Download - The Effect of Quality of Written Languaging on Second Language Learning

PLEASE CITE AS: Suzuki, W. (forthcoming/2017). The effect of quality of written languaging on

second language learning. Writing & Pedagogy.

1

The Effect of Quality of Written Languaging on Second Language Learning

By Wataru Suzuki

Miyagi University of Education, Japan

[email protected]

Abstract

It has been suggested that oral languaging (e.g., collaborative dialogue, private speech)

plays a crucial role in learning a second language (L2). Many studies have shown a

positive relation between oral languaging during problem solving tasks and subsequent

performance on various post-test measures. The paucity of empirical research on written

languaging (e.g., written reflection) prompted this study. The effect of the quality of

written languaging by 24 Japanese learners of English was assessed by subsequent text

revisions. Both written languaging at the level of noticing only and written languaging at

the level of noticing with reasons were associated with accuracy improvement. These

findings appear to support Swain’s (2006, 2010) claim that providing learners with the

opportunity to language about or reflect on their developing linguistic knowledge in the

course of L2 learning mediates L2 learning and development. The pedagogical

implications of the study may suggest that L2 teachers should ask their students to reflect,

in diaries, journals, and portfolios, on the linguistic problems they have encountered

during their classroom activities. (170 words)

mailto:[email protected]



2

Introduction

Languaging is a useful research approach to help us understand the role of language, in

writing and orally, in mediating second language (L2) cognition. The concept of

languaging has only recently been proposed by Swain (2006, 2010). Based on

sociocultural psychology, she defines languaging as “the process of making meaning and

shaping knowledge and experience through language” (Swain, 2006: 98). Swain argues

that languaging is using language to mediate cognitively complex tasks like L2 learning.

Research in second language acquisition (SLA) has shown that languaging plays a crucial

role in the learning of L2 grammatical and lexical knowledge (see Swain, 2010 for a

review). The effect of languaging, especially oral languaging (e.g., collaborative

dialogue, private speech) has been examined in SLA (e.g., Negueruela, 2008; Swain and

Lapkin, 2002; Storch, 2008). In general, studies have shown a positive relation between

oral languaging during problem-solving tasks and subsequent performance measured by

post-tests (Swain, 2006, 2010). By comparison, there is a lack of research about whether

engaging in written languaging contributes to the efficiency of students’ L2 learning.

Although several researchers have asked participants to write reflections on their L2

learning experiences, none of them fully considers such reflections as a medium for L2

learning (e.g., Mackey, 2006; Simard et al., 2007). Some researchers have been interested

in written languaging as a tool for learning and development, but none has explored the

relationship between written languaging and the learning of particular linguistic items

(e.g., Antoneck et al, 1997; Darhower, 2004; DiCamilla and Lantolf, 1994; Lee, 2008).

This study attempts to fill this gap by demonstrating whether a written languaging

intervention on student writing leads to accurate revision, and, if so, how.



3

Languaging: Theoretical Account

Written languaging can be considered written externalization of one’s inner dialogue with

the self (see DiCamilla and Lantolf, 1994; Lee, 2008; Roebuck, 2000). In essence, the

concept of private speech (i.e., dialogue with the self) can apply to written modes. In this

section, two theories that have oriented research on the role of oral languaging (e.g.,

collaborative dialogue, private speech, self-explaining) in learning are summarized:

cognitive psychology and sociocultural psychology.

The cognitive psychology literature provides evidence for at least two

mechanisms in which self-explaining exercises its effect on learning: mental-model repair

and task engagement. Through self-explaining, defined as “the activity of explaining to

oneself in an attempt to make sense of new information” (Chi, 2000: 164), students’

attention may focus on the materials that are not consistent with prior knowledge (Chi,

2000). Self-explaining then promotes the integration of the new knowledge with existing

knowledge and enables learners to encode this new knowledge into memory. In this view,

self-explaining facilitates students’ monitoring and controlling their own thinking (i.e.,

metacognition), leading to the construction of knowledge with greater understanding.

A second explanation provided by cognitive psychologists is the use of general

cognitive processes related to the degree of engagement with the task (Seigler, 2002).

The first general benefit concerns the effect of depth of processing (Craik and Lockhart,

1972). In other words, learners may need to think about instructional materials deeply in

order to generate explanations. A second general benefit might be related to the

generation effect (Slamecka and Graf, 1978). When students generate items on their own,

they are likely to recall or recognize such items at a later point in time. It is possible to



4

assume that the generation effect may extend to learning from self-explaining (Hausmann

and Vanlehn, 2007). A third general benefit of self-explaining is motivation (Kastens and

Liben, 2007). Self-explaining likely motivates students to spend more time and try harder

because explaining helps them make sense of what they are learning.

Based on the sociocultural psychology perspective, oral languaging (e.g., private

speech) mediates the process of internalization of instructional materials. According to

Vygotsky (1987), every psychological function appears twice, first between people on the

inter-psychological plane and then within the individual on the intra-psychological plane.

Arievitch (2003) defines this process of internalization as “the transformation of certain

(material) forms of an individual’s external activity into other (mental) forms of that

same external activity” (p. 287). In other words, internalization can be viewed as the

outside-in process of development. We can see internalization at work in the process

whereby external dialogue with others or the self is transformed into inner speech. That

is, students’ private and social speech should be encouraged in the course of learning so

that overt speech is gradually and naturally transformed as inner verbal thought (i.e.,

inner speech) after students have sufficiently talked themselves through problems.

