Woodall, Billy R. "Language-Switching: Using the First Language While Writing in a Second Language." Journal of Second Language Writing 11.1 (2002): 7-28. ScienceDirect. Web. 12 Mar. 2010.
In Woodall’s article “Language-Switching: Using the First Language While Writing in a Second Language,” Woodall discusses how language-switching (L-S) is used in L2 writing. Woodall defines the term L-S as “the spontaneous, non-prescribed use of the L1 in L2 writing” and explains that “the switch occurs privately (even though others may be present)” (8). Woodall identifies three factors that he believes affect L-S in L2 writing, and those are “L2 proficiency, task difficulty, and the genetic relationship between the L1 and the L2, i.e., whether the native and target languages are cognate (such as English and Spanish) or non-cognate (such as English and Japanese)” (10). While some studies report text quality is unrelated to L2 proficiency, others insist L2 proficiency does in fact affect L2 writing performance. Researchers also differ on the role of task difficulty in L2 writing. Despite the contradictory conclusions in the field, Woodall notes that “all research in L2 writing can be classified as studies in either cognate or non-cognate languages,” in addition, he argues that “one might expect all language learners, regardless of the relationship of native language to target language, to rely on what they know (L1) when building new knowledge (L2)” (10). Although a great deal of past research supports the idea that writing in the L1 is similar to writing in the L2, Woodall expounds on his hypothesis claiming there is a significant difference between L1/L2 writing especially in regards to L-S behavior (11). Woodall used 28 participants in his study and grouped them according to their L2 proficiency (intermediate and advanced). Woodall points out that 13 of the participants “were learning a second language that was cognate to their native language (Spanish/English), and 15 were learning a second language that was non-cognate to their native language (Japanese/English)” (12). Woodall used think-aloud protocols and instructed the participants to compose two texts – a letter and a persuasive essay. After the L-S think-aloud data was collected, it was analyzed with respect to a variety of factors. The first was “L2 proficiency, a between-subjects factor with two levels (intermediate and advanced), and the second factor was language group, another between-subjects factor with two levels (cognate and non-cognate)” (Woodall 15). Finally, “the third factor was task difficulty, a within-subjects repeated measure with two levels (easy versus difficult, i.e., letter versus essay)” (15). The results of Woodall’s study revealed L2 proficiency and task difficulty have no effect on L-S in L2 writing; however, Woodall concluded that “some students appeared to control their L-S using their L1 as a tool” while “for others L-S seemed out of control, and the L1 seemed more like a crutch to obtain cognitive stability” (20). As for the L-S with cognate and non-cognate languages, Woodall seems to attribute not being able to “control” the L1 to a writer of a non-cognate language and “using their L1 as a tool” to a writer of a cognate language which does not support his hypothesis (20). I would recommend this article because it both recognizes and supports the idea that employing the L1 while writing in L2 can be beneficial. It also introduces (at least to my knowledge) cognate and non-cognate languages and the significance of that concept within the field of L2 writing.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Blog 4
Wang, Lurong. "Switching to First Language Among Writers with Differing Second-Language Proficiency." Journal of Second Language Writing 12.4 (2003): 347-375. ScienceDirect. Web. 27 Feb. 2010.
In Lurong Wang’s article “Switching to First Language Among Writers with Differing Second-Language Proficiency,” Wang discusses evidence from previous research studies which indicate “writers with differing proficiency levels in L2 may use their L1 in different patterns while composing in L2” (350). These studies led Wang to argue “that L2 proficiency may be one important factor that generates the different processes of switching languages in L2 writing” (350). Using eight Chinese writers with differing levels of L2 proficiency who are enrolled in an ESL school, Wang conducts a study which looks at “L-S [language switching] behaviors in L2 writing with respect to (1) relations between L-S frequency and L2 proficiency, (2) purposes for L-S, and (3) L-S and written production and revisions” (350). Wang used think-aloud protocols for his study as well as retrospective interviews. Each participant was given two writing tasks (one letter writing session and one argument writing session) and asked “to write no more than 200 words within 30 minutes for the purpose of making comparisons between the two proficiency groups” (Wang 354). In the retrospective interviews conducted in participants’ L1, Wang reviewed the tape-recorded think-aloud protocols with the participant and “asked them to explain, as explicitly as they could, how they planned their text, why and how they made each change in it, and what they were thinking during each pause” (355). Wang transcribed the think-aloud data he audio recorded and subsequently coded the data using three different approaches. First, he “followed the criteria employed by Chafe, who separated idea units as an independent linguistic unit by punctuation markers or intonational and hesitational patterns” (Wang 356). Second, he identified “L-S sequences in all the think-aloud protocols” (Wang 356). Finally, Wang categorized the L-S sequences by “discourse, idea generation, language use, translation, lexical searching, and metacomments” (357). After analyzing the data, Wang concluded “that the amount of bilingual writers’ L-S is not reduced when their L2 proficiency has developed” (368). Wang states “HP [higher proficiency] learners appeared to benefit extensively from switching to their L1 for rhetorical choices and discourse” while “LP [lower proficiency] participants often failed to use the L1 effectively and strategically to generate comprehensible and coherent texts” (368). I would recommend this article because although Wang does not address the impact of L1 writing expertise in his study, he does give a thorough report on L2 writers’ L-S behaviors with respect to the composing process. Furthermore, his study, like previous studies, suggests that L-S is related to L2 proficiency; however, Wang’s study points out that “the qualities of, or strategic ways in which, bilingual writers switch to the L1” indicate “some kind of developmental continuum associated with L2 proficiency” (368).
