Learner noticing triggered by written output

and reformulation as a noticing enhancer

Andreea-Raluca Moise

August 2014

Dissertation Submitted for the Award of MA in ELT

Department of English and Languages

Faculty of Business, Environment and Society

The work contained within this document has been submitted by the student in
partial fulfillment of the requirement of their course and award

Acknowledgements
Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Michael Cribb, who provided me
with useful comments and suggestions in carrying out this dissertation. Secondly
I would like to thank my parents, who were very supportive. Finally, I would like to
thank all my group mates from the English Language Teaching Master for being
supportive with each other from beginning to end.

Abstract
This paper investigates learner noticing from two stances i.e., learner noticing
stimulated by L2 written output and noticing induced by reformulation as
feedback on texts written by four Romanians. The two-stage study looks into the
type of problematic features noticed by the Romanian participants during output
production, the participants writing strategies towards approaching problematic
features overtly or covertly and the type of solvable features noticed from the
reformulated texts. Using data from participants compositions, notes, verbal
reports and interviews, it explores the extent to which Romanians autonomously
engaged in conscious recognition of linguistic gaps between their non-targetlike
forms and discourse choices and the ones rendered more targetlike in the
reformulated texts. Results suggest that Romanians cognitive processing during
output production concentrated on lexical search and retrieval. Noticing from
reformulation revealed a lexically-oriented focus for solvable features. Noticing at
sentence level prevailed in both stages of the study. In most cases of covert
features, reformulation failed to provide solutions. Generally, participants agreed
with the reformulated texts, except for some cases when a loss of the original
meaning was reported. Interviews revealed mixed attitudes towards the
usefulness of reformulation as feedback on L2 writing. This type of feedback was
found to be a potential pedagogical tool to stimulate learners noticing of nontarget like forms in their interlanguage and to stimulate reflective discussion
about how the target language is used in writing.

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
Abstract 3
List of Abbreviations 7
List of Figures ....8
List of Tables .9
1. Introduction .10
2. Literature Review .15
2.1 Role of writing in second language learning ..15
2.2 Feedback on second language writing ...16
2.2.1 Conditions for effective feedback on second language writing...17
2.3 The relationship between noticing and feedback in second language writing..18
2.3.1 Output and the noticing function of output .19
2.3.2 Feedback as noticing enhancer ...20
2.4 Reformulation as feedback method and noticing facilitator .22
2.4.1 Noticing studies based on reformulated writing .24
2.5 The gap in the literature .26

3. Methods .28
3.1 Research questions and hypotheses ..28
3.2 Methodological approach ..30
3.3 Participants ..31
3.4 Data collection .32
3.4.1 Composing Stage (Stage 1) .33
3.4.2 Comparison Stage (Stage 2) 38
3.5 Instruments ..40
3.5.1 Open-ended picture prompt ..41
3.5.2 Note-taking and underlining ..41
3.5.3 Think-aloud protocols (recording) .42

3.5.4 Semi-structured interview ..43

3.6 Data analysis 43
3.6.1 Analysis of data collected from Stage 1 43
3.6.2 Analysis of data collected from Stage 2 45
3.7 Ethics .46

4. Results 47
4.1 Problematic features noticed (PFNs) during Stage 1 .47
4.2 Noticing from the reformulated texts during the Stage 2.49

5. Discussion52
5.1 Main findings in Stage 1 (Composition stage) .52
5.1.1 Intensive lexical processing during an output-only writing condition 52
5.1.2 Use of cognitive writing strategies during output production: hypothesizing
(overt) and avoidance (covert) 53
5.2 Main findings in Stage 2 (Comparison Stage)..56
5.2.1 Participants lexically-oriented noticing from reformulation.56
5.2.2 Unnoticed errors resolved by reformulated feedback texts 58
5.2.3 Cases of agreement and disagreement with reformulation58
5.2.4 Addressing overt and covert features through reformulation.61
5.2.5 Participants attitudes towards the reformulation technique as feedback
in second language writing.61
5.3 Teaching implications for classroom practice .63

6. Conclusion .66
6.1 Research questions 66
6.1.1 Research question ONE..66
6.1.2 Research question TWO.67
6.2 Limitations and suggestions for further research.68

List of References 71
Appendices .76
Appendix 1 ..76
Appendix 286

Appendix 3 .97
Appendix 4 .99
Appendix 5 ...103
Appendix 6 ...107
Appendix 7 116
Appendix 8.124
Appendix 9.134
Appendix 10...144

List of Abbreviations

IL Interlanguage
SLA Second Language Acquisition
L1 First language
L2 Second language
TL Target language
EFL English as a foreign language

List of Figures
7

Figure 3.1 Stages of the experiment .32

Figure 3.2 Phases associated with Stage 1 .33
Figure 3.3 Picture prompt used in Stage 1 ...34
Figure 3.4 Phases associated with Stage 2 .....38
Figure 3.5 Instruments and techniques used in each stage ..40

List of Tables
8

Table 4.1 Frequencies and proportions of PFNs in Stage 1 ..48

Table 4.2 Overt and covert PFNs in Stage 1 49
Table 4.3 FNs from the reformulated texts50
Table 4.4 Solutions to overt and covert features provided by reformulations..51

1. Introduction
The act of writing in a foreign language represents a complex and challenging
process which entails the transmission of a multifaceted set of writing practices
across various foreign language (FL) settings and discourse communities. While
writing in English, second language (L2) writers have to bear in mind the
characteristics of the intended audience and resort to the appropriate linguistic
resources and style conventions in order to produce texts that comply with the
expectations of an audience (Hyland 2003: 19).
In the last three decades the Romanian educational setting has witnessed an
increased interest in students wish to learn English and become proficient
language users. Although the great majority is more focused on improving their
speaking skills, there are others interested in achieving nativeness in their
writing. This happens because numerous job positions in Romania require
candidates to have proficient or even nativelike writing skills in order to
communicate professionally with departments located abroad. Unfortunately,
Romanian teachers are not that familiar with the requirements put forward by the
job market and writing ends up to be the last skill to be practised and assessed in
the English language classroom.
Most Romanian teachers may still be influenced by the learning-to-write
approach which revolves around the idea that writing in English is not a
facilitating factor, but the result of language acquisition (Santos, Lpez-Serrano,
Manchn 2010: 133). Not all teachers are the same and some consider L2
writing equally important. However, when these teachers do assess L2 writing
their feedback lacks balance between form, meaning and style because they
primarily concentrate on correcting vocabulary and grammatical errors. This
represents a traditional feedback method which is also known as error-correction
and which focuses on correcting surface errors.

10

The question whether this type of feedback is sufficient enough to help learners
achieve nativeness in L2 writing represented the cornerstone of this research.
Another aspect which was equally important in this study referred to the
significance of practising L2 writing. The question whether L2 writing should be
practised to check if learning had taken place (the learning-to-write approach) or
that it should be practised to facilitate further L2 development (the writing-to-learn
approach) still remains an open question which stirred an interest in conducting
this research.
Countless research studies into feedback on L2 written output have criticized the
inherent flaws of traditional feedback methods and have grasped the need for
alternative methods in the field of L2 composition. This study did not attempt to
disapprove with the use of the traditional feedback method, particularly because
it is still considered effective in the case of learners who got used to receiving
explicit instruction and who enjoy being told directly what they did wrong.
However, its effectiveness is limited because it focuses too much on errors at
sentence level, neglecting discourse errors such as rhetorical inadequacy,
incoherence and sentential ambiguity. As a result, the current paper attempted to
investigate and alternative feedback method.
This alternative feedback method is entitled reformulation and studies
investigating its effectiveness claim that it is different from error correction in that
it provides a well-balanced feedback between form and content. According to
Cohen (1982: 3), reformulation entails two parts i.e., reconstruction and
enhancement of style and clarity of thought. The reconstruction part is the same
as error correction and refers to removing surface errors from the learners text.
The second part deals with correcting rhetorical inadequacies, conceptual
confusion and instances of incoherence. As opposed to the feedback given by
Romanian teachers in the form of error correction, reformulation as feedback on
learners writing encompasses error correction and it also reformulates content
so as to render it more nativelike.

11

An additional difference between the traditional way of giving feedback in

Romania and reformulation is associated with the manner in which errors are
signalled to the L2 learner. In the traditional way errors are presented explicitly to
learners on their written texts, whereas in reformulation learners have to notice
and self-discover their errors by comparing the reformulated version with the
original text. This alternative feedback method makes use of Schmidts Noticing
Hypothesis (1990) because it provides optimal conditions for noticing the
mismatches between learners own output and a text that looks more nativelike.
There has been increasing consensus concerning the paramount importance of
the cognitive process of noticing in L2 writing and its role in facilitating the
acquisition of a second language (Adams 2003: 351, Barkaoui 2007: 39, Dannatt
2010: 114, Park 2011: 147, Williams 2012: 326). This mutual concurrence has
motivated and prompted researchers to examine how learners noticing might be
spontaneously stimulated or roused in a way that would promote IL development.
The first aim of this paper is to examine L2 written output and the potential role of
the noticing function of output as a driving force to stimulate learners noticing of
linguistic problems in their interlanguage (IL) system. The current paper will
attempt to investigate if an opportunity for L2 production in an output-only writing
condition can trigger noticing of some language gaps between the Romanian
participants erroneous means of expression and the targetlike ones. The second
aim is to explore the effectiveness and usefulness of reformulation as a feedback
method that provides well-balanced feedback for L2 learners needs in terms of
lexis, grammar and content. In addition, it will incorporate this type of feedback in
the research study in order to investigate its pedagogical potential to activate
noticing in L2 learners.
The research will involve two central stages. In Stage 1, participants will receive
an open-ended picture prompt and they will have to write a composition without
resorting to dictionaries or other informative sources. While writing the

12

composition, they will also have to write what linguistic difficulties they noticed
and how they chose to approach them in the written products. At the end of
Stage 1 participants will be recorded while thinking aloud about the features that
were found problematic and how these linguistic struggles were resolved. This
stage will be relevant for various reasons. Firstly, this stage will contribute to the
research by revealing if written output tasks stimulate learners noticing of errors
or linguistic shortcomings in their IL. Secondly, it will contribute by revealing on
what type of problematic features learners focus the most while being engaged in
a writing task. In addition, this stage will disclose L2 learners overt and covert
strategies of compensating for such linguistic difficulties.
In Stage 2, participants will receive a reformulated version of their own texts
produced in Stage 1. All participants will have to compare both texts and write
down anything they notice from the reformulated texts in terms of vocabulary,
grammar, content and discourse which sounds more accurate and more
coherent. Learners noticing will be again measured by means of note-taking and
think-aloud protocols. At the end of Stage 2, participants will be interviewed about
their opinion on the usefulness and effectiveness of this feedback method. This
stage will be relevant for a number of reasons. Firstly, this stage will contribute to
understanding on what type of linguistic features learners concentrate the most
when receiving feedback on their own writing. Secondly, it will contribute to
assessing the usefulness of this feedback method in providing solutions to the
problematic features which learners either addressed overtly or covertly in their
writing. Finally, it will assess the effectiveness of reformulation from the L2
learners stance.
The structure of the present paper is as follows. In the next chapter, this research
will review a number of studies which tackled the significance of output and
noticing as SLA constructs in the field of L2 writing. Moreover, it will present
some viewpoints on what constitutes effective feedback on L2 composition. This
dissertation will review some studies carried out to investigate reformulation as a

13

feedback on L2 learners writing. Reformulation will be examined for its

effectiveness in stimulating learners noticing of differences between their own
output and targetlike means of expression. In chapter 3, it will outline the main
methods and instruments used to collect the research data. Chapter 4 will
present the results obtained from the analysis of the data which was collected
from both stages through various methods. Chapter 5 will provide an
interpretation of the results presented in the previous chapter and will discuss the
teaching implications with respect to reformulation. In chapter 6, the research
questions which guided this study will be answered briefly. Moreover, this chapter
will discuss the limitations of the research and will suggest ideas for further
research.

14

2. Literature Review
This chapter provides a review of general research studies which informed the
present one. Firstly, it will discuss the role of writing in L2 learning and the
inherent cognitive processes which are activated during L2 composing. Secondly,
it will approach the importance of effective feedback in triggering learners
noticing of nativelike target forms and means of expression and it will also
consider the debate over the characteristics of effective feedback. Then it will
examine the role of noticing in L2 writing with reference to the noticing function of
written output and to the function of feedback-induced noticing. It will also
discuss the role of reformulation used as a feedback method by reviewing some
specific studies on the topic. Finally, this paper will present a section which will
outline the gap in the research.

2.1 Role of writing in second language learning

The question whether written output stimulates L2 development or not was
approached by the writing-to-learn-perspective explored within the L2 writing
research agenda. This writing-to-learn dimension perceives writing as a
language learning vehicle and as a productive way to attain L2 proficiency,
rather than as the last skill to be acquired (Manchn 2011: 5). In order to
understand the potential roles of writing in supporting L2 learning, research has
to take into account the psycholinguistic processes underlying the act of
generating written output, which prompt learners to reflect on holes in their
knowledge and primes them to focus on specific aspects of future input (Williams
2012: 324).
Such reflection and noticing of linguistic shortcomings are also influenced by
factors like the type of feedback which is reckoned as being conducive to
changes in ones IL and L2 progress (Roca de Larios 2013: 444). Nevertheless,

15

factors like feedback type together with SLA cognitive processes such as noticing
are still worthy of investigation and sustained by further research into L2 writing.
Learner noticing during output production is extremely important because it
contributes to raising awareness of specific linguistic problems and activating the
need to sort them out. Such linguistic shortcomings usually represent the
learners incorrect hypotheses about language. Opportunities for generating
written output make learners aware of these shortcomings which they will attempt
to correct, particularly by paying close attention to the target language (TL) used
in incoming input in the form of teacher feedback (Hanaoka and Izumi 2012:
333).
Williams (2012: 322) asserts that cognitive processes constitute insightful areas
of research for examining the impact and effects of written production on L2
development. Furthermore, empirical investigation has unveiled the significance
of written output in activating these processes which contribute tremendously to
language learning and development (Izumi and Bigelow 2000: 240, Qi and
Lapkin 2001: 279, Swain and Lapkin 1995: 375).

2.2 Feedback on second language writing

Hanaoka and Izumi (2012: 332) maintain that the fundamental assumption
inherent in research about feedback on writing is that feedback represents
corrective instruction facilitated for what shows up in the writers texts. While
composing and practising L2 writing skills, learners have to construct and test
their hypotheses about language. However, when L2 learners form erroneous
hypotheses and implement them in their writing, errors commence to occur
noticeably. Thus, suitable feedback from teachers is indispensable because it
helps learners to notice and replace those incorrect hypotheses and also develop
their L2 writing skills (Qi and Lapkin 2001: 280).

16

Adams (2003: 349) acknowledges the significance of feedback for L2

development and strengthens the idea that feedback on second language
learners writing is an issue of concern for both language teachers and second
language researchers. However, working out the optimal feedback strategy (ies)
for enhancing noticing and learners writing performance has been and continues
to be a challenging aspect in the second language acquisition (SLA) research
agenda, with few studies providing relevant answers outlining the conditions for
effective feedback on writing (Adams 2003: 351, Lzaro-Ibarrola 2009: 195, Qi
and Lapkin 2001: 280, Rahim and Riasati 2011: 1325, Van Beuningen 2010: 2).
2.2.1 Conditions for effective feedback on second language writing
Research results on what represents appropriate and efficient feedback on L2
writing have proved to be uncertain and sometimes contradictory and the
effectiveness of teacher feedback is still a debatable topic in SLA. In addition,
more recent research has attempted to investigate the potential factors that may
lead to an understanding of what constitutes effective written feedback that would
lead to noticing of linguistic problems in learners IL and subsequent IL
development (Adams 2003: 353, Hyland 2000: 34, Mnchon 2011: 69, Qi and
Lapkin 2001: 281, Van Beuningen 2010: 4).
In order to provide alternative ways of constructing effective feedback, studies on
traditional corrections had to be critically reviewed so as to emphasize their
downsides. For instance, Adams (2003: 350) and Qi and Lapkin (2001: 280)
maintain that traditional corrections lack balance among form, content and style
and reflect teachers tendency to be selective. This means that some incorrect or
unsuitable forms are left unaltered. Lzaro-Ibarrola (2009: 195) also claims that
traditional feedback is strongly associated with the teachers habit of highlighting
learners errors in red which represents a wide-spread assessment practice that
has been highly questioned for its efficiency in the long run. Hyland (1998: 278)
maintains that research conducted in real classroom conditions confirmed that

17

traditional methods of giving feedback are time-consuming and unfruitful and

learners make the exact same errors in consecutive writing tasks.
Hanaoka and Izumi (2012: 333-334) maintain that feedback which stimulates
learners spontaneous noticing is more valuable for language acquisition because
it requires an active role from the learner, rather than traditional feedback which
commonly relies on pointing out to learners their non-nativelike structures.
Research also discounted the positive effects of traditional corrections on the
grounds that it outlines teachers insensitivity to a range of variables such as
needs, abilities, contexts and individual differences (Adams 2003: 350, Hyland
1998: 271, Qi and Lapkin 2001: 280).

2.3 The relationship between noticing and feedback in second

language writing
In the past decades, the concept of noticing also ascertained as conscious
attention, stemmed from the emergence of Schmidts Noticing Hypothesis
(1990), which has received an increasing amount of interest in the fields of
cognitive psychology and SLA. According to Schmidt (1990: 129), noticing is
described as a prerequisite condition for fostering language learning or more
explicitly as the necessary and sufficient condition for converting input into
intake. This view is also shared by Ellis (1995: 89) and Schmidt and Frota (1986:
313) who assert that without noticing, theres no language acquisition and that
those who notice most, learn most.
While the functions of noticing have been viewed as controversial by some
linguists like Truscott (1998: 104), other applied linguistics researchers have
assented that noticing could play a facilitative part in the L2 learning process (Qi
and Lapkin 2001: 278). Although research data confirmed the crucial role of
noticing in SLA, there are still some areas which require investigation into how
noticing is involved in the L2 writing process and how noticing leads to an
18

improvement in learners writing skills (Hanaoka 2006: 168, Izumi and Bigelow
2000: 240, Lzaro-Ibarrola 2009: 193, Liming and Xiaofang 2011:14, Qi and
Lapkin 2001: 278-279, Rahim and Riasati 2011: 1324).
Thornbury (1997: 326-327) maintains that further research on noticing in L2
composing and its role in developing L2 writing skills needs to take into account
two essential types of noticing i.e., output-induced noticing which is also entitled
the noticing function of output and feedback type as a noticing enhancer. This
assertion is also corroborated by Hanaoka (2006: 167) who supports it with
empirical data and confirms that adequate and effective feedback represents a
notable teaching tool to boost noticing of linguistic inadequacies in the learners
written output and promote better IL development which will further contribute to
a more proficient output production.
2.3.1 Output and the noticing function of output
Both output and noticing represent SLA constructs which play a vital part in L2
learning. One of the central tenets of the Output Hypothesis (1985) was that the
act of generating challenging output involves a noticing function that could have a
twofold scope i.e., to urge learners to seek for answers to fill out their noticed
gaps and to prompt them to become more focused and engaged to ensuing input
(Santos, Lpez-Serrano and Manchn 2010: 133).
Output in L2 composing represents learners attempt to generate language and it
is regarded as one notable method or instrument by which the learners attention
is directed to forms they need to internalize and the gap between how they
convey their intentions and how native speakers state the same ideas (Hanaoka
and Izumi 2012: 333). Swain (2005: 474) suggests that while learners struggle to
produce L2 written output, they may become cognizant of particular linguistic
deficiencies or inadequacies and notice that they do not know how to say (or
write) precisely the meaning they wish to convey.