Galperin (1969, 1992) has also articulated the importance of speech in the process

of internalization of knowledge (see Arievitch, 2003; Negueruela, 2008). Galperin argues

that for internalization of instructional materials to occur, it is essential for learners to

verbalize their performance either while executing or reflecting on the activity. In other

words, talking about instructional materials to the self or with others is “turned inward”

to become learned knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978: 27). Additionally, learning may occur



5

through coming to understand, with others or by themselves, what is meant by what

learners say or write (Swain and Lapkin, 2007).

An Overview of Research Findings

SLA researchers have just begun to conduct empirical studies in which students

are asked to talk about their L2 learning experience using verbal reports such as think

aloud, immediate report, and stimulated recall. For example, Qi and Lapkin (2001) asked

participants to engage in a three-stage writing task (writing a first essay, comparing it

with feedback, and revising it). Participants were asked to think aloud in L1 (Chinese),

while writing the first essay and while studying the reformulated version. Qi and Lapkin

examined the relationship between languaging (i.e., think alouds) during the feedback

processing task and improvement in the written product in the revision task conducted

one week after the think-aloud treatment. They found that 34 out of 60 verbalized items

(57%) were likely to be associated with changes participants attempted to make in the

revision task.

Egi (2007) examined how learners’ interpretations of recasts during

communicative interactions influenced their L2 learning. She collected learners’

interpretations using either immediate reports or stimulated recalls conducted in L1

(English) during or after the communicative interaction, respectively. After engaging in

communicative interaction with immediate report, the immediate report group performed

an immediate posttest. The stimulated recall group performed the immediate tests without

being asked to interpret the intention of recasts and participated in the stimulated recall

session the following day. Both groups took a delayed posttest two weeks later. Although

neither of the groups did significantly differ in the immediate posttest, the stimulated



6

recall group outperformed the immediate report group on the delayed posttest. These

findings suggest that languaging during stimulated recall may be beneficial for L2

learning.

Nabei and Swain (2002) examined the relationship between a female student’s

awareness of corrective feedback (measured by stimulated recall interviews) and her L2

learning (measured by grammatical judgment posttests). Nabei and Swain videotaped a

70-minute classroom interaction and then administered a posttest within a week of the

videotaping, followed by a stimulated recall session in L1 (Japanese). This procedure was

repeated over the next six weeks (the third to eighth week). A delayed posttest was

administered in the 11th week. Nabei and Swain found improvement from the posttest to

the delayed posttest. By languaging in seven stimulated recall sessions, the learner’s

cognitive processes might have differed from what they would have been if she had not

performed stimulated recalls. The stimulated recall sessions might have made the

student’s reasoning about L2 grammar more coherent.

Recently, Swain, Lapkin, Knouzi, Suzuki, and Brooks (2009) asked participants

to orally (a) read a text explaining grammatical voice in French and (b) explain each

sentence to the self in L1 (English). Swain et al. categorized what their students explained

into five languaging types: analysis, inference, re-reading, self-assessment, and

paraphrase. They then divided their participants into high, middle, and low languagers

based on the number of languaging units. Using pretests, posttests, and delayed posttests,

Swain et al. demonstrate that by reading explanations and then languaging about them,

the students came to understand the concept of voice in French, and were able to transfer



7

what they had learned to new contexts. This was more likely to be the case among high

languagers.

The focus in recent investigations is to examine what factors mediate the effect of

oral languaging in L2 learning. The following five major factors are at issue: (a) the level

of L2 proficiency (e.g., Qi and Lapkin, 2001), (b) the type of task (e.g., de la Colina and

Garcia Mayo, 2007), (c) the type of feedback (Storch and Wigglesworth, 2010), (d) the

quality of languaging (e.g., Sachs and Polio, 2007), and (e) the area of language to be

learned (e.g., Adams, 2003). Out of the five major factors at issue, the effects of quality

of languaging on L2 learning are explored in this article.

In Qi and Lapkin’s study, oral languaging at a deeper level of awareness (noticing

with reasons) had greater impact on L2 learning than did the shallower level of awareness

(noticing without reasons). However, Sachs and Polio’s (2007) study, a partial replication

study of Qi and Lapkin (2001), found that the level of awareness (noticing with

reasons/metalinguistic terms vs. noticing without reasons) did not affect L2 learning. In a

recent study, Storch (2008) distinguished two levels of oral languaging engagement

during collaborative writing tasks: elaborate engagement and limited engagement.

Elaborate engagement includes questioning and explaining the target items, while limited

engagement includes simply reporting the items without deliberation. It was found that

elaborate engagement was more facilitative to L2 learning than was limited engagement

(see Leow, 1997 for a similar finding).

In summary, previous SLA studies demonstrate the effect of oral languaging on

L2 learning and the extent to which internal and external factors contribute to oral

languaging. Despite these findings, very limited studies have examined whether engaging



8

in written languaging (e.g., written reflection, written/typed self-explanations, and

diaries) contributes to students’ L2 learning (e.g., Ishikawa, 2013, 2015; Suzuki, 2012).

For example, Suzuki explored the effects of written languaging about the direct

corrections provided on draft essays written by Japanese university of English. Written

languaging seemed to help learners successfully revise the essays. Also, the effects of the

type of written languaging (i.e., lexis-based and grammar-based) were not found to be

associated with improved accuracy. The current study aims to contribute to written

languaging research by examining the effect of its quality on L2 learning.