In Lurong Wang’s article “Switching to First Language Among Writers with Differing Second-Language Proficiency,” Wang discusses evidence from previous research studies which indicate “writers with differing proficiency levels in L2 may use their L1 in different patterns while composing in L2” (350). These studies led Wang to argue “that L2 proficiency may be one important factor that generates the different processes of switching languages in L2 writing” (350). Using eight Chinese writers with differing levels of L2 proficiency who are enrolled in an ESL school, Wang conducts a study which looks at “L-S [language switching] behaviors in L2 writing with respect to (1) relations between L-S frequency and L2 proficiency, (2) purposes for L-S, and (3) L-S and written production and revisions” (350). Wang used think-aloud protocols for his study as well as retrospective interviews. Each participant was given two writing tasks (one letter writing session and one argument writing session) and asked “to write no more than 200 words within 30 minutes for the purpose of making comparisons between the two proficiency groups” (Wang 354). In the retrospective interviews conducted in participants’ L1, Wang reviewed the tape-recorded think-aloud protocols with the participant and “asked them to explain, as explicitly as they could, how they planned their text, why and how they made each change in it, and what they were thinking during each pause” (355). Wang transcribed the think-aloud data he audio recorded and subsequently coded the data using three different approaches. First, he “followed the criteria employed by Chafe, who separated idea units as an independent linguistic unit by punctuation markers or intonational and hesitational patterns” (Wang 356). Second, he identified “L-S sequences in all the think-aloud protocols” (Wang 356). Finally, Wang categorized the L-S sequences by “discourse, idea generation, language use, translation, lexical searching, and metacomments” (357). After analyzing the data, Wang concluded “that the amount of bilingual writers’ L-S is not reduced when their L2 proficiency has developed” (368). Wang states “HP [higher proficiency] learners appeared to benefit extensively from switching to their L1 for rhetorical choices and discourse” while “LP [lower proficiency] participants often failed to use the L1 effectively and strategically to generate comprehensible and coherent texts” (368). I would recommend this article because although Wang does not address the impact of L1 writing expertise in his study, he does give a thorough report on L2 writers’ L-S behaviors with respect to the composing process. Furthermore, his study, like previous studies, suggests that L-S is related to L2 proficiency; however, Wang’s study points out that “the qualities of, or strategic ways in which, bilingual writers switch to the L1” indicate “some kind of developmental continuum associated with L2 proficiency” (368).
Monday, February 22, 2010
Blog 3
Wolfersberger, Mark. “L1 to L2 Writing Process and Strategy Transfer: A Look at Lower Proficiency Writers.” TESL-EJ 7.2 (2003): n.pag. Eric. Web. 19 Feb. 2010.
Wolfersberger’s article “L1 to L2 Writing Process and Strategy Transfer: A Look at Lower Proficiency Writers” discusses the writing strategies and composing processes of three lower proficiency Japanese writers. He explains that the lower proficiency participants “were chosen for their beginning English proficiency, their wider experience with writing in Japanese, and their limited experience with writing in English” (Wolfersberger). Although writing in a second language is a difficult and complex process, Wolfersberger argues that it is “reasonable to assume that parts of the composing process are similar or even the same in the L1 and L2.” Wolfersberger used think-aloud protocols to conduct his research study. First, he demonstrated the think-aloud process and subsequently checked for the participants’ understanding before instructing them to compose a text. Each participant composed one essay in Japanese (L1) and one essay in English (L2). After analyzing the texts, Wolfersberger concludes “that L2 writers faced with writing tasks requiring an L2 proficiency level above that of the writer do not transfer L1 strategies to the L2 writing process, even though the writer may have a multiplicity of strategies available when completing the same task in the L1.” Once his conclusions are drawn, Wolfersberger suggests three strategies for lower proficiency writers in regards to L1 transfer:
1. Writers should be introduced to a variety of writing strategies.
2. If writers employ their L1 during prewriting, then writers can effectively generate text in their L2 because they already have an idea of what they want to write.
