Think aloud protocol revisited: Writing and speaking as two distinct activities

Lindgren (2005: DA 부분에 learning tool로서 이용 가능하다는 것 말할 때 넣을 것.

Keystroke logging as a learning toolResearchers using, or developing keystroke logging software programs, havepointed at the potential advantages of using keystroke logging as an awarenessraisinglearning tool (e.g. Kollberg, 1998; Ransdell, 1990; Livbjerg & Mees, 1999;Kollberg & Severinson Eklundh, 2001). The replay function and the log files can beused as tools to reflect on writing processes and may “provide insight for the compositioninstructors and students” (Ransdell, 1990:143). Sullivan et al. (1998) usedkeystroke logging to study the composition processes of young EFL writers andsuggest that the methodology can assist L2 teachers by providing information aboutstudents’ “areas of insecurity and security” (p. 22). Thereby teaching could be bettertargeted towards individual students. However, from the point of view of learners, offoreign languages or of writing, it has remained unclear if, how and to what extentkeystroke logging and reflection can enhance awareness of and development in writingand language.

****************

Dynamic Assessment through the real-time capture coupled with stimulated recall session

(This section will discuss the value of capturing the real-time writing from the perspective of dynamic

assessment (DA). The discussion will focus on how the capture data, when coupled with stimulated

recall sessions, can function as an interactive dynamic assessment procedure.)

Further issues: Transcribing conventions for real-time capture data

gesture도 그렇고...

*******************

Academic writers on-line: investigating pausing in the production of text

Kristyan Spelman Miller

University of Reading

In this paper we present details of an approach to the study of writing processes based on the

analysis of temporal aspects of the writing event. This approach involves recording the keystroke

presses made during production of a text using a word processor, and analysing such features as

pausing, fluency and revision activity. To illustrate the application of this research tool, we present

findings from our study of L1 and L2 writers, and focus on the insights that such fine-grained analysis

might bring to the investigation of individual approaches to writing tasks.

Miller, K. S. (2000). Academic writers on-line: investigating pausing in the production of text. Language Teaching Research, 4(2), 123.

**********************

Eva Lindgren (2005). WRITING AND REVISING: Didactic and Methodological Implications of Keystroke Logging. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. - 비블리오그래피에 넣을 것. Skrifter från moderna språk 18Institutionen för moderna språkUmeå universitet 2005

http://www.diva-portal.org/umu/theses/abstract.xsql?dbid=534 보고 비블리오에 넣기.

Umeå: Modern Languages

Keystroke logging records keyboard activity during writing. Time and position of all keystrokes are stored in a log file, which facilitates detailed analysis of all pauses, revisions and movements undertaken during writing. Keystroke logging further includes a replay function, which can be used as a tool for reflection and analysis of the writing process. During writing, writers continuously plan, transcribe, read, and revise in order to create a text that meets with their goals and intentions for the text. These activities both interact and trigger one another.

This thesis includes studies in which keystroke recordings are used as bases for visualisation of and reflection on the cognitive processes that underlie writing. The keystroke logging methodology is coupled with Geographical information systems (GIS) and stimulated recall in order to enhance the understanding of keystroke logged data as representations of interacting cognitive activities during

writing. Particular attention is paid to writing revision and a taxonomy for analysis of on-line revision is proposed. In the taxonomy, revisions made at the point of inscription are introduced as ‘pre-contextual’ revisions, and highlighted as potential windows on cognitive processing during transcription. The function of pre-contextual revisions as revisions of form and concepts was ascertained in an empirical study, which also showed that 13-year-old writers revised more form and concepts at the point of inscription when they wrote in English as a foreign language (EFL) than in Swedish as a first language (L1).

In this thesis, a learning method, Peer-based intervention (PBI), is introduced and examined through case studies and statistical analysis. PBI is based on theories about cognitive capacity, noticing, individual-based learning and social interaction. In PBI, the keystroke-logging replay facility is used as a tool for reflection on and discussion of keystroke logged data, i.e. representations of cognitive processes active during writing. In the studies presented in this thesis, teen-aged and adult writers’ texts, written before and after PBI, were analysed according to text quality and revision. Descriptive and argumentative texts in both L1 and EFL were included in the studies. The results showed that PBI raised adult and teen-aged writers’ awareness of linguistic and extra-linguistic features, and that the effect varied across levels of learner ability, text type and language.

*************

**************

Lindgren, E., & Sullivan K.P.H. (2002). The LS graph: A methodology for visualising writing revision.

Language Learning, 52(3), 565–595.

The LS Graph: A Methodology for Visualizing Writing RevisionEva Lindgren & Kirk P. H. Sullivan 1 Umeå University ABSTRACT

The writing process has long been a subject for investigation. Until recently researchers have been restricted to written protocols for the analysis of writing sessions. These provide vast amounts of information from which it is impossible to create detailed mental representations of the writer's movements around the text, revision activity, or pause behavior. Computer keystroke –logging programs, which record all keystrokes and mouse actions, facilitate the collection of quantitative data about text creation. This article presents the LS graph, a novel way of graphically representing and summarizing the quantitative data collected when keystroke logging. Further, the graph can be combined with a detailed manual analysis of the individual revisions that can be undertaken by playing back the logged writing session.

***************************

그 부분에서 concept를 보시면은, 나중에 보시면 알겠지만, 쭉 보시면 알겠지만 많이

고치시더라구요. 기억이 나는지 한 번 보세요. 어떻게 고치는지. 그때 왜 저 부분을 많이

고쳤는지 기억이 나시면 말씀을 좀 해주세요.

extent 아 boundary 이거 말하는 거예요?

예예예. 마지막에 boundary 쓰신 거 같은데요?

아아. 오케이 오케이 오케이.

처음에는 concept 썼다가, extent, boundary 그 다음에 extent 쓰셨더라구요.

아...

그 다음에 이제... 저기에서 많이 바꾸셨잖아요.

네. 세 번 바꿨네요. 아...

저게 이 뒤에 golden mean 있잖아요.

예예.

이게 하나의 철학적인 개념으로 받아들일 수도 있고, 번역하기에 따라서 또 하나의 영역으로

받아들일 수도 있구,

저게 '중용' 이런 거 아닌가요?

맞아요.

그러니까 그거를... 내가 쓰기 나름인데 어떤 걸 해야 될 지 모르겠는 거예요.

golden mean이 '정도'가 될 수도 있고,

하나의 바운더리 -'범주'가 되 수도 있고... 그래서 "내가 어떤 걸 쓰지" 막 고민했던 거 같아요.

결국 extent 라고 썼네요.

extent라고 썼네요. (웃음)

***************

여기 plainly 넣으셨잖아요. 이거 어떤 의미로 넣으신 거예요?

아... 그냥... 제가 젤 약한 부분이... 부사를요.

예.

부사를 어디에 넣어야 될 지도 잘 모르겠고

예

또 부사를, 어떤 부사를 써야 될지를 잘 몰라요.

아, 예.

아, 그래서... 문장이 보면 부사가 좀 많아야지 이렇게 의미전달이 강하잖아요.

예.

논문에는 부사가 많이 없으니까 의식적으로 이제 뭐 어떤... 명확하게 좀 할려구... plainly를

넣을까? 뭘 넣지? 이렇게 하다가... 그렇다고 뭐 purely 이런 걸 넣을 수는 없는 거고

예예

그래서 제가 넣었던 것 같아요... 제가 쓴 거는 거의 그런 의도가 많아요. 부사를 쓸 때는.

첫번째 성희씨 파일 14:09 - textbook 검색.

인터뷰어: 어떻게 그렇게 빨리 쓰실 수 있나요?인터뷰이: 저번이랑 패턴이 거의 비슷하지 않나요?

스스로 번역을 하고 있다고 느끼는 경우가 있나요? 아니면 그냥 내가 쓰는 영어는 자연스럽게 쭉 나온다고 생각하시나요?여기서도 교육에 대한 기대와 흐흠 그런 건 다 번역... 한글로 생각한 거를 영어화 해가지구...

열심히 고쳤다는 거 기억나세요?그래요?

provide students with sensitivity to 이 부분도 혹시 번역인가요?아니 이 부분은 다른 수업 프리젠테이션에서 썼었거든요.그땐 어떻게 쓰셨던 거 같으세요?같이 쓴 것 같은데요? 똑같이? provide students with the sensitivity to 부정사?네.

이미 한 번 써본 패턴을 거의 word by word로 갖다 쓰셨다는 말씀이시죠?예.

원래 문장은 Therefore, it is essential to improve current textbooks and develop decent ones through close analysis and critical evaluation. 이거든요... 조금 더 보면, evaluate를 앞으로 가지고 오시고, 그다음에 쭉 문장을 읽으시더라구요. 지우신 다음에, 저기에 analyze를 맨 처음에 imprvoe를 쓰다가 바꾼 거는요. improve 하면 좀 부정적인 의미가 있잖아요. 잘못된 것을 개선하고 고치는... 현재의 텍스트가 나쁘다는 의미가 있어서 그거 말구... 그래서 맨처음에 improve를 했다가 evaluate를 했는데그러면 essential to 다음에 나오는 말이 젤 중요한 말인데...

so as to 랑 in order to 랑 어떤 동기에서 바꾸신 거예요?이게 좀 고급스러운 표현 같아서...아... 고급스럽다고 하면은 좀더 아카데믹한?예예. Written English에서 많이 봤던 거 같아요. in order to 보다는 so as to가 academic register에 더 맞는다?그렇게 봤던 거 같아요. 읽을 때 봤던 거 같아요.

처음에 textbooks 였거든요. 어디?원래 처음에 쓰신 문장이 textbooks 였어요. 음.근데 이게 복수를 지우셨더라구요. 으음. (알았다는 표현)지금 보면 textbook 이잖아요. 그러네... 복수에서 단수로 고치는 데 어떤 동기가 있었는지... 지금 생각하실 수 있을까요?

책 한 권을 말씀하시는 건가요? 분석대상이 되는 책 한 권?그런 거 같아요. 예. 예.

광현이형

아까 여기서 essential 다음에 중요한 말이 나오는데, 여기다가 improve라고 쓰면 좀 안좋은 느낌. 부정적인 느낌. 지금 안좋으니까 바꿔야 된다는 (그죠, 개선을 해야 되니까)... 그래서 뒤로 옮겼다고 말씀을 하셨잖아요.네. 그러니까 목적이 improve 개선하는 게 아니라 analyze 하고 evaluate 하는 것.하는 게?주요 목적이라구아 그게 중요해서?근데, 보통 보면 여기 (to 부정사 나오는 쪽 가리킴)가 목적이잖아요? 이거 할려구 이거 한다. 그렇지요. "뭐뭐 하기 위해." (웃음)그것도 그렇구. 이걸 들여다 보고 있으면 시간순으로 쓴 게 아닌가 하는 생각도 들거든요.시간순이라뇨?

분석하구, 분석한 것을 토대로 평가를 해. 그리구 평가한 후 현재 텍스트북을 개선하구 (응), 이걸 바탕으로 새로운 텍스트북을 하나 만들어 내는응이거 시간 순이잖아요.응 그러네요.아 그거는 의도하신 바가 아니고그거는 응 아니었던 거 같애요. 단, essential 다음에 중요한 말이 와야 된다...예.응 오케이.

... 이 처음

이 문장과 이 문장을 비교하셨을 때... 비교가 되시죠? improve를 여기에 안쓰신 거 외애 revise를 해서 원하는 목적을 얻었다거나, improve 말고 다른 건 없다거나...

analyze와 evaluate가 중요하다고 생각되나 봐요.혹시 교수님이 읽을 때 봐주길 바랬던 거 아니예요? 하하 모르겠는데...analyze 하고 있다 지금. improve는 어차피 못할 거고. 그렇죠, 못하죠. 제가 할 수 있는 게 아니기 때문에.

당시에 독자를 생각하셨어요? audience에 대한 생각이 있었어요? 교수님이라거나...그렇죠. 선생님이 봐야 되니까. 이걸... 문장을 바꿀 당시에... analyze라고 하는 것이. improve라고 하면 실제록 가능한 게 아닌데,

제가 할 거는 analyze 하고 evaluate 할 거거든요. 음.improve 제가 할 수 없는 부분이고, 음.develop도 마찬가지고. 그럼 좀더 먼 목적을 뒤로 빼고, 그렇죠. 제가 할 거를 좀. 지금 그게 이걸 보고 생각하신 건 아니구? 예. 예.