Research Questions

The study was guided by the following two research questions (RQs) related to

intermediate Japanese university students of English:

RQ1: To what extent do participants engage in languaging, measured as the number of

and quality of written language episodes (WLEs), in response to teacher direct

correction of an essay?

RQ2: What is the relationship between the quality of WLEs and the success of immediate

revision?

Method

Participants

Student participants were 30 native speakers of Japanese enrolled in an English

composition course at a public university in Japan during the spring semester from April

to July, 2007. Six learners were excluded from the analysis because they missed some of

the lessons. The resulting participant pool consisted of 24 Japanese EFL learners. They

were nine males (37.5%) and 15 females (62.5%). Their ages ranged from 18 to 21 years



9

(M = 18.71; SD = 1.08). All of them had a high school diploma in Japan. The majority of

the learners (83%) started learning English as a foreign language at or after the age of 10.

Average years of learning English was 7.91 (SD = 2.06). Within the framework of the

Japanese curriculum, participants were judged to have achieved an intermediate

proficiency level of English for at least two reasons. First, they followed the same

curriculum prescribed by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and

Technology during their years of Education. Second, they had passed the two

standardized national university entrance examinations (mainly grammar-and reading-

focused) administered by the National Center for University Entrance Examination in

Japan.

Feedback on students’ writing was provided by a native speaker of English who

had obtained his MA (TEFL: Teaching English as a Foreign Language) in England and

taught English to Japanese university students in the targeted population at the university

for almost 30 years.

Study Procedure

The following procedure was implemented with the participants. This study was

conducted in their regular classroom as part of the English composition course in the

university. The two-week sequence of this research is illustrated in Table 1.

[TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE]

In Week 1, participants were given 30 minutes to write a first essay (see

Examples 1, 2, and 3 in the Coding and Analysis section for sample sentences from a first

draft) based on a written prompt. At the end of the 30-minute composing stage, the essays



10

were collected. Extra copies were made and the native English instructor provided direct

correction on incorrect words and grammar on those copies (see Examples 1, 2, 3 below).

In Week 2, immediately after receiving a copy of their first essay with the direct

correction, participants performed a written languaging task in Japanese (see Examples 1,

2, and 3 in the Coding and Analysis section for samples of the languaging task). They

read the languaging prompt and then explained, writing on a separate sheet, why their

linguistic forms (e.g., grammar, lexis) had been corrected. It took all participants 30

minutes to complete the languaging task, although some variations were observed among

participants. At the end of the task, the written languaging sheets were collected along

with the copy of their original essay with the corrections. Then, participants took 20

minutes to fill out a background questionnaire. Immediately after completing the

questionnaire, they received a clean copy of their original essay (i.e., without direct

correction). Then, they were asked to revise the first essay on a separate sheet of paper in

20 minutes (see Examples 1, 2, and 3 in the Coding and Analysis section for sample

sentences from a revised essay).

Direct correction

The native English instructor provided direct correction on all linguistic errors

that he noticed. The instructor (a) provided the correct linguistic form or structure above

or near the linguistic errors, (b) deleted any unnecessary words/phrases/morphemes, or

(c) inserted missing words/phrases/morphemes (see Examples 1, 2, and 3 in the Coding

and Analysis section for samples of direct correction).

Materials



11

Writing Prompts. The two writing prompts for week 1 and 3 were taken from the

Educational Testing Service (ETS) web site for the Test of English as a Foreign

Language (TOEFL) (http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/TOEFL/pdf/989563wt.pdf). Prompt

A is “if you could travel back in time to meet a famous person from history, what person

would you like to meet? Use specific reasons and examples to support your choice.”

Prompt B is “if you could meet a famous entertainer or athlete, who would that be, and

why? Use specific reasons and examples to support your choice.” These two prompts

were counter-balanced across participants.

Languaging prompt. The following prompt was administered in Japanese to

encourage participants to fully engage in the written languaging task: “Why is this

linguistic form incorrect/wrong? Why did the instructor give feedback on this form?

Please write your explanation in Japanese.” Students were allowed to write “I do not

know” if they could not tell what was wrong with the form.

Background Questionnaire. Participants were asked to complete a background

questionnaire which elicited information about their age, university major, gender,

language learning background, English proficiency levels, and study abroad experiences.

The questionnaire was administered in Japanese.

Coding and Analysis

Composition data. The number of words, sentences, and errors for each

composition was counted, and the average means for each participant across the two sets

of composition data (i.e., the first and the revised essay) were separately calculated. Also

the revisions made in the revised essay was counted and coded for whether they were

successful or not.

http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/TOEFL/pdf/989563wt.pdf



12

Written Languaging Data. An explanation about the direct correction for a given

error was operationalized as a WLE. A WLE is a similar construct to a language-related

episode (LREs) which is defined as “any part of a dialogue where the students talk about

the language they are producing, question their language use, or correct themselves or

others” (p.326).1 The definition of a WLE was extended to capture each languaging

episode about each linguistic error which had been overtly corrected by the native

English instructor. WLEs were analyzed for three different foci: noticing only, noticing

with reasons, and uncertainty. These three levels of awareness are based on established

coding schemes in SLA research (e.g., Leow, 1997; Qi and Lapkin, 2001; Sachs and

Polio, 2007; Schmidt, 2001; Storch, 2008).

Noticing only defined in this study parallels “awareness at the level of noticing”

(Schmidt, 2001), and “perfunctory kind of noticing” (Qi and Lapkin, 2001). According to

Schmidt, awareness at the level of noticing is defined as a shallow level of noticing

including conscious perception of surface-level linguistic phenomena. Qi and Lapkin

defined perfunctory noticing as “noticing without giving reasons” (p. 291).