3. Writers should concentrate on the organization and content of their essays rather than focusing on grammar issues and spelling mistakes.
I would recommend this article because Wolfersberger’s strategies have wider implications for both teachers and students. Although his evidence is based on three participants, (and all participants have the same L1 and similar L2 proficiency) Wolfersberger’s research aids instructors when they are developing writing tasks for lower proficiency writers and also assists instructors in introducing or developing the three strategies Wolfersberger delineates.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Blog 2
Kobayashi, Hiroe and Carol Rinnert. "Task Response and Text Construction Across L1 and L2 Writing." Journal of Second Language Writing 17.1 (2008): 7-29. ScienceDirect. Web. 11. Feb. 2010.
In their article “Task Response and Text Construction Across L1 and L2 Writing,” Kobayashi and Rinnert use a socio-cognitive approach to conduct a study that “attempts to explore possible effects of L1 (Japanese) and L2 (English) writing experience on the relationship between task response and text construction in both languages” (8). Kobayashi and Rinnert argue that past writing experience in addition to “social and cultural factors…affects students’ ways of defining and approaching a writing task” (9). Kobayashi and Rinnert explain how their study will “investigate…various types of special pre-university preparatory training for Japanese college entrance examinations” in regards to L1 and L2 essays (10). Using first-year university students, they “compare the writing by members of four distinct groups: those with intensive training in both L1 and L2 writing, those with training in only L1, those with training in only L2, and those with no such intensive training” (Kobayashi and Rinnert 10).
The results indicated that both preparatory training and past writing experience did have an effect on the students. The group “whose participants had received only L2 training showed the biggest change in the choice of discourse type” (Kobayashi and Rinnert 14). In the follow-up interviews, Kobayashi and Rinnert asked the students why one form of discourse was chosen over the other. The students with training in L2 “reported…that the purpose of English writing is to convey ideas clearly to the reader, and the use of discourse markers is important for achieving such clarity (Kobayashi and Rinnert 18). In the conclusion, Kobayashi and Rinnert suggest their study found similarities (in terms of discourse marker use and essay structure) between Japanese and English writing. I would recommend this article for three reasons: (a) this research shows us that previous writing experience does affect a student’s choice when responding to a text, (b) the level of L1 and/or L2 writing training has an impact on how a student defines and subsequently approaches a particular text, and (c) the socio-cognitive perspective Kobayashi and Rinnert take allow us to see the “transferability of writing competence across languages” (7).
In their article “Task Response and Text Construction Across L1 and L2 Writing,” Kobayashi and Rinnert use a socio-cognitive approach to conduct a study that “attempts to explore possible effects of L1 (Japanese) and L2 (English) writing experience on the relationship between task response and text construction in both languages” (8). Kobayashi and Rinnert argue that past writing experience in addition to “social and cultural factors…affects students’ ways of defining and approaching a writing task” (9). Kobayashi and Rinnert explain how their study will “investigate…various types of special pre-university preparatory training for Japanese college entrance examinations” in regards to L1 and L2 essays (10). Using first-year university students, they “compare the writing by members of four distinct groups: those with intensive training in both L1 and L2 writing, those with training in only L1, those with training in only L2, and those with no such intensive training” (Kobayashi and Rinnert 10).
The results indicated that both preparatory training and past writing experience did have an effect on the students. The group “whose participants had received only L2 training showed the biggest change in the choice of discourse type” (Kobayashi and Rinnert 14). In the follow-up interviews, Kobayashi and Rinnert asked the students why one form of discourse was chosen over the other. The students with training in L2 “reported…that the purpose of English writing is to convey ideas clearly to the reader, and the use of discourse markers is important for achieving such clarity (Kobayashi and Rinnert 18). In the conclusion, Kobayashi and Rinnert suggest their study found similarities (in terms of discourse marker use and essay structure) between Japanese and English writing. I would recommend this article for three reasons: (a) this research shows us that previous writing experience does affect a student’s choice when responding to a text, (b) the level of L1 and/or L2 writing training has an impact on how a student defines and subsequently approaches a particular text, and (c) the socio-cognitive perspective Kobayashi and Rinnert take allow us to see the “transferability of writing competence across languages” (7).