선생님이랑 그때 얘기할 때도, 뭘 할 건지만 얘기하라고 하더라구요. 왜... 이런 거는 둘째 치고. 이 배경 이런 거는 둘째 치고, 뭘 할건지... 그걸 얘기하라구 해가지구. 그럼 analyze 이렇게 straight forward하게 이야기한 거는 선생님 피드백의 영향이 좀...그랬던 거 같아요.당시에 하셨던 말씀이 귓가에..

두 개 두 개 쓰신 게 어떤 인상을 줄 지 생각해 본 적이 있으신가요?그렇게 계속 배웠던 거 같아요. 라이팅 시간에.어디, 한국에서?예.

시험으로 토플. 토플 학원을 다니셨나요? 네. 라이팅.아, 라이팅 학원?GRE도?거기서 parallelism을 강조해서..음음.그건 사실 미국인 글쓰기잖아요. 토플이나 GRE는. 오히려 시험 관련된 학원을 다니면서 더 그거에 대해서 확실하게, "아, 이렇게 써야겠구나..."네이티브 글쓰기에 대해서 어떻게 해야 되고... 이런 식으로.

그럼 이렇게 쓰시는 게 그 교육을 통해서 더 강화된 거네요. 네, 그렇죠.

Google을 쓴다 - 성희씨 1번째는 9분 30초부터, 2번째 파일은 39분 부터 쭉. (다시 transcribe 할 것)

보통 글쓸 때는 사전이나 레퍼런스를 하나도 안찾으세요?이런 거는 잘 안찾아요.선생님이 까다롭게 보시지 않기 때문에?네.포매팅 컨벤션이나 사이테이션 컨벤션에 신경을 별로 안쓰시는 것 같은데...이거기 때문에, 이 숙제이기 때문에 그렇죠. 포말 페이퍼라기 보다는 그냥예 네. 따라서 마이 코퍼스도 필요가 없었던 거죠?네, 특별히 뭐 (필요가 없었어요)다른 수업에서는 어떻게... 마이 코퍼스를 쓰시나요?안써봤어요.안쓰셨어요?네.포말 페이퍼 쓰는 숙제가 없나요? 있었어요. 구글 썼던 거 같아요. 같은 건데. 구글이면 그냥 구글이예요. 구글 스칼라예요?그냥 우선 구글에 문장이나 이런 문맥을 쳐요. 그러면 죽 나오거든요.아 그러면 도움이 되던가요? 그 마이코퍼스가 구글인데.그래요?(성우) 네, 구글이예요.도움이 되던가요?

네, 예.도움이 안되는 경우도 있나요?도움이 안되... 어(떤)?구글을 썼는데 도움이 안되고 더 헷깔린다거나...그러지는 않았어요. 구글에서 나오는 결과를 믿을 수 있어요?근데 다른 소스가 없기 때문에... 그 중복되는 게 많이 있는.일단 중복되는 결과가 많으면 (믿고) 아 이렇게 쓰나 보다.네 그럼 쓰는 (거죠)아 그럼 결국 거기에서 중요한 거는 얼마나 사람들이 frequent하게 쓰는가가 중요하네요. 내가 넣은 표현이 거기에서 굉장히 frequent하게 나온다 이러면 "맞네" 하고 쓰시는 거 맞나요?네.근데 구글은 아카데믹 텍스트가 아니기 때문에 신뢰할 수 없는 것인데... 구글 스칼라의 존재를 알고 계신가요? 예 예. 왜 스칼라를 쓰지 않았어요?굳이 그렇게 안들어 갔던 거 같은데...같은 이유로 마이 코퍼스를 쓰지 (않았군요)... 만약 그 웹브라우저에 딱 바로가기가 있었으면은 그걸 썼을 수도 있었던 것이지요.네. 어쨌든 레퍼런스가 필요하긴 했네요?그럼요.사전... 왜 온라인 사전을 찾지 않고 서치 엔진을?아 야후도 띄워 놓고 같이 해요.아, 야후는 사전이고?네. 거기는 주로 한글을 넣어가지고 영어로 주로 바꾸는 걸 쓰고요. 영어 표현은 주로 구글을 사용해서 써요. 그러면은 만약에 어떤 거, 어떤 단어를 쓸 지 모른다 그러면은 한글 (->영어) 번역을 하는 경우도 있고, 아니면은 어떤 패턴이나 단어는 확실한데 이게 어떻게 쓰이느냐 알려면은 구글을 친다는 말씀이신가요?네.혹시 그런 예가 생각나세요?이게 그 이게 그 아티클 리뷰였거든요. 이번엔 진짜 많이 찾아가지구. 이번에 쓰신 거예요? 마이 코퍼스로?마이코퍼스 안썼는데 구글하구 3 pages 샘플링을 찾았었어요. 그래서 그거 옆에다 두고 쓴 거여서.근데 구글이죠? 그럼 여기에서 한 두 세개만... 기억 나실 거 같은데. 대충이라도. 어떻게 했다니요?그러니까 내가 구글 찾아서 해결한 부분이 어떤 부분인지.음. 혹시 기억 나시면... 두 가지만 알려주세요. 여기요. has raised the issues..여기요? 그 이 현상이 어떤 문제를 제기한다고 할 때 issues가 맞는지... 동사랑 어울리는 단언지. 아 그럼 구글에 어떤 패턴으로 검색을 하셨나요?

이 문장을 썼는데요. 파워포인트로요. (파워포인트에 있는 문장을 썼다는 의미)여기서부터 어디까지?raised the issue 까지, 응. 응 통째로... 구글 검색창에다가 통째로 다 넣으셨네요. 본인이 먼저 작문을 하고, 구글에 체크를 하구. 예. 혹시 두 개를 다 한 적도 있나요? 야후에서 단어 찾고, 그걸로 작문을 한 후, 구글에서 찾구. 음...?보통 둘 중 하나를 할 거 같기는 한데 한 적도 있는 거 같은데요? 보통 모르는 단어를 찾았을 때는 잘 모르기 때문인데, 그럼 문장을 만들 자신이 없겠죠? 그러니까 체크 해보고 싶지.네 그렇죠. 예, 해야죠.더구나 이런 포말 페이퍼, 피드백이 오고, 점수가 나오고 ㅎㅎ하고 싶겠죠?네.

콜로케이션 샘플러에서 raise an issue 를 찾고아 여기 있네요.그럼 그거 하나로 딱 컨펌이 되시는 건가요? "아, 얘들 이렇게 쓰네?"응. 그럼 안심을 하고.

그럼 두 번째 문제... 아카데믹 텍스트여야 하잖아요. 네. 이건 아카데믹 페이퍼니깐.(아카데믹한 표현이)라는 보장이? 문장을 보면 되지 않나? 아까 본 건 아카데믹 페이퍼인 거 같아요?

구글 스칼라를 쓰지 않고 구글을 쓰신 게, 특별히 왠만큼 사람들이 많이 쓰는 표현이면, 일반인들이 많이 쓰는 표현이면 그건 아카데믹 페이퍼에도 쓸 수 있다고 그냥 뭐 명시적으로 생각한 건 아니지만, 그렇게 생각하고 쓰신 건가요? 근데 구글을 처음에 치면, 초이스가 여러 개 나오잖아요. 결국은 본문 검색도 나오거든요.

지금 샘플러를 사용해 본 결과 본인 문제가 해결이 되나요? 네 썼을 거 같아요. 만일 제가 이걸 찾았으면. 그냥 아무 의구심 없이. 그럼 페이퍼를 쓸 때 선택이 있죠. 구글같은 서치 엔진을 쓰느냐, 이 샘플러를 쓰느냐. (마코니 수업 숙제할 때)응. 저거 샘플러 쓰시겠어요? 근데 프라이어러티로는 안쓸 거 같은데요? 구글에 쳤다가 정 못찾으면 다음으로... 정 못찾으면?네.근데 구글에 안나오면 여기에 나올 리가...

아 그래요?아이, 제 생각에는... 음... 그럼 구글하고 구글 스칼라하고... 구글 선택한 이유가 따로 있으신 건 아니죠? 예예.단지 편한 거죠?네. 그냥, 응. 그냥 늘 거던응응.주소를 쳤어요? 아니면 창이 있어서 그냥 친거예요?그냥 구글 닷 컴 쳤어요.주소를 쳐서 구글로 간 다음에... 바로가기 있거나 그런 건 아니었나 봐요... 그럼 바로가기에 구글스칼라가 있으면 바로 갔겠네요? 예. (웃음)구글로 안가구. 그랬을 거 같아요. 구글 스칼라는 아카데믹 텍스트라는 걸 아니까.예.

예시검색한 내용: this phenomenon has raised the issues - 결과 1개 확인결과 1개 확인 Not starred General Counsel, U.S. Federal Trade Commission. This... - ftc.gov - 11월 8일 - 즐겨찾기: 수정 - 제거 in the United States to challenge cartel behavior that has effects inside and outside the United. States. 7. These cases have raised the issue of whether ... 구글에서 찾은 예문 - 이게 아카데믹 텍스트에 쓰였구나. 정부기관, 학교 등의 페이지에서 나온 결과들을 신뢰.

검색결과 페이지 갯수가 두개 / 열개 영향을 미치는가? 안미친다. 두 개가 나왔다고 해두?어디에 쓰이느냐에 따라 다른 거 같다. 두개 나왔다고 해도 내가 원하는 아카데믹 텍스트 비슷한 것에 나오면 쓰고, 그렇지 않으면 안써요. 아무리 그러면 많이 나와두 계속 찾아보는데 그런 예가 안나오면 그럼 어떻게 해요? 그 표현을 버려요? 딴걸 해야죠.딴걸?

1번째 파일 구글 부분. (9분 30초~)

성희씨는 사전 찾는 거 말고 어떻게?저요? 구글. 문장을 친다든지, 입력을 해서 어순이라든가 그게 맞는지. 그런 것들을 확인을 하는 거 같아요. 리바이즈 할 때 아까 보니깐... 리바이즈 할 때 어떻게 하시나요?

빨간 밑줄 그어지는 것에 대해 성희씨가 질문 - 저게 원고에 나오나?안나온다. 사전에 추가하거나 무시할 수 있다. (테크놀로지 -> 미디에이션 툴에 대한 확장된 설명)

저기 보면 This textbook... 저게 the에서 this로 바꾸신 거거든요. (3분 10초 부분을 가리키며) 이건 this가 확실히 맞는 건가요? 어떻게 생각하고 바꾸신 거에요? this가 여기에서 문맥상...그런 거 같아요.그럼 the를 쓰면 좀 어색한가요? 여기 the textbook이라고 하면그냥 this가 맞을 거 같아요. 특별히 자세하게 생각하고 고치신 건 아니고 그냥 this가 맞을 거 같다는 말씀...에예. 근데 보통 this나 that을 한국사람들이 많이 써요. 아 그래요?네. 그럼 여기 the가 맞는 거예요?this나 that이 cohesion 역할을 하는... 한국어에서 그렇잖아요.예. "이 의문에서..."응 그러니깐. 책을 여기다가 mention을 했기 때문에 그런 거죠. 앞에 mention 되어 있기 때문에 (후의 이야기를 들으면 the/this 사이 선택에 고민은 거의 없었다고 함. 그냥 맞는 거 같아서 썼다고 함.)

16:20~눈에 띄는 거는 성희씨는 리바이즈를 거의 안해요. 초반에는 단어 틀린 거 그니까 타이포 외에는 거의 안해요. 나중에는 문장 쪼금 고치는 거하고 단어 찾아보는 거. 단어 찾아보는 것도 단어의 쓰임을 찾아봐요. Semantic하게 찾는 게 아니구, fill in the blank 면 중간에 하이픈 있나 없나.

12:15 TEXT1: Therefore, it is essential to improve current textbooks and develop decent ones through close analysis and critical evaluation.

# 이 문장 고치는 데 약 4분 사용. 왜 이렇게 오래 했다고 생각?

TEXT1: Therefore, it is essential to improve current textbooks and develop decent ones through close analysis and critical evaluation.

