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 speaker’s rewriting of an L2 learner’s 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). Therewritten text provides a TL model so that the learner can make a comparison of his/her own draft with a native writer’s 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 teacher’s feedback may vary from student to student (Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990, p. 165) and the teacher’s 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 three-stage 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 reformulatedversion 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 1to Stage 3 (posttest) of the L2 writing task?

METHODOLOGY

PARTICIPANTS

The participants in this study were two adult Mandarin-speaking English-as-asecondlanguage (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 participant’s 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 Lapkin’s (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 participant’s 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 Lapkin’s 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) lexical—includes adjective, adverb, noun, preposition, pronoun, and verb; (2) form—includes comparative (adjective), superlative (adjective), plural, possessive marker, possessive pronoun, punctuation, sentence structure, spelling, subject–verb 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.