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.

Evaluation of Sheen (2006) by Sang-Ki

Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361-392.


The study design and the main findings of Sheen (2006) are on the extension of other pioneering research on the descriptions of classroom interactions, where a special emphasis is laid on the role of recasts in learner uptake (e.g., Lyster 1998; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Mori, 2002). The most conspicuous point that would make this classroom observation study unique is that the researcher investigates the differential effects of types of recasts on learner uptake (and also on learner repair), by introducing the variable of “explicitness” to the extant literature on recasts in SLA. She argues that the previous understanding that recasts are implicit in nature should be reevaluated (see Long & Robinson’s (1998) definition), because recasts could exist on an implicit-explicit continuum. She argues further that explicit recasts, which are supposedly related to the psycholinguistic construct of “saliency,” would also be more beneficial for learner uptake and therefore have a potential benefit for subsequent acquisition. In this study a combination of such features as the length of recasts, the linguistic focus, the type of change, and others are thought to contribute to the extent to which recasts are explicit.

This study may be useful for our discussion in that it provides an extensive list of coding categories that would be employed in our future work. The coding schemes may leave room for scrutiny, however, and the examination into the schemes to find some necessary modifications would be a meaningful classroom exercise. Another merit of this study is its high readability. It is written in relatively simple language, having a logical thought flow in it.

Some issues remain open for further inquiry. One of the fundamental messages from the researcher is that the previous definitions of recasts, which tend to place an undue emphasis on the implicit nature of recasts, are questionable and should be reconsidered. However, I do not completely agree that the previous definitions (and actual research practices to date) do not recognize the potential for recasts to be more explicit. Rather, previous researchers have already suggested a possibility that there could be the explicit-implicit dimension of recasts (see Doughty & Varela, 1998). Additionally, the degree of explicitness is relative, and however explicit the recasts are, they will be relatively less explicit than other types of feedback, such as explicit correction with metalinguistic information. Another point that should be mentioned here is that the explicitness/implicitness of recasts was not a variable to be directly investigated by design, but was a corollary from in-depth analyses into the descriptive data obtained.

All in all, this article is very easy to read, interesting, and resourceful for further thinking as well as future research. If I have rating scales such as “highly recommended,” “recommended,” and “not recommended,” I would put my mark on the “recommended” option.

Learning and thinking more about wikis...

If anyone in the class wants to learn more about wikis, you can find some good reading here or here.

My problems with Blogger were due to my browser (Netscape), maybe Yuki's were too? Now that I am using Mozilla Firefox, I can login fine again.

Yuki: The message you were trying to post yesterday is saved in draft form. You can try and see if you can post it now.

Structuring "Error Correction Wiki" page

Hi, class :) This is going to be an exciting class!
I thought it might be nice to start thinking about the structure of the Wiki page a bit before we start building up the page. Wiki is pretty flexible, so we can, of course, modify the structure later on. If you have any suggestions, let us know!

I read Russell and Spada's (2006) meta-analysis on corrective feedback before, and I thought it might be helpful to list some of the variables that are studied in the past. Here are some of the variables they list (I also added some variables from today's class):

Feedback (FB) characteristics:
- Type of FB
- Amount/intensiveness of FB
- Mode of FB
- Mode of error
- Source of FB
- Focus of FB
- Timing of FB

Learner variables:
- Proficiency level
- Attitudes towards FB
- Aptitude
- Motivation
- Anxiety
- Age
- Noticing & interpretation of FB

Study characteristics
- Design (experimental, quasi-experimental, etc.)
- Context (classroom, laboratory)
- Unit of analysis (individual, dyad, language event)

*Note: Russell & Spada (2006) is a good article to read at the beginning of the semester for this course, I think.

Please feel free to add any other variables you can think of.

Welcome to SLS 750 message

Welcome to the Error Correction Seminar this fall 2007

I have created this class blog to enable us to communicate and interact about the topic of error correction. I will also ask you to post some of the assignments for the seminar in this class blog.

I look forward to a productive semester.