READ: [Therefore, it is essential to improve current textbooks and develop decent ones through close analysis and critical evaluation.] WRITE: [Therefore, it is essential to] evaluate current textbooks in order to improve and develop READ: [Therefore, it is essential to evaluate current textbooks in order to improve and develop] DELETE: [Therefore, it is essential to improve current textbooks and develop] to improve current textbooks and developWRITE: [Therefore, it is essential to] analyze andWRITE: [Therefore, it is essential to analyze and evaluate textbooks] so as toDELETE: [Therefore, it is essential to analyze and evaluate textbooks] s DELETE: [Therefore, it is essential to analyze and evaluate textbooks so as to in order to] in order toDELETE: [Therefore, it is essential to analyze and evaluate textbooks so as to improve and develop decent ones through close analysis and critical evaluation.] through close analysis and critical evaluation.WRITE: [Therefore, it is essential to analyze and evaluate textbooks so as to improve and develop decent ones].READ: [Therefore, it is essential to analyze and evaluate textbooks so as to improve and develop decent ones.]WRITE: [Therefore, it is essential to analyze and evaluate textbook so as to improve] itDELETE: [Therefore, it is essential to analyze and evaluate textbook so as to improve it and develop decent ones.] sREAD: [Therefore, it is essential to analyze and evaluate textbook so as to improve it and develop decent one.] (37 blinks)WRITE: [Therefore, it is essential to analyze] closelyWRITE: [Therefore, it is essential to analyze closely and evaluate textbook] critically

TEXT 1-1 Therefore, it is essential to analyze closely and evaluate current textbook critically so as to improve it and develop decent one.

# 1과 1-1을 비교했을 때 만족스러운 것은? 고치려고 했던 의도가 문장에 반영되었다고 생각하나?

Researcher: translation? interest and expectation -  Method of StudyWord fileScreen capture

What is the capture data?The researchers recorded two participants’ writing processes using the software which captures everything on users’ computer screen. This means you will have a thirty-minute video clip if a participant has written something for thirty minutes. The software is different from the generic key-logging software in that it creates a video clip rather than a chain of keystrokes.Stimulated RecallData AnalysisFindings Planning, Writing, and Revision Mediational Tools Corpus Consultation

스티브 페이퍼 아이디어 http://wisdom-soft.com/asr/asr_free.htm 새로운 캡처 소프트웨어? Theory and Research into Reading and Writing Connections: A Critical Review - 전에는 Reading -> Writing 이라는 영향관계 추적. "스키마"와 쓰기와의 관계라든가... Corpus consultation / online dictionary 등의 단편적인 것들의 영향 추적. 하지만 사람들의 writing을 들여다보면 pdf files / online dictionary / corpus consultation / ppt 파일 등을 이용. 어떤 미디에이션 툴들이 어떻게 사용되는지를 관찰하는 것이 매우 중요. 예) Corpus의 중요성. - 선미씨 - 같다 붙여놓고 쓰기 시작. Intertextuality의 visualization 여러 문서를 보게 됨... 자신이 그 글에 대해서 이미 쓴 것을 mediation 으로 사용. - 워드 프로세서의 기능들 (스펠링/그래머) - 라이팅 전체를 조망하는 연구방법론의 필요성. microgenesis는 다양한 mediational tools의 역동적인 관계망으로부터 나옴. individual proficiency 라는 개념 재고되어야 함. Writing Test도 아무것도 주지 않는 것이 아니라 특정한 툴들을 제한하는 식이 되어야 함. - 배경지식 / 미디에이션 / 쓰는 툴 자체 등등이 실제 라이팅에서 어떻게 구현되는지를 알아보는 연구가 중요함. - 유비쿼터스 시대 지식의 의미는? 정보의 의미는? 중요한 것은 그 많은 지식들을 암기하는 것이 아니라 어떻게 잘 조합하는가이다. Identified media tools - corpus / google / online dictionary / powerpoint / other articles / one's previous works / assignment specifications ... / word / mouse block / mouse movement

action: write / delete / write-delete / insert / move (paragraph/sentence/word) 각각의 미디에이션이 작문의 '결과'에 어떤 영향을 미치는가도 중요. 하지만 이 모든 것들이 어떻게 writing performance에서 펼쳐지는지 보는 것 중요. 이 부분을 볼 수 있음. *********************************** Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong KongIcy Lee*Department of Education Studies, Hong Kong Baptist University, University Road Campus,1/F, R2, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong, ChinaAbstractError correction research has focused mostly on whether teachers should correct errors in studentwriting and how they should go about it. Much less has been done to ascertain L2 writing teachers’perceptions and practices as well as students’ beliefs and attitudes regarding error feedback. Thepresent investigation seeks to explore the existing error correction practices in the Hong Kongsecondary writing classroom from both the teacher and student perspectives. Data were gatheredfrom three main sources: (1) a teacher survey comprising a questionnaire and follow-up interviews,(2) a teacher error correction task, and (3) a student survey made up of a questionnaire and follow-upinterviews. The results revealed that both teachers and students preferred comprehensive errorfeedback, the teachers used a limited range of error feedback strategies, and only about half of theteacher corrections of student errors were accurate. The study also showed that the students werereliant on teachers in error correction, and that the teachers were not much aware of the long-termsignificance of error feedback. Possible implications pertaining to ways to improve current errorcorrection practices were discussed.# 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Keywords: Error correction; Second language writing; Secondary writing; Writing in Hong Kong 실제로 아이들이 교사의 피드백을 어떻게 반영하는가에 대해 연구가 가능함. ******************* The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing Jean Chandler, New England Conservatory of Music and Simmons College, 15 Leonard Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA

Available online 28 August 2003. AbstractThis research uses experimental and control group data to show that students’ correction of grammatical and lexical error between assignments reduces such error in subsequent writing over one semester without reducing fluency or quality. A second study further examines how error correction should be done. Should a teacher correct errors or mark errors for student self-correction? If the latter, should the teacher indicate location or type of error or both? Measures include change in the accuracy of both revisions and of subsequent writing, change in fluency, change in holistic ratings, student attitudes toward the four different kinds of teacher response, and

time required by student and teacher for each kind of response. Findings are that both direct correction and simple underlining of errors are significantly superior to describing the type of error, even with underlining, for reducing long-term error. Direct correction is best for producing accurate revisions, and students prefer it because it is the fastest and easiest way for them as well as the fastest way for teachers over several drafts. However, students feel that they learn more from self-correction, and simple underlining of errors takes less teacher time on the first draft. Both are viable methods depending on other goals. 아이들이 어떻게 에러를 고쳐가는가에 대한 부분. 실제 "블랙박스 안"을 쳐다보는 것이 중요. 어떤 microgenesis가 거기에서 일어나는가를 주목해야 함. ************************** Language Learning & TechnologyVol.12, No.1, February 2008, pp. 85-103 External links valid attime of publication

METHODOLOGICAL HURDLES IN CAPTURING CMC DATA: THE CASE OF THE MISSING SELF-REPAIRPaginated PDF VersionBryan SmithArizona State University This paper reports on a study of the use of self-repair among learners of German in a task-based CMC environment. The purpose of the study was two-fold. The first goal sought to establish how potential interpretations of CMC data may be very different depending on the method of data collection and evaluation employed. The second goal was to explicitly examine the nature of CMC self-repair in the task-based foreign language CALL classroom. Paired participants (n=46) engaged in six jigsaw tasks over the course of one university semester via the chat function in Blackboard. Chat data were evaluated first by using only the chat log file and second by examining a video file of the screen capture of the entire interaction. Results show a fundamental difference in the interpretation of the chat interaction which varies as a function of the data collection and evaluation methods employed. The findings also suggest a possible difference in the nature of self-repair across face-to-face and SCMC environments. In view of the results, this paper calls for CALL researchers to abandon the reliance on printed chat log files when attempting to interpret SCMC interactional data. "Missing" 데이터가 아니라 실제 보여지는 것에 이르기까지의 여정. "보이는 것은 보이는 것으로 말미암은 것이 아니다." - 성경말씀?************************************

Changing currents in second language writing research: A colloquiumPaul Kei Matsudaa,*, A. Suresh Canagarajahb,Linda Harklauc, Ken Hylandd,Mark Warschauer

Technology and second language writing: Researching a moving targetMark Warschauer

The Internet is one of the fastest spreading technologies of communication inhuman history. The number of e-mail messages sent annually throughout theworld is estimated at more than three trillion (Pastore, 1999) and, according to onestudy, e-mail is beginning to surpass face-to-face and telephone communicationas a means of business interaction (American Management Association International,cited in Warschauer, 2000a). And with English remaining the dominantlanguage of online communications (see Warschauer, 2002), the Internet hasbecome the primary medium of English-language writing for many secondlanguage speakers around the world.Yet, as theorists from many cognitive traditions have pointed out (e.g., Bateson,1972; Ong, 1982; Vygotsky, 1978), technologies are not external to humanactivity but rather intimately bound up with it. If people are increasingly writingon the Internet, then this may bring about changes in the nature of writing, and it isincumbent on us to better understand what those changes are. Over the last twodecades, a number of researchers have begun to examine the relationship oftechnology to second language writing. This emerging area of research hasfocused on computer-assisted classroom discussion, e-mail exchanges, and Webbasedwriting. 테크놀로지의 영향 구글라이제이션? ********************************* L1 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory study of 16 Chinese EFL writers Wenyu Wang , and Qiufang Wen English Department, Nanjing University, 22 Hankou Road, Nanjing 210093, PR China

Available online 15 October 2002.

Abstract This paper reports a study on how ESL/EFL writers use their L1 (first language) when composing in their L2 (second language) and how such L1 use is affected by L2 proficiency and writing tasks. Sixteen Chinese EFL learners were asked to compose aloud on two tasks, narration and argumentation. Analyses of their think-aloud protocols revealed that these student writers had both their L1 and L2 at their disposal when composing in their L2. They were more likely to rely on L1 when they were managing their writing processes, generating and organizing ideas, but more likely to rely on L2 when undertaking task-examining and text-generating activities. Additionally, more L1 use was found in the narrative writing task than in the argumentative writing. Finally, the think-aloud protocols reflected that L1 use decreased with the writer’s L2 development, but the extent of the decline of L1 use in individual activities varied. Based on these findings, an L2 composing process model is proposed. Author Keywords: Hayes–Flower model; Think-aloud protocol; L2 composing process model 띵크 얼라우드 사용한 연구 예. L1 / L2 자유 자재로 사용. 이 경우에 문제점이 있음. L1이 작문 과정을 더욱 잘 mediate 한다면, L2를 쓰면서 L1으로 리포트하는 것 자체에 문제가 있을 수 있음. ****************************

Copyright © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. Language-switching: Using the first language while writing in a second language Billy R Woodall , English Department, University of Puerto Rico, P.O. Box 9265, Mayagüez 00681, Puerto Rico

Available online 16 January 2002.

Abstract In a protocol analysis of L2 writing from 28 adult participants (9 L2 Japanese, 11 L2 English, and 8 L2 Spanish), this research observed how language-switching (L-S), i.e., L1 use in L2 writing, was affected by L2 proficiency, task difficulty, and language group (i.e., the L1/L2 relationship). ANOVA results suggest that less proficient L2 learners switched to their L1s more frequently than more advanced learners (P=0.004), and that more difficult tasks increased the duration of L1 use in L2 writing (P≤0.001). For students of a cognate language, longer periods of L1 use were related to higher quality L2 texts; for students of a non-cognate language, L-S was related to lower quality texts. Possible reasons for L-S are discussed with examples from the protocols, and suggestions for including L-S in L2 writing models are made. Author Keywords: Language-switching; ANOVA; Second language 띵크 얼라우드 사용한 연구 예 ****************************** Learners’ writing skills in French: Corpus consultation and learner evaluation Íde O'Sullivan , and Angela Chambers Centre for Applied Language Studies, Department of Languages and Cultural Studies, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

Available online 10 March 2006.

