Chapter published in:
Languaging in Language Learning and Teaching: A collection of empirical studies
Edited by Wataru Suzuki and Neomy Storch
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 55] 2020
► pp. 219–240

Chapter 10
L2 learning and the frequency and quality of written languaging

| Josai University
| University College London
The study investigated the effects of written languaging (WL) on second language (L2) learning and the extent to which the frequency and quality of WL are related to L2 development. It employed a pretest-posttest-delayed posttest design, with participants assigned to a +WL, −WL and control group. The treatment involved the completion of an individual written dictogloss task, after which the +WL had the opportunity to engage in WL. The −WL only did the task. We found a beneficial impact of WL on L2 development overall, and positive links between L2 learning and the frequency and quality of WL.
Keywords: languaging, writing, noticing, dictogloss
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Background
    • Theoretical framework
    • Previous research findings
  • Method
    • Design
    • Participants
    • Linguistic target
    • Assessment tasks and scoring
    • Essay tests
    • Grammar tests
      • Grammar production tests
      • Grammar recognition tests
    • Treatment task and procedure
    • Coding of T-WLEs
    • Questionnaires
    • Statistical analyses
  • Results
    • Effects of WL on L2 Learning (RQ1)
    • Frequency of T-WLEs and L2 learning (RQ2)　
    • Quality of T-WLEs and L2 learning (RQ3)
    • Correlation between the frequency and quality of T-WLEs (RQ4)
  • Discussion
    • Effects of WL on L2 development (RQ1)
    • Frequency of T-WLEs and L2 Learning (RQ2)
    • Quality of T-WLEs and L2 learning (RQ3)
    • Correlation between the frequency and quality of WLEs (RQ4)
    • Limitations and future directions
  • Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 14 August 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.55.10ish
References
Aizawa, K., Ishikawa, S., & Murata, T.
(2015) JACET 8000 eitango [JACET 8000 English vocabulary]. Tokyo: Kirihara Press.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K.
(2000) Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D.
(1999) The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H.
(2000) Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 161–238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R.
(1989) Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13 (2), 145–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. -H., & Lavancher, C.
(1994) Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18 (3), 439–477. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Craik, F., & Lockhart, R.
(1972) Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11 (6), 671–684. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R.
(2007) Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97–113). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ishikawa, M.
(2018) Written languaging, learners’ proficiency levels and L2 grammar learning. System, 74 , 50–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, M., & Suzuki, W.
(2016) The effect of written languaging on learning the hypothetical conditional in English. System, 58 , 97–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M.
(2000) Does output promote noticing in second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34 (2), 239–278. https://​www​.jstor​.org​/stable​/3587952
Kowal, M., & Swain, M.
(1994) Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3 (2), 73–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Luria, A. R.
(1999) Speech development and the formation of mental processes. In P. Lloyd & C. Fernyhough (Eds.), Lev Vygotsky: Critical assessments, Volume II. Thought and language (pp. 84–122). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M.
(2011) Writing to learn the language: issues in theory and research. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 61–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T.
(1983) Methods of morpheme quantification: Their effect on the interpretation of second language data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6 (1), 69–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L.
(2014) How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64 (4), 878–912. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S.
(2001) Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10 (4), 277–303. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Sachs, R., & Hama, M.
(2014) The effects of task complexity and input frequency on the acquisition of the past counterfactual construction through recasts. Language Learning, 64 (3), 615–650. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R.
(2001) Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siegler, R. S.
(2002) Microgenetic studies of self-explanations. In N. Garnott & J. Parziale (Eds.), Microdevelopment: Transition processes in development and learning (pp. 31–58). New York, NJ: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P.
(1978) The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 4 (6), 592–604. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Storch, N.
(2008) Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17 (2), 95–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, W.
(2012) Written languaging, direct correction, and second language writing revision. Language Learning, 62 (4), 1110–1133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) The effects of quality of written languaging on second language learning. Writing and Pedagogy, 8 (3), 461-482. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M.
(1998) Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2005) The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–484). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2006) Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S.
(1995) Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16 (3), 371–391. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Knouzi, I., Suzuki, W., & Brooks, L.
(2009) Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concepts in French. The Modern Language Journal, 93 (1), 5–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S.
(1986) Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S.
(1987) Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber, A. S. Carton, & N. Minick (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Volume 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 37–285). New York, NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N.
(2012) What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21 , 364–374. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Yamashita, Taichi
2022. The impact of one’s response to the teacher’s feedback on the same person’s and the partner’s learning in paired writing. Journal of Second Language Studies 5:1 ► pp. 58 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 03 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.