Noticing with reasons as it is operationalized in this study is similar to “awareness

at the level of understanding” (Schmidt, 2001), and “substantive kind of noticing” (Qi

and Lapkin, 2001). According to Schmidt, awareness at the level of understanding is

defined as deeper levels of noticing including abstract rules, hypotheses, and

comparisons. Qi and Lapkin defined substantive noticing as “noticing with

understanding” (p. 294).



13

In this study, an uncertainty category was added, because a relatively large

number of WLEs reveal that participants expressed uncertainty about the

intention/purpose of direct correction.

The three WLEs types are translated from Japanese and English and exemplified

below. Example 1 illustrates noticing only WLEs (e.g., explanation without reasons and

metalinguistic terminology). Student #1 wrote, “When I was high school student…” for

the first essay, and received direct correction on the use of an article (i.e., a). The student

subsequently explained in writing, “I forgot to put a.” The student seemed to notice the

error made in the first essay, but did not provide further explanations with reasons and/or

metalinguistic terms.

Example 1: Noticing only WLE

The first essay with direct correction: When I was ⋀ high school student…

a

Written languaging episode: I forgot to put a.

Revised essay: When I was a high school student… .

Example 2 illustrates WLEs which are categorized as noticing with reasons (i.e.,

explanation with reasons and/or metalinguistic terminology). Student #2 wrote, “If I can

meet a famous person in history” for the first essay, and received direct correction on the

use of an auxiliary verb (i.e., can could). The student subsequently explained in

writing, “I had to use past hypothetical conditional here.” As can be seen, the student

provided the explanations with a metalinguistic term (i.e., past hypothetical conditional).

Example 2: Noticing with reasons WLE



14

The first essay with direct correction:

If I can meet a famous person in history…

could

Written languaging episode: I had to use past hypothetical conditional here.

Revised essay: If I could meet a famous person …

Finally, Example 3 illustrates WLEs which were coded as uncertainty (e.g.,

comments including uncertainty about the intention of direct correction). Student 3 wrote,

“I want to meet Nobunaga Oda”, and received direct correction on the use of a phrasal

verb (want to would like to). The student then explained, in writing, “I don’t know.”

Although the student might have noticed the errors made in the first essay, the student did

not or could not explain the purpose of direct correction.

Example 3: Uncertainty WLE

The first essay with direct correction: I want to meet Nobunaga Oda.

would like

Written languaging episode: I don’t know.

Revised essay: I want to meet Nobunaga Oda.

For inter-rater agreement, a Ph.D. student (native speaker of Japanese) majoring

in SLA and I individually coded 42% of the data (224 out of 526 WLEs). We agreed on

96% of the classifications regarding the quality of WLEs, and discussed and resolved 4%

of the disagreements together. Then, I coded the rest of data (302 WLEs). A month later,

I re-coded all the data (526 WLEs) and my intra-rater agreement was 98.3%.

Results



15

Occurrence of Quality of WLEs

Research Question 1 concerned the quality of written languaging in response to direct

correction on various linguistic errors in the first essay produced by intermediate L2

proficiency learners. To answer this question, I examined the occurrence of WLEs where

noticing only took place versus noticing with reasons, versus uncertainty. Table 2 shows

how frequently each quality of WLEs (noticing only, noticing with reasons, uncertainty)

was produced by participants. A one-sample chi-square test was conducted to assess

differences in frequencies of the three categories of WLEs (i.e., noticing only, noticing

with reasons, and uncertainty). The result of the test was significant, χ2 (2, N = 526) =

409.16, p < .001, with a large effect size (ɸ =.88). The proportions of WLEs that were

noticing only, noticing with reasons, and uncertainty were .13, .75, and .12, respectively.

Follow-up pairwise comparisons were conducted to evaluate the difference among these

proportions. Table 3 shows the results of these analyses. The only two pairwise

differences that were significantly different were (a) between noticing with reasons

WLEs and noticing only WLEs with a large effect size (Φ = .49) and (b) between

noticing with reasons WLEs and uncertainty WLEs with a large effect size (Φ = .52). The

probability of a WLE being noticing with reasons was 6.25 (.75/.12) times more likely

than the probability of a WLE being with uncertainty. The probability of a WLE being

noticing with reasons was 5.77 (.75/.13) times more likely than the probability of a WLE

being noticing only. Overall, these results suggest that the participants tended to reflect

beyond just noticing their errors and corrections.

[Tables 2 and 3 around here]

Quality WLEs and Type of Revision



16

Research Question 2 concerned the extent to which the quality of written

languaging in response to direct correction on various linguistic errors in the first essay

was related to accuracy improvement as measured by the revised essay. To answer this

question, frequencies and percentages of the learners’ incorporation of each of the

qualities of WLEs were calculated and compared. The results are presented in Table 4. Of

the total number of WLEs being noticing with reasons (n = 394), 362 (92%) led to

successful incorporation, and 32 (8%) led to unsuccessful incorporation. Of all noticing

only WLEs (n = 69), 65 (94%) led to successful incorporation, and 4 (6%) led to

unsuccessful incorporation. Of the total number of WLEs that were uncertain (n = 63), 45

(71%) led to successful incorporation, and 18 (29%) led to unsuccessful incorporation.

Altogether, WLEs being either noticing with reasons or noticing only resulted in a higher

rate of successful incorporation than WLEs being uncertain.

