A Study on the Alignment Effect of Continuation and Rewriting

Expand

Online published: 2021-10-26

Abstract

The study compares the alignment effects of two reading writing integrated tasks, namely, continuing a story and rewriting the story from the perspective of a different character, by measuring the ratio of T units involving explicit use and implicit use of the source text in 24 participants’ written productions. The influence of interpersonal interaction in class is also studied through the comparison of their written productions before and after class. The thinking aloud method was used to collect introspective data about how they completed the tasks to give insight into the results from the quantitative analyses. The study found that T unit ratio of source text use was significantly higher in the rewriting productions than the continuation ones, in particular implicit use. The rewriting task is believed to encourage learners to interact more frequently with the source text and align with it at both the situational and the linguistic levels. On the other hand, interpersonal interactions were not found to enhance either task’s alignment effect. The ratio of implicit source text use was in fact lower in the rewriting group’s works after they attended class. Nevertheless, personal interactions in class proved to further promote leaners’ interaction with and deeper understanding of the source text.

Cite this article

WANG Zhexi . A Study on the Alignment Effect of Continuation and Rewriting[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2020 , 20(5) : 49 -59 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2020.05.006

References

[1] Atkinson, D., T. Nishino, E. Churchill & H. Okada. 2007. Alignment and interaction in a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition[J]. The Modern Language Journal 91(2):169-188.
[2] Gebril, A. & L. Plakans. 2016. Source-based tasks in academic writing assessment: Lexical diversity, textual borrowing and proficiency[J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 24:78-88.
[3] Hunt, K. W. 1977. Early blooming and late blooming syntactic structures [A]. In C. Cooper & L. Odell (eds.). Evaluating Writing: Describing, Measuring, Judging [C]. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. 91-104.
[4] Laufer, B. & J. Hulstijn. 2001. Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The effect of task-induced involvement load[J]. Applied Linguistics 22:1-26.
[5] Plakans, L. & A. Gebril. 2013. Using multiple texts in an integrated writing assessment: Source text use as a predictor of score[J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 22:217-230.
[6] Pickering, M. J. & S. Garrod. 2004. Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue[J]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27(2):169-26.
[7] Rassaei, E. 2017. Effects of three forms of reading-based output activity on L2 vocabulary learning[J]. Language Teaching Research 21(1):76-95.
[8] Wang, C. M. & M. Wang. 2015. Effect of alignment on L2 written production[J]. Applied Linguistics 36(5):503-526.
[9] Zhang X. Y. 2016. Reading-writing integrated tasks, comprehensive corrective feedback, and EFL writing development[J]. Language Teaching Research 21(2):217-240.
[10] 纪小凌、 周岸勤. 2017. 读后续写对英语过去时态使用的影响[J]. 中国外语教育(3):39-45.
[11] 姜琳、 陈锦. 2015. 读后续写对英语写作语言准确性、复杂性和流利性发展的影响[J]. 现代外语(3):366-375.
[12] 姜琳、 涂孟玮. 2016. 读后续写对二语词汇学习的作用研究[J]. 现代外语(6):819-829.
[13] 缪海燕. 2017. 外语写作互动的语篇协同研究[J]. 现代外语(5):630-641.
[14] 王初明. 2010. 互动协同与外语教学[J]. 外语教学与研究(4):297-299.
[15] 王初明. 2011. 外语教学三大情结与语言习得有效路径[J]. 外语教学与研究(4):540-549.
[16] 王初明. 2014. 内容要创造语言要模仿——有效外语教学和学习的基本思路[J]. 外语界(2):42-48.
[17] 王初明. 2015. 读后续写何以有效促学[J]. 外语教学与研究(5):753-762.
[18] 王初明. 2016. 以“续”促学[J]. 现代外语(6):784-793.
[19] 王初明. 2017. 从“以写促学”到“以续促学”[J]. 外语教学与研究(4):547-556.
[20] 王初明. 2018. 如何提高读后续写中的互动强度[J]. 外语界(5):40-45.
[21] 王敏、 王初明. 2014. 读后续写的协同效应[J]. 现代外语(4):501-512.
[22] 王启、 王凤兰. 2016. 汉语二语读后续写的协同效应[J]. 现代外语(6):794-805.
[23] 张秀芹、 张倩. 2017. 不同体裁读后续写对协同的影响差异研究[J]. 外语界(3):90-96.
Outlines

/