Phase One Action Plan

Survey and Initial Interview review suggested that each of the three participants felt less

confident in L2 than L1. Each is able to communicate in L2, but all confirm discrepancies

between L1 and L2 self-expression. Patricia describes herself as shy in L2, but not in L1, and

pretty comfortable in L2, but Very good in L1. Madrona explains that she can not really

express herself completely in English, and that she feels not very confident in English as

opposed to I feel like myself in Spanish. Roman explains that interacting in English, he feels

less confident than in native language, and that he is unable to completely express himself in

English. (See appendices D,E,F).

During the first session, each participant was introduced to the journaling aspect of the

first phase of research, designed to encourage students to explore and express inner self in

English. Journals were assigned to address participants statements of inability to fully express

themselves in L2 during the initial interviews, and were based upon theories of writing as key to

inner self (Vygotsky, 1986). They were intended to encourage students to take the time to

explore inner self in a safe and personal context. Specific contents of the journal were left to the

individual student to decide. Instructions for journal writing simply stressed consistent and

personal entries. Writers need authentic reason to write, plenty of time to write, and consistent

writing opportunity (Gillet & Beverly, 2001). Students were advised to write as much and as

often as possible in journals, and to attempt to express deep or personal thoughts. Students were

reassured that entries were to be personal and would be read by no one other than the writer,
 EXPLORING VOICE 29
unless they cared to share. My only planned participation in the process of journal writing was

to check in on frequency of entries with students. Journal entries remained private to encourage

students to search deeply and reflect on personal thoughts and musings in English to explore the

conscious development of written speech.

The second component of this phase was weekly one-on-one meetings, between myself

and individual participants, intended to provide students with opportunity to explore and express

personal thoughts and values in English with a native speaker. This component was based on the

limited opportunity for intimate English interaction discovered during the initial participant

assessment. Roman only spoke English at school and Madrona only spoke English at work. Both

denied maintenance of any intimate English relationships. These meetings provided students

with an opportunity to clarify thoughts through English verbalization (Anderson & Ausubel,

1966). They also provided students with intimate English interactions with a native speaker, and

gave me insight into their experiences, personalities and interests, informing subsequent writing

assignments.

The final component of Phase One consisted of individualized writing prompts with the

goal of exercising writing skills and providing students with extensive writing practice. All three

students expressed interest in improving writing skills during the initial interview. Roman stated

his writing lacks flair, and that his English writing experiences were limited to school

assignments. Madrona stated she is not a good writer in L1 or L2, and has minimal opportunity

to practice writing. Patricia admitted that her writing skills have significantly improved since she

began attending community college, but that she still makes many mistakes and would like to

improve her writing even more. Prompts evolved out of one-on-one conversations, and were

based upon learner ability, interest, and experience to maximize learning potential based upon
 EXPLORING VOICE 30
meaningful learning theory. Prompts were autobiographical or third person narratives. Length

and depth varied and seemed to depend primarily upon L2 level, familiarity in an academic

setting, and social comfort level.

All portions of this phase were assessed qualitatively. Prompts were evaluated based on

depth of narrative, and personal investment in writing. Journal assessment was based solely

upon consistency or entries and insights students were willing to share regarding personal

discoveries made throughout the writing process. The discussion component was assessed based

upon subject participation, openness, and level of expressed discovery.