A two-way contingency table analysis was conducted to evaluate whether

incorporation of WLEs into subsequent revisions corresponded more to noticing with

reasons, noticing only or uncertainty. Quality of WLEs and type of revision were found

to be significantly related, Pearson χ2 (2, N = 526) = 26.38, p < .001, with a small effect

size (ɸ =.22). The proportions of WLEs being noticing only, noticing with reasons, and

uncertainty which were successfully incorporated into subsequent revision were .92, .94,

and .71, respectively. Follow-up pairwise comparisons were conducted to evaluate the

difference among these proportions. Table 5 shows the results of these analyses. The

Holm’s sequential Bonferoni method was used to control for Type I error at the .05 level

across all three comparisons. The only two pairwise differences that were significant

were (a) between WLEs at the level of noticing with reasons and WLEs at the level of



17

uncertainty with a small effect size (Φ = .06) and (b) between WLEs at the level of

noticing only and WLEs at the level of uncertainty with a small effect size (Φ = .11). The

probability of a WLE being incorporated into subsequent revisions was 1.32 times

(.94/.71) more likely when the WLE was noticing only as opposed to uncertainty. Also,

the probability of a WLE being incorporated into subsequent revision was 1.30 times

(.92/.71) more likely when the WLE was noticing with reasons as opposed to uncertainty.

[Tables 4 and 5 around here]

Discussion

Quality of Written Languaging

The first research question was “To what extent do participants engage in

languaging, measured as the number of and quality of written language episodes (WLEs),

in response to direct correction of an essay?” It was found that the probability of a WLE

being noticed with reasons (75%) was about six times more likely than the probability of

a WLE being noticed without reasons or with uncertainty (13% or 12%, respectively). In

other words, participants were more likely to express deeper levels of awareness about

direct corrections on their errors.

The quality of languaging episodes and LREs has just begun to be explored in

SLA research (e.g., Qi and Lapkin, 2001; Sachs and Polio, 2007; Storch, 2008). In Qi and

Lapkin’s study, the participant with a higher level of L2 proficiency produced more LREs

of a deeper kind (72%) than those of a shallower kind (28%). Conversely, the participant

with a lower level of L2 proficiency produced more LREs of a shallower kind (77%) than

those of a deeper kind (23%). These results suggest that learners with lower levels of L2

proficiency may experience more difficulty understanding the nature of feedback



18

(reformulation) on a written essay than learners with a higher level of L2 proficiency.

That is, L2 proficiency level may be a major determinant of the quality of LREs when

learners engage in cognitive comparisons between a written essay and a reformulated

version. However, Sachs and Polio’s (2007) study, a partial replication of Qi and Lapkin

(2001), generated quite opposite findings. Fifteen ESL students with a high-intermediate

proficiency level produced LREs of a shallower kind (84%) than those at a deeper level

(15%). In the present study, the intermediate proficiency participants produced more

WLEs of a deeper kind (75%) than those of a shallower kind (13%).

The discrepancy between the present study and these two studies (especially

Sachs and Polio) can be explained by three major differences with respect to research

methodology: (a) modality of data collection (writing vs. speaking), (b) type of verbal

reports (retrospective report vs. think aloud), and (c) language used for data collection

(L1 vs. L2). The participants in the present study wrote retrospective reports in the L1,

whereas those in Sachs and Polio (2007) concurrently thought aloud in the L2. As Sachs

and Polio (2007) admitted, performing think alouds in the L2 may have likely made large

cognitive demands on working memory, which affected their participants’ thinking

processes when they compared their essays with feedback. Mackey, Gass, and

McDonough’s (2000) findings (reported in Gass and Mackey, 2000, p. 98) may support

this argument. Mackey et al. found that the average number of words per stimulated

recall comment was 26 for learners who thought aloud in their L1 but only 16 for learners

who did so in their L2. The students in my study, by using written languaging in their L1,

may have freed up their cognitive capacities, aiding their performance of cognitively

complex tasks like making cognitive comparisons and writing about feedback. This may



19

have given these learners more time or increased capacity to process information about

direct corrections on their errors.

The language used for collecting think-aloud data (L1 vs. L2) differed between

the present study and Sachs and Polio (2007). While Sachs and Polio (2007) asked L2

learners to think aloud in the L2, I asked participants to use their L1. Other researchers

have asked participants to think aloud in the language of their choice (Bowles, 2008;

Bowles and Leow, 2005; Leow and Morgan-Short, 2004; Sachs and Suh, 2007).

Participants in those studies tend to (a) use L1 when thinking aloud and translating and

(b) switch to L2 when referring to target linguistic forms or reading L2 sentences

(Melissa Bowles, personal communication, February 2008; Rebecca Sachs, personal

communication, March, 2008; Bo-Ram Suh, personal communication, March 2008). In

SLA research, the language used for thinking aloud is sometimes the participant’s L1,

sometimes the L2, and sometimes a combination of both. If thinking aloud is required to

be in the learner’s L2, even if he or she is highly proficient, the task becomes more

difficult and increases cognitive demands. Even if thinking aloud is carried out in the

learner’s L1, the shift between the language of the task (the learner’s L2) and their L1

also may increase cognitive demands. Thus, the issue of the language of verbalization

adds a completely new dimension to findings in cognitive psychology. In cognitive

psychology, thinking aloud is usually conducted in people’s L1, and participants whose

L1 is not the same language used for think alouds are often excluded from their analyses.

