Attention processes observed in think-aloud protocols: two multilingual informants writing in two languages

Abstract

This paper analyses how two multicompetent speakers engage with protocolling, i.e. verbalising their thoughts, while writing in two languages different from their first. The study explores how procedure-and language-related episodes of awareness affect both the writing process itself and the written product. The research draws on current issues about explicit and implicit knowledge as well as on controlled and automatic processing. It also considers different layers of language awareness to explain the data available. The analysis attempts to integrate the data extracted from think-aloud (TA) protocols with (1) the final written products assessed by independent raters, (2) stimulated recall sessions held immediately after the TA sessions, and (3) the results of a language placement test. The data reveal that verbalisation of writing processes (used as a way of accessing writers' awareness) does not relate qualitatively to the writers' output. They also show that both procedure-and language-related episodes are more frequent in the L2 than in the foreign language.

The use of models as a written feedback technique with young EFL learners

“…Secondly, the learners' low proficiency level could have influenced their dependence on content words to produce basic messages in the FL. Similar results have been reported in studies using open writing tasks (Armengol & Cots, 2009;Swain & Lapkin, 1995). Finally, the nature of the picturestory task, which required learners to describe a series of daily routines carried out by the main character, may have also influenced their reliance on lexis.…”

Noticing grammar in L2 writing and problem-solving strategies

“…In quasi-experimental studies with a pretest-posttest design, quantitative measures such as grammaticality judgments or correction tasks are used (e.g., Ammar, Lightbown, & Spada, 2010;Masny, 1997). More qualitative and descriptive measures include think-aloud protocols while conducting a task (Armengol & Cots, 2009;Swain & Lapkin, 1995), recorded interaction (Kiely, 2009;Kormos, 1999), learners' written notes about noticing (Edstrom, 2006;Hanaoka, 2007), or qualitative or retrospective interviews (Dégi, 2010). Each of these methods has its strengths and drawbacks concerning the completeness and quality of the collected data (for some discussion, see Bowles, 2010;Hanaoka, 2007).…”

“…., or simply solved it (again, either correctly or incorrectly) without having explicitly identified it as a problem." Some studies use different terminology such as, for example, hypothesis-testing episodes (Shehadeh, 2003), form-focused episodes (Zhao & Bitchener, 2007) and awareness episodes (Armengol & Cots, 2009). The classifications of LREs offered by the studies strongly differ, ranging from a distinction between form, lexical and discourse LREs (Qi & Lapkin, 2001) to various differentiations of linguistic levels such as orthography, punctuation, morphology, and so on (e.g., Armengol & Cots, 2009;Whalen & Ménard, 1995).…”

The Role of Previously Learned Languages in the Thought Processes of Multilingual Writers at the Deutsche Schule Barcelona

“…463-466). Writing studies involving more than two languages are also extremely rare (see however Armengol, 2001 andArmengol &Cots, 2009 for trilingual writing in a Catalan context). Thus, this study can also be seen as an attempt to contribute to filling these gaps in the writing literature.…”