19

Out of the four functions of output, this study will review and examine the
noticing/triggering function put forward by Swain (1985: 243). Hanaoka (2006:
169) maintains that this triggering function associated with written output serves
as an invaluable pedagogical intervention to develop awareness of linguistic
shortcomings while learners draw a cognitive comparison between their linguistic
formulation and delivery of the intended meaning. For instance, Swain and
Lapkin (1995: 383) conducted a study aimed at exploring empirically the noticing
function of output in L2 composing and stated that through the act of writing, the
learners own output triggered a conscious awareness of language difficulties. In
addition, this research study looked into how cognitive processes intervene as a
response to such linguistic troubles experienced and recognized by L2 learners.
This cognitive processing triggered by L2 written output usually entails lexical
search and retrieval together with grammatical encoding which lead to a
conscious awareness of linguistic weaknesses in ones IL performance. What is
more, Izumi and Bigelow (2000: 244) claim that creating opportunities for output
production will result in a more focused attention from the learners with regard to
subsequent input which may be represented by feedback given by teachers.
Thus, this focused attention will prompt learners to search for those specific
language features that posed difficulties in the output. Hanaoka and Izumi (2012:
333) assert that output serves as a noticing enhancer which raises learners
attention to their linguistic deficiency.
2.3.2 Feedback as noticing enhancer
The second type of noticing approached in this paper is associated with the
noticing function of feedback tools in L2 composing. Although there is still a
debate over the factors that ensure effective feedback and subsequent L2
development, an increasing body of research studies seems to reveal an
agreement on the issue of providing learners with feedback types that engage
them in a cognitive comparison between their IL and a TL model of it (Adams

20

2003: 372, Qi and Lapkin 2001: 281, Rahim and Riasati 2011: 1326, Santos,
Lpez-Serrano, Manchn 2010: 144, Swain and Lapkin 2002: 287, Thornbury
1997: 328).
Research on types of feedback proposes that the most effective type of feedback
is the one that creates opportunities for learners to notice their errors or
mismatches between their interlanguage and the target-like forms. Thornbury
(1997: 326) suggests that this type of noticing is essential to L2 acquisition
because it allows the learners to draw a comparison between the performance of
their linguistic system, as evinced in their own written output and the target
variety presented in subsequent input as feedback. This linguist also makes
reference to the second type of noticing by using the term matching as an
indication of the need to continuously expose learners to activities that determine
them to notice the gap, to consciously identify the mismatch between their IL
output and the TL input. However, Ellis (1995: 90) opts for the term cognitive
comparison arguing that it better captures the fact that learners need to notice
when their own output is the same as the input as well as when it is different.
Thus, both types of learner noticing in the context of L2 writing play a crucial role
in processing L2 data and in facilitating L2 progress.
Effective feedback also helps learners comprehend these errors and implement
the correct forms in their IL (Lzaro-Ibarrola 2009: 193, Qi and Lapkin 2001: 280281, Van Beuningen 2010: 2). Thus, new empirical data emerged from such
research and concentrated on the noticing function of feedback which contributes
to filling gaps and raising awareness of features that learners found problematic
while producing written output. Dannatt (2010: 114) suggests that designing
motivating feedback which would allow learners to notice any mismatches in
their written output and also, to notice the accurate features of the target genre
(grammar, lexis, syntax, style) will make them take charge of their learning and
empower them in the process of L2 writing development. However, the question
of how exactly feedback serves as a trigger for learners noticing of gaps in L2

21

writing still remains open for debate and for further empirical investigation (Kim
2005: 6).
The present paper overtly outlined the undisputed significance of presenting L2
learners with carefully tailored L2 feedback that would genuinely stimulate their
noticing of linguistic gaps caused by erroneous hypotheses about language,
present them with opportunities to actively engage in a cognitive comparison
between their linguistic choices and the appropriate TL structures and entail
greater psychological validity i.e., learners attention becoming more focused on
identifying the correct structure of those features which posed great difficulties in
the output. Although, these conditions are mentioned in several research studies
that approached the matter of effective feedback on L2 composing, there is still
an unclear consensus in the SLA literature about the type of feedback that best
compiles such conditions that contribute successfully to learner noticing and
ensuing L2 development of writing skills. This study will focus on a particular type
of written feedback entitled reformulation and will review several studies which
employed it as a feedback tool in stimulating learners spontaneous noticing.
Moreover, the paper will further concentrate on its pedagogical implications
associated with its effectiveness and usefulness for the Romanian context.

2.4 Reformulation as feedback method and noticing facilitator

The issue of exposing learners to this type of feedback has been approached
both pedagogically and empirically. Although these research studies entailed
various methodologies and tackled diverse issues, they all acknowledge that
reformulation represents an effective strategy for boosting learner noticing
(Hanaoka 2006: 169).
This feedback strategy can be theoretically described as a native or near-native
re-writing of a L2 composition by maintaining the ideas that form the whole
content of the draft composition and refining the linguistic choices that reflect
22

lexical, grammatical and rhetorical inadequacy, ambiguity in style and logical

uncertainty (Hanaoka and Izumi 2012: 334). Although, reformulation has been
claimed to hold a range of benefits, it is still approached with mixed support and it
is currently an under-researched feedback technique, particularly in contexts
where English is taught as a foreign language (EFL) (Yang and Zhang 2010:
465).
As previously mentioned, there have been a number of empirical studies which
explored the role and beneficial effects of reformulation in facilitating
opportunities for learner noticing in L2 composing and enhancing L2 writing skills.
The increased interest for the reformulation technique in the fields of L2 writing
and SLA has been mainly stirred by its potential to compensate for the flaws
associated with traditional feedback strategies, which usually pose difficulties for
learners in understanding what linguistic choices written in the output are nontargetlike (Adams 2003: 350).
One noteworthy difference is that reformulation pushes learners to become
actively involved in discovering the main dissimilarities between their output and
the reformulated text (Hanaoka 2006: 168). Lzaro-Ibarrola (2009: 194) shares
this view and maintains that reformulation facilitates a greater level of noticing
through its self-discovery trait and provides a deeper insight into the language
learning process rather than a feedback method put forward in a teacher-fronted
manner. In addition, Lzaro-Ibarrola describes the SLA conditions for effective
feedback and suggests that feedback should stir curiosity, increase the level of
motivation, encourage learners self-discovery, consider the learners needs as
the starting point, provide contradictory information so as to stimulate learners
noticing, give positive evidence in a clear and accurate manner and preserve a
balance between form, meaning and style (2009: 196). Moreover, Adams (2003:
351) alleges that as opposed to traditional written feedback, the reformulation
technique holds the potential to eschew problems like deluging learners with far
too many corrections, exposing them to vague or obscure written comments,

23

presenting them only with negative evidence and providing learners with
feedback in a passive manner, thus leaving no room for active cognitive
processing to take place.
2.4.1 Noticing studies based on reformulated writing
Although the effectiveness of reformulation was investigated earlier by Cohen
(1983: 3) who reported that this tool contributed to an improvement in areas such
as vocabulary, syntax, paragraphing, cohesion, one of the first studies that did
investigate and report the usefulness and effectiveness of reformulation in
triggering learner noticing was the one conducted by Qi and Lapkin (2001), who
explored the connection between output and noticing and the ensuing effect on
the whole writing process.
This study involved a three-stage writing task and revealed that noticing of
linguistic shortcomings during the composing stage had a significant impact on
what the participants noticed in the reformulated writing given during the
comparison stage as feedback. Overall, their study argued that reformulation
represents an efficacious pedagogical feedback tool to stimulate learners
noticing in accordance with their discerned linguistic needs. Previous research
agenda did not take that much into consideration the SLA constructs i.e., output
and noticing and the role of reformulation to contribute to an increased level of
noticing and focused attention (Hanaoka and Izumi 2012: 334).
While Dannatts research study (2010), Hanaoka and Izumis (2012), Qi and
Lapkins (2001), Rahim and Riasatis (2011) investigated learner noticing during
individual writing tasks, several reformulation research studies (Adams 2003,
Lzaro-Ibarrola 2009, Swain and Lapkin 2002) explored learner noticing in
collaborative work. Adamss research study (2003) replicated the one done by Qi
and Lapkin, but extended it by adding a procedure entitled stimulated recall. The
participants involved in the noticing sessions integrated in this study, seem to

24

have included a greater number of targetlike forms in their rewritten composition

than those who did not take part in these sessions.
The findings from these studies led to the assumption that noticing from
reformulated writing yields enhanced results in the use of more targetlike forms
and that stimulated recall has a great influence on facilitating noticing. LzaroIbarrola (2009) researched the usefulness of reformulation as a correction
strategy and also its pedagogical validity for classroom limitations. Swain and
Lapkins study (2002) examined the reformulated writing of a pair of participants
together with its potential to provoke noticing, generate reflection and discussion
about the linguistic choices that were made based on their judgements and
hypotheses about how language functions. The researchers alleged that the
effects of reformulation are strongly intensified when it is accompanied by a
noticing session in which learners draw comparisons and by a recall session in
which they discuss the noticed targetlike forms. Moreover, Swain and Lapkin
(2002: 7-8) suggest that the use of reformulation as a feedback strategy will
enhance the learners language production.
Studies conducted by Dannatt (2010), Hanaoka and Izumi (2012) and Yang and
Zhang (2010) investigated the role of reformulation used as a feedback tool in
the context of output-induced noticing and the noticing function of feedback to
enhance learners L2 writing skills. Dannatt (2010: 120) maintains that
reformulation greatly helped the students involved in this research, particularly
with raising their awareness of linguistic mismatches between their output and
the reformulated version. It also allowed learners to evince greater autonomy in
the learning process. Along the same lines, Hanaoka and Izumi (2012)
approached the role of output as noticing enhancer and compared the
effectiveness of reformulations and models in provoking noticing of linguistic
deficiencies. Results demonstrated that reformulated writing stimulates noticing
the gap between the IL structures written in the original text and the appropriate
TL structures. It also highlighted its effectiveness on developing learner

25

autonomy through self-discovery and on providing targeted feedback which suits

the learners linguistic needs.
Rahim and Riasati (2011) carried out a study involving four adult Iranian EFL
learners and addressed the relationship between reformulation and noticing in
the context of L2 writing. As others before, these researchers reached the
conclusion that reformulation can be used as a teaching strategy to provide
learners with feedback which would improve their noticing of the TL structures
and contribute to subsequent writing development.

2.5 The gap in the literature

Despite the fact that noticing in L2 writing has commenced to receive more and
more attention in the field of SLA, it still continues to be under-researched and
overlooked in many EFL settings such as Romania. To address the gap in the
literature, the current research study and its methodology were informed by three
other studies carried out to investigate the noticing function of output and the
effects of reformulation on learner noticing i.e., Hanaoka and Izumi (2012),
Lzaro-Ibarrola (2009) and Qi and Lapkin (2001).
As opposed to other studies which measured learners cognitive process of
noticing, this research study used three types of introspective methods i.e., notetaking, think-aloud protocols and underlining. This choice was motivated by the
belief that other studies which used just one introspective method did not
succeed to capture learners thought processing in detail.
There was only one study on reformulation carried out by Hanaoka and Izumi
(2012) to investigate how reformulation provides feedback on overt and covert
features manifested in learners writing. In their view, learners hypotheses about
language can be tested overtly or covertly. As a result, this research study has

26

attempted to approach the debate over the effectiveness of reformulation in

addressing overt and covert features in Romanians written output
The participants in this study were also interviewed and required to express their
agreement or disagreement with the reformulated texts and also their opinion
about the usefulness and effectiveness of reformulation as a feedback strategy.
There have been few studies examining the learners viewpoints about
reformulation and such insights into learner attitudes on feedback have a crucial
role in determining if reformulation would gain popularity in the Romanian
teaching context and in other similar educational settings.

27

3. Methods
This chapter outlined the research questions which guided this research study
and the methodology underpinning it. It also provided a description of the
participants and a description of the steps associated with data collection and
analysis. The methodological instruments involved in this study were also
presented and their use was described according to each stage. This chapter
provided an outline of some ethical decisions which had to be taken into
consideration in order for this study to receive ethical approval.

3.1 Research questions and hypotheses

As reviewed so far, several researchers have reported that written output tasks
create opportunities for learners to notice some of their IL deficiencies and to look
for solutions in incoming input which is most of the time the feedback given by
the classroom teacher. However, the issue of appropriate and effective feedback
has been viewed with mixed consideration and some researchers claimed that
teachers do not always take the learners needs as a point of departure when
constructing feedback. A review of the literature outlined that a substantial body
of research has acknowledged the absence of noticing conditions associated
with traditional feedback on L2 writing. Thus, new research on other feedback
methods that would fulfill such conditions was needed.
Research on effective feedback methods has investigated reformulation and its
potential to stimulate learner noticing and serve as an effective feedback method
which would meet learners needs that stem from their struggles to produce L2
output. Such studies represent the point of departure for the current research
study which aimed at exploring the potential of written output tasks to trigger
learner noticing. It also aimed at exploring the effectiveness of reformulation used
as a feedback strategy to prompt learners noticing of solutions to their output
difficulties. Thus, the following research questions and hypotheses guided the
present study:
28

RQ1: What linguistic shortcomings do Romanian participants notice while

working on an output-only writing task (Stage 1 Composing stage)?
RQ2: What do Romanian participants notice while drawing a comparison
between their original drafts and the reformulated versions (Stage 2- Noticing or
comparison stage)? Do they agree or disagree with the changes made?
Based on a hunch which stemmed from the researchers experience with
feedback in Romania, a hypothesis emerged from the second research question.
Qi and Lapkin (2001: 282) maintained that reformulation in L2 writing is
concerned with linguistic problems at the textual as well as the sentence level.
Although, this paper did not oppose to Qi and Lapkins assertion per se, it
hypothesized that reformulation will be far more successful at sentence-level
than at textual level. This hypothesis emerged from the idea that Romanian
students still receive traditional feedback on L2 writing. This traditional feedback
method is part of the methodology used in Romania and it may have greatly
influenced over the years the participants style of learning English and their
decisions on what language aspects to focus more.
H2: Reformulation may favor more noticing at sentence level than at discourse
level.
This hypothesis is also supported by the following claim based on the difference
between errors at sentence-level and those at discourse level:
Problems at the discourse level are often fairly subtle, leaving the reader
with the feeling that something is not quite right with a text but with no
clear picture of where the problem lies. At the sentence level, however,
errors are relatively obvious (Leki 1992: 105).

According to this claim L2 learners can become aware of language problems at

both sentence and discourse level, but it is easier to notice errors at sentencelevel than errors at discourse level. Thus, this hypothesis emerged in order to
29

investigate the amount of learner noticing at both levels and contradict or confirm
Qi and Lapkins (2001) theory about reformulation.

3.2 Methodological approach

The two-stage experiment that lies at the core of this study together with its
underlying methods and instruments was informed by prior empirical studies on
noticing, feedback and reformulation (Adams 2003, Hanaoka 2006, Hanaoka and
Izumi 2012, Lzaro-Ibarrola 2009, Qi and Lapkin 2001, Rahim and Riasati 2011).
The methodological approach selected for analyzing the data could be defined as
multi-methodological because it colligated both qualitative and quantitative data
(Drnyei 2007, Mackey and Gass 2005). These methodological considerations
stemmed from the belief that research in SLA, which investigates the role of
learners cognitive processes in the process of language production and
development does not yield a single and universal answer, but a varied palette of
possible answers.
The present research study is mainly grounded in the qualitative research
paradigm, but it also involves quantification of numerical data. Thus, it entailed
the use of a mixed methodology in order to categorize learners most common
linguistic difficulties while dealing with a writing task, to gain insights into their
impressions and attitudes with respect to this feedback method and also to
support the researchers inferences and theories about learner noticing resulted
from written output and feedback.
Drnyei (2007: 33) maintained that quantitative research is generally associated
with the use of numbers, a priori categorization and statistics. These quantitative
measures were included in this study. For instance, the reformulation of 4
samples of writing, the categorization or coding of linguistic difficulties noticed
during output production, the calculation of the numbers and frequencies of
lexical, grammatical and discourse difficulties, the categorization of solvable
30

features recovered from the reformulated texts and the calculation of their
frequencies in each category.
The qualitative methods approached in this research study relied on insider
meaning and interpretive analysis (Mackey and Gass 2012: 223). The
participants noticing experience was explored along with their perspective and
interpretation of linguistic problems encountered while generating written output.
The study also concentrated on the participants viewpoints of the usefulness and
effectiveness of reformulation as a feedback tool. The data gathered from all
three stages was also examined from the researchers subjective interpretation of
the way in which the participants verbalized their thoughts or looked for an
appropriate match between ideational content generated in thought and a
linguistically appropriate form available in memory (Qi and Lapkin 2001: 290).

3.3 Participants
The four participants in this study were native speakers of Romanian and
undergraduates who finished their first year of study in a British academic
context. This study involved Romanian undergraduates who finished their first
year of study for two reasons. Firstly, it was assumed that such students who
study at a university in a British academic setting were requested to have an
advanced command of the English language. This aspect is of paramount
importance because some of the studies which were earlier reviewed discovered
that noticing takes place at intermediate levels or above. It was assumed that
working with participants with a lower level of English would compromise the
whole research. Secondly, these undergraduates scored 7 in the IELTS exam
and it was assumed that although they have a very good command of the
language, they have not yet achieved nativeness in L2 writing, particularly
because this skill is the last to be assessed in Romania.
The four Romanian participants were selected by taking into account one
significant factor which was considered to bear relevance to the research results
31

i.e., no previous exposure to a British academic setting before applying to study

at university. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of reformulation as a feedback
tool it was necessary to select participants who have been little exposed to the
TL and who may still have difficulties in keeping with the TL norms, particularly in
L2 writing.
The participants were 2 females and 2 males, aged between 20-25 and were
enrolled at the same university, but on different courses in the field of humanities.
All of them studied English as a foreign language for over 10 years in Romania
as part of the national curriculum before arriving to the UK. Besides the
classroom exposure to the language, participants reported that they also learnt it
from external sources like television, music, books and the internet.

3.4 Data collection

The four Romanian participants involved in this research study were actively
engaged in a two-staged picture description writing task comprising the
composing stage (Stage 1) and the comparison stage (Stage 2). The order of
these stages was presented in Figure 3.1 below.

Figure 3.1 Stages of the experiment

32

3.4.1 Composing stage (Stage 1)

The composing stage represented the first stage of the experiment and involved
three phases which were illustrated below in Figure 3.2 and explained in more
detail in the following pages. These phases entailed the act of writing the
composition and taking notes of various language difficulties, a mini-session of
training in which participants practised how to think-aloud in their mother tongue
and a recording session in which participants think-aloud protocols were
recorded.

Figure 3.2 Phases associated with Stage 1

In Phase 1, participants were presented with an open-ended picture prompt with

no verbal data and were requested to write down a story of approximately 300
words in response to this picture. This picture is provided below in Figure 3.3. For
this stage, all four Romanians received two sheets of paper (Sheet 1 and Sheet
2) (see Appendix 5). The researcher made sure the participants did not take a
look at the picture before hearing the instructions which were also written on both
33

sheets. In the first part of Stage 1, they were requested to write the composition
on Sheet 1 and use Sheet 2 to take notes of the language problems they
encountered and noticed while writing the composition.

Figure 3.3 Picture prompt used in Stage 1

The researcher provided some note-taking examples in the participants L1 at the

top of Sheet 2 (see Appendix 5). All participants were informed that such
examples of note-taking are not mandatory and they were encouraged to
express the language troubles they noticed in whatever way they wanted, as long
as it was coherent and explicit. It should be clearly mentioned that none of the
participants was allowed to use dictionaries or any other informative sources. As
in Qi and Lapkins (2001) study, this research intended to discover how the
Romanian participants would work out solutions by themselves without resorting
to such resources.

