Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 73 views

    Noticing and Reformulation

    Uploaded by

    Andreea-Raluca Manea
    This document summarizes a study that examined how noticing, or consciously recognizing aspects of language, impacts second language writing skills. The study used a three-stage writing task to investigate: 1) what learners notice while composing a text, 2) what they notice when comparing their text to a reformatted version, and 3) how this impacts text revisions. Two participants completed think-aloud protocols during each stage. The study found that comparing texts helped learners notice gaps in their language skills and triggered analysis that improved their revised writing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Noticing and Reformulation

    Uploaded by

    Andreea-Raluca Manea
    73 views5 pages
    This document summarizes a study that examined how noticing, or consciously recognizing aspects of language, impacts second language writing skills. The study used a three-stage writing task to investigate: 1) what learners notice while composing a text, 2) what they notice when comparing their text to a reformatted version, and 3) how this impacts text revisions. Two participants completed think-aloud protocols during each stage. The study found that comparing texts helped learners notice gaps in their language skills and triggered analysis that improved their revised writing.

    Original Description:

    Noticing and reformulation

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a study that examined how noticing, or consciously recognizing aspects of language, impacts second language writing skills. The study used a three-stage writing task to investigate: 1) what learners notice while composing a text, 2) what they notice when comparing their text to a reformatted version, and 3) how this impacts text revisions. Two participants completed think-aloud protocols during each stage. The study found that comparing texts helped learners notice gaps in their language skills and triggered analysis that improved their revised writing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    73 views5 pages

    Noticing and Reformulation

    Uploaded by

    Andreea-Raluca Manea
    This document summarizes a study that examined how noticing, or consciously recognizing aspects of language, impacts second language writing skills. The study used a three-stage writing task to investigate: 1) what learners notice while composing a text, 2) what they notice when comparing their text to a reformatted version, and 3) how this impacts text revisions. Two participants completed think-aloud protocols during each stage. The study found that comparing texts helped learners notice gaps in their language skills and triggered analysis that improved their revised writing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 5

    Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task$

    Donald S. Qi*, Sharon Lapkin


    TITLE
    Noticing as a cognitive process in L2 composing and reformulation as a strategy to
    promote noticing and improve L2 writing skills: a 3 stage L2 writing task
    AIMS & OBJECTIVES
    The overall aims are to investigate the role of noticing in improving L2 writing skills and
    to assess the effectiveness of reformulation as feedback that helps learners notice the gap
    between their IL and the TL. To evaluate the importance of noticing in L2 writing
    pedagogy and how noticing is achieved in the composition and reformulation stages, to
    explore the roles played by output (speaking and writing) through collaborative dialogue
    in L2 learning.
    The study focuses on the relationship of noticing in the composing stage (Stage 1), in the
    reformulation stage (Stage 2, where learners compare their own text to a reformulated
    version of it), to the improvement of the written product in the posttest (Stage 3) of a
    three-stage writing task.
    The article examines some of the interactions that take place as L2 writers engage in
    composing an L2 text and then compare the text to a reformulated version of it. It uses
    think-aloud protocols produced by L2 learners, what learners notice when they are
    composing by themselves and when they are comparing their own written text to a
    reformulated version of it and what effects such noticing has on their resulting L2 text.
    The stance in the article is that while noticing of input is important, noticing as a result of
    producing the TL in the context of L2 composing, also has important roles to play in L2
    development. The study focuses on the relationship of noticing in the composing stage
    (Stage 1), in the reformulation stage (Stage 2, where learners compare their own text to a
    reformulated version of it), to the improvement of the written product in the posttest
    (Stage 3) of a three-stage writing task.
    Swain (1995, 1998) further argues that the noticing/triggering function of output can
    prompt L2 learners to recognize consciously some of their linguistic problems. It may
    make them aware of something they need to find out about their L2. L2 writing studies
    that employ think-aloud research techniques support the claim that output stimulates
    noticing of problems that prompts learners to engage in some kind of analysis of their
    existing linguistic resources in order to resolve these problems (e.g., Cumming, 1990; Qi,
    1998; Swain & Lapkin, 1995).
    The study examines directly the noticing function of output in the context of L2 writing,
    asking if learners own output can lead them to a conscious awareness of language
    problems they are experiencing, if cognitive processes are triggered in response to the

