Blog 4

Wang, Lurong. "Switching to First Language Among Writers with Differing Second-Language Proficiency." Journal of Second Language Writing 12.4 (2003): 347-375. ScienceDirect. Web. 27 Feb. 2010.

In Lurong Wang’s article “Switching to First Language Among Writers with Differing Second-Language Proficiency,” Wang discusses evidence from previous research studies which indicate “writers with differing proficiency levels in L2 may use their L1 in different patterns while composing in L2” (350). These studies led Wang to argue “that L2 proficiency may be one important factor that generates the different processes of switching languages in L2 writing” (350). Using eight Chinese writers with differing levels of L2 proficiency who are enrolled in an ESL school, Wang conducts a study which looks at “L-S [language switching] behaviors in L2 writing with respect to (1) relations between L-S frequency and L2 proficiency, (2) purposes for L-S, and (3) L-S and written production and revisions” (350). Wang used think-aloud protocols for his study as well as retrospective interviews. Each participant was given two writing tasks (one letter writing session and one argument writing session) and asked “to write no more than 200 words within 30 minutes for the purpose of making comparisons between the two proficiency groups” (Wang 354). In the retrospective interviews conducted in participants’ L1, Wang reviewed the tape-recorded think-aloud protocols with the participant and “asked them to explain, as explicitly as they could, how they planned their text, why and how they made each change in it, and what they were thinking during each pause” (355). Wang transcribed the think-aloud data he audio recorded and subsequently coded the data using three different approaches. First, he “followed the criteria employed by Chafe, who separated idea units as an independent linguistic unit by punctuation markers or intonational and hesitational patterns” (Wang 356). Second, he identified “L-S sequences in all the think-aloud protocols” (Wang 356). Finally, Wang categorized the L-S sequences by “discourse, idea generation, language use, translation, lexical searching, and metacomments” (357). After analyzing the data, Wang concluded “that the amount of bilingual writers’ L-S is not reduced when their L2 proficiency has developed” (368). Wang states “HP [higher proficiency] learners appeared to benefit extensively from switching to their L1 for rhetorical choices and discourse” while “LP [lower proficiency] participants often failed to use the L1 effectively and strategically to generate comprehensible and coherent texts” (368). I would recommend this article because although Wang does not address the impact of L1 writing expertise in his study, he does give a thorough report on L2 writers’ L-S behaviors with respect to the composing process. Furthermore, his study, like previous studies, suggests that L-S is related to L2 proficiency; however, Wang’s study points out that “the qualities of, or strategic ways in which, bilingual writers switch to the L1” indicate “some kind of developmental continuum associated with L2 proficiency” (368).

Blog 3

Wolfersberger, Mark. “L1 to L2 Writing Process and Strategy Transfer: A Look at Lower Proficiency Writers.” TESL-EJ 7.2 (2003): n.pag. Eric. Web. 19 Feb. 2010.

Wolfersberger’s article “L1 to L2 Writing Process and Strategy Transfer: A Look at Lower Proficiency Writers” discusses the writing strategies and composing processes of three lower proficiency Japanese writers. He explains that the lower proficiency participants “were chosen for their beginning English proficiency, their wider experience with writing in Japanese, and their limited experience with writing in English” (Wolfersberger). Although writing in a second language is a difficult and complex process, Wolfersberger argues that it is “reasonable to assume that parts of the composing process are similar or even the same in the L1 and L2.” Wolfersberger used think-aloud protocols to conduct his research study. First, he demonstrated the think-aloud process and subsequently checked for the participants’ understanding before instructing them to compose a text. Each participant composed one essay in Japanese (L1) and one essay in English (L2). After analyzing the texts, Wolfersberger concludes “that L2 writers faced with writing tasks requiring an L2 proficiency level above that of the writer do not transfer L1 strategies to the L2 writing process, even though the writer may have a multiplicity of strategies available when completing the same task in the L1.” Once his conclusions are drawn, Wolfersberger suggests three strategies for lower proficiency writers in regards to L1 transfer:

1. Writers should be introduced to a variety of writing strategies.

2. If writers employ their L1 during prewriting, then writers can effectively generate text in their L2 because they already have an idea of what they want to write.

3. Writers should concentrate on the organization and content of their essays rather than focusing on grammar issues and spelling mistakes.

I would recommend this article because Wolfersberger’s strategies have wider implications for both teachers and students. Although his evidence is based on three participants, (and all participants have the same L1 and similar L2 proficiency) Wolfersberger’s research aids instructors when they are developing writing tasks for lower proficiency writers and also assists instructors in introducing or developing the three strategies Wolfersberger delineates.

Blog 2

Kobayashi, Hiroe and Carol Rinnert. "Task Response and Text Construction Across L1 and L2 Writing." Journal of Second Language Writing 17.1 (2008): 7-29. ScienceDirect. Web. 11. Feb. 2010.

In their article “Task Response and Text Construction Across L1 and L2 Writing,” Kobayashi and Rinnert use a socio-cognitive approach to conduct a study that “attempts to explore possible effects of L1 (Japanese) and L2 (English) writing experience on the relationship between task response and text construction in both languages” (8). Kobayashi and Rinnert argue that past writing experience in addition to “social and cultural factors…affects students’ ways of defining and approaching a writing task” (9). Kobayashi and Rinnert explain how their study will “investigate…various types of special pre-university preparatory training for Japanese college entrance examinations” in regards to L1 and L2 essays (10). Using first-year university students, they “compare the writing by members of four distinct groups: those with intensive training in both L1 and L2 writing, those with training in only L1, those with training in only L2, and those with no such intensive training” (Kobayashi and Rinnert 10).
The results indicated that both preparatory training and past writing experience did have an effect on the students. The group “whose participants had received only L2 training showed the biggest change in the choice of discourse type” (Kobayashi and Rinnert 14). In the follow-up interviews, Kobayashi and Rinnert asked the students why one form of discourse was chosen over the other. The students with training in L2 “reported…that the purpose of English writing is to convey ideas clearly to the reader, and the use of discourse markers is important for achieving such clarity (Kobayashi and Rinnert 18). In the conclusion, Kobayashi and Rinnert suggest their study found similarities (in terms of discourse marker use and essay structure) between Japanese and English writing. I would recommend this article for three reasons: (a) this research shows us that previous writing experience does affect a student’s choice when responding to a text, (b) the level of L1 and/or L2 writing training has an impact on how a student defines and subsequently approaches a particular text, and (c) the socio-cognitive perspective Kobayashi and Rinnert take allow us to see the “transferability of writing competence across languages” (7).

Reflection on Blog 1

After reflecting on the blog I posted last week, I have decided to recant one of the statements I made regarding think-aloud protocol analysis. At the time, I did not feel it was a valid method, but after reading several articles including one which van Weijen cited, I have changed my mind about think-aloud protocols. In fact, I plan to use this method in my empirical research.