34

The researcher deemed that the most suitable way of obtaining maximum
reporting of participants noticing was to instruct them to take notes in their
mother tongue so as to relieve the cognitive load. Before collecting the
compositions, the Romanian participants were required to proofread their writing,
the main purpose being to avoid slips of the tongue that could have been selfcorrected by the participants (Lzaro-Ibarrola 2009: 199, Qi and Lapkin 2001:
281). Phase 1 lasted for 30 minutes and at the end of the task both sheets
together with the picture prompt were collected by the researcher.
In Phase 2, participants were trained to produce think-aloud protocols before
using the audiotape to record their verbal reports (see Appendix 5). The
individuals involved in this study were not recorded until they rehearsed the thinkaloud technique several times and felt at ease to use it. It should be mentioned
that all participants were previously informed of the use of audio recorder and
asked for their consent so as to lessen possible psychological reactivity effects
triggered by this method of investigation.
In Phase 3, the researcher made use of audiotape to record think-aloud protocols
and the participants were allowed to keep the sheets on which they took notes of
their language shortcomings (Sheet 2). While thinking aloud, they were
expanding on their written notes and also providing reasons for their difficulties
and other linguistic uncertainties. The researcher intervened by asking
clarification questions in case the participants were not clear. She also intervened
by reminding them to mention how they handled the problematic features noticed
(PFNs) while writing.
As previously mentioned the written compositions were collected by the
researcher who reformulated them from beginning to end in order to produce four
native-like versions of the participants written output, bearing in mind that
reformulation as a feedback type to stimulate learners spontaneous noticing has
to be carefully designed so as to preserve the ideas expressed in the original

35

drafts. Moreover, the participants compositions were reformulated by the

researcher and the reformulated versions were proofread by a native speaker of
English.
Although, the investigator does not speak English as her L1, it seemed more
appropriate to deal personally with the task of reformulating the participants
written stories. The underlying reason for this choice had to do with the possibility
of integrating this feedback method in the language classroom in Romania or in
other similar educational contexts where teachers do not speak English as their
first language. If teachers in Romania consider reformulation an effective
feedback method, they would need to reformulate learners compositions on their
own in the absence of a native speaker. As a result, the possible integration of
reformulation in the Romanian context would have to be performed by Romanian
teachers of English themselves.
While reformulating the compositions, the purpose of the researcher was not to
explicitly give the participants the correct language choices as in traditional
feedback, but to stimulate their noticing and discover the appropriate language
use by themselves. As a result, the reformulated versions did not include any
abbreviated markings or underlining done by the researcher.
The researcher reformulated the original compositions (see Appendix 7) by
correcting lexical inadequacies and grammatical errors. Up until this point, one
would say that this resembles the error correction procedure. However,
participants texts were not only tidied up in terms of vocabulary and grammar
issues, but they were also reformulated so as to eliminate rhetorical
inadequacies, sentential ambiguity and lack of coherence. In most cases, like in
the examples provided below, long and ambiguous sentences were reformulated
by making them shorter and more coherent. The researcher attempted to make
the necessary corrections and readjustments in order to render the texts more
nativelike, without changing the original content. Two extracts from the

36

participants original texts with their corresponding reformulated versions are

provided below in examples 1 and 2.
Example 1
Excerpt from P01s composition

The fact that the house is empty (ne arata) that

everybody is out in the yard working even the
womans of the house when, usually they are in
the house cooking or cleaning but not working

Excerpt from reformulation

outside.
The fact that the house is empty makes us
believe that everybody is working outside in the
yard. Even the women of the house are outside,
though they usually stay inside to cook or clean.

Example 2
Excerpt from P03s composition

In this picture a lot of them are trying together

from scratche to process grapes from vine by
collecting them and put all grapes in a huge barell

Excerpt from reformulation

to be pressed to take the liquid out in a bucket.

In this picture a lot of them are trying to work
together from scratch and process the grapes
which are picked from the vines. This is done by
collecting the grapes and placing them in a huge
barrel. The grapes are pressed to extract the juice
in a bucket.

3.4.2 Comparison stage (Stage 2)

37

After the composing stage (Stage 1), all four compositions were reformulated
within 5 days and proofread within 1 day. The second stage (comparison stage)
was scheduled one week after the first one. This stage consisted of four phases
which involved: (1) reading the original texts, (2) comparing the original texts with
the reformulated versions by taking notes and underlining, (3) recording the
think-aloud protocols and (4) interviewing participants and recording their views
about the reformulation method. The order of these phases is also provided in
Figure 3.4 below.

Figure 3.4 Phases associated with Stage 2

In Phase 1, the Romanian participants received their original compositions which

were written one week before along with the same open-ended picture prompt.
The investigator returned the compositions produced in Stage 1 (Sheet 1,
henceforth entitled Model 1) and the respondents were requested to read them

38

for 10 minutes to refresh their memory about what they wrote and about the
language difficulties they experienced.
In Phase 2, each participant was provided with a unique reformulated version of
his/her own text (Model 2) and was required to read both texts silently for another
10 minutes, underline the solutions which matched their problems and
uncertainties in the original draft and take notes of their noticing. None of the
respondents was told that the second composition was a reformulated version of
their own writing proofread by a native speaker so as to encourage them to
actively engage in a cognitive comparison and even express their disagreements
if any and not take the reformulated version for granted.
Participants were verbally instructed to write on Sheet 3 what they noticed while
comparing both models (Model 1- original writing and model 2- reformulated
version). These instructions were also written in Romanian at the top of Sheet 3
and focused on encouraging all four participants to take notes of anything they
had noticed in terms of words, expressions, grammar, style and discourse as
they compared both models.
In Phase 3, the researcher allowed the participants to keep both models and
Sheet 3 on which they took notes of everything they had noticed. Afterwards, the
participants were involved in the think-aloud session and they were requested to
talk out loud and compare the models, making use of their notes and the
underlined items. The think-aloud protocols produced by each participant were
recorded by using the audiotape and there was no time limit given for this part.
The researcher intervened when participants ceased talking aloud and asked
clarification questions when participants utterances were not clear.
In Phase 4, participants views on this type of feedback were taken into account.
As a result, during the think-aloud protocols, the researcher remind the
participants that they were not compelled to agree with Model 2 and

39

disagreements plus reasoning are more than welcomed. With regard to the
participants viewpoints, the researcher asked questions which took the form of
an interview (see Appendix 9).

3.5 Instruments
Various methodological instruments and techniques were used in this research
study to elicit and collect data from all participants. These are the open-ended
picture prompt, the note-taking and underlining techniques, recorded think-aloud
protocols and a semi-structured interview. The choice for these research
instruments to collect primary data was guided by some previously mentioned
studies which also investigated noticing as a result of output production and
noticing stimulated by reformulation. This research study used a mixture of
introspective instruments in order to improve the richness of the research data
and to increase the reliability of the results (Drnyei and Kormos 1998: 355).
Figure 3.5 illustrates what instruments and techniques were used in each stage.

Figure 3.5 Instruments and techniques used in each stage

3.5.1 Open-ended picture prompt

40

In Stage 1, the first methodological instrument used was the open-ended picture
prompt. This picture was earlier illustrated in Figure 3.3. There are at least two
reasons for which this type of instrument was chosen to elicit data from
participants. First of all, the picture did not furnish any kind of verbal data so that
the Romanian participants involved in this study would generate the TL only in
the form of written output. Secondly, the nature of the picture was open-ended so
as to give the participants complete freedom to construct the composition in
whatever way they wanted, hence providing them entire control over the content
of the composition. Moreover, Qi and Lapkin (2001: 285-286) suggest that openended visuals stimulate learner thinking which does not suppress critical and
creative thought processes.
3.5.2 Note-taking and underlining
An additional methodological instrument used in both stages was note-taking.
Evidence of noticing was furnished by self-reports written by all four participants
in the form of note-taking which is defined by Drnyei (2007: 271) as a qualitative
measurement instrument used to examine the manner in which learners
comprehend and deal with errors.
In the present research study, learners noticing was measured in both stages
through note-taking. In stage 1, participants used note-taking to explain what
language difficulties they had noticed while being engaged in an output-only
writing task. In stage 2, participants used it again in order to explain what
solutions were noticed while comparing their original drafts with the reformulated
texts. In the second stage, note-taking was also accompanied by another
technique i.e., underlining. This technique was used in order to help participants
remember during the think-aloud protocols what language features caught their
attention in the reformulated texts.

41

The use of this qualitative instrument relied on certain considerations. First of all,
note-taking was regarded as an online measure that could signal learners
focused attention in real time. According to Hanaoka (2006: 184), such detailed
and explanatory notes may serve as a clue to unravel how L2 writing tasks
stimulate learners awareness.
Hanaoka and Izumi (2012: 344) maintained that note-taking as an introspective
measure of noticing may not capture the learners noticing process in much
detail. As a result, in order to compensate for this inherent limitation of notetaking and gain access to essential data related to unobservable cognitive
processes like thoughts, feelings and opinions, this study also resorted to a
technique entitled think-aloud protocols.
3.5.3 Think-aloud protocols (recordings)
Think-aloud protocols represent unique ways of eliciting self-reflections from the
participants and also acquiring valuable insight into such mental processes
(Drnyei 2007: 147). This type of introspective instrument contributed to helping
the Romanian participants articulate what was going through their minds.
Participants were trained how to think-aloud in Stage 1 after they had finished
writing the compositions and finished taking notes of their language difficulties.
After a mini-training session they were recorded while thinking aloud. Participants
were also recorded while thinking-aloud in Stage 2 with respect to what they had
noticed from the reformulated texts.
The study involved this introspective instrument because it is frequently used for
investigating L2 learners mental processes during written output tasks. As
suggested by Drnyei (2007), this instrument contributes to broadening ones
understanding of the role of internal processes and what occurs in ones
consciousness.

42

3.5.4 Semi-structured interview

Stage 2 included a semi-structured interview which was based on three
questions which were previously prepared by the researcher (see Appendix 9).
The interview was scheduled at the end so as not to affect the flow of the thinking
processes and consequently the verbal reports. Although, there is a set of
questions previously produced by the interviewer (researcher), the format could
be described as open-ended. The respondents were prompted to expound on the
solutions they had noticed in an exploratory manner while comparing the two
texts. If the participants utterances seemed unclear, the researcher intervened
with some clarification questions so as to interpret their thoughts clearly. Drnyei
(2007: 136) maintains that this type of interview is a versatile research instrument
to collect qualitative data by facilitating guidance and direction and also, by
allowing the respondents to elaborate on their thinking which may trigger
interesting developments.

3.6 Data analysis

Data collected from both stages was approached in various ways and the
analysis was provided in more detail in the following chapter. In this subchapter,
the analysis of the data collected from stage 1 was treated separately from the
analysis of the data gathered in Stage 2.
3.6.1 Analysis of data collected from Stage 1
Firstly, the Stage 1 notes and verbal reports produced by the Romanian
participants were investigated in order to identify the type of problematic features
which posed the greatest difficulties in L2 writing and also to classify these
problematic features noticed (PFNs). The researcher identified and classified the
language related features from both texts. These features were further coded into
three categories: lexis (nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs and prepositions),
43

grammar (spelling, subject-verb agreement, verb tense and form, comparative,

possessive marker), discourse (logical sequencing, style and sentential clarity).
The frequencies and percentages for each category were calculated so as to
identify the most common problematic features which posed difficulties for
participants in Stage 1.
Secondly, these PFNs were also classified in two other categories i.e., overt and
covert features. This research study followed Hanaoka and Izumis (2012) and
Hanaokas (2006) analysis of overt and covert features based on the following
considerations. Overt features represent forms of which participants were not
sure, but which were tested or hypothesized in their writing. In contrast, covert
features represent non-hypothesized forms. This means that participants
identified some problematic features in their IL, but decided not to test them in
their writing. The frequencies and percentages for overt and covert features were
also calculated in order to analyze how L2 learners decide to address such
difficulties in writing.
Thirdly, covert features were also analyzed according to the types identified in
participants written products with support from their notes and verbal reports.
The analysis entailed two types of covert features. These two types were
instances of total avoidance by means of idea abandonment and instances of
partial avoidance by using L1. In order to comprehend what was overt and covert
in participants compositions, the researcher had to cross-examine the drafts,
read the notes and listen to the verbal reports. Participants notes and verbal
reports revealed the problematic features which posed difficulties during writing
and also revealed how participants attempted to overcome these difficulties,
either by hypothesizing or by abandoning the idea. Such examples of overt and
covert features are presented in Chapter 5 and in Appendix 2.

44

3.6.2 Analysis of data collected from Stage 2

Firstly, stage 2 notes and verbal reports concerning the comparison between the
original drafts and the reformulated versions were investigated in order to
discover the type of language features which participants noticed the most when
provided with feedback in the form of reformulated writing. In this stage,
participants noticing was also shown by their underlining done on the
reformulated texts. The solutions to their Stage 1 PFNs which were noticed in
the reformulated texts were counted, coded again into the same categories
(lexical, grammar and discourse) and their frequencies and percentages were
calculated.
Secondly, notes and verbal reports from Stage 2 were examined so as to identify
cases of disagreement with the reformulated versions. Participants were
requested to express their opinions about the reformulated texts in order to check
if the meanings they tried to convey in their compositions were lost or not during
the reformulation process (see Appendix 4).
Thirdly, stage 1 notes and verbal reports were analyzed again, together with the
reformulated texts. The underlying reason was to investigate if reformulation was
equally successful in providing solutions to overt and covert features. All four
reformulated texts were examined in order to see how many solutions were
provided for overt and covert features alike. At the end of Stage 2, all participants
were interviewed and asked about the effectiveness and usefulness of
reformulation. The recordings were analyzed from the researchers subjective
interpretation which highlighted the idea that participants attitudes towards
feedback on L2 writing represent an insightful area for further research.

45

3.7 Ethics
Since this research involved human participants, a number of ethical issues had
to be taken into consideration. This research study was approved as P24527.
Before data collection, participants were provided with a participant information
sheet which outlined the summary of the project and the major aspects
associated with it. For this study, all four participants were requested to sign a
consent form as proof that they had been informed about the scope of the study
and that they agree to participate voluntarily. After being informed about the
writing task and the recording stages, participants were told that they will have to
fill out a print and audio production consent form if they wish to take part in this
project (see Appendix 10). Participants were also informed that all collected data
will be kept anonymous and confidential and that withdrawal from the project is
possible at any time. It was also made clear that a participants withdrawal
means that all data associated with that participant will be removed and not
included in the study.

46

4. Results
This chapter presented the results obtained from both stages. These results
indicated the different categories and frequencies of problematic features (PFs)
that were noticed during Stage 1. Results also outlined the categories and
frequencies of recoverable PFs noticed by participants through reformulation
(Stage 2). Data obtained from both stages was divided into two categories i.e.,
one referring to lexical, grammar and discourse features and the other one
referring to overt and covert features. The final part of this chapter revealed the
number of solutions provided by the reformulated texts to the overt and covert
PFs which were noticed during output production (Stage 1).

4.1 Problematic features noticed (PFNs) during Stage 1

Each Romanian participant was given the same time length (30 minutes) to
examine the picture prompt and carry out the composing task. The first research
question was concerned with what kind of linguistic problems or shortcomings do
Romanian participants notice in their IL system while working on an output-only
writing task. Table 4.1 below presents the number, proportions and frequencies of
PFNs in Stage 1. It shows that during the composing stage, the four participants
reported a total of 51 PFNs in all 3 categories i.e., lexis, grammar, content. All 51
PFNs were collected by using note-taking and think-aloud protocol techniques
and an average of 12.75 noticed features per participant was calculated. It
should be noted that table 4.1 includes the total number of problematic features
noticed by all 4 participants, not per participant.

Table 4.1 also shows that out of 51 PFNs, the lexical features constituted a high
majority (74.5 %), ensued by a smaller and frequency of grammatical features
(19.6%) and a much smaller frequency of content-oriented features (5.8%). As
illustrated in Table 1, it seems that the four L2 participants noticed some

47

problems in their IL while engaged in a writing task. Such linguistic shortcomings

were particularly related to the English lexicon, which posed difficulties for the
Romanian participants in expressing their intended meanings.

Lexical
Grammatical
Content
Total

Stage 1 PFNs
n
38
10
3
51

%
74.5
19.6
5.8
100

Mean
9.5
2.5
0.75
12.75

Table 4.1 Frequencies and proportions of PFNs in Stage 1

Note: Mean = mean number of features noticed and reported by participants by

means of note-taking and verbal reports
Table 4.2 below presents the number and frequency of overt and covert features
observed in the data collected from the 4 Romanian participants. In total, 29
overt features (57%) and 22 covert features (43%) were identified in the written
output generated by the participants in Stage 1. As mentioned in the data
analysis subchapter, overt referred to PFNs which participants did not avoid, but
tested some hypothesized forms in their writing. In contrast, covert referred to
PFNs which participants avoided entirely or partially. Besides the occurrence of
covert features involving the participants L1, this study also classified as covert
features instances when a particular L2 form feature was found to be problematic
and was replaced by paraphrasing.
This table also suggests that 4 out of 10 problematic features which participants
noticed while writing the composition were covert because it was either avoided
or paraphrased and thus, it did not occur in their original written drafts. Moreover,
Table 4.2 also indicates that 6 out of 10 PFNs were overt which means that in
some cases the participants acted as risk-takers and tried a number of
hypothesized forms in their written products, although they were unsure of their
accuracy. A total of 18 overt lexical features accounted for 47% while 20 (53%)

48

features were identified as being covert. In contrast, in the grammatical category

8 (80%) features were classified as overt, while 2 (20%) features were identified
as covert. Concerning the nature of covert features, there were 7 instances of
total avoidance and 15 instances of partial avoidance, the latter category
involving the use of the participants L1.

Overt
Lexical PFNs
Grammatical PFNs
Content PFNs
Total
Covert
Lexical PFNs
Grammatical PFNs
Content PFNs
Total

Mean

18
8
3
29

35.29
15.69
5.88
56.86

4.5
2
0.75
7.25

20
2
0
22

39.22
3.92
0.00
43.14

5
0.5
0
5.5

Table 4.2 Overt and covert PFNs in Stage 1

4.2 Noticing from the reformulated texts during Stage 2

The second research question is concerned with the kind of features participants
notice while comparing the original drafts with the reformulated texts. Table 4.3
below displays the number of features noticed (FNs) and their frequencies and
proportions in all three categories while all four Romanian participants were
drawing a comparison between their original written products and the
reformulated versions. Although participants reported noticing 51 PFNs in stage
1, this table shows that participants noticed a total of 84 solutions from the
reformulated texts. This finding will be discussed in the following chapter.
Regarding the type of features, the high majority of features noticed in the
comparison stage (Stage 2) were lexical items (57%). The grammatical features
accounted for a smaller number (26%), followed by even a smaller frequency of
content and discourse-related features (17%).

49

As opposed to other research studies on reformulation as a feedback tool, this

one also considered the participants agreement and disagreement with the
solutions provided in the reformulated versions as a way to examine the cognitive
conflict that took place in the minds of the respondents. While all participants
agreed with the solutions noticed in the written reformulations in terms of
grammar-oriented features, some cases of disagreement arose in terms of lexical
(n = 3) and content-oriented features (n = 3).

Lexical
Grammatical
Content and
discourse
Total

Mean

48
22
14

57.14
26.19
16.67

84

12
5.5
3.5

Agreeing with the

reformulation
45
22
11

Disagreeing with
the reformulation
3
0
3

21

78

Table 4.3 Features noticed (FNs) from the reformulated texts

Table 4.4 below shows that participants noticed 51 PFNs in Stage 1. These
problematic features were divided into overt and covert features. This table also
displays the number of solutions provided by reformulation to the problematic
features noticed by the Romanian participants during output production.
According to this table, the reformulated texts incorporated solutions to all 29 PFs
which manifested overtly in participants compositions. In contrast, the table
shows that the reformulated versions provided only 10 solutions to those 22 PFs
which were deemed covert. This noticeable difference will be discussed in the
following chapter.

50

Overt features
Covert
features
Total

PFNs in Stage 1
29

Recoverable PFs in Stage 2

29

22

10

51

39

Table 4.4 Solutions to overt and covert features provided by reformulations

Note: Recoverable PFs refer to problematic features identified in Stage 1 for
which reformulation provides at least 1 solution

51

5. Discussion
This chapter puts forward an interpretation of the findings outlined in the previous
chapter. This section will also approach the implications of this research for the
field of English language teaching, particularly for implementing reformulation as
feedback on L2 writing tasks.