Abstract While the use of corpora and concordancing in the language-learning environment began as early as 1969 (McEnery & Wilson, 1997, p. 12), it was the work in the 1980s of Tim Johns (1986) and others which brought it to public attention. Important developments occurred in the 1990s, beginning with publications advocating the use of corpora and concordancing in language teaching (Tribble & Jones, 1990). The first empirical study of learners’ consultation of corpus printouts (Stevens, 1991) was followed by studies of direct corpus consultation (Cobb, 1997), and more recently by studies of learners’ actual use of corpora in L2 writing (Gaskell & Cobb, 2004; Yoon & Hirvela, 2004). This study presents the second phase of a research project at the University of Limerick involving native speakers of English at both the masters and undergraduate level who are given the opportunity to engage in corpus consultation in order to improve their writing skills in French (see Chambers & O'Sullivan, 2004 for the first phase of this study). The aim is to investigate what type of changes they tend to make, to evaluate how effectively they complete this task, and to determine their reactions to this process. This is done with a view to discovering what similarities and differences exist between the two groups of learners in relation to their use of the corpus and their reaction to the process. Keywords: Corpus; Concordance; Error feedback; Writing; French 6. Conclusion

On the basis of one small-scale study such as this, it is not possible to claim conclusively that all English-speaking students of French at this level will be able to solve all problems of native language interference if they consult a corpus to improve a text where such cases have been highlighted in the marking process. However, the examples of this occurring are interesting in that the concordance provides information which would be difficult if not impossible to obtain from the course book, grammar, or dictionary. Past cohorts following the programmes of study involved here have been advised to see the marking of a written text as part of a process of interactive feedback. They have been encouraged to study the lecturer's marking of the text, to decide which are errors and which are mistakes, and to use traditional resources, particularly a grammar, to learn from their errors. This system was, however, limited to the correction of grammatical errors. The lecturer's attempts to provide corrective feedback, rephrasing examples of native language interference, did not fit well in an approach to language learning which aimed to foster inductive learning methods and learner autonomy. The results of this study suggest that, with training and guidance, consultation of an appropriate corpus may provide a means for the learners to participate more actively in the development of their writing skills. This active participation could be enhanced by integrating corpora and concordancing into the word processing environment, as suggested by researchers such as Garton (1994), Levy (1990), and Milton (1997). Furthermore, one could envisage its integration alongside other tools into a learning package for creative writing such as Système-D, established at Vanderbilt University (Scott, 1990), which combines word processing with a variety of linguistic tools such as a dictionary, a verb conjugator, a grammar index, a vocabulary index, and a phrase index. Developments such as these would, however, require further research and empirical studies to investigate the introduction of corpus consultation into such learning environments. 코퍼스 사용이 매우 긍정적 효과 가져옴. 그라마 북을 찾아보는 것 -> 언어를 만들기 위해 meta-knowledge를 찾는 것. 코퍼스를 찾는 것 -> 언어를 만들기 위해 *********************** Exploring multiple profiles of highly rated learner compositions Scott Jarvis , , a, Leslie Grantb, Dawn Bikowskia and Dana Ferrisc a Department of Linguistics, Ohio University, Gordy Hall 383, Athens, OH 45701, USA b Central Michigan University, Pleasant, MI, USA c California State University, Sacramento, CA, USA

Available online 29 October 2003.

Abstract Recent research has come a long way in describing the linguistic features of large samples of written texts, although a satisfactory description of L2 writing remains problematic. Even when variables such as proficiency, language background, topic, and audience have been controlled, straightforward predictive relationships between linguistic variables and quality ratings have remained elusive, and perhaps they always will. We propose a different approach. Rather than assuming a linear relationship between linguistic features and quality ratings, we explore multiple profiles of highly rated timed compositions and describe how they compare in terms of their lexical, grammatical, and discourse features. To this end, we performed a cluster analysis on two sets of timed compositions to examine their patterns of use of several linguistic features. The purpose of the analysis was to investigate whether multiple profiles (or clusters) would emerge among the highly rated compositions in each data set. This did indeed occur. Within each data set, the profiles of highly rated texts differed significantly. Some profiles exhibited above-average levels for several linguistic

features, whereas others showed below-average levels. We interpret the results as confirming that highly rated texts are not at all isometric, even though there do appear to be some identifiable constraints on the ways in which highly rated timed compositions may vary. Author Keywords: Multiple profiles; Highly rated compositions; Linguistic features; Cluster analysis IntroductionThere have been numerous attempts to quantify second language (L2) writing quality in terms of the frequency and distribution of linguistic features that occur in written texts. This seems a worthwhile pursuit, of course, because if a sufficiently predictive relationship can be found between the linguistic features of a text and its quality rating, then this will undoubtedly result in important applications and improved efficiency in writing pedagogy, assessment, and research. So far, unfortunately, the relationship between linguistic features and writing quality has remained rather elusive. Although some studies — which we will review in the following section — have found significant correlations between quality ratings, on the one hand, and certain lexical, grammatical, and discourse features of texts, on the other, such correlations, although significant, tend to be only low to moderate. Additionally, there have been inconsistencies across studies in relation to the specific linguistic predictors of quality ratings that have been reported. What all of this means is that researchers and testers cannot (yet?) confidently determine the quality of learners’ texts through purely objective measures. One problem may be the approach that has usually been taken. The use of correlation tests (or even tests of differences between groups) assumes a linear relationship between writing quality and linguistic features. In other words, it assumes that there is a single profile of highly rated texts. In this paper, we explore the possibility that there may exist multiple profiles of highly rated texts. Even though this approach may appear to complicate — rather than simplify — our understanding of L2 quality writing, consider past research done on “good language learners” (e.g., [Ellis, 1994, Oxford, 1990 and Skehan, 1986]). We know there is no single “good language leaner,” but rather there exist multiple profiles of good language learners. Narrowing this notion to writing quality, then, the purpose of this study is to explore whether multiple types of highly rated learner compositions can be identified, and, if so, how they compare with one another in terms of selected lexical, grammatical, and discourse features. 디스커션: 사람들이 잘 쓰는 것에서 multiple profile 존재할 가능성. 다양한 mediatinoal means 의 효율적 활용에 대한 연구 필요. **************************** ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing Hyunsook Yoon and Alan Hirvela School of Teaching and Learning, Ohio State University, 333 Arps Hall, 1945 North High Street, Columbus, OH 43210-1172, USA

Available online 2 July 2004. AbstractIn recent years, there has been growing interest in the use of corpora in L2 writing instruction. Many studies have argued for corpus use from a teacher’s perspective, that is, in terms of how teachers can develop instructional materials and activities involving a corpus-based orientation. In contrast, relatively little attention has been paid to investigations of learners’ actual use of corpora and their

attitudes toward such use in the L2 writing classroom. This paper describes a study of corpus use in two ESL academic writing courses. Specifically, the study examined students’ corpus use behavior and their perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of corpora as a second language writing tool. The study’s qualitative and quantitative data indicate that, overall, the students perceived the corpus approach as beneficial to the development of L2 writing skill and increased confidence toward L2 writing.코퍼스 사용의 긍정적 영향 ********************************** Wolf-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluencyaccuracy and complexity. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii at Manoa. ************************************ Mohan, B. A., & Lo, W. A. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 515-534.Organizational problems in academic writing by second languagelearners are often attributed to interference, or negative transfer,from the first language, but recent research suggests that developmentalfactors may be relevant. In the case of Chinese, anexamination of classical texts and modern works on Chinese compositionfound no supportf or claims that the organizationalp atternof Chinese writing differs markedly from that of English. Hence,language transfer seems more likely to help than to interfere. Inregard to developmental factors, research in first language compositionindicates that organization develops late and can be influencedby appropriate composition practices. For the group ofChinese students studied, a comparison of composition practicesin Hong Kong and British Columbia indicated that their schoolexperience with English composition was oriented more towardaccuracy at the sentence level than toward the development ofappropriate discourse organization. A survey of these studentsalso suggested that they saw their current writing problems assentence-level problems. These findings point to a need for greaterawareness of students' native literacy and educational experienceas factors influencing the development of academic writing in asecond language. ****************************** Students' Perceptions of EAP WritingInstruction and Writing NeedsAcross the DisciplinesILONA ITEKIUniversity of TennesseeJOAN G. CARSONGeorgia State University

As English for academic purposes (EAP) writing instructors and writingcurriculum planners, we need to know the degree to which ESLwriting courses have been successful in gauging and providing forESL students' writing needs across the university curriculum. However,making this determination is difficult because many academicwriting requirements may be implicit in the curriculum of the disciplinarycourse and thus not amenable to ready description by theoutsider. Furthermore, we also need to know how much carryoverfrom ESL writing courses occurs with ESL students-that is, whatelements of their ESL writing instruction have they found usefuland available to them as students in content courses? This articlereports on a survey of former ESL students now in university-levelcontent courses that is designed to investigate students' perceptionsof the relationship between the writing instruction the students receivedin ESL writing classes and the actual writing tasks they foundin courses across the disciplines. The results of the survey includeindications of which writing skills taught in ESL writing coursesstudents found most useful in dealing with the writing demandsof other content courses. In their answers to open-ended surveyquestions, ESL students also described their perceptions of theirongoing writing needs beyond the ESL writing curriculum. ************************************************** Journal of Second Language Writing Currie, P. (1993). Entering a disciplinary community: Conceptual activities requiredto write for one introductory university course.Journal of Second LanguageWriting, 2, 101-117. *********************************************** The foreign language writer’s strategic behaviour in the allocation of time to writing processesJulio Roca de Larios a,*, Rosa Mancho´n b,Liz Murphy b, Javier Marı´n c AbstractAlthough composing has long been recognised as recursive, so far there have been few studies on the temporal dimension of writing processes. This is regrettable given that one might expect the predominance of certain processes at different stages of writing at the expense of others and/or differences among writers with respect to the duration and distribution of the processes throughout the composing act. To shed light on these issues, we report on a study in which we (i) used protocol data to investigate whether the writer’s proficiency level influences the total processing time devoted to writing processes and (ii) compared the differential distribution of the time allocated by different proficiency groups to different writing processes at each stage by dividing the writing session into three different stages. Two main findings emerged from the data: (i) formulation took up the largest percentage of composition time for all groups and (ii) writing processes are differentially distributed across the three periods depending on the writer’s proficiency level.These findings are discussed with respect to their relevance for model building and suggestions for future

research are advanced. The elicitation of the verbalisations was safeguarded by carefully selecting the wording of theinstructions so that participants refrained from forming excessive expectations andinterpretations about what was required of them and the type of information they shouldreport (see Jourdenais, 2001, p. 356). ******************************************************* Shaping Chinese novice scientists’ manuscripts for publicationYongyan Li a,*, John Flowerdewb,1a Department of English, Nanjing University, Jiangsu 210093, PR Chinab Department of English and Communication, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue 83,Kowloon, Hong Kong (SAR), PR ChinaAbstractResearchers of scholarly literacy are becoming more aware that a published research article, especially if it is written by an English as an Additional Language (EAL) author, needs to be viewed as a product involving a range of ‘‘shapers’’ who participate in the editorial process (e.g., Burrough-Boenisch, 2003). Drawing on data gathered over a period of several years from doctoral science students and their supervisors at a major research university in mainland China, this paper considers such shapers’ roles in this group of novice scholars’ international publication attempts. Three main sources of English-language correction assistance are used: 마이크로 제너시스 부분 ********************************************************** Revising in two languages: A multi-dimensionalcomparison of online writing revisionsin L1 and FL§Marie Stevenson a,*, Rob Schoonen b, Kees de Glopper ca The Faculty of Education and Social Work, The University of Sydney, Australiab Department of Second Language Acquisition, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlandsc Department of Language and Communication, University of Groningen, The NetherlandsAbstractIt has frequently been claimed that, in foreign language writing, attention to linguistic processes inhibitsattention available for higher level conceptual processing [e.g.,Chenoweth&Hayes, 2001;Whalen&Me´nard,1995]. This study examines this hypothesis for foreign language revision processes by comparing onlinerevisions made by 22 Dutch junior high school writers when producing computer-written texts in Dutch andEnglish (FL). This comparison is made using a multi-dimensional revision taxonomy. The study combines theuse of think-aloud and keystroke-logging techniques. The relationship between different types of revisions andtext quality is also considered. The results indicate that, although revisions made to linguistic elements were

more frequent in FL, therewas little evidence that students’ higher level revision processes were inhibited inFLwriting. Little relationship was found between revision frequencies and text quality.# 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. *********************************** Collaborative writing: Product, process,and students’ reflectionsNeomy StorchDepartment of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, School of Languages, 5th Floor, Arts Centre,The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, AustraliaAbstractAlthough pair and group work are commonly used in language classrooms, very few studies haveinvestigated the nature of such collaboration when students produce a jointly written text. This studyset out to investigate collaborative writing. The study was classroom based, and the participants (23)were adult ESL students completing degree courses. Students were given a choice to write in pairs orindividually. Although most chose to work in pairs, some chose to work individually. All pair workwas audiotaped and all completed texts collected. All pairs were also interviewed after class. Thestudy compared texts produced by pairs with those produced by individual learners and investigatedthe nature of the writing processes evident in the pair talk. The study also elicited the learners’reflections on the experience of collaborative writing. The study found that pairs produced shorter butbetter texts in terms of task fulfilment, grammatical accuracy, and complexity. Collaboration affordedstudents the opportunity to pool ideas and provide each other with feedback. Most students werepositive about the experience, although some did express some reservations about collaborativewriting.# 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Keywords: Collaborative writing; Second language writing; Learners’ attitude to pair work 그냥 draft만 비교한 것이 아니라 학생들의 pair work를 오디오로 만들고, 이것을 라이팅과 비교. **************************** Handbook of Reading Research - chapter on methodology ppt of SLRF

Applied Linguistics 1997 18(3):253-278; doi:10.1093/applin/18.3.253© 1997 by Oxford University PressThis Article Articles

