Written Languaging, Learners’ Aptitude and Second Language Learning Masako Ishikawa UCL Institute of Education, University College London Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy I, Masako Ishikawa, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. Signature____________________________________________________ 1 Abstract Languaging (Swain, 2006), defined as learners’ language use to make meaning, has been suggested and identified as a way to facilitate second language (L2) learning. Most of the research conducted so far has been on oral languaging, whereas the effectiveness of written languaging (WL) in promoting L2 development remains underexplored. To help to bridge this gap, this thesis examined (1) the impact of WL on L2 learning, (2) the relationship between the frequency/quality of WL and L2 learning, and (3) the associations between L2 learning through languaging and individual differences in aptitude and metalanguage knowledge. The study used a pretest-posttest-delayed posttest design with individual written dictogloss as a treatment task. The participants were 82 adult EFL learners, assigned to three groups: +WL group, –WL group or a control group. The +WL group engaged in WL by writing about their linguistic issues when they compared their reconstructions and an original text, whereas the –WL group completed the same task without engaging in WL. The control group simply did the pre- and posttests. The assessments included an essay test, a grammar production test and a recognition test. The MLAT, LLAMA_F, and LABJ were employed as aptitude measures. A metalanguage knowledge test was also devised and administered to the participants. Finally, they completed an exit questionnaire. Three main findings emerged. First, the +WL group outperformed the –WL group on the grammar production tests and, to a lesser degree, on the essay tests. Second, significant correlations were observed between the frequency/quality of WL and the gain scores on two grammar tests. Finally, a greater number of significant associations were identified between aptitude/metalanguage knowledge and L2 learning for the –WL group than the +WL group. These results are discussed with reference to previous research in second language acquisition and cognitive psychology. 2 Impact Statement Learners’ using language to reflect on their language use (i.e., languaging) facilitates second language (L2) learning (Swain, 2006). Ample evidence has been produced regarding the positive impact of oral languaging on L2 learning, whereas much less is known about written languaging (WL). In addition, although individual differences in language aptitude and metalanguage knowledge are likely to influence the effects of languaging, regardless of its modality, no research has been conducted yet. Thus, the present thesis conducted an experiment to investigate the overall effects of WL on L2 learning and the relationship between L2 learning and individual differences. Two promising possibilities emerged. First, WL can function as a learning tool. Second, WL might level out individual differences in learners’ language aptitude and metalanguage knowledge. These results seem to be attributable to two useful characteristics of WL. First, as WL is an individual activity, learners can engage in WL at their own pace, free from time pressure. Second, the process of WL produces products for learners to reflect on, presumably resulting in deeper understanding. An additional strength of WL is its high practicality. That is, as WL only requires pen and paper, it can be used anytime, anywhere by anyone, including learners who have no access to technology or those in disadvantaged areas. Given the above, WL could be used as a domain-independent learning strategy in both L2 and non-L2 domains. In the domain of L2, as WL seems to benefit learners regardless of their individual differences, instructors might be able to utilise WL as one of their teaching techniques, especially in remedial programmes where learners are likely to benefit from additional assistance. What is more, the products of WL are expected to benefit learners and instructors alike, being a source of further reflection on their linguistic issues and of precious information regarding learners’ development, respectively. Similarly, in non-L2 domains, WL is likely to facilitate learners reflecting on their domain-specific issues as a learning tool, leading to the development of domain knowledge as a consequence. Furthermore, WL may be employed as a facilitative tool even outside academia, such as for employee training in corporate settings and the development of skills in athletic fields. In addition, as an individual activity, WL may be used as a tool for self-improvement, benefitting people on a personal level. This research project was started to make use of the study habit of learners who are quiet and reluctant to interact with others verbally but take notes frequently. Although WL is still a fairly new concept and has not been explored extensively, it seems to be a promising learning tool that could impact people in any settings, especially given its high practicality. 3 Table of Contents Abstract...................................................................................................................................1 Impact Statement................................................................................................................... 2 Table of Contents....................................................................................................................3 List of Tables...........................................................................................................................9 List of Figures.......................................................................................................................11 I INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................12 1.1 Aims and Rationale of the Present Thesis....................................................................16 1.2 Definitions of Terms......................................................................................................19 1.2.1 Languaging.............................................................................................................19 1.2.2 Self-explaining and Self-explanation....................................................................20 1.2.3 Metalanguage Knowledge......................................................................................20 1.2.4 Second Language Acquisition, Learning, and Development...............................21 1.3 Structure of the Thesis...................................................................................................22 II LANGUAGING AND SELF-EXPLAINING............................................................23 2.1 Languaging.....................................................................................................................23 2.1.1 Theoretical Accounts of Languaging and Self-explaining...................................23 2.1.1.1 Theoretical Accounts of Oral Languaging.....................................................25 2.1.1.2 Theoretical Accounts of Written Languaging................................................30 2.1.1.3 Theoretical Accounts of Oral Self-explaining...............................................34 2.1.1.3.1 Verbal Protocols........................................................................................35 2.1.1.3.2 Oral Self-explaining.................................................................................37 2.1.1.4 Theoretical Accounts of Written Self-explaining..........................................40 2.1.2 Research Findings for Oral and Written Languaging...........................................42 2.1.2.1 Research Findings for Oral Languaging........................................................42 2.1.2.1.1 Oral Languaging Intended as a Research Tool.......................................43 2.1.2.1.2 Oral Languaging as a Platform for L2 Learning and as a Learning Tool..........................................................................................................51 2.1.2.1.3 Summary of Oral Languaging Research................................................60 2.1.2.2 Research Findings for Written Languaging...................................................61 2.1.2.2.1 Written Languaging Intended as a Research Tool in the L2 Domain...62 2.1.2.2.2 Written Languaging as a Learning Tool in a Non-L2 domain...............65 2.1.2.2.3 Written Languaging as a Learning Tool in the L2 Domain...................67 2.1.2.2.4 Summary of Written Languaging Research and Current Issues...........78 4 2.1.3 Research Findings for Oral and Written Self-explaining (Non-L2 Domain)..................................................................................................................80 2.1.3.1 Research Findings for Oral Self-explaining..................................................80 2.1.3.2 Research Findings for Written Self-explaining.............................................84 2.1.3.3 Summary of Oral and Written Self-explaining..............................................89 2.2 Written Languaging and Learners’ Proficiency Levels...............................................90 2.3 Written Languaging and Explicit Learning..................................................................92