5.1. Main findings in Stage 1 (composition stage)

Results suggested that a written output task does stimulate learners noticing of
linguistic shortcomings in their IL systems in the attempt to convey their intended
meanings. Participants involved in this study took notes of their language
difficulties, which were also articulated in their verbal reports. These language
difficulties were categorized and it was found that the participants became
particularly engaged in lexical search and retrieval. However, results also
revealed that there were some basic errors in participants written output which
went unnoticed in their notes and verbal reports (see Appendix 3).
5.1.1. Intensive lexical processing during an output-only writing condition
The first research question asked what kind of linguistic problems Romanian
participants noticed while writing an L2 composition. Table 4.1 in Chapter 4
included an analysis of participants data and revealed that over 74 % of the 51
problematic features noticed were lexical, indicating that all four Romanian
participants were mostly engaged in lexical retrieval while composing. This
finding is in line with Hanaoka and Izumis research (2012), in which over 80% of
the 179 problematic features noticed by the Japanese participants in the
composing stage were lexical in nature. It is also in line with Hanaokas study
(2006), in which two Japanese participants, Saki and Tae noticed 48 problematic
features out of which 23 were lexical. Thus, it seems that regardless of ones L1,

52

learners are more concerned with lexis than with grammar or logical sequencing
and sentence clarity (discourse).
There are a number of reasons for this lexical bias. Firstly, this high proportion of
lexical features may have been influenced by the nature of the task which
required participants to describe the picture. At a closer look, the picture
illustrates a high number of utensils used in winemaking. Having been required to
describe the picture may have influenced participants to become more
concerned with lexical retrieval in the attempt to describe the role of these
utensils in the winemaking process and hence, to notice more lexical gaps than
gaps associated with grammar (20%) or discourse-oriented features (6%).
Secondly, noticing of a high number of lexical-oriented shortcomings during the
composing stage may have also been influenced by the general orientation of
these L2 learners who reached a particular language level where they feel
comfortable enough with their grammar, but not with their mental lexicon. Another
possibility, as Lzaro-Ibarrola (2009: 209) proposed is that such L2 learners were
used to receiving traditional feedback in the form of error correction focused
mainly on lexis, which may have influenced the participants to concentrate their
attentional resources to lexis during output production. Overall, irrespective of the
main reasons behind this high proportion of lexical noticing, Williams (2001: 338)
suggested that the self-initiated attention to vocabulary is common among L2
learners who focus, above all things, on words.
5.1.2. Use of cognitive writing strategies during output production:
hypothesizing (overt) and avoidance (covert)
As presented in table 4.2 from Chapter 4, all problematic features noticed in
Stage 1 were split into overt and covert problems in order to investigate a theory
put forward by Hanaoka (2006) and by Hanaoka and Izumi (2012). Their theory

53

was that reformulation as a feedback tool to provide feedback for L2 writing will
be less efficient in the case of covert features.
The results shown in Table 4.2 revealed that the four Romanian participants can
be partially characterized as risk-takers because 43% out of 51 PFNs in Stage 1
were covert problems i.e., cases of total avoidance, partial avoidance and rare
cases of paraphrasing. One reason for this high percentage of covert features is
that L2 learners in Romania and probably in other educational backgrounds are
not encouraged to become risk-takers and convey their ideas in writing, using
whatever linguistic resources they have. In this study, participants either
abandoned their ideas when they did not know a word or kept them by writing the
problematic word in their L1. However, 57% out of 51 PFNs in Stage 1 were overt
features. This means that in some cases participants did not avoid their ideas
and tried to compensate their limited linguistic resources by testing a number of
hypothesized forms to convey the intended meanings. Some examples of overt
and covert features were provided below together with the participants
arguments for their writing choices expressed in their notes and verbal reports.
During the writing task, P04 noticed a problematic lexical feature and did not
know how to say or (apron) and opinci (peasant sandals). This participant
may have wanted to use these lexical items in the sentence There is one woman
in the picture. Being unable to think of a hypothesized form, P04 avoided
these lexical features in the written composition. Since this PFN did not surface
in the participants written product, it was identified as a covert feature by means
of using a total avoidance strategy. Consequently, the reformulated text failed to
provide solutions to the problematic features that were absent from P04s
composition.

Excerpt from P04s composition

P04s verbal report (Stage 1)

54

There is only one woman in the Look, for example, I tried to describe
picture, probably the lady of the house the womans clothes, but I did not know
which seams to supervise the work of how
the men.

to

translate

opinci

(peasant

sandals) or or (apron), so I gave up,

I only said shes present in the picture.

While composing, P02 noticed a linguistic gap concerning the lexical item co de
nuiele (wicker baskets) in English. Thus, this participant wrote wood bins in the
composition as a possible hypothesized form for the object displayed in the
picture. The participants notes and verbal report showed that the idea of
describing the object was not abandoned. In fact, P02 may have tested two
already known terms i.e., the material (wood) and (bin). Since this linguistic
difficulty was addressed in the participants composition, it was categorized as an
overt feature by means of hypothesizing as a writing strategy.
Excerpt from P02s
The

composition
tools they

(buckets,

barrels

P02s notes (Stage 1)

P02s verbal report

(Stage 1)
use I did not know how to say For the expression co
and co de nuiele (wicker de nuiele I translated it

wood bins) show also the baskets) in English.

word for word. I didnt

simple of the village.

know

the

precise

expression, so I tried to
combine

the

words

already knew because so

as to describe the object
and in Romanian we use
the same word co for
both (bin) and (basket).

5.2 Main findings in Stage 2 (Comparison stage)

55

Results from Stage 2 showed that the reformulated texts did help participants to
notice a range of solutions to the lexical, grammatical and discourse-oriented
features which posed difficulties in Stage 1. Firstly, the reformulated versions
helped participants notice solutions to some of their linguistic shortcomings
identified in Stage 1. Secondly, the reformulated feedback texts also helped
participants to notice solutions to some basic errors which went unnoticed in
Stage 1.
Analysis of the data suggested that participants noticing was again focused on
lexis as in Stage 1. Moreover, results also revealed that in some cases,
participants expressed disagreement with some of the solutions incorporated in
the reformulated texts. Finally, this research showed that reformulation used as
feedback method in L2 writing was not successful in addressing covert
problems. All these issues will be further discussed in more detail and will inform
the answers for the research questions and hypotheses addressed in Chapter 3.
5.2.1 Participants lexically-oriented noticing from reformulation
The second research question asked what kind of solutions the Romanian
participants notice while comparing their original drafts with some reformulated
versions. An analysis of the results collected in Stage 2 showed that all four
Romanian participants focused again their attention on searching for lexicallyoriented solutions. Over 57 % of their noticed features were lexical in nature. This
finding is in line with Hanaoka and Izumis research study (2012), in which the
Japanese participants noticed more solutions to their lexical difficulties than to
their grammar and content-oriented problems.
Qi and Lapkin (2001) claimed that reformulation promotes a balanced degree of
noticing at both sentence and discourse levels. However, the present paper
wanted to test this theory based on the hunch that L2 learners exposed to
traditional feedback (focused on lexis and grammar) for a long time may be

56

prompted to notice more features related to lexis and grammar than features
related to discourse. Therefore, the second research question was accompanied
by a hypothesis in which it was suggested that reformulation may favour more
noticing at sentence level than at discourse level. Results from table 4.3 showed
that there was far greater noticing at sentence level (80%) than at discourse level
(20%) mostly due to participants self-initiated focus on lexis. As a result, these
findings do not support Qi and Lapkins theory that reformulation stimulates wellbalanced noticing at sentence and text level.
There is at least one reason to account for the participants high amount of
lexically-oriented noticing during the comparison stage. First, there were 15
instances of covert lexical features by means of partial avoidance (L1 use)
reported in the composition stage. Participants may have wanted to convey a
specific meaning, but did not have the requisite linguistic knowledge and thus,
they preferred to write the unknown lexical features using their L1. As a result, it
may have been easier for these participants to notice a greater number of lexical
solutions from the reformulated texts because they had the Romanian words
written on Model 1 and the English equivalents written on Model 2.
Secondly, the participants lexical focus may have also been influenced by the
methodology experienced in previous years. This result may simply be a sheer
reflection of school correction habits associated with the Romanian context i.e.,
they are used to receiving more feedback at sentence level (lexis and grammar)
than at discourse level (composing level). This view was also shared by LzaroIbarrola (2009), who maintained that the methodology to which learners have
been accustomed has greatly influenced the manner in which they perceive and
process feedback from teachers. Another possibility, as Manchn, Murphy and
Roca de Larios (2007: 152) suggested is that learners have the tendency to pay
more attention to lexis than to other linguistic aspects, particularly when dealing
with open-ended tasks like the one in the current research study.

57

5.2.2. Unnoticed errors resolved by reformulated feedback texts

Table 4.3 from previous chapter showed that participants noticed a total of 84
solutions from the reformulated versions and this number included all three
categories i.e., lexis, grammar and content. Although, these participants reported
noticing only 51 problems during Stage 1, it seems that they noticed a much
higher number of solutions in stage 2 when they had to compare their drafts with
the reformulated texts.
One main reason for this noticeable difference was concerned with the issue of
unnoticed errors. Participants did report a number of 51 linguistic difficulties
during L2 writing, but the analysis showed a greater number of basic errors which
went unnoticed. However, these errors were successfully noticed in the
reformulated texts. For instance, P03 was certain that the noun gsc (goose)
has the same form in the plural. As a result, this participant neither took notes of
this feature, nor verbalized it in Stage 1. However, this feature was successfully
noticed in the reformulated version and was also mentioned in his verbal report.
5.2.3 Cases of agreement and disagreement with the reformulated texts
As opposed to other studies on the noticing function of reformulation, the present
research also concentrated on the participants perceptions of the reformulated
texts and their acceptance or rejection of the changes presented in the
reformulated versions. The underlying reason for this focus was to examine if
reformulation as a pedagogical technique of rewriting an L2 learners composition
can preserve the learners original ideas and content.
Data collected from notes and verbal reports showed that all four Romanian
participants agreed with a great number of solutions noticed in the reformulated
texts, particularly with solutions addressing their grammatical problematic
features which posed difficulties in Stage 1. However, participants reported

58

noticing 6 cases of disagreement with some reformulated parts. Some examples

of agreement and disagreement are provided below.
While writing the composition, P03 tried to describe the stages of the winemaking
process, but failed to express this idea in a coherent and unambiguous manner:
Before it will be wine, the grape juice is called must (unfermented wine) with
minor alcohool. This sentence was reformulated as Before it is turned into wine,
the grape juice is called must or unfermented wine which has less alcohol. P03s
notes and verbal report revealed agreement with the reformulation provided for
the content of this sentence.
Excerpt from

Excerpt from

Accepting

Accepting

P03s

reformulated text

reformulation

reformulation

P03s verbal report

P03s notes

composition

Before it will be Before it is turned Some

wine, the grape into

wine,

sentences

the expressed

in

were A clearer

more description

juice is called grape

juice

is coherent way as opposed to the

must

called

must

or what I wrote. One such winemaking

(unfermented

unfermented wine sentence

wine) with

which

minor alcohool.

alcohol.

has

that

less conveyed

my

totally process.
idea

and

meaning was the one in

which

attempted

to

describe how wine is made.

Its more clear and logical
the way it is written in Model
2.

As opposed to the example presented above, some participants did not agree
with some reformulated parts of their written compositions. For instance, P02
asserted that the original meaning of the sentence The idea of trees tied []
59

of

nature written in Stage 1 was not the same with the one presented in the
reformulated text.
Excerpt from

Excerpt from reformulated

Rejecting

P02s composition

text

reformulation

P02s verbal report

The idea of trees tied with The idea of vines tied to Some ideas
vine shows that nature is trees shows that nature is
near to traditional

at

the

centre

Romanian life and the traditional

of

expressed
in

Model

people have respect for original

nature.

my

the composition were lost

peoples are respecting the Romanian life and that example,

nature.

in
2.

For

in

my

composition

nature is described as
being

significant

the

to

Romanian

traditional life, while in

Model 2 this idea is
formulated as being
central to it, and it is a
huge

difference

of

meaning.

Such instances of disagreement with the solutions provided by the reformulated

versions may have been caused from one significant reason, particularly with
respect to content-oriented features. Each L2 learner contributes with
unparalleled emotional schemata to any language learning event especially in L2
writing. Clearly, the person who becomes engaged in reformulating the
compositions brings a different identity to the reformulation process which may
lead to a loss of meaning. Another possibility as Gilbert (2013: 43) suggested is
that reformulated writing may affect the original content because it also struggles

60

with the problem of poetic license i.e., with alterations brought by the
reformulators unique style or predisposition.
5.2.4 Addressing overt and covert features through reformulation
Table 4.4 from previous chapter showed that this method of feedback addressed
solutions to all overt features deemed problematic in Stage 1. The paper
provides examples of how reformulation addressed overt features (see Appendix
2) However, it did not manage to provide solutions to covert features which
posed difficulties during output production. It included only 10 solutions to the 22
covert features. One reason for the failure of addressing all covert features was
caused by instances in which participants abandoned completely their ideas.
This finding confirmed Hanaoka and Izumis (2012) research results which
showed that the reformulation method cannot address instances of total
avoidance because these do not show up in learners texts, but it can address
instances of partial avoidance that involve the use of the learners L1. As a result,
this study showed that reformulation as a feedback method provided more
solutions to overt features and covert features involving partial avoidance than to
covert features involving idea abandonment and total avoidance.
5.2.5 Participants attitudes towards the reformulation technique as
feedback in L2 writing
At the end of the comparison stage, participants were questioned about their
impressions stirred by the reformulated versions and their effectiveness on
providing clear solutions to the linguistic difficulties experienced during output
production in Stage 1. Participants were also asked if they preferred this
pedagogical technique of receiving feedback in writing or the traditional strategy
to which they were accustomed in Romania (see Appendix 9).

61

P01 asserted that the feedback she received in the form of reformulated writing
was entertaining and forced her to allocate more attention as opposed to the
feedback she used to receive in Romania. It may be inferred from P01s words
that the reformulation determined her to play an active role in the search for
linguistic solutions as opposed to the feedback she used to receive in the past.
Thus, it may be suggested that in P01s case, the reformulated text was
sensitive to her learner needs and motivated her to notice most of the errors she
made.
Well, I think it was difficult, but fun. I havent done this before and it seemed a bit
difficult because I had to pay attention to both texts, but I enjoyed it. In Romania,
I didnt have the patience to read my essays after receiving the teachers
corrections. If my paper was all covered in red I wouldnt even check my
mistakes because seeing all that red was scary.
Similar to P01, P04 also claimed that the reformulated text sounded more
nativelike and that it was appealing to read what she wrote in the original draft
and then check the reformulated text. However, this participant did not express
the same level of preference for this feedback strategy as P01. P04 suggested
that the reformulated version had a rather impersonal style.
Although it helped me understand the nature of my mistakes, some parts from
Model 2 sound very impersonal and very different from the feelings I had when
writing the essay. Im not saying its not a good way to give feedback in writing.
All things considered, it was interesting to see how somebody else understands
and perceives the feelings captured by my writing in English.

5.3 Teaching implications for classroom practice

The effectiveness of reformulation as a feedback method in L2 writing depends
on a number of individual variables like learner preference, learning styles and L2

62

proficiency levels. Moreover, this method should not be measured only by its
intrinsic efficiency, but also by its suitability for the classroom context. The
researcher found the method challenging and time-consuming to reformulate all
four compositions. The issue of not being a native speaker also posed some
difficulties for the researcher who at times, was unsure of how to reformulate.
From a subjective interpretation, reformulation as a strategy to provide feedback
in L2 writing is not applicable to classrooms in Romania on a regular basis,
particularly in large classes of 30 learners. What is more, not all learners in the
classroom have the same level of L2 proficiency thus, some may need help to
notice the gap between their own drafts and the reformulated texts.
Firstly, results revealed that when four L2 learners were engaged in a writing task
they successfully noticed a variety of linguistic difficulties and became aware of
some gaps in their IL. Thus, this paper would recommend teachers in Romania
and in many other educational settings to pay L2 writing the well-deserved
attention it requires so as to create more opportunities for learner noticing of
errors or linguistic shortcomings. Teachers could also assign more time in the
classroom for written output tasks which would implicitly mean more time for
learners to reflect on their language use, hence promoting noticing the gaps or
the mismatches between the meaning they wish to convey and their limited
linguistic resources.
Teachers and L2 researchers have to bear in mind that output does not always
furnish strong evidence of learners cognitive processes in progress. Some of the
learners shortcomings may occur overtly and thus, feedback of some kind can
clarify them, while other difficulties may be concealed, in which case it would be
extremely complicated to give feedback for covert errors. Irrespective of the overt
covert dichotomy, the most important issue taken from an L2 acquisition stance
is that the act of generating written output raises learners awareness of their IL
abilities, which in turn creates auspicious circumstances for language teaching
and learning (Hanaoka and Izumi 2012).

63

Secondly, results obtained from participants verbal reports indicated that it was
challenging and sometimes difficult to focus on comparing two texts. Thus, the
use of reformulation in Romania and in other similar educational settings as a
technique to provide feedback in L2 composing would require some training and
testing beforehand. Teachers are advised to develop some awareness-raising
activities and present some noticing strategies which learners could further use in
an independent and autonomous manner.
It would be more useful for teachers to find out if the issues of nativeness and
nativelike writing are consonant with the needs and goals of language learners.
One pedagogical suggestion would be to provide an L2 composition with
acceptable grammar and lexis, but which would still sound nonnative-like. This
way the teacher could have a kind of pre-discussion in the classroom which may
help learners with assessing their writing not only in terms of lexis and grammar,
but also in terms of style and nativeness.
An additional pedagogical recommendation put forward by Allwright, Woodley
and Allwright (1988: 251), would be to engage learners in common writing tasks
and reformulate just one of the essays followed by a whole-class discussion on
the reformulated version. It would represent a feasible procedure for both parties
and it would still be relevant to the other learners because their compositions
would be on the same topic, thus involving similar output. Although this
procedure may be less motivating for the other learners, since only one
composition would be reformulated, teachers could engage the entire class in a
discussion about the reformulation and the changes that were made. This paper
suggests that a class discussion should be incorporated in this procedure
because teachers could clarify certain points and give rationales for the changes
put forward by the reformulated text. Moreover, a class discussion may be useful
in providing solutions to linguistic difficulties which were not addressed by
learners in written output (covert problems). Such a discussion which involves

64

clarification and rationales would help L2 learners form some hypothesis or

generalizations about native-like writing.
The results of this study also have some implications for L2 learners. It was
previously pinpointed that covert problems cannot be resolved by reformulation.
In order for learners to benefit the most from this feedback method, teachers
could encourage learners to become risk-takers and not refrain from testing their
hypotheses about language. This way, their incorrect hypotheses would show up
in their compositions and reformulation could correct and refine them.

6. Conclusion

65

In light of the research questions posed in chapter 3, the last chapter of this
research study will briefly and directly discuss the answers to these questions.
The final part of this chapter will discuss some limitations of the study and will
provide some suggestions for future pedagogical research.

6.1. Research questions

This research aimed at answering two main research questions and discussing
one hypothesis which emerged from the second question. The study has delved
into the issue of learner noticing from two stances. First, it investigated learner
noticing triggered by written output i.e., learners attempt to generate language.
What is more, the present research examined the type of linguistic difficulties
non-native writers notice in their IL while writing an L2 composition based on an
open-ended picture prompt. Secondly, it investigated the type of linguistic
features non-native speakers notice while comparing their original drafts with
reformulated texts in which their language production was rendered more
targetlike.
6.1.1. Research question ONE
RQ1: What linguistic shortcomings do Romanian participants notice while
working on an output-only writing task (Stage 1 Composing stage)?
The first research question has to do with identifying the types of problematic
features L2 learners experience while formulating a composition given as an
individual writing task. The answer to this question is that all four Romanian
participants noticed a range of linguistic problems while being engaged in output
production. Most of these linguistic difficulties were primarily concerned with lexis
(nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs and prepositions) which was either
hypothesized

(overt

features) or non-hypothesized

by means

of idea

abandonment (covert features). The other and less frequent types of linguistic

66

shortcomings experienced by participants were concerned with grammar

(spelling, subject-verb agreement, verb tense and form, comparative, possessive
marker, speech parts) and with discourse (logical sequencing, style and
sentential clarity). Thus, L2 learners engaged in L2 composing noticed a great
number of lexical problems in their IL followed by a smaller amount of
problematic grammatical and discourse features.
6.1.2. Research question TWO and Hypothesis
RQ2: What do Romanian participants notice while drawing a comparison
between their original drafts and the reformulated versions (Stage 2- Noticing or
comparison stage)? Do they agree or disagree with the changes made?
H(a): Reformulation may favor more noticing at sentence level than at discourse
level.
The results indicated that all four Romanian participants noticed a wide array of
solutions concerned with lexis, grammar and discourse. Moreover, results
showed that participants reported noticing a great number of lexical solutions to
their lexical difficulties experienced in Stage 1. Noticing of grammatical and
discourse solutions was also reported by participants, but in a smaller number
than the lexical ones. Thus, the answer to the first part of this research question
is that L2 learners focused their noticing primarily on recovering solutions to
lexical gaps.
Concerning the second part of this research question, participants notes and
verbal reports revealed their agreement with the changes presented in the
reformulated versions. There were also cases of disagreement, participants
reporting that the meanings they tried to convey were lost during reformulation. A
hypothesis emerged from the second research question. An analysis of the data
showed that reformulation did help participants notice more solutions at sentence

67

level (lexis and grammar) than at content or discourse level (coherence, style
and sentential clarity).