A Study of the Use of a Monolingual Pedagogical Dictionary by Learners of English Engaged in WritingKEITH HARVEY and DEBORAH YUILL

School of Modern Languages and European Studies, University of East Anglia

The Further Education Funding Council for England This paper is an account of a study of the role played by a dictionary (in this case, the Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary (1987)) in the completion of written (encoding) tasks by learners of English as a foreign language The study uses an introspective methodology based on the completion of flowcharts The results highlight, in particular, the importance of information on spelling and meaning and the central role accorded to the examples for obtaining a wide variety of information, notably on meaning, grammar, and register COBUILD's full-sentence definitions together with its real examples are revealed to be of considerable use to learners on the other hand, coded syntactic information in the dictionary is largely neglected by learners Implications for lexicographers and for language teaching and learning are considered *************** The use of hyper-reference and conventional dictionariesJournal Educational Technology Research and DevelopmentPublisher Springer BostonISSN 1042-1629 (Print) 1556-6501 (Online)Issue Volume 41, Number 4 / December, 1993Category ResearchDOI 10.1007/BF02297512Pages 63-74Subject Collection Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSpringerLink Date Saturday, February 18, 2006 Add to marked itemsAdd to saved itemsPermissions & ReprintsRecommend this article PDF (1.1 MB) ResearchThe use of hyper-reference and conventional dictionariesRonald Aust1, Mary Jane Kelley2 and Warren Roby3 (1) the University of Kansas, USA(2) the Modern Languages Department at Ohio University, USA(3) Washington State University, USA

Abstract A hyper-reference is an online electronic aid that provides immediate access to adjunct information with a direct-return path to the target information. Eighty undergraduate foreign language learners participated in a comparison of hyper-reference and conventional paper dictionary use on the measures of consultation frequency, study time, efficiency, and comprehension. Hyper-reference users consulted over two times as many definitions as conventional dictionary users. Analyses of efficiency (consults per minute) found a higher consultation rate for hyper-reference users than for conventional dictionary users. The study also compared bilingual (Spanish/English) and monolingual (Spanish/simplified Spanish) dictionary use. Bilingual dictionary users consulted 25% more definitions than did monolingual dictionary users. Bilingual dictionary users completed reading in 20% less time than monolingual dictionary users. Efficiency was also higher during bilingual dictionary use than during monolingual dictionary use. Differences in comprehension were not significant. Directions for further research and development concerning electronic text and hyper-references are offered.The authors thank Paul Markham and Phil McKnight of the University of Kansas Department of

Curriculum and Instruction, and the ETR&D reviewers for their thoughtful critiques of the initial manuscript. References Atkins, B. T. (1985). Monolingual and bilingual learner's dictionaries. In R. Ilson (Ed.),Dictionaries, lexicography, and language learning (pp. 15–24). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Baer, V. H. (1988). Computers as composition tools: A case study of attitudes.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15, 144–148. Béjoint, H. (1981). The foreign student's use of monolingual English dictionaries: A study of language needs and reference skills.Applied Linguistics, 2, 325–336. Benoussan, M., Sim, D., & Weiss, R. (1984). The effect of dictionary usage on EFL test performance compared with student and teacher attitudes and expectations.Reading in a Foreign Language, 2, 262–276. Bernhardt, E. B. (1983). Testing foreign language reading comprehension: The immediate recall protocol.Die Unterrichtspraxis, 16, 27–33. Bland, S. K., Nobitt, J. S., Armington, S., & Gay, G. (1990). The naive lexical hypothesis: Evidence from computer-assisted language learning.Modern Language Journal, 74, 440–450. Brumfit, C. J. (1985). Preface. In R. Ilson (Ed.),Dictionaries, lexicography and language learning (p. v). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Bush, V. (1945, July). As we may think.Atlantic Monthly, 101–108. Campbell, B., & Goodman, J. (1988). HAM: General-purpose hypertext abstract machine.Communications of the Association of Computing Machinery, 31, 856–861. Coviello, G. (1987). Il dizionario oggi. Due gruppi di studenti messi a confronto su un oggetto molto discusso.Rassenga Italiana di Linguistica Applicata, 19, 109–129.

Crystal, D. (1986). The ideal dictionary, lexicographer and user. In R. Ilson (Ed.),Lexicography: An emerging international profession (pp. 72–81). London: Manchester University Press. Deese, J. (1984).Thought into speech: The psychology of a language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Engelbart, D. C., & English, W. K. (1968). A research center for augmenting human intellect.AFIPS Proceedings, 33, 395–410. Fox, M. S., Bebel, D. J., & Parker, A. C. (1980). The automated dictionary.Computer, 13, 35–48. Gagné, E. (1985).The cognitive psychology of school learning. Boston: Little, Brown. Galisson, R. (1983). Image et usage du dictionnaire chez des étudiants (en langue) de niveau avancé.Études de Linguistique Appliqués, 59, 5–88.

Gore, A. (1991, September) Infrastructure for the global village.Scientific American, pp. 150–153. Halasz, F. (1987). Reflections on notecards: Seven issues for the next generation of hypermedia systems.Communications of the Association of Computing Machinery, 31, 836–852. Hartley, J. (1987). Designing electronic text: The role of print-based research.Educational Technology Research & Development, 35(1), 3–17. Hartmann, R. R. K. (1983). The bilingual learner's dictionary and its uses.Multilingua, 2, 195–201. Hartmann, R. R. K. (1987). Dictionaries of English: The user's perspective. In R. W. Bailey (Ed.),Dictionaries of English: Prospects for the record of our language (pp. 121–135). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Haskell, J. F. (1975). Putting cloze into the classroom.English Record, 27, 83–90. Hatherall, G. (1984). Studying dictionary use: Some findings and proposals. In R. R. K. Hartmann (Ed.),LEXeter '83 Proceedings (pp. 183–189). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Hill, G. C., & Yamada, K. (1993, February 8). Five electronic giants hope general magic will turn the trick.The Wall Street Journal, pp. A1, 4. Ilson, R. (1985). Introduction. In R. Ilson (Ed.),Dictionaries, lexicography, and language learning (pp. 1–6). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Hypertext as instructional design.Educational Technology Research & Development, 39(1), 83–92. Kahn, J. (1987). Learning to write with a new tool: Young children and word processing.The Computing Teacher, 14, 11–12. Kasnic, M. J., & Stefano, S. (1987). Computers and the language arts: More than a spelling checker.The Computing Teacher, 15(2), 31–32. Kay, A. C. (1991, September) Computers, networks and education.Scientific American, pp. 138–148. Keller, H. H. (1987). Pedagogical wishes for a machine dictionary: An example from Russian.Modern Language Journal, 71, 12–17. Kerr, S. (1986). Learning to use electronic text: An agenda for research on typography, graphics and interpersonal navigation.Information Design Journal, 4(3), 206–211. Kinzie, M. B., & Berdel, R. M. (1990). Design and use of hypermedia systems.Educational Technology Research & Development, 38(3), 61–68. Lantolf, J. P., Labarca, A., & den Tuinder, J. (1985). Strategies for accessing bilingual dictionaries: A question of regulation.Hispania, 68, 858–864. Lee, J. F. (1986). On the use of the recall task to measure L2 reading comprehension.Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 8, 201–212. Leo ardi, E. (1987). The micro in the English classroom: Shifting the emphasis from processing words to processing ideas.Educational Technology, 27, 45–47. Locatis, C., Letourneau, G., & Banvard, T. (1989). Hypermedia and instruction.Educational Technology Research & Development, 37(4), 65–77. McKnight, C., Dillon, A., & Richardson, J. (1991).Hypertext in context. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Miller, G. A. (1980). Automated dictionaries. In A. Melmed (Ed.),Automated dictionaries: Reading and writing. Report of a conference on educational uses of word processors with dictionaries (pp. 25–29). Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. Moore, G. W. (1983).Developing and evaluating educational research. Boston: Little, Brown. Nelson, T. H. (1981).Literary machines. Swarthmore, PA: Author. Nelson, T. H. (1982, March). A new home for the mind.Datamation, pp. 169–180. Rada, R. (1991).Hypertext: From text to expert. London: McGraw-Hill. Raymond, D. R., & Tompa, F. W. (1988). Hypertext and the Oxford English Dictionary.Communications of the Association of Computing Machinery, 31(7), 871–879. Smith, J. B., & Weiss, S. F. (1988). Hypertext: An overview.Communications of the Association of Computing Machinery, 31(7), 816–819. Snell-Hornby, M. (1984). The bilingual dictionary: Help or hindrance? In R. R. K. Hartmann (Ed.),LEXeter '83 Proceedings (pp. 274–281). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Tomaszczyk, J. (1979). Dictionaries: Users and uses.Glottodidactica, 12, 103–119. Weissman, R. F. E. (1988). From the personal computer to the scholar's workstation.Academic Computing, 3, 10–14; 30–41. Welsh, T. M., Murphy, K. P., Duffy, T. M., & Goodrum, D. A. Accessing elaborations on core information in a hypermedia environment.Educational Technology Research & Development, 41(2), 19–34. Wolfe, R. (1990). Hypertextual perspective on educational computer conferencing. In L. Harasim (Ed.),Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp. 215–228). New York, Prager. Wooldridge, R. (1991). List of electronic dictionaries.ACH Newsletter, 13, 1, 4. Yorkey, R. C. (1970). Electronic dictionaries in CALL.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1, 95–109. Zgusta, L. (1975). Linguistics and bilingual dictionaries.Studies in Language Learning, 1, 95–109.

********************* http://pao.chadwyck.com/articles/displayItem.do?QueryType=articles&ResultsID=11D6EE02AA11322BAF&filterSequence=0&ItemNumber=1&journalID=1123 ***************** Observational Learning and Its Effects on the Orchestration of Writing Processes. Authors: Braaksma, Martine A.H.Rijlaarsdam, Gertvan den Bergh, Huubvan Hout-Wolters, Bernadette H.A.M. Source: Cognition & Instruction; 2004, Vol. 22 Issue 1, p1-36, 36p Document Type: Article Subject Terms: LEARNINGWRITINGAGE groupsPLANNINGORGANIZATIONCOGNITION Abstract: In this study, we examined why observational learning positively affects learning outcomes of new writing tasks. In this study, we focused on the effects of observational learning on the temporal organization (i.e., orchestration of writing processes and on the subsequent influence on text quality. An experiment was set up in which participants (N = 52; 8th-grade students) were assigned to 1 of 2 observational-learning conditions or a control (CO) condition. In the observational-learning conditions, participants learned by observing peer models' writing processes and in the CO condition by performing writing tasks. To measure the orchestration of writing processes, the participants performed posttest-writing tasks under think-aloud conditions. Results show that observational learning affected writing processes differently than the CO condition. Writers who learned by observation performed more high-level processes like planning. Furthermore, for some activities, these writers showed a changing pattern of execution over time, whereas writers in the CO condition performed these activities at a constant rate during the writing process (i.e., a monotonous process). Finally, we show that the orchestration performed by the students who learned by observation was positively related to the quality of the writing product. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Cognition & Instruction is the property of Lawrence Erlbaum Associates and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts) ISSN: 0737-0008

********************* http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~charney/homepage/Articles/Charney_hypertext.pdf ************************* Contrastive rhetoric in context: A dynamic model of L2 writing*1 Paul Kei Matsuda Purdue University USA

Available online 12 April 2002.

Abstract The notion of contrastive rhetoric was first proposed as a pedagogical solution to the problem of L2 organization, and the subsequent development in research has generated, among other valuable insights, three explanations for the organizational structures of L2 texts, including linguistic, cultural, and educational explanations. However, the contribution of contrastive rhetoric to the teaching of ESL writing has been limited because of the underlying assumptions that has guided the early pedagogical approaches. This study identifies a static theory of L2 writing that has been widely used in teaching organizational structures and considers how the pedagogical application of insights from contrastive rhetoric studies have been limited by this theory. To overcome the limitations of the static theory, an alternative model of L2 writing is proposed, and its implications for further research and the teaching of L2 writing are discussed. References Bartholomae, 1985. D. Bartholomae , Inventing the university. In: M. Rose, Editor, When a writer can't write: Studies in writer's block and other composing problems, Guilford Press, New York (1985), pp. 134–165. Bazerman, 1985. C. Bazerman , Physicists reading physics: Schema-laden purposes and purpose-laden schema. Written Communication 2 (1985), pp. 3–24. Berkenkotter et al., 1988. C. Berkenkotter, T.N. Huckin and J. Ackerman , Conventions, conversations, and the writer: Case study of a student in a rhetoric Ph.D. program. Research in the Teaching of English 22 (1988), pp. 9–44. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (7) Bickner and Peyasantiwong, 1988. R. Bickner and P. Peyasantiwong , Cultural variation in reflective writing. In: A.C. Purves, Editor, Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric, Sage, Newbury Park, CA (1988), pp. 160–174. Bizzell, 1982a. P. Bizzell , Cognition, convention, and certainty: What we need to know about writing. Pre/Text 3 (1982a), pp. 213–241. Bizzell, 1982b. P. Bizzell , College composition: Initiation into the academic discourse community. Curriculum Inquiry 12 (1982b), pp. 191–207. Full Text via CrossRef Brandt, 1986. D. Brandt , Toward an understanding of context in composition. Written Communication 3 (1986), pp. 139–157. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (3) Campbell, 1939. O.J. Campbell , The failure of freshman English. English Journal: College Edition 28 (1939), pp. 177–185. Casanave, 1995. C.P. Casanave , Local interactions: Constructing contexts for composing in a graduate sociology program. In: D. Belcher and G. Braine, Editors, Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy, Ablex, Norwood, NJ (1995), pp. 83–110. Connor, 1996. U. Connor , Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. , Cambridge University Press, New York (1996).