Quality of Written Languaging and Type of Revision

The second research question was “What is the relationship between the quality of

WLEs and the success of immediate revision?” It was found that the probability of a



20

WLE being incorporated into subsequent revisions was about 1.3 times more likely when

the WLE was noticing only (94%) or noticing with reasons (92%) as opposed to

uncertainty (71%). Also, the probability of WLEs being successfully incorporated into

subsequent revisions was found to be similar when the WLEs were noticing only (94%)

and noticing with reasons (92%). Taken together, when the participants verbalized about

their corrected errors at some level of awareness (i.e., noticing only or noticing with

reasons), the verbalized items were more likely to be successfully incorporated during

revisions than when participants were not certain about the corrected errors (i.e.,

uncertainty).

These findings appear to support Schmidt’s (2001) Noticing Hypothesis. Schmidt

operationally defined noticing as availability for verbal reports. He states that “the objects

of attention and noticing are elements of the surface structure of utterances in the input -

instances of language, rather than any abstract rules or principles of which such instances

may be exemplars” (p. 5). Schmidt went on to argue that noticing the surface structure is

necessary for L2 learning, and metalinguistic awareness (e.g., noticing structural

regularities, forming hypotheses, and making cognitive comparisons) can be facilitative

to L2 learning. This necessity argument is clearly beyond the scope of the present study.

Although Schmidt (2001) argued that “more attention results in more learning” (p. 30),

several researchers have provided evidence that language learning can take place without

attention (e.g., Williams, 2005). The findings of the present study show that the lowest

level of awareness (uncertainty) is less likely to be incorporated into subsequent revision

than the higher levels of awareness (noticing only and noticing with reasons).



21

The present study also found that the highest level of awareness (noticing with

reasons) was as facilitative for accuracy improvement as the middle level of awareness

(noticing only). This trend is inconsistent with Schmidt’s view on the facilitative role of

metalinguistic awareness in L2 learning. A growing body of SLA research has supported

Schmidt’s views on noticing and metalinguistic awareness (e.g., Leow, 1997; Sachs and

Suh, 2007). The discrepancy between the present study and these SLA studies can be

explained by at least three factors: (a) high successful incorporation rate in this study

(i.e., the ceiling effect); (b) the effect of error types on languaging; and (c) the task

demands (i.e., reading task vs. feedback processing task).

First, the high probability of noticing only WLEs and noticing with reasons WLEs

being successfully incorporated into revision (94% and 92%, respectively) may have

constrained the differential effects on immediate revision of WLEs being noticing only or

noticing with reasons. If a longer time interval had been set between the languaging task

and revision task (i.e. a day or a week) rather than 20 minutes as in this study, a lower

rate of successful incorporation might have been observed. This might have in turn

affected the differential effects of the quality of written languaging on successful

incorporation of WLEs into revisions.

Second, the type of errors may have influenced the quality of written languaging.

The present study adopted an extensive feedback strategy in which the teacher provided

direct correction on a wide range of error types. When processing errors such as articles,

spelling, plurals, and lexical choices, participants might have felt it unnecessary to

articulate their thinking with reasons and/or metalinguistic terms (or simply it was

impossible to do so). For example, “I forgot putting a” and “I made a spelling error” were



22

coded as noticing only WLEs. Although these episodes were coded as noticing only

(perfunctory, shallow level of awareness), participants might have more deeply processed

the direct correction (substantive, deeper level of awareness) but did not or could not

articulate their thinking in writing.

Third, the quality of written languaging may have been related to the task

demands during languaging/thinking aloud. In the present study and Sachs and Polio

(2007), participants were asked to think about the difference between their own erroneous

output and the corrective feedback. Therefore, the mere act of oral or written languaging

might “promote increased attention, and lead to deeper processing, more reasoning, and

ultimately better revision” (Sachs and Polio, 2007, p. 73). Therefore, the quality of

written languaging may not have appeared to influence subsequent revisions in the

present study or in Sachs and Polio (2007). In contrast, participants in previous SLA

studies have generally been required to think aloud during various problem-solving tasks

such as a cross-word puzzle (Bowles, 2008; Leow, 1997), reading (Bowles and Leow,

2005; Leow and Morgan-Short, 2004), or story-retelling (Sachs and Suh, 2007). To

complete these problem solving tasks, participants do not necessarily need to learn target

linguistic structures. In other words, the learning of target linguistic forms may be

incidental. In such an incidental learning context, the deeper level of awareness

participants reported during task performance reflects the fact that they must have paid

attention to the target forms, and as a result, they learned them. As Robinson (2003)

claims, the degree of attention may depend on the cognitive demands of the tasks L2

learners are asked to perform.

Limitations and Future Directions



23

This study was of an exploratory nature (rather than a carefully controlled

experimental study), so several limitations must be reiterated for future research on

written languaging. First, without a non-languaging group, this study can indicate that

written languaging may be effective for developing accuracy. The second limitation is

that the effect of written languaging in response to direct correction on L2 learning was

primarily measured by immediate revisions, but was not measured on improvements with

time. Immediate revision may not provide a direct window for language acquisition

(Truscott, 1996), although such revision is considered to be an indicator of noticing and

learning of corrective feedback (Swain, 2005). Third, the results of this study relate only

to explicit L2 knowledge (i.e., knowledge that can be verbalized and used to monitor and

self-correct learners’ own output). There is a general consensus among SLA researchers

(N. Ellis, 2005) that L2 instruction should give priority to implicit knowledge (i.e.,

knowledge that can be used without an ability to verbalize it). However, explicit

knowledge is important in the case of writing which allows for the conscious monitoring

and self-correction of output.