6.2. Limitations and suggestions for further research

The results obtained from this research study can be described as tentative and
some limitations need to be taken into consideration. These results can only be
validated or refuted by repeating the study. With respect to these limitations,
certain suggestions for further research are put forward.
Firstly, data was collected from a small sample of participants. Thus, this study
would need to be replicated and involve a larger sample in order for its findings to
be corroborated. Further research also needs to conduct a more longitudinal
investigation on learners progress. For instance, the field of SLA would benefit
from research studies examining learners progress when engaged in writing
tasks accompanied by reformulated feedback texts over a semester or more.
Secondly, the picture prompt used in this study may be viewed as a limitation. It
remains an open question whether the same results would have been obtained if
learners have got engaged in more open-ended writing tasks. Hanaoka and
Izumi (2012: 344) claimed that not all open-ended pictures cause the same
cognitive and lexical burden. Other pictures may trigger greater grammatical
noticing, depending on their complexity and details. Noticing may also vary
depending on what aspects learners are asked to describe and in how much
detail.
Thirdly, the length of the texts is not necessarily a limitation, but it is definitely an
aspect that may influence the results of the study. Distinct results may be
obtained if the learners drafts and the reformulated feedback texts are longer.
This represents a task-related issue which requires careful consideration in
further research.

68

The findings of this research study raise some questions which pave the way for
future research particularly on the role of individual factors and their influence on
the effectiveness of reformulation. Such an investigation would help teachers
comprehend how learners approach and process reformulated feedback,
depending on their learning styles. Thus, it would be interesting to examine if
nationality or affective variables lead to different results. Furthermore, a
longitudinal study is required so as to investigate if learners attitudes towards
this feedback method undergo any changes over time as a result of learners
increased degree of noticing. Longitudinal studies also need to examine if
reformulating learners texts over a longer period of time would trigger more
noticing at discourse level.
Despite its limitations, this research supports Swain and Lapkins (2002: 287)
claim that written output tasks make L2 learners conscious of their IL resources
and that exposure to reformulated versions can stimulate their noticing.
Moreover, this study not only contributed to the existent empirical data on this
topic, but it also proposed further avenues worthy of being investigated.
However, this paper would argue that the most essential issue to be penciled in
the future research agenda is concerned with learners willingness and ambition
to achieve nativeness in L2 composing.
Some would ponder on whether it is useful and ethical to attempt to manipulate
through reformulation a learners L2 voice, because that voice represents a
learners sheer reflection of identity or goals. Some learners may just desire to
communicate in a clear manner. This goal is not the same with the goal of
achieving nativeness, although teachers may raise learners awareness of
nonnativeness interfering with such goals. In this case, reformulation may not
work for learners who enjoy the distinctive charm that their foreignness adds to
their L2 or for those who are not that interested in identifying themselves with the
target culture.

69

For those L2 learners who do wish to achieve nativeness in L2 writing,

reformulation may provide voice training, particularly to learners who have a low
language level and who are yet to have the requisite linguistic knowledge and
resources to develop a unique personal voice and a sense of ownership for the
English language. Thus, the question whether learners language goals influence
or not the effectiveness of this feedback method in L2 development still remains
open.

15968 words

List of References

70

Adams, R. (2003) L2 Output, reformulation and noticing: implications for IL

development. Language Teaching Research 7 (3), 347-376
Allwright, R.L., Woodley, M.P., and Allwright, J.M. (1988) Investigating
reformulation as a practical strategy for the teaching of academic writing.
Applied Linguistics, 9, 236-256
Barkaoui, K. (2007) Teaching writing to second-language learners: Insights from
theory and research. TESL Reporter 40 (1), 35-48
Cohen, A.D. (1983) Reformulating second language compositions: A potential
source of input for the learner. ERIC ED 228 866, 1-25
Cohen, A.D. (1982) Writing like a native: the process of reformulation. ERIC ED
224-338, 1-23
Dannatt, J. (2010) Reformulation, noticing and the development of L2 academic
writing. in EAP within Higher Education Garden: Cross-Pollination between
disciplines, departments and research. ed. by Wrigglesworth, J. London: Garden
Education, 113-125
Drnyei, Z. (2007) Research methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press
Drnyei, Z., and Kormos, J. (1998) Problem-solving mechanisms in L2
communication: a psycholinguistic perspective. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 20, 349-385
Ellis, R. (1995) Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29,
87-105

71

Gilbert, S.M. (2013) Reformulation of written German from the second language
learners perspective. Minneapolis: CARLA
Hanaoka, O. (2006) Noticing from models and reformulations: a case study of
two Japanese EFL learners. Sophia linguistica, 54, 167-192
Hanaoka, O., and Izumi, S. (2012) Noticing and uptake: Addressing prearticulated covert problems in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,
21, 332-347
Hyland, F. (2000) ESL writers and feedback: giving more autonomy to students.
Language Teaching Research, 4, 33-54
Hyland, F. (1998) The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 255-288
Hyland, K. (2003) Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 17-29
Istrate, M. (2012) Wine fest [online] available from <http://naivepaintingistrate.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/sarbatoarea-vinului.html> [15 May 2014]
Izumi, S., and Bigelow, M. (2000) Does output promote noticing and second
language acquisition?. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239-278
Kim, J.H. (2005) Issues of corrective feedback in second language acquisition.
Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 4 (2), 1-24
Lzaro-Ibarrola, A. (2009) Reformulation and self-correction: Testing the validity
of correction strategies in the classroom. RESLA, 22, 189-215

72

Leki, I. (1992) Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann
Liming, D., and Xiaofang, H. (2011) The efficacy of languge-related noticing for
the improvement of Chinese tertiary-level EFL learners writing proficiency.
Applied Language Studies, 15, 13-40
Mackey, A., and Gass, S.M. (2012) Research Methods in second language
acquisition and a practical guide. Chicester, West Sussex; Malden, Mass: WileyBlackwell
Mackey, A., and Gass, S.M. (2005) Second language research: methodology and
design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Manchn, R.M. (2011) Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and
research. in Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language. ed.
by Manchn, R.M. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 61-82
Manchn, R.M., Murphy, L., and Roca, J. (2007) Lexical retrieval processes and
strategies in second language writing: a synthesis of empirical research. IJES, 7
(2), 149-174
Park, E.S. (2011) Learner-Generated Noticing of written L2 input: What do
learners notice and why? Language Learning, 61 (1), 146-186
Qi, D.S., and Lapkin, S. (2001) Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage
second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277-303
Rahim, F., and Riasati, M.J. (2011) The effect of reformulation on noticing and
subsequent writing development. World Applied Sciences Journal, 13 (6), 13241328

73

Roca de Larios, J. (2013) Second language writing as a psycholinguistic locus

for L2 production and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 444445
Santos, M., Lpez-Serrano, S., and Manchn, R.M. (2010) The differential effect
of two types of direct written corrective feedback on noticing and uptake:
Reformulation vs. error-correction. IJES, 10 (1), 131-154
Schmidt, R.W. (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning.
Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158
Schmidt, R.W., and Frota, S. (1986) Developing basic conversational ability in a
second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. in Talking to
learn: Conversation in second language acquisition. ed. by Day, R.R. Rowley,
MA: Newbury House
Swain, M. (2005) The Ouytput Hypothesis: Theory and research. in Handbook
and research in second language learning and teaching. ed. by Hinkel, E.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 471-484
Swain, M. (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible
input and comprehensible output in its development. in Input in second language
acquisition. ed. by Gass, S., and Madden, C. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 235253
Swain, M., and Lapkin, S. (2002) Talking it through: two French immersion
learners response to reformulation. International Journal of Education Research,
37, 285-304

74

Swain, M., and Lapkin, S. (1995) Problems in output and the cognitive
processes they generate: a step towards second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 16, 371-391
Thornbury, S. (1997) Reformulation and reconstruction: tasks that promote
noticing. ELT Journal, 51, 326-335
Truscott, J. (1998) Noticing in second language acquisition: a critical review.
Second Language Research, 14, 103-135
Van Beuningen, C. (2010) Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical
perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. IJES, 10 (2), 1-27
Williams, J. (2012) The potential role(s) of writing in second language
development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 321-331
Williams, J. (2001) Learner-generated attention to form. in Form-focused
instruction and second language learning. ed. by Rod, E. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishers, 303-346
Yang, L., and Zhang, L. (2010) Exploring the role of reformulations and a model
text in EFL students writing performance. Language Teaching Research, 14,
464-484.

75

Appendices
Appendix 1
Examples of analysis and classification of PFNs in Stage 1 into
lexical, grammatical and content
PFNs were coded into:

lexis (nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs and prepositions)

grammar (spelling, subject-verb agreement, verb tense and form,

comparative, possessive marker, parts of speech)

content (logical sequencing of ideas, style and sentential clarity)

Lexis
Limited lexical
resources

Excerpts

Participants notes or

from compositions
verbal reports (Stage 1)
[] for squizing to drink Let me see. Oh yes,
from a mug made by another
mud.

word

which

posed

difficulties

can

de

was

lut-ceramic

mug. I knew how to say

can-mug, but I didnt
know how to say lutclay. I know lut-clay is
made of noroi-mud. So,
I made a combination of
Limited lexical
resources

The

they

mug and mud.

use For the expression co

barrels

and de nuiele I translated it

tools

(buckets,

wood bins) show also word for word. I didnt

[]

know

76

the

precise

expression, so I tried to
combine

the

words

already knew because so

as to describe the object
and in Romanian we use
the same word co for
Limited lexical

both (bin) and (basket).

For heaviest things they I realized I wanted to say

resources

are using a kart with a cru cart/wagon and

donky for carring.

Im not sure if the spelling

is correct If its with a
c or k. And it was even
more difficult to say tras
de mgar driven by a

Limited lexical
resources

Evens

the

birds

donkey.
like I thought for a while how

ducks or goose are liking to say a ciuguli to

the

grapes.

They

are peck, but the only way I

picking up some grapes could translate it was by

from the ground.

saying a ridica boabele

de pe jos to pick up the
grapes from the ground.

Grammar

Excerpts from

Participants notes or

compositions
verbal reports (Stage 1)
Wrong part of speech: The two man sitting with I dont know if I wrote
adjective instead of the their
noun hard work)

belly

up

are hard working correctly. I

(extenuai) by the hard wanted to say that some

working already done by people from the picture
now.

are tired from all the

munc

77

grea

hard

Wrong spelling:

work.
The people are dress Im not

Licquer instead of liquor

such as regular

sure

of

the

spelling of several words.

Romanian peasants in a Lichior-liquor

is

one

tipical yard when at the such word. I wrote it the

same time when some way it sounded.
are working other are
enjoying already
Dyonisoss licquer.
Incomplete possessive [] I used to see them at I always have problems
marker:

my grand-parents farm.

with

placing

after

Apostrophe not placed at

nouns in the plural. Im

the end - grandparents

not sure if there should

be anything else between
grand-parents

Subject verb

and farm.
[] and everybody do There are some grammar

disagreement

something at the same issues of which Im not

time in the yard []

very sure. For instance, I

dont know if everybody
is followed by a singular
verb or a plural one. I
chose to use a verb in
the plural, because in
Romanian

toi

everybody is followed by
a verb in the plural form.
Im not sure if its the
Content

Excerpts

same in English.
Participants notes or

from compositions
verbal reports (Stage 1)
Inability to describe the White and peace, the Im not sure if the word
feelings stirred by the picture show aggitation aggitation is a word in
78

picture

[]

the English language. I

wanted to say that its
very noticeable from the
picture that people are
very agitated as if they

were pressed for time.

The need is to pass I used the verb to pass

Limited linguistic

resources in describing winter too.

in

why

need is to pass winter

people

look

agitated in the picture

the

sentence

The

because I was trying to

say that people in the
countryside

work

hard

while making wine and

they look agitated while
working

because

they

need to finish it before

winter comes.

Examples of analysis and classification of features noticed (FNs) from

reformulation (Stage 2)
FNs were coded into:

79

lexis (nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs and prepositions)

grammar (spelling, subject-verb agreement, verb tense and form,

comparative, possessive marker, parts of speech)

content (logical sequencing of ideas, style and sentential clarity)

Lexical PFNs in Stage 1

Solvable lexis noticed

Participants notes and

from reformulated

verbal reports (Stage 2)

For heaviest things they For

texts
carrying

heavier Now I know that cru

are using a kart with a things they are using a is cart or wagon and
donky for carring.

Evens

the

birds

donkey drawn cart/

cru tras de mgar

wagon.

can be translated into

donkey drawn cart.

like Even birds (poultry) like So, the verb is to peck,

ducks or goose are liking ducks or geese like the birds peck I know it
the

grapes. They

are grapes which they are was a word starting with

picking up some grapes pecking from the ground.

a p, but thats all I knew

from the ground.

The tools they

use The

(buckets,

and (buckets, barrels, wicker some

barrels

tools

they

then.
use At the first meeting I had
problems

with

wood bins) show also baskets) also show []

some words and now, in

[]

Model 2 I see some

answers to my problems.
It seems that wood bins
was

incorrect,

as

presumed and the correct

form is wicker baskets. I
presume wicker means
nuiele in Romanian.
[] for squizing to drink [] to squeeze the juice I saw in Model 2, the
from a mug made by and drink it from a clay word ceramic in ceramic
mud.

mug/ handcrafted

80

mug. I dont know why I

ceramic mug

didnt think of it because

we have this word in
Romanian. Im not sure
whats clay. Ill check the
dictionary

when

get

home.
The big barrells and the The big barrels and the I had some unknown
(scar) picture (mrimea) ladder show the size of words in my composition
of the barrell and the the

barrel

and

the and

found

their

(cantitate) of grapes and quantity of grapes and translation in Model 2.

wine to be for winter.

wine

needed

for

the One sentence in which I

winter supply of wine.

had a lot of unknown

words was the last one in
which I didnt know how
to

say

cantitate,

mrime. I also wrote

scar because I wasnt
sure if it was ladder or
latter .

Grammatical PFNs in

Solvable grammar

Participants notes and

Stage 1

noticed from

verbal reports (Stage 2)

reformulated
Wrong part of speech

texts
The two men lying belly So, it should be hard

The two man sitting with up are exhausted from all work, not hard working.
their

belly

up

are the hard work that was Yeah, I get it now. I think I

81

(extenuai) by the hard already done by now.

was confused. You use

working already done by

hard working when you

now.

describe a person who

works a lot. Yes, it should
Misspelling

be hard work here.

The people are dressed As I told you at the first

The people are dress in traditional Romanian

such as regular

meeting, I have some

clothes, commonly worn problems

Romanian peasants in a by peasants. They are spelling.

with

my

was

sure

tipical yard when at the sjown in a typical yard licquer is not the correct
same time when some where some are working way to spell it, but I didnt
are working other are while others are already know how else to spell it.
enjoying already

enjoying Dyonisoss

So, its liquor.

Dyonisoss licquer.
liquor.
Incomplete possessive

In Model 2, theres an

marker:

apostrophe after

Apostrophe not placed at

grandparents. Why is it

the end - grandparents

just

the

apostrophe?

Theres usually an s at
the end of a noun to refer
[] I used to see them at [] I used to see at my to
my grand-parents farm.

grandparents farm.

something

belongs

to

that

someone.

Maybe the s is missing

because it refers to more
than one person? Hmm,
Subject verb

Ill check this out.

Yeah, I remember having

Disagreement

that

problem

everybody

with

because

[] and everybody do [] everybody is dealing didnt know if its followed

something at the same with different tasks in the by a singular or plural
time in the yard []

yard at the same time.

82

verb. I used a plural verb

because in Romanian we
use the plural form, but I
see its the opposite in
English.

So,

its

the

opposite, right.

Content and discourse-oriented features noticed from reformulation (Stage 2)

Excerpt from

Content and discourse

Participants notes and

compositions

features noticed from

verbal reports (Stage 2)

reformulation

83

Before it will be wine, the Before it is turned into Some sentences were
grape

juice

(must)

is

with

alcohool.

called wine, the grape juice is expressed

minor called

must

in

more

or coherent way as opposed

unfermented wine which to what I wrote. One such

has less alcohol.

sentence

that

totally

conveyed my idea and

meaning was the one in
which

describe

attempted

to

how

is

wine

made. Its more clear and

logical

the

way

it

is

written in Model 2. A
clearer description of the
winemaking process.
The people are dress The people are dressed I thought the structure
such

as

regular in traditional Romanian regular Romanian

Romanian peasant in a clothes, commonly worn peasant was correct. I

tipical yard when at the by peasants. They are think Ive heard it before.
same time when some shown in a typical yard It

doesnt

sound

that

are working other are where some are working strange. Maybe it would
[]

while others are []

have been better if I used

the adjective common
instead

of

regular.

Anyway, I think it does

sound better the way it is
written in Model 2. It
sounds

far

better

Model 2.
The fact that the house The fact that the house After comparing
is empty (ne arata) that is

empty

makes

in
both

us texts, I realized that my

everybody is out in the believe that everybody is sentences are too long. I
yard working even the working outside in the tried to put a lot of details
84

womans of the house yard. Even the women of in my sentences and the
when, usually they are in the house are outside, meaning is
the house cooking or though they usually stay

incomprehensible. The

cleaning but not working inside to cook or clean.

sentence

outside.

The

starting

with

that

the

fact

house is too long and

after you finish reading it
sounds

horrible.

You

cant understand a thing.

Its much clearer in Model
2. The sentences are
shorter and more logical.
And the text looks better
organized.

Appendix 2
Problematic features deemed overt in participants compositions.
Participants notes and verbal reports revealed how they tried to hypothesize
these problematic features (PFs). The following table shows how these overt
features were approached by reformulation.

85

Excerpts from compositions

Reformulation addressing

containing

overt features

overt features
[] to help each other to make wine

[] to help each other in the process

and to selebrate the end of Autumn.

of winemaking and to celebrate the

[] when some are working other are

end of autumn.
[] where some are working while

enjoying already Dyonisoss licquer.

others are already enjoying Dyonisoss

liquor.
The two men sitting with their belly up The two men lying belly up are []
are []
[] by the hard-working already done [] from all the hard-work that was
by now.
already done by now.
The making of the wine
Winemaking
[] is just one women in the yard and [] theres only one woman outside
no light from the house []
and no lights on inside the house.
[] a group of peoples who are doing [] a group of people who are making
wine.
wine.
They present in the picture how they It is shown how people harvest
are collecting grapes []
The need is to pass winter too.

grapes []
They all work to survive the winter

period.
The tools they use (buckets, barrels The tools they use (buckets, barrels,
and wood bins) show also []
wicker baskets) also show []
[] but probably being drunk have [] those who are probably drunk
their role in this process.
and just sit on the ground []
The tools they use [] show also the The tools they use []also show the
simple of the village.
simple life of the village.
[] and everybody do something at [] because everybody is dealing
the same time in the yard []
with different tasks in the yard []
The house, being empty and no light The house is illustrated as being empty
in shows that all []
with no lights on inside []
White and peace, the picture show The picture illustrates an agitated
aggitation []
atmosphere because []
[] shows that nature is near to [] shows that nature is at the centre

86

traditional Romanian life []

of the traditional Romanian life []
[] a lot of them are trying from [] a lot of them are trying to work
scratche to process grapes from wine together from scratch and process the
[]

grapes which are picked from the

vines.
[] put all grapes in a huge barrell to The grapes are pressed to extract
be pressed to take the liquid out in a the juice in a bucket.
bucket.
Evens the birds like ducks or goose Even birds (poultry) like ducks or
are liking the grapes. They are picking geese like the grapes which they are
up some grapes from the ground.
pecking from the ground.
For heaviest things they are using a For carrying heavier things they are
kart with a donky for carring.
using a donkey drawn cart/wagon.
[] for squizing to drink from a mug [] squeeze the juice and drink it from
made by mud.

a clay mug/ handcrafted ceramic

mug.
[] the wine is extended on the three [] the vines are tied to the trees like
like a (parazit).
a parasite.
All peoples are out from the house to All people are out of the house to help
help in wine making.
in the winemaking process.
Maybe they allready tried the taste of Probably they have already tasted the
the new processed liquid.
Big wooden drums, pots

freshly squeezed liquid.

nicely Big wooden barrels, nicely painted

painted with traditional motives []

pots with traditional motives []
[] somewhere on the country side, [] in the countryside, between the
between the hills.
hills.
There are two men laying on the There are two men lying on the
ground []
ground []
My grand parents used to have a little My grandparents used to have a small
farm, very similar with the one shown farm, very similar to the one shown in
in the picture.
the picture.
[] I used to see them at my grand- [] I used to see at my grandparents
parents farm.
Note:

farm.

The above features are mentioned in participants notes and verbal

reports. The features are considered overt because they showed up in
87

the written texts despite the fact that participants were not sure of their
accuracy. Participants hypothesized these problematic features in their
writing.

