Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Evaluation of Tocalli-Beller & Swain (2005) by Sachiko

Tocalli-Beller, A., & Swain, M. (2005). Reformulation: The cognitive conflict and L2 learning it generates. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 5-28.

This paper provides qualitative and quantitative evidence of the role that cognitive conflict plays in the process of learning a second language. Twelve grade 7 French immersion students participated in a multi-stage task: (1) writing a descriptive essay and getting back the essay reformulated by a native speaker of French, (2) noticing the changes, (3) stimulated recall that requires students to discuss the reformulation, (4) post-test, (5) interview that aims to investigate students’ learning experience. The qualitative data revealed that the reformulation of the writing became an effective technique for stimulating noticing and reflection/discussion about the language students used. The students did not always agree with the authority’s reformulation but questioned and disagreed with the reformulation. The cognitive conflict thus promoted discussions on their beliefs and theories of how language works, and as they did so, students constructed new knowledge. This was evidenced by the quantitative data, indicating that the majority of correct answers in the post-test came from cognitive conflict episodes in which students questioned and discussed the alternative provided in the reformulation. The authors conclude that the reformulation which brings about a cognitive conflict can enhance language learning, citing Vygotsky’s remark: “Great genius is formed with the help of another genius not so much by assimilation as through friction” (Vygostky, 1999, p.273, as cited in Tocalli-Beller & Swain, 2005, p.21).

It is interesting that the authors view reformulation as a source of cognitive conflict, and that they employ sociocultural theory to explore the role of cognitive conflict in the process of learning a second language. These theoretical underpinnings allow the authors to provide insight into how the reformulation was processed and understood by students in relation to social factors, such as interactions with peers and more knowledgeable person’s help. The cognitive and sociocultural approaches to the study probably constitute what makes this study distinct from other error correction research in the field of L2 writing, where discussion has focused largely on texts. The study showed that the reformulation provided by the authority (a native speaker of French) gave students an opportunity to notice a gap and advance their understanding of the target language by not only producing talk but also by causing them to reflect on the language production itself. Semiotic mediation (Wertsch & Stone, 1985) though explaining, questioning, and disagreeing thus played an important role in reconstructing and/or acquiring new knowledge. The combination of cognitive (how students understood teachers’ correction, and how they re-examined their own language use) and social (how interaction enhanced students’ discussion and reflection about their language use) factors would warrant further investigation in order to learn the effect of error correction on L2 writers’ development, and will therefore be useful for our discussion.

While this study provides a number of important implications about L2 learners’ use of error correction, some questions seem to remain unanswered or only partially addressed. The data showed that while some students who faced cognitive conflict got the answer correct in the post-test, others still reiterated the incorrect answer and appropriated the rule that was wrong. This was because they were not sure of the reasons for their errors, and did not understand why the change had been made by the authority. The students’ appropriation of the wrong rule seems to come from the research design where the person who reformulated students’ texts was instructed not to answer questions that arose during the discussion with the students. It seems that these students would need more explicit instruction and explanation about the reformulation. A question arises here: Would just reflecting and discussing the reformulation really enhance language learning even if learners are not given explicit explanation about the reasons for their errors? My stance is that if learners do not have the necessary knowledge to produce the correct form, that knowledge must be added to their knowledge bank, and if internalization of the necessary knowledge is insufficient, further internalization is necessary, as Tsutsui (2004) pointed out. This would probably serve as a discussion topic in the class. Further, the authors argue that the reformulation promoted the improvement of students’ language use, yet whether students’ short-term ability to correct their errors would translate into long-term improvement remains questionable. How a post-test needs to be designed to investigate the students’ long-term writing development would be an interesting topic for classroom discussion. Overall, I recommend that this article be added to the reading packet.


References

Tsutsui, M. (2004). Multimedia as a means to enhance feedback. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17, 377-402.

Wertsch, J .V. & Stone, C. A. (1985). The concept of internalization in Vygotsky’s account of the genesis of higher mental functions. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 162-179). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.