The Effect of WCF-based Languaging on Learners’ Writing Revision

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2022.03.011

Abstract

Abstract:

The study compared the effects of written languaging (WL) on learners’ writing revision based on direct/indirect written corrective feedback (WCF). 12 participants were divided into two groups with insignificant difference according to their language proficiency test scores (6 participants/group). All participants completed the following tasks in sequence: writing the draft, receiving direct/indirect WCF, taking part in WL, and revising the draft. The researchers then analyzed the drafts, the revised drafts and the text of WL. It was found that, in both groups, the number of errors in the original and the revised drafts was significantly different. That is, the latter was significantly lower than the former. In addition, no significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of error correction rate. However, indirect WCF-based WL was more effective in improving the quality of writing.

Key words: written languaging, written corrective feedback, writing revision

CLC Number:

QIN Lili, NIU Baogui. The Effect of WCF-based Languaging on Learners’ Writing Revision[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2022, 22(3): 92-101.

Figures/Tables 5

References 35

[1]	Cohen J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences[M]. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[2]	Craik F. & R. Lockhart. 1972. Levels of processing: A framework for memory research[J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11: 671-684.
[3]	Ferris D. 2010. Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersection and practical applications[J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(2): 181-201.
[4]	Fukuta J., Y. Tamura & Y. Kawaguchi. 2019. Written languaging with indirect feedback in writing revision: Is feedback always effective?[J]. Language Awareness 28(1): 1-14.
[5]	Ishikawa M. 2013. Examining the effect of written languaging: The role of metanotes as a mediator of second language learning[J]. Language Awareness 22(3):220-233.
[6]	Ishikawa M. 2015. Metanotes (written languaging) in a translation task: Do L2 proficiency and task outcome matter?[J]. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 9(2): 115-129.
[7]	Ishikawa M. 2018. Written languaging, learners’ proficiency levels and L2 grammar learning[J]. System 74: 50-61.
[8]	Ishikawa M. & W. Suzuki. 2016. The effect of written languaging on learning the hypothetical conditional in English[J]. System 58: 97-111.
[9]	Kang E. & Z. Han. 2015. The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis[J]. The Modern Language Journal 99(1): 1-18.
[10]	Larsen-Freeman D. 2013. Transfer of learning transformed[J]. Language Learning 63(1): 107-129.
[11]	Li S. & A. Vuono. 2019. Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System[J]. System 84: 93-109.
[12]	Moradian M. R., M. Miri & M. H. Nasab. 2017. Contribution of written languaging to enhancing the efficiency of written corrective feedback[J]. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 27(2): 406-421.
[13]	Moradian M. R. & M.H. Nasab. 2019. Revisiting the role of indirect written corrective feedback in the light of written languaging[J]. Teaching English Language 13(2): 79-95.
[14]	Negueruela E. 2008. Revolutionary pedagogies:Learning that leads to second language development[A]. In J. P. Lantolf & M.Poehner (eds.). Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Languages[C]. London: Equinox Press. 189-277.
[15]	Niu R. & X. You. 2020. Effects of indirect corrective feedback with and without written languaging on L2 written accuracy: A multitask intervention study[J]. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 29: 343-351.
[16]	Park E.S. & O.Y. Kim. 2019. Learners’ use of indirect feedback corrective feedback: Depth of processing and self-correction[A]. In R.P. Leow (ed.). The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning[C]. New York: Routledge. 212-226.
[17]	Park E. S., S. Song & Y. K. Shin. 2016. To what extent do learners benefit from indirect written corrective feedback? A study targeting learners of different proficiency and heritage language status[J]. Language Teaching Research 20(6): 1-22.
[18]	Qin L. 2021. Clear the clouds and see the sun in the world of Vygotsky’s ideas: An interview with James Lantolf[J]. International Journal of TESOL Studies 3(1): 101-113.
[19]	Qin L. 2022. The “Wrong Love” Between the Zone of Proximal Development and Scaffolding: An Interview with Prof. James P. Lantolf[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 40(1): 138-149,152.
[20]	Suzuki W. 2009. Improving Japanese university students’ second language writing accuracy: Effects of languaging[J]. Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan 20: 81-90.
[21]	Suzuki W. 2012. Written languaging, direct correction, and second language writing revision[J]. Language Learning 62(4): 1-24.
[22]	Suzuki W. 2017. The effect of quality of written languaging on second language learning[J]. Writing & Pedagogy 8(3): 461-482.
[23]	Swain M. 2006. Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency[A]. In H. Byrnes(ed.). Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky[C]. London: Continuum. 95-108.
[24]	Swain M., W. Lapkin I. Knouzi W.Suzuki & L. Brooks. 2009. Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French[J]. Modern Language Journal (1): 5-29.
[25]	Truscott J. 1996. The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes[J]. Language Learning 46(2): 327-369.
[26]	Van Compernolle R. A. 2014. Sociocultural Theory and L2 Instructional Pragmatics[M]. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
[27]	Vygotsky L. S. 1987. Thinking and speech[A]. In R. W. Rieber, A. S. Carton & N. Minick(eds.). The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky. Volume 1: Problems of General Psychology[C]. New York: Plenum Press. 39-285.
[28]	Yilmaz M. 2016. Improving Turkish EFL learners’ writing accuracy: Effects of written languaging and languaging types[J]. Procedia - Social and Behaviour Sciences (232): 413-420.
[29]	姜琳. 2014. 书面纠错与第二语言学习[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社.
[30]	牛瑞英、傅新春. 2019. 词汇言说对书面词汇使用及词汇习得的影响研究[J]. 语言教育(4): 51-56,76.
[31]	欧阳西贝、秦丽莉、牛宝贵. 2022. CLI课堂中学习内容与语言知识内化研究--以混合式教学模式下的跨文化交际学课程为例[J]. 外语教学(2): 74-80.
[32]	秦丽莉、牛宝贵. 2021. 社会文化理论框架下的书面语言表达研究述评[J]. 浙江外国语学院学报(1): 58-65.
[33]	秦丽莉、欧阳西贝、何艳华. 2021. 内容语言融合教学模式下学习者内容知识与语言知识的内化研究--社会文化理论的语言表达理念视角[J]. 中国外语(1): 81-90.
[34]	秦晓晴、毕劲. 2015. 外语教学定量研究方法及数据分析[M]. 北京: 外语教学与研究出版社.
[35]	徐锦芬. 2021. 应用语言学研究的国际动荡与前沿分析[J]. 现代外语(4): 448-455.

分组	书面言说的提示
直接书面纠正性反馈组	为什么教师给予的反馈形式是正确的呢?请用中文解释。
间接书面纠正性反馈组	什么是正确的语言形式呢?为什么你认为这个是正确的语言形式呢?请用中文解释。

	正确书面言说片段数	正确书面言说且正确修改的错误数	比率
直接书面纠正性反馈组	86	73	84.88%
间接书面纠正性反馈组	46	45	97.83%

		M	SD	Min	Max
直接书面纠正性反馈组(N=6)	作文初稿错误数作文修改稿错误数	23.83 5.17	21 3.97	11 2	66 13
间接书面纠正性反馈组(N=6)	作文初稿错误数作文修改稿错误数	13 4.33	5.22 3.93	5 1	18 11

	Z	P	Cohen’s d(r)
直接书面纠正性反馈组作文初稿错误数和修改稿错误数(Wilcoxon检验)	-2.207	0.031	0.637
间接书面纠正性反馈组作文初稿错误数和修改稿错误数(Wilcoxon检验)	-2.201	0.031	0.635
两组作文修改成功率(Mann-Whitney U检验)	-0.321	0.818	0.09