Other examples of problematic features noticed (PFNs) in Stage 1 which

were considered overt features.
The following tables provide examples of participants noticing as revealed in
their notes and verbal reports (Stage 1)
Problematic features that became overt in P01s composition
Excerpt from P01s composition
P01s verbal report (Stage 1)
Even thou is just one woman in the I have big problems with prepositions
yard and no light from the house is in English. I tried to find a correct way
(ciudat)
outside.

that

only

one

woman

is of saying cu lumina stins- with the

lights off but my mind couldnt work out
a solution. It seemed easier to write no
light from the house. You can still get
the message even though it sounds as
if you learnt English from your Physics
teacher.

88

Excerpt from P01s composition

P01s notes (Stage 1)
The people are dress such as regular Im not sure of the spelling of several
Romanian peasants in a tipical yard words. Lichior-liquor is one such word.
when at the same time when some are I wrote it the way it sounded.
working other are enjoying already
Dyonisoss licquer.

Problematic features that became overt in P02s composition

Excerpt from P02s

P02s notes (Stage 1)

P02s verbal report

composition
The tools they

(Stage 1)
use I did not know how to say For the expression co

(buckets,

and co de nuiele (wicker de nuiele I translated it

barrels

wood bins) show also the baskets) in English.

word for word. I didnt

simple of the village.

know

the

precise

expression, so I tried to
combine

the

words

already knew because so

as to describe the object
and in Romanian we use
the same word co for
both (bin) and (basket).

Excerpt from P02s composition

P02s verbal report (Stage 1)
White and peace, the picture show There are some grammar issues of
aggitation and everybody do something which Im not very sure. For instance, I
89

at the same time in the yard []

dont know if everybody is followed by

a singular verb or a plural one. I chose
to use a verb in the plural, because in
Romanian toi everybody is followed
by a verb in the plural form. Im not
sure if its the same in English.

Excerpt from P02s composition

P02s notes (Stage 1)
White and peace, the picture show Im not sure if the word aggitation is a
aggitation and everybody do something word in the English language. I wanted
at the same time in the yard []

to say that its very noticeable from the

picture that people are very agitated as
if they were pressed for time.

Problematic features that became overt in P03s composition

Excerpt from P03s composition
P03s notes (Stage 1)
[] to process grapes from wine by I tried to say a extrage lichidul-to
collecting them and put all grapes in a extract the juice but I wasnt sure about
huge barrell to be pressed to take the a extrage. I preferred an easy option
liquid out in a bucket.

and I said to take the liquid out.

Excerpt from P03s composition

P03s verbal report (Stage 1)
Three peoples are throwing the Let me see. Oh yes, another word
baskets fully with grapes in the barrell which posed difficulties was can de
for squizing to drink from a mug made lut-ceramic mug. I knew how to say
by mud.

can-mug, but I didnt know how to

say lut-clay. I know lut-clay is made
of

noroi-mud.

So,

made

combination of mug and mud.

Problematic features that became overt in P04s composition

90

Excerpt from P04s composition

P04s verbal report in (Stage 1)
There are two men laying on the I never know the difference between
ground []

using laying and lying. I mean I know

how to use them in the present form,
but I have no idea when to use them
when theres an ing.

Problematic features deemed covert in participants compositions, notes

and verbal reports.
The following 15 examples refer to problematic features (PFs) deemed covert in
participants compositions. These are covert features by means of partial
avoidance (the use of L1). The table below shows how these features were
resolved by reformulation.
Excerpts from

Reformulation addressing covert

compositions containing

features (partial avoidance)

covert features (partial avoidance)

The image show how on country side The image shows how people from the
people (se adun) to help each other countryside gather to help each other
[]
[]
The donkey is watching how his The donkey is watching his owners
owners are working and probably is working and hes probably asking for
asking for some (fn).
some hay.
The two man sitting with their belly up The two men lying belly up are
are (extenuai) by the hard working exhausted from all the hard work that
already done by now.
was already done by now.
The (cru) being with grapes and The wagon/cart is filled with grapes
the baskets show that the people still and baskets, showing that the villagers
have a lot of work ahead of them.
still have a lot of work ahead of them.
The fact that the house is empty (ne The fact that the house is empty
arat) that everybody is out in the yard makes us believe that everybody is

91

working even the womans of the house working outside in the yard.
when, usually []
Even thou is just one woman in the It is strange that theres only one
yard and no light from the house is woman outside and no lights on inside
(ciudat) that only one woman is the house.
outside.
The big barrells and the (scar) The big barrels and the ladder show
picture (mrimea) of the barrell and the the size of the barrel and the quantity
(cantitate) of grapes and wine to be for of grapes and wine needed for the
winter.
winter supply of wine.
They present in the picture how they In the picture, it is shown how people
are collecting grapes and how that harvest grapes and how the grape juice
juice (fermenteaz).

is turned into alcohol by means of

fermentation.
The colors in the image are calm and The colors in the image are the same
warm like are in autumn day to collect calm and warm colors of autumn days,
the grapes and doing wine and first when grapes are harvested and turned
(must) which is the drink formed first into wine. Before being turned into
before wine is created.

wine, the juice is transformed into

unfermented wine, also called must.

This bucket will be put in another This bucket will be poured in another
barrell to (fermenta).
barrel in order to ferment.
Before it will be wine, the grape juice is Before it is turned into wine, the grape
called (must) with minor alcohool.

juice is called must or unfermented

wine which has less alcohol.

The house is a normal house small, The house is small and its style is
like all villages houses and the garden common

to

all

houses

in

the

is huge and grapes are growing in countryside. The garden is large and
threes because the wine is extended grapes grow in trees because the vines
on the three like a (parazit).
are tied to the trees like a parasite.
A little house with, a red roof, animals Theres a small house with a red roof,
around the yard, and people (zdrobind animals

in

the

yard

and

people

strugurii) grapes for turning them into squeezing grapes to turn them into
wine.

wine.
92

Other examples of problematic features noticed (PFNs) in Stage 1 which

were considered covert features (partial avoidance and total avoidance)
The following tables provide examples of participants noticing as revealed in
their notes and verbal reports (Stage 1)
Problematic features that became covert (partial avoidance) in P01s composition
P01s verbal report (Stage 1)
P01s notes (Stage 1)
I had some vocabulary problems, I I didnt know how to translate se adun
didnt know how to say certain words in gaher, fn hay, extenuai
English and I wanted to keep my ideas. exhausted, cru wagon/cart, ne
For instance, there are certain words arat makes us, ciudat strange,
which I wrote in Romanian such as scar ladder.
mrime-size, cantitate
-quantity, ciudat strange, ne arata
makes us, fn hay. I chose an easy
way and I put the Romanian version
between

brackets.

know

that

shouldnt do that and that I should have

work out some solutions, but I couldnt
find solutions for those words.
Problematic features that became covert (partial avoidance) in P02s composition
P02s verbal report (Stage 1)
P02s notes (Stage 1)
I had some difficulties with two words I had no idea how to translate must
like fermenteaz to ferment and unfermented wine and fermenteaz
must unfermented wine when I tried to ferment. I tried to think of a synonym

93

to describe the winemaking process in but I was unsuccessful. So, I wrote

the countryside.

those words in Romanian. But I tried to

explain the word must by writing
which is the drink formed first, before
wine is created.

Problematic features that became covert (partial avoidance) in P03s composition

P03s verbal report (Stage 1)
P03s notes (Stage 1)
There were words like parazit I didnt know must, fermenta, parazit.
parasite, must unfermented wine,
fermenta to ferment which I wrote in
Romanian because I didnt know how
to translate them in English.
Problematic features that became covert (partial avoidance) in P04s composition
P04s verbal report (Stage 1)
P04s notes (Stage 1)
There were some details in the picture Difficulty in saying a zdrobi to
which I dont remember using them in squeeze in the context of a zdrobi
English and I didnt know how to strugurii. Maybe crushing the grapes?
translate them like a zdrobi - squeeze
in the context of squeezing the grapes.
I

though

grapes,

of
but

saying
it

crushing

seemed

the

forced

translation.
Problematic features that became covert (total avoidance) in P01s composition
Excerpt from P01s composition
P01s verbal report (Stage 1)
The young are carrying the baskets I wanted to say co de nuiele wicker
the baskets when the old are passed baskets, but I didnt know nuiele
out from being drunk with empty wicker, so I wrote only baskets.

94

pitchers.
Problematic features that became covert (total avoidance) in P03s composition
Excerpt from P03s composition
P03s verbal report (Stage 1)
The house is a normal house small, While describing the house and the
like all villages houses and the garden garden I tried to include igl tile, but
is huge and grapes are growing in I realized I dont know the English
threes because the wine is extended equivalent. In fact I dont remember
on the three like a (parazit).

having to use it before.

Problematic features that became covert (total avoidance) in P04s composition

Excerpt from P04s composition
P04s verbal report (Stage 1)
There is only one woman in the Look, for example, I tried to describe
picture, probably the lady of the house the womans clothes, but I did not know
which seams to supervise the work of how to translate opinci - peasant
the men.

sandals or or apron, so I gave up,

I only said shes present in the picture.

Appendix 3

95

Unnoticed errors in Stage 1 resolved by reformulation (Stage 2)

Unnoticed errors

Unnoticed errors

Participants noticing in

in compositions

resolved by

Stage 2

Evens

the

birds

reformulation
like Even birds (poultry) like I didnt know goose has

ducks or goose are liking ducks or geese like the a plural form. I thought it
the grapes.

grapes which they are was similar to sheep. I

pecking from the ground.

couldnt believe it. All this

time I used goose only.

Some of them are lazy Some of them are lazy The construction with
and

preffer

to

instead of working.

sleep and prefer sleeping to prefer + ING verb + to +

working.

IING verb is indeed more

accurate. We have this
construction in
Romanian, but we use n
loc s which would be
instead in English. Most
of the time I do that. I
think in Romanian when I
write in English. So, in
English we use to, not
instead and we add ing to the verbs when we
want

to

something.
For heaviest things they For carrying heavier/ the Oh
yeah

compare
in

my

are using a kart with a heaviest things they are composition I wanted to
donky for carring.

using a donkey drawn say mai grele - heavier,

cart/wagon.

not cele mai grele- the

Heaviest. I mistook the
superlative

96

with

the

comparative. Yes, its the

-est

ending

for

superlatives.

Other errors which went unnoticed in Stage 1, but which were noticed by
participants in the reformulated versions:
the taste of the new processed liquid
stronger then
supervizer
tipical
minor alcohool

the freshly squeezed liquid

stronger than
supervisor
typical
less alcohol

97

Appendix 4
Cases of lexical-oriented and content-oriented disagreement with reformulation (Stage 2)
Lexical-oriented disagreement
Excerpt from

Excerpt from

Rejecting reformulation

P04s composition
reformulated text
P04s verbal reports
I said seeing this picture made me I said to myself that this picture made I dont know what to say about this
smile because it reminded me of my me smile because it reminded me of sentence. I dont understand why the
childhood.

my childhood.

pronoun myself was added. It still

keeps the same meaning, but the
sentence sounds very impersonal as
opposed to the feelings I had while

writing.
The representation of the tools they The representation of the tools they I dont think

drums needed to be

are using is really amazing. Big are using is really amazing. Big replaced by barrels because I know
wooden drums, pots nicely painted wooden barrels, pots nicely painted for sure that a drum is a wooden
with traditional motives, I used to see with traditional motives, I used to see recipient for storing liquids, so its not
them at my grand-parents farm.

them at my grand-parents farm.

incorrect. Its a synonym and it refers

to the same object.

The picture has very nice contrasts of The picture has a very nice contrast of Its the same with enjoyment for the

98

colours, green, brown, the blue of the colours: green, brown, the blue of the eye, I dont consider it needs to be
sky and the multicoloured leeves are sky and the multicoloured leaves, all

changed into a delight to the eye

making of this picture an enjoyment for these making this picture a delight to because they are synonyms. Words
the eye.

the eye.

can be synonymical, but they dont

always capture the same idea. In this
case, I dont think a delight to the eye
fully captures the depth of my idea. It
feels like this expression does not
capture the entire enjoyment. And
delight reduces the intensity of the
feeling.

Content-oriented disagreement
Excerpt from

Excerpt from

Rejecting reformulation

P02s composition
reformulated text
P02s verbal reports
The colors in the image are calm and The colors in the image are the same There were some parts with which I
warm like are in autumn day to collect calm and warm colors of autumn days, disagreed. For instance, in the second
the grapes and doing wine and first when grapes are harvested and turned paragraph I wanted to say that the
(must) which is the drink formed first into wine.

colors that were used indicate the

before wine is created.

painters choice to create a sensation

associated with autumn. But in this

99

model, it feels like the sentence says

that the painter was inspired by
autumn and thats why he chose these
colors. Its different from what I wrote in
my composition.
The idea of vine tied to trees shows The idea of vines tied to trees shows Some ideas expressed
that nature

is

near

to

in

my

traditional that nature is at the centre of the composition were lost in Model 2. For

Romanian life and the Peoples are traditional Romanian life and that example, in my original composition
respecting the nature.

people have respect for nature.

nature is described as being significant

to the Romanian traditional life, while in
Model 2 this idea is formulated as
being central to it, and it is a huge
difference in meaning.

The need is to pass winter too.

They all work to survive the winter In my composition I wanted to say that
period.

winemaking is both a habit and a

hobby for Romanian villagers and that
they have to do this before winter
comes. I know I didnt translate it
correctly but this is what I had in mind.
However, the sentence in Model 2

100

changed my idea completely, as if

Romanian

villagers

engage

in

winemaking because its a necessity

for them or as if they cant survive
without wine during winter.

101

Appendix 5
Materials given in Stage 1

picture prompt

Sheet 1 (for writing the compositions)

Sheet 2 (for talking notes of language difficulties)

Training session (think-aloud protocols)

PICTURE PROMPT

Participant code: P01/P02/P03/P04

Write a story based on what you see in the picture describing the event, peoples
work and the background in about 300 words.
You will be provided with two sheets: Sheet 1 and Sheet 2
Please write the story on Sheet 1.

102

While writing the story on Sheet 1, please follow the directions indicated at the top of
Sheet 2 and write down on Sheet 2 whatever language problems you experienced
WHILE writing the story.
Participant code: P01/P02/P03/P04
SHEET 1 story writing (individual task)
Write a story in English based on what you see in the picture describing the event,
peoples work and the background in about 300 words.

103

Participant code: P01/P02/P03/P04

SHEET 2 language difficulties
Write down any language problems you encountered WHILE writing the story. You
can use the following examples to express your problems.
e.g: I dont know how to say X in English
I wrote X, but Im not sure if that is the word in English
I dont know/ Im not sure of the past tense of X
Im not sure how to say X in English to express
However, you are not compelled to use the above-mentioned examples. You can
express the problems you encounter in whatever way you like as long as they are
clear.

104

Mini-session for training participants how to think-aloud

The last part of stage 1 involved a short training session (10 minutes) helping
participants understand how to think aloud i.e. to verbalize their ideas and thoughts
concerning the language difficulties they faced while writing the stories. During these
think-aloud protocols, the participants entered the room one by one so as to avoid
any uncomfortable feelings. Thus, the recording took place only when the participant
and the researcher were in the room. There was no time limit for the participants to
express their struggles.

In the short training session, the participants were told the following:
Imagine youve been living in Germany for one month only and your German is really
poor. Imagine one day you have to go to the market and to the bank. That day you
had some problems while trying to talk in German. Later that day, you were having a
cup of coffee with your Romanian neighbour who knows German better than you and
agreed to help you. Your friend asks you what were your language problems and you
may start by saying:

I didnt know how to say the word xxxxx in German

I found it difficult to express the Romanian phrase xxxxxxxxx in German

I didnt know the past version of the Romanian verb xxxx in German

It was difficult to say xxxxxx

For a few minutes, participants were required to say out loud some similar examples
or practise the above-mentioned examples.

105

(Participants were informed that the above starting sentences were not mandatory to
use and that these were given as examples; The above sentences were written in
Romanian on a slide in front of the participants and were kept in front of them while
they were thinking aloud about their language troubles).

106

Appendix 6
Notes and transcribed recordings from Stage 1

Sample notes taken by P01 while writing the composition

Participant code: P01

SHEET 2 language difficulties
Write down any language problems you encountered WHILE writing the story. You
can use the following examples to express your problems.
e.g: I dont know how to say X in English
I wrote X, but Im not sure if that is the word in English
I dont know/ Im not sure of the past tense of X
Im not sure how to say X in English to express
However, you are not compelled to use the above-mentioned examples. You can
express the problems you encounter in whatever way you like as long as they are
clear.

Im not sure of the spelling of several words. Lichior-liquor is one such word. I
wrote it the way it sounded. Or selebrate. Im not sure if its with an s

I didnt know how to translate se adun gaher, fn hay, extenuai

exhausted, cru wagon/cart, ne arat makes us, ciudat strange,
scar ladder
107

co de nuiele; I dont know how to say nuiele wicker.

I dont know the correct preposition for lumini stinse lights off

sitting with their belly up, Im not sure its correct. It sounds too Romanian

Sample notes taken by P02 while writing the composition

Participant code: P02

SHEET 2 language difficulties
Write down any language problems you encountered WHILE writing the story. You
can use the following examples to express your problems.
e.g: I dont know how to say X in English
I wrote X, but Im not sure if that is the word in English
I dont know/ Im not sure of the past tense of X
Im not sure how to say X in English to express
However, you are not compelled to use the above-mentioned examples. You can
express the problems you encounter in whatever way you like as long as they are
clear.

I did not know how to say co de nuiele (wicker baskets) in English.

108

I had no idea how to translate must unfermented wine and fermenteaz to

ferment. I tried to think of a synonym but I was unsuccessful. So, I wrote those
words in Romanian. But I tried to explain the word must by writing which is
the drink formed first, before wine is created.

Im not sure if the word aggitation is a word in the English language. I wanted
to say that its very noticeable from the picture that people are very agitated as
if they were pressed for time.

Sample notes taken by P03 while writing the composition

Participant code: P03

SHEET 2 language difficulties
Write down any language problems you encountered WHILE writing the story. You
can use the following examples to express your problems.
e.g: I dont know how to say X in English
I wrote X, but Im not sure if that is the word in English
I dont know/ Im not sure of the past tense of X
Im not sure how to say X in English to express
However, you are not compelled to use the above-mentioned examples. You can
express the problems you encounter in whatever way you like as long as they are
clear.

109

I tried to say a extrage lichidul-to extract the juice but I wasnt sure about a
extrage. I preferred an easy option and I said to take the liquid out.

I didnt know must, fermenta, parazit.

I have no idea how to say caruta trasa de magari- donkey drawn wagon. Im
not sure if caruta is cart or kart

I dont know how to say birds ciugulesc-peck in English

Sample notes taken by P04 while writing the composition

Participant code: P04

SHEET 2 language difficulties
Write down any language problems you encountered WHILE writing the story. You
can use the following examples to express your problems.
e.g: I dont know how to say X in English
I wrote X, but Im not sure if that is the word in English
I dont know/ Im not sure of the past tense of X
Im not sure how to say X in English to express
However, you are not compelled to use the above-mentioned examples. You can
express the problems you encounter in whatever way you like as long as they are
clear.

110

Difficulty in saying a zdrobi to squeeze in the context of a zdrobi strugurii.

Maybe crushing the grapes?