Reflection on Blog 1
After reflecting on the blog I posted last week, I have decided to recant one of the statements I made regarding think-aloud protocol analysis. At the time, I did not feel it was a valid method, but after reading several articles including one which van Weijen cited, I have changed my mind about think-aloud protocols. In fact, I plan to use this method in my empirical research.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Blog Entry 1
van Weijen, Daphne et al. “L1 Use During L2 Writing: An Empirical Study of a Complex Phenomenon.” Journal of Second Language Writing 18.4 (2009): 235-50. ScienceDirect. Web. 28 Jan. 2010.
As I started thinking about what I wanted to focus on for this course, I began to realize that correlating the research I do in this course with the empirical research I do in Dr. Neff’s course would help me better formulate a methodology for my own research as well as aid in the construction of knowledge regarding L2 writers. Here are two research questions I am pondering for research in Dr. Neff's course: Does composing an essay in the student's native language and then translating that essay into English help/hinder second language acquisition? When writing in L1 and L2, what differs in terms of the writing strategies employed? In Daphne van Weijen et al.'s article “L1 Use During L2 writing: An Empirical Study of a Complex Phenomenon,” Weijen et al. conduct a study which is very similar to the research I plan to do. In the article, Weijen et al. discuss their study which “analyzed whether L1 use varied between writers and tasks, and whether it was related to general writing proficiency, L2 proficiency, and L2 text quality” (235). Weijen et al.’s study found “that all participants used their L1 while writing in their L2 to some extent;” moreover, “L2 proficiency was directly related to L2 text quality” (235). This study used TAP (think aloud protocols) which I do not necessarily agree with. When I am writing, I do not verbalize my thoughts about the process, so it is difficult for me to see the validity in that research method. However, Weijen et al. provide reasons for why TAP was the method used to carry out this study; they explain that it is “one of the best methods for observing the occurrence of conceptual activities such as Planning, Generating ideas, and Evaluating” (239). This justification allows me to overlook the method used and instead, concentrate on the data provided. Towards the end of the article, Weijen et al. note that despite their study's findings, one research question still in existence is "why writers use their L1 during L2 writing” (245). They also suggest that “comparing L1 use of writers at different levels of L2 proficiency...could prove informative” as Weijen et al.'s study used first-year university students. Because all the participants were similar in age and level of education, this implies their level of L2 proficiency was similar. This comment indicates that there is a gap in the research and presents me with a variety of research questions I could consider pursuing. Due to the fact that this study provides samples of L2 students’ writing in addition to statistics on “relation between L1 use, L2 proficiency, general writing proficiency, and text quality,” I would recommend it to anyone interested in L2 writers and their cognitive processes (Weijen et al. 243).
As I started thinking about what I wanted to focus on for this course, I began to realize that correlating the research I do in this course with the empirical research I do in Dr. Neff’s course would help me better formulate a methodology for my own research as well as aid in the construction of knowledge regarding L2 writers. Here are two research questions I am pondering for research in Dr. Neff's course: Does composing an essay in the student's native language and then translating that essay into English help/hinder second language acquisition? When writing in L1 and L2, what differs in terms of the writing strategies employed? In Daphne van Weijen et al.'s article “L1 Use During L2 writing: An Empirical Study of a Complex Phenomenon,” Weijen et al. conduct a study which is very similar to the research I plan to do. In the article, Weijen et al. discuss their study which “analyzed whether L1 use varied between writers and tasks, and whether it was related to general writing proficiency, L2 proficiency, and L2 text quality” (235). Weijen et al.’s study found “that all participants used their L1 while writing in their L2 to some extent;” moreover, “L2 proficiency was directly related to L2 text quality” (235). This study used TAP (think aloud protocols) which I do not necessarily agree with. When I am writing, I do not verbalize my thoughts about the process, so it is difficult for me to see the validity in that research method. However, Weijen et al. provide reasons for why TAP was the method used to carry out this study; they explain that it is “one of the best methods for observing the occurrence of conceptual activities such as Planning, Generating ideas, and Evaluating” (239). This justification allows me to overlook the method used and instead, concentrate on the data provided. Towards the end of the article, Weijen et al. note that despite their study's findings, one research question still in existence is "why writers use their L1 during L2 writing” (245). They also suggest that “comparing L1 use of writers at different levels of L2 proficiency...could prove informative” as Weijen et al.'s study used first-year university students. Because all the participants were similar in age and level of education, this implies their level of L2 proficiency was similar. This comment indicates that there is a gap in the research and presents me with a variety of research questions I could consider pursuing. Due to the fact that this study provides samples of L2 students’ writing in addition to statistics on “relation between L1 use, L2 proficiency, general writing proficiency, and text quality,” I would recommend it to anyone interested in L2 writers and their cognitive processes (Weijen et al. 243).