Despite these limitations, the study shows that students may deepen their

understanding about L2 linguistic knowledge through the act of expressing it in writing,

that is, by engaging in written languaging (Suzuki, 2012). Pedagogical implications of the

findings of the present study include that L2 teachers may wish to ask their students to

reflect, in diaries, journals, and portfolios, on the linguistic problems they have

encountered during classroom activities. Pedagogical tools such as diaries, journals, and

portfolios do not merely provide learners with learning opportunities. What students

reflect on in diaries and journals also provides teachers with valuable information about:



24

(a) what aspects of language students have paid attention to, (b) students’ interpretation

of teacher feedback, and (c) overlaps between teacher intent and student interpretation of

corrective feedback. In L2 writing classrooms, teachers may wish to ask individual

students to reflect, in writing, on corrective feedback targeting various linguistic

problems in their essays. Teachers may be advised to ask individual students to answer

open-ended questions like, “what do you think you have learned from feedback on your

writing today?” and/or structured questions like, “Why did I give you feedback on this

form?” This sort of task can be briefly introduced at the end of each class or be assigned

as homework.

Note

1. The fact that the participants were asked to engage in written languaging by the teacher

during class time seems to indicate that learners might have written their reflections for

the teacher. It may not be clear whether the written languaging condition implemented in

the present study is considered as an instance of private writing. However, as in the case

of collaborative dialogue, at least some of the written languaging may be directed at the

self (i.e., an overt manifestation of self-regulation). As an anonymous reviewer points

out, the learners having engaged in written languaging for themselves and others can be

considered as an instance of written languaging.

References

Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation, and noticing: implications for IL

development. Language Teaching Research 7: 347--76.

Arievitch, I. M. (2003). A potential for an integrated view of development and learning:

Galperin's contribution to sociocultural psychology. Mind, Culture, and Activity

10: 278--88.

Batstone, R. (2010). Sociocognitive Perspectives on Language Use and Language

Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.



25

Bowles, M. A. (2008). Task type and reactivity of verbal reports in SLA: A first look at

an L2 task other than reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30: 359--

87.

Bowles, M. A., and Leow, R. P. (2005). Reactivity and type of verbal report in SLA

research methodology: Expanding the scope of investigation. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition 27: 415--40.

Byrnes, H. (2006). Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and

Vygotsky. London, UK: Continuum.

Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining: the dual processes of generating inferences and

repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional

psychology, (pp. 161–238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chi, M., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., and Glaser, R. (1989). Self-

explanations: how students study and use examples in learning to solve problems.

Cognitive Science 13: 145--82.

Chi, M., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., and LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-

explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science 18: 439--77.

Cole, M., and Maltzman, I. (1969). A Handbook of Contemporary Soviet Psychology.

New York: Basic Books.

Craik, F., and Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory

research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11: 671--84.

Darhower, M. (2004). Dialogue journals as meditators of L2 learning: A sociocultural

account. Hispania 87: 324--35.

de la Colina, A. A., & García Mayo, M. (2006).Attention to form across collaborative

tasks bylow‐proficiency learners in an EFL setting. InM. García Mayo (Ed.),

Investigating tasksin formal language learning (pp. 91–116).London:

Multilingual Matters.

DiCamilla, F., and Lantolf, J. (1994). The linguistic analysis of private writing. Language

Sciences 16: 347--69.

Doughty, C. J., and Long, M. H. (2003). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition.

Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language

knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27: 305--52.



26

Egi, T. (2007). Recasts, learners’ perceptions, and L2 development. In A. Mackey(Ed.),

Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A s eries ofempirical

s tudies (pp. 249–267). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gal’perin, P. I. (1969). Stages in the development of mental acts. In M. Cole & I.

Maltzman (Eds.), A handbook of contemporary soviet psychology (pp. 248–273).

New York: Basic Books.

Galperin, P. I. (1992). Stage-by-stage formation as a method of psychological

investigation. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology 30: 60--80.

Garcia Mayo, M. (2007). Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning . Clevedon,

UK: Multilingual Matters.

Garnott, N., and Parziale, P. (2002). Microdevelopment: Transition Processes in

Development and Learning. New York: Cambridge Universtiy Press.

Gass, S., and Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language

Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Glaser, R. (2000). Advances in Instructional Psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Hausmann, R. G. M., & VanLehn, K. (2007). Explaining self-explaining: A contrast

between content and generation. In R. Luckin, K. R. Koedinger, & J. Greer (Eds.),

Proceedings of AI in Education (pp. 417–424). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Hinkel, E. (2005). Handbook on Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ishikawa, M. (2013). Examining the effect of written languaging: the role of metanotes as

a mediator of second language learning. Language Awareness, 22, 220-233.

Ishikwa, M. (2015). Metanotes (written languaging) in a translation task: do L2

proficiency and task outcome matter? Innovation in Language Learning and

Teaching, 9, 115-129.

Kagan, O., Bauckus, S., and Brinton, D. (2007). Heritage Language Education: A New

Field Emerging. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlabaum Associates.

Kastens, K. A., and Liben, L. S. (2007). Eliciting self-explanations improves children's

performance on a field-based map skills task. Cognition and Instruction 25: 45-

74.

Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.



27

Lantolf, J. P. and Poehner, M. (2008). Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second

Languages. London: Equinox Press.