I wanted to write about the ceramic mugs, but I dont know how to say lut-clay

I didnt know how to say sort-apron or opinci-peasant sandals. Also, I dont

know how they refer in English to proces de fabricare a vinului winemaking
process

111

Recordings from Stage 1

Recording Participant 01 (Quotes)
Interviewer: What language difficulties did you experience while writing the
composition?
P01: I have big problems with prepositions in English. I tried to find a correct way of
saying cu lumina stins- with the lights off but my mind couldnt work out a solution. It
seemed easier to write no light from the house. You can still get the message even
though it sounds as if you learnt English from your Physics teacher []
I had some vocabulary problems, I didnt know how to say certain words in English
and I wanted to keep my ideas. For instance, there are certain words which I wrote in
Romanian such as mrime-size, cantitate -quantity, ciudat strange, ne arata
makes us, fn hay. I chose an easy way and I put the Romanian version between
brackets. I know that I shouldnt do that and that I should have work out some
olutions, but I couldnt find solutions for those words []
I wanted to say co de nuiele wicker baskets, but I didnt know nuiele wicker, so
I wrote only baskets []

Recording Participant 02 (Quotes)

Interviewer: What language difficulties did you experience while writing the
composition?
112

P02: For the expression co de nuiele I translated it word for word. I didnt know the
precise expression, so I tried to combine the words I already knew because so as to
describe the object and in Romanian we use the same word co for both (bin) and
(basket) []
There are some grammar issues of which Im not very sure. For instance, I dont
know if everybody is followed by a singular verb or a plural one. I chose to use a
verb in the plural, because in Romanian to i everybody is followed by a verb in the
plural form. Im not sure if its the same in English []
I had some difficulties with two words like fermenteaz to ferment and must
unfermented wine when I tried to describe the winemaking process in the countryside
[]
Im not sure if aggitation is a word in English. I used it to describe the characters in
the picture, they look troubled as if they are in a hurry to finish their job []

Recording Participant 03 (Quotes)

Interviewer: What language difficulties did you experience while writing the
composition?
P03: Let me see. Oh yes, another word which posed difficulties was can de lutceramic mug. I knew how to say can-mug, but I didnt know how to say lut-clay. I
know lut-clay is made of noroi-mud. So, I made a combination of mug and mud
[]

113

There were words like parazit parasite, must unfermented wine, fermenta to
ferment which I wrote in Romanian because I didnt know how to translate them in
English []
While describing the house and the garden I tried to include igl tile, but I realized
I dont know the English equivalent. In fact I dont remember having to use it before
[]
There were a lot of utensils I didnt know how to translate them like carafa de vinpitcher, opinci peasant sandals []

Recording Participant 03 (Quotes)

Interviewer: What language difficulties did you experience while writing the
composition?
P03: Look, for example, I tried to describe the womans clothes, but I did not know
how to translate opinci (peasant sandals) or or (apron), so I gave up, I only said
shes present in the picture []
I never know the difference between using laying and lying. I mean I know how to
use them in the present form, but I have no idea when to use them when theres an
ing []
There were some details in the picture which I dont remember using them in English
and I didnt know how to translate them like a zdrobi - squeeze in the context of
squeezing the grapes. I though of saying crushing the grapes, but it seemed a forced
translation []

114

Appendix 7
Materials given in Stage 2

original compositions (Model 1)

reformulated texts (Model 2) and participants underlined linguistic

features

Sheet 3 (for taking notes of features they notice)

P01s original composition

Participant code: P01
MODEL 1 (FISA 1)
The making of the wine
The image show how on country side people (se aduna) to help each other to
make wine and to selebrate the end of Autumn. The people are dress such as a
regular Romanian peasant in a tipical yard when at the same time when some are
working other are enjoying already Dyonisoss licquer.
Some animals are eating from the grapes that probably were stolen. The
donkey is watching how his owners are working and probably is asking for some

115

(fn). The two man sitting with their belly up are (extenuati) by the hard working
already done by now.
This picture is the image of a whole family working together to obtain the wine
to drink in the winter. The (cru) being with grapes and the baskets show that the
people still have a lot of work ahead of them. The empty pitchers dont explain the
fact that they still have work left and they shouldnt be drinking when the work is not
finished yet. The fact that the house is empty (ne arata) that everybody is out in the
yard working even the womans of the house when, usually they are in the house
cooking or cleaning but not working outside. Still this doesnt explain why the womens
dress in yellow is just sitting around without help others. Even thou is just one women
in the yard and no light from the house is (ciudat) that only one woman is outside.
This picture pictures that persons of all age are working to make the drink. The young
are carrying the baskets when the old are passed out from being drunk with empty
pitchers.
The big barrells and the (scara) picture (marimea) of the barrell and the
(cantitate) of grapes and wine to be for winter.

Reformulation P01s composition

Participant code: P01

MODEL 2
The image shows how people from the countryside gather to help each other
in the process of winemaking and to celebrate the end of autumn. The people are
dressed in traditional Romanian clothes, commonly worn by peasants. They are
shown in a typical yard where some are working while others are already enjoying
Dyonisoss liquor.
Some animals are eating from the grapes, which were probably stolen by
them. The donkey is watching his owners working and hes probably asking for some

116

hay. The two men lying belly up are exhausted from all the hard work that was
already done by now.
This picture displays a whole family working together to obtain wine that can
be consumed during winter time. The wagon/ cart is filled with grapes and baskets,
showing that the villagers still have a lot of work ahead of them. The empty pitchers
show that they still have work to do and that they have started drinking although they
havent finished their chores. The fact that the house is empty makes us believe that
everybody is working outside in the yard. Even the women of the house are outside,
though they usually stay inside to cook or clean. Still, this doesnt explain why the
woman dressed in yellow is just sitting there without helping the others. It is strange
that theres only one woman outside and no lights on inside the house. This picture
shows that villagers of all age are working together to make wine. The young people
are carrying the wicker baskets while the older ones are lying on the ground, probably
having passed out from all the wine they drank.
The big barrels and the ladder show the size of the barrel and the quantity of
grapes and wine needed for the winter supply of wine.

P02s original composition

Participant code: P02
MODEL 1 ( FISA 1)
The picture showed represents a image of a group of peoples who are doing
wine. This picture is a good example of life in a Romanian village during autumn.
They present in the picture how they are collecting grapes and how that juice
(fermenteaza). The yard being full of peoples show that everybody work to do wine.
This show how big the families are and the fact that all members are together. The
house, being empty and no light in shows that all the peoples are outside working,
young, old , man, woman. All being in their places tell us that all are knowing their
roles. what to do and how to do it. Even those that just sit on the ground do nothing
but probably being drunk have their role in this proces.
117

The colors in the image are calm and warm like are in autumn day to collect
the grapes and doing wine and first (must) which is the drink formed first before wine
is created. Peoples clothes are traditional Romanian and show that is old trend; they
show their origin, pride in the identity of the culture and country. White and peace, the
picture show aggitation and everybody do something at the same time in the yard,
diferent actions do by many peoples. The tools they use (buckets, barrels and wood
bins) show also the simple of village.
The idea of trees tied with vine shows that nature is near to traditional
Romanian life and the peoples are respecting the nature. The need is to pass winter
too. The image shows how village life is and the relation between peoples and nature
especialy the proces of creating wine.
Reformulation P02s composition
Participant code: P02
MODEL 2
The picture shown here represents an image of a group of people who are
making wine. It is a good example of life in a Romanian village in autumn. In the
picture, it is shown how people harvest grapes and how the grape juice is turned into
alcohol by means of fermentation. The yard is full of people and this shows that
everybody contributes to the winemaking process. This shows that families are large
and that all members are there to work together. The house is illustrated as being
empty with no lights on inside, a sign that all villagers, men and women alike, both
young and old are working outside. All villagers being depicted as working in different
places tells us that all of them know their roles such as what to do and how to do it.
Even those who are probably drunk and just sitting on the ground doing nothing have
their role in this process.
The colors in the image are the same calm and warm colors of autumn days,
when grapes are harvested and turned into wine. Before being turned into wine, the
juice is transformed into unfermented wine, also called must. Peoples clothes reflect
the traditional Romanian style which is an old trend. Their traditional wear is proof of
118

their origin and pride in the cultural and territorial identity. The picture illustrates an
agitated atmosphere because everybody is dealing with different tasks in the yard at
the same time. The tools they use (buckets, barrels, wicker baskets) also show the
simple life of the village.
The idea of vines tied to trees shows that nature is at the centre of the
traditional Romanian life and that people have respect for nature. They all work to
survive the winter period. The image depicts life in a Romanian village and the bond
between people and nature, especially the bond created by the winemaking process.

P03s original composition

Participant code: P03
MODEL 1 (FISA 1)
Before the winter, almost all people from the village are makeing their own
wine from their grapes. In this picture, a lot of them are trying together from scratche
to process grapes from wine by collecting them and put all grapes in a huge barrell to
be pressed to take the liquid out in a bucket. This bucket will be put in another barrell
to (fermenta). Before it will be wine, the grape juice is called (must) with minor
alcohool.
In the picture not all men are working hard. Some of them are lazy and preffer
to sleep instead of working. Maybe they allready tried the taste of the new processed
liquid. Four men are stronger then the others and they are carring the heavy baskets
with grapes. For heaviest things they are using a kart with a donky for carring.
Evens the birds like ducks or goose are liking the grapes. They are picking up
grapes from the ground.
The only lady is watching all men to make a perffect job and she is a very good
supervizer. The house is a normal house small, like all villages houses and the
garden is huge and grapes are growing in threes because the wine is extended on
the three like a (parazit).

119

Three people are throwing the baskets fully with grapes in the barrell for
squizing to drink from a mug made by mud. All people are out from the house to help
in wine making.

Reformulation P03s composition

Participant code: P03

MODEL 2
Before winter, almost all people from the village are making their own wine
from their grapes. In this picture, a lot of them are trying to work together from scratch
and process the grapes which are picked from the vines. This is done by collecting
the grapes and placing them in a huge barrel. The grapes are pressed to extract the
juice in a bucket. This bucket will be poured in another barrel in order to ferment.
Before it is turned into wine, the grape juice is called must or unfermented wine which
has less alcohol.
In the picture, not all men are working hard. Some of them are lazy and prefer
sleeping to working. Probably, they have already tasted the freshly squeezed liquid.
Four men are stronger than the others and they are carrying the heavy baskets
containing grapes. For carrying heavier/ the heaviest things they are using a donkey
drawn cart/ wagon. Even birds (poultry) like ducks or geese like the grapes and they
are pecking some of them from the ground.
There is only one woman watching all the men making sure they are all doing
a perfect job and she is a very good supervisor. The house is small and its style is

120

common to all houses in the countryside. The garden is large and grapes grow in
trees because the vines are tied to the trees like a parasite.
Three people are depicted emptying the baskets filled with grapes in a barrel in
order to squeeze the juice and drink it from a clay mug/ handcrafted ceramic mug. All
people are out of the house to help in the winemaking process.
P04s original composition

Participant code: P04

MODEL 1 (Fisa 1)
At the first sight the picture put a simile on my face. It is a lovely representation
of some peasants according to their dressing style, somewhere on the country side,
between the hills. They are harvesting wine grapes and making wine. I said seeing
this picture made me smile because it reminded me of my childhood. My grand
parents used to have a little farm, very similar with the one shown in the picture. A
little house, with a red roof, animals arround the yard, and people (zdrobind strugurii)
grapes for turning them into wine. The faces of the persons in the pictures look happy,
maybe because they are enjoying what they are doing. There are two men laying on
the ground, probably because they were already drunk from the fresh made wine.
There is only one woman in the picture, probably the lady of the house which seams
to supervise the work of the men.
The representation of the tools they are using is really amazing. Big wooden
drums, pots nicely painted with traditional motives, I used to see them at my grandparents farm.
The picture has very nice contrasts of colours, green, brown, the blue of the
sky and the multicoloured leeves are making of this picture an enjoyment for the eye.

121

Reformulation P04s composition

Participant code: P04
MODEL 2
At first sight, the picture puts a smile on my face. It is a lovely representation of
some people harvesting grapes and making wine. I believe they are peasants based
on their dressing style and their location, in the countryside, between the hills. I said
to myself that this picture made me smile because it reminded me of my childhood.
My grandparents used to have a small farm, very similar to the one shown in the
picture. Theres a small house with a red roof, animals in the yard and people
squeezing grapes to turn them into wine. The faces of the people in the picture look
happy, maybe because they are enjoying their work. There are only two men lying on
the ground, probably because they are already drunk from the freshly made wine.
There is only one woman in the picture, probably the lady of the house who seems to
supervise the work of the men.
The representation of the tools they are using is quite amazing. Big wooden
barrels, nicely painted pots with traditional motives, all of which I used to see at my
grandparents farm.

122

The picture has a very nice contrast of colours: green, brown, the blue of the
sky and the multicoloured leaves, all these making this picture a delight to the eye.

Appendix 8
Notes and transcribed recordings from Stage 2
Examples of notes taken by P01 while comparing both texts
Participant code: P01
SHEET 3 (Fisa 3)
You have in front of you Model 1 with your composition. You will also receive Model 2.
Compare both models and take notes on this sheet (Sheet 3). Write any differences
you notice in terms of vocabulary, grammar, coherence of ideas.
Underline on Model 2 words or sentences that you consider to be more accurate or
better formulated than in Model 1.

The sentence The fact that [] not working outside is too long and very
incomprehensible. It has too many details and the structure is unnatural. It was
better written in Model 2 because its clearer.

123

The sentence The people are dressed such as a regular [] when some [] .
This sentence sounds clearer in Model 2 and the use of common is more
appropriate than regular.

In Model 1, I misspelled lichior. Its liquor, not licquer

The use of hard-work in Model 2 is more correct because I was not describing
a person. I was writing about peoples work.

Most of the words for which I couldnt find an equivalent in English are shown
in Model 2, words like ladder, size, quantity, hay, strange etc.

Its lying on the ground, not laying

I found an equivalent for cru = wagon or cart

Examples of notes taken by P02 while comparing both texts

Participant code: P02

SHEET 3 (Fisa 3)
You have in front of you Model 1 with your composition. You will also receive Model 2.
Compare both models and take notes on this sheet (Sheet 3). Write any differences
you notice in terms of vocabulary, grammar, coherence of ideas.
Underline on Model 2 words or sentences that you consider to be more accurate or
better formulated than in Model 1.

Everybody is followed by a verb in the singular and not in the plural

The correct form is wicker baskets not wood bins

I found out how is fermenteaza in English = to ferment

124

In Model 2, grammar is used more correctly, for example: shown instead of

showed

It seems that also is used before the verb, not after

In general, sentences are shorter and more accessible to read and understand

So, the word agitated exists, but its written with only one g.

Examples of notes taken by P03 while comparing both texts

Participant code: P03

SHEET 3 (Fisa 3)
You have in front of you Model 1 with your composition. You will also receive Model 2.
Compare both models and take notes on this sheet (Sheet 3). Write any differences
you notice in terms of vocabulary, grammar, coherence of ideas.
Underline on Model 2 words or sentences that you consider to be more accurate or
better formulated than in Model 1.

I wanted to use the comparative for heavy but instead I used the
superlative heaviest, but the correct form is heavier like in Model 2

Before the winter is not correct. Without the

125

Its supervisor, not supervizer

To ferment is the translation for fermenteaza

Model 2 presents a more suitable way of expressing preference using the

ing verbs and to. I used instead of, but its wrong

I wrote a sentence, in which I tried to explain the winemaking process, but

my sentence was very incomprehensible, but in Model 2 this sentence is
written in a more coherent way: Before it is turned into wine [] less
alcohol.

A mug made by mud is definitely not correct. Model 2 gives 2 choices:

ceramic mug or handcrafted mug which sound more British

I found a solution in Model 2 for the verb a ciuguli = to peck. Other

solutions were donkey drawn cart or wagon. Now, I m sure that cart is
with a c not a k.

Examples of notes taken by P04 while comparing both texts

Participant code: P04

SHEET 3 (Fisa 3)
You have in front of you Model 1 with your composition. You will also receive Model 2.
Compare both models and take notes on this sheet (Sheet 3). Write any differences
you notice in terms of vocabulary, grammar, coherence of ideas.
Underline on Model 2 words or sentences that you consider to be more accurate or
better formulated than in Model 1.

Apostrophe after grand-parents. Maybe when there are words already ending
in s you just put an apostrophe to indicate possessiveness

126

The expression is not at the first sight but at first sight

The way I wrote country side is not correct. Its just one word countryside

A small farm sounds better than a little farm

I didnt know how to say a zdrobii strugurii to squeeze the grapes, but I
found a solution in Model 2

I had some grammatical errors in my composition such as fresh made wine

instead of freshly made wine or laying on the ground instead of lying on the
ground.

I misspelled smile and leaves

I dont agree with certain changes, although the text sounds more
grammatically correct. I said to myself [] sounds very impersonal. I am very
sure that for butoaie barrels we can also use drums. I dont understand
why an enjoyment for the eye was modified into a delight to the eye Both
sound correct but this change reduced the intensity of the feeling

Recordings from Stage 2

Recording Participant 01 (Quotes)
Interviewer: You have in front of you Model 1 and Model 2. Please compare
both models by talking out loud and explaining the differences you notice
between the two models.
P01: I observed many differences between Model 1 and 2. First of all Model 2 is
more coherent, its more logical and has a better flow, if I can say that. After
comparing both texts, I realized that my sentences are too long. I tried to put a lot of
details in my sentences and the meaning is incomprehensible. The sentence starting
with The fact that the house [] is too long and after you finish reading it sounds
horrible. You cant understand a thing. Its much clearer in Model 2. The sentences

127

are shorter and more logical. And the text looks better organized. In Model 2 the
sentence is better formulated and it made me understand that the sentence I wrote is
not at all accessible to another reader []
I thought the structure regular Romanian peasant was correct. I think Ive heard it
before. It doesnt sound that strange. Maybe it would have been better if I used the
adjective common instead of regular. Anyway, I think it does sound better the way it
is written in Model 2. It sounds far better in Model 2 []
I tried to translate the winemaking process, but I translated it using several words like
in Romanian the making of the wine, but I discovered in Model 2 that it can be easily
translated as winemaking []
By comparing both models, I remembered that there were certain words which I didnt
know when I was writing the composition and I was happy to find in Model 2 the
English equivalents. Because I wrote those words in Romanian and I put them
between brackets []. Words like caruta, fan, se aduna []. I had no idea that
cos de nuiele is wicker baskets. Wicker, wicker. Its difficult to remember.
As I told you at the first meeting, I have some problems with my spelling. I was sure
licquer is not the correct way to spell it, but I didnt know how else to spell it. So, its
liquor []
So, it should be hard work, not hard working. Yeah, I get it now. I think I was
confused. You use hard working when you describe a person who works a lot. Yes, it
should be hard work here []
I had some unknown words in my composition and I found their translation in Model
2. One sentence in which I had a lot of unknown words was the last one in which I
didnt know how to say cantitate, mrime. I also wrote scar because I wasnt sure
if it was ladder or latter []

128

Recording Participant 02 (Quotes)

Interviewer: You have in front of you Model 1 and Model 2. Please compare
both models by talking out loud and explaining the differences you notice
between the two models.
P02: In general, in Model 2 sentences are written more accurate, the ideas are
presented in a more accessible manner. The grammar that was used is better in
Model 2, for example shown instead of showed or doing nothing instead of do
nothing. I always have problems when using also, if its before the verb or after, but
in Model 2 I saw that it was used before the verb []
Yeah, I remember having that problem with everybody because I didnt know if its
followed by a singular or plural verb. I used a plural verb because in Romanian we

129

use the plural form, but I see its the opposite in English. So, its the opposite, right
[]
At the first meeting I had some problems with some words and now, in Model 2 I see
some answers to my problems. It seems that wood bins was incorrect, as I
presumed and the correct form is wicker baskets. I presume wicker means nuiele
in Romanian []
There were some parts with which I disagreed. For instance, in the second paragraph
I wanted to say that the colors that were used indicate the painters choice to create a
sensation associated with autumn. But in this model, it feels like the sentence says
that the painter was inspired by autumn and thats why he chose these colors. Its
different from what I wrote in my composition []
Some ideas expressed in my composition were lost in Model 2. For example, in my
original composition nature is described as being significant to the Romanian
traditional life [] nature is near to [], while in Model 2 this idea is formulated as
being central to it, and it is a huge difference in meaning []
In my composition I wanted to say that winemaking is both a habit and a hobby for
Romanian villagers The need is to pass winter and that they have to do this before
winter comes. I know I didnt translate it correctly but this is what I had in mind.
However, the sentence in Model 2 changed my idea completely, as if Romanian
villagers engage in winemaking because its a necessity for them or as if they cant
survive without wine during winter []

Recording Participant 03 (Quotes)

130

Interviewer: You have in front of you Model 1 and Model 2. Please compare
both models by talking out loud and explaining the differences you notice
between the two models.
P03: Oh yeah in my composition I wanted to say mai grele - heavier, not cele mai
grele - the heaviest. I mistook the superlative with the comparative. Yes, its the -est
ending for superlatives []
The construction with prefer + ING verb + to + IING verb is indeed more accurate.
We have this construction in Romanian, but we use n loc s which would be
instead in English. Most of the time I do that. I think in Romanian when I write in
English. So, in English we use to, not instead and we add -ing to the verbs when
we want to compare something []
I didnt know goose has a plural form. I thought it was similar to sheep. I couldnt
believe it. All this time I used goose only []
Some sentences were expressed in a more coherent way as opposed to what I
wrote. One such sentence that totally conveyed my idea and meaning was the one in
which I attempted to describe how wine is made. Its more clear and logical the way it
is written in Model 2. A clear description of the winemaking process []
I saw in Model 2, the word ceramic in ceramic mug. I dont know why I didnt think of
it because we have this word in Romanian. Im not sure whats clay. Ill check the
dictionary when I get home []
So, the verb is to peck, birds peck I know it was a word starting with a p, but
thats all I knew then []
Now I know that cru is cart or wagon and cru tras de mgar can be
translated into donkey drawn cart []

131

Recording Participant 04 (Quotes)

Interviewer: You have in front of you Model 1 and Model 2. Please compare
both models by talking out loud and explaining the differences you notice
between the two models.
P04: Yes, I did notice some major differences between Model 1 and Model 2 in
terms of vocabulary and grammar, but particularly in terms of content []
I must say that I was very sure that at the first sight is correct. Ive used it before and
nobody corrected me. Are you sure its wrong? [] Both versions sound okay to me,
but maybe at first sight is better []
I found some spelling corrections for the words leaves and smile. I wrote leeves
and simile []
Of course I made some errors like choosing an incorrect preposition. Similar to,
similar to. Maybe its correct this way []
I said to myself that this picture made me smile because it reminded me of my
childhood. I dont know what to say about this sentence. I dont understand why the
pronoun myself was added. It still keeps the same meaning, but the sentence
sounds very impersonal as opposed to the feelings I had while writing []
I dont think drums needed to be replaced by barrels because I know for sure that a
drum is a wooden recipient for storing liquids, so its not incorrect. Its a synonym and
it refers to the same object []

132

Its the same with enjoyment for the eye, I dont consider it needs to be changed into
a delight to the eye because they are synonyms. Words can be synonymical, but
they dont always capture the same idea. In this case, I dont think a delight to the
eye fully captures the depth of my idea. It feels like this expression does not capture
the entire enjoyment. And delight reduces the intensity of the feeling []

Appendix 9

Interview questions and answers about the effectiveness and usefulness

of reformulation
The questions addressed to all participants were:
(1) Do you agree with the changes made in Model 2? Why or why not?
(2) Do you think Model 2 helped you with your errors? (If yes/no, explain why or how)
(3) As a correction strategy, do you prefer one that resembles Model 2 or the
traditional correction method employed in Romania? Why?