    problems they are aware of, and if learners engage in grammatical analysis in the
    processes.
    The participants were asked to think aloud while composing in response to a writing task.
    Language-related episodes (LREs, the unit of analysis developed by the researchers) were
    identified from the think-aloud protocol data and then classified into descriptive
    categories according to the cognitive processes the researchers thought were reflected in
    the changes the participants made to their output.
    Reformulation refers to a native speakers rewriting of an L2 learners composition such
    that the content the learner provides in the original draft is maintained, but its
    awkwardness, rhetorical inadequacy, ambiguity, logical confusion, style, and so on as
    well as lexical inadequacy and grammatical errors are tidied up (Levenston, 1978). The
    rewritten text provides a TL model so that the learner can make a comparison of his/her
    own draft with a native writers version of it.
    Through reformulation, the learners gained insights about problems of cohesion,
    grammatical rules, precision in the use of vocabulary, and differences in levels of
    formality in the TL.
    This is important because preferences for the teachers feedback may vary from student
    to student (Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990, p. 165) and the teachers response should respect
    the students right to their own expression and their intention in a given piece of writing.
    Secondly, a text reformulated by a competent TL writer provides appropriate TL forms
    for the given context. Without this, L2 learners are left to figure out the solutions
    themselves since they have a smaller backlog of experience with English grammatical
    or rhetorical structure to fall back on, not having had the same exposure to those
    structures as native speakers have had (Leki, 1990, p. 58). Thirdly, this type of feedback
    provides a good balance between focus on form and focus on meaning since it exploits
    both the meaning-driven and form-focused potential.
    THE STUDY
    This research is the result of one of the pilot studies conducted for a large-scale research
    project. One of its objectives is to explore the roles played by output (speaking and
    writing) through collaborative dialogue in L2 learning. Preliminary to the main
    research, this particular case study was to investigate the roles of output in a threestage L2 writing task performed on an individual basis by two learners with two
    different levels of L2 proficiency.
    The writing task consisted of the following three stages. First, a participant wrote an L2
    text in response to a picture prompt (Stage 1). Then he/she was asked to engage in a
    comparison of his/her written draft with a reformulated version of it followed by an
    immediate retrospective interview intended to clarify what he/she had noticed (Stage 2).

    Finally, the participant received his/her original text and was asked to revise it (Stage 3).
    By examining each of the three stages, the purpose was to investigate the effects of
    noticing in output: (a) as each individual participant composed an L2 text (Stage 1);
    (b) as he/she subsequently compared his/her L2 text with a reformulated version of
    it (Stage 2); and (c) as he/she revised the L2 text (Stage 3). Thus, our research
    questions in this study were as follows:
    1. What aspects of language do L2 learners notice in/during an output-only writing
    condition (Stage 1 of a three-stage writing task)?
    2. What do L2 learners notice as they compare their text to a reformulated
    version of it while thinking aloud (Stage 2 of a three-stage writing task)?
    3. How is such noticing related to changes in the written product from Stage 1
    to Stage 3 (posttest) of the L2 writing task?
    METHODOLOGY
    PARTICIPANTS
    The participants in this study were two adult Mandarin-speaking English-as-asecond
    language (ESL) learners.
    PROCEDURE
    Each participant wrote a narrative in response to a picture prompt of The Scene of the
    Crime (see Appendix A). The picture prompt was chosen for two reasons.6 First, the
    picture did not provide any verbal data so the participant would have to produce
    the TL in an output-only writing condition. Second, it was open-ended so the
    participants could compose the story in whatever way they liked, thus giving them
    control over the content. Each was asked to think out loud in the language of his/her
    choice (following procedures in Cumming, 1989, p. 89). The picture prompt was not
    given to the participant until he or she practiced the think-aloud method several times and
    felt comfortable enough to use the method. Each participant was given 30 minutes to
    do the composing (Stage 1), and each did the writing task at about the same time of day.
    We used audiotape to record think-aloud verbalizations and videotape to capture
    the participants writing of texts. The audio-track of the videotape also recorded the
    think-aloud and provided a backup copy of the verbalizations (following procedures
    in Bracewell & Breauleux, 1994, p. 58). One of the researchers was present to operate the
    video camera and to remind the participant to keep thinking aloud if he/she stopped
    talking for very long. Each participant was asked to proofread his/her writing in the
    end before submitting it to us. The purpose was to make sure that the draft
    represented the participants best possible version and that the errors were not slips
    of the tongue or pen that could be self-corrected by the author (James, 1998; Poulisse,
    1999). As in Swain and Lapkins (1995) study, the participants in this study were also
    advised that they could not have access to a dictionary or any other aid and that the
    researcher would not be able to help either. We intended to find out what students
    would do without such resources and whether they would try to work out solutions on