Connor and Kaplan, 1987. U. Connor and R.B. Kaplan, Editors, Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text, Addison-Wesley, Readings, MA (1987). Crowley, 1990. S. Crowley , The methodical memory: Invention in current-traditional rhetoric. , Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale (1990). Enkvist, 1987. N.B. Enkvist , Text linguistics for the applier: An orientation. In: U. Connor and R.B. Kaplan, Editors, Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1987), pp. 23–43. Grabe and Kaplan, 1989. W. Grabe and R.B. Kaplan , Writing in a second language: Contrastive rhetoric. In: D.M. Johnson and D.H. Roen, Editors, Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students, Longman, White Plains, NY (1989), pp. 263–283. Hinds, 1983. J. Hinds , Contrastive rhetoric: Japanese and English. Text 3 (1983), pp. 183–195. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (33) Hinds, 1990. J. Hinds , Inductive, deductive, quasi-indictive: Expository writing in Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and Thai. In: U. Connor and A.M. Johns, Editors, Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspective, TESOL, Alexandria, VA (1990), pp. 89–260. Huckin, 1992. T.N. Huckin , Context-sensitive text analysis. In: G. Kirsch and P.A. Sullivan, Editors, Methods and methodology in composition research, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale (1992), pp. 84–104. Kaplan, 1966. R.B. Kaplan , Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning 16 (1966), pp. 1–20. Full Text via CrossRef Kaplan, 1972. R.B. Kaplan , The anatomy of rhetoric: Prolegomena to a functional theory of rhetoric. , Center for Curriculum Development, Philadelphia (1972). Kaplan, 1980. R.B. Kaplan , On the scope of linguistics, applied and non-. In: R.B. Kaplan, Editor, On the scope of applied linguistics, Newbury, Rowley, MA (1980), pp. 57–66. Kaplan, 1983. R.B. Kaplan, Editor, Annual review of applied linguistics Vol. 3 (1983). Kaplan, 1987. R.B. Kaplan , Cultural thought patterns revisited. In: U. Connor and R.B. Kaplan, Editors, Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1987), pp. 9–21. Kaplan, 1988. R.B. Kaplan , Contrastive rhetoric and second language learning: Notes toward a theory of contrastive rhetoric. In: A. Purves, Editor, Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric, Sage, Newbury Park, CA (1988), pp. 275–304. Kaplan, 1991. R.B. Kaplan , Concluding essay: On applied linguistics and discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 11 (1991), pp. 199–204. Kobayashi, 1992. T. Kobayashi , Native and nonnative reactions to ESL compositions. TESOL Quarterly 26 (1992), pp. 81–112. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (11) Land and Whitley, 1989. R.E. Land, Jr. and C. Whitley , Evaluating second language essays in regular composition classes: Toward a pluralistic U.S. rhetoric. In: D.M. Johnson and D.H. Roen, Editors, Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students, Longman, New York (1989), pp. 284–293. Leki, 1991. I. Leki , Twenty-five years of Contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly 25 (1991), pp. 123–143. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (22) Leki, 1992. I. Leki , Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers. , Boynton/Cook, Portsmouth, NH (1992). Liebman, 1988. J. Liebman , Contrastive rhetoric: Students as ethnographers. Journal of Basic Writing 7 (1988), pp. 6–27. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (4) Liebman, 1992. J.D. Liebman , Toward a new Contrastive rhetoric: Differences between Arabic and Japanese rhetorical instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing 1 (1992), pp. 141–165. Abstract | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (11) Martin, 1992. J.E. Martin , Towards a theory of text for contrastive rhetoric: An introduction to issues of text for students and practitioners of contrastive rhetoric. , Peter Lang, New York (1992). Matalene, 1985. C. Matalene , Contrastive rhetoric: An American writing teacher in China. College

English 47 (1985), pp. 789–807. Full Text via CrossRef Mohan, 1986. B.A. Mohan , On evidence for cross-cultural rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly 20 (1986), pp. 358–361. Full Text via CrossRef Mohan and Lo, 1985. B.A. Mohan and W.A-Y. Lo , Academic writing and Chinese students' transfer and developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly 19 (1985), pp. 515–534. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (37) Ostler, 1987. S.E. Ostler , English in parallels: A comparison of English and Arabic prose. In: U. Connor and R.B. Kaplan, Editors, Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1987), pp. 169–185. Ostler, 1996, March. S.E. Ostler , Contrastive rhetoric: Myths, facts, and pedagogy. Paper presented at the 30th Annual TESOL Conference, Chicago (1996, March). Prior, 1995. P. Prior , Redefining the task: An ethnographic examination of writing and response in graduate seminars. In: D. Belcher and G. Braine, Editors, Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy, Ablex, Norwood, NJ (1995), pp. 47–82. Purves, 1988. A.C. Purves , Introduction. In: Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in Contrastive rhetoric, Sage, Newbury Park, CA (1988), pp. 9–21. Raimes, 1983. A. Raimes , Techniques in teaching writing. , Oxford University Press, New York (1983). Raimes, 1991. A. Raimes , Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly 25 (1991), pp. 407–430. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (21) Reid, 1989. J.M. Reid , English as second language composition in higher education: The expectations of the academic audience. In: D.M. Johnson and D.H. Roen, Editors, Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students, Longman, New York (1989). Robinson, 1993, April. J.H. Robinson , Contrastive rhetoric and the revision process for East Asian students. Paper presented at the 27th Annual TESOL convention, Atlanta (1993, April). Severino, 1993. C. Severino , The “doodles” in context: Qualifying claims about contrastive rhetoric. The Writing Center Journal 13 (1993), pp. 44–61. Silva, 1990. T. Silva , Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues and directions in ESL. In: B. Kroll, Editor, Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom, Cambridge University Press, New York (1990), pp. 11–23. Söter, 1988. A.O. Söter , The second language learner and cultural transfer in narration. In: A. Purves, Editor, Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric, Sage, Newbury Park, CA (1988), pp. 177–205. Swales, 1990. J.M. Swales , Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. , Cambridge University Press, New York (1990). Taylor and Chen, 1991. G. Taylor and C. Chen , Linguistic, cultural, and subcultural issues in contrastive discourse analysis: Anglo-American and Chinese scientific texts. Applied Linguistics 12 (1991), pp. 319–336. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (30) Tierney and Pearson, 1985. R.J. Tierney and P.D. Pearson , Toward a composing model of reading. Reading Research Quarterly 9 (1985), pp. 135–147. Zamel, 1982. V. Zamel , Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly 16 (1982), pp. 195–209. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (29) *1 I thank Ulla Connor, Akiko Fujii, Aya Matsuda, and the editors and anonymous reviewers of the Journal of Second Language Writing for their thoughtful comments on earlier versions of this article. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Paul Kei Matsuda, Department of English, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1356 ****************************

corpus 이용하면 copy만? 보니까 전체 구조나 흐름은 코퍼스에 의존하지 않음. micro feature에 대한 것들을 주로 이용. 어떻게 된 걸까? 이것도 training이 가해지면 달라지려나? corpus를 통해서 구조를 익힌다는 건 어떻게 가능한가? 전에 광현이형/종선씨랑 말한 대로 수많은 텍스트를 매뉴얼 태깅해야만 가능한가? 위의 마쯔다 논문은 ESL Writer의 글을 contrastive rhetoric이라는 커다란 틀에서 dynamic 하게 봄. 하지만 그 dynamism이 실제로 구현되는 현장은 어디에? ************************* Microgenesis, Method and Object: A Study of Collaborative Activity in a Spanish as a Foreign Language ClassroomAdela Gánem Gutiérrez. Applied Linguistics. London: Mar 2008. Vol. 29, Iss. 1; pg. 120, 29 pgsAbstract (Summary) This paper draws on the Vygotskian methodological construct of microgenesis to study collaborative activity in an intermediate Spanish as a foreign language classroom. In this study, the construct of microgenesis is drawn upon to refer to both, the methodological tool to investigate language learning instances as observed in short periods of time (i.e. minutes), and also to refer to those observed language learning instances as the object of study. The Sociocultural approach to Second Language Learning (SLL) (Lantolf and Appel 1994; Donato 2000; Lantolf 2000; Lantolf and Thorne 2006) underpinning this investigation sees interaction as the enabling process that becomes essential for the individual to achieve learning and development. I refer to learning as the process through which participants are able to change, transform (i.e. develop) their use and/or understanding (see Wells 1999: 111) of the target language. Pairs/trios of students were audio-recorded while collaborating to complete three language tasks in the classroom during an academic semester in a UK university. Microgenetic analysis of the data (transcribed protocols) allowed us to gain further understanding of collaborative activity and of the importance of language as a mediational tool to co-construct meaning and learning opportunities. The results show that although each instance of microgenesis is unique, there are certain characteristics and patterns shared by the various instances identified in the data set. The investigation also highlights the importance of studying discourse markers to help us identify the learners' level of regulation. Finally, we focus on a specific aspect of microgenesis that appears to be crucial for driving the learner's second language (L2) forward, and which following van Lier (2000: 252), I refer to as microgenesis affordance.

Indexing (document details)Author(s): Adela Gánem Gutiérrez

Document types:

Feature

Publication title:

Applied Linguistics. London: Mar 2008. Vol. 29, Iss. 1; pg. 120, 29 pgs

Source type:

Periodical

ISSN: 01426001

ProQuest document ID:

1441386371

Text Word Count

11400

DOI: 10.1093/applin/amm032

Document URL:

http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/pqdweb?did=1441386371&sid=4&Fmt=2&clientId=9874&RQT=309&VName=PQD

마이크로제너시스*********************************Applied Linguistics 28/3: 440–465 _ Oxford University Press 2007doi:10.1093/applin/amm031Language Re-use among Chinese Apprentice Scientists Writing for PublicationJOHN FLOWERDEW and YONGYAN LIUniversity of Leeds, City University of Hong KongPlagiarism has been a topic of considerable discussion in Applied Linguistics.In the literature on plagiarism a distinction can be found between the takingof the ideas of others and the taking of others’ words. In this paper the focus ison the latter, which is referred to as ‘language re-use’. Specifically, the studyfocuses on the practices and beliefs of a group of doctoral science students ata major university in China regarding language re-use in writing for publicationin English. Examples are presented illustrating the students’ strategies oflanguage re-use in each section of the prototypical IMRD (Introduction,Method, Results, Discussion) structure of the genre of scientific researcharticles, along with the writers’ justifications for such writing practices. It can beseen that the students’ language re-use goes well beyond formulaic expressionsand technical terminology which are characteristics of the scientific researcharticle, yet the students believe that their textual practices do not constituteplagiarism, which, to them, primarily means the stealing of others’ work. ForEnglish for Academic Purposes (EAP) instruction targeted at novice scientists,the paper calls for a pedagogy that acknowledges and exploits the formulaicityof scientific writing as well as discusses the relationship between ‘form’(language) and ‘content’ (the work reported) in natural sciences.

METHODData collectionThe data employed in this report were of two types: textual data andinterview data.

이 연구에서 스크린 캡쳐가 들어갔더라면 좀더 잘 볼 수 있지 않냐?

************************************

미디에이션이 자주 보인다면 Writing Process 자체를 negotiation through mediation 으로 보아야 하지 않을까? monologic view of writing 을 dynamic/dialogic mediation 으로 바꾸어야 함.