Participants answers to Question 1

133

I can say that I definitely agree with the changes presented in Model 2. It kept my
ideas and at the same time it restructured my sentences to sound more correct and
more coherent, especially more coherent because I had sentences three or four lines
long. [] At a second reading, not even myself could understand those sentences.
When I write in English I always want to say a lot of things because Im in general a
very talkative person, but probably its better to keep my sentences short in writing.
This way my writing will be more coherent like the one in Model 2 in which my
sentences were shortened.
(Participant 01)
Generally speaking, I agree with the changes presented by Model 2, except for those
parts where my ideas were lost in favour of a better coherence like sentences
expressed in a more logical way [] .
(Participant 02)
Yes, I agree with these changes because my text sounds better formulated. The text
in Model 2 is more fluent so to speak and it is also more accessible and easy to
understand. When I read my text which was written a few days ago it felt as if I didnt
understand much although it was a text written by me. Although there were minor
changes in Model 2 the ideas are connected in a more consistent manner.
(Participant 03)
Well, I agree with the changes made in terms of grammar and I am now aware of the
errors I made. However, the changes in Model 2 make my composition sound as if
there is no emotion involved. Honestly, I didnt recognize the same feelings like the
ones I had when I was writing the text. Maybe my writing style is different from the
style of the person who corrected my composition []. I really liked the picture
because I remembered the days when I was little and I used to visit my grand-parents
in the countryside. And I got very emotional when I saw the picture.

134

(Participant 04)
Participants answers to Question 2
Model 2 definitely helped me observe some inaccuracies in my language in terms of
vocabulary, grammar and style of constructing sentences [] .
(Participant 01)
[] It helped me to identify my errors very easily. For me it was very easy to observe
my errors when I had in front of me a more accurate model which I could follow. I
didnt have difficulties identifying my errors and above all it helped me understand not
only my errors but also the context in which I made those errors.
(Participant 02)
Yes it helped me mostly with my vocabulary. There were some words for which I
couldnt find an equivalent in English and I found those equivalents in Model 2. It
really helped me with the plural for goose. I had no idea it was geese. Now I will
definitely remember this one!
(Participant 03)

Well, it did help me with some grammatical and spelling errors, but it also confused
me at times. For instance, there are synonyms, but two synonyms dont always
express the exact same meaning, like the enjoyment and delight. For me it feels
that these two words are synonyms, but an enjoyment for the eye is more
emotionally powerful than a delight to the eye. Maybe Im wrong, but this is how I
feel.
(Participant 04)

135

Participants answers to Question 3

Well, I think it was difficult, but fun. I havent done this before and it seemed a bit
difficult because I had to pay attention to both texts, but I enjoyed it. In Romania, I
didnt have the patience to read my essays after receiving the teachers corrections. If
my paper was all covered in red I wouldnt even check my mistakes because seeing
all that red was scary [].
(Participant 01)
I couldnt really say that I prefer this correction strategy to the one I was used to in
Romania. It did involve more attention than the Romanian strategy, although I like
being told exactly what I did wrong and what I need to change and how []. Anyway,
I think this strategy is also fine because I saw Model 2 as a guide which showed me
my errors and the most important, it showed me my errors in context. I became
aware that some words didnt fit in the whole sentence. It can be used as a guide for
future writing activities.
(Participant 02)
I found this strategy interesting and it has some benefits. It does not offer a
superficial correction, it also provides vocabulary alternatives. It was great to see that
my vocabulary was not entirely replaced because my English teacher always used to
underline my words and write other words that in the end meant the same thing. I
think it is better than the Romanian way because the ideas were formulated in such a
way that it sounds very natural and common to English. Although my compositions in
Romania were also checked for vocabulary and grammar errors, at the end, even
with the teachers corrections my compositions still sounded forced and unnatural.
(Participant 03)

136

Although it helped me understand the nature of my mistakes, some parts from Model
2 sound very impersonal and very different from the feelings I had when writing the
essay. Im not saying its not a good way to give feedback in writing []. All things
considered, it was interesting to see how somebody else understands and perceives
the feelings captured by my writing in English.
(Participant 04)

Interview transcripts (Stage 2)

Interview transcript (Participant 01)
Interviewer (I): I am going to ask you three questions. Take all the time you need
to answer them.
P01: Okay.
I: Do you agree with the changes made in Model 2? Why or why not?
P01: I can say that I definitely agree with the changes presented in Model 2. It kept
my ideas and at the same time it restructured my sentences to sound more correct
and more coherent, especially more coherent because I had sentences three or four
lines long. Although there were some changes in Model 2, 99% of my content was
the same. Its like my twin sister who is British wrote the same ideas but using better
English. At a second reading, not even myself could understand those sentences.
When I write in English I always want to say a lot of things because Im in general a
very talkative person, but probably its better to keep my sentences short in writing.

137

Maybe my writing will be more coherent like the one in Model 2 in which my
sentences were shortened.
I: Do you think Model 2 helped you with your errors? If yes/no, explain why or
how.
P01: Model 2 definitely helped me observe some inaccuracies in my language in
terms of vocabulary, grammar and style of constructing sentences. It also helped me
understand that I need to have more patience in proofreading my written texts if I
want to spot any inadequacies in language. Thats one solution to writing such a
perfect text.
I: As a correction strategy, do you prefer one that resembles Model 2 or the
traditional correction method employed in Romania? Why?
P01: Well, I think it was difficult, but fun. I havent done this before and it seemed a bit
difficult because I had to pay attention to both texts, but I enjoyed it. In Romania, I
didnt have the patience to read my essays after receiving the teachers corrections. If
my paper was all covered in red I wouldnt even check my mistakes because seeing
all that red was scary. Yes. I think I would prefer this strategy even though its more
difficult. Its a good way to learn new things. I mean, dont get me wrong I learn if the
teacher shows me directly what error I made and how it should be written, but I
realized that I also learn new things if I discover them myself. And this is a good way
to discover what you did wrong on your own.
I: Thank you for your time and contribution to this research study.
P01: Youre welcome.

138

Interview transcript (Participant 02)

Interviewer (I): I am going to ask you three questions. Take all the time you need
to answer them.
P02: OK.
I: Do you agree with the changes made in Model 2? Why or why not?
P02: Generally speaking, I agree with the changes presented by Model 2, except for
those parts where my ideas were lost in favour of a better coherence like sentences
expressed in a more logical way. But all in all its far better written.
I: Do you think Model 2 helped you with your errors? If yes/no, explain why or
how.
P02: It definitely made me observe some language aspects which I dont handle very
well and which need more study. It helped me to identify my errors very easily. For
me it was very easy to observe my errors when I had in front of me a more accurate
model which I could follow. I didnt have difficulties identifying my errors and above all

139

it helped me understand not only my errors but also the context in which I made
those errors.
I: As a correction strategy, do you prefer one that resembles Model 2 or the
traditional correction method employed in Romania? Why?
P02: I couldnt really say that I prefer this correction strategy to the one I was used to
in Romania. It did involve more attention than the Romanian strategy, although I like
being told exactly what I did wrong and what I need to change and how. I got very
used to the way of having the teacher pointing out explicitly the errors I made and the
English I know was learnt in that way. Its easier. I dont know what answer to give
you because both work just fine. Anyway, I think this strategy is also fine because I
saw Model 2 as a guide or model which showed me my errors and the most
important, it showed me my errors in context. I became aware that some words didnt
fit in the whole sentence. It can be used as a guide for future writing activities.
I: Thank you for your time and contribution to this research study.
P02: No worries.

Interview transcript (Participant 03)

Interviewer (I): I am going to ask you three questions. Take all the time you need
to answer them.
P03: OK.
I: Do you agree with the changes made in Model 2? Why or why not?
P03: Yes, I agree with these changes because my text sounds better formulated. The
text in Model 2 is more fluent so to speak, and it is also more accessible and easy to
understand. When I read my text which was written a few days ago it felt as if I didnt
understand much although it was a text written by me. Although there were minor
changes in Model 2 the ideas are connected in a more consistent manner.

140

I: Do you think Model 2 helped you with your errors? If yes/no, explain why or
how.
P03: Yes it helped me mostly with my vocabulary. There were some words for which I
couldnt find an equivalent in English and I found those equivalents in Model 2. It
really helped me with the plural for goose. I had no idea it was geese. Now I will
definitely remember this one!
I: As a correction strategy, do you prefer one that resembles Model 2 or the
traditional correction method employed in Romania? Why?
P03: I found this strategy interesting and it has some benefits. It does not offer a
superficial correction, it also provides vocabulary alternatives. It was great to see that
my vocabulary was not entirely replaced because my English teacher always used to
underline my words and write other words that in the end meant the same thing. I
think it is better than the Romanian way because the ideas were formulated in such a
way that it sounds very natural and common to English. Although my compositions in
Romania were also checked for vocabulary and grammar errors, at the end, even
with the teachers corrections my compositions still sounded forced and unnatural.
I: Thank you for your time and contribution to this research.
P03: Yeah, youre welcome.

Interview transcript (Participant 04)

Interviewer (I): I am going to ask you three questions. Take all the time you need
to answer them.
P04: Okay.
I: Do you agree with the changes made in Model 2? Why or why not?
P04: Well, I agree with the changes made in terms of grammar and I am now aware
of the errors I made. However, the changes in Model 2 make my composition sound
as if there is no emotion involved. Honestly, I didnt recognize the same feelings like
the ones I had when I was writing the text. Maybe my writing style is different from the

141

style of the person who corrected my composition. Maybe the person who corrected
my composition sees things in an objective manner or maybe the picture didnt stir
some personal feelings or memories. I dont know, but I feel as if it wasnt me who
wrote the story. I really liked the picture because I remembered the days when I was
little and I used to visit my grand-parents in the countryside. And I got very emotional
when I saw the picture.
I: Do you think Model 2 helped you with your errors? If yes/no, explain why or
how.
P04: Well, it did help me with some grammatical and spelling errors, but it also
confused me at times. For instance, there are synonyms, but two synonyms dont
always express the exact same meaning, like enjoyment and delight. For me it feels
that these two words are synonyms, but an enjoyment for the eye is more
emotionally powerful than a delight to the eye. Maybe Im wrong, but this is how I
feel.
I: As a correction strategy, do you prefer one that resembles Model 2 or the
traditional correction method employed in Romania? Why?
P04: Although it helped me understand the nature of my mistakes, some parts from
Model 2 sound very impersonal and very different from the feelings I had when
writing the essay. Im not saying its not a good way to give feedback in writing, but I
feel safer with the traditional strategy. Maybe Im more conservative.. All things
considered, it was interesting to see how somebody else understands and perceives
the feelings captured by my writing in English.

142

Appendix 10
Ethics
Participant Information Sheet

COVENTRY UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF BUSINESS, ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY

Department of English and Languages

Principal Investigator: Andreea-Raluca Moise, Coventry University

143

Project title
Learner noticing triggered by written output and reformulation as a noticing enhancer

What is the objective of the project?

The objective is to collect data and see if native Romanian speakers can improve
their English writing skills by using a model written by an English speaker given as
feedback.

Why have I been approached and what does participation involve?

For the purposes of this study which consists of two stages we need to recruit 4
native Romanian speakers. We will provide you with a picture and each participant
will have to write a story of about 300 words (stage 1). Your compositions will be
reformulated by a native speaker studying at Coventry University. In the second stage
each participant will be audio recorded while comparing aloud the original
compositions with the ones reformulated by the native speaker. The interview will also
include some questions formulated by the researcher. The interview will be done in
Romanian and the researcher will transcribe the data collected in English.

Do I have to take part?

Participation is voluntary and you can withdraw at any time during the stages. You
can withdraw by contacting us by email. Participant withdrawal means that your data
will be destroyed and not used in the project. There are no consequences if you no
longer wish to participate.

What are the possible risks or discomforts?

The study will not cause any discomforts, but participants can withdraw at any stage if
they are not comfortable with being audio-recorded.

144

What are the possible benefits of taking part?

You will contribute towards the research project which may positively influence
language learning and teaching in Romania in the future. The results will be available
to you on request.

What if something goes wrong?

If you feel you do not want to take part anymore, you can withdraw at any time. All
you need to do is to contact the investigators using the email addresses provided
below. If you decide to withdraw, your data will be destroyed and not included in the
project.

Will my taking part in this study be kept confidential?

Yes. Only the investigators will have access to the data. All the consent forms will be
stored in a secure location and your data will be identified by your participant
reference number.

What will happen to the results of the research study?

The data collected from the research study will be kept anonymous and confidential.
All information will only be processed by the main investigators.

Who is organizing and funding the research?

The research is organized and conducted by Andreea-Raluca Moise, a post-graduate
student, doing a Master in English Language Teaching, as part of the Faculty of
Business, Environment and Society (BES) within Coventry University. This research is
not externally funded.

145

How do I sign up?

You will be given a consent form to sign and date. Please return this to the principal
investigator. Due to the time required transcribing the data, only 4 students are
required. Please do not be offended if we cannot include you in the project.

Contact for additional queries

Andreea-Raluca Moise
moisea@uni.coventry.ac.uk
If you wish to discuss with somebody from the research team, please contact:
Michael Cribb
aa6177@coventry.ac.uk
Supervision is done by the Department of English and Languages, Coventry
University

Informed Consent Form

Title
Learner noticing triggered by written output and reformulation as a noticing enhancer

Andreea Moise
Coventry University
Dept. of English and Languages
Priory Street
Coventry CV1 5FB
Email: moisea@uni.coventry.ac.uk
Please

146

initial
1. I confirm that I have read and understood the participant
information sheet for the above study and have had the
opportunity to ask questions
2. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I
am free to withdraw at anytime without giving a reason
3. I understand that all the information I provide will
confidential
4. I agree to be recorded and for anonymous quotes to be
used as part of the research project

5. I agree to take part in the research project

Name of participant: ..............................................................

Signature of participant: ........................................................
Date: ......................................................................................

Print and audio production consent form

I, the undersigned, consent to the use of my words, images, images of my work or
recordings of my voice being used within Coventry University publications or video
case studies. I understand that this may be used for educational, marketing, and/or
commercial purposes, and that copyright will reside with Coventry University.

147

I acknowledge that the quote, image or recording may also be used in, and distributed
by, media pertaining to Coventry Universitys activities other than a printed
publication, such as, but not limited to CD-ROM, DVD or the World Wide Web.

Copyright restrictions placed on Coventry University publications and case studies

prevent content being sold or used by way of trade without the expressed permission
of the University, as copyright holder. Personal details of those taking part are not
made available to third parties.

Please complete the Participant details below and return the form to Andreea-Raluca
Moise, the University contact;

Participants details:

Coventry University contact:

Andreea-Raluca Moise

Name:
Title: MA Postgraduate student
I require/do not require that

Department

my name is removed/retained

Faculty of Health and Life Sciences

in association with images

Coventry University

and/or recordings (please

Priory Street

delete as appropriate)

Coventry
CV1 5FB

Contact details:

moisea@uni.coventry.ac.uk

148

Signature:

Date:

STUDENT RESEARCH PROJECT RISK ASSESSMENT

Person(s) undertaking
project:
Project supervisor:

Andreea-Raluca Moise
Dr. Michael Cribb

149

Brief outline of project:

Outline the types of
activities that will
take place or items
fabricated i.e. face to
face interviews,
public surveys,
water sampling,
machining vehicle
parts, brazing etc.

The objective is to collect data and see if native

Romanian speakers can improve their English writing
skills by using a reformulated model written by an
English speaker given as feedback.
At the first meeting, the participants will be shown a
picture prompt on the basis of which they will write a
narrative in approximately 300 words.
At the second meeting, the participants will draw a
comparison

between

their

narratives

and

reformulated version done by a native speaker. This

stage

will

involve

think-aloud

protocols

because

participants will think aloud while comparing and it will

also involve a face-to-face interview. In this interview,
the participants will be asked if they agree or disagree
with the reformulated versions and provide reasons and
they will also be asked which feedback method they
prefer and why.

Dates of study (from to)

Location(s) of activity:
Country and specific area.

Early June early July

United Kingdom
West Midlands
Coventry
Coventry University

150

Yes /
No

Will the project involve laboratory work?

If yes, you will be required to complete separate risk assessment(s) prior to
carrying out any laboratory work.

Yes /
No

Will the project involve workshop work?

If yes, you will be required to complete an induction and may carry out a
separate risk assessment(s) prior to carrying out any workshop work.

Will the project involve travel? (If yes, complete this section as fully as
possible. The form
may require review prior to
travel to add missing details)
Contact details at
destination(s):
Contact details of next of
kin in case of
emergency:

151

Yes /
N
o

Approximate dates of travel:

Your supervisor must have
details of travel plans once
confirmed.
Arrangements to maintain
contact with the
University:
Emergency contact
information:

School/Faculty contact (Daytime): 02476

24hr University contact (Protection Service): 02476 888
555
Local healthcare/emergency services:

Has suitable travel insurance has been obtained? (Please attach a copy of
certificate)

Yes /

If EU travel, has EH1C card been obtained?

Yes /

N
o

N
o
Has advice/vaccinations from GP been sought (where appropriate)?

Yes /
N
o

Are medical kits required (i.e. in countries with poor healthcare facilities)?

Yes /
N
o

Are there any warnings issued by the FCO* against travel to the area?

Yes /
N
o

Have you registered with the FCO* service LOCATE? (British nationals only)

Yes /
N
o

*FCO = http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/

152

PLEASE USE THE HAZARD CHECKLIST AS A GUIDE WHEN COMPLETING THIS

SECTION.

Hazard

Precautions to be used

Work factors:
E.g.: dealing with the public,
interviewing on sensitive
issues, lone working, driving,
working on boats, laboratory
work; biological, chemical
hazards etc

Site specific factors (in the

field):
E.g.: remote area,
construction site,
local endemic
diseases, political
unrest, terrorism risk
etc
If travel abroad see FCO*
website list any
risks greater than
there would be for the
UK
Environmental factors (in the
field):
E.g.: extremes of temperature,
altitude, weather conditions,
tidal conditions, cliffs, bogs,
caves, mountains etc

153

Equipment:
E.g.: operation of machinery,
use of specialist
equipment, manual
handling/transportatio
n, compressed gases,
etc

Audio-recording

Other:
Detail any special
arrangements
required, i.e.
permissions required,
accommodation,
travel, catering etc

This assessment must be reviewed before any significant project changes are made.

154