The objective is to collect data and see if native Romanian speakers can improve
their English writing skills by using a model written by an English speaker given
as feedback.
Why have I been approached and what does participation involve?
For the purposes of this study which consists of two stages we need to recruit 4
native Romanian speakers. We will provide you with a picture and each
participant will have to write a story of about 300 words (stage 1). Your
compositions will be reformulated by a native speaker studying at Coventry
University. In the second stage each participant will be audio recorded while
comparing aloud the original compositions with the ones reformulated by the
native speaker. The interview will also include some questions formulated by the
researcher. The interview will be done in Romanian and the researcher will
transcribe the data collected in English.
M14 ENL
Research Proposal

22
Do I have to take part?
Participation is voluntary and you can withdraw at any time during the stages.
You can withdraw by contacting us by email. Participant withdrawal means that
your data will be destroyed and not used in the project. There are no
consequences if you no longer wish to participate.
What are the possible risks or discomforts?
The study will not cause any discomforts, but participants can withdraw at any
stage if they are not comfortable with being audio-recorded.
What are the possible benefits of taking part?
You will contribute towards the research project which may positively influence
language learning and teaching in Romania in the future. The results will be
available to you on request.
What if something goes wrong?
If you feel you do not want to take part anymore, you can withdraw at any time.
All you need to do is to contact the investigators using the email addresses
provided below. If you decide to withdraw, your data will be destroyed and not
included in the project.
Will my taking part in this study be kept confidential?
Yes. Only the investigators will have access to the data. All the consent forms will
be stored in a secure location and your data will be identified by your participant
reference number.
What will happen to the results of the research study?
The data collected from the research study will be kept anonymous and
confidential. All information will only be processed by the main investigators.

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

23
Who is organizing and funding the research?
The research is organized and conducted by Andreea-Raluca Moise, a postgraduate student, doing a Master in English Language Teaching, as part of the
Faculty of Business, Environment and Society (BES) within Coventry University.
This research is not externally funded.
How do I sign up?
You will be given a consent form to sign and date. Please return this to the
principal investigator. Due to the time required transcribing the data, only 4
students are required. Please do not be offended if we cannot include you in the
project.

Contact for additional queries

Andreea-Raluca Moise
[email protected]
If you wish to discuss with somebody from the research team, please contact:
Michael Cribb
[email protected]
Supervision is done by the Department of English and Languages, Coventry
University

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

24
Appendix 4
Informed Consent Form

Participant reference code:

The effectiveness and triggering function of reformulation used as a prospective

teaching strategy to stimulate noticing of linguistic shortcomings in Romanians
second language writing and an improvement in the writing skills.

Andreea Moise
Coventry University
Dept. of English and Languages
Priory Street
Coventry CV1 5FB
Email: [email protected]
Please
initial
1. I confirm that I have read and understood the participant
information sheet for the above study and have had the
opportunity to ask questions
2. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I
am free to withdraw at anytime without giving a reason
3. I understand that all the information I provide will
confidential
4. I agree to be recorded and for anonymous quotes to be
used as part of the research project

5. I agree to take part in the research project

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

25

Name of participant: ..............................................................

Signature of participant: ........................................................
Date: ......................................................................................

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

26

Appendix 5
Print and audio production consent form
I, the undersigned, consent to the use of my words, images, images of my work
or recordings of my voice being used within Coventry University publications or
video case studies. I understand that this may be used for educational,
marketing, and/or commercial purposes, and that copyright will reside with
Coventry University.

I acknowledge that the quote, image or recording may also be used in, and
distributed by, media pertaining to Coventry Universitys activities other than a
printed publication, such as, but not limited to CD-ROM, DVD or the World Wide
Web.

Copyright restrictions placed on Coventry University publications and case

studies prevent content being sold or used by way of trade without the expressed
permission of the University, as copyright holder. Images and recordings may
not be edited, amended or re-used without permission from Dr. Michael Cribb on
behalf of Coventry University. Personal details of those taking part are not made
available to third parties.