Lee, J. (2008). Gesture and private speech in second langauge acquisition. Studies in

Second Langauge Acquisition 30: 169-90.

Leow, R. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behaviors. Language

Learning 47: 467--505.

Leow, R. P., and Morgan-Short, K. (2004). To think aloud or not to think aloud: The

issue of reactivity in SLA research methodology. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition 26: 33-57.

Luckin, R., Koedinger, K. R., and Greer, J. (2007). Artificial Intelligence in Education:

Building Technology Rich Learning Contexts That Work. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied

Linguistics 27: 405--30.

Mackey, A. (2007). Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A

Collection of Empirical Studies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Mackey, A., Gass, S., and McDonough, K. (2000). Do learners recognize implicit

negative feedback as feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22: 471--

97.

Nabei, T., and Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction:

A case study of an adult EFL student’s second language learning. Language

Awareness 11: 43--63.

Negueruela, E. (2008). Revolutionary pedagogies: Learning that leads development in the

second language classroom. In J.P. Lantolf & M. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural

theory and second language teaching (pp. 189–227). London: Equinox.

Qi, D., 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.

Rieber, R. W., Carton, A. S., and Minick, N. (1987). The Collected Works of L. S.

Vygotsky. Volume 1: Problems of General Psychology. New York: Plenum Press.

Robinson, P. (2001). Cognition and Second Language Instruction. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Robinson, P. (2003a). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. Doughty & M. Long

(Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 630-678). Oxford:

Blackwell.



28

Roebuck, R. (2000). Subjects speak out: How learners position themselves in a

psycholinguistic task. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second

language learning (pp. 79–96). New York: Oxford University Press.

Sachs, R., and Polio, C. (2007). Learners' uses of two types of written corrective

feedback on an L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition

29: 67--100.

Sachs, R. and Suh, B-R. (2007). Texually enhanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2

outcomes in synchoronous computer-mediated interaction. In A. Mackey (Ed.),

Conversatuional interaction in second language acquisition: A seris of empirical

studies (pp. 197-227). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language

instruction (pp. 1-33). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Siegler, R. S. (2002). Microgenetic studies of self-explanation. In N. Garnott & J.

Parziale (Eds.), Microdevelopment: A process-oriented perspective for studying

development and learning (pp. 31–58). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University

Press.

Simard, D., French, L., and Fortier, V. (2007). Elicited metalinguistic reflection and

second language learning: is there a link? System 35: 509--22.

Slamecka, N. J. and Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon.

Journal of experimental psychology: Human memory and learning 4: 589--607.

Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: level of engagement and implications

for language development. Language Awareness 17: 95--114.

Storch, N., & Wigglesowrth, G. (2010). Students’ engagement with feedback on writing:

The role of learner agency. In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on

language use and language learning (pp. 166–185). Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Suzuki, W. (2012). Written languaging, direct correction, and second language writing

revision. Language Learning, 62, 1110-1133.

Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (ed.),

Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 471-

483).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language

proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of

Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.



29

Swain, M. (2010). Talking-it through: Languaging as a source of learning. In R. Batstone

(Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use/learning (pp. 112–130).

Oxford: Oxford University Press

Swain, M., and Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two

adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language

Journal 82: 320--37.

Swain, M., and Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’

response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research 37:

285--304.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2007). ‘Oh, I get it now!’ From production to comprehension in

second language learning. In D.M. Brinton and O. Kagan (eds.), Heritage

Language Acquisition: A New Field Emerging. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Knouzi, I., Suzuki, W., and Brooks, L. (2009). Languaging:

University students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French. The

Modern Language Journal, 93, 5-29.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language

Learning 46: 327--69.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, and E.

Souberman, Trans.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In L. S. Vygotsky, R. W. Rieber (Series

Eds.), & A. S. Carton (Vol. Ed.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 1:

Problems in general psychology (N. Minick, Trans.). New York: Plenum.

Williams, J. N. (2005). Learning without awareness. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition 27: 269--304.



30

TABLE 1

Three-week sequence of the study procedure

Week 1 Week 2

Write first essay

(30 min)

1. Languaging task (30 min)

2. Learner background questionnaire (20 min)

3. Revise essay (20 min)



31

TABLE 2

Frequency and percentage of types of WLEs produced by participants

N % Average Maximum Minimum

Noticing

with reasons

394 75

16.42

(6.42)

28 5

Noticing

only

69 13

2.88

(3.76)

15 0

Uncertainty 63 12

2.63

(3.09)

11 0

Total 526 100

21.92

(8.41)

38 4

Note. ( ) = SD



32

TABLE 3

Results for the pairwise comparisons of each category of WLE type

Comparison Pearson chi-

square p value (Alpha)

Effect size (Φ)

Noticing with reasons vs.

Uncertainty

239.74* .00

.52

Noticing with reasons vs. Noticing

only

228.13* .00

.49

Noticing only vs. Uncertainty .27 .60 .00

Note. p < .001



33

TABLE 4

Frequency of successful incorporation of quality of WLE

Successful incorporation Unsuccessful incorporation

n % n %

Noticing

with reasons 362 92

32 8

Noticing

only 65 94

4 6

Uncertainty 45 71 18 29

Total 472 90 54 10



34

TABLE 5

Results for pairwise comparisons

Comparison Pearson chi-square p value (Alpha) Effect size (Φ)


Uncertainty 23.31* .00

.06

Noticing only vs.

Uncertainty 12.30* .00

.11


Noticing only .43 .50

.00

Note. * p < .001

(7,803 words)