*****************************************

Syntactic Complexity Measures and their Relationship to L2 Proficiency: A Research Synthesis of College-level L2 WritingLourdes Ortega. Applied Linguistics. London: Dec 2003. Vol. 24, Iss. 4; pg. 492Abstract (Summary) In this study I evaluate the cumulative evidence on the use of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level L2 writers' overall proficiency in the target language. Based on a synthesis of twenty-five studies, I arrive at several substantive findings. First, I conclude that the relationship between L2 proficiency and L2 writing syntactic complexity varied systematically across studies depending on whether a second or a foreign language learning context was investigated and whether proficiency was defined by programme level or by holistic rating. Second, aggregating available cross-sectional findings, I propose critical magnitudes for between-proficiency differences in syntactic complexity for four measures. Finally, I interpret the limited longitudinal evidence to suggest that an observation period of roughly a year of college-level instruction is probably needed for substantial changes in the syntactic complexity of L2 writing to be observed. I conclude the paper by discussing implications of these findings for future primary research.

Syntactic complexity - 프로덕트로 proficiency를 재는 것. 그러나 실제로 학생들을 도우려면? 블랙박스 이전과 이후를 돕는 것이 아니라, 학생들이 실제 라이팅을 할 때 어떻게 도울 것인가를 고민해야 함.

********************************************************

제스처: portability - 라이팅에서 쓰기에 도움을 줄 수 있는 것. portability - corpus 코퍼스는 메타가 아니라 있는 그대로를 보여줌.

****************************

Defining the Zone of Proximal Development in US Foreign Language EducationCeleste Kinginger. Applied Linguistics. London: Jun 2002. Vol. 23, Iss. 2; pg. 240Abstract (Summary) The focus of this article is the interpretation of Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) for foreign language teaching in the USA. This problem is taken to exemplify the effect of long-standing tensions between progressive and conservative stakeholders in educational processes. As the construct gains in prominence, it is claimed by the progressives and conservatives alike, who shape the contours of its meaning according to their particular educational vision. A Brief summary of the construct's origins in the writings of Vygotsky is followed by an outline of its reception among Western psychologists and educators, reviewing a variety of proposals for interpreting the ZPD in teaching and in research. In the subsequent sections, the essay comments on progressive and conservative trends in the US foreign language profession, and on the reception of the construct, focusing on three cases in which the ZPD has been invoked in recent publications on research and classroom teaching.

ZPD / DA 이야기할 때 인용 가능.

********************************************

Ericsson and Simon 1994 - Think Aloud Protocol

.Review. Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language Research. SM Gass, A MackeyEC Berg. Applied Linguistics. London: Sep 2001. Vol. 22, Iss. 3; p. 397 Citation Article image - PDF (156 K)

**********************

Ethnographic approaches and methods in L2 writing research: a critical guide and reviewV Ramanathan, D Atkinson. Applied Linguistics. London: Mar 1999. Vol. 20, Iss. 1; pg. 44

Abstract (Summary)In this paper, we discuss central concepts and issues regarding ethnographic research in education, particularly as they pertain to studies of L2 writing. After some necessary preliminaries we consider Watson-Geteo's (1988) six principles of ethnographic research, and then propose our own 'prototype' definition. Following a discussion of some key concepts in our definition, we then review three recent studies of L2 writing which are ethnographic in nature. Next, we discuss the vexing issue of 'generalizability', and consider two further studies of L2 writing in that regard. We end by introducing a series of issues which are critical to recent ethnographic concerns in anthropology and sociology, but which have had little influence so far on ethnographically oriented L2 writing research

에쓰노그라피 - 자료를 추가. triangulation. 가능.

***********************************************************************

What Develops in the Development of Second-language Writing? PHILIP SHAW1 and ERIC TING-KUN LIU2 1Arhus School of Business2University of Newcastle upon Tyne

Counts of register features have produced useful data on varieties of written English and on differences between writers of differing writing and language proficiency. This article reports an attempt to extend this procedure to an evaluation of the same foreign-language writers at two different stages It shows that the procedure can differentiate the products of developing writers at two relatively close points in time, and that a more detailed examination of significant changes can be revealing about patterns of learning The major changes were from features of spoken English to those more typical of formal writing, both in surface detail and in more fundamental characteristics. There was less change in complexity of construction or variety of vocabulary improved correctness in the structures used was balanced by errors in new structures being attempted. The subjects had been discriminating in their acceptance of academic style and actively sensitive to genre and other requirements

이것도 surface feature만 가지고 writing development

********************************************

Assessing the Impact of Peer Revision on L2 Writing OLGA S VILLAMIL and MARÍA C M DE GUERRERO

English Department, Inter American University of Puerto Rico

This Study sought to investigate the impact of peer revision on Writers' final drafts in two rhetorical modes, narration and persuasion, among 14 Spanish-speaking ESL college students. Two questions were addressed (1) How were revisions made in peer sessions incorporated by writers in their final versions? (2) How were troublesources revised according to different language aspects (Content, organization, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics)? An analysis of audiotaped interactions, first drafts, and final drafts revealed that 74 per cent of revisions made in the peer sessions were incorporated. In addition, writers made many further and self revisions after the sessions. These revisions suggest a pattern of behavior conducive to self-regulation among writers. Results also show that students focused equally on grammar and content when revising in the Narrative mode and predominantly on grammar in the persuasive mode Organization was the least attended aspect in either mode. Only 7 per cent of false repairs were found overall. The study suggests that peer assistance can help L2 intermediate learners realize their potential for effective revision, to the extent their linguistic abilities permit. It is the authors' belief that peer revision should be seen as an important complementary source of feedback in the ESL classroom 링귀스틱 어빌러티가 퍼밋하는 것 중요. 하지만 피드백과 미디에이션이 어떻게 align 할 수 있을 것인가가 중요. 선생님의 피드백이건, peer-feeback이건 간에. 여기에서 organization에 관한 리비전이 부족하다는 것 언급 가능. (정현씨의 경우.)

************************

Applied Linguistics 1997 18(2):189-211; doi:10.1093/applin/18.2.189

Articles

How Engineers Write: An Empirical Study of Engineering Report Writing ERNARD McKENNA Queensland University of Technology

This study trials an analysis of engineering rèports using a modified version of Gosden's (1993) analysis of the science research article Using Hallidayan sociolmguistic concepts the analysis primarily, shows how engineering writers linguistically convert real-world entities and processes into non-real-world concepts and also tracks authorial presence in the article Concentrating primarily on the Mode aspect of Register, or how reality is constructed, the research looks at the system of organizing theme and information More particularly, it classifies the Subject in unmarked theme sentences to reveal strategic manipulation of thematic choices between real-world and non-real-world It is argued that the linguistic reconstrual into scientific concepts and data and then reconversion into real-world phenomena is the, essence of the engineering report

A number of methodological and substantive findings are provided The modified version of Gosden's method of identifying (Un)marked Themes can be applied to engineering report analysis It is suggested that a new category, Analytical Concepts of Real-World Entities, Events, and Processes, provides valuable information about the extent and position of the engineers' conversion of real-world entities, events, and processes into scientific concepts as it is the second most common thematic categorization It is claimed also that the small proportion of unmarked subject-themes in the Participant Domain of engineering reports suggests that the interactive metafunction is less important than in research articles because engineers do not need to position themselves within a

discourse community

These findings underline suggestions for improving engineering report writing in particular, better thematic organization, avoiding inappropriate narrative, greater use of adjuncts in marked theme sentences, and manipulation of theme subjects to enhance textual coher

*******************

Articles

A Study of the Use of a Monolingual Pedagogical Dictionary by Learners of English Engaged in Writing KEITH HARVEY and DEBORAH YUILL School of Modern Languages and European Studies, University of East AngliaThe Further Education Funding Council for England

This paper is an account of a study of the role played by a dictionary (in this case, the Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary (1987)) in the completion of written (encoding) tasks by learners of English as a foreign language The study uses an introspective methodology based on the completion of flowcharts The results highlight, in particular, the importance of information on spelling and meaning and the central role accorded to the examples for obtaining a wide variety of information, notably on meaning, grammar, and register COBUILD's full-sentence definitions together with its real examples are revealed to be of considerable use to learners on the other hand, coded syntactic information in the dictionary is largely neglected by learners Implications for lexicographers and for language teaching and learning are considered

사전 사용이 어떻게 영향을 미치는가.

**********************************

Comparing the Effects of Reading and Writing on Writing Performance WAI-KING TSANG City University of Hong Kong

The study compares the effects of an enriched syllabus which included extensive reading and frequent writing assignments on English descriptive writing performance at different form levels It examines a group of Cantonese-speaking students at four form levels in Hong Kong who participated in three English programs (A) regular plus unrelated (mathematics) enrichment program, (B) regular plus extensive reading, and (C) regular plus frequent writing practice Results demonstrated significant main effects due to the nature of program and form level with no significant interaction of these factors The regular plus extensive reading program was overall significantly effective, while both the regular plus mathematics program and the regular plus frequent writing practice were not In the area of content, the reading program was the only one which showed a significant positive effect Similarly, in the area of language use, the reading program was the only one of the three shown significantly effective.

리딩이나 라이팅이 라이팅에 어떤 영향을 미치는가?이것은 라이팅 내적 구조에 대한 질문이 아님. 라이팅을 하기 위해 schema / content 등을 가지고 오고, 이것이 라이팅의 과정 속에서 어떤 mediation을 거치는가에 따라 달라짐.

**************************

Problems in Output and the Cognitive Processes They Generate: A Step Towards Second Language Learning MERRILL SWAIN and SHARON LAPKIN The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

This paper argues, and provides data to support the argument, that in producing an L2, learners will on occasion become aware of (i e notice) a linguistic problem Noticing a problem can ‘push’ learners to modify their output In doing so, learners may sometimes be forced into a more syntactic processing mode than might occur in comprehension Thus, output sets ‘noticing’ in train, triggering mental processes that lead to modified output What goes on between the original output and its reprocessed form, it is suggested, is part of the process of second language learning

***********************************

Research Frontiers in Writing AnalysisULLA CONNORIndiana University in IndianapolisThis article describes recent advances in writing analysis. Theprincipal theme is that text analysis of written productscomplementsp rocess-centeredre searcha nd is needed for anintegratedt heoryo f writing.R ecentp aradigms hifts in writing,linguisticsa, nd text analysisa re discussed,f ollowed by a briefreview of selected empirical studies using two differentapproachess, entenceb ased and processc entered.T he implicationsof these approachesf or the teachingo f ESL writinga reexamined.The past decade has witnessed a major paradigm shift incomposition theory and research: The emphasis has moved fromthe product to the process of writing. According to Hairston (1982),the product-centered, traditional paradigm stressed expositorywriting, made style the most important element in writing, andmaintained that the writing process is linear, determined by writersbefore they start to write.The process-centered paradigm, on the other hand, focuses onwriting processes; teaches strategies for invention and discovery;considers audience, purpose, and context of writing; emphasizesrecursiveness in the writing process; and distinguishes between aimsand modes of discourse (e.g., expressive, expository, persuasive;and description, narration, evaluation, classification). Within thisparadigm, research on texts and text analysis is developing rapidly.Hairston (1982), for example, includes research in linguistics andcognitive sciences as part of the new paradigm for teaching writingand emphasizes that process theory is diverse, flexible, and stillemerging.Others have articulated various synergic relationships betweenprocess and product research and have called for theories of writingintegrating the two views. Phelps (1985), for example, argues for a

unified theory in which the "overarchingp rocess"i s the cooperativeenterprise whereby writers and readers construct meanings677together. Phelps offers an analysis of the dynamic interactionsbetween readers and writers.An integrative theory enables us to explain the apparent paradoxin some process research. Although product research has beenharshly condemned by some composition theorists, descriptions ofwriting processes have been largely achieved by analyzingsequences of different kinds of products. Among these productshave been transcripts of processes-or protocols-of writerscommenting on their own writing (Flower & Hayes, 1981), analysesof students' revisions of their own writing (Beach, 1976; Bridwell,1980; Sommers, 1980; Zamel, 1983), and studies of teachercomments on student writing (Zamel, 1985). The role of product isbecoming recognized not only in writing research, but also in theteaching of writing, in which experts are calling for a renewedinterest in student texts and revisions. Sommers (1987), in criticizingthe recent narrow emphasis on protocol analysis exploring writers'mental processes while writing or revising, recommended thatresearchers and teachers start analyzing students' drafts morecarefully, paying attention to the development of such features astone and personal style.Equally important for the argument on behalf of an integratedtheory of process and product in ESL, Raimes's (1985) analyses of"think aloud" protocols of unskilled ESL writers writing essaysfound that ESL writers "concentrate on the challenge of finding theright words and sentences to express the meaning" (p. 247). Raimesrecommends that weconsider the need to attend to product as well as process. Our studentsshouldb e taughtn ot onlyh euristicd evicest o focuso n meaningb, ut alsoheuristicd evices to focus on rhetoricaal nd linguisticf eaturesa ftert heideas have found some form. (pp. 247-248)Recent developments in text analysis methodology are helping tointegrate the product and process perspectives. By describingsequential texts within a process, text analyses are contributing toour understanding of the writing process. Text analyses are alsoimproving the tools with which teachers and students can talk aboutstudent writing.PARADIGMSH IFTSIN LINGUISTICASN DT EXTA NALYSISThe 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s have witnessed major shifts inemphases in linguistics, which have yielded valuable contributionsto the study of discourse, both spoken and written. Many linguistsfeel that traditional morphological and syntactic tools are not678 TESOL QUARTERLYenough to explain texts and that new discourse tools need to bedeveloped for the study of communicative texts (Dressler, 1978;Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978; van Dijk, 1985).All of these theories and models of text have concernedthemselves with the processes readers and writers go through in