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Initial Blog Entry
“English for Speakers of Other Languages.” Virginia Beach Public Schools. 7 Jan. 2010. The Adult Learning Center. Web. 22 Jan. 2010
Gonzalez, Arturo. "Which English Skills Matter to Immigrants? The Acquisition and Value of Four English Skills." Language Ideologies: Critical Perspectives on the Official English Movement, Volume 1: Education and the Social Implications of Official Language. Posted on Blackboard.
For my initial blog entry, I am posting a link where you can find more information about an Adult Learning Center’s ESOL classes located in Virginia Beach. From the ALC site’s home page, I clicked on ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages). The ALC is offering classes to “non-native speakers of English” and “the program consists of....reading, writing, speaking, and listening.” After reading this portion of the site, I thought of Gonzalez and his article “Which English Skills Matter to Immigrants? The Acquisition and Value of Four English Skills.” Gonzalez argues that immigrants should be given time to assimilate into American society/culture and notes that “time [residing] in the United States is associated with a higher probability of proficiency” (6). Furthermore, he comments “that in order to increase the literacy among recent immigrants, basic educational skills may be necessary in adult ESL courses” (7). After perusing the ALC site as well as the advertisement for ESOL courses, I think Gonzalez would respond in a positive manner to the ALC’s actions. Their ESOL courses are offered during the day and at night which allows potential students with busy schedules to enroll at a time which is convenient for them. The courses are also available at two different locations adequately accommodating the needs of many. However, I do have some issues with the ad. It talks about a testing process and putting students into “the appropriate class.” I wonder what that test looks like and how the examiners of that test assess the scores. In addition to this, I must add that the cost of the course is reasonable, but if, as Gonzalez mentions, oral proficiency correlates with monetary reward in this country, then I suggest cost might be of some concern (especially to newer immigrants). Finally, because the ad is in English, I wonder how much the students are already expected to know in terms of their reading ability. Near the end of his essay, Gonzalez points out that “the ability to communicate in various languages is a positive, not a negative, attribute” (10). I will add that effective communication is an asset - a resource which should be held in high esteem.
Gonzalez, Arturo. "Which English Skills Matter to Immigrants? The Acquisition and Value of Four English Skills." Language Ideologies: Critical Perspectives on the Official English Movement, Volume 1: Education and the Social Implications of Official Language. Posted on Blackboard.
For my initial blog entry, I am posting a link where you can find more information about an Adult Learning Center’s ESOL classes located in Virginia Beach. From the ALC site’s home page, I clicked on ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages). The ALC is offering classes to “non-native speakers of English” and “the program consists of....reading, writing, speaking, and listening.” After reading this portion of the site, I thought of Gonzalez and his article “Which English Skills Matter to Immigrants? The Acquisition and Value of Four English Skills.” Gonzalez argues that immigrants should be given time to assimilate into American society/culture and notes that “time [residing] in the United States is associated with a higher probability of proficiency” (6). Furthermore, he comments “that in order to increase the literacy among recent immigrants, basic educational skills may be necessary in adult ESL courses” (7). After perusing the ALC site as well as the advertisement for ESOL courses, I think Gonzalez would respond in a positive manner to the ALC’s actions. Their ESOL courses are offered during the day and at night which allows potential students with busy schedules to enroll at a time which is convenient for them. The courses are also available at two different locations adequately accommodating the needs of many. However, I do have some issues with the ad. It talks about a testing process and putting students into “the appropriate class.” I wonder what that test looks like and how the examiners of that test assess the scores. In addition to this, I must add that the cost of the course is reasonable, but if, as Gonzalez mentions, oral proficiency correlates with monetary reward in this country, then I suggest cost might be of some concern (especially to newer immigrants). Finally, because the ad is in English, I wonder how much the students are already expected to know in terms of their reading ability. Near the end of his essay, Gonzalez points out that “the ability to communicate in various languages is a positive, not a negative, attribute” (10). I will add that effective communication is an asset - a resource which should be held in high esteem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