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

27
Please complete the Participant details below and return the form to AndreeaRaluca Moise, the University contact;

Participants details:

Coventry University contact:

Andreea-Raluca Moise

Name:
Title: MA Postgraduate student
I require/do not require that

Department

my name is removed/retained

Faculty of Health and Life Sciences

in association with images

Coventry University

and/or recordings (please

Priory Street

delete as appropriate)

Coventry
CV1 5FB

Contact details:

[email protected]

Signature:

Date:

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

28

Appendix 6

STUDENT RESEARCH PROJECT RISK

ASSESSMENT

Person(s) undertaking
project:
Project supervisor:

Andreea-Raluca Moise
Dr. Michael Cribb

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

29

Brief outline of project:

Outline the types of
activities that will
take place or items
fabricated i.e. face
to face interviews,
public surveys,
water sampling,
machining vehicle
parts, brazing etc.

The objective is to collect data and see if native

Romanian speakers can improve their English
writing skills by using a model written by an English
speaker given as feedback.
At the first meeting, the participants will be shown a
picture prompt on the basis of which they will write a
narrative in approximately 300 words.
At the second meeting, the participants will draw a
comparison

between

their

narratives

and

reformulated version done by a native speaker. This

stage will involve think-aloud protocols because
participants will think aloud while comparing and it
will also involve a face-to-face interview. In this
interview, the participants will be asked if they agree
or disagree with the reformulated versions and
provide reasons and they will also be asked which
feedback method they prefer and why.

Dates of study (from to)

Location(s) of activity:
Country and specific area.

Early June early July

United Kingdom
West Midlands
Coventry
Coventry University

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

30

Will the project involve laboratory work?

Yes /
No

If yes, you will be required to complete separate risk assessment(s)

prior to carrying out any laboratory work.
Will the project involve workshop work?

Yes /
No

If yes, you will be required to complete an induction and may carry out a
separate risk assessment(s) prior to carrying out any workshop
work.

Will the project involve travel? (If yes, complete this section as fully as
possible. The form
may require review
prior to travel to add missing details)
Contact details at
destination(s):
Contact details of next of
kin in case of
emergency:

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

Yes /
N
o

31

Approximate dates of
travel:
Your supervisor must have
details of travel plans once
confirmed.
Arrangements to maintain
contact with the
University:
Emergency contact
information:

School/Faculty contact (Daytime): 02476

24hr University contact (Protection Service): 02476
888 555
Local healthcare/emergency services:

Has suitable travel insurance has been obtained? (Please attach a copy
of certificate)

Yes /

If EU travel, has EH1C card been obtained?

Yes /

N
o

N
o
Has advice/vaccinations from GP been sought (where appropriate)?

Yes /
N
o

Are medical kits required (i.e. in countries with poor healthcare

facilities)?

Yes /

Are there any warnings issued by the FCO* against travel to the area?

Yes /

N
o

N
o
Have you registered with the FCO* service LOCATE? (British nationals
only)

Yes /

*FCO = http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

N
o

32

PLEASE USE THE HAZARD CHECKLIST AS A GUIDE WHEN COMPLETING THIS

SECTION.

Hazard

Precautions to be used

Work factors:
E.g.: dealing with the public,
interviewing on sensitive
issues, lone working, driving,
working on boats, laboratory
work; biological, chemical
hazards etc

Site specific factors (in the

field):
E.g.: remote area,
construction site,
local endemic
diseases, political
unrest, terrorism
risk etc
If travel abroad see FCO*
website list any
risks greater than
there would be for
the UK
Environmental factors (in the
field):
E.g.: extremes of temperature,
altitude, weather conditions,
tidal conditions, cliffs, bogs,
caves, mountains etc

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

33

Equipment:
E.g.: operation of machinery,
use of specialist
equipment, manual
handling/transportatio
n, compressed gases,
etc

Audio-recording

Other:
Detail any special
arrangements
required, i.e.
permissions
required,
accommodation,
travel, catering etc

This assessment must be reviewed before any significant project changes are made.
Assessment carried out by:

Authorisation to proceed:

Signature:
Position:
Date:

Signature:
Position:
Date:

M14 ENL
Research Proposal

34

Appendix 7
Interview requirements and questions

1. Please compare your version with the reformulated one. Underline

words or phrases which you think are better used in the second
version. Please try to compare by talking aloud about the important
bits that you notice to be better formulated than in your own original
draft.
2. Please express your opinion about the reformulated version. Do you
agree/disagree with some reformulations? Why or why not?
3. Do you prefer the traditional Romanian method of correcting essays
written in English or this method (a native-like reformulated
version) ? Why or why not?

M14 ENL
Research Proposal