their attempts to comprehend and be comprehended. They differ,however, in the degree of attention to the structural versusprocedural elements in texts. Enkvist (1975, 1978, 1985, 1987) hasdeveloped a useful taxonomy of text-linguistic approaches towriting: sentence-based, predication-based, cognitive-based, andinteractive approaches.Enkvist points out that the first text-linguists worked withsentence-based text models and were mainly interested in whatlinked sentences together in paragraphs and paragraphs togetherinto texts. Cohesion, the overt linking of sentences, is a classicexample of such a sentence-based approach (Halliday, 1961;Halliday & Hasan, 1976). The theory of functional sentenceperspective, developed by the Prague School linguists (Danes,1974; Firbas, 1966), could also be classified as a sentence-basedmodel. Even though functional sentence perspectivists areinterested in the role of utterances in the total communicationprocess, they do begin much of their work by analyzing thesentence into parts and determining their functions in communication.The predication-based model sees texts as particular arrangementsdepending on a specific text strategy and maintains that thesame input can be textualized into different texts. An example ofsuch a model is Werlich's A Text Grammar of English (1976), whichshows how text types-narrative, descriptive, expository, andargumentative-differ in the arrangement of the same input(words, sentences, transitional phrases, voice, etc.).Cognitive-based text models emphasize the role of cognition intext processing; for example, coherence is a function of the text andof the equipment the hearer or reader brings to its interpretation.The cognitive model, however, overlaps the interactive approach,which stresses that to communicate successfully, writers or speakersneed to be aware of their audience and either conform to expectedpatterns or purposely break these conventions for surprise effect.The overriding theme, then, of these two approaches is that ofcommunicative intent. Brown and Yule (1983), for example,underscore the importance of the reader-writer interaction indiscourse comprehension and contrast their discourse-as-processapproach with a text-as-product view. They are interested in theRESEARCH FRONTIERS IN WRITING ANALYSIS 679function or purpose of pieces of linguistic data and also how thosedata are processed, both by the producer and by the receiver.Because of the inherent overlap between these approaches, whichEnkvist admits, the four categories can be collapsed into two: (a)the sentence-based approach and (b) the process-centeredapproach. The first category includes Enkvist's sentence-basedmodels, whereas the process-centered approach combines Enkvist'spredication, cognitive, and interactive categories. Using thisdichotomy of text-linguistic approaches, the next section of thisarticle describes theories as well as methods of analysis that havebeen successfully applied to the study of real texts, includingstudent essays, or that suggest promise as useful areas of inquiry.

The aim is to develop a unified theory of ESL writing, whichincludes both process and product while accounting for the manylevels of language (e.g., syntax and discourse).

울라 코너 이야기 - 과정 중심. 하지만 그 '과정'이 어느 정도의 과정을 의미하는가?

**********************************

The Impact of Computer-Based Tools and Embedded Prompts on Writing Processes and Products of Novice and Advanced College Writers Author: Robert B. Kozma DOI: 10.1207/s1532690xci0801_1 Publication Frequency: 4 issues per year Published in: Cognition and Instruction, Volume 8, Issue 1 March 1991 , pages 1 - 27 Formats available: PDF (English) Article Requests: Order Reprints : Request Permissions

In order to give pricing details we need to know your country. Please register and/or sign in to identify your country. Sign In Online Sample Abstract This study examined the impact of computer-based tools and embedded topical and rhetorical prompts on college writers. Two types of organizational tools, an outliner and a graphic idea organizer, and the prompts increased the conceptual planning of both advanced and novice writers. There was no correlation, however, between the amount of planning and the quality of compositions. Increased planning corresponded to better compositions only under certain conditions; there was an interaction between treatments and level of writer. Advanced writers both planned more and wrote better compositions when they used the idea organizer with prompts. Although novice writers with this treatment also planned more, their compositions were actually worse. The compositions of novice writers were best when they used the out- liner with prompts. An analysis of the verbal protocols examined the relationship between the features of the software and the prompts, the skills of the writers, and the connection between plans and compositions. Implications are discussed for research on writing, the design of writing tools, and their use in the writing classroom.

*********************

Individual and cooperative computer-writing and revising: Who gets the best results?

References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Vanda Lucia Zammuner,

University of Padova, Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, Via B. Pellegrino, 26,

35137, Padova, Italy

Available online 29 March 2000.

AbstractDraft and revised computer-written narratives were produced by IV grade children in each of three writing conditions: I/I — individual/individual, i.e. the child wrote and revised his/her narrative individually; I/D — individual/dyad, the child wrote a text individually but revised it together with another child; D/D — dyad/dyad: two children wrote and then revised a text. A set of repeated measures analyses of variance showed that children's revised narratives had more original and well-organized contents, described better story protagonists, used a more sophisticated language, contained fewer mistakes of various kinds and exhibited greater grammatical complexity than first drafts. The greatest changes from draft to revision occurred in the I/D condition; the greatest change within drafts occurred between the two individual drafts. Learning effects and effects due to cooperative writing were observed for a few parameters of text quality. The study shows that children, especially when they revise their text with a peer, are able to carry out both local and more global revisions and can do so even without explicit training.

******************

Writing profiles: the effect of the writing mode on pausing and revision patterns of experienced writers

References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Luuk Van Waesa, and Peter Jan Schellensb, ,

aDepartment of Language and Communication, UFSIA, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, B 2018 Antwerpen, Belgium

bFaculty of Behavioral Sciences, University of Twente, Postbus 217, NL 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands

Available online 31 October 2002.

AbstractWe investigated how writing processes are affected by physical aspects of the task environment, specifically the use of a word processor, with respect to patterns of pausing and revision. Consistent with the tradition of cognitive writing research, the writing processes of experienced writers were examined (60 involving the use of a word processor, 20 involving pen&paper). In comparison with writers using pen&paper, those using a word processor (i) spent more time on a first draft and less on finalizing a text, (ii) pursued a more fragmentary writing process, (iii) tended to revise more

extensively at the beginning of the writing process, (iv) attended more to lower linguistic levels (letter, word) and formal properties of the text, and (v) did not normally undertake any systematic revision of their work before finishing. By clustering the various processes with respect to twelve relevant parameters, we developed a new typology of writing processes which distinguishes five writing profiles: the initial planner, the fragmentary Stage I writer, the Stage II writer, the non-stop writer, and the average writer. Our quantitative approach to describing the cognitive behavior of the different writers revealed that the profiles they adopt depend greatly on the constraints of the writing environment.

Keywords: Writing process; Word processor; Revision; Pause analysis; Cognitive processes; Writing profiles

The method used to observe the writing processes had to meet three principalrequirements: it had to yield as detailed a picture of the writing process as possible its results had to be quantitatively comparable it could not affect the writing process itself.Accordingly, the performance of each participant writing in the pen&papermode was recorded on video whereas that of each participant writing in thecomputer mode was recorded using automatic keyboard registration linked to aresident computer program (Keytrap).6 This program registered every keystrokeas well as the time lapse between strokes (1/18 s), and allowed the exact reconstructionof the on-screen writing process and automatic analysis of certain data.These observations were supplemented by interviews held before and after theexperiment. 키스트록 프로그램 사용.

***************************************

Fluency in Writing Generating Text in L1 and L2 N. ANN CHENOWETH Carnegie Mellon University

JOHN R. HAYES

Carnegie Mellon University

This study explores the relation between fluency in writing and linguistic experience and provides information about the processes involved in written text composition. The authors conducted a think-aloud protocol study with native speakers of English who were learning French or German. Analysis reveals that as the writer's experience with the language increases, fluency (as measured by words written per minute) increases, the average length of strings of words proposed between pauses or revision episodes increases, the number of revision episodes decreases, and more of the words that are proposed as candidate text get accepted. To account for these results, the authors propose a model of written language production and hypothesize that the effect of linguistic experience on written fluency is mediated primarily by two internal processes called the translator and the reviser.

띵크 얼라우드 사용 예.피 버스트 알 버스트.

저 굵은 글씨 부분을 집중 논의.

*******************************************

Reproductive writing—writing from sourcesEva-Maria JakobsDepartment of German, University of Technology (RWTH) Aachen, Eilfschornsteinstraße 15,D-52062 Aachen, GermanyAbstractThe subject of this paper is ‘reproductive writing’, a term covering all forms of writing thatinvolve other texts. Different kinds of reproductive writing are discussed with the main focuson text production in which the writer uses other texts in academic writing for the developmentof his or her own ideas as well as for references to the scientific literature. Receptive,reproductive, and productive processes all interact in reproductive writing. Situational andindividualconstraints on this type of text production are discussed in terms of the results of asurvey of scientific writers from a variety of disciplines at German universities.# 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.Keywords: Text production; Reproductive writing; Academic writing; Citation; Quotation; Formulation1. IntroductionThe subject of this paper is reproductive writing as a specific type of text production.The concept of ‘text production’ will be understood here to be more extensivethan that of ‘writing’, comprising as it does the whole range of actions employed bythe writer in producing a text. Whereas previously the focus of research was on thewriting process in general, today it has shifted, influenced by the realization that text

리프로덕티브 라이팅이라고 하지만 미디에이션을 생각하면 모든 쓰기 과정은 일종의 창의적 리프로덕션이라고 할 수 있다. 아래 빨간 부분 대문짝만하게 인용.

Those who are interested in how text production processes are actually carriedout, and in what goes on in the minds of writers, have various methods at theirdisposal, including analyses of successive drafts and of experimental settings or surveysof writers. The latter method was chosen for this study. The survey was conductedin 1993–1994 and included 104 scientific writers from various disciplines(linguistics, psychology, education, chemistry, and medicine) at 19 German universities.Its aim was to gather comments on typicaland common proceduresadopted by writers in handling texts from the secondary literature. Furthermore, Iwas interested in how producing texts and dealing with others’ texts are influenced bysituationaland individualfactors (for a more detailed discussion, see Jakobs, 1999).The questionnaire contained 240 items. The participants in the survey had toanswer both closed and open questions. The former were stated as simple yes/noquestions or as lists of items. Where items were provided, the respondents had toindicate on a rating scale the extent to which the statement was applicable (rangingfrom ‘‘1=does not apply to me’’ to ‘‘5=applies fully to me’’). The statistical evaluationof closed questions was primarily descriptive (Kruskal–Wallis test). Theanswers to open questions were classified, counted and finally content-analyticallyE.-M. Jakobs / Journal of Pragmatics 35(2003) 893–906 895interpreted (for detailed information on the survey as well as the obtained data, seeJakobs, 1999).The questionnaire method has an advantage over traditionall inguistic text analyses

in that it elicits comments not only on the product of the activity (the text), butalso on the process of production. However, compared with experimental methodssuch as participatory observation, thinking aloud, or analyzing video recordings,generalized surveys have the disadvantage that their results are regarded as less valid(for the discussion of methods, see Krings, 1992: 58). The handling of scientific literaturein writing scientific papers consists of various actions and decisions whichtake place in a more or less routine, unconscious manner. When asked what they doand how they do it, even professionalwriter s—and these are the writers with whomI was primarily concerned—often need a period of self-reflection. Superimpositions,generalizations, and subjective theories of their own authorial actions must thereforebe expected. On the other hand, the assumed subjectivity of the responses providesan advantage for the questionnaire which should not be underestimated: ‘‘Directquestioning and the right amount of ‘empathic understanding’ [Bogdan and Taylor,1975: 14] could, conceivably, result in a portfolio of reasons, strategies, motivationsand observations about the citation process, derived, not from textualanal ysis, butfrom the experiences of publishing authors’’ (Cronin, 1981: 21).

***************************