    their own. After the task was completed, the researchers collected the draft and
    reformulated it from beginning to end to produce a native-like model. In the
    reformulated version, the participants original ideas were maintained. We
    corrected all the syntactic and morphological errors, and removed any problems in
    stylistics and logical sequencing at the discourse level.
    Four days later, we gave each participant his/her own original draft along with the
    reformulated version of it and asked him/her to think aloud while comparing his/her
    own draft with the reformulated version of it and noticing the differences between
    the two versions (Stage 2). Again both the audiotape and videotape were used to
    record the comparison process. Immediately following the comparison stage, a
    researcher rewound the videotape and showed the participant the video of the
    comparison and noticing process that had just been taped. The researcher stopped
    the tape wherever noticing took place before asking the participant to clarify what
    he/she was noticing specifically at that particular moment (immediate retrospective
    interview). The evidence on which we based our judgement of the occurrence of a
    noticing episode includes their pointing to a specific line in a text, their exclamatory
    utterances such as oh, yeah, right, etc., their hesitation, and their thinking pauses.
    The researcher who could speak both English and Mandarin conducted the interviews
    primarily in English,8 and the learners used the language of their choice to respond. Each
    participant did a posttest 1 week after Stage 2. The participant was not informed of
    the posttest in advance. For the posttest, each participant received his/ her own
    original written draft, which was typed in a triple-spaced format, and was asked to
    revise his/her draft right on the triple-spaced typed version (Stage 3) based on what
    he/she had learnt throughout this entire task process. In sum, each participant
    produced two protocols, one from Stage 1 and the other from Stage 2. The four
    think-aloud protocols, produced by the two participants both at Stage 1 and Stage 2,
    were transcribed for analysis. Formal permission to use the think-aloud protocols and
    produced texts was given by the participants (see Appendix B for the texts produced by
    the participants as well as the reformulated versions of the draft texts).
    DATA ANALYSIS
    Conducting the interviews in English in this pilot study made the data more accessible to
    the project team.
    In our study, we focused our analysis on LREs from the four think-aloud protocols
    produced by the two participants.
    Swain and Lapkin (1995) defined LRE as any segment of the protocol in which a learner
    either spoke about a language problem he/she encountered while writing and solved it
    either correctly or incorrectly, or simply solved it (again, either correctly or incorrectly)
    without having explicitly identified it as a problem (p. 378). As our study involved both
    writing and comparing (a draft to a reformulated text of it), we extended the definition so
    it could be applied to the comparison stage as well. Thus, in addition to what is defined in
    Swain and Lapkins research, an LRE in our study refers to a segment of the protocol

    in which a learner noticed a language-related problem he/she encountered while


    comparing his/her text to a reformulation and addressed it either by accepting the
    reformulation and providing a reason, or only noticing the difference without giving
    a reason.
    We counted language-related noticing which was not verbalized (e.g., self-correction, see
    Leow, 1997) but captured in the videotape and verified in the interview as LREs. For
    example, in Stage 1, while proofreading her initial draft, Su crossed out the word
    discussed and wrote disscused above it without verbalizing the process. Each of the
    authors then coded the LREs into three broad categories as follows: (1) lexicalincludes
    adjective, adverb, noun, preposition, pronoun, and verb; (2) formincludes comparative
    (adjective), superlative (adjective), plural, possessive marker, possessive pronoun,
    punctuation, sentence structure, spelling, subjectverb agreement, verb form, and verb
    tense; (3) discourse includes achieving logical sequencing (cohesion, coherence),
    achieving intersentential clarity, and stylistics (see Swain & Lapkin, 1995).
    Overall, the results of the study have shown that in a three-stage L2 writing task,
    language related noticing may contribute to the improvement of L2 writing.
    Furthermore, the results indicate that language-related noticing in an output-only
    writing condition, along with production in the process, may not only promote
    subsequent problem-solving performance during the solo composing activity but
    also trigger noticing of relevant information from the modeled TL data when
    available in the later stage of a writing task. The results of the study also demonstrate
    that quality of noticing in Stage 2 has direct implications for the final written
    product in Stage 3. This finding suggests that while promoting noticing in a
    reformulation task may be important, improving the quality of noticing may be even
    more important.
    The results demonstrate that learners with a higher level of L2 proficiency may be able
    to conduct more language-related noticing while composing alone than learners with a
    lower level of L2 proficiency. Further, learners with a higher level of L2 proficiency may
    be more capable of solving the noticed problems by themselves while composing alone
    than learners with a lower level of L2 proficiency. When comparing their own written
    draft with a reformulated version of it, learners with a higher level of L2 proficiency may
    accept more reformulated items or structures, verbalizing the reasons for doing so, than
    learners with a lower level of L2 proficiency. This suggests that learners with a lower
    level of L2 proficiency may have more difficulty identifying the nature of the gap
    between their IL and the TL even though a TL model is provided to them. Thus, quality
    of noticing may be related to level of L2 proficiency: i.e., the higher the L2 proficiency,
    the better the Stage 2 noticing may be in a three-stage L2 